posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
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:

---

To distort Brace's 1993 position, let alone rely on it is a sure sign of desperation, not to mention that Brace was exposed by Keita (as seen above) and later retracts and contradicts his own work in his 2006 comparisons, showing Nubians, Somali, and Egyptians to cluster together, and even remotely with Niger-Congo speakers. With Northern Europeans being distinct and modern Egyptians not representing the ancient Egyptian sample. What a difference a larger sample database and better methodology can make.

Brace in 2006 only validates the northeast African origin of ancient Egyptians. This is reflected in the fact that they were placed in a northeast African twig along with other northeast Africans.
http://wysinger.homestead.com/brace_2006.pdf

What he does support here if anything, is the presence of Africans in the levant and their influence on the Neolithic revolution.

As far as your ridiculous genetic assessment of Meroites, based on this study below, you posted that verbatim in another thread, so I will post my response to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
“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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
^The study doesn't even say what other lineages were found and they in all likely hood were African also since no one (except White Nord) in ancient times to modern ever had the gumption to describe Meroites as "61% white".. This fool so over stretches his argument that he bases his lofty conclusions on the analysis of one marker.

The study claims that the average frequency of Hpal in inner Africa is 68%. Well, according to his logic that would suggest that the average "sub-Saharan" African is 32% white.

What a ditz this guy is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
“...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)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
Point?

V is not a European, non-African haplotype. It is rare outside of Africa.. In fact, more V is found in Falasha ("Black") Jews of Ethiopia than in Egypt.

Southern Egypt and Lower Nubia show more southernly African haplotypes.

Quote: "(Table 1). Given the historical nature of the presentation of Lucotte and Mercier (2003a), the term ‘‘Arabic’’ suggests a southwest Asian origin for V. In contrast, haplotypes XI and IV, called ‘‘southern,’’ with IV labeled ‘‘sub-Saharan,’’ have their lowest frequencies in lower (northern) Egypt, but increase in upper (southern) Egypt and lower Nubia; there is no statistically significant difference in frequencies between the latter two regions for the haplotypes studied (Lucotte and Mercier 2003a)."

Note that lower Nubia and southern Egypt share the most genetic similarity, yet:


"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times".- Keita, pp. 564


Moving on:

......."Haplotype V is found in very high frequencies in supra-Saharan countries and Mauretania (collective average, 55.0%) and in Ethiopia (average, 45.8% for reported groups). Its highest prevalence to date is in samples from specific populations: Ethiopian Falasha (60.5%) and Moroccan Berbers (68.9%). Haplotype V’s frequency is considerably lower in the Near East, and decreases from west (Lebanon, 16.7%) to east (Iraq, 7.2%) (Table 2A). The appellation ‘‘Arabic’’ for V is therefore misleading, because it suggests an origin external to Africa that is not supported by the evidence. In fact, this variant was called African by Lucotte et al. (1993, p. 839; 1996, p. 469), as well as ‘‘Berberian’’ (Lucotte et al., 2001, p. 887). Significantly, it was convincingly argued by these same researchers and their associates that because the Falasha (the ‘‘black Jews’’ of Ethiopia) have such a high frequency of V and XI and none (yet found) of VII and VIII, this shows them to be ‘‘clearly of African origin’’ and to have adopted Judaism (Lucotte and Mercier, 2003b, p. 669; Lucotte and Smets, 1999). This is in contrast to their being the descendants of males from immigrant Near Eastern Jewish communities.

Given these findings, it is more accurate to call V ‘‘Horn-supra-Saharan African’’ (or simply African), not ‘‘Arabic;’’ it is indigenous to Africa"
S.O.Y. Keita, American Journal of Human Biology, 17: 559–567 (2005)

When were these African lineages likely established in Egypt? Basically when various Africans migrated there and unified it.

Quote:
"a synthesis of evidence from archaeology, historical linguistics, texts, the distribution of haplotypes outside of 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 Dynasty I, and was sustained by continuous smaller scale bi-directional 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, especially in the context of the findings of historical linguistics." - S.O.Y. Keita, African Archaeological Review (2005)

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mmmkay:
^ Good citings.

On a side, does his self-esteem really depend upon "nordic" egyptians? lol

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

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.”

http://wysinger.homestead.com/brace.pdf

Get Over it

HARD EVIDENCE Refute it or say nothing!

---

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: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

The fact that the Nubian crania were overwhelmingly misclassified and that only eight were grouped with Late Period Dynastic Egypt may have a variety of explanations. Since there is no Meroitic Nubian sample in the program’s data sets, there may have been no specific reference sample to compare with these ancient crania. However, Howells’s populations were selected to sample the cranial variation found on the continents. If the Late Period Dynastic Egyptian crania differed greatly from the Nubian ones—and our t tests suggest that they do not— then the Nubian crania might have been classified with other geographically close populations such as the Teita or the Dogon. Alternatively, we might suspect all of the typicality probabilities to be significantly different from the populations ascribed by the program. Instead, Fordisc 2.0 \ classified the Nubian crania with populations over an enormous geographic range, including North and Central Europe, Easter Island, the Andaman Islands, Japan, Taiwan, South Africa, Australia, \ and North America. Fordisc’s treatment of X-group Nubians \ corroborates these results (Leathers, Edwards, and Armelagos 2002). If Fordisc 2.0 is revealing genetic admixture of Late Period Dynastic Egypt and Meroitic Nubia, then one must also consider these ancient Meroitic Nubians to be part Hungarian, part Easter Islander, part Norse, and part Australian Aborigine, with smaller contributions from the Ainu, Teita, Zulu, Santa Cruz, Andaman Islands, Arikara, Ayatal, and Hokkaido populations. In fact, all human groups are essentially heterogeneous, including the samples within Fordisc 2.0. Using FST heritability tests, Relethford (1994) demonstrated that Howells’s cranial samples exhibit far more variation within than between skeletal series

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

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.

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
^^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)."

^^In other words, you're confused..

quote:

---

Furthermore, his work has been superseded.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1182266

"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: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

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.

---

quote:

---

The R-halotype does exist in Egypt and forms about 8-9% of the average Egpytian genotype.

---

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.

---

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....

---

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)."

^^In other words, you're confused..

quote:

---

Furthermore, his work has been superseded.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1182266

"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"! [/QB]

---

Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

^^WOW.. Have fun with your stupid little theory.

This is exactly why I stay away from trolls. Out of all the dumb random s**t you can conjure up, they decide to accuse me of being an ALT of another troll. And wtf is a "sockpuppet"? Stay off wikipedia you A.D.D. having weirdo. Moving on...

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
How can we account for the "north Egyptian-Maghreb" and "European" crania that Keita finds in the royal tombs of the first dynasty at Abydos.

Note that Keita does not say "elongated East African" or "Ethiopian" crania, but he self-consciously uses the terms "Maghrebian" and "European" to describe some of the crania.

"Maghreb" refers to the region between Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, that contains people of Berber heritage, although Keita warns us about equating northern Egyptians with the Berbers. I will leave it to the Afro-centrists to fully interpret the evidence of what Keita calls "European" crania in the royal tombs of Ancient Egypt's first unified dynasty.

Keita states explicitly that the northern Egyptians and "European" looking people were not representative of the population of southern ancient Egypt (see quote above), and he correctly surmises that they must be from northern Egypt.

Keita also correctly states that there is no evidence of any mass migration into Egypt following the establishment of Pharonic civilization, until the Hyksos invasion. In other words, the northern Egyptians with "Maghrebian" and "European" morphologies were already indigenous to the Nile Valley by the time of the first unified dynasty 5,500 years ago.

However, he does not consider late Paleolithic (10,000-50,000 years ago) or Mesolithic migration into Egypt.

The latest genetic evidence, which Keita has yet to consider, strongly supports the idea that West Asians migrated to North Africa during the late Paleolithic.

So, now we have a better idea of where the "north Egyptian-Maghreb" and "European" looking northern Egyptians come from:

Here are quotes from 4 separate papers written between 2004 and 2007:

?The first detectable expansion occurred around 59,000?69,000 years ago from Africa, independently colonizing western Asia and India and, following this southern route, swiftly reaching east Asia. Within Africa, this expansion did not replace but mixed with older lineages detectable today only in Africa. Around 39,000?52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe, also reaching India, and expanding to north and east Asia. More recent migrations have entangled but not completely erased these primitive footprints of modern human expansions.?


?World-wide phylogeographic distribution of human complete mitochondrial DNA sequences suggested a West Asian origin for the autochthonous North African lineage U6.....The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity.?


?Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago....Thus, the early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the "out of Africa" exit, but from the Mediterranean area; and the North African Dabban and European Aurignacian industries derived from a common Levantine source.?


?We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations....Autocorrelation analyses reveal an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion....we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic?speaking pastoralists from the Middle East.?

---

Hey White Nord. Actually, you quote Keita correctly but totally take his words out of context (as usual).

You say:


"Keita states explicitly that the northern Egyptians and "European" looking people were not representative of the population of southern ancient Egypt"

Keita says:

"This northern modal pattern, which can be called coastal northern African, is noted in general terms to be intermediate to equatorial African and northern European phenotypes" - Keita, S.O.Y

What this means Nordy, is that they were NOT "European" looking, and were described as "intermediate" between various Northern European and Tropical African phenotypes, which again means little given the phenotypical variability in native Africa which subsumes over 80% of the world's diversity. This is why other lines of evidence besides crania are important:


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, no matter from which angle you perceive it, these people were clearly NOT related to Europeans but rather, had an affinity towards native Africans. Keita's description of some of the crania in relation to Europeans was simply inartful, it does not at all suggest any relation to Europeans. Keita writes:

**Depending on "starting" orientation**, the dynastic Lower Egyptians by convergence, secondary to gene flow and micro-adaptation, either became more African "Negroid" (Howells 1973) or became more mediterranean "White" (Angel 1972)." - Keita, S.O.Y

From what we know of the samples in the pre-dynastic North by way of limb ratios, their "starting orientation" was clearly African. It is undisputed that Southern Egyptians shared the same orientation, thus it is a contradiction to suggest any convergence due to gene flow when you admit that no evident migration had occurred at this time. Keita's problem was a lack of pre-dynastic population samples and therefore he was working with too many assumptions in this particular paper. The paper is from 1992. We make up for it (in the context of this conversation) by citing pre-dynastic samples addressed by Kemp's 2005 passage above, demonstrating a lack of common ancestors between Middle Eastern and Northern Egyptian populations and a general affinity of the latter to cluster with tropical Africans. Though while you concede Southern Egypt and so desperately try to distinguish the North (despite that by all accounts, they were closely related), you forget this:

"The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, **which became dynastic Egyptian civilization**, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant." - Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472

Black people, Black culture, Black civilization..

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations....Autocorrelation analyses reveal an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion....we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic?speaking pastoralists from the Middle East.?

---

quote:

---

IN THEIR REVIEW “FARMERS AND THEIR languages: the first expansions” (25 Apr. 2003, p. 597), J. Diamond and P. Bellwood suggest that food production and the Afroasiatic language family were brought simultaneously from the Near East to Africa by demic diffusion, in other words, by a migration of food-producing peoples. In resurrecting this generally abandoned view, the authors misrepresent the views of the late I. M. Diakonoff (1), rely on linguistic reconstructions inapplicable to their claims (2), and fail to engage the five decades of Afroasiatic scholarship that rebutted this idea in the first place. This extensive, well-grounded linguistic research places the Afroasiatic homeland in the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa (3–8) and, when all of Afroasiatic’s branches are included, strongly indicates a pre–food-producing proto-Afroasiatic economy (1, 7, 8). A careful reading of Diakonoff (1) shows his continuing adherence to his long-held position of an exclusively African origin (4, 5) for the family. Heexplicitly describes proto-Afroasiatic vocabulary as consistent with non–foodproducing vocabulary and links it to pre- Neolithic cultures in the Levant and in Africa south of Egypt, noting the latter to be older. Diakonoff does revise his location for the Common Semitic homeland, moving it from entirely within northeast Africa to areas straddling the Nile Delta and Sinai, but continues to place the origins of the five other branches of the Afroasiatic language family wholly in Africa (1). One interpretation of the archaeological data supports a pre–foodproducing population movement from Africa into the Levant (9), consistent with the linguistic arguments for a pre-Neolithic migration of pre–proto-Semitic speakers out of Africa via Sinai (8). The proto-language of each Afroasiatic branch developed its own distinct vocabulary of food production, further supporting the view that herding and cultivation emerged separately in each branch after the proto-Afroasiatic period (7, 8). Diamond and Bellwood adopt Militarev’s (2) solitary counterclaim of proto-Afroasiatic cultivation. However, not one of Militarev’s proposed 32 agricultural roots can be considered diagnostic of cultivation. Fifteen are reconstructed as names of plants or loose categories of plants. Such evidence may reveal plants known to early Afroasiatic speakers, but it does not indicate whether they were cultivated or wild. Militarev’s remaining roots are each semantically mixed, i.e., they have foodproduction–related meanings in some languages, but in other languages have meanings applicable to foraging or equally applicable to foraging or cultivating. Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa does not support demic diffusion of farming populations from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom (10) indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially incorporated Near Eastern domesticates into an indigenous foraging strategy, and only over time developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with inmigrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more abrupt change in subsistence strategy. The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were gradually adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. (11). From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre–foodproduction Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto- Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P. (8). Furthermore, there is evidence that cattle domestication occurred independently in the early Holocene eastern Sahara, earlier than in the Near East (12), casting doubt on the idea of a single origin of food production in the Levant. A critical reading of genetic data analyses, specifically those of Y chromosome phylogeography and TaqI 49a,f haplotypes, supports the hypothesis of populations moving from the Horn or southeastern Sahara northward to the Nile Valley, northwest Africa, the Levant, and Aegean (13–15). The geography of the M35/215 (or 215/M35) lineage, which is of Horn/East African origin, is largely concordant with the range of Afroasiatic languages. Underhill et al. state that this lineage was carried from Africa during the “Mesolithic” (13). The distributions of the Afroasiatic branches and this lineage can best be explained by invoking movements that originated in Africa and occurred before the emergence.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

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**.

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
Sundiata wrote:

------------------
I don't need to explain anything. The Nord clown obviously doesn't know how to use quotation brackets when quoting.
------------------

Then explain why he is answering himself from a pro-African point of view, when its obvious he posesses the opposite mindset?

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

then gave some little cheap response

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

I guess it's just about ME and why you hate me

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben08:
There you go again with your paranoia about others being jealous of you. This seems to give argyles observations some merit: you are a deeply insure troll creating easy targets like white nord (I mean I've seen this particular Brace versus Keita debate thousand times before) so as to look like the "top dog" in here. You don't debate trolls, only straw white nords who keep coming back with old Brace studies. LOL

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben08:
Well, yes you are smart, you cop-out of debates when you contradict yourself only to engage straw nords;

---

quote:

---

mature, well I'd call it pretentious smug, as your claims of "out classing" others are an obvious defence mechanism to hide the fact that you only match up to white nordic straws! LOL

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

You call White Nord an "easy target" when his arguments are even stronger than yours concerning other subjects.

---

quote:

---

You assert that I'm trying to look like a "top dog" (even though I never gave that impression),

---

quote:

---

You are a joke. You're a beat down loser with low self-esteem, it's apparent. Stop projecting.

---

Oh youre too kind white nord... .. but the mere fact that you think it's all about you and your "internet scholarship" then you again prove me right. LOL

quote:

---

As far as any contradictions, I'd have to of course ask that you clarify. Otherwise, it seems as if you're overgeneralizing and applying something to me that you're unable to demonstrate by example.

---

quote:

---

and Jew bashing).

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben08:
Your "White Nord" is spreading same misinformation that has been debunked thousand times over, long before ES, yet you engage the troll even though you say you stay away from trolls.

---

quote:

---

LOL You accuse me of holding a grudge against you,

---

quote:

---

then deny it, "accusing you of jealousy when I did not."

---

quote:

---

What "other subjects" are you referring? That pre-historic debate about the southern origins of AE, civilisation or that one where you "out classed" everyone on "substance" re Obama's promises and his Jewish handlers? LOL What?

---

The latter, where your only argument was the inevitable failure of Black people and the unstoppable Jew who can't seem to take his foot out of your ass.

quote:

---

Get over yourself white nord, I was simply agreeing with argyle's observations.

---

quote:

---

Oh youre too kind white nord... .. but the mere fact that you think it's all about you and your "internet scholarship" then you again prove me right. LOL

---

quote:

---

You post an article about the success of African immigrants in America, yet you jump all over blacks (as self-haters, defeatists etc) who don't share your faith in Obama but insist we should do for self.

---

quote:

---

You say in-group thinking is "outdated" (then debate outdated studies with trolls lmao!) yet your savoir whom you have faith in is a puppet of the most ethnocentric, in-group oriented Americans.

---

I never stated that "in group thinking is outdated", so obviously that's not a direct quote. It is a straw man. An ideology undivided from that view is what's damaging. Your paranoid conspiracy theories simply don't apply here either. I request facts, data, and citations. Not expressions of contempt for Jews who you have yet to demonstrate have any connection whatsoever to the man in question. Another straw man is your use of the word faith in relation to how I used it, based on precedence and example. I have faith that you'll get over the verbal thrashing also that you seem so butt hurt by. Doesn't at all mean that "faith" is blind, it's "faith" in probability. Obviously these concepts are too abstract for your simple mind to comprehend.

quote:

---

You say you like America just fine

---

quote:

---

(amazing since she will never accept your KMT as "Black people, Black culture, Black civilization)

---

quote:

---

yet lay out all the systemtic problems blacks face and why Obama is the best candidate for fix it all.

---

quote:

---

and Jew bashing) What is Jew bashing and show evidence of this.

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

I denied accusing you of JEALOUSY, not holding a grudge, which is apparent. Learn how to read.

---

quote:

---

The latter, where your only argument was the inevitable failure of Black people and the unstoppable Jew who can't seem to take his foot out of your ass.

---

quote:

---

That's not a contradiction or even an accurate assessment of my position of what I stated. Try again and don't stretch it so far next time.

---

Who is moving goal post now? LOL Contrary to your "best candidate" thesis and need for government solutions to our problems ("A citizenry can only depend on its government"), those African immigrants didn't need an Obama presidency to "do culturally and economically" for them, they simply did for self....you know, that concept too "abstract for your simple mind to comprehend.".... LOL

quote:

---

I never stated that "in group thinking is outdated", so obviously that's not a direct quote. It is a straw man.

---

quote:

---

Your paranoid conspiracy theories simply don't apply here either. I request facts, data, and citations. Not expressions of contempt for Jews who you have yet to demonstrate have any connection whatsoever to the man in question.

---

quote:

---

I do

---

quote:

---

Actually, I'm a part of America and so are other mainstream citizens and scholars who hold the same view, so America DOES accept that premise, just not ALL of it (so what?)..

---

quote:

---

If you have no idea what "Jew Bashing" is, then how will I be able to show evidence of it or even get you to admit that that's what you're doing? Anyways, get a life and end your obsession.

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
Any future responses from me will only be directed at a post related to the topic, as not to get side tracked (anymore) by trolls.

---

^ running away again so you can feel good about yourself by debating outdated theories by your trolls...

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben08:
Oh please don't lie for your master now, you know damn well so-called Africanist scholarship in America, especially relating to North African civilisations, African presence in the Americas before Colombus etc, are tolerated but not accepted even by mainstream black scholars. Internet "scholars" like you don't count as "mainstream". LMAO! Again you think too much of yourself.

---

quote:

---

"As Egyptology began to come into its own as a science rather than a treasure hunt after the 1890s, only then did early investigators find surviving evidence predating the pyramids. Excavations by Flinders Petrie brought to light a much older culture predating the historic 1st Dynasty known from records, and at first, this material was so unfamiliar that Petrie thought it must have been left by a "New Race" of people in the Nile Valley. However, even though culturally distinct from the Egyptians of Dynastic times, after further study, he determined that he had, in fact, discovered the remains from a prehistoric period. He, and others, were especially struck by the marked differences between this new, Predynastic culture, and the much better known material from the Old Kingdom and later period.

The Egyptologists of the early 20th century concluded that the classic ancient Egyptian civilization had been brought to the Nile Valley by a "dynastic race" of invaders. They believed that the invaders were both culturally and politically superior to the native Prehistoric Egyptians, and that they swiftly established themselves as rulers of the country. At the time, the dubious science of cranial metrology, that is, using skull measurements to attempt to determine racial characteristics, was fashionable. It was also used in support of this "superior race" theory in Egypt.

These superior, invading people were believed to have come from a land to the east of Egypt, reflecting the widespread view that the Orient was a primary source of early culture. The royal art of Egypt during the 1st Dynasty was thought to be similar to that found in Mesopotamia, and so many believed that the earliest kings of Egypt came from present day Iraq. In the 1930s, this theory was given further credence by Hans Winkler, a German who became well known in Egyptology for his exploration of the Eastern Desert. There, he found an abundance of ancient rock art between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea. Significantly, numerous images of boats were especially striking, and were also very similar to water crafts found in early Mesopotamian art.

However, in the early 20th century, the chronology of the ancient world was still very poorly understood, and so Winkler did not know at the time that these Egyptian boats predated their Mesopotamian counterparts by many centuries. Hence, he argued that the Mesopotamians invaded Egypt by way of the Red Sea, leaving traces of their passage on the rocks as they traveled to the Nile River.

This invasion theory was very much a product of its time. Individuals such as Hitler encouraged this approach, but in fact diffusionist theories involving superior racial groups bringing civilization to indigenous peoples were popular among many of the colonial powers of western Europe. At the time, Africa was known as "the heart of darkness", and was thought to be incapable of producing an advanced culture without outside influence. In fact, it was the defeat of Nazism, and the granting of independence to many of the former European colonies in Africa, that would finally drive such theories from popularity.

Though invasion theories would persist among a few Egyptologists for some time, and even see a resurrection in popular works as late as the 1990s, most scholars abandoned their search for the foreign origins of Egyptian civilization. Today, we look instead for indigenous development and the roots of dynastic Egyptian culture within the Nile Valley itself and the immediate territory surrounding this cradle of civilization."

---

- http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/prehistory.htm

This is a FACT often repeated. Any variations of opinion is how to define them "racially" in America. Since such is non-applicable in the field of objective science, any social bickering is irrelevant. I claim that they were Black because I am oriented towards that concept and per descriptions, I feel justified in using that description to describe ancient Egyptians since it fits the definition of what I (and the Hutchinson dictionary) consider "Black". If anyone disagrees, then that is their opinion but what they cannot disagree with is the indigenous nature of the people and their culture in Africa.

As far as your claim about mainstream Black scholars (like Keita) by and large, not accepting the premise of a "Black (African) Egypt", you should be sick and tired of embarrassing yourself. This is demonstrably false and only lends credence to the view that you know very little about the subject matter in question. Of course the point being that America isn't limited to one POV anyways.

Btw, I never described myself as a "mainstream scholar". You look to deliberately obsfucate what otherwise is so abundantly clear about your own ignorance and intellectual inferiority.

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

A consensus actually has been reached that ancient Egypt was an indigenous African civilization.

---

quote:

---

As far as your claim about mainstream Black scholars (like Keita) by and large, not accepting the premise of a "Black (African) Egypt", you should be sick and tired of embarrassing yourself.

---

quote:

---

btw, I never described myself as a "mainstream scholar".

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
The one good thing about white Nord is he does not insult anybody. I guess he sees us doing a good job of hating each other ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by akoben08:
Poor you, the only one going off into logical fallacies is you. AE is connected to African pre-Colombian scholarship, and Van Sertima's scholarship is sound. The mere fact that you use standard Eurocentric discourse, "pre-Columbian contact theories" is evidence that you suffer from Eurocentic tactics, you projecting snub elitist negro.

---

quote:

---

Oh my you really are an internet "scholar". LOL The consensus has been "indigenous African" for a long time,

---

quote:

---

not who were these "Africans": updated Hamites?, dark skinned whites?, not "true negros"?, "sub Saharan"? etc etc

---

quote:

---

Hence the question of "black" is not "social bickering" but central to your America's agenda to relegate Africanist scholarship to the periphery, not because of any subjective definitions of "black", (they have no problem labelling Nubia as black) but to deny truth. But you like this America just fine! LMAO!

---

quote:

---

I am sick and tired of your LYING, I made it clear which group of black scholars I was referring to. White funded negros like Gates are mainstream.

---

quote:

---

Oh no, my exposing your straw man about scholars and citizens holding your views (something I never contested) as somehow "mainstream" in America is not obfuscating white nord.

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

This guy is just a face-saving weirdo. While Sertima has done decent research in the area, he DOES make mistakes and works with many more assumptions than do Africana students with access to sound Egyptological, Anthropological, and genetic data. This, in the form of remains, documents, language, geography, culture, eye-wtness testimony, etc.. Sertima's claims are more circumstantial as his evidence comes from early descriptions, art, African and ancient American legend/tradition, some questionable skeletal evidence as well as questionable linguistic evidence. It is indeed open for debate since much of it is up for interpretation, unlike the language and biological affinities of ancient Egyptians. Simply because you're so taken back by your own ignorance, doesn't justify blind faith in any scholar who puts fourth a theory which may instill pride among some Africans.

---

quote:

---

"Dark skinned whites", or "Hamites" (according to earlier diffusionist theories) were not considered INDIGENOUS Africans. A perfect example of a proponent for this myth was Charles G. Seligman..

---

quote:

---

If some in our institutions take it upon themselves to make arbitrary divisions in the African Nile valley, then that is their prerogative.

---

quote:

---

Fool, you generalized ALL Black scholars and did NOT differentiate the minority [those who don't accept the FACTs on Egypt) from the majority (those who do).
You wrote:"[Black Egypt and the like] are tolerated but not accepted even by mainstream black scholars"Again, you should be SICK and TIRED of embarrassing yourself and continuously having to save face afterwards.

---

quote:

---

So now you back track from your initial claim that I claimed to be a mainstream scholar

---

quote:

---

Americans who know nothing whatsoever about the subject have opinions on it,

---

quote:

---

my point was that Americans can't be pigeon-held into one over arching opinion.

---

Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
Once again

This is what Keita says:

"Given all of the above, it is not possible to view the Abydos royal tomb sample as representative of the general southern Upper Egyptian population at the time."

Why is it not possible to view the contents of the royal tombs at Abydos, as representative of the "Nilotic" population of Upper Egypt?

Obviously because the variation that he found in those tombs cannot be explained by the population of southern Egypt at the time. And where are these non-representative remains from? Outer space? No....Northern Egypt, where their "Maghrebian" and "European" phenotypes are more common.

---

quote:

---

"The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is southern (tropical African variant), and this is consistent with what would be expected based on the literature and other results (Keita, 1990). This pattern is seen in both group and unknown analyses. However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity..The Maghreb series does have a modal pattern most similar to late lower dynastic Egyptians (Keita, 1990)."

Keita says:

"However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity."

Keita also say:

. It is clear however from the unknown analyses that the Abydos centroid value is explained primarily by the relatively greater number of crania with northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns in the series

Keita also says:

"This may denote the range of
variation encompassed by the coastal northern
pattern, given its intermediate position,
or reflect the presence of middle easterners."

Now MK, explain to me why Keita makes a distinction between the "Northern Egyptian Maghreb variant" and the "southern Egyptian Nilotic variant"

What does he mean by "coastal North African" and "Maghrebian". No one uses these terms to describe "blacks" and Keita also self-consciously uses the term "European" to describe northern Egyptian morphology. Why?

You can dance around all day, but you have to explain why Keita self-consciously and repeatedly uses the term "Eruopean" and "Maghrebian" morphologies.

This completely contradicts your Afro-centric views, and clearly demonstrates that Keita distinguished between northern and southern Egyptian morphologies.

---

quote:

---

The genetic diversity of early Egyptian civilization is also supported by Zakrzewski’s research of the morphology of ancient skeletons.

“Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization…..Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semi-pastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population....The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations.” [8]

According to Zakrzewski’s research, over time, the population of the Nile Delta, which is in the north, changed gradually from the northern/Mediterranean pattern to a mixture of the southern and northern pattern.

---

quote:

---

Otherwise, she would not have concluded that “later groups” had a more “tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding population.”

---

quote:

---

In other words, the “preceding population” of the Nile Delta was not “tropical Nilotic” in their general body morphology, but had a morphology that distinguished them from sub-Saharan Africans.

---

quote:

---

Finally, the genetic evidence from 4 papers that I posted are certainly not outdated. What is outdated is the "Dynastic theory" which claims that Mesopotamian migrants established Egyptian civilization. No one is arguing that.

---

quote:

---

Your quotes about the Badrians are irrelevant, because we are not discussing southern Egypt, we are discussing northern Egypt.

---

quote:

---

The increasing and soon to be overwhelming

---

quote:

---

research is that West Asians migrated to North Africa in the upper Paleolithic, thousands of years before the establishment of Pharonic civilization.

---

If they did, there's certainly little trace of them at the onset of Egyptian civilization. I guess these imaginary West Asians spent their thousands of years interbreeding with Africans until they became just that. [obvious sarcasm]

quote:

---

Keita has not conducted research on Paleolithic Egypt and despite this, he suggests the existence of "middle easterners" in the northern Nile Valley.

---

quote:

---

You have posted no research that contradicts this view, and you have not explained the distinction between the "Nilotic" morphologies in the south and the "Maghrebian" and "European" morphologies that Keita uses to distinguish the "Northern Egyptian Maghreb" variant.

---

quote:

---

So, I want an explanation for this distinction....no word games.....just explain why Keita uses such different distinctions to describe the variation in the pre-dynastic Nile Valley population.

---

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
You claimed that Keita did not distinguish between the morphologies of southern and northern Egyptians. I proved that he did, and you were wrong. I don't care if you won't admit it, but Keita does make a distinction between the southern "Nilotic" variant and the "Northern" Maghrebian variant.

---

quote:

---

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:

---

"His entire facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs (it is closest to that of his son Ahmose) that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian **and** Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
Although Keita warns us against equating between the Berbers and northern Egyptians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
You claimed that there was no relationship between the Berber people of North Africa and northern Egyptians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
Keita does not say that the northern Egyptians were intermediate between "West Africans" and "various Europeans". Keita says that the northern Egyptian morphologies were intermediate between "tropical Africans" and "northern Europeans." Not "various" Europeans, or southern Europeans....but northern Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
In fact, Keita never mentions West Africans because they are not at all related to the Ancient Egyptians. East and Northeast Africans are included in this term, but he never mentions West Africans. Again, you are misrepresenting Keita's work for your own ideological purposes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
your argument about the PN2 clade is specious because it is the third most common clade in Turkey and exists in other Near Eastern countries

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
In order to find a common organic link between the E1b clade and the E1a clade, we have to go back 50,0000 years, which is certainly no biological basis for racial nationalism.

---

quote:

---

Haplotype IV, that denotes the M2/PN1 subclade, is notably found in west, central and subequatorial Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo (Niger-Kordofanian) languages, and as noted by Lucotte and Mercier (2003a) also at noteworthy frequency in at least one group of Nilosaharan speakers (Ehret 1993)—Egyptian Nubians, and some Afroasiatic speakers, upper Egyptians, who have linguistically shifted branches within Afroasiatic (ancient Egyptian-Coptic to Semitic) in the Islamic period.

---

quote:

---

"So far research indicates that haplotype V in Africa is associated with the M35/215 (or 215/ M35) subclade, as is XI, and IV with the M2/PN1/M180 lineage, both of the YAP/M145/M213 cluster. These lineages in Africa that affiliate with haplotypes V, XI, and IV [the most common Y haplotypes in Egypt], are joined by a transition mutation: “(M)ost 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 the males of numerous African populations with different morphologies on average (skin colors, physiognomies, and hair forms) (sometimes incorrectly called “races”), share ancient ancestry, i.e., are microcladistically related to each other, **before** they share ancestry with groups from other regions who may be more anatomically similar in the aforementioned traits.."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Nord:
The truth, is that you and your kind are not in any way related to Egypt and regardless of how we conceive of the ancient Egyptians, African Americans and West Africans are claiming a civilization to which they contributed nothing and to which they are entirely unrelated. Never what I'am (nordic, but think about how you're stealing history from the Modern Egyptians who have been proven to be virtually the same as their ancestors!

---

See above.. And stop getting so angry. It's a sign of frustration. I know it's difficult to come to terms with the fact that you owe the very foundation of civilization to the very Black Africans you despise, but of course that isn't my problem.

Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged |