posted
There appears to be a lot of misinformation, some deliberate, and some resulting from eurocentric bias that authors are seemingly unaware of when discussing Egypt. It permeates academia.
Given the above, do you think the tide is changing with respect to how Ancient Egypt is studied and interpreted? Do you feel that Ancient Egypt will finally be given its rightful place as a black African nation that it always should have?
Egypt is in Africa, the paintings and sculptures show majority black people, DNA and linguistics support domestic origin, political terminology like "Middle East" continually injected which have no historical relevance or geographic meaning for Ancient Egypt, the use of false attributions of "caucasoid" versus "negoid" features which the disciplines of anthropology and forensics have thoroughly rebuked.
It's really quite amazing the lengths that people have gone and continue to go - from scholars to laypeope - in denying the obvious. Is academia waking up?
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
99.9% of the worlds population don't care about AE let alone the race of the AE's. That being said, if you ask an average person "who buildt the pyramids" and this regardless if you're in Japan, Mexico or Angola, they will answer "Arabs". People only see what is the current state of a nation (language, custom, religion etc) and draw conslusion out of that.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well, Africans have always known that the so called AE's were Africans.
Does the rest of humanity really believe we lost memory of ancient Khem and Kush. The informed and aware amongst Africans, indigenous and disaporan, know that that our primordial/ancestral homelands are present day Egypt and Sudan - ancient Khem and Kush.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Both of you missed the point. It is denied by western and Arab academia that AE was a black civilisation because of power and politics, not lack of evidence. Hence there will be constant need to "prove" it was black. If we believe Fredrick Douglass on power then we know that whites will never concede. Solution is we must have our own institutions.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: 99.9% of the worlds population don't care about AE let alone the race of the AE's. That being said, if you ask an average person "who buildt the pyramids" and this regardless if you're in Japan, Mexico or Angola, they will answer "Arabs". People only see what is the current state of a nation (language, custom, religion etc) and draw conslusion out of that.
I think the average layperson in America and Canada would say the AE were black, but scholars would say they were some Middle Eastern group. I think European laypeople and scholars are more likely to say AE were a Middle Eastern population.
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
sshaun, you confuse me with some of your other posts but I have to say that concerning ancient Egyptian matters, your views are pretty sound and objective.
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Therefore, I am not overly concerned about the falsification of world history by Europeans and Arabs in their quest for world domination. In addition, the history of humanity did not begin with the emergence of Europeans and Arabs on the world scene.
I repeat: We (continental and informed disporan Africans) have always known and never lost the memory of the fact that the so called ancient egyptians were as African as we are.
Posts: 387 | From: England, UK | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given the above, do you think the tide is changing with respect to how Ancient Egypt is studied and interpreted?
For the moment, yes.
quote:Originally posted by sshaun002: There appears to be a lot of misinformation, some deliberate, and some resulting from eurocentric bias that authors are seemingly unaware of when discussing Egypt. It permeates academia.
...
Egypt is in Africa, the paintings and sculptures show majority black people, DNA and linguistics support domestic origin, political terminology like "Middle East" continually injected which have no historical relevance or geographic meaning for Ancient Egypt, the use of false attributions of "caucasoid" versus "negoid" features which the disciplines of anthropology and forensics have thoroughly rebuked.
It's really quite amazing the lengths that people have gone and continue to go - from scholars to laypeope - in denying the obvious. Is academia waking up?
^Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: Hence there will be constant need to "prove" it was black.
This, however, is incorrect.
quote:If we believe Fredrick Douglass on power then we know that whites will never concede.
It's the truth, man, not the friggin' native Americans' land, or Black reperations. (j/k)
I happen to believe in the truth.
Your solution is right, however.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well things seem to be progressing more and more.
Hate it or love it NatGEO was basically forced to do a issue on the Kushites.
And people don't forget Unesco conference where Diop, and Obenga schooled all those egyptologist so bad that they were forced to drop the idea that AE were european.
The problem is that Africans have to continue to write about Egypt themeselves. There has seemed to be a lull in Africans writing there own History on Egypt.
The path to towards unity should be the goal. But to have Unity you need to right wrongs done to people all over the world. *ALL* people must admit that Egyptians were Black Africans and stop trying to deny Africa part of it's heritage.
This battle for Egypt being recognized as Black African civilization does not only belong to Africans. This is a fight that *ALL* truthseekers must take on, Black, White, Asian, Arab, Jew, etc. *ALL* people must join in righting a wrong. That is why we can't push people away just because they are not African. This is very important truth and all people must be included. I repeat work together not against eachother.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I really don't know. I mean the evidence is there, the sculptures, the language and the customs all came from Sub-Sahran Africa and were indiginous to Africa.
To tell you the truth with such statements like "Black Pharoahs" being used in even the most reliable academic sources and "Black Land" and "Nubia" got its name becuase the people there were black..I really don't see a change. All they will do is label anyone claiming Egypt was as African as Kush as "Afrocentric" all the while white Egypt Myth will continue.
All they will do is portay us as stealing Egyptian History, saying the Egyptians were not "Negros" becuase of features, say the West Africans are our Ans. not Egyptians, ect. All the while an Irish kid will be able to use Greece as a highlight of White Achievement.
All that matters is the truth and the truth will set those seeking free. We know the truth, We are not "Stealing" Egyptian's History..we are doing what whites have done with Greece for years...Studing, reflecting and embracing and REMEMBERING a people that come from the same continent as us and that resemble and grouped themselves with us Africans.
Also many people just belive black people are stupid. Lets just be real...LOOK AT WHAT the media shows about Africa. People even BLACK PEOPLE...and I EVEN SAW A NIGERIAN...AGREE with James Watson about being genetically dumber than white people and have the NERVE to claim to an academic using the christian God saying blacks are an imbarassment to God...LOL. Hell, If black people UNDERSTOOD Egypt and tried to imulate and study this African empire I'll bet we could build Africa up...
Sadly in todas world...If you don't have a New York like city, pollute the earth, oceans ect. You are not civilized.
sorry..got carried away.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Sadly in todas world...If you don't have a New York like city, pollute the earth, oceans ect. You are not civilized. [/QB]
It's not that as much as what made Egypt truly great, the old kingdom, uniting of the two lands. There is no Narmer in past or present day Africa. If there were, it would maybe lend credence to Egyptians being black African.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Sadly in todas world...If you don't have a New York like city, pollute the earth, oceans ect. You are not civilized.
It's not that as much as what made Egypt truly great, the old kingdom, uniting of the two lands. There is no Narmer in past or present day Africa. If there were, it would maybe lend credence to Egyptians being black African. [/QB]
Exactly what I have said on Topix AA forum months ago. The true thing that made Egypt Great and stable was the unification of two lands, Narmer in the old Kingdom and Ahmose in the New Kingdom.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Egyptians (ancient & modern) have never been Black or African. [/QB]
Not true. Old Kingdom Egypt were African, no doubt. But obviously, an African with a different mindset then present.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Jo Nongowa is simply differentiating the indigenous title of the said nation, Khemet, from the foreign derived, Greek name for it in "Egypt".
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least Egypt is being studied and a great amount of class time is dedicated to Egypt and artifacts aren't being flooded. Egypt's history is the least distorted of all African civilizations
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In many ways, this entire debate is ridiculous, because it is so unnecessary. If you want to know what the ancient Egyptians looked like, all you have to do is take a train ride through modern Egypt, North to South.
However, for the sake of debate, I will posit the following statements as being essentially accurate with regards to the Ancient Egyptians and their modern descendants.
1) There is only one people on the face of the Earth who are directly descended from the Ancient Egyptians, and thats modern Egyptians, and no one else.
The Ancient Egyptians were an Afro-Asiatic people, and so are Modern Egyptians. Around the time of the conquest of Egypt (642 CE), the population of Egypt was approximately 4 million, which was roughly equal to the population of the Arabian Peninsula and its extensions into the Fertile Crescent. Hence, the Arabs could not have displaced the native population, and in fact, the original conquest of Egypt introduced a relatively small number of Arabs into the gene pool, which undoubtedly increased over time, but never fundamentally altered the genetic make-up of Egyptian society.
2) All Afro-Asiatic speaking people are ultimately related, if we go back 10,000 - 15,000 years. This fact has been confirmed by modern genetic research. Hence, the Ancient Egyptians were genetically and linguistically related to the following groups: Berbers, Amharic speaking Ethiopians, Tigrinyans, and Arabs and Jews.
Berbers, Arabs, and Jews are not black, for the most part, and Ethiopians and Tigrinyans, who are obviously more black, nevertheless received significant genetic input from Eurasia in Paleolithic times.
The Ancient Egyptians also mixed with a group to which they are originally unrelated; the Nubians, who are a Nilo-Saharan people, who today form only a small fraction of the Egyptian society (300,000 out of 80 million, or less than 0.5%).
Nubians, no doubt had some influence on pre-dynastic Upper Egypt, but their role has been massively exaggerated by the Afro-centricists because they are obviously black.
3) Pre-dynastic Egypt was not one entity, but consisted of several independent kingdoms in the North, and several, largely unrelated kingdoms in the South. We are less sure about Northern Egypt than Southern Egypt, because it has received less attention than Southern Egypt, contrary to Afro-centric claims.
The most ancient artifacts found in the Nile Valley are in the Sudan, but in the Egyptian region, the most ancient large-scale settlements are in the North, such as the Northern settlements of Faiyum, Mermide, and Maadi, that date to at least 6,000 BCE, which is 500 to 1,000 years prior to the earliest large-scale settlements in Upper Egypt.
Based upon preliminary research, it seems that the people of Northern Egypt were distinct culturally and genetically from the people of Northern Egypt, and while pre-dynastic Upper Egypt was more N.E. African, Lower Egypt was more Mediterranean, both genetically and in its culture.
Hence, Egypt was a heterogeneous society from pre-dynastic times, and thus, cannot be usefully categorized as "black" or "white".
4) According to Martin Bernal, who I respect intellectually, only four dynasties out of 26 total dynasties can be usefully categorized as "black"; The 1st, 11th, 12th, and 18th dynasties. Even if I were to expand this list somewhat, it would still mean that the overwhelming majority of Egypt's Phaoronic dynasties were not black.
If you argue otherwise, you will have to explain so many non-black statues, portraits, and other artifacts, such as the portraits from the Old Kingdom and Fayyum cemeteries of the Roman era.
The blond men are from Ancient Egypt, and the Faiyum portraits are 500-600 years before the Arab conquest of Egypt, and this is how many of the Pharaohs appear, and what Northern Egyptians look like today, and likely how Northern Egyptians have always appeared.
5) Finally, and to point out the obvious, African Americans are not at all related to the Ancient Egyptians, and West Africans, Central Africans, and S.E. Africans, all of whom speak Niger-Congo languages are also completely unrelated to Egypt. Nilo-Saharans, except for the Nubians, are also largely unrelated to Ancient Egypt.
This is from your own posting. S.O.Y. Keita notes a variation from South to North in ancient Egypt, from a E. African type to a North African type.
Thus, the ancient Egyptians ranged from the South, which was closely related to N.E. Africa, to Northern Egypt, whose people resembled the Berbers and other Mediterranean people.
"Biological anthropologist Shomarka Keita also believes population variation in Egypt to be primarily indigenous, and not necessarily the result of significant intermingling of widely divergent peoples.[26] He identifies northern and southern patterns in the Egyptian population of the early predynastic period, which he describes as "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" and "tropical African variant" (overlapping with Nubia/Kush) respectively. He shows that a progressive change in Upper Egypt toward the northern Egyptian pattern takes place through the predynastic period. While the southern pattern continues to predominate in Abydos in Upper Egypt by the First Dynasty, Keita indicated that "coastal northern African" modal patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity. This northern modal pattern is noted by Keita as being intermediate between equatorial African and northern European phenotypes."
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The extent of the J, R, I haplotypes in modern Egypt gives your game away. There is significant non indigenous DNA in modern Egypt. Just as with Mexico and Central America. What was the population of Spain when Mexico and most of South America and Cuba were conquered? Mexico now has 100 million people; Spain has 36 million.
Noteworthy news item: Modern Egyptians are fascinated with the Barack Obama presidential bid. The reason given is not his politics but that "he looks like us". The same for much of Brazil. They too are fascinated.
The point is not that other Africans are direct descendants of the AEs, but rather that the old question raised by the early European egyptologists was that whether the genetics that produced the lowly and oppressed African in the Americas and Africa- expressed in the hair, pigmentation, facial traits that Europeans are perennially obsessed with, i.e. nose and lips plus prognathism, was also responsible for the production of the builders of the world's first technical civilisation?
The reason why the early egyptologists had to grapple with this question is because when they read the Ancient Greeks such as Herodotus and Aristotle,then looked at how the Egyptians portrayed themselves on their murals they had to confront the puzzle head on. It was all summed by the well-known quote from Volney.
Note: it was Europeans who first spent many hours writing books, measuring skulls, gazing at AE portraitures who began the controversy, who began the prevarications, who began the obfuscations, who began the c over-ups, etc.
But the Ancient Egyptians had/have the last laugh: their biggest monument for the whole world to see is the Sphinx, as described by one of Napoleon's artists who sketched it: "That's a black face".
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: But the Ancient Egyptians had/have the last laugh: their biggest monument for the whole world to see is the Sphinx, as described by one of Napoleon's artists who sketched it: "That's a black face".
What happened to the face of the sphinx?
Posts: 477 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
A puuzzling question re the Sphinx's face. Its face is still there and Napoleon's artists were able to sketch it. Just check on it--and ponder its gaze.
The face is weather-beaten now but it's there for all to see.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
OMG I've just read half of you people's so called evidence in older threads, evidence that undermines your own theories.
For instance:
"Besides comprising the majority of the Y DNA in Somalis, the E1b1b (formerly E3b) genetic haplogroup also makes up the bulk of the paternal DNA of Ethiopians, Eritreans, Berbers, North African Arabs, AS WELL AS MEDITERRANEAN AND BALKAN EUROPEANS.[13]
After haplogroup E1b1b, the second most frequently occurring Y DNA haplogroup among Somalis is the Eurasian haplogroup T (M70),[14] which is found in slightly more than 10% of Somali males. Haplogroup T, like haplogroup E1b1b, is also typically found among populations of Northeast Africa, North Africa, Southwest Asia, and the Mediterranean."
All human beings come from East Africa, and from there, humanity spread out to Arabia, Europe, and beyond.
So, it is not surprising that East Africans still share some genetic heritage with Europeans and Middle Easterners.
This is precisely my point; the Afro-Asiatic people share genetic heritage with Europeans and Middle Easterners, while the Niger Congo peoples of West and S.W. Africa, and the Nilo-Saharan people of East Africa, share much less in genetic heritage with either the Afro-Asiatic groups or the Niger-Congo people, except as a result of some mixture that has occurred in East Africa in the last 5-10,000 years.
This fact is supported by you people have stated:
"mtDNA (maternal) sequences, labeled L3E (east African in origin) and U6 (western Asian in origin), were detected at frequencies of 96% in Moroccan Berbers, 82% in Algerian Berbers and 78% in non-Berber Moroccans, compared with only 4% in a Senegalese population. (Passarino et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1998)"
Thus, according to your own quotes, North African Berbers and Egyptians in particular, and E. Africans to a lesser degree, derive in part from a Eurasian genetic heritage.
That is not because of outside invasions after the establishment of dynastic Egypt 5,000 years ago, but rather, it is because of Paleolithic migration into Egypt and North Africa 10,000 - 20,000 years ago.
So, the genetic evidence that you posted proves my point; both Ancient and Modern Egyptians are a mixture; of North-East African, Mediterranean and Eurasian genetic people, who came together in Paleolithic times, to form the ancestors of modern North African Berbers and Egyptians.
So, it is not possible that Ancient Egypt was a "black African" civilization, but was a mixed and "multi-cultural" civilization, from day one.
Some ancient Egyptians were black, and some were white (particularly in the North), and most were neither black nor white, but distinctly Egyptian.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
LMAO funny how you Afrocentrics post these studies which basically contradict each other. They actually prove these peoples to be caucasian.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: [QB] OMG I've just read half of you people's so called evidence in older threads, evidence that undermines your own theories.
For instance:
"Besides comprising the majority of the Y DNA in Somalis, the E1b1b (formerly E3b) genetic haplogroup also makes up the bulk of the paternal DNA of Ethiopians, Eritreans, Berbers, North African Arabs, AS WELL AS MEDITERRANEAN AND BALKAN EUROPEANS.[13]
After haplogroup E1b1b, the second most frequently occurring Y DNA haplogroup among Somalis is the Eurasian haplogroup T (M70),[14] which is found in slightly more than 10% of Somali males. Haplogroup T, like haplogroup E1b1b, is also typically found among populations of Northeast Africa, North Africa, Southwest Asia, and the Mediterranean."
All human beings come from East Africa, and from there, humanity spread out to Arabia, Europe, and beyond.
So, it is not surprising that East Africans still share some genetic heritage with Europeans and Middle Easterners.
This is precisely my point; the Afro-Asiatic people share genetic heritage with Europeans and Middle Easterners, while the Niger Congo peoples of West and S.W. Africa, and the Nilo-Saharan people of East Africa, share much less in genetic heritage with either the Afro-Asiatic groups or the Niger-Congo people, except as a result of some mixture that has occurred in East Africa in the last 5-10,000 years.
This fact is supported by you people have stated:
LOL, what the hell kind of lofty conclusion is this? Sure, all human beings eventually come from Africa, but the entire world (Asians, pacific islanders, Austrics, Amerindians, Europeans and Arabs) comes from this Europeans population, not merely Europeans and Arabs. What you also neglect is that all OTHER Africans in some form either derive from these populations as well, in addition to sharing geography with them and intermingling with in the same geographical region. People of the Caucasus mountains, or Caucasians who reside thousands of miles away behind the Atlas mountains, have nothing whatsoever to do with East Africans. They've been isolated from them for nearly 50,000 years and the said Middle Easterners by cline, are already more closely related to Africans than are any white Europeans. The outliner is the European, or Caucasian (person from the Caucasus mountains)..
e3b is found predominantly in East Africa and shares a similar distribution as the Afro-Asiatic language family, which emerged there. East Africans simple took their language and migrated further north into Africa and the middle east, hence the presence of the Natufians and e3B in the regions that straddle the middle east, Africa, and the agean. Greeks and other Medits have already been noted as having significant african ancestry. Point being that both Afro-Asiatic and E3B first emerged in East Africa among Black Africans. E3a (seen mostly in west Africans) and E3B (mostly in East Africans) coalesce into the PN2 clade, which unites Africans North, South, East and West, but have nothing to do with Europeans, especially Nords who had very little recent historical contact with Africans.
quote:"mtDNA (maternal) sequences, labeled L3E (east African in origin) and U6 (western Asian in origin), were detected at frequencies of 96% in Moroccan Berbers, 82% in Algerian Berbers and 78% in non-Berber Moroccans, compared with only 4% in a Senegalese population. (Passarino et al., Am J Hum Genet, 1998)"
Thus, according to your own quotes, North African Berbers and Egyptians
Actually, this quote says nothing about Modern OR ancient Egyptians. Keita (2005) already points out that the majority of foreign derived haplotypes in Egypt are attributable to the Arab invasion of north Africa, as well as other foreign occupations previously. This study, conversely points to a more authentic and enduring East African genetic heritage.
quote:The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population.
- Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt: Ann Hum Genet. 2004 Jan;68(Pt 1):23-39.
In other words, the current structure of genetic diversity in Egypt can be attributed in good part on influence from neighboring populations in Asia, though it is clear given the isolated samples and nature of this study that native NorthEast Africans generally predominated the area, before eventually intermingling heavily with non-Africans.
quote:That is not because of outside invasions after the establishment of dynastic Egypt 5,000 years ago,
Yes it is. I've already shown citations which attests to this.
quote: but rather, it is because of Paleolithic migration into Egypt and North Africa 10,000 - 20,000 years ago.
Negative. No such event occurred and the indigenous African nature of predynastic Egypt has already been confirmed via biological affinity and population continuity, and there are no recorded migrations (especially ones large enough to cause demic diffusion) in Egypt during this time. As a matter of fact, I'll take you back to a time before your window of opportunity as well as after.
35,000 year old skeleton found in Egypt (1980)..
quote:35,000-30,000 years ago: “Oldest human skeleton found in Egypt”. Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: “Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average
- Thoma A., Morphology and Affinities of the Nazlet Khater Man; Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 13, 1984.
Excusing the dated terminology, it is clear that the morphology of the said skeleton carried indigenous characteristics, based on the description. No "Caucasian" mentioned.
Here's something more recent which further addresses your misguided diffusion hypothesis and arbitrary dates for it.
quote:The origins of the ancient Egyptian state and its formation have received much attention through analysis of mortuary contexts, skeletal material, and trade. Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying craniometric variation within a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the evidence for migration over the period of the development of social hierarchy and the Egyptian state. Craniometric variation, based upon 16 measurements, was assessed through principal components analysis, discriminant function analysis, and Mahalanobis D2 matrix computation. Spatial and temporal relationships were assessed by Mantel and Partial Mantel tests. The results indicate overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process [Meaning, little to no migration of "Caucasians" occurred].
- "Population Continuity or Population Change-Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State": ZAKRZEWSKI Sonia R. (2007)
Give it up..
quote:So, the genetic evidence that you posted proves my point;
You have no point..
quote: both Ancient and Modern Egyptians are a mixture; of North-East African, Mediterranean and Eurasian genetic people, who came together in Paleolithic times, to form the ancestors of modern North African Berbers and Egyptians.
Huh? No such conclusion can be made according to both the evidence presented here, or abroad. That's just a silly assessment of reality. Egypt is in Northeast Africa. Any claim of admixture with non North East Africans is subject to burden of proof, proof which you have not provided and doesn't exist. Modern Egyptians are diverse in a similar way that hispanics are, though 500 years ago, ancestors of indigenous Americans rarely looked like your typical Hispanic, who spent several centuries interbreeding with foreigners. Egyptians intermingled most likely as far back as the middle kingdom, after the first large-scale Asiatic invasion of the hyksos. Noteworthy that beforehand, I don't believe Egyptians had extensive contacts with Asiatics as much as they had with their Sudanese counterparts, since Manetho referred to the Hyksos as an "obscure race (people)".
quote:So, it is not possible that Ancient Egypt was a "black African" civilization, but was a mixed and "multi-cultural" civilization, from day one.
As a White Nord, I have no idea why you embrace such mongrelism. Your self-esteem must indeed be that low, though it's obvious that ancient Egypt was a Black African civilization, comprised of people speaking an African language, practicing African cultures, and having physical adaptations to a tropical African environment. Berry Kemp assessed remains from Northern Egypt which is closest to Palestine, and noted that they were not related and in all likely hood, had no shared ancestry. Keita, Brace, Zakrzewski and others studies Southern Egyptians, and found their closest relatives to be Northern Egyptians AND Northern Sudanese Kushites.
You may not be very good at IQ tests, but according to what we know, which of these, is unlike the other 2?
a) ancient Egypt (North and South) b) Palestine c) Kush
Answer = Palestine.
quote:Some ancient Egyptians were black,
MOST were. The VAST majority of the population and basically every pharaoh. This cannot be disproven, but can and has indeed be proven already.
quote: and some were white (particularly in the North), and most were neither black nor white, but distinctly Egyptian.
White people live in Northern Europe, not Northern Egytp. There were never any Whites native to northern or southern Egypt. If you assert that some Asiatics might have settled in northern Egypt due to its proximity, then I'd agree. But most Levantine Asiatics possess their own degree of African ancestry and are not white OR Nordic European. Nords were in the caves and hills of Europe, chasing the last vestiges of wild mammoth and coping with the end of a withering ice age which turned you white in the first place. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
QUOTE]e3b is found predominantly in East Africa and shares a similar distribution as the Afro-Asiatic language family, which emerged there. East Africans simple took their language and migrated further north into Africa and the middle east, hence the presence of the Natufians and e3B in the regions that straddle the middle east, Africa, and the agean. Greeks and other Medits have already been noted as having significant african ancestry. Point being that both Afro-Asiatic and E3B first emerged in East Africa among Black Africans. E3a (seen mostly in west Africans) and E3B (mostly in East Africans) coalesce into the PN2 clade, which unites Africans North, South, East and West, but have nothing to do with Europeans, especially Nords who had very little recent historical contact with Africans.
Ancient Egyptians are Afro-Asiatic people, and they "cluster" with all the other Afro-Asiatic people; which includes the Berbers, Amharic speaking Ethiopians, Cushitic speaking people, and Arabs and Jews.
All these people speak Afro-Asiatic languages and thus come from an ultimate common origin about 15-20,000 years ago.
The Ancient Egyptians were not "Ethiopians" and they were not "Somali," since they broke off from the proto-Afro-Asiatics before either of these groups were formed, and they broke off before the Arabs and Hebrews became a distinct branch.
That is the modern consensus, and this is the position held by Keita and everyone else in academia. There is no more debate about the basics of this statement at least, although there is much more to discover, because the Ancient Egyptians formed their own sub-branch of the Afro-Asiatic family, that is equally distinct from the East Africans and the Arabs and Semites.
The Ancient Egyptians are thus equally similar, or equally different, from the East Africans and Arabs and Hebrews.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
quote:e3b is found predominantly in East Africa and shares a similar distribution as the Afro-Asiatic language family, which emerged there. East Africans simple took their language and migrated further north into Africa and the middle east, hence the presence of the Natufians and e3B in the regions that straddle the middle east, Africa, and the agean. Greeks and other Medits have already been noted as having significant african ancestry. Point being that both Afro-Asiatic and E3B first emerged in East Africa among Black Africans. E3a (seen mostly in west Africans) and E3B (mostly in East Africans) coalesce into the PN2 clade, which unites Africans North, South, East and West, but have nothing to do with Europeans, especially Nords who had very little recent historical contact with Africans.
Ancient Egyptians are Afro-Asiatic people, and they "cluster" with all the other Afro-Asiatic people; which includes the Berbers, Amharic speaking Ethiopians, Cushitic speaking people, and Arabs and Jews.
All these people speak Afro-Asiatic languages and thus come from an ultimate common origin about 15-20,000 years ago.
The Ancient Egyptians were not "Ethiopians" and they were not "Somali," since they broke off from the proto-Afro-Asiatics before either of these groups were formed, and they broke off before the Arabs and Hebrews became a distinct branch.
That is the modern consensus, and this is the position held even by Keita and everyone else in academia. There is no more debate about the basics of this statement at least, although there is much more to discover, because the Ancient Egyptians formed their own sub-branch of the Afro-Asiatic family, that is equally distinct from the East Africans and the Arabs and Semites.
The Ancient Egyptians are thus equally similar, or equally different, from the East Africans and Arabs and Hebrews.
No, you don't get it. Afro-Asiatic is a language category, not a people, and the majority of people who speak it are the same people who created it.... Black Africans. The few non-Africans who speak it today, received it as a cultural transplant from migrating Africans. Cushitic-speakers, Ancient Egyptians, Chadic speakers from Chad, Semitic-speaking Ethiopians, Beja-speakers, and Berber-speakers. Ancient Egyptian is closest to Beja, Beja is closest to Cushitic. All of these people are Black East Africans.
quote:and they "cluster" with all the other Afro-Asiatic people; which includes the Berbers, Amharic speaking Ethiopians, Cushitic speaking people, and Arabs and Jews.
Ancient Egyptians didn't cluster genetically with Arabs and Jews, and actually were more closely related to many Nilo-Saharan speakers in the Sudan. Their relationship is confirmed through loan words. Arabs and Jews received their language from a source population other than Egypt, and obviously with limited genetic exchange. Ancient Egyptias derive from the said source population.
Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles
quote:Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.
The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., [b]when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian[b].
- Christopher Ehret, Egypt in Africa, 1996, pp. 25-27.
quote:All these people speak Afro-Asiatic languages and thus come from an ultimate common origin about 15-20,000 years ago.
Yes, in Africa among Africans, among whom it originated. As indicated, the location is somewhere south of Egypt, likely Ethiopia where the diversity is most intense.
quote:Near Eastern languages came from Africa 10,000 years ago Investigator: Ene Metspalu by Laura Spinney
Analysis of thousands of mitochondrial DNA samples has led Estonian archeogeneticists to the origins of Arabic. Ene Metspalu of the Department of Evolutionary Biology at Tartu University and the Estonian Biocentre in Tartu, claims to have evidence that the Arab-Berber languages of the Near and Middle East came out of East Africa around 10,000 years ago. She has found evidence for what may have been the last sizeable migration out of Africa before the slave trade. Genetic markers transmitted through either the maternal or paternal line have been used to trace the great human migrations since Homo sapiens emerged in Africa. But attempts to trace the evolution of languages have met with less success, partly because of the impact on languages of untraceable political and economic upheavals. Metspalu and colleagues analyzed inherited variations in a huge number of samples - almost 3000 - of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from natives of the Near East, Middle East and Central Asia, as well as North and East Africa. mtDNA is inherited through the maternal line, and by comparing their data with existing data on European, Indian, Siberian and other Central Asian populations, the researchers were able to create a comprehensive phylogenetic map of maternal lineages diverging from Africa and spreading towards Europe and Asia. Working in collaboration with language specialists, they found that this movement 10,000 years ago, which was probably centred on Ethiopia, could well have been responsible for seeding the Afro-Asiatic language from which all modern Arab-Berber languages are descended. "This language was spoken in Africa 10,000 or 12,000 years ago, "Metspalu told BioMedNet News. "We think it was around that time that carriers brought these Afro-Asiatic languages to the Near East." The language, or its derivatives, later spread much further afield. What could have triggered the movement she can only speculate. One possibility is that increasing desertification was causing famine in Africa and driving hunters further afield in search of animals. Interestingly, the lineages they traced through this 10,000-year-old migration didn't seem to get much further north than modern-day Syria or east of modern-day Iraq. There is no evidence of the lineages in the mtDNA of people from Turkey or Iran, says Metspalu. "We can't understand why this boundary [to the Arab-Berber speaking world] is so sharp," she said. "They came out of Africa, and when they reached Turkey they just stopped." She believes some kind of physical boundary, now vanished, must have impeded them. The same genetic detective work has confirmed archeological evidence that the biggest movement out of Africa occurred around 50,000 years ago - which is when Africans first settled in other continents - and that it originated in a small East African population.
quote:The Ancient Egyptians were not "Ethiopians" and they were not "Somali," since they broke off from the proto-Afro-Asiatics before either of these groups were formed, and they broke off before the Arabs and Hebrews became a distinct branch.
Wrong again! All Afro-asiatic languages derive from proto-Afro-asiatic (duh). The point being that like two brothers, they all belong to the same source... that being Ethiopic, Somali, and ancient Egyptian languages, along with its people. Non-African Arabs and Hebrews received the language by proxy, not by heritage.
quote:That is the modern consensus, and this is the position held by Keita and everyone else in academia.
Not at all. Keita and most academics agree with people like Ehret, whom I cited above. No need to create an imaginary consensus based on wishful thinking and willful ignorance. It only shows your lack of familiarity with the subject.
quote: There is no more debate about the basics of this statement at least, although there is much more to discover, because the Ancient Egyptians formed their own sub-branch of the Afro-Asiatic family, that is equally distinct from the East Africans and the Arabs and Semites.
Language has nothing to do with genetics, wth are you babbling on about?
quote:The Ancient Egyptians are thus equally similar, or equally different, from the East Africans and Arabs and Hebrews.
That's silly. Ancient Egyptians WERE East Africans.
Your arguments suck...
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
No, you don't get it. Afro-Asiatic is a language category, not a people, and the majority of people who speak it are the same people who created it.... Black Africans. The few non-Africans who speak it today, received it as a cultural transplant from migrating Africans. Cushitic-speakers, Ancient Egyptians, Chadic speakers from Chad, Semitic-speaking Ethiopians, Beja-speakers, and Berber-speakers. Ancient Egyptian is closest to Beja, Beja is closest to Cushitic. All of these people are Black East Africans.
quote:and they "cluster" with all the other Afro-Asiatic people; which includes the Berbers, Amharic speaking Ethiopians, Cushitic speaking people, and Arabs and Jews.
Ancient Egyptians didn't cluster genetically with Arabs and Jews, and actually were more closely related to many Nilo-Saharan speakers in the Sudan. Their relationship is confirmed through loan words. Arabs and Jews received their language from a source population other than Egypt, and obviously with limited genetic exchange. Ancient Egyptias derive from the said source population.
Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles
quote:Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.
The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., [b]when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian[b].
- Christopher Ehret, Egypt in Africa, 1996, pp. 25-27.
quote:All these people speak Afro-Asiatic languages and thus come from an ultimate common origin about 15-20,000 years ago.
Yes, in Africa among Africans, among whom it originated. As indicated, the location is somewhere south of Egypt, likely Ethiopia where the diversity is most intense.
quote:Near Eastern languages came from Africa 10,000 years ago Investigator: Ene Metspalu by Laura Spinney
Analysis of thousands of mitochondrial DNA samples has led Estonian archeogeneticists to the origins of Arabic. Ene Metspalu of the Department of Evolutionary Biology at Tartu University and the Estonian Biocentre in Tartu, claims to have evidence that the Arab-Berber languages of the Near and Middle East came out of East Africa around 10,000 years ago. She has found evidence for what may have been the last sizeable migration out of Africa before the slave trade. Genetic markers transmitted through either the maternal or paternal line have been used to trace the great human migrations since Homo sapiens emerged in Africa. But attempts to trace the evolution of languages have met with less success, partly because of the impact on languages of untraceable political and economic upheavals. Metspalu and colleagues analyzed inherited variations in a huge number of samples - almost 3000 - of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from natives of the Near East, Middle East and Central Asia, as well as North and East Africa. mtDNA is inherited through the maternal line, and by comparing their data with existing data on European, Indian, Siberian and other Central Asian populations, the researchers were able to create a comprehensive phylogenetic map of maternal lineages diverging from Africa and spreading towards Europe and Asia. Working in collaboration with language specialists, they found that this movement 10,000 years ago, which was probably centred on Ethiopia, could well have been responsible for seeding the Afro-Asiatic language from which all modern Arab-Berber languages are descended. "This language was spoken in Africa 10,000 or 12,000 years ago, "Metspalu told BioMedNet News. "We think it was around that time that carriers brought these Afro-Asiatic languages to the Near East." The language, or its derivatives, later spread much further afield. What could have triggered the movement she can only speculate. One possibility is that increasing desertification was causing famine in Africa and driving hunters further afield in search of animals. Interestingly, the lineages they traced through this 10,000-year-old migration didn't seem to get much further north than modern-day Syria or east of modern-day Iraq. There is no evidence of the lineages in the mtDNA of people from Turkey or Iran, says Metspalu. "We can't understand why this boundary [to the Arab-Berber speaking world] is so sharp," she said. "They came out of Africa, and when they reached Turkey they just stopped." She believes some kind of physical boundary, now vanished, must have impeded them. The same genetic detective work has confirmed archeological evidence that the biggest movement out of Africa occurred around 50,000 years ago - which is when Africans first settled in other continents - and that it originated in a small East African population.
quote:The Ancient Egyptians were not "Ethiopians" and they were not "Somali," since they broke off from the proto-Afro-Asiatics before either of these groups were formed, and they broke off before the Arabs and Hebrews became a distinct branch.
Wrong again! All Afro-asiatic languages derive from proto-Afro-asiatic (duh). The point being that like two brothers, they all belong to the same source... that being Ethiopic, Somali, and ancient Egyptian languages, along with its people. Non-African Arabs and Hebrews received the language by proxy, not by heritage.
quote:That is the modern consensus, and this is the position held by Keita and everyone else in academia.
Not at all. Keita and most academics agree with people like Ehret, whom I cited above. No need to create an imaginary consensus based on wishful thinking and willful ignorance. It only shows your lack of familiarity with the subject.
quote: There is no more debate about the basics of this statement at least, although there is much more to discover, because the Ancient Egyptians formed their own sub-branch of the Afro-Asiatic family, that is equally distinct from the East Africans and the Arabs and Semites.
Language has nothing to do with genetics, wth are you babbling on about?
quote:The Ancient Egyptians are thus equally similar, or equally different, from the East Africans and Arabs and Hebrews.
That's silly. Ancient Egyptians WERE East Africans.
Your arguments suck...
You are confused on a number of important points.
I never mentioned race, that is your obsession. But the best way to discover someone's genetic heritage is to trace the original language of their ancestors. This method is called: "glutto-chronology", and based upon the study of linguistic change over time and all the genetic research available to us, the Ancient Egyptians are linguistically related to all of the Afro-Asiatic speakers, including Arabs and Hebrews.
In fact, the Ancient Egyptians are closer to Arabs and Hebrews (and the other Afro-Asiatic speakers) than they are to West Africans and African Americans.
Second, the Ancient Egyptians are certainly not categorized or "clustered" with Nilo-Saharans. Nilo-Saharans are a different linguistic-genetic group and are not originally related to Afro-Asiatic peoples.
Just because the Somalis and Amharic speaking Ethiopians are "black" and the Nilo-Saharans are considered "black" does not mean they come from a common origin. You are again confusing "race" with genetic heritage. Not all "black" people are the same or come from a common origin simply by virtue of their "blackness".
And even in the case of the Nubians, the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians do not come from the same origin, but mixed later as the Upper Egyptians entered Southern Egypt. Only the Upper Egyptians in the extreme south mixed extensively with the Nubians, even though they are not from the same ultimate origin, and you won't find many Nubians in Northern Egypt.
Second, you are simply ignorant of the Afro-Asiatic languages. By far the largest and most populous Afro-Asiatic language is Arabic, which today has 300 million speaker, most of whom reside on the African continent. No other Afro-Asiatic language even comes close, in terms of the number of speakers and its geographic scope.
You are just making things up again to fit your weird black nationalist view of the world.
You are obviously confused and frankly poorly educated. Get rid of your "blacko-centric" theories and give academic knowledge a chance.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
Well, here is more scientific research which you will no doubt find incomprehensible.
The role of the Levantine Corridor vs. Horn of Africa in Human Dispersions
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 74:000, 2004 The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations J. R. Luis et al.
Paleoanthropological evidence indicates that both the Levantine corridor and the Horn of Africa served, repeatedly, as migratory corridors between Africa and Eurasia.
We have begun investigating the roles of these passageways in bidirectional migrations of anatomically modern humans, by analyzing 45 informative biallelic markers as well as 10 microsatellite loci on the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY) in 121 and 147 extant males from Oman and northern Egypt, respectively. The present study uncovers three important points concerning these demic movements: (1) The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. (2) In contrast, the Horn of Africa appears to be of minor importance in the human migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia represented by these chromosomes, an observation based on the frequency distributions of E3b*-M35 (no known downstream mutations) and M173. (3)
The areal diffusion patterns of G-M201, J-12f2, the derivative M173 haplogroups, and M2 suggest more recent genetic associations between the Middle East and Africa, involving the Levantine corridor and/or Arab slave routes. Affinities to African groups were also evaluated by determining the NRY haplogroup composition in 434 samples from seven sub-Saharan African populations. Oman and Egypt's NRY frequency distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population, suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, it's funny because you constantly repeat the exact same fallacies like a schizo who attempts the same thing, expecting to get different results.
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
You are confused on a number of important points.
I never mentioned race, that is your obsession. But the best way to discover someone's genetic heritage is to trace the original language of their ancestors. This method is called: "glutto-chronology", and based upon the study of linguistic change over time and all the genetic research available to us, the Ancient Egyptians are linguistically related to all of the Afro-Asiatic speakers, including Arabs and Hebrews.
Hahaha! The best way to track one's genetic heritage is to track their linguistic heritage? Are you serious? That would automatically suggest that African Americans are inherently English, or that Mexicans are inherently Spanish, or that Arabs are inherently African. Dude, you pick one class of the entire phylum, the only language group extant from Africa, and somehow use that as a reference point for the origins of Afro-asiatic, when I've already posted genetic and linguistic evidence that the language of the ancient Egyptians came directly from Ethiopia, and from Ethiopia, came Semitic. Non-African Hebews and Arabs, adopted Semitic, or proto-Semitic from migrating Africans, likely from somewhere in Ethiopia, where the diversity is most intense. Semitic is not a non-African heritage, and Egyptians' spoke a language that is closer to Beja.
The Beja mind you, still reside in Southern Egypt, Northern Sudan, and the eastern desert.
Even Seligman wrote:
"Many scholars believe the Beja to be derived from early Egyptians because of their language and physical features. They are the indigenous people of this area, and we first know of them in historical references in the Sixth Dynasty of ancient Egypt.
The Beja people are an ancient Cushitic people closely kin to the ancient Egyptians, who have lived in the desert between the Nile river and the Red Sea since at least 25000 BC."-
^^Beja girl
quote:In fact, the Ancient Egyptians are closer to Arabs and Hebrews (and the other Afro-Asiatic speakers) than they are to West Africans and African Americans.
That's a lie since non-African Hebrews and Arabs don't share ancestry via the Sahara or can claim PN2 descent/common genetic origins by sharing E3 at such a high rate. African Hebrews might be able to make such a claim, but not those who've been isolated from Africans for over 50,000 years.
I will also add, that west Africans positively are more closely related to ancient Egyptians than are "white Nords" from Scandinavia. That's silly to even dispute.
quote:Second, the Ancient Egyptians are certainly not categorized or "clustered" with Nilo-Saharans. Nilo-Saharans are a different linguistic-genetic
Why do you group the term "linguistic" with the term "genetic" as if there's some inextricable symbiosis? Gosh, you have to be the nuttiest Eurocentric to ever troll this forum. Are you still in high school? Language has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics, nor is a language affiliation synonymous with "ethnicity". Languages change must faster and are corrupted a lot easier. Populations can adopt cultural traits from another with little genetic interaction, or maintain a language, while absorbing different genetic elements.
The relationship with Nilo-Saharans is simply a genetic and cultural one. It has to do with the cline from northern Egypt to southern Sudan, of course Southern Egyptians being most closely related to Northern Sudanese. These relationships were observed even before Egypt unified as nation.
The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. - Sonia Zakrzewski (2003)
Hebrews and Arabs don't have tropical body plans, while Nilo-Saharans, west Africans, and East Africans (including the ancient Egyptians) do.
quote:group and are not originally related to Afro-Asiatic.
How can a person be related to a language? End the madness, stop the confusion. Read a book and take heed. Use your common sense and you won't embarrass yourself so much.
quote:Just because the Somalis and Amharic speaking Ethiopians are "black" and the Nilo-Saharans are considered "black" does not mean they come from a common origin.
Yes it does. They are all Black Africans with traits passed on by common ancestors in Africa. This includes limb ratios, complexion, and just a few other distinguishable features, exclusive to Black Africans.
Quote: Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)...... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
quote:You are again confusing "race" with genetic heritage.
You're the first person to bring up the word Race, so please don't project your confusion upon me.
quote: Not all "black" people are the same or come from a common origin simply by virtue of their "blackness".
If they're from Africa and are genetically linked via the PN2 clade (which generally all Africans are), then their common origins are apparent. Your speculation is to no avail.
quote:And even in the case of the Nubians, the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians do not come from the same origin,
Are you sure? I'll repost this from a thread that you created. I have the study, but these specific quotes and accurate assessment was posted by "blackman".
"page 502 The earliest sample, the Badarian, frequently appears to be relatively distinct.
page 503 A series of six time-period groups were studied, dating from the Badarian (c. 4000 BC) to the MK (c. 1900 BC). The periods studied were the Badarian, the Early Predynastic (EPD), the LPD, the EDyn, the OK, and MK.
page 505 The Badarian generally exhibit the greatest facial prognathism of the samples studied (demonstrated by their relatively high position on PC2).
page 506 the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material, (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972),
page 507 Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
**** In other words ****
Page 502 states the earlist sample/oldest samples were the Badarian. They predate the Dynastic peroid. Page 506 also states the Badarian were Negroid/Native Black Africans. So, we have a preDynastic people as Native Black Africans. Also page 506 states the Badarian cluster with Nubian and Egyptians.
Page 507 states the Egyptian state was indigenous. No migration from the Near East/Mideast/Europe or outer space."
From me:
AND:
S. O. Y. Keita
National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution
Male Badarian crania were analyzed using the generalized distance of Mahalanobis in a comparative analysis with other African and European series from the Howells’s database. The study was carried out to examine the affinities of the Badarians to evaluate, in preliminary fashion, a demic diffusion hypothesis that postulates that horticulture and the Afro-Asiatic language family were brought ultimately from southern Europe. (The assumption was made that the southern Europeans would be more similar to the central and northern Europeans than to any indigenous African populations.) The Badarians show a greater affinity to indigenous Africans while not being identical. This suggests that the Badarians were more affiliated with local and an indigenous African population than with Europeans. It is more likely that Near Eastern/southern European domesticated animals and plants were adopted by indigenous Nile Valley people without a major immigration of non-Africans. There was more of cultural transfer.
* ^^He reports the exact same thing.
* That the earliest Egyptians were Black Africans whose closest living relatives were other indigenous Black Africans, not Arabs and Hebrews. Keita actually found them to be indistinguishable from the Teita of Kenya, while there is no relation whatsoever with Northern Europeans, who he used in his sample.
* This is before the onset of ancient Egypt and before "Nubians" existed. The people on the Nile had no nations, or kingdoms at this time, and were simply Africans on the Nile who later formed a confederation and united a kingdom called Km.t, and later Egypt. These Africans are reported to have been most like Tigreans (DNA confirms this link even in moderns) and "Nubians", and this lasted into the dynastic, according to the empirical data posted above.
quote:but mixed later as the Upper Egyptians entered Southern Egypt. Only the Upper Egyptians in the extreme south mixed extensively with the Nubians, even though they are not from the same ultimate origin, and you won't find many Nubians in Northern Egypt.
If they DID mix, it's redundant since as stated above, the earliest of the early Egyptians already were closely related to the Sudanese.
As for Northern Egypt, ironically, they were not related to their neighbors in Palestine, but to their Southern Egyptian counterparts, who again, in turn are related to other Africans.
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small 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 of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
^^TAKE HEED!
quote:Second, you are simply ignorant of the Afro-Asiatic languages.
I am not.
quote: By far the largest and most populous Afro-Asiatic language is Arabic, which today has 300 million speaker
And? Arabic is derived from earlier proto-semitic languages brought from Ethiopia. The fact that it expanded successful is a given, though I don't believe that you realize that number also includes Arabized Africans from Sudan, Somalia, Tanzania, Mali, Lybia, Mauritania, Algeria, Eritrea, Modern Egypt, Chad, Tunisia, Morocco, Kenya, and Niger! All whom speak Arabic. Your point is once again, moot, especially since Arabic is among the newest variants of Afro-asiatic, that began as proto-Semitic in Ethiopia some 10,000 years ago. I've already posted my citation on that fact above in the article titled, "Near Eastern languages came from Africa 10,000 years ago". Why you choose to ignore is beyond me.
quote:
, most of whom reside on the African continent. No other Afro-Asiatic language even comes close, in terms of the number of speakers and its geographic scope.
Maybe because Arabs invaded and converted whom ever they could. Says nothing about its origin. Your logic is flawed and shows a basic lack of linguistic understanding. As a rule, where diversity is present in close geographic proximity, origins are suspected. Based on a principle in linguistics called "least moves", Ethiopia is the front running candidate for Afro-asiatic origins and dispersion. Basically, there are 7 language groups inside the Afro-asiatic phylum, with only one being present outside of Africa (Semitic). What it means is that it's a lot more logical to propose that one language group left Africa (Semitic or proto-Semitic), than 5 or 6 entering it (that's just silly).
quote:
You are just making things up again to fit your weird black nationalist view of the world.
If that makes you feel better about your incompetence, you might as well run with it. Though I have citations for all of my claims, that have been thoroughly supported by modern research. You're just blabbering about who knows what.
quote:You are obviously confused and frankly poorly educated. Get rid of your "blacko-centric" theories and give academic knowledge a chance.
I guess. In any event, you resort to cheap, dramatic endings to your meaningless diatribes, and I'll continue to post facts. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: (1) The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. (2) In contrast, the Horn of Africa appears to be of minor importance in the human migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia represented by these chromosomes, an observation based on the frequency distributions of E3b*-M35 (no known downstream mutations) and M173. (3)
Umm, ok. Do you not understand the implication of this study? It reports on the migration of Africans in the levant and associates African lineages present, with Northeast African migrants. , likely in part, the Natufians. R1 is not prevelant in any form, even in modern Egypt. The 3 main Y-Chromosome haplotypes have been laid out by Lucotte, and shows a cline from Northern Sudan into Northern Egypt, with Southern Egyptians and Northern Sudanese sharing the majority of genetic similarity.
History in the Interpretation of the Pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt: A Consideration of Multiple Lines of Evidence,
quote:ABSTRACT
The possible factors involved in the generation of p49a,f TaqI Y-chromosome spatial diversity in Egypt were explored. The object was to consider explanations beyond those that emphasize gene flow mediated via military campaigns within the Nile corridor during the dynastic period. Current patterns of the most common variants (V, XI, and IV) have been suggested to be primarily related to Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom political actions in Nubia, including occasional settler colonization, and the conquest of Egypt by Kush (in upper Nubia, northern Sudan), thus initiating the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. However, a synthesis of evidence from archaeology, historical linguistics, texts, distribution of haplotypes outside Egypt, and some demographic considerations lends greater support to the establishment, before the Middle Kingdom, of the observed distributions of the most prevalent haplotypes V, XI, and IV. It is suggested that the pattern of diversity for these variants in the Egyptian Nile Valley was largely the product of population events that occurred in the late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene through the First Dynasty, and was sustained by continuous smaller-scale bidirectional migrations/interactions. The higher frequency of V in Ethiopia than in Nubia or upper (southern) Egypt has to be taken into account in any discussion of variation in the Nile Valley. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 17:
Haplotypes and percentages Region (n) IV V XI VII VIII XI XV Lower Egypt (162) 1.2 51.9 11.7 8.6 10.5 3.7 6.8 Upper Egypt (66) 27.3 24.2 28.8 4.6 3.0 0.0 6.1 Lower Nubia (46) 39.1 17.4 30.4 2.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 1From Lucotte and Mercier (2002).
^^^^In case you don't get it, read the paper. XI and IV are considered southern (south of Egypt) African haplotypes, while V is likely North African. The study points out that V is a lot more prevelant among Ethiopians and Berbers than in middle easterners, while XI and IV are predominant among other Africans. These haplotypes are the most prevalent found in modern Egypt and exposes an undisputed link to indigenous Africans of the Nile, Northeast Africa, and abroad.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is true that the E1b1b haplotype began in E. Africa, although there is debate about this point. Nevertheless, if this is your argument, then you should be aware of the following facts:
1) The E1b1b haplotype constitutes only 38% or 39% of the Egyptian genetic profile, while it constitutes about 85% of the Somalian genetic profile. In fact, Egyptians and Somalis don't share much else of their genetic profile, because the Egyptian genetic profile has been far more diverse from Paleolithic times.
Also, E1b1b constitutes 28% of the average Moroccan genotype and 16% of an average Tunsian's genotype. Furthermore, E1b1b constitutes 29% of an average Macedonian's genotype, 24% of the Greek genotype, and 22% of Romania's genotype.
So, based upon your simplistic logic; Romanians, Macedonians, and Greeks are "Cushites" as well.
What kind of logic is this? Because you are confusing genetic heritage with "ethnicity" and "race" and "civilizational type", your argument makes no sense.
2) The "Egyptian genotype", varies significantly from Southern Egypt, which is more African, to Northern Egypt, which is more "Mediterranean", and always has been.
J-haplotype, which originated in West Asia. The Egyptian genotype is composed of 32% or 33% of the J-haplotype, which is thought to have begun somewhere in West Asia (the Middle East) between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago. This haplotype, which is not of African origin is found in Amharic Ethiopians, but exists only in trace amounts in Somalians. This haplotype entered Egypt from Palestine, Syria and Iraq, and is evidence of migrations from the West Asia to North Africa for over 25,000 years.
Besides Egyptians, this haplotype is prevalent in Palestinians (34%), Syrians (30%), and Iraqis 25%) as well as Lebanese (25%). And in fact, this haplotype constitutes a significant part of the genotype of people in the Caucasus mountains, and about 39% of the Greek genotype, and again it is found in Somalia in tiny amounts, if at all.
R-haplotype, which originated in Northwest Asia. The average Egyptian genotype contains 9% of the R-haplotype, which originated over 30,000 years ago, and is not found in significant amounts anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa, although trace amounts have been found in Chadic speakers, believe it or not. Haplotype R is the most common and widespread haplotype in Western Europe and is also prevalent in Northern India and everything in between, and certainly did not emerge in Africa.
G-haplotype, which originated in Asia. The average Egyptian genotype is constituted of 9% of haplotype G, which is found among Turks, Iranians, and Arabs, and Southern Europeans, and is not found anywhere else in North Africa or Sub-Saharan Africa.
T-haplotype, which also originated in Asia, but spread to Southern Europe, Egypt, North Africa, and significant amounts even exist in Ethiopia and Somalia, but this is not an African haplotype, and in part explains why some Ethiopians and Somalis share a little genetic heritage with West Asians and Southern Europeans.
Thus, the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian genotype is distinct from the Somalian genotype, and even if we could speak of a "Cushitic" genotype, which makes no sense in reality, Egyptians and Somalians have always been distinct, which is why Egyptians have always called themselves "Egyptians," whether they spoke Ancient Egyptian or Arabic, and have never called themselves "Cushites".
Finally, as you travel to Northern Egypt, the people contain a lot more of the J, R, and G haplogroup, and as you travel South, towards Upper Egypt, the E-haplogroup becomes more prominent.
The genetic diversity of Egypt derives mostly from Paleolithic and Mesolithic times, which was exactly the point of the article that I posted, and only a little of this variation has been added since the foundation of Pharaonic civilization.
You are so fixated on finding a genetic basis for your "Cushitic" fantasies, that you missed the point of the article; even the E-haplotype, which likely began in East Africa, traveled outside of East Africa, where its carriers mixed with other non-African people, and those people came back to North Africa, and this migration between Egypt and Eurasia in particular, and between Eurasia and E. Africa, to a much smaller extent, occurred repeatedly, even before the beginning of Egyptian civilization.
Hence, neither the Ancient Egyptians nor Modern Egyptians are "Cushitic" and Northern Egyptians have never shared the majority of their genetic heritage with Somalians.
I know you want to associate yourself and your race with Ancient Egypt any way that you can, despite logic and the empirical evidence, but I suggest that you be proud of your own culture and that you shed whatever weird inferiority complex that motivates you to seek your identity elsewhere.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: [QB] It is true that the E1b1b haplotype began in E. Africa, although there is debate about this point.
Not at all. Stop looking to obsfucate what is universally accepted and evident.
quote:Nevertheless, if this is your argument, then you should be aware of the following facts:
1) The E1b1b haplotype constitutes only 38% or 39% of the Egyptian genetic profile, while it constitutes about 85% of the Somalian genetic profile. In fact, Egyptians and Somalis don't share much else of their genetic profile
Actually, as reported, the majority of major Haplotypes in Egypt are African derived, be it E3B or other lineages. The fact that Egypt has seen a regression in frequency due to recent and extensive contacts with foreigners, is a given.,
quote:because the Egyptian genetic profile has been far more diverse from Paleolithic times.
False. There's been no extraction of ancient Egyptian DNA from paleolithic times. In fact, DNA won't last that long and degrades. One of the few assessments of ancient remains from Egypt ONLY confirmed the presence of "sub-Saharan" lineages.
Quote: "There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples." - S.O.Y. Keita & A. J. Boyce. Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 25-27
quote:Also, E1b1b constitutes 28% of the average Moroccan genotype and 16% of an average Tunsian's genotype. Furthermore, E1b1b constitutes 29% of an average Macedonian's genotype, 24% of the Greek genotype, and 22% of Romania's genotype.
So, based upon your simplistic logic; Romanians, Macedonians, and Greeks are "Cushites" as well.
What kind of logic is this? Because you are confusing genetic heritage with "ethnicity" and "race" and "civilizational type", your argument makes no sense.
Hahaha.. What kind of silly argument is this? Firstly, E3B is not "cushitic", it is East African. Cushitic is a language category, akin to ancient Egyptian. As far as Romans and Greeks possessing African lineages only informs me that Africans were an influential element in those societies. As far as Egypt, it tells me that Egyptians retained their indigenous markers, as Egypt is in East Africa, near where those said lineages emerged. The fact that other people in Africa have it isn't a surprise either. My logic doesn't depend on the presence of e3B in Egypt, but the presence of VARIOUS African lineages. In fact, this study suggests that Greeks possess such African ancestry due to early contacts with ancient Egyptians (Africans).
quote:2) The "Egyptian genotype", varies significantly from Southern Egypt, which is more African, to Northern Egypt, which is more "Mediterranean", and always has been.
Always has been? Please, there was never a genetic dichotomy in Egypt until invaders penetrated the North. Stop making baseless claims that you're unable to support and learn to read:
On pre-dynastic Northern Egyptians:
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small 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 of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans"
^^In other words, ancient Northern Egyptians were not related to Eurasians and in fact, according to limb-ratio/limb-length proportions, they can effectively be grouped with other Africans.
quote:J-haplotype, which originated in West Asia. The Egyptian genotype is composed of 32% or 33% of the J-haplotype, which is thought to have begun somewhere in West Asia (the Middle East) between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago. This haplotype, which is not of African origin is found in Amharic Ethiopians, but exists only in trace amounts in Somalians. This haplotype entered Egypt from Palestine, Syria and Iraq, and is evidence of migrations from the West Asia to North Africa for over 25,000 years.
No, it is evidence of migration into North Africa some 1300 years ago, with the onset of the Arab invasion. 25,000 years ago, most of the world would still be phenotypically African with J only recently emerging. Why you associate foreign DNA in Egypt with some imaginary migration thousands of years ago, when we have records of J carriers entering the country in large numbers as recent as 700 A.D., is beyond me. Even the Hyksos invasion may have contributed, but no such event occurred 25,000 years ago. That's already been disproven.
Population continuity or population change : Formation of the ancient egyptian state
quote:The origins of the ancient Egyptian state and its formation have received much attention through analysis of mortuary contexts, skeletal material, and trade. Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying craniometric variation within a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the evidence for migration over the period of the development of social hierarchy and the Egyptian state. Craniometric variation, based upon 16 measurements, was assessed through principal components analysis, discriminant function analysis, and Mahalanobis D2 matrix computation. Spatial and temporal relationships were assessed by Mantel and Partial Mantel tests. The results indicate overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process. Nevertheless, significant differences were found in morphology between both geographically-pooled and cemetery-specific temporal groups, indicating that some migration occurred along the Egyptian Nile Valley over the periods studied.
- ZAKRZEWSKI Sonia R. (2007)
AND:
Early Nile Valley Farmers From El-Badari
quote:Male Badarian crania were analyzed using the generalized distance of Mahalanobis in a comparative analysis with other African and European series from the Howells’s database. The study was carried out to examine the affinities of the Badarians to evaluate, in preliminary fashion, a demic diffusion hypothesis that postulates that horticulture and the Afro-Asiatic language family were brought ultimately from southern Europe. (The assumption was made that the southern Europeans would be more similar to the central and northern Europeans than to any indigenous African populations.) The Badarians show a greater affinity to indigenous Africans while not being identical. This suggests that the Badarians were more affiliated with local and an indigenous African population than with Europeans. It is more likely that Near Eastern/southern European domesticated animals and plants were adopted by indigenous Nile Valley people without a major immigration of non-Africans. There was more of cultural transfer.
- Keita, S.O.Y., (2005)
quote:Besides Egyptians, this haplotype is prevalent in Palestinians (34%), Syrians (30%), and Iraqis 25%) as well as Lebanese (25%).
And in fact, this haplotype constitutes a significant part of the genotype of people in the Caucasus mountains, and about 39% of the Greek genotype, and again it is found in Somalia in tiny amounts, if at all.
I don't care who else has it. The point is when did they get it and where it originated. And? The Barry Kemp statement I quoted above has already ensured us that the earliest Northern Egyptians weren't even related to middle easterners. Therefore, the sharing of such haplotypes is indicative of recent admixture. These lineages obviously weren't present to that degree in pre-dynastic/early dynastic times, before the long occupation of Egypt by foreigners.
quote:R-haplotype, which originated in Northwest Asia. The average Egyptian genotype contains 9% of the R-haplotype, which originated over 30,000 years ago, and is not found in significant amounts anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa, although trace amounts have been found in Chadic speakers, believe it or not. Haplotype R is the most common and widespread haplotype in Western Europe and is also prevalent in Northern India and everything in between, and certainly did not emerge in Africa.
G-haplotype, which originated in Asia. The average Egyptian genotype is constituted of 9% of haplotype G, which is found among Turks, Iranians, and Arabs, and Southern Europeans, and is not found anywhere else in North Africa or Sub-Saharan Africa.
T-haplotype, which also originated in Asia, but spread to Southern Europe, Egypt, North Africa, and significant amounts even exist in Ethiopia and Somalia, but this is not an African haplotype, and in part explains why some Ethiopians and Somalis share a little genetic heritage with West Asians and Southern Europeans.
Thus, the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian genotype is distinct from the Somalian genotype, and even if we could speak of a "Cushitic" genotype, which makes no sense in reality, Egyptians and Somalians have always been distinct, which is why Egyptians have always called themselves "Egyptians," whether they spoke Ancient Egyptian or Arabic, and have never called themselves "Cushites".
Wow.. What is your point man, you are getting ridiculous. Given the wide-spread distribution of all of these lineages and their origin, surely you CAN't argue that all of these haplotypes are indigenous to one place, especially Egypt. Modern Egyptians have incorporated just about every ethnic group from Jews, Arabs, Turks, Greeks and Romans since the fall of ancient Egypt. This isn't surprising though why you rely on modern DNA as being a replica of ancient DNA, is beyond me. My argument is for ancient, not Modern Egypt. And it's really not an argument.
quote:The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
- The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians, S.O.Y. Keita & A. J. Boyce. Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 25-27
Your obsession with Somalis is confusing. ancient Egyptians were not only related to Somalis, but to Sudanese and other northeast Africans as well. Maybe Modern Egyptians are a bit more diverse than ancient Egyptians which goes without saying, but the link has already been confirmed. As a matter of fact, according to Brace's 2006 twig, ancient Egyptians cluster more closely alongside Somalis and Sudanese (both ancient and Modern), than they do with Modern Egyptians (who were in the sample)! Ain't that a b.itch!? Modern Sudanese are more closely related to ancient Egyptians than Modern Egyptians are.
Quote:"The Niger-Congo speakers (Congo, Dahomey, and Haya) cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample (both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians) and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from Sub-Saharan Africa. The other obvious matter shown in Fig. 3 is the separate identity of the northern Europeans." C. Loring Brace, National Academy of Sciences (2006)
In other words, there was a cline all the way from Central Africa, to Egypt that gets broken afterwards and Modern Egyptians weren't a part of the cluster (remote or primary). The graph shows them (Modern Egyptians) being most similar to Modern Moroccans, while Northern Europeans were absolutely distinct from everyone, hence, "the separate identity of Northern Europeans". Sudanese and Somali were once again, in the primary cluster with ancient Egyptians.
quote:Finally, as you travel to Northern Egypt, the people contain a lot more of the J, R, and G haplogroup, and as you travel South, towards Upper Egypt, the E-haplogroup becomes more prominent.
That's because Southern Egypt was harder to penetrate by foreign invaders. Btw, ancient Egypt was unified from the south, in case you didn't know.
quote:The genetic diversity of Egypt derives mostly from Paleolithic and Mesolithic times
Stop making stuff up..
quote: which was exactly the point of the article that I posted, and only a little of this variation has been added since the foundation of Pharaonic civilization.
I've already provided studies to the contrary, so your backwards argument means nothing. The earliest Egyptians had African biological affinities and little relation to non-Africans, and only later did such diversity take place. What you posted outlined the presence of a haplotype that has a frequency in the single digits (rare) and from a study that emphasized south-north movement of gene flow. You cherry pick irrelevancies.
quote:You are so fixated on finding a genetic basis for your "Cushitic" fantasies
You are frustratingly ignorant. Cushitic is a language group, not a genetic label..
quote:, that you missed the point of the article; even the E-haplotype, which likely began in East Africa, traveled outside of East Africa, where its carriers mixed with other non-African people, and those people came back to North Africa, and this migration between Egypt and Eurasia in particular, and between Eurasia and E. Africa, to a much smaller extent, occurred repeatedly, even before the beginning of Egyptian civilization.
Where'd you read this fairy tale? When people have to make up long exaggerated events, that means they lost a long time ago. The earliest Egyptians showed no signs of genetic admixture as I've already demonstrated above via citation. What ever is the condition of modern Egypt, happened at a later date.
quote:Hence, neither the Ancient Egyptians nor Modern Egyptians are "Cushitic" and Northern Egyptians have never shared the majority of their genetic heritage with Somalians.
Cushitic is a language category. Somalis are more closely related to ancient Egyptians than Modern Egyptians are. The research has already been done that shows this and I posted some of it above. Choose to remain ignorant, it isn't my problem.
quote:I know you want to associate yourself and your race with Ancient Egypt any way that you can, despite logic and the empirical evidence, but I suggest that you be proud of your own culture and that you shed whatever weird inferiority complex that motivates you to seek your identity elsewhere.
Ironically coming from a White Nord who seeks to associate himself with some supreme "Caucasoid race" that stretches 3 continents and attributes every pocket of civilization from Africa to India to this imaginary people. This is obviously due to the fact that Northern Europe was among the last to evolve civilization, so robbing, stealing, and lying plays as a balancing effect to the psyche. I don't believe in race, but I do believe in truth and this truth is that Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some parts of this forum may be going haywire, but I credit Sundiata for posting facts to a person like white Nord who seems to refuse to want to learn from it.
I will say this for white nord at least he has not lowered himself to insults when he is getting schooled. Takes a lot of character, and if a semi racist can do it, I don't understand why others on this forum can't debate the same way.
Keep up the good debate. As a truthseeker I take pride in this thread. The truth is that Ancient Egyptians cluster with Somalis and Sudanese while the modern Egyptians don't cluster with Ancient Egypt and Euorpeans don't cluster with no one. Thats the *Facts*.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
The point of the paper is that the E-haplotype has moved back and forth between N. Africa and Eurasia several times.
The R-halotype does exist in Egypt and forms about 8-9% of the average Egpytian genotype.
This is from my earlier post.
R-haplotype, which originated in Northwest Asia. The average Egyptian genotype contains 9% of the R-haplotype, which originated over 30,000 years ago, and is not found in significant amounts anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa, although trace amounts have been found in Chadic speakers, believe it or not. Haplotype R is the most common and widespread haplotype in Western Europe and is also prevalent in Northern India and everything in between, and certainly did not emerge in Africa.
I don't trust Keita anymore. He claims that there are aspects of the Egyptian profile that he can't identify and then assumes that these lineages are "African" based on no evidence at all....he is a credible geneticists, but he fills in the blanks with his African bias, even though I would not count him as an Afro-centricist.
He is definitely better than Afrocentricists like you, because he refuses to categorize the Ancient Egyptians as "black" and recognizes that Northern Egypt and the rest of North Africa are obviously distinct from Sub-Saharan Africa and even East Africa.
"The NRY composition of the Egyptian and Omani collections exhibits a greater Middle Eastern versus sub-Saharan affinity. The cumulative frequency of typical sub-Saharan lineages (A, B, E1, E2, E3a, and E3b*) is 9% in Egypt and 10% in Oman, whereas the haplogroups of Eurasian origin (Groups C, D, and F–Q) account for 59% and 77%, respectively. These profiles display levels of diversity similar to those of the nine Turkish populations reported by Cinnioğlu et al. (2004)"
It seems that there is quite a bit of debate about the modern Egyptian genotype, not to mention our quickly evolving knowledge of the ancient Egyptian genotype, which is obviously closely related to that of modern Egyptians.
Anyway, regardless of what you may believe, African Americans are still not at all related to the Ancient Egyptians. They never have been, and they never will be.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyway, regardless of what you may believe, African Americans are still not at all related to the Ancient Egyptians. They never have been, and they never will be.
^ I would say definitely not "white nords". Despite your attempts to connect yourself to AE via "caucasoid" proxies, A common eurocentric tactic.
The fact is, the one that he is trying to avoid, like sundiata said,is that "white nords" are the last acquire to so-called civilization, partially because they were furthest away from it.
^ Some are so butt-hurt by this fact they want to connect themselves to AE in someway to make them "feel better" about it, all the while denying it to African descendants LOL.
Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^LMAO @ whiteNord talking over and around all of the points that directly debunk his nonsense claims. No answer to the Body plan, to the cranio-facial affinities, to the ancient DNA, to the comparative analysis, to the language affiliation, nothing. Just distracting straw men arguments about what DNA haplotypes are found in MODERN Egyptians, who have already been shown to have accumulated much foreign ancestry over the past few millinea. If my argument was in favor of all modern Egyptians being indigenous Black Africans, then I'd engage you more readily on the reliability of the DNA of moderns as opposed to DNA or biological relationships of the ancients..
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: The point of the paper is that the E-haplotype has moved back and forth between N. Africa and Eurasia several times.
This is a non-starter. I don't see the relevancy. E emerged in Africa so if that's where it's found, and in high frequencies, then the people who possess it are obviously of indigenous derivation. The presence of it outside of Africa indicates an African presence there at some point in the recent past. Has nothing to do with anything.
quote:The R-halotype does exist in Egypt and forms about 8-9% of the average Egpytian genotype.
Who denied that it is present in MODERN Egypt (more frequently in the north). Greeks, Romans, Levantines and others have settled in Egypt for the past couple thousand years. I'd expect to find it in modern Egypt at that rate, given the historical record. You make no sense. No indication that it was ever present before contacts with R carriers who settled in Egypt subsequent to the decline of Km't..
quote:This is from my earlier post.
R-haplotype, which originated in Northwest Asia. The average Egyptian genotype contains 9% of the R-haplotype, which originated over 30,000 years ago, and is not found in significant amounts anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa, although trace amounts have been found in Chadic speakers, believe it or not. Haplotype R is the most common and widespread haplotype in Western Europe and is also prevalent in Northern India and everything in between, and certainly did not emerge in Africa.
The fact that it is found in Chadic people (who are effectively 'Black'), totally nullifies your point. Obviously it's in minute frequencies that are statistically insignificant, and must have gotten there through minimal contacts with outsiders. Though I believe underived R1 has been found also in Cameroon, where such hasn't even yet been found in Europe, so there's a bit of a contradiction. Btw, Cameroonians are Black as well.
quote:I don't trust Keita anymore.
That's your problem. Keita is widely respected like no other in his field and is a supreme authority on North African bio-history. Your ideology blinds you to the point that you compartmentalize information to suit your ego. Either way, Keita has not been challenged or refuted by any mainstream academic and in fact, has been extensively supported.
quote:He claims that there are aspects of the Egyptian profile that he can't identify and then assumes that these lineages are "African" based on no evidence at all....
Basically you don't read his literature since it was based on copious amounts of evidence from cranial affinities, to language, geography, and migration patterns. Given the information from history about the 1rst to 12th dynasties, there's no reason to suspect that any non-Africans entered the Nile valley in any impacting way. His 2005, Y-Chromosome study details why indigenous African haplotypes seen in Egypt today signifies a relationship that extends all the way back to the unification of the 1rst dynasty.
quote:he is a credible geneticists, but he fills in the blanks with his African bias, even though I would not count him as an Afro-centricist.[/quot]
In other words, you have no criticism, only disappointment that he's not a flaming Eurocentric conformist, but an actual scientist who looks at FACTS and the most probable scenario.
[quote]He is definitely better than Afrocentricists like you, because he refuses to categorize the Ancient Egyptians as "black" and recognizes that Northern Egypt and the rest of North Africa are obviously distinct from Sub-Saharan Africa and even East Africa.
Hahahaha! "Black" is a social label with no meaning in biological anthropology, of course he doesn't use the term to describe anyone as it isn't scientific. He merely classifies such people as indigenous Africans and doesn't differentiate. He never distinguishes "North", "South", or "East" Africa (biologically), obviously you don't read his work. His criticism of Brace for repeating such a Eurocentric fallacy, along with his genetic assessments only reinforces how confused you are. Africa = Africa and Africans share a common bio-history. No African is "more African" than another given that they are both indigenous Africans.
Keita doesn't even use the term "sub-Saharan" and doesn't find it useful to slice and dice Africa arbitrarily into several pieces since basically it has no evolutionary/biological significance.
quote:The process of seeking a new terminology to describe the biological relations of the ancient Egyptians will require that 'the terms "Negro" and "Black African" be dropped from the biological lexicon in favor of "Saharo-tropical variant" which subsumes the range of morphologies of great time depth found in Africa'. No serious argument can be made to the position that Egypt was a 'Nilotic-African' culture 'on all levels
- Shomarka Keita, 'Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships', History in Africa (Vol. 20, 1993), pp. 145, 150.
And:
quote:The 'role of the blacks' in ancient Egypt is 'nothing less than having been a part of the original Nile Valley population. There is no one authentic African phenotype.' ..... 'Ancient Egypt's culture clearly reflects a Saharo-Nilotic base, and this African foundation never changed.
- Keita, 'Communications', op. cit. Emphasis in original.
Keita, refuting an older study...
Quote: "One approach, although limited, with which to explore the possibility of migration in earlier times, is through analysis of craniometric affinities. Previous studies have not specifically addressed the immigration of farmers from Europe into the NileValley. However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity". - Early Nile Valley Farmers, From El-Badari, Aboriginals or “European” Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data, S.O.Y. Keita, Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)
Keita on the common origin of all Africans, including Egyptians:
"These lineages that in Africa subsume haplotypes V, XI, and IV are joined by a transition mutation: ‘‘Most notably the PN2 transition . . . unites two high frequency subclades, defined by M2/PN1/ M180 mutations in sub-Saharan Africa, and M35/215 in north and east Africa’’ (Underhill et al., 2001, p. 50; see also Cruciani et al., 2002). It is of great interest that the PN2 clade or family indicates that numerous African populations with diverse morphologies (skin colors, physiognomies, body builds, and hair forms) share ancient common male ancestry with each other, before they share ancestry with groups from other regions who are grossly more similar anatomically.................‘‘We suggest that a population with this subclade of the African YAP/M145/M213/PN2 cluster expanded into the southern and eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Pleistocene.’’ (‘Southern’ here refers to northern Africa.) Also, ‘‘a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with M35/M215 mutation expanded northwards [/b]from sub- Saharan to north Africa and the Levant[/b]’’ (Underhill et al., 2001, p. 55; see also Bosch et al., 2001; Bar-Yosef, 1987)."
"The NRY composition of the Egyptian and Omani collections exhibits a greater Middle Eastern versus sub-Saharan affinity. The cumulative frequency of typical sub-Saharan lineages (A, B, E1, E2, E3a, and E3b*) is 9% in Egypt and 10% in Oman, whereas the haplogroups of Eurasian origin (Groups C, D, and F–Q) account for 59% and 77%, respectively. These profiles display levels of diversity similar to those of the nine Turkish populations reported by Cinnioğlu et al. (2004)"
Actually, Keita "HASN'T" been "superseded" and you have a short attention span because I already posted this study.. This was written in 2003, the Keita paper posted above on Egyptian Y-Chromosome haplotypes, was published in 2005 and has updated information from Lucotte and about the various PN2 derivations. Also, this doesn't at all address Keita's (and others) observations of actual ancient skeletons and their biological affinities (noting that they were most similar to Africans)..
quote:It seems that there is quite a bit of debate about the modern Egyptian genotype, not to mention our quickly evolving knowledge of the ancient Egyptian genotype, which is obviously closely related to that of modern Egyptians.
The ancient Egyptian genotype is almost certainly drastically different than that of moderns. As was posted earlier, it only takes a migration rate of 1% per generation to significantly alter the gene frequencies of a population and Egypt has seen steady migration since the fall of ancient Km't. This is why I'm not AS concerned with the genotype of Moderns, even though they too affirm the indigenous ancestry of the ancients given the perseverance of the said African haplotypes observed, notwithstanding a lack of southern contacts relative to recent northern contacts. Your arguments are getting desperate.
quote:Anyway, regardless of what you may believe, African Americans are still not at all related to the Ancient Egyptians. They never have been, and they never will be.
Yea, the only relationship they have is that of Africans sharing common ancestry via the Sahara and early Africa, having been isolated a lot less longer than your White Nord ancestors who hadn't even seen an African for the last 50,000 years prior to the Indo-European expansion.
All hail the "Caucasoids"!
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The fact is, the one that he is trying to avoid, like sundiata said,is that "white nords" are the last acquire to so-called civilization, partially because they were furthest away from it.
^ Some are so butt-hurt by this fact they want to connect themselves to AE in someway to make them "feel better" about it, all the while denying it to African descendants LOL.
This is hilarious for the simple fact that this kind of thinking is exactly what he's a victim of. It's exactly what he's doing. The way he so desperately looks to jerk ancient Egypt away from the admiration of Africans and their descendants, while trying to associate himself, as a Modern European, with ancient Africa, seems almost psychotic.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
You know it's ridiculous that you guys continue this assertion that the Ancient Egyptians were Negroid.
Look at the marker for Bronze Age Nubia. The Bronze age took place 3300B.C-2000B.C. You guys claim that these Nubians are exactly the same as the Egyptians, but this map from brace shows how vastly different they are (Egyptian camapigns into Nubia haven't quite taken place yet - hence no real race mixing at this point)! Again, the Swiss come in first place LOL!
The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World.
“It is obvious that both the Predynastic and the Late Dynastic Egyptians are more closely related to the European cluster than they are to any of the other major regional clusters in the world.”
posted
Brace stated that the “east African migrants resembled modern Europeans” The genetic dna supports the fact that ancient Nubians were heavily mixed - %61% white. So the logic follows that these mixed Nubians who have white Egyptian blood will cluster. They have more white blood than black blood! Brace's 1993 skull measurements have been validated with genetic evidence, with actual Nubian who were next door to Egypt, and not the more distant Somali. This is nothing new:
“The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa.... From 29 [Merotic Nubian] individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa 1 (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68.7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.” (Fox, Carles Lalueza, 1997. mtDNA Analysis in Ancient Nubians Supports the Existence of Gene Flow Between Sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile Valley. Ann Hum Biol; 24:217-227)
This shows that if the Meroitic people were 39% negro, it would logically follow that they were approximately 61% white.
“...the present study on the Y-chromosome haplotype shows that there are northern and southern Y-haplotypes in Egypt. The main Y-haplotype V is a northern haplotype, with a significantly different frequency in the north compared to the south of the country: frequencies of haplotype V are 51.9% in the Delta (location A), 24.2% in Upper Egypt (location B), and 17.4% in Lower Nubia (location C). On the other hand, haplotype IV is a typical southern haplotype, being almost absent in A (1.2%), and preponderant in B (27.3%) and C (39.1%). Haplotype XI also shows a preponderance in the south (in C, 30.4%; B, 28.8%) compared to the north (11.7% in A) of the country.” “It is interesting to relate this peculiar north/south differentiation, a pattern of genetic variation deriving from the two uniparentally inherited genetic systems (mtDNA and Y chromosome), to specific historic events. Since the beginning of Egyptian history (3200-3100 B.C.), the legendary king Menes united Upper and Lower Egypt. Migration from north to south may coincide with the Pharaonic colonization of Nubia, which occurred initially during the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty, 1991-1785 B.C.), and more permanently during the New Kingdom, from the reign of Thotmosis III (1490-1437 B.C.). The main migration from south to north may coincide with the 25th Dynasty (730-655 B.C.), when kings from Napata (in Nubia) conquered Egypt.” (Lucotte et al.,2003 Brief Communication: Y-chromosome Haplotypes in Egypt. Am J Phys Anthro; 121:63-66)
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: [QB] You know it's ridiculous that you guys continue this assertion that the Ancient Egyptians were Negroid.
"Negroid" is a debunked racial classification that need not apply..
quote:
Look at the marker for Bronze Age Nubia. The Bronze age took place 3300B.C-2000B.C. You guys claim that these Nubians are exactly the same as the Egyptians, but this map from brace shows how vastly different they are (Egyptian camapigns into Nubia haven't quite taken place yet - hence no real race mixing at this point)! Again, the Swiss come in first place LOL!
Notwithstanding Brace's limited population samples and confusing terminology, Somalis are still the closest to pre-dynastic ancient Egyptians (before any "mixing").. Face it, they are grouped with Africans either way you look at it. Also, this is outdated, and Brace has revised a few of his approaches, hence, he gathers more samples and places pre-dynastic Egypt and Nubia within the same twig.
Here's a bit of criticism of Brace's flawed approach:
"In a direct attack on the study by Brace et al., 'Clines and clusters versus "race"' (1993), Keita and Kittles accuse its authors of distorting the picture of the true genetic diversity of Africans and, as a result, of complicity with the very thinking they appear to denounce":
quote:"Another example of the use of a socially constructed typological paradigm is in studies of the Nile Valley populations in which the concept of a biological African is restricted to those with a particular craniometric pattern (called in the past the 'True Negro' though no 'True White' was ever defined). Early Nubians, Egyptians, and even Somalians are viewed essentially as non-Africans, when in fact numerous lines of evidence and an evolutionary model make them a part of African biocultural/biogeographical history. The diversity of 'authentic' Africans is a reality. This diversity prevents biogeographical/biohistorical Africans from clustering into a single unit, no matter the kind of data (emphasis added)."
- S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kitties, 'The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence', American Anthropologist (Vol. 99, no. 3, 1997), pp. 534-44; pp. 534, 540.
And:
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
quote:The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World.
“It is obvious that both the Predynastic and the Late Dynastic Egyptians are more closely related to the European cluster than they are to any of the other major regional clusters in the world.”
This is again, outdated. It's from 1993 and has already been refuted and addressed directly by citations I've posted above..
Another direct response to Brace (1993)
quote:"One approach, although limited, with which to explore the possibility of migration in earlier times, is through analysis of craniometric affinities. Previous studies have not specifically addressed the immigration of farmers from Europe into the NileValley. However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity". -
Early Nile Valley Farmers, From El-Badari, Aboriginals or “European” Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data, S.O.Y. Keita, Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(j/k)![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic