posted
most Egyptians are not painted dark brown they are painted medium reddish brown. You can find some exceptions but most are not "dark brown" Many people viewed as "black people" are medium brown not all dark brown anyway. I have posted the types of brown on page 1. Get with the program (not to say that all medium brown people are "black people" either many are not)
Posts: 42929 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: most Egyptians are not painted dark brown they are painted medium reddish brown. You can find some exceptions but most are not "dark brown" Many people viewed as "black people" are medium brown not all dark brown anyway. I have posted the types of brown on page 1. Get with the program (not to say that all medium brown people are "black people" either many are not)
And likewise sweetheart, not all Caucasians are snow white. Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has been proven that the notion that the AE were black Africans is mere myth and nonsense! Posts: 96 | From: Macedonia | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we back to the non-African origin of M1 bullshyt again? Myth of Sisyphus indeed.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: most Egyptians are not painted dark brown they are painted medium reddish brown. You can find some exceptions but most are not "dark brown" Many people viewed as "black people" are medium brown not all dark brown anyway. I have posted the types of brown on page 1. Get with the program (not to say that all medium brown people are "black people" either many are not)
And likewise sweetheart, not all Caucasians are snow white. Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has been proven that the notion that the AE were black Africans is mere myth and nonsense!
what about all that tropically adapted stuff? Zakrewski and so on that's "mainstream"
he's only 1/4 white and features look completely West African Skin tone pretty light, like some Egyptians
posted
it isnt a fact at all about m1 sceptic. so stop talking crap. theres still some debate,
"And likewise sweetheart, not all Caucasians are snow white. Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has "
and whats your conclusion? the men work in the fields and the women stay inside. duhh primary school thinking lol.most show brown and dark brown if you look at it through most of the history.
bones from the 19th dynasty a few thousand years after the first dynasty what does that prove? there were some asiatic peoples in egypt so what.
have you got the dna evidence with Dakhleh Oasis where can i find it.
and show me evidence of white egyptians from predynastic to at least the 3rd dynasty any evidence sceptic.
Posts: 142 | From: england sw | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
Really Skeptic you are clinging to the idea that M1 is Asian, yet the very same study you posted states that Ancestral M1 has not been found. So you have to be weary when it comes to M1 Read this example from Explorer: Originally posted by Explorer
Ana M. Gonzalez et al. published a paper on M1 expansions, 9 July 2007, and a few things about it immediately jumped at me; I lay these out shortly following the abstract below, which is there to put potential viewers of this page on "the same page" so to speak, as far as the synopsis of the paper is concerned:
Abstract:
Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa
Ana M Gonzalez , Jose M Larruga , Khaled K Abu-Amero , Yufei Shi , Jose Pestano and Vicente M Cabrera
The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.
Background The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. It has been proposed that the east African clade M1 supports a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. To test the validity of that hypothesis, the phylogeographic analysis of 13 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and 261 partial sequences belonging to haplogroup M1 was carried out.
Results The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.
Conclusions This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.
-Abstract ends-
MY Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al.
*First, a quick synopsis of the samplings, with regards to where the n=261 M1 bearing samples come from, aside from the 588 participants mentioned in one of the tables [table 2] in the study:
From my assessment of the table, it comes from the following numbers:
A total of 50 Europeans detected for M1. A total of 154 for Africans. A total of 28 Asians, barring 8 unknown Arabian haplotypes. And a total of 29 Jews, who were lumped together from the various continents. The sum of the above totals, amount to 261 "known" M1 lineages.
*With regards to the authors claim about M1 or its ancestor, having “had an Asiatic origin”, the following comes to mind:
The authors of the study at hand, themselves admit that they haven't come across M1 ancestor in either south Asia or southwest Asia. They also take note of its highest diversity in Ethiopia and east Africa. Yet through the shaky premise of their M1c expansion time frame estimations, they build a conclusion around it, by tying it to a dispersal(s) "parallel" to that of U6 - another African marker whose immediate common recent ancestor, namely proto-U6, appears to be elusive thus far.
Well, they wouldn’t be the only ones who have failed to come across any proto-M1 ancestor in southwest and south Asia [Indian Subcontinent mainly]:
Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.
So, while they acknowledge the highest "frequencies and diversities" of M1 particularly in Ethiopia, and generally in East Africa., the authors base their claims about ’origins’ on their expansion estimations of M1c derivatives, presumably predominant in northwest Africa rather than east Africa, and its relative sporadic distribution in 'Europe' and 'Southwest' Asia. They attempt to buttress this, by invoking an initial parallel expansion of M1 and U6 "ancestor" lineages into north Africa via the Nile Valley [from "southwest Asia"], then an expansion from northwest Africa this time around, of U6 and M1 derivatives northward into Europe and then eastward into "southwest" Asia via the Nile Valley corridor in the Sinai peninsula, presumably with a few derivatives making their way into sub-Saharan east Africa, where they then underwent some expansion, to give rise to yet another, but later, dispersal from there into "southwest Asia" and hence, accounting for the 'majority' of M1 lineages in "southwest Asia" being east African derivatives than the north African [M1c] counterparts.
*Furthermore,
The authors gather that their observations correlate with that of other researchers, namely Olivieri et al. To this extent, they put forth that Olivieri et al.’s M1b corresponds to their M1c, the former’s M1a2 corresponds to their M1b, and the former’s M1a1 corresponds to their M1a. They go onto to add that the coalescence ages arrived by the two research group [that of Olivieri et al. and that of the present authors] also correlate. The present authors note that their coalescence time for M1c (25.7 +/- 6.6 ky) overlaps with Olivieri et al.’s coalescence time for M1b (23.4 +/- 5.6). Similarly, they note that their coalescence age for M1a (22.6 +/- 8.1ky) falls within that of Olivieri et al.’s age for M1a1 at 20.6 +/- 3.4ky. However, this makes way for great discrepancy between the said authors and Olivieri et al., whereby their coalescence age for M1b at 13.7 +/- 4.8ky falls quite short of the latter’s age for M1a2 at 24 +/- 5.7ky. Not only are the subgroup nomenclatures distinct, but this latter discrepancy makes an unsubtle difference, so as to no longer render M1c to be older than M1b, but rather, either place M1c at an age a bit younger or on par with the latter, which should be otherwise according to the present study. Though, by their own admission, the present authors favor Olivieri et al.’s methods over their own:
As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Olivieri et al on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate than ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-K143 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 +/- ky is obtained.
*But if there is any indication about the tenuous nature of the above thesis, without going into other known details about M1, it would be this alternative viewpoint they came up with:
The alternative idea entertained by the authors, is one where M1 could actually be an autochthonous northwest African lineage, which spread northward into Europe and eastward to "Southwest Asia" and east Africa. Again, to be followed by a yet later dispersal from east Africa, likely sub-Saharan east Africa, particularly the Ethiopian populations.
*The limitations inherent in solely relying on hypervariable segment motifs:
The status quo hasn't changed, not withstanding the hype about the supposed older expansion timeframes from M1c derivatives, predominant in Northwest Africa, according to their study. The authors rely heavily on the hypervariable region of the mtDNA, which even they themselves don't seem to put much faith on, as demonstrated by their noting of the need to proceed cautiously, given that random parallel mutations are known to occur across distinct macro-haplogroups and sub-clades. They also note how hypervariable nature of the control region, can lead to misleading calculations from erratic mutations, as demonstrated by the M1a2 they put forth, leading them to omit them in their lineage coalescence analysis.
*Another thing that hasn't been relayed through this study, is this:
The coding regions transitions are likely to change relatively slower than those of hypervariable segments, and hence, likely to remain intact within a clade. To assist in determining which clade to place a monophyletic unit, key coding region transitions have to be identified. In the case of M1, we were told:
We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.
These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.
Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.
...which is significant, as other M lineages are devoid of M1 coding region motifs, not to mention the M1 HVS-I package. The above does demonstrate, how M lineages likely arose on an African 'background' by single-event substitutions in the designated African ancestral counterparts. The ancestral transition of 10873C is substituted by 10873T in non-African non-M haplogroups, while the 10400C transition was substituted in M lineages by 10400T.
Furthermore,...
The 489C transition, as noted above and can be seen from the diagram, is peculiar to the M macrohaplogroup, again suggestive of unique event mutations characterizing the family:
The phylogenetic location of the mutations at nt 489 and 10,873 (arrow) was predicted by our analysis. The seemingly shared mutation at nt 16,129 (by G, Z and M1) is very likely an accidental parallelism. The ancestral states 10400C, 10810C and 10873C are fixed in L1 (as analysed so far) and are present in the ape sequences.
The 16129 sharing across the M1 haplogroups, seems to be one of those instances of random parallel mutation, recalling Chang Sun et al.'s observations of random parallel mutations of certain transitions across the M macrohaplogroup.
We also know that "southwest Asian" and "European" M1 lineages are derivatives of African counterparts, and the same is true for southwest Asian non-M1 affiliated M lineages from south Asia:
Compared to India, haplogroup M frequency in Iran is marginally low (5.3%) and there are no distinguished Iranian-specific sub-clades of haplogroup M. All Iranian haplogroup M lineages can be seen as derived from other regional variants of the haplogroup: eleven show affiliation to haplogroup M lineages found in India, twelve in East and Central Asia (D, G, and M8 ) and one in northeast Africa (M1)…
Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool. We used Turkey (88.8 ± 4.0%) as the third parental population for evaluating the relative proportions of admixture from India (2.2 ± 1.7%) and China (9.1 ± 4.1%) into Iran. Therefore we can conclude that historic gene flow from India to Iran has been very limited.
With that said, Semino et al.'s older study still remains strong, the way I see it:
haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand. — Semino et al.
Elsewhere, I've also talked about some 'basal' M-like lineages in Africa; for instance, at least one of such was identified in the Senegalese sample.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000
mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations
"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."
The relevant representation in this recap diagram:
^The 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive [as exemplified in the above extract] in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.
**^To put the above compilation into perspective, and keep it simple, the point is this:
Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs, don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian proto-M1 lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been achieved either by the present study or ones prior to it.
Getting to the gist:
Basal M mtDNA ~ between c. 60 - 80 ky ago
And then, M1 ~ between ~ c. 10 - 30 ky ago
The studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, anywhere between 60 - 80 ky ago [since they would have likely been in the continent by the time of the 60 ky ago or so OOA migrations] . Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago [some sources place it between 75 - 60 ky ago], these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 10 - 30 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantitatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.
M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continentally as well.
M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula.
De Stefano et al., Ann Hum Biol, 2002
Also look at this Graph that debunks Wilson, Tishkoff etc:
As for your other studies, They were Debunked already read the graphs I posted^^
Also Ethiopia has been found to be 'intermediate', primarily because non-African gene pools are a subset of an East African population, and to a lesser extent, secondary to bi-directional gene flow between the African Horn and its neighbours. In other words, it is a region genetically composite of deep-rooted lineages that are rare outside of the African continent and more downstream mutations that are common in both Africa and elsewhere - hence, the intermediate location.
I hope you see that Ethiopia is not intermediate because of race, but because they OOA is a subset of them.Read Graph to find out more:
Thats all for now Read up on these things Skeptic.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
so to his mind set the ancient egyptians have to be non african to save his precious greeks from the taint of black blood.
Posts: 142 | From: england sw | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
so to his mind set the ancient egyptians have to be non african to save his precious greeks from the taint of black blood.
LOL..@ the Slav needs to claim Egypt to make up for his pathetic history as Saquiliba Slaves and trying to steal Macedonian Greek history.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: most Egyptians are not painted dark brown they are painted medium reddish brown. You can find some exceptions but most are not "dark brown" Many people viewed as "black people" are medium brown not all dark brown anyway. I have posted the types of brown on page 1. Get with the program (not to say that all medium brown people are "black people" either many are not)
And likewise sweetheart, not all Caucasians are snow white. Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has been proven that the notion that the AE were black Africans is mere myth and nonsense!
what about all that tropically adapted stuff? Zakrewski and so on that's "mainstream"
he's only 1/4 white and features look completely West African Skin tone pretty light, like some Egyptians
Khoisan man looking quite light, probably 101% African
Lioness, despite what Afrocentrists will tell you, limb lengths have absolutely nothing to do with race as even anthropologist C. Loring Brace noted in his 1993 paper on the AE:
It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid”.(Clines and clusters versus “Race:” a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile, Brace et al, 1993)
In Zakrewski’s study of AE body proportion she was quoting directly from Robins and Shute 1986; this was what they found with regards to AE body proportions:
ROBINS (1983) and ROBINS & SHUTE (1983) have shown that more consistent results are obtained for ancient Egyptian male skeletons if TROTTER & GLESER formulae for negro subjects are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in the past. This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south. It does, however, suggest that their physical proportions were more similar to those of modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal limb segments that were long compared with the proximal segments. (Predynastic egyptian stature and physical proportions, Robins and Shute, 1986)
Note that “more similar” does not mean identical, as even a 2008 paper found:
Trotter and Gleser’s (Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 10 [(1952)] 469-514; Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 [(1958)] 79-123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 [(1986)] 313-324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 [(2006)] 374-384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9-4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains. (Stature Estimation in Ancient Egyptians : A New Technique Based on Anatomical Reconstruction of Stature, Raxter et al, 2008)
And contrary to what Afrocentrists believe the modern day Egyptians have the exact same tropical body plans as the AE. See link:
Regarding those two pics that you posted, those men look absolutely nothing like the Egyptians. The texture of their hair is completely off, and their noses are wide and flat. The Egyptians fit the definition of a Caucasian perfectly while those men fit the definition of a Negroid (thought with Caucasian admixture) and Capoid respectively:
Caucasian - Of or being a human racial classification distinguished especially by very light to brown skin pigmentation and straight to wavy or curly hair, and including peoples indigenous to Europe, northern Africa, western Asia, and India.
Negroid - Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as brown to black pigmentation and often tightly curled hair and including peoples indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa.
Capoid - golden brown rather than sepia colored skin, peppercorn hair rather than wooly hair, and Epicanthic eye folds
And on top of all of that the DNA evidence shows that the Egyptians (ancient and modern) are not closely affiliated with either of those men in those pics.
Posts: 96 | From: Macedonia | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:it isnt a fact at all about m1 sceptic. so stop talking crap. theres still some debate
A debate amongst whom? Afrocentrists? I’ve posted references to some of the latest studies done on the matter and they all support an Asiatic origin for M1. There has not been a single study published over the last three years that claims an African origin.
quote:and whats your conclusion? the men work in the fields and the women stay inside. duhh primary school thinking lol.most show brown and dark brown if you look at it through most of the history
What I think you need to do is to actually go to a museum and see what AE art looks like. I’ve been to museums all around the world as well as to Egypt several times – the art clearly shows that they were Mediterranean Caucasians and not Negros:
quote:bones from the 19th dynasty a few thousand years after the first dynasty what does that prove? there were some asiatic peoples in egypt so what.] [and show me evidence of white egyptians from predynastic to at least the 3rd dynasty any evidence sceptic
Why don’t you actually read peer reviewed anthropological and DNA studies done by actual researcher instead of relying on all that bullshit posted by non-specialists on Afrocentrist websites? Or better yet why don’t you actually speak to Egyptologists (they are far more knowledgeable about Egyptian historiography, including its peopling, than all of the morons on this forum combined)? I’ve posted several studies regarding the ancient and modern Egyptians on both this thread and one I engaged in here . They all show population continuity from the Early Dynastic Period all the way up to the modern day era. If you genuinely seek the truth then I recommend that you read through all those posts that I have made – I’m not repeating myself for a newcomer.
quote:have you got the dna evidence with Dakhleh Oasis where can i find it
Previous genetic studies of Egyptian, Nubian, and Sudanese populations allowed for distinguishing between two mtDNA types: the so called “southern” (Sub-Saharan) and “northern” (Eurasian) (for details see: Chen et al. 1995; Krings et al. 1999). To obtain the frequencies of these mtDNA types, amplification of the HVRI region and three RFLP markers was conducted. The authors succeeded in analysing RFLP markers in 34 samples and HVRI sequences in 18 of the samples. Both populations, ancient and contemporary, fit the north-south clinal distribution of “southern” and “northern” mtDNA types (Graver et al. 2001). However, significant differences were found between these populations. Based on an increased frequency of HpaI 3592 (+) haplotypes in the contemporary Dakhlehian population, the authors suggested that, since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis. (“Research on ancient DNA in the Near East” Mateusz Baca, Martyna Molak 2008)Posts: 96 | From: Macedonia | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Before I even begin to address any of the crap that you most recently posted, let me just say that it’s really quite telling that our little exchange has shrunk from a discussion of the ethnic makeup of the Egyptians (ancient and modern) and claims of a possible population displacement post Dynastic Egypt to one solely on the origins of M1 and the racial identity of Ethiopians. Though it’s not a surprise really, because thus far you’ve had all your arguments shot down and thats why instead of trying to string together a coherent rebuttal, you’ve resorted to copy and pasting rubbish that I have long since discredited. You are not interested in facts – you’ve already made up your mind in regards to your pseudo-historical beliefs and you’re not receptive to views that run counter to those beliefs.
quote:Really Skeptic you are clinging to the idea that M1 is Asian, yet the very same study you posted states that Ancestral M1 has not been found. So you have to be weary when it comes to M1 Read this example from Explorer: Originally posted by Explorer
Ana M. Gonzalez et al. published a paper on M1 expansions, 9 July 2007, and a few things about it immediately jumped at me; I lay these out shortly following the abstract below, which is there to put potential viewers of this page on "the same page" so to speak, as far as the synopsis of the paper is concerned:
Abstract:
Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa
Ana M Gonzalez , Jose M Larruga , Khaled K Abu-Amero , Yufei Shi , Jose Pestano and Vicente M Cabrera
The complete article is available as a provisional PDF. The fully formatted PDF and HTML versions are in production.
Background The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus. However, many specific questions remain unsettled. To know whether the two M and N macrohaplogroups that colonized Eurasia were already present in Africa before the exit is puzzling. It has been proposed that the east African clade M1 supports a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. To test the validity of that hypothesis, the phylogeographic analysis of 13 complete mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and 261 partial sequences belonging to haplogroup M1 was carried out.
Results The coalescence age of the African haplogroup M1 is younger than those for other M Asiatic clades. In contradiction to the hypothesis of an eastern Africa origin for modern human expansions out of Africa, the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa. The M1 geographic distribution and the relative ages of its different subclades clearly correlate with those of haplogroup U6, for which an Eurasian ancestor has been demonstrated.
Conclusions This study provides evidence that M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin. The earliest M1 expansion into Africa occurred in northwestern instead of eastern areas; this early spread reached the Iberian Peninsula even affecting the Basques. The majority of the M1a lineages found outside and inside Africa had a more recent eastern Africa origin. Both western and eastern M1 lineages participated in the Neolithic colonization of the Sahara. The striking parallelism between subclade ages and geographic distribution of M1 and its North African U6 counterpart strongly reinforces this scenario. Finally, a relevant fraction of M1a lineages present today in the European Continent and nearby islands possibly had a Jewish instead of the commonly proposed Arab/Berber maternal ascendance.
-Abstract ends-
MY Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al.
*First, a quick synopsis of the samplings, with regards to where the n=261 M1 bearing samples come from, aside from the 588 participants mentioned in one of the tables [table 2] in the study:
From my assessment of the table, it comes from the following numbers:
A total of 50 Europeans detected for M1. A total of 154 for Africans. A total of 28 Asians, barring 8 unknown Arabian haplotypes. And a total of 29 Jews, who were lumped together from the various continents. The sum of the above totals, amount to 261 "known" M1 lineages.
*With regards to the authors claim about M1 or its ancestor, having “had an Asiatic origin”, the following comes to mind:
The authors of the study at hand, themselves admit that they haven't come across M1 ancestor in either south Asia or southwest Asia. They also take note of its highest diversity in Ethiopia and east Africa. Yet through the shaky premise of their M1c expansion time frame estimations, they build a conclusion around it, by tying it to a dispersal(s) "parallel" to that of U6 - another African marker whose immediate common recent ancestor, namely proto-U6, appears to be elusive thus far.
Well, they wouldn’t be the only ones who have failed to come across any proto-M1 ancestor in southwest and south Asia [Indian Subcontinent mainly]:
Based on the high frequency and diversity of haplogroup M in India and elsewhere in Asia, some authors have suggested (versus [3]) that M may have arisen in Southwest Asia [16,17,31]. Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1 in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study). Therefore, one cannot rule out the still most parsimonious scenario that haplogroup M arose in East Africa [3]. Furthermore, the lack of L3 lineages other than M and N (indeed, L3M and L3N) in India is more consistent with the African launch of haplogroup M. On the other hand, one also observes that: i) M1 is the only variant of haplogroup M found in Africa; ii) M1 has a fairly restricted phylogeography in Africa, barely penetrating into sub-Saharan populations, being found predominantly in association with the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum – a finding that appears to be inconsistent with the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroups L3 and L2 that have similar time depths. — Mait Metspalu et al.
So, while they acknowledge the highest "frequencies and diversities" of M1 particularly in Ethiopia, and generally in East Africa., the authors base their claims about ’origins’ on their expansion estimations of M1c derivatives, presumably predominant in northwest Africa rather than east Africa, and its relative sporadic distribution in 'Europe' and 'Southwest' Asia. They attempt to buttress this, by invoking an initial parallel expansion of M1 and U6 "ancestor" lineages into north Africa via the Nile Valley [from "southwest Asia"], then an expansion from northwest Africa this time around, of U6 and M1 derivatives northward into Europe and then eastward into "southwest" Asia via the Nile Valley corridor in the Sinai peninsula, presumably with a few derivatives making their way into sub-Saharan east Africa, where they then underwent some expansion, to give rise to yet another, but later, dispersal from there into "southwest Asia" and hence, accounting for the 'majority' of M1 lineages in "southwest Asia" being east African derivatives than the north African [M1c] counterparts.
*Furthermore,
The authors gather that their observations correlate with that of other researchers, namely Olivieri et al. To this extent, they put forth that Olivieri et al.’s M1b corresponds to their M1c, the former’s M1a2 corresponds to their M1b, and the former’s M1a1 corresponds to their M1a. They go onto to add that the coalescence ages arrived by the two research group [that of Olivieri et al. and that of the present authors] also correlate. The present authors note that their coalescence time for M1c (25.7 +/- 6.6 ky) overlaps with Olivieri et al.’s coalescence time for M1b (23.4 +/- 5.6). Similarly, they note that their coalescence age for M1a (22.6 +/- 8.1ky) falls within that of Olivieri et al.’s age for M1a1 at 20.6 +/- 3.4ky. However, this makes way for great discrepancy between the said authors and Olivieri et al., whereby their coalescence age for M1b at 13.7 +/- 4.8ky falls quite short of the latter’s age for M1a2 at 24 +/- 5.7ky. Not only are the subgroup nomenclatures distinct, but this latter discrepancy makes an unsubtle difference, so as to no longer render M1c to be older than M1b, but rather, either place M1c at an age a bit younger or on par with the latter, which should be otherwise according to the present study. Though, by their own admission, the present authors favor Olivieri et al.’s methods over their own:
As our calculations are based only on three lineages and that of Olivieri et al on six, we think that their coalescence time estimation should be more accurate than ours. In fact, when time estimation is based on the eight different lineages (AFR-K143 is common to both sets) a coalescence age of 20.6 +/- ky is obtained.
*But if there is any indication about the tenuous nature of the above thesis, without going into other known details about M1, it would be this alternative viewpoint they came up with:
The alternative idea entertained by the authors, is one where M1 could actually be an autochthonous northwest African lineage, which spread northward into Europe and eastward to "Southwest Asia" and east Africa. Again, to be followed by a yet later dispersal from east Africa, likely sub-Saharan east Africa, particularly the Ethiopian populations.
*The limitations inherent in solely relying on hypervariable segment motifs:
The status quo hasn't changed, not withstanding the hype about the supposed older expansion timeframes from M1c derivatives, predominant in Northwest Africa, according to their study. The authors rely heavily on the hypervariable region of the mtDNA, which even they themselves don't seem to put much faith on, as demonstrated by their noting of the need to proceed cautiously, given that random parallel mutations are known to occur across distinct macro-haplogroups and sub-clades. They also note how hypervariable nature of the control region, can lead to misleading calculations from erratic mutations, as demonstrated by the M1a2 they put forth, leading them to omit them in their lineage coalescence analysis.
*Another thing that hasn't been relayed through this study, is this:
The coding regions transitions are likely to change relatively slower than those of hypervariable segments, and hence, likely to remain intact within a clade. To assist in determining which clade to place a monophyletic unit, key coding region transitions have to be identified. In the case of M1, we were told:
We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.
These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.
Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.
...which is significant, as other M lineages are devoid of M1 coding region motifs, not to mention the M1 HVS-I package. The above does demonstrate, how M lineages likely arose on an African 'background' by single-event substitutions in the designated African ancestral counterparts. The ancestral transition of 10873C is substituted by 10873T in non-African non-M haplogroups, while the 10400C transition was substituted in M lineages by 10400T.
Furthermore,...
The 489C transition, as noted above and can be seen from the diagram, is peculiar to the M macrohaplogroup, again suggestive of unique event mutations characterizing the family:
The phylogenetic location of the mutations at nt 489 and 10,873 (arrow) was predicted by our analysis. The seemingly shared mutation at nt 16,129 (by G, Z and M1) is very likely an accidental parallelism. The ancestral states 10400C, 10810C and 10873C are fixed in L1 (as analysed so far) and are present in the ape sequences.
The 16129 sharing across the M1 haplogroups, seems to be one of those instances of random parallel mutation, recalling Chang Sun et al.'s observations of random parallel mutations of certain transitions across the M macrohaplogroup.
We also know that "southwest Asian" and "European" M1 lineages are derivatives of African counterparts, and the same is true for southwest Asian non-M1 affiliated M lineages from south Asia:
Compared to India, haplogroup M frequency in Iran is marginally low (5.3%) and there are no distinguished Iranian-specific sub-clades of haplogroup M. All Iranian haplogroup M lineages can be seen as derived from other regional variants of the haplogroup: eleven show affiliation to haplogroup M lineages found in India, twelve in East and Central Asia (D, G, and M8 ) and one in northeast Africa (M1)…
Indian-specific (R5 and Indian-specific M and U2 variants) and East Asian-specific (A, B and East Asian-specific M subgroups) mtDNAs, both, make up less than 4% of the Iranian mtDNA pool. We used Turkey (88.8 ± 4.0%) as the third parental population for evaluating the relative proportions of admixture from India (2.2 ± 1.7%) and China (9.1 ± 4.1%) into Iran. Therefore we can conclude that historic gene flow from India to Iran has been very limited.
With that said, Semino et al.'s older study still remains strong, the way I see it:
haplogroup M originated in eastern Africa approximately 60,000 years ago and was carried toward Asia. This agrees with the proposed date of an out-of-Africa expansion approximately 65,000 years ago10. After its arrival in Asia, the haplogroup M founder group went through a demographic and geographic expansion. The remaining M haplogroup in eastern Africa did not spread, but remained localized up to approximately 10,000-20,000 years ago, after which it started to expand. — Semino et al.
Elsewhere, I've also talked about some 'basal' M-like lineages in Africa; for instance, at least one of such was identified in the Senegalese sample.
Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1362-1383, 2000
mtDNA Variation in the South African Kung and Khwe and Their Genetic Relationships to Other African Populations
"The Asian mtDNA phylogeny is subdivided into two macrohaplogroups, one of which is M. M is delineated by a DdeI site at np 10394 and an AluI site of np 10397. The only African mtDNA found to have both of these sites is the Senegalese haplotype AF24. This haplotype branches off African subhaplogroup L3a (figs.2 and3), suggesting that haplogroup M mtDNAs might have been derived from this African mtDNA lineage..."
The relevant representation in this recap diagram:
^The 10397 transition is shown in the L3-M linkage, while 10394, which should show up as positive [as exemplified in the above extract] in the M macrohaplogroup, shows up negative in the linkage between L3 and non-M affiliated lineages.
**^To put the above compilation into perspective, and keep it simple, the point is this:
Semino et al.'s demonstration of certain characteristic basic coding transitions of the M super-haplogroup [not including the key coding region motifs unique to the M1 family], springing directly from African ancestral motifs, don't require that M1 has to have a proto "non-African" M1, whereas an Asian origin of M1 would necessitate an Asian proto-M1 lineage that would explain the relatively young expansion ages of M1 and lack of descendancy from pre-existing Asian M lineages. This hasn't been achieved either by the present study or ones prior to it.
Getting to the gist:
Basal M mtDNA ~ between c. 60 - 80 ky ago
And then, M1 ~ between ~ c. 10 - 30 ky ago
The studies I posted, suggest that the basal motifs characteristic of the M macrohaplogroup arose in Africa, anywhere between 60 - 80 ky ago [since they would have likely been in the continent by the time of the 60 ky ago or so OOA migrations] . Sometime between 60 ky and 50 ky ago [some sources place it between 75 - 60 ky ago], these L3 offshoots were carried outside of Africa, amongst early successful a.m.h migrations, which resulted in the populations now living in the Indian-subcontinent, Melanesia and Australia who have these lineages. Not all the basal African L3M lineages, as Semino et al. convincingly put it, left the continent, as indicated by the basal L3a-M motif detected in Senegal, M1 diversity in Africa, particularly East Africa, both M1 and other M lineages detected in Ugandan samples, and lack of descendancy of M1 from older-coalescent Asian macrohaplogroup. Rather, it appears that the basal L3M lineages which remained in Africa, underwent a relatively limited demographic intra-African expansion until relatively recently, i.e. between 10 - 30 ky ago, compared to the Asian L3M derivatives, which underwent major expansions, naturally within the quantitatively smaller founder immigrant groups, i.e. the founder effect.
M1 is likely the culmination of relatively more recent demographic expansions of basal L3M lineages in the African continent, with M1 derivative being a successful candidate, in what could have possibly involved other derivatives which might not have expanded to the same level intra-continentally, and subsequently, extra-continentally as well.
M1 has strongly been correlated with the upper Paleolithic expansion of proto-Afrasan groups across the Sahara to coastal north Africa, and further eastward via the Sinai peninsula
I’m going to say this for one last time and after this I’m not repeating myself on this matter again – that study by Gonzales et al does not conclude that the ancestor of M1 has not been found, instead it specifically states that they have found evidence that M1 or its ancestor originated in Asia! As far as I know, the guy who runs the “Exploring Africa” blog is neither an anthropologist nor a geneticist – so any disputes that he has with this study is completely irrelevant! If he is in fact a trained specialist, then let him publish his theories in a peer-reviewed journal, then post a link to that study here. Until then, he has neither the authority nor the qualification to critique that paper. Now I have posted several studies that have been published since Gonzales et al 2007 that uphold an Asiatic origin for M1, which I noticed you have all but conveniently skimmed over. No mainstream population geneticist continues to argue for an African origin for M1, you only find those arguments in the old papers. There has not been one study published since Gonzales et al 2007 that claims an African origin (just give that some thought), the only ones who continue to drum that up are the Afrocentrists.
quote:De Stefano et al., Ann Hum Biol, 2002
Also look at this Graph that debunks Wilson, Tishkoff etc
How precious! All of a sudden Tishkoff needs to be “debunked” yet on the very first page of this thread, you purposefully misquoted her to help further your agenda. Those graphs that you have posted have not debunked anything. All those claims of “stacked decks” and the overrepresentation of the Amhara over the more “pure” Oromo have been addressed on the first page of this thread (I clearly pointed out to you that Wilson et al used both Amhara and Oromo; and also the fact that the Amhara and Oromo only showed minor differences in their haplogroup profiles). Ethiopians cluster midrange between Caucasians and Negroes, they are not closer to blacks as your second chart means to imply, as genetics has in fact shown that the San are entirely distinct from Negroids (in addition to the study below I have also posted another one by Luigi Luca Cavalli Sforza on page one of this thread):
quote:As for your other studies, They were Debunked already read the graphs I posted
You have not debunked a single thing that I have posted thus far – you’re not fooling anyone with that sh*t except yourself (well except for maybe the other Afros on this site that is). Do you see how I have addressed all of your contentions thus far? I quoted each of your claims/studies and directly underneath it I posted a study that directly discredits it. I would love to see you do the same – if the evidence truly is on your side you should have no problem at all.
quote:Also Ethiopia has been found to be 'intermediate', primarily because non-African gene pools are a subset of an East African population, and to a lesser extent, secondary to bi-directional gene flow between the African Horn and its neighbours. In other words, it is a region genetically composite of deep-rooted lineages that are rare outside of the African continent and more downstream mutations that are common in both Africa and elsewhere - hence, the intermediate location.
I hope you see that Ethiopia is not intermediate because of race, but because they OOA is a subset of them.Read Graph to find out more
I want to see you produce for me a peer reviewed study done by an actual geneticist that buttresses this claim. The only one that you have provided thus far that comes close to approximating the claims made in this quote is that study done by Tishkoff et al which I have already addressed on page one of this thread. Moreover I posed this question to the posters on this forum three weeks ago regarding the claim that Ethiopians have little if any admixture (not true mind you): How exactly does this discredit the fact that in terms of their haplogroup profiles they are completely distinct from blacks? And in closing I’d really like to know just why it is exactly that we’re discussing Ethiopians and not the Egyptians? Because contrary to what Afrocentrists believe the former were not the latter – in my very first post on this thread (the one showing that Upper Egyptians have more Middle Eastern ancestry than Lower Egyptians) you can clearly see that in the chart that I posted, the haplogroup profiles of both the Upper and Lower Egyptians is distinct from that of Ethiopians (the only haplogroup that they share in any appreciable quantities is E3b*(xE3b2)).
Posts: 96 | From: Macedonia | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
so to his mind set the ancient egyptians have to be non african to save his precious greeks from the taint of black blood.
That study is outdated, and was much pilloried when it was first published. The mere fact that you would quote that paper just goes to show how completely illiterate you clowns are. The following is a response published by three of the world’s most renowned population geneticists:
Even though the controversial withdrawal of a paper on the genetic relatedness of Palestinians and Jews by the journal Human Immunology (see Nature 414, 382; 2001) is a minor episode compared with the tragedies caused by ethnic/religious conflicts over past decades, the issues involved are worth revisiting. The stated purpose of the paper by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena et al. was to “examine the genetic relationships between the Palestinians and their neighbours (particularly the Jews) in order to: (1) discover the Palestinian origins, and (2) explain the historic basis of the present … conflict between Palestinians and other Muslim countries with Israelite Jews”. They conclude: “Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA genetic pool that supports a common ancient Canaanite origin. Therefore, the origin of the long-lasting Jewish–Palestinian hostility is the fight for land in ancient times.” It is difficult to believe that knowledge of genes may help to explain the present conflict. Although population genetics can address issues of relatedness of populations, mating patterns, migrations and so on, obviously it cannot provide evidence about reasons for conflicts between people. Our primary concern, however, is that the authors might be perceived to have been discriminated against for political, as opposed to legitimate scientific, reasons. Even a cursory look at the paper’s diagrams and trees immediately indicates that the authors make some extraordinary claims. They used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree and map of 28 populations from Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Japan. Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. The limitations are made evident by the authors’ extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute. We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit.
Add to that the fact that in every other study ever done since the publication of that study Macedonians and Greeks cluster with Europeans:
In the present study we analyzed for the first time HLA class I and class II polymorphisms defined by high-resolution typing methods in the Bulgarian population. Comparisons with other populations of common historical background were performed. Most HLA-A, -B, -DRB alleles and haplotypes observed in the Bulgarian population are also common in Europe. Alleles and haplotypes considered as Mediterranean are relatively frequent in the Bulgarian population. Observation of Oriental alleles confirms the contribution of Asians to the genetic diversity of Bulgarians. The use of high-resolution typing methods allowed to identify allele variants rare for Europeans that were correlated to specific population groups. Phylogenetic and correspondence analyses showed that Bulgarians are more closely related to Macedonians, Greeks, and Romanians than to other European populations and Middle Eastern people living near the Mediterranean. The HLA-A,-B,-DRB1 allele and haplotype diversity defined by high-resolution DNA methods confirm that the Bulgarian population is characterized by features of southern European anthropological type with some influence of additional ethnic groups. Implementation of high-resolution typing methods allows a significantly wider spectrum of HLA variation to be detected, including rare alleles and haplotypes, and further clarifies the origin of Bulgarians.
The Macedonian population is of special interest for HLA anthropological study in the light of unanswered questions regarding its origin and relationship with other populations, especially the neighbouring Balkanians. Two studies have been performed to examine HLA molecular polymorphism in the Macedonian population, so far. The present study is the first to be performed in Macedonia using high-resolution sequence-based method for direct HLA typing. The study included 158 unrelated healthy volunteers of Macedonian origin and nationality, having a Christian Orthodox religion. After the simultaneous amplification of exon-2 on both HLA-DRB1 alleles, DNA sequencing was used for genotype assignment. In the 158 samples analysed, all 316 alleles were typed and a total of 29 different DRB1 alleles were detected, with DRB1*1601 being the most frequent allele (14.9%), followed by DRB1*1104 (13.9%). A phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of the high-resolution data deriving from other populations revealed the clustering of Macedonians together with other Balkan populations (Greeks, Croats, Turks and Romanians) and Sardinians, close to another “European” cluster consisting of the Italian, French, Danish, Polish and Spanish populations. The included African populations grouped on the opposite side of the tree.Posts: 96 | From: Macedonia | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
so to his mind set the ancient egyptians have to be non african to save his precious greeks from the taint of black blood.
LOL..@ the Slav needs to claim Egypt to make up for his pathetic history as Saquiliba Slaves and trying to steal Macedonian Greek history.
LOL! I don't have to make up for anything. My people have a very rich and extensive history, which is alot more than I have to say for you and your ilk. Your ancestors didn't produce a single substantial civilization worth anymore than a passing mention (and you know it), which is exactly why Western Blacks are so desperate to latch onto AE. The history of the black is, has been and always will be a history of slavery and subjugation at the hands of Eurasian peoples. Tragic! Posts: 96 | From: Macedonia | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Thats not true at all. My arguements have not been shutdown by you at all. I am also very receptive to arguements that speak TRUTH. I went to M1 because that is where you took the arguement when you deicided to say Ethiopians were more eurasian than African. If I took the topic to Ethiopians then I apologize. I want to talk about Egypt but as we know, Ethiopia and somalia are two countries linked with Egypt from time immoral.
Skeptic please be serious, WHERE in Asia was it found. Saying it's found in Asia and not giving the place where it was found is just nonsense M1 has not been shown to of been found in Asia at all since they never name a country like yourself.
To each one teach one. I also noticed how you just blew off the arguement that was made by Explorer which is an valid Arguement.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Some of the most foolish nonsense has been provided by you. How are Ethiopians distinct from Blacks when they ARE BLACK.
Like I said People must realize that Ethiopians and the rest of the world are linked because that is where ALL people came from. They came from East African peoples. I don't know how basic I can make this. Majority of genes in Ethiopians are indeginous and any Back migration would of been people that looked no different then the Ethiopians themselves.
Ask yourself this Skeptic, If Ethiopians are as mixed as you say, why is the color of Ethiopians as dark as majority of Africans. If these lightskinned invaders really lived in Ethiopia why did they not leave more of an impact on the Ethiopians like body plan, Color etc Look at berbers who we know are mixed, The majority of them in North Africa are light skinned because they are mixed unlike the ethiopians. Think on that before you post.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
the images you showed are thousands of years after the first dynasty which only proves there were non africans in egypt , again so what theirs blacks like me in england? by the way those pictures you showed are mixedrace people s whats your point
ancient greeks do have E1b1b in them so stop lying.
how desperate to try and put ethiopians in white history thats just sad sad sad pathetic,
what rich and extensive history? what like , massacreing people,legalised paedophilia, Gay sex, 90 percent people in the civilization slaves, no womens rights, only good for breeding, thats sounds great would love to have lived there.
the reason we blacks concentrate on egypt is because we know the other civilizations in africa are black, and europeans admit to that and no more try to steal them, but you europeans because egypt is the grand daddy of western civilization ,just cant seem to let it go,
Posts: 142 | From: england sw | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thats not true at all. My arguements have not been shutdown by you at all. I am also very receptive to arguements that speak TRUTH. I went to M1 because that is where you took the arguement when you deicided to say Ethiopians were more eurasian than African. If I took the topic to Ethiopians then I apologize. I want to talk about Egypt but as we know, Ethiopia and somalia are two countries linked with Egypt from time immoral
Arguments I have made which as of yet you have not addressed:
1) The J haplogroups found amongst the Egyptians dates to roughly between 11.1k and 16.4k years ago.
2) The Upper Egyptians have more Middle Eastern ancestry that the Lower Egyptians.
3) The study that I have posted done on the autosomal DNA of the Upper Egyptians:
Local comparisons between Upper Egyptians were carried out with other ethnic groups in Egypt, based on frequency and molecular data. No differences were observed in comparison with a general Caucasian population from Cairo in any of the nine loci compared or with Egyptian Christians from Cairo...Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others. (Genetic variation of 15 autosomal STR loci in Upper (Southern) Egyptians, Omran et al 2008.)
4) You have not provided me with a quote from a mainstream geneticist stating that Ethiopians are located centrally between SSA and Caucasians solely due to the fact that they lie on the OOA route. The mainstream view is that it is due both to the fact previously stated and also due to later admixture from Eurasia.
5) I have pointed out the fact that E1b1b and it's derivatives a not considered "black African." You have not given me an explanation as to why Afrocentrists continue to insist that they are.
6) DNA research shows that contrary to what Afrocentrists believe there were more migrations from SSA into Egypt that from Eurasia into Egypt. You have not even touched this point.
7) I pointed out the fact that E-M78 originated in North and not East Africa as you were postulating. Why did you not address this fact?
8) You claimed that a study from "Nebel et al" proved mass migrations from the Near East into Egypt, but the study that you provided had nothing to do with Egypt at all but actually reinforced my point. Why have you not addressed this?
9) I provided several studies published from 2007 to 2010 that continuously reinforce the Asiatic origin of M1. Why then is it exactly that you continue to insist on an African origin when there hasn't been a study in the literature in years postulating such an origin?
10) I've pointed out the fact that Ethiopians differ in their overall haplotype profiles from the Egyptians. Why then is it that you insist that the Egyptians were Ethiopians?
quote:Skeptic please be serious, WHERE in Asia was it found. Saying it's found in Asia and not giving the place where it was found is just nonsense M1 has not been shown to of been found in Asia at all since they never name a country like yourself
M1 originated in Southwest Asia. If you actually read that entire laundry list of studies published over the past three years that I provided at the top of page two, you would in fact have known this. The mere fact that you're asking me this question implies to me that you are obviously not reading any of the studies that I am posting.
quote:To each one teach one. I also noticed how you just blew off the arguement that was made by Explorer which is an valid Arguement
"Explorer" is neither an anthropologist nor a geneticist. If what he is claiming is factual then you should have no problem locating an actual peer-reviewed study that supports his views.
quote:Some of the most foolish nonsense has been provided by you. How are Ethiopians distinct from Blacks when they ARE BLACK.
Like I said People must realize that Ethiopians and the rest of the world are linked because that is where ALL people came from. They came from East African peoples. I don't know how basic I can make this. Majority of genes in Ethiopians are indeginous and any Back migration would of been people that looked no different then the Ethiopians themselves.
Ask yourself this Skeptic, If Ethiopians are as mixed as you say, why is the color of Ethiopians as dark as majority of Africans. If these lightskinned invaders really lived in Ethiopia why did they not leave more of an impact on the Ethiopians like body plan, Color etc Look at berbers who we know are mixed, The majority of them in North Africa are light skinned because they are mixed unlike the ethiopians. Think on that before you post
All sorts of Afrocentrist bullshit! Their DNA doesn't lie! Everything that I have posted thus far is supported by modern day genetics. Skin color has nothing to do with race (in the genetic sense). Melanesians have the exact same skin color as black Africans yet in terms of their underlying genetic structure, they are the most distant group of people from blacks. On this very page I pointed out to you a study by C. Loring Brace where he noted that skin color, like limb lengths, is merely a result of adaptation to climatic variation:
It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid".(Clines and clusters versus "Race:" a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile, Brace et al, 1993)
quote:I am still waiting on the study that states by % that Oromo have as much admixture as the Amhara.
You have yet to post that study that states this
Can you read?! On the very first page of this thread I provided you with several studies showing this:
Though present-day Ethiopia is a land of great ethnic diversity, the majority of Ethiopians speak different Semitic, Cushitic, and Omotic languages that belong to the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum. Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cushitic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general. (Am. J. Hum. Genet., 75:000, 2004)
Oromo and Amhara only showed minor differences in spite of their different origins and histories. HLA class II allele and haplotype frequencies in Ethiopian Amhara and Oromo populations. (HLA class II allele and haplotype frequencies in Ethiopian Amhara and Oromo populations 1998)
The present composition of the Ethiopian population is the result of a complex and extensive intermixing of different peoples of North African, Near and Middle Eastern, and south-Saharan origin. The two main groups inhabiting the country are the Amhara, descended from Arabian conquerors, and the Oromo, the most important group among the Cushitic people. ... The genetic distance analysis showed the separation between African and non-African populations, with the Amhara and Oromo located in an intermediate position. (De Stefano et al., Ann Hum Biology 2002)
There has also been research done on the autosomal DNA (gives the exact percentage breakdown of ancestry) of Ethiopians by Wilson et al:
We genotyped 16 chromosome 1 microsatellites from the ABI prism panel 1 (an average of 17 cM apart) and 23 X-linked microsatellites 9 in each of eight populations: South African Bantu speakers (46), Amharic- and Oromo-speaking Ethiopians from Shewa and Wollo provinces collected in Addis Ababa (48), Ashkenazi Jews (48), Armenians (48), Norwegian speakers from Oslo (47), Chinese from Sichuan in southwestern China (39), Papua New Guineans from Madang (48) and Afro- Caribbeans collected in London (30).
Note that in this study they used samples from both Oromos and Amharas, and not just on the Amhara as Afrocentrists fallaciously believe (i.e. there were no "stacked decks"). This was the result of that study:
The apportionment of individuals (the average per-individual proportion of ancestry) from each of the eight populations into the four STRUCTURE-defined clusters (Table 2) broadly corresponds to four geographical areas: Western Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, China and New Guinea. Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a "Black" cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. (Wilson et al, Population genetic structure of variable drug response, 2001)
To sum it all up, although they differ in their origins, the Oromo and the Amhara differ little in terms of their underlying genetic structure.
Posts: 96 | From: Macedonia | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
C. Loring Brace’s 2005 paper in no way contraindicates his 1993 paper, in both of them the Egyptians cluster with Caucasians:
When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component.(The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Brace et al, 2005)
quote:for all your talk the earliest ancient egyptians look like this and you cannot refute this.
Their DNA doesn’t lie; they were Mediterranean and not Black Africans.
quote:the images you showed are thousands of years after the first dynasty which only proves there were non africans in egypt , again so what theirs blacks like me in england? by the way those pictures you showed are mixedrace people s whats your point
I provided you a link to an older thread where I made several pertinent points. The anthropological evidence clearly shows population continuity up to the modern day era.
quote:ancient greeks do have E1b1b in them so stop lying
The DNA studies refuting that bullshit claim are right here on this thread – take it or leave it. Either way it won’t change the fact.
quote:what rich and extensive history? what like , massacreing people,legalised paedophilia, Gay sex, 90 percent people in the civilization slaves, no womens rights, only good for breeding, thats sounds great would love to have lived there
LOL! I’m detecting a bit of penis envy from you! "Black history" pales in comparison to white history, and thats a fact.
quote:the reason we blacks concentrate on egypt is because we know the other civilizations in africa are black, and europeans admit to that and no more try to steal them, but you europeans because egypt is the grand daddy of western civilization ,just cant seem to let it go
No you concentrate on Egypt because you know there was absolutely nothing of value south of the Sahara. And Greece was the fount of Western Civilization, not Egypt.
Posts: 96 | From: Macedonia | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
"C. Loring Brace’s 2005 paper in no way contraindicates his 1993 paper, in both of them the Egyptians cluster with Caucasians:"
caucasian is a defunct term, are dravidians and masai white
"Their DNA doesn’t lie; they were Mediterranean and not Black Africans"
a lot of MODERN egyptians and ethiopians will have non african dna which proves the point some of the moderns arent related to the ancient egyptians,show me the dna on ancient egyptians. the only one i found was. One successful study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, by Paabo and Di Rienzo, which identified multiple lines of descent, a minority of which originated in sub-Saharan Africa. but dont know where to get the study.
"I provided you a link to an older thread where I made several pertinent points. The anthropological evidence clearly shows population continuity up to the modern day era"
not really the predynastic egyptians cluster closer with
"The DNA studies refuting that bullshit claim are right here on this thread – take it or leave it. Either way it won’t change the fact"
ancient greeks do have E1b1b
"LOL! I’m detecting a bit of penis envy from you! "Black history" pales in comparison to white history, and thats a fact"
not pre 1500s, only after europeans went around the world on there psychotic missions to steal and bring some people to the brink of extinction. all europeans civilizations are from the same source EGYPT,greece,etruscan,roman,moors,christian church where as africans east west south north were mainly isolated so they had to use their own genius.
"No you concentrate on Egypt because you know there was absolutely nothing of value south of the Sahara. And Greece was the fount of Western Civilization, not Egypt. "
greece was more in common with middle eastern and african history then white cultures in europe lol,notice how you separate africa, that dosent wash im afraid. no they were more technologically and culturely advanced then northern europe. why do white people like you concentrate on an african civilization, you dont see us here trying to prove white civilizations were black.
Where in southwest Asia?? It could not of been India because acestral M1 was never found there. So I ask again easily point to the study that states which COUNTRY and people it is linked with. Saying it's found in Southwest Asia is not proof that M1 was found there because even Gonzales says it was not found in India.
As for your ideas about Upper Egypt, read this study:
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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14748828
As for your study on Cairo being "Caucasian" Exactly.
Genetic variation of 15 autosomal STR loci in Upper (Southern) Egyptians, Omran et al 2008.
Read this from Zarahan:
Modern Egypt as had a lot of influx from Arabized populations- no surprise that there would be some proximity to them. The primary Middle Eastern link is with populations in Israel, quite close to EGYPT. What is strange though is that the authors, who talk about the "general Caucasian population from Cairo" (whatever that is- it curiously is not defined), do not sample OTHER areas close to Egypt. Their "North African" sample is not nearby Libya, or the Sudan, or Chad but distant Algeria. Curiously, they also EXCLUDE other populations near to Egypt like Nubians and Ethiopians, even though previous studies link these with the Egyptians. It would have been a perfect example to verify or refute these studies. They carefully steered away however, for distant Algeria. They strangely don't even include Nubians, even though study after study shows the Nubians matching more closely with Egyptians than most others..
As for the "white Mediterranean" claim it is complete nonsense, and is undermined by the very same study offered as "evidence." The 'Euopean" sample includes two populations with Mediterranean coastlines, France and Italy. This puts the Mediterranean claim to the test. It fails dismally. Africans, as represented by Algeria, are closer than the Mediterranized Europeans, as are the Israeli area samples. So much for "white mediterraneans.." lol
As you say, none of this though says anything about the ancients, which are the people at issue. So this "new study" dismally fails,
And if ancient Middle easterners are considered, early Middle Easterners looked like Africans. So if we want to go back in time, the first link of "Middle Easterners" is with Africans. The Israel area would also incorporate elements of the Natufians would it not?
And strangely in this study, while the nearby Israel area provides the closest 'Middle Eastern" match, the authors conveniently exclude NEARBY AFRICAN AREAS like Nubia, the Sudan or even close geographic areas like Chad or Libya. Their "North African" sample is drawn from distant Algeria.
Also Read this from Luis 2004 newer study of Modern Egypt:
Y-Microsatellite Diversity The microsatellite results for Egyptian and Omani samples are given in table 3. The variance, continuous expansion, and median BATWING values of the Egyptian M35 lineages are considerably larger than those of Oman. This is also true for K2-M70. However, for either the collective J-12f2 or J*-12f2, the disparity is not so large. The expansion times of collective E3b-M35 lineages of the Egyptian sample are substantially older than those of the J-12f2, whereas, in Oman, the order is reversed. - Luis (2004)
Read more from Luis et al.The present-day Egyptian E3b-M35 distribution most likely results from a juxtaposition of various demic episodes. Since the E3b-M35 lineages appear to be confined mostly to the sub-Saharan populations, it is conceivable that the initial migrations toward North Africa from the south primarily involved derivative E3b-M35 lineages. These include E3b1-M78, a haplogroup especially common in Ethiopia (23%), and, perhaps, E3b2- M123 (2%), which is present as well (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002; Semino et al. 2002). The data suggest that two later expansions may have followed: one eastward along the Levantine corridor into the Near East and the other toward northwestern Africa. - Luis (2004)
Read This Abstract from this study:
An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
K. Goddea, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
aDepartment of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 250 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
bDepartment of Science, South College, 3904 Lonas Dr, Knoxville, TN 37909, USA
Received 31 July 2008; accepted 10 August 2009. Available online 19 September 2009.
Abstract
Many authors have speculated on Nubian biological evolution. Because of the contact Nubians had with other peoples, migration and/or invasion (biological diffusion) were originally thought to be the biological mechanism for skeletal changes in Nubians. Later, a new hypothesis was put forth, the in situ hypothesis. The new hypothesis postulated that Nubians evolved in situ, without much genetic influence from foreign populations. This study examined 12 Egyptian and Nubian groups in an effort to explore the relationship between the two populations and to test the in situ hypothesis. Data from nine cranial nonmetric traits were assessed for an estimate of biological distance, using Mahalanobis D2 with a tetrachoric matrix. The distance scores were then input into principal coordinates analysis (PCO) to depict the relationships between the two populations. PCO detected 60% of the variation in the first two principal coordinates. A plot of the distance scores revealed only one cluster; the Nubian and Egyptian groups clustered together. The grouping of the Nubians and Egyptians indicates there may have been some sort of gene flow between these groups of Nubians and Egyptians. However, common adaptation to similar environments may also be responsible for this pattern. Although the predominant results in this study appear to support the biological diffusion hypothesis, the in situ hypothesis was not completely negated.
Read this from Yurco:
"The ancient Badarians were quite representative of ancient Egyptians as a whole and showed clear links with tropical Africans to the south. They have been sometimes excluded in studies of the ancient Egyptian population, which shows continuity in its history, not mass influxes of foreigners until the late periods. "
"Certainly there was some foreign admixture [in Egypt], but basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times ... [the] Badarian people, who developed the earliest Predynastic Egyptian culture, already exhibited the mix of North African and Sub-Saharan physical traits that have typified Egyptians ever since (Hassan 1985; Yurco 1989; Trigger 1978; Keita 1990.. et al.,)...
The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions.." (Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review," 1996 -in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, Black Athena Revisited, 1996, The University of North Carolina Press, p. 62-100)
Read this study also Skeptic "The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color, hair form, genetics, and other characteristics. No one set of characteristics is more African than another. Variability is also found in "sub-Saharan" Africa, to which the word "Africa" is sometimes erroneously restricted. There is a problem with definitions. Sometimes Africa is defined using cultural factors, like language, that exclude developments that clearly arose in Africa. For example, sometimes even the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea) is excluded because of geography and language and the fact that some of its peoples have narrow noses and faces.
The Sahara and the Sudan seem to have provided a major source for the genesis of Egyptian civilization contributing many of its unique elements.
"a critical factor in the rise of social complexity and the subsequent emergence of the Egyptian state in Upper Egypt (Hoffman 1979; Hassan 198 . If so, Egypt owes a major debt to those early pastoral groups in the Sahara; they may have provided Egypt with many of those features that still distinguish it from its neighbors to the east."
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 97-123 (199 , "Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory," Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild.
Keep on Reading:
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa..
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
Hope these studies wake you up from your dreaming of Egypt being non Black African.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horsefucker: I’m going to say this for one last time and after this I’m not repeating myself on this matter again – that study by Gonzales et al does not conclude that the ancestor of M1 has not been found, instead it specifically states that they have found evidence that M1 or its ancestor originated in Asia! As far as I know, the guy who runs the “Exploring Africa” blog is neither an anthropologist nor a geneticist – so any disputes that he has with this study is completely irrelevant! If he is in fact a trained specialist, then let him publish his theories in a peer-reviewed journal, then post a link to that study here. Until then, he has neither the authority nor the qualification to critique that paper.
TRANSLATION: You can't refute what Explorer had to say, so you resort to attacks on his credibility. Newsflash, there is nothing wrong with educated laymen like Explorer critiquing faulty science. Saying otherwise is like saying one has to be Steven Spielberg to review a movie or that one has to be Michelangelo to critique a piece of art!
Posts: 7078 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horsefucker: [QB]I’m going to say this for one last time and after this I’m not repeating myself on this matter again – that study by Gonzales et al does not conclude that the ancestor of M1 has not been found, instead it specifically states that they have found evidence that M1 or its ancestor originated in Asia! As far as I know, the guy who runs the “Exploring Africa” blog is neither an anthropologist nor a geneticist – so any disputes that he has with this study is completely irrelevant! If he is in fact a trained specialist, then let him publish his theories in a peer-reviewed journal, then post a link to that study here. Until then, he has neither the authority nor the qualification to critique that paper.
TRANSLATION: You can't refute what Explorer had to say, so you resort to attacks on his credibility. Newsflash, there is nothing wrong with educated laymen like Explorer critiquing faulty science. Saying otherwise is like saying one has to be Steven Spielberg to review a movie or that one has to be Michelangelo to critique a piece of art!
LMAO, the proper term for that is Ad-Homenem.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horsefucker: Uh, tubby – that bullshit claim has long been discredited by modern day genetics. If you have a study showing that there was a mass displacement of the Egyptian population then please post it here. You either put up or shut up – which is it?
You smelly-assed moron who lacks basic reading comprehension skills, I wasn't saying the Arabs displaced the natives. I only claimed that Arabs immigrated into Egypt. The Luis study could therefore have sampled a group descended from Arab immigrants instead of more typical Egyptians.
quote:It’s quite apparent to me that your brain obviously is working properly – if you don't have Down’s syndrome then my guess is that at the very least you must be suffering from some sort of Autism spectrum disorder.
I do have Asperger's Syndrome, but I'd rather have that than be a dishonest white supremacist imbecile like you. Whether or not Haplogroup V is Arab or African in origin is irrelevant---the Keita paper clearly shows that other haplogroups associated with Eurasians are less common in Upper Egyptians than Lower Egyptians.
Oh, and I notice that in another of your recent posts, you repeat the claim that modern Egyptians are just as tropically adapted as ancient Egyptians, even though I earlier showed you that the Egyptians in the study you cite were predynastic (this was also the same study you lied about when you said it didn't sample Mediterranean Europeans). You either have poor memory, no concept of honesty, or both.
Posts: 7078 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
not all Caucasians are snow white Is not this something, whites come in a range of colors but blacks must come in one phenotype and are located in one area on the globe, the hypocrisy is amazing.
Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! This Bullshit is debunked: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000009;p=8#000395
Along with the Bullshit that the Brown color of Egyptians only occurs in the Armana.
What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has been proven that the notion that the AE were black Africans is mere myth and nonsense! Yeah we have it too and it proves the Egyptians, Culture, Population etc stems form Southerly populations, in particular East Africa over the Med.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
so to his mind set the ancient egyptians have to be non african to save his precious greeks from the taint of black blood.
LOL..@ the Slav needs to claim Egypt to make up for his pathetic history as Saquiliba Slaves and trying to steal Macedonian Greek history.
LOL! I don't have to make up for anything. My people have a very rich and extensive history, which is alot more than I have to say for you and your ilk. Your ancestors didn't produce a single substantial civilization worth anymore than a passing mention (and you know it), which is exactly why Western Blacks are so desperate to latch onto AE. The history of the black is, has been and always will be a history of slavery and subjugation at the hands of Eurasian peoples. Tragic!
Going back so called Black Africans have a rich history, and if you have the nerve to Lump all "Eurasiatic" peoples in one group I can lump all African civilizations in one Group. I am well familiar with the history of all people not just Africans and a Slav like you has no room to talk about Slavery, after all your people were so common as slaves in the Islamic world that SLAVE comes from you..Slav/Slave. If it were not for the Ottoman Turks you would have retained that position. which is why Slavs like you are trying to claim Macedonia today.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:and whats your conclusion? the men work in the fields and the women stay inside. duhh primary school thinking lol.most show brown and dark brown if you look at it through most of the history
What I think you need to do is to actually go to a museum and see what AE art looks like. I’ve been to museums all around the world as well as to Egypt several times – the art clearly shows that they were Mediterranean Caucasians and not Negros:
quote:bones from the 19th dynasty a few thousand years after the first dynasty what does that prove? there were some asiatic peoples in egypt so what.] [and show me evidence of white egyptians from predynastic to at least the 3rd dynasty any evidence sceptic
Why don’t you actually read peer reviewed anthropological and DNA studies done by actual researcher instead of relying on all that bullshit posted by non-specialists on Afrocentrist websites? Or better yet why don’t you actually speak to Egyptologists (they are far more knowledgeable about Egyptian historiography, including its peopling, than all of the morons on this forum combined)? I’ve posted several studies regarding the ancient and modern Egyptians on both this thread and one I engaged in here . They all show population continuity from the Early Dynastic Period all the way up to the modern day era. If you genuinely seek the truth then I recommend that you read through all those posts that I have made – I’m not repeating myself for a newcomer.
quote:have you got the dna evidence with Dakhleh Oasis where can i find it
Previous genetic studies of Egyptian, Nubian, and Sudanese populations allowed for distinguishing between two mtDNA types: the so called “southern” (Sub-Saharan) and “northern” (Eurasian) (for details see: Chen et al. 1995; Krings et al. 1999). To obtain the frequencies of these mtDNA types, amplification of the HVRI region and three RFLP markers was conducted. The authors succeeded in analysing RFLP markers in 34 samples and HVRI sequences in 18 of the samples. Both populations, ancient and contemporary, fit the north-south clinal distribution of “southern” and “northern” mtDNA types (Graver et al. 2001). However, significant differences were found between these populations. Based on an increased frequency of HpaI 3592 (+) haplotypes in the contemporary Dakhlehian population, the authors suggested that, since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis. (“Research on ancient DNA in the Near East” Mateusz Baca, Martyna Molak 2008)
LMAO, More Cherry picking by Skeptic and his Meds Delusions..
and Vice Versa..
I will personally destroy this B.S claim.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness, despite what Afrocentrists will tell you, limb lengths have absolutely nothing to do with race as even anthropologist C. Loring Brace noted in his 1993 paper on the AE:
LMAO, Fool you realize your quote of C. Loring Brace actually debunks your whole premise and your belief in Negroid and Caucasian. So if you are going to quote him you need to be consistent.
Here is your own quote:
It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid”. (Clines and clusters versus “Race:” a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile, Brace et al, 1993)
And again even this quote agrees with us that Egyptians were Tropical rather than cold adapted and thus have nothing to do with the Mediterranean and the populations located there.
Second, General Anthropology proves Limb Length is used to determine, Tropical and Cold adaptions only renegade race believers like you ignore this fact.
Anthropologists have long recognized the existence among modern humans of geographical variations in body form that parallel climatic gradients, part of more general zoological phenomena commonly referred to as Bergmann's or Allen's “Rules”. These observations have rarely been applied to earlier hominids, in part because fossil skeletons usually are so incomplete that it is difficult to reconstruct body morphology accurately. However, within the past two decades two early hominids have been discovered that preserve enough of the skeleton to allow confident assessment of their body size and shape. Comparison of these specimens—the Australopithecus afarensis A.L. 288-1 (“Lucy”) and the Homo erectus KNM-WT 15000—with others that are less complete make it evident that the evolution of Homo erectus was accompanied by not only a marked increase in body size, but also a similarly dramatic increase in the linearity of body form. That is, relative to their heights, small australopithecines had very broad bodies, whereas large early Homo had narrow bodies. This difference in body form cannot be explained on the basis of obstetric or biomechanical factors, but is consistent with thermoregulatory constraints on body shape. Specifically, to maintain the same ratio of body surface area to body mass, which is an important thermoregulatory mechanism, increases in height should be accompanied by no change in body breadth, which is exactly what is seen in comparisons of A.L. 288-1 and KNM-WT 15000. Conversely, Neandertals living in colder climates had much wider bodies, which are adaptive for heat retention. Differences in limb length proportions between fossil hominids are also consistent with thermoregulatory principles and the geographic variation observed among modern humans. Climatic adaptation during hominid evolution may have wide-ranging implications, not only with regard to interpreting body morphology, but also in relation to ecological scenarios, population movements, and the evolution of the brain.
More
Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenetic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess “tropical” body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer’s “Afro-European Sapiens” model.
LMAO Dude you are a Fucking dunce for real, you next Quote even refutes your claim, thus you bold what you want and not in full context. If you quote this be consistant as it debunks your Mediteranian Egypt nonsense(I.E Egyptians Looking like Whites compared to blacks).
ROBINS (1983) and ROBINS & SHUTE (1983) have shown that more consistent results are obtained for ancient Egyptian male skeletons if TROTTER & GLESER formulae for negro subjects are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in the past. This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south. It does, however, suggest that their physical proportions were more similar to those of modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal limb segments that were long compared with the proximal segments. (Predynastic egyptian stature and physical proportions, Robins and Shute, 1986)
This also proves that there is no such thing as a Negro, the Egyptians were obviously black or what we would call black by their limb proportions but they distinguished themselves from Darker populations just as others do all OVER Africa. Second the BULLSHIT lie that Egyptians distinguished themselves from ALL Southerners will be dealt with.
Note that “more similar” does not mean identical, as even a 2008 paper found
No one says A.A are Identical, but the fact remains the Egyptians are similar to other African populations and Genetically, Linguistically, Culturally, Physically, and Relgiously Egyptians are similar to More Southerly Africans in particular "Nubians" over Eurpeans and Eurasians.
and on top of all of that the DNA evidence shows that the Egyptians (ancient and modern) are not closely affiliated with either of those men in those pics.
Just like Genetically, and Culturally the closest to the Egyptians come from and reside the South.. Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Why is 'Skeptic' so skeptical of FACTS yet a believer in bullsh|t??
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I do have Asperger's Syndrome, but I'd rather have that than be a dishonest white supremacist imbecile like you. Whether or not Haplogroup V is Arab or African in origin is irrelevant---the Keita paper clearly shows that other haplogroups associated with Eurasians are less common in Upper Egyptians than Lower Egyptians.
Oh, and I notice that in another of your recent posts, you repeat the claim that modern Egyptians are just as tropically adapted as ancient Egyptians, even though I earlier showed you that the Egyptians in the study you cite were predynastic (this was also the same study you lied about when you said it didn't sample Mediterranean Europeans). You either have poor memory, no concept of honesty, or both.
Brandon, you have no need to explain your personal conditions to trolls who suffer an even worse condition known as STUPIDITY. That is a syndrome NOTHING, no amount of therapy or psychiatry can help. Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's quite faint but you can clearly make out very minute traces of paint on her ankle, breast, and armpit.
quote:
Traces of original paint can be seen on the woman's chin and I can't tell if the faded tips of her hair to blonde was an original part of the depiction or if the paint faded later.
You see, I've noticed that alot perhaps ALL of these pics featuring unusually pale Egyptian women merely have their paint faded off. Now whether this is due to natural erosion OR vandalism is another issue. It could be the latter because so often the males in the same paintings have their color intact.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Now whether this is due to natural erosion OR vandalism is another issue. It could be the latter because so often the males in the same paintings have their color intact.
Why would someone want to vandalize the women in the art but not the men?
Posts: 7078 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can tell people that are not black like Djehuti but try black go overboard in an attempt to over compensate and wind up tripping on a banana peel
Posts: 42929 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ As usual your comments make no sense. First of all, it doesn't matter that I'm not black. What matters is the TRUTH. That Egyptians were Africans and yes were indeed black, yet such a truth has been denied and/or concealed for far too long. Second, the only one tripping around banana peels is YOU. All you do is slip and trip in this forum like a clumsy dummy.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Why would someone want to vandalize the women in the art but not the men?
Of course vandalism was done to male figures too, but I would think it is easier on female depictions because they are usually depicted in lighter color. Also, I think because women are usually the object of beauty, they are more focused on in looks than men.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Why would someone want to vandalize the women in the art but not the men?
Of course vandalism was done to male figures too, but I would think it is easier on female depictions because they are usually depicted in lighter color. Also, I think because women are usually the object of beauty, they are more focused on in looks than men.
translation: he made it up
Posts: 42929 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: most Egyptians are not painted dark brown they are painted medium reddish brown. You can find some exceptions but most are not "dark brown" Many people viewed as "black people" are medium brown not all dark brown anyway. I have posted the types of brown on page 1. Get with the program (not to say that all medium brown people are "black people" either many are not)
And likewise sweetheart, not all Caucasians are snow white. Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has been proven that the notion that the AE were black Africans is mere myth and nonsense!
so to his mind set the ancient egyptians have to be non african to save his precious greeks from the taint of black blood.
LOL..@ the Slav needs to claim Egypt to make up for his pathetic history as Saquiliba Slaves and trying to steal Macedonian Greek history.
LOL! I don't have to make up for anything. My people have a very rich and extensive history, which is alot more than I have to say for you and your ilk. Your ancestors didn't produce a single substantial civilization worth anymore than a passing mention (and you know it), which is exactly why Western Blacks are so desperate to latch onto AE. The history of the black is, has been and always will be a history of slavery and subjugation at the hands of Eurasian peoples. Tragic!
The Mamluk sultanate (1250–1517) emerged from the weakening of the Ayyubid realm in Egypt and Syria (1250–60). Ayyubid sultans depended on slave (Arabic: mamluk, literally "owned," or slave) soldiers for military organization, yet mamluks of Qipchaq Turkic origin eventually overthrew the last Ayyubid sultan in Egypt, al-Malik al-Ashraf (r. 1249–50) and established their own rule. Their unusual political system did not rely entirely on family succession to the throne—slaves were also recruited into the governing class. Hence the name of the sultanate later given by historians. Following the defeat of Mongol armies at the Battle of cAyn Jalut (1260), the Mamluks inherited the last Ayyubid strongholds in the eastern Mediterranean. Within a short period of time, the Mamluks created the greatest Islamic empire of the later Middle Ages, which included control of the holy cities Mecca and Medina.The Mamluk capital, Cairo, became the economic, cultural, and artistic center of the Arab Islamic world...
The Mamluk-Mongol wars yielded large numbers of women and children slaves who were sold at the various slave markets in Syria and Egypt (Baybars al-Dawadar, Zubdat al-Fikrah, 9: 268), especially during the reign of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad (Zubdat, 9:384) prior to the detente. It was also during this period that the Genoese merchants took an active role in this trade and sought to secure large numbers of Tatar children to be sold in the Crimea. This prompted Tuqtuq Khan of the Qipchaqs to raid the slave markets in the Crimea in an attempt to stiffle the trade. The trade does not seem to have abated in the least (Zubdat, 9: 460).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: most Egyptians are not painted dark brown they are painted medium reddish brown. You can find some exceptions but most are not "dark brown" Many people viewed as "black people" are medium brown not all dark brown anyway. I have posted the types of brown on page 1. Get with the program (not to say that all medium brown people are "black people" either many are not)
And likewise sweetheart, not all Caucasians are snow white. Have you ever been to a museum and seen what AE art looks like? In upwards of 90% of their art men are shown as being ruddy (what you term "medium reddish brown"), and women fair (either white or a pinky beige). Hardly what I would call a black African phenotype! What I think you need to do is to get with the program. We have their bones, we have their DNA - and from these it has been proven that the notion that the AE were black Africans is mere myth and nonsense!
And on the other hand!!!!!!
Project Guttenberg full text of: A HISTORY OF EGYPT FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PERSIAN CONQUEST
BY JAMES HENRY BREASTED, II, 760-1, 773. 2 II, 761.
Inscription
"the Asiatics of all countries came with bowed head, doing obeisance to the fame of his majesty."
book text:
"Thutmose's war-galleys moored in the harbour of the town; but at this time not merely the iceaUh of Asia was unloaded from the ships; the Asiatics themselves, bound one to another in long lines, were led down the gang planks to begin a life of slave- labour for the Pharaoh (Fig. 119). They wore long matted beards, an abomination to the Egyptians ; their hair hung in heavy black masses upon their shoulders, and they were clad in gaily coloured woolen stuffs, such as the Egyptian, spotless in his white linen robe, would never put on his body.
Their arms were pinioned behind them at the elbows or crossed over their heads and lashed together ; or, again, their hands were thrust through odd pointed ovals of wood, which served as hand-cuffs. The women carried their children slung in a fold of the mantle over their shoulders. With their strange speech and uncouth postures the poor wretches were the subject of jibe and merriment on the part of the multitude ; while the artists of the time could never forbear caricaturing them. Many of them found their way into the houses of the Pharaoh's favorites, and his generals were liberally rewarded with gifts of such slaves; but the larger number were immediately employed on the temple estates, the Pharaoh's domains, or in the construction of his great monuments and buildings."
Karnak in Thebes
The outer walls of the Hypostyle Hall are covered with scenes of battle. Again, Seti I is to the north and Ramesses II is to the south. The scenes have long since lost their color that was painted and the outlines of the scenes have been blurred by the centuries of wind and sun
It is unsure whether the scenes of battle are based on historical fact or of ritual significance. It is thought that when the battle details are very precise, real events are most likely involved. Seti's battles take place in Lebanon, southern Palestine and Syria.
The Nomes (Provinces) of Ancient Egypt
Jea-0124 Title: Great Temple of Ramses II, Abu Simbel Date: ca. 1254 BCE Description: relief detail at entrance: a row of Syrian prisoners Vendor: Saskia, Ltd.
"Relief depicting captives of war, Temple of Amun, Karnak,
The Battle of Kadesh is one of the most well known military campaigns of history because it is the earliest battle that can be reliably reconstructed in detail from various records on both sides of the conflict. Fought between Ramesses II, one of Egypt's best known pharaohs, and the Hittites under Muwatallish (along with a number of allies), this battle over control of Syrian territory has received considerable attention by many analysts over the years.
We know were that South is. And how they went back to that place of origin. Considered the long history of the Nabta Playa. Dating back to 11.000 bc.
CLEAR EVIDENCE IS IN RELIGIOUS PRACTICES and the way cattle's are being hold. THERE IS NO MORE DOUBT!
Then a king will come from the South, Ameny, the justified, my name, Son of a woman of Ta-Seti, child of Upper Egypt, He will take the white crown, he willjoin the Two Mighty Ones (the two crowns)
Asiatics will fall to his sword, Libyans will fall to his flame, Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might, As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him,
One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler, To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt..
Oh yeah, Upper Egypt was in fact NiloSaharan. And lower Egypt was in habited by Horners or a related group to the Horners.
The whole region was inhabited by these tribes including the Levant, dating back to prehistoric times and relatively ancient times. The corridor down, reaching Yemen, was ALL inhabited by these tribes. These tribes also moved into Western Asia. These tribes are still present over there, in this day and time.
"Simple put". The Middle-East is basically a mixture of Africans and Asians! From the early days on.
Posts: 447 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
The facial features of this statue strongly resemble other representations of Tutankhamun from his famous tomb, in the Valley of the Kings. This seventeen-foot, four-inch-tall statue of king Tutankhamun was excavated by the Oriental Institute at Medinet Habu in 1930.
Joseph and Mary Grimshaw Egyptian Gallery
Oriental Institute - University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois, USA
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: What do you base your opinion that that man's type was not present in A. Egypt. Im sure he is Tropically Adapted and clusters with Ethiopians and Nubians over Eurasians.
What does the man above have that was not present in Egypt?? Please post..
[IMG][/IMG]
Jarhead = Night of The Living Dummy!
p.s. The Nubians Themselves Cluster With Eurasians and Not Black Africans!
? Really?
Or is it just the other way around?
Vignette on Khonsu's inner coffin lid, New Kingdom, reign of Ramesses II, ca. 1279–1213 B.C.
Egyptian; From the tomb of Sennedjem, Deir el-Medina, western Thebes
Gessoed and painted wood H. of Khonsu 6 in.(15.3 cm) Funds from various donors, 1886 (86.1.2a)
Khabekhent's funerary servant and ushabti chest New Kingdom, 19th Dynasty, reign of Ramesses II, c. 1279-1213 BC
Upper Egypt, Deir el-Medina, tomb of Sennedjem (TT 1)
Painted limestone (figurine), stuccoed and painted wood (chest)
H.: 18.9 cm; W.: 6.3 cm; D.: 3.8 cm (figurine) H.: 30 cm; W.: 17.8 cm; D.: 18.3 cm (chest)
Those Middle Eastern you speak of who carried the E3B were eventually sub Sahara farmers, originating from Central Africa. There is a study on this by Brace.
Also, it surprises me you claim that E3B is not African in it's origin. When everyone knows that is has it's root is in East Africa!
Further more,
An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
K. Goddea, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
aDepartment of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 250 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
bDepartment of Science, South College, 3904 Lonas Dr, Knoxville, TN 37909, USA
Received 31 July 2008; accepted 10 August 2009. Available online 19 September 2009.
Abstract
Many authors have speculated on Nubian biological evolution. Because of the contact Nubians had with other peoples, migration and/or invasion (biological diffusion) were originally thought to be the biological mechanism for skeletal changes in Nubians. Later, a new hypothesis was put forth, the in situ hypothesis. The new hypothesis postulated that Nubians evolved in situ, without much genetic influence from foreign populations. This study examined 12 Egyptian and Nubian groups in an effort to explore the relationship between the two populations and to test the in situ hypothesis. Data from nine cranial nonmetric traits were assessed for an estimate of biological distance, using Mahalanobis D2 with a tetrachoric matrix. The distance scores were then input into principal coordinates analysis (PCO) to depict the relationships between the two populations. PCO detected 60% of the variation in the first two principal coordinates. A plot of the distance scores revealed only one cluster; the Nubian and Egyptian groups clustered together. The grouping of the Nubians and Egyptians indicates there may have been some sort of gene flow between these groups of Nubians and Egyptians. However, common adaptation to similar environments may also be responsible for this pattern. Although the predominant results in this study appear to support the biological diffusion hypothesis, the in situ hypothesis was not completely negated.
Posts: 447 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
Revelation of the racist fabrications by this group of handlers, or more specifically Western museum directors, is reported in the current issue of Archaeology Magazine 54 (September-October 2001, p. 27). This report is associated with an article by Peter Lacovara et al. Archaeology reported that in the absence of scholarship the directors of the Niagara Falls Museum in Ontario, Canada “fabricated pedigrees” for many of their Egyptian mummies in the mid-nineteenth century. The most imaginative of these fake pedigrees, or false identities, was created for a bearded male mummy of the Roman period. The museum officials invented the following elaborate story for him which is a complete myth:“General Ossipumphnoferu the General in Chief of Thotmes III.... He was a man of military skill, also a famous magician. He was 60 years old when he died. The scar on his forehead was caused by an enraged elephant while defending the king from his onslaughts. A palace was erected for the general near that of the king.” The museum officials took their scandalous activity even further, as for many years the “general” was displayed in the coffin of Iawttayesheret, a high-ranking woman from the 25th dynasty, which was 700 years before his time! It is incredible that the directors of a public museum would take an unidentified Roman period mummy, with a European facial appearance, put him in a woman’s coffin from 700 years earlier, and then create a bogus identity for him as a famous general during a period which was another 700 years earlier than the coffin he was buried in! Eventhough this mummy and other artifacts at the museum were not studied comprehensively by an Egyptologist, this is yet another case which documents that Western museum directors would go to any lengths in the 19th and early 20th century to falsify evidence.
Currently, there is no doubt that this list of conspirators includes local Egyptian government workers, who are carrying out many acts of destruction on a regular basis. These men either work for the Egyptian government on “conservation” projects, or for various European or North American archeological teams. On several occasions in the 1980s and 1990s, these unsupervised minimally-skilled government workers have been caught on video tape plastering over temple images and inscriptions! In fact, it is impossible to visit the Karnak Temple in Luxor and not see the recent defacement, and it is suspicious that with rare exception Egyptologists are silent about this matter.
Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature
"We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites... Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical... Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks...brachial indices are definitely more ‘African’... There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formula may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains." ("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf,(Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-5
In Egypt, the earliest evidence of humans can be recognized only from tools found scattered over an ancient surface, sometimes with hearths nearby. In Wadi Kubbaniya, a dried-up streambed cutting through the Western Desert to the floodplain northwest of Aswan in Upper Egypt, some interesting sites of the kind described above have been recorded. A cluster of Late Paleolithic camps was located in two different topographic zones: on the tops of dunes and the floor of the wadi (streambed) where it enters the valley. Although no signs of houses were found, diverse and sophisticated stone implements for hunting, fishing, and collecting and processing plants were discovered around hearths. Most tools were bladelets made from a local stone called chert that is widely used in tool fabrication. The bones of wild cattle, hartebeest, many types of fish and birds, as well as the occasional hippopotamus have been identified in the occupation layers. Charred remains of plants that the inhabitants consumed, especially tubers, have also been found.
It appears from the zoological and botanical remains at the various sites in this wadi that the two environmental zones were exploited at different times. We know that the dune sites were occupied when the Nile River flooded the wadi because large numbers of fish and migratory bird bones were found at this location. When the water receded, people then moved down onto the silt left behind on the wadi floor and the floodplain, probably following large animals that looked for water there in the dry season. Paleolithic peoples lived at Wadi Kubbaniya for about 2,000 years, exploiting the different environments as the seasons changed. Other ancient camps have been discovered along the Nile from Sudan to the Mediterranean, yielding similar tools and food remains. These sites demonstrate that the early inhabitants of the Nile valley and its nearby deserts had learned how to exploit local environments, developing economic strategies that were maintained in later cultural traditions of pharaonic Egypt.
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 neriod origin."
History in the Interpretation of the Pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt: A Consideration of Multiple Lines of Evidence,
"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).
This here is a bit off topic, yet very interesting!
Origins of dental crowding and malocclusions: an anthropological perspective.
Rose JC, Roblee RD.
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009 Jun;30(5):292-300.
The study of ancient Egyptian skeletons from Amarna, Egypt reveals extensive tooth wear but very little dental crowding, unlike in modern Americans. In the early 20th century, Percy Raymond Begg focused his research on extreme tooth wear coincident with traditional diets to justify teeth removal during orthodontic treatment. Anthropologists studying skeletons that were excavated along the Nile Valley in Egypt and the Sudan have demonstrated reductions in tooth size and changes in the face, including decreased robustness associated with the development of agriculture, but without any increase in the frequency of dental crowding and malocclusion. For thousands of years, facial and dental reduction stayed in step, more or less. These analyses suggest it was not the reduction in tooth wear that increased crowding and malocclusion, but rather the tremendous reduction in the forces of mastication, which produced this extreme tooth wear and the subsequent reduced jaw involvement. Thus, as modern food preparation techniques spread throughout the world during the 19th century, so did dental crowding. This research provides support for the development of orthodontic therapies that increase jaw dimensions rather than the use of tooth removal to relieve crowding.
Posts: 447 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
Somewhat older, yet interesting as well. Specially for the time being, so!
Journal of Human Evolution Volume 1, Issue 3, May 1972, Pages 247-257
The medical biology of the early Egyptian populations from Asswan, Assyut and Gebelenstar, open
Merton Ian Satinoffa, b, c, 1
a) Sub-Department of the History of Medicine, University College, London, England
b) Department of Morbid Anatomy London, England
c) Institute of Orthopaedics, London, England Received 18 April 1969. Available online 24 March 2006.
Abstract
A survey on the palaeopathology of the ancient Egyptian skeletal collection at the Institute of Anthropology at the University of Turin is described. A series of 1300 skulls and 650 skeletons of dynastic period and 59 skeletons of Pre-dynastic period was examined. The source of the osteo-archeological material, consisting of male and female skeletons of adults and children, excavated from sites at Assyut, Gebelen and Asswan is outlined. The exceptionally well preserved state and documentation of the material in the collection is noted. The method of investigation is reported. The results of the survey are described. The frequent difficulties of diagnosis presented particularly by lesions of inflammatory and neoplastic diseases in ancient bones are emphasized and the necessity of establishing more precise patterns of skeletal manifestations and well defined criteria of diagnosis is stressed.
The use of X-ray examination proved to be of great value especially in the study of malocclusions of teeth and certain cranial anomalies of unknown aetiology, namely “bilateral symmetrical depressions of the parietal bones” and “cribra orbitalia and cribra cranii”; further detailed studies and research into these ill understood conditions are much needed.
The singular example of malignant disease in the Turin collection is described in a skeleton of the Ptolemaic period excavated at Assyut; the differential diagnosis of the multiple lesions of the malignant tumour is discussed. Emphasis is laid on the congenital abnormalities, important because of their genetic and biological significance in comparative studies with data from other early populations and, in consequence, because these hereditary anomalies might throw light on the spread and prevalence of marker genes in antiquity.
Although the statistics of this survey of such a relatively small and isolated sample should be considered with caution, the importance of the epidemiological approach to human palaeopathology in the right context is stressed; that is the comparative study of disease processes in different ancient populations. Correspondingly in the comparison of the medical biology of early populations, an attempt should be made to collect not only all the palaeopathological data and demographic analyses of ancient populations, but also to correlate these findings with certain environmental data and documented stratification reports supplied by the archaeologists and the historians. In this way, when all this comparative statistical data can be incorporated with other epidemiological surveys it may be possible to investigate the origin and geographical migration of certain diseases through time.
star, openThis paper formed one of the contributions to a Symposium on Population Biology of the Early Egyptians organized by B. A. Chiarelli (Institute of Anthropology, University of Turin) and D. R. Brothwell (British Museum of Natural History, London). The Symposium was held at the Montaldo Castle (Turin) from April 16th to 18th 1969.
1 Formerly at The Nuffield Department of Pathology, Gibson Laboratories, Radcliffe Infirmary, The University of Oxford, England
Posts: 447 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
This is the root of ancient Egypt. Not somewhere in "lala land"! Ancient Egypt was not the height, but the ending of the civilization! Don't get it twisted!
Nubia's Oldest House?
Some of the most important evidence of early man in Nubia was discovered recently by an expedition of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, under the direction of Dr. Kryzstof Grzymski, on the east bank of the Nile, about 70 miles (116 km) south of Dongola, Sudan. During the early 1990's, this team discovered several sites containing hundreds of Paleolithic hand axes. At one site, however, the team identified an apparent stone tool workshop, where thousands of sandstone hand axes and flakes lay on the ground around a row of large stones set in a line, suggesting the remains of a shelter. This seems to be the earliest "habitation" site yet discovered in the Nile Valley and may be up to 70,000 years old.
What the Nubian environment was like throughout these distant times, we cannot know with certainty, but it must have changed many times. For many thousands of years it was probably far different than what it is today. Between about 50,000 to 25,000 years ago, the hand axe gradually disappeared and was replaced with numerous distinctive chipped stone industries that varied from region to region, suggesting the presence in Nubia of many different peoples or tribal groups dwelling in close proximity to each other. When we first encounter skeletal remains in Nubia, they are those of modern man: homo sapiens.
Nubia's Oldest Battle?
From about 25,000 to 8,000 years ago, the environment gradually evolved to its present state. From this phase several very early settlement sites have been identified at the Second Cataract, near the Egypt-Sudan border. These appear to have been used seasonally by people leading a semi-nomadic existence. The people hunted, fished, and ground wild grain. The first cemeteries also appear, suggesting that people may have been living at least partly sedentary lives. One cemetery site at Jebel Sahaba, near Wadi Halfa, Sudan, contained a number of bodies that had suffered violent deaths and were buried in a mass grave. This suggests that people, even 10,000 years ago, had begun to compete with each other for resources and were willing to kill each other to control them.
Three scale models—of the Mesolithic hut of el-Barga (7500 B.C.), the proto-urban agglomeration of the Pre-Kerma (3000 B.C.) and the ancient city of Kerma (2500-1500 B.C.)—give a glimpse of the world of the living. They show the evolution of settlements for each of the key periods in Nubian history. Huts indicate the birth of a sedentary way of life, the agglomeration confirms the settling of populations on a territory and the capital of the Kingdom of Kerma marks the culmination of the complexification of Nubian architecture with its ever more monumental constructions. The three models were created in Switzerland by Hugo Lienhard and were installed in the museum in January 2009.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic