quote:Originally posted by DaDumb1_01: Indigenous Africans are not necessarily black people... This is the crux of the matter, and the fact most flagrantly ignored by afrocentrists... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people
LOL Actually what you say is the lie that is deliberately propagated by Eurocentrists.
FACT 1. Most of Africa is tropical with some portions being subtropical.
FACT 2. Because of the following fact above there is no such thing as indigenous whites.
FACT 3. Berber strictly speaking is a culturo-linguistic group and it is a fallacy to identify Berber with whites only since a good portion of Berber peoples are still black just as the original proto-Berbers were, since Berber is indigenous to Africa and Facts 1 & 2. stated above.
FACT 4. The only reason for the existence of lighter skinned or even 'white' types in Africa is due to immigrations from Europe and elsewhere across the Mediterranean. It's funny how when blacks are found in North Africa they are assumed to be recent arrivals from "Sub-Sahara" but never the whites who are descendants of European slaves etc.
Thus the whole notion of white indigenous collapses.
besides being very humerous... Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Zarahan Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bag&action=display&thread=699#ixzz1NMsQPfy3 Btw was it you who made a thread or posted on some busted Eurocentric admitted blatantly lying about the African read Blk make up of Kemet to one of his posters a fellow Euro-centrist who got so distraught he/she exposed him I am looking for that post that was excellent could you repost it please.
Brada, can't remember where that one is. Only thing I can think of is White Nord lying about the dates of various studies. There are a lot better rebuttals done by ES vets though. But I think the link below may be the one that you are referring to:
Originally posted by White Nord: 1) Let me get this straight, you’re having issues with the date and not the content? Ok just wanted to make sureeee! ‘Cause correcting the date does not change the content.
No matter what bogus date you choose, your still fail, and you have already been debunked on the content. Why are you still running away from your earlier lies in this thread, where you put more recent dates on one of your outmoded studies, trying to pas it off as more recent as everyone saw in the link below? You make a fetish out of “more recent” dates. It is obvious that you were trying to pad the study dates so you could continue this deception. No one is being fooled ace. See: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=001736;p=2
Nord always claims more "recent" studies show white Egypt and Africa, than is why he falsified the dates on the old ones above, and was caught out in a lie...
2) Now let's look at your bogus claim #2- claim calling such people as the Hausa "white":
“We study the major levels of Y-chromosome haplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populations by typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated males representing the three linguistic families in Sudan. Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively…. haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group…. haplogroups F-M89, I-M170, J-12f2, and J2-M172 were found to be more frequent in the Afro-Asiatic speaking groups.” (“Y-Chromosome Variatio LOL your comprehension sills are as hideous as your arithmetic. How does 24.8% negroid outweigh the 75.2% non-negroid? LOL dunce and this is not even discussing mtdna! There are Caucasian haplogroups represented in Sudan and surrounding Beja, Copts, Hausa, Fulani. Ironic that the very ones that are “Afro Asiatic” have these Caucasian haplogroups which indicates that Caucasians brought the language into Africa. “haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups”
I think its both your comprehension and math skills that need a workout "Nord". You play another bogus game, defining a host of African groups as 'Caucasian" so you can do your little "white math." That won't work. The overall weight is still African, and that includes Haplogroup E.
Nord loses again...
3) Now let's take your bogus claim #3- where you assert that the Afro Asiatic languages were brought into Africa by white people.
- "Ironic that the very ones that are “Afro Asiatic” have these Caucasian haplogroups which indicates that Caucasians brought the language into Africa. “haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups” "
Nord you fail again. Almost all of the Afro Asiatic languages originated in Africa. There was no need for your fantasy 'Caucasoids" to bring them. Respected mainstream scholars destroy your claim as follows:
"the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. They included peoples from the Afro-Asiastic linguistic group and the second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). -- Christopher Ehret, "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 25-27
".. the Horn of Africa certainly contributed more recently to the Near East, because based on linguistic re- construction and the principles of "least moves" and "greatest diversity." It is the geographical home of the ancestor of Afro-Asiatic languages, spoken primarily in Africa with one member in the Near East (Semitic) (Ehret 1984, 1995; Ruhlen 1987). Early Afro-Asiatic spread out from the Horn and did not come into Africa from Asia (brought by "Caucasians") as was believed at one time, and as is occasionally assumed by non-linguists (e.g., Barbujani and Pilastro 1993; Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995). In fact, there is evidence for movement out of Africa at the very time some claim in-migration (Bar-Josef 1987). By the time of the radiation of Afro-Asiatic speakers there was already genetic differentiation in Africa due to African biohistorical processes. There is no need to postulate massive European settler colonization of Africa or genetic swamping and/or settler colonization by Eurasians, as is implied or stated in some contemporary genetic work (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), echoing the now defunct Hamitic hypothesis. Continental African variation may be interpreted largely without external mass invasions. The antiquity of modern humans in Africa means that there has been time to accumulate a large amount of random genetic variation (Cavalli-Sforza et. al. 1983), which has been shaped by great ecological diversity in the continent (Hiernaux 1975). Genetic drift would also contribute to variability due to fluctuations in population size as founder effects and population expansion events occurred throughout the continent. Therefore it is far more accurate to speak of a range of biohistorical African variants than different races of Africans. Northern Africans are more accurately conceptualized as primarily the products of differentiation than of hybridization." --( S.O.Y. Keita and R. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544)
Nord loses again...
4) Now lets look at your bogus claim #4- the Ethiopians as "white"
On your bogus claim - further white Ethiopians: ”The apportionment of individuals (the average per-individual proportion of ancestry) from each of the eight populations into the four structure-defined clusters 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. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans....” (J.F. Wilson et al. Nature Genetics 29:265-269, 2001)
Claims of a "Caucasoid" Ethiopia via Wilson are contradicted by Passarino 1998, Cavalli-Sforza 1997 and Richards 2003, all of which show Ethiopians to cluster primarily with other African groups. As to claims re Wilson's Nordic-Ethiopian match, his sampling methods under-represented the majority Oromo. So much for your "Aryan" Ethiopians.
sorry 'Nord'...
Now let's look at your "recent study" fetish:
"That’s a lie, Wilsons 2001 study came AFTER Passarinno 1998 and Cavalli-Sforza 1997 so how could they “contradict” it?
Nord, nord.. sigh.... Just because one study comes after another does not make the later study "true". Must we AGAIN explain such elementary matters to you?
And another bogus claim by you: the Ethiopian gene pool also embraces a considerable component indicative of admixture with populations of Arabian and/or Near Eastern origin (Cavalli-Sforza 1997; Passarino et al., 1998; Thomas et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004).” (Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears Toomas Kivisild et al., 2004) It says what it says and there is nothing you Afronuts can do. Every single study shows Ethiopians and Somalis to be more Caucasoid than negroid…
Nord your own studies that you quoted so much on ES over time debunk you. We all know Ethiopians had some gene low from elsewhere over the eras of their long history but your own Cavalli-Sforza studies show the Ethiopians at 60% African., and that’s using the old-fashioned “true negro” model Cavalli-Sdforza uses. Why are you trying to backtrack now?
5) Now lets look at your bogus claim #5- the Somalis as white.
Right off the bat the “study” above lacks credibility on the topic of African population history. The PDF is about 2 pages listing no tables or charts, or a breakdown of the sample. It does not reference any previous work in the field. Note the authors statement" "The results are consistent with hypothesis, supported by cultural and historical evidence, of common origin of the Somali population.” The only thing is that they have nothing on Somali population history at all, just a description of the tests they ran. This thin reed would not pass peer review by credible anthropologists. Maybe that is why it is in a Blood transfusion journal. But in any event 2 things further undermine it for those claiming "white Somalis":
a)) We all know Somalis have had recent gene flow, from Arabs for example, particularly near the coast. The author above however curiously posts no breakdown of his sample, as is common in studies of other scholars in the field. Hammer 1997 for example in his sample admits that they were all drawn from the far north, near Cairo. This should already tell us how shaky the above “Somali research’ is when they hide their sampling detail.
b))) Second, it is undermined by much more credible studies in the field, which address the issues directly with standard DNA markers. They found that Somalis link more closely with other Africans than Europeans or Middle Easterners. Of course Nord will say ooooohhh, since the dubious “study” above was done in 2006 it must “supercede” anything before, lol… just as how Hilter’s Mein kampf “supercedes” all that was humane and democratic about Germany before he came to power. But this approach is typical of racist neo-nazis like Nord. Much more credible studies place the Somalis closer to Africans.
Nord again loses...
6) Now lets look at your bogus claim #6- the Ethiopians as white again. You post a quote from Bosch, but it already fails in how you try to use it:
[QUOTE] “An extensive bibliographic search was conducted to compile all available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations. The data were then synthesized to reconstruct the population's demographic history using principal components analysis and genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. Both analyses identified an east-west pattern of genetic variation in northern Africa pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Libya and Egypt are also the smallest genetic distances away from European populations. Demic diffusion during the Neolithic period could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe through a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East , but a Mesolithic or older differentiation of the populations into the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand this genetic picture. Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers, the most isolated groups, were the most differentiated, while Arab speakers overall are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. The genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small .” (Population History of North Africa: Evidence from Classical Genetic Markers” Bosch et al. 2005)
you lose again “Nord”… and the study you quote is from 1997, not 2005- you lied and padded the study dates to make it appear more recent.. busted!
7) now lets look at your bogus claim #7- saying that Keita found so-called European metrics…
Even Keita states that “European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites” is Keita being deceitful? Or are you reatards just cherry picking quotes and manipulating them to suit your racist agendas since after all that is what Afrocentrics are good at.
Of course Keita found European metrics but this still does not make your white Egypt claim for two reasons. First the genetic diversity of Africa is so much black populations can show “European” metrics in skulls as part of their built in diversity. Second, you talk about “cherry pickin’ but you conveniently forget to put in the rest of what Keita said. He said that overall, the weight of the data was with Africans. In other studies he also mentions limb proportion studies which show the main cluster is with dark-skinned Africans not whites or Middle easterners, and that includes even northern Egyptians.
Again you fail… “Nord”…
8) Now let’s look at your bogus claim #8- where you use lactose tolerance to claim a “white” North Africa:
We found that the frequency of the -13910T allele predicts the frequency of lactose tolerance in several Eurasian and North African Berber populations but not in most sub-Saharan African populations. Our analyses suggest that contemporary Berber populations possess the genetic signature of a past migration of pastoralists from the Middle East and that they share a dairying origin with Europeans and Asians, but not with sub-Saharan Africans. (“Genetic evidence in support of a shared Eurasian-North African dairying origin” 2005)
The above study can only speak for its sample really because lactose tolerance is old news in Africa. It was developed independently in Africa as noted by recent DNA studies and the link below long ago on ES. So again you fail.
‘North Africa” by the way includes massive parts of Mail, Chad, Niger and the Sudan so any attempts to paint it “white” also fail. Anyone can show some Eurasian gene flow into the region, and we all know it happened, but that doesn’t make North Africa “white”. For decades North Africa has been defined as including Chad, Mali, Niger and the Northern Sudan. The only way you can sustain a “white” north Africa is to conveniently exclude these areas, as well as selectively define away various African peoples as “non african”, but no one is being fooled ace..
here’s a quote from a vaunted “MORE RECENT” report on DNA studies, lol..
A research team led by Dr. Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland has now solved much of the puzzle. After testing for lactose tolerance and genetic makeup among 43 ethnic groups in East Africa, she and her colleagues have found three new mutations, all independent of one another and of the European mutation, that keep the lactase gene permanently switched on. The principal mutation, found among Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania, arose 2,700 to 6,800 years ago, according to genetic estimates, Dr. Tishkoff’s group reports today in the journal Nature Genetics. This fits well with archaeological evidence suggesting that pastoral peoples from the north reached northern Kenya about 4,500 years ago and southern Kenya and Tanzania 3,300 years ago.” Lactose Tolerance in East Africa Points to Recent Evolution By NICHOLAS WADE, NY Times Science 2006
oooooohhhhhhhhhh…… 2006 study data “supercedes” your 2005 study
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Maybe you can run it down. Here's the remainder of the old White Nord lying thread:
9)) Now lets take your bogus claim #9- a few sub-Saharans at an oasis means a “white Egypt” lol
“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) Regardless of the date, all the studies consistently show that sub-saharan dna appears to be small and the Molak study was just completed last year! There is NO WAY you Afronuts can refute this, so you bitch about an incorrect date. It doesn’t negate the fact, AFRONUT.
Lol.. Is this all you got ‘Nerd”? what’s there to ‘refute”? All your precious oasis study shows is that, to quote the study: “since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis.” Lol… this is earth shattering? That a minor oasis saw some sub-Saharan gene flow? Lol
10) Now let’s take a look at your miscellaneous claims re “white Africa’:
The peopling of northern Africa appears to be conditioned by the barriers imposed to the north by the Mediterranean Sea and to the south by the Sahara Desert, which constrains human movement to an east-west direction. The harsh landscape, in which mountainous areas are surrounded by arid extensions, favors a dispersed, fragmented pattern of of human settlement… Demic diffusion of Neolithic populations from the Fertile Crescent is thought to have homogenized the genetic composition of the European populations (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993, 1994), and it created a major southeast to northwest gradient (Sokal et al. 1991)… population replacement during the Neolithic from the Levant could explain the genetic similarity between Libya, Egypt, and the European populations.” (Population history of North Africa: Evidence from classical genetic markers” Human Biology; Bosch, E; Calafell, F; Perez-Lezaun, et al 2005)
The only thing wrong your “white Egypt” and “white Africa” claim based on this text is that the Sahara was not always a desert. It was a well watered greenbelt in various eras and in various areas, and populations moved back and forth. So the vaunted “East-West movement blockage” is a limited claim indeed. Also your passage says nothing about any Cakazoids taking over North Africa- it says ”thought to have homogenized the genetic composition of the European populations.” It says nothing about a white North Africa. It confines itself to the Europeanized populations that had moved in and what some scholars "thought." Your own source once again undermines you claim Ace. When did Chad Niger, Mali, or the Sudan become “white” in your passage? Most of these areas are above the Sahara and have historically been classified as “North Africa”. Again you fail. As for more recent references: here’s one that is gasp, MORE RECENT than your 2005 reference, and it disputes the alleged population replacement theory. Oooooohhhhhhh… more recent Ace….
^^look Nerd look.. recent 2008 date on data from Keita... doesn't it "supercede" your stuff? lol
11) On your "White Fulani" mix claims:
" that “diversity” you speak so strongly all the time is in reality Caucasian dna that penetrated into deep Africa. Why it shows there is Western Eurasian dna in Fulani yet you insist this is natural black variation? LMAO. DENIAL! 8.1% is a large amount considering the distance it had to travel, yet you want to act like there were no whites in ancient Egypt! Remember slug this is just the maternal dna. I don’t care if that Western Eurasian dna stood at .01% in the Fulani, it is there and that is what accounts for the variation and you no longer need to be confused about their features.
Only one problem “Nord”.. I said quote: “subsets of that diversity flowed out from East Africa to various other parts of Africa and outside Africa..” and I said this in relation to links with east Africa, not your inflowing “wandering Caucasoids”. And we all know ancient Egypt had gene flow from Persians, romans etc etc at various eras of its history. Your attempt to create a bogus strawman point fails miserably. But even if we grant you a white Fulani percentage, your own data makes the “wandering Caucasoid” influx rather less than impressive. Quote from your own reference: The haplogroups of Western Eurasian origin , such as J1b, U5, H, and V, were also detected but in rather low frequencies (8.1% in total).
So your vaunted cakazoids weigh in at a mere 8%. ooooohhhhhhhhh……… 8% wandering Caucasoids…. Impressive…..
Looks like you fail again “Nord”… multiple at bats, multiple strikeouts… Isn’t there anyone in your "Aryan” camp that can get the job done better than you? Send in fat Madilda!
Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Calabooz post away if you find it, they know they are lying and really do have an agenda I remember the dude saying something like this after his distrought follower threatened to expose him Yeah go ahead and do that how very Jew of you. and Zarahan that was indeed a classic beat down I sometimes wonder if people come here because they are masochistic.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
note: the 30th parallel latitude passes through the middle of Iran. It also passes through:
Egypt, Libya and Algeria
lp
Yes, MOST of Africa is tropical with the rest being subtropical. Also, what does Mozabites being 80% African genetically have to do with the fact that some of them, especially those in coastal areas are obviously genetically influenced by non-Africans??
As for the latitude of Iran. Must we go over what the aboriginal Iranians or Elamites looked like again?
More obtuse logic brought to you by Lyingass Productions.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^lol... Good pic. Indeed, as we have often noted, Hanihara sampled ancient Iranians for his West Asian sample and and found that they resembled sub-Saharan Africans.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah yeah that it heheh this thread had the wrong title this should become a sticky thanks calabooz ur a trooper... And an ouutstanding job by Astenb.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5906 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rahotep are you sure you want to use this individual as a some kinda blond Euro prop?? I am giving you a chance here.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ LOL Of course there were blondes in ancient Iran associated with later Aryan speakers as there are today in Iran as well as Afghanistan etc. The question is what the hell does they have to do with the [b]aboriginal[/i] people?? By the way, what is the date of that blonde haired man?? Is his hair naturally blonde or was it altered since he is labeled as a "salt mummy" and we all know what long-term natron exposure does to hair?? Is there something you know Brada?? Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The head (left) and leg (right) of a naturally made mummy found in 2004 display "salt-cured" skin and yellowish hair after spending centuries in an Iranian salt mine. The remains belong to one of five mummies found in the mine between 1993 and 2005. Last month an international team announced the discovery of a sixth salt man from the mine, and the experts say more could eventually be unearthed. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/3020824.html
posted
I perfer the culud version ma self lioness..these guys didn't go to no tanning salon all Natural Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Another retarded thread that is self-therapeutic psychological projection by a Euronut.
If the concept of ancient Egypt being black African is such "bullsh|t" then why have any of you jerk-offs been unable to refute it??
We've posted countless studies from mainstream scholars from archaeologists, linguistics, and physical anthropologists and geneticists alike.
You can see a summary of the evidence here and yet not any piece fails to be refuted. Why is that??
Can any White Nerds and Confirmed Nuts and others usurping African names refute any of these tidbits alone?
Abbas S. Mohammed-Ali1, and Abdel-Rahim M. Khabir African Archaeological Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, March 2003 From the chronological standpoint, it seems that the overall radiometric dates of the early ceramics from the Central Nile Valley are generally in accordance with their counterpart in the Sahara-Sahel Belt, dated to the tenth–eighth millennium bp. (eighth–sixth millenium BC). These dates may suggest that pottery developed locally from early prototypes as early as 10,000 bp. The origin(s) of the wavy line and dotted wavy line ceramics is much more complex than was once thought. The reason(s) behind the invention of pottery lies mainly in the need for containers that permit wider uses of food techniques than is otherwise possible, as well as other different sets of advantages for the general mode of living (Arnold, 1985, pp. 127–166). The invention of pottery and harpoons are critical events in the process that led to the expansion of aquatic resource exploitation, as is manifested in the Nile Valley (see supra; Haaland, 1995; Sutton, 1974, pp. 529–531). Also, the Sahara-Sahel Belt might have only opened up for the kind of resource exploitation that necessitates the invention of ceramics by the early Holocene (see Clark, 1980; Hassan, 1986).
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990).-- Godde (2009)
"During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. .. Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin." --(A-M Mekota and M Vermehren. (2005) Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues. Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, Vol. 80, No. 1, Pages 7-13
Egypt was more of a mixture of people. More Middle Eastern in the North and Black in the South.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Actually what you say is the lie that is deliberately propagated by Eurocentrists.
FACT 1. Most of Africa is tropical with some portions being subtropical.
FACT 2. Because of the following fact above there is no such thing as indigenous whites.
FACT 3. Berber strictly speaking is a culturo-linguistic group and it is a fallacy to identify Berber with whites only since a good portion of Berber peoples are still black just as the original proto-Berbers were, since Berber is indigenous to Africa and Facts 1 & 2. stated above.
FACT 4. The only reason for the existence of lighter skinned or even 'white' types in Africa is due to immigrations from Europe and elsewhere across the Mediterranean. It's funny how when blacks are found in North Africa they are assumed to be recent arrivals from "Sub-Sahara" but never the whites who are descendants of European slaves etc.
Thus the whole notion of white indigenes collapses. [/QB]
Umm in most of the coastal areas of North Africa, the climate is similar to that of Southern Europe. And for this reason European settlers have lived comfortably in North Africa since ancient times up until the recent colonies of France in Algeria and Morocco etc..It's practically Europe's backyard.
I wouldn't say Berbers were all White. I have known a few in France. Some are more European looking and others look mixed. But the majority are more or less Middle Eastern looking.
But the fact is Eurasians did Estbalish themselves in North Africa long ago since at least the last glacial maximum. And Blacks have moved south ever since the Sahara dried up as Eurasians have been pushing southward. This is why you find so few Blacks in North Africa Today. Most of the ones you do find where brought there during the slave trade under Islamic rule. This is documented. The White Europeans slaves where sent all over the Arab world. in any case they would have been arabized and absorbed by the population in major urban centers. It is doubtful they would have ended up in some remote Berber village such as in the Rif Mountians were some of the fairest skinned Berbers come from. Think about it.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Uh, first of all coastal North Africa is similar to southern Europe but not the same as it is still at lower latitudes. The climate of coastal southern Africa is also similar to that southern Europe which is why its climate is called "Meditteranean" as well. Also where is the evidence that Europeans established themselves in North Africa during the LGM??! Can you cite any evidence of this?? The earliest evidence of whites in North Africa date back to at least the Iron Age judging by Egyptian records. On the other hand we have proof of black Africans in Europe since at least the neolithic as shown by skeletal remains as well as haplogroup E.
Also who says there are "few" blacks in North Africa?? There are actually plenty of blacks in North Africa it is whites that are the minority, as even the vast majority of Berbers in the coast are obviously of mixed so-called "mulatto" in appearance!
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: This is probably the best image you have ever posted, good work Watson, finally starting to post Dark Skinned Egyptians..
More Representation of Egyptian Reddish Brown
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
[/QB]
And none resemble Nubians as how the ancient Egyptians depicted them:
Aside from this, there were migrations from the Middle East even farther back and a shared culture (Iberomaurusian) which bridged North Africa and Spain. Additionally The Megalithic culture which stretched across Western European, the one responsible for Stonehenge, reached as far as North Africa as well. [img] http://www.photos-morocco.com/images/20090203073715_menhir-monuments-msoura-morocco.jpg [/img]
It is absurd to think that North Africa was ever in anyway isloated from Europe and the Middle East especially cosnsidering that Spain at its closet point comes withinn about 8 miles of the Northern tip of Morocco. In Easrlier times the Mediterranean basin was even shallower.
On the other hand we have proof of black Africans in Europe since at least the neolithic as shown by skeletal remains as well as haplogroup E.
You should know that Haplogroup E3b went through a long journey of many thousands years before crossing into Europe through Anatolia. By the time it arrived in Europe it is doubtful its carriers were Blacks. Same with R1b in Cameroon, Africa. They may carry a European haplotype but that doesn't make them White. Also the vast majority of mtDna in North Africa is Eurasian
Also who says there are "few" blacks in North Africa?? There are actually plenty of blacks in North Africa it is whites that are the minority, as even the vast majority of Berbers in the coast are obviously of mixed so-called "mulatto" in appearance!
I don't call North Africans White as that is a socio political term. But the majority are Middle Eastern/Mediterrean looking. So called Blacsk are few and are considered to have brought over from Sub Saharan countries in recent times.
"The term Gnawa has three important meanings. First, it refers to black people who were enslaved in West Africa. It is commonly believed that Gnawa of Morocco were originally black slaves and who over time had become free under various historical circumstances. Historians believe that the Gnawa population originated from black West Africa - from Senegal to Chad and from Mali in the north to Nigeria in the south. Many of these enslaved people are thought to come from Old Ghana (a kingdom north of Mali) in the 11th through the 13th century. These enslaved groups were called “Gnawa.” There is also some historical evidence that a large enslaved population came from the great market of Djenne in Mali, and that Gnawi is a slight deformation of Jennawi. The term Gnawa is thus a color designation. It historically means “the black people.”..
Not all blacks in Morocco were slaves that originated from black West Africa. Some blacks were actually native to southern Morocco. Some sources suggest that groups of black people were indigenous of the Draa valley. They were sedentary agriculturists. With the advance of the Romans into the Moroccan interior in the 3rd century B.C.E., the Berbers, who inhabited the coastal areas of the Maghreb of North Africa, may have been forced to move towards the south and competed with the blacks inhabitants in the oases of the Draa, entering into an interdependent or clientele relationship with the Blacks, with the Berbers assuming the patron role...
Etymologically speaking, the meaning of Gnawa likely derives from the Berber word aguinaw, which is connected with skin color. It means “black man” in contrast with the white Berber. This word could be itself the origin of the name Guinea because akal n-iguinamen in Berber means the “land of the black men” just like the Arabic term bilad as-sudan, which means, “land of the black people.” The term was also adopted by the Portuguese and appeared mainly as “Guinea” on European maps dating from the 14th century." http://www.afropop.org/multi/feature/ID/618
You will find the situation to be similar in most North African countires.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: 9)) Now lets take your bogus claim #9- a few sub-Saharans at an oasis means a;white Egypt; lol
Labeling a scientific study as bogus is hilarious, coming from you.
quote: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) Regardless of the date, all the studies consistently show that sub-saharan dna appears to be small and the Molak study was just completed last year! There is NO WAY you Afronuts can refute this, so you bitch about an incorrect date. It doesn’t negate the fact, AFRONUT.
Lol.. Is this all you got ‘Nerd”? what’s there to ‘refute”? All your precious oasis study shows is that, to quote the study: “since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis.” Lol… this is earth shattering? That a minor oasis saw some sub-Saharan gene flow? Lol
Boy this ones got you in a bind. Feeling insecure and covering it with multiple "lol's" will do you no good, as it's a reflection of your insecurites. It's all you've got. A "minor" oasis should have seen major Sub Saharan gene flow considering its location and all the time in the world to acquire it. I mean, this is Africa right where you clowns claim only blacks inhabited Africa until recently but apparently blacks did not inhabit this portion of the southern Egyptian desert until recently. Habitation started there during the Pleistocene, and increased during the Holocene when the desert became dryer, so wouldn't be considered "minor" as it sustained populations who were dependent on it for survival. It is lacking in Sub Saharan dna until Roman times. So how did that Caucasoid dna get there before Roman times, before Sub Saharans? Keep up your denials, it's fun watching you squirm.
"Dakhleh was occupied before and during the early Egyptian Neolithic and Predynastic periods, and so has a role in understanding the rise of the Egyptian state."
quote: 10) Now let’s take a look at your miscellaneous claims re “white Africa’:
The peopling of northern Africa appears to be conditioned by the barriers imposed to the north by the Mediterranean Sea and to the south by the Sahara Desert, which constrains human movement to an east-west direction. The harsh landscape, in which mountainous areas are surrounded by arid extensions, favors a dispersed, fragmented pattern of of human settlement… Demic diffusion of Neolithic populations from the Fertile Crescent is thought to have homogenized the genetic composition of the European populations (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993, 1994), and it created a major southeast to northwest gradient (Sokal et al. 1991)… population replacement during the Neolithic from the Levant could explain the genetic similarity between Libya, Egypt, and the European populations.” (Population history of North Africa: Evidence from classical genetic markers” Human Biology; Bosch, E; Calafell, F; Perez-Lezaun, et al 2005)
LOL @ "miscellaneous claims" Stop crying. It's a genetic study based on east/west gentic patters and geography.
quote:The only thing wrong your “white Egypt” and “white Africa” claim based on this text is that the Sahara was not always a desert.
That's not the issue here. The Sahara became a desert around 4,000 to 5,000 years ago, the rains ceased to their present levels. The article is discussing the NEOLITHIC which is about the time Egypt was becoming populated and the climate/environment changed.
quote:It was a well watered greenbelt in various eras and in various areas, and populations moved back and forth. So the vaunted “East-West movement blockage” is a limited claim indeed.
Naturally to you it is, since you're head over heels in denial, but not according to the analysis of the findings. It says nothing about "East-West movement blockage" but it does say "which constrains human movement to an east-west direction. so that is a falsification on your part.
"The Sahara was a strong geographical barrier against gene flow, at least since 5,000 years ago, when desertification affected a larger region" Harich et al, 2010)
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also your passage says nothing about any Cakazoids taking over North Africa- it says ”thought to have homogenized the genetic composition of the European populations.” It says nothing about a white North Africa. It confines itself to the Europeanized populations that had moved in and what some scholars "thought."
The passage certainly says nothing about any negroids taking over North Africa does it? It says "population replacement during the Neolithic from the Levant could explain the genetic similarity between Libya, Egypt, and the European populations.”
Neolithic>Levant>genetic similarity
Funny how you completely dismiss it.
quote: Your own source once again undermines you claim Ace.
It undermins several of your claims.
quote: When did Chad Niger, Mali, or the Sudan become “white” in your passage?
They're not discussing Chad, Niger or Mali per se but the Sahara as a whole during the Neolithic. Read it.
quote: Most of these areas are above the Sahara and have historically been classified as “North Africa”.
Nope. Chad (classified as Central Africa), Niger (classified as Western Africa) and Mali (classified as Western Africa) aren't mentioned in the passage since it has to do with North Africa.
quote: Again you fail. As for more recent references: here’s one that is gasp, MORE RECENT than your 2005 reference, and it disputes the alleged population replacement theory. Oooooohhhhhhh… more recent Ace….
Africanamericanculturalcenter"???? With a name like that as a reference as if it's not biased. Why not link to the actual source, that is if you have nothing to hide.
quote:
^^look Nerd look.. recent 2008 date on data from Keita... doesn't it "supercede" your stuff? lol
No, it doesn't and the following quote supports Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993, 1994, Sokal et al. 1991, Bosch, E; Calafell, F; Perez-Lezaun, et al 2005:
"The interpolation analyses and complete sequencing of present mtDNA sub-Saharan lineages observed in North Africa support the genetic impact of recent trans-Saharan migrations, namely the slave trade initiated by the Arab conquest of North Africa in the seventh century. Saharan people did not leave traces in the North African maternal gene pool for the time of its settlement, some 40,000 years ago." (Harich et al, 2010)
OoOoOoO GASP! Doesn't that^ date supersede your stuff?
And I see "suggest" "if" "may" "might" in your paper. Haplogroup E is named Eurasian Adam by Spencer Wells. Ouch.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged |
" that “diversity” you speak so strongly all the time is in reality Caucasian dna that penetrated into deep Africa. Why it shows there is Western Eurasian dna in Fulani yet you insist this is natural black variation? LMAO. DENIAL! 8.1% is a large amount considering the distance it had to travel, yet you want to act like there were no whites in ancient Egypt! Remember slug this is just the maternal dna. I don’t care if that Western Eurasian dna stood at .01% in the Fulani, it is there and that is what accounts for the variation and you no longer need to be confused about their features.
Only one problem “Nord”.. I said quote: “subsets of that diversity flowed out from East Africa to various other parts of Africa and outside Africa..” and I said this in relation to links with east Africa,
"Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe, also reaching India, and expanding to north and east Asia. More recent migrations have entangled but not completely erased these primitive footprints of modern human expansions." (Maca-Meyer, et al. 2001
quote: not your inflowing “wandering Caucasoids”.
Finally admitting what you already knew?
quote:And we all know ancient Egypt had gene flow from Persians, romans etc etc at various eras of its history.
And Nubians. Yet none of it ties into the fact that the Fulani received Caucasoid gene flow long before Persians and Romans:
"Because the exact period of Fulani migration cannot be estimated from archeological studies, we selected 4,000 years rather intuitively as the time to the possible admixture event.” (“mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations” V. Cerný et al 2006)
quote:Your attempt to create a bogus strawman point fails miserably. But even if we grant you a white Fulani percentage, your own data makes the “wandering Caucasoid” influx rather less than impressive. Quote from your own reference: The haplogroups of Western Eurasian origin , such as J1b, U5, H, and V, were also detected but in rather low frequencies (8.1% in total).
The point made, is that there were Caucasoids in Africa and it certainly reflected in the Fulani no matter how miniscule you think it was. But that is based on Fulani mtDNA. Now for Ydna:
"The Fulani, who possess the lowest population size in this study, have an interesting genetic structure, effectively consisting of two haplogroups or founding lineages. One of the lineages is R-M173 (53.8%), and its sheer frequency suggests either a recent migration of this group to Africa and/or a restricted gene flow due to linguistic or cultural barriers. The high frequency of sub-clade E-V22, which is believed to be northeast African (Cruciani et al., 2007) and haplogroup R-M173, suggests an amalgamation of two populations/cultures that took place sometime in the past in eastern or central Africa. This is also evident from the frequency of the ‘‘T’’ allele of the lactase persistence gene that is uniquely present in considerable frequencies among the Fulani (Mulcare et al.,2004). Interestingly, Fulani language is classified in the Niger-Congo family of languages which is more prevalent in West Africa and among Bantu speakers, yet their Y-chromosomes show very little evidence of West African genetic affiliation. (“Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History” Cavalli-Sforza et al 2008
quote:So your vaunted cakazoids weigh in at a mere 8%.
LOL not on the YDNA. Anyway, what's a "vaunted cakazoid"?
quote:Looks like you fail again “Nord”… multiple at bats, multiple strikeouts… Isn’t there anyone in your "Aryan” camp that can get the job done better than you? Send in fat Madilda!
Seriously delusional and conceited. If you think you're the best Afrocentrism has got to offer it would explain why it has failed so horribly.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously this guy is biased in favor of outdated research and doesn't know wtf he's talking about. I mean, really now.
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously the outdated excuse is a lame attempt to dismiss the information. There are no studies that directly refute any of the above information that I posted. In fact, the 2010 Harich paper confirms Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993, 1994, Sokal et al. 1991, Bosch, E; Calafell, F; Perez-Lezaun, et al 2005 making it all consistant. So you, at the very least, would need five recent studies that refute the information concerning the Dakhela Oasis. Where is it?
Your friend conceded with his LOL's and complete lack of an answer, humiliating himself calling one of the earliest and important predynastic settlements that sustained populations "minor".
"Dakhleh was occupied before and during the early Egyptian Neolithic and Predynastic periods, and so has a role in understanding the rise of the Egyptian state."
A role in the rise of the Egyptian state, but no Sub Saharan input til Roman times. That's is a damming blow to your ideology and also explains why you're so speechless as well.
Now, where is a paper that refutes Cavalli-Sforza's 2008 study on the Fulani possessing 58% R-M173? Do you even have one?
I've seen you post loads of what you would call outdated material that predates the dates I've posted. Yes, one standard for Afrocentrics, another standard for everyone else. I see exactly how this place works.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obviously the outdated excuse is a lame attempt to dismiss the information. There are no studies that directly refute any of the above information that I posted.
Well, lets see about that:
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Boy this ones got you in a bind. Feeling insecure and covering it with multiple "lol's" will do you no good, as it's a reflection of your insecurites. It's all you've got. A "minor" oasis should have seen major Sub Saharan gene flow considering its location and all the time in the world to acquire it. I mean, this is Africa right where you clowns claim only blacks inhabited Africa until recently but apparently blacks did not inhabit this portion of the southern Egyptian desert until recently. Habitation started there during the Pleistocene, and increased during the Holocene when the desert became dryer, so wouldn't be considered "minor" as it sustained populations who were dependent on it for survival. It is lacking in Sub Saharan dna until Roman times. So how did that Caucasoid dna get there before Roman times, before Sub Saharans? Keep up your denials, it's fun watching you squirm.
"Dakhleh was occupied before and during the early Egyptian Neolithic and Predynastic periods, and so has a role in understanding the rise of the Egyptian state."
Dakhela Oasis
No wonder you are eager to dismiss it.
Now, did you bother to read said study? Because if you did, you would realize that they used the HpaI 3592 marker which does not test for the most ancient sub-Saharan lineage in north Africa- i.e., L3. Only L1 and L2. Therefore giving unreliable results. More info on this in a sec
quote:That's not the issue here. The Sahara became a desert around 4,000 to 5,000 years ago, the rains ceased to their present levels. The article is discussing the NEOLITHIC which is about the time Egypt was becoming populated and the climate/environment changed.
And the period when sub-Saharan influence was greatest in north Africa was BEFORE there was a Sahara.
quote:Naturally to you it is, since you're head over heels in denial, but not according to the analysis of the findings. It says nothing about "East-West movement blockage" but it does say "which constrains human movement to an east-west direction. so that is a falsification on your part.
"The Sahara was a strong geographical barrier against gene flow, at least since 5,000 years ago, when desertification affected a larger region" Harich et al, 2010)
Again I must repeat the fact that even the cited article by yourself says: "At least since 5,000 years ago". And as I pointed out, sub-Saharan gene flow into the Nile Valley region was PRE-Neolithic era (Mesolithic and before). How do we know? Because a more RECENT article has shown this to be the case:
In the present work, mtDNA data show a diversified distribution of African haplogroups. However, a question remains concerning the date of the sub-Saharan African inputs. Our results demonstrate an ancient local evolution in Tunisia of some African haplogroups (L2a, L3*, and L3b). The most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced from eastern sub-Saharan populations to North Africa about 20,000 years ago. The Siwa oasis sample studied by Coudray et al. (2009) contains sub-Saharan haplogroups L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2, which are different from our Tunisian samples, in agreement with the heterogeneity of Berbers already shown in Tunisia.--Frigi et al. 2010
Which brings me to the point I was raising earlier. The article you mentioned did not test for L3 which we now know to have been introduced in ancient times. The same Frigi et al. goes on to say:
Our results also point to a less ancient western African gene flow to Tunisia involving haplogroups L2a and L3b. Thus the sub-Saharan contribution to northern Africa starting from the east would have taken place **before the Neolithic**. The western African contribution to North Africa should have occurred **before the Sahara’s formation (15,000 years BP)**. It seems likely that an expansion would have taken place in the Sahel zone starting about the time of a gradual climatic return to wetter conditions, when the Senegal River cut through the dunes (Burke et al. 1971). For subhaplogroup L2a1 (data not shown) we found some haplotypes that the Tunisian Berbers shared with Mauritanians and western sub-Saharan populations speaking a Niger-Congo language (studied by Salas et al. 2002).--Frigi et al. 2010
So even the west African input was pre-Neolithic. And this is a time when there were WETTER conditions. You are speaking about the return of desert conditions.
quote:The passage certainly says nothing about any negroids taking over North Africa does it? It says "population replacement during the Neolithic from the Levant could explain the genetic similarity between Libya, Egypt, and the European populations.”
Neolithic>Levant>genetic similarity
Funny how you completely dismiss it.
This is what I mean with outdated material. There is no genetic similarity with Egypt and Libya and ancient Egyptians certainly did not have an affinity with Europeans. The most recent article from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology:
"The distribution of subsets of haplogroups U6 and M1 also suggests the presence of a discontinuity between Libya and Egypt, separating western North Africa from eastern North Africa. Even if both haplogroups are thought to have been carried by a back-to-Africa migration from the Near East, significant increased U6 frequencies have been detected in the West compared to the East. The network of all U6 sequences found in the database presents two nodes with star-like shape, U6a* and U6a1. In a similar way, M1a1 is the node with starlike topology in haplogroup M1, and the node where most of the eastern sequences are found." --Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2011
What genetic similarity you talking bout! This also shows on the Y chromosome data where the main Northwest African genetic variant E-M81 only reaches 10% in Egypt!
quote: "The interpolation analyses and complete sequencing of present mtDNA sub-Saharan lineages observed in North Africa support the genetic impact of recent trans-Saharan migrations, namely the slave trade initiated by the Arab conquest of North Africa in the seventh century. Saharan people did not leave traces in the North African maternal gene pool for the time of its settlement, some 40,000 years ago." (Harich et al, 2010)
As you can see from the more RECENT article I cited above (Frigi et al) Harich et al. has been DEBUNKED
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Iah: The point made, is that there were Caucasoids in Africa and it certainly reflected in the Fulani no matter how miniscule you think it was. But that is based on Fulani mtDNA. Now for Ydna:
"The Fulani, who possess the lowest population size in this study, have an interesting genetic structure, effectively consisting of two haplogroups or founding lineages. One of the lineages is R-M173 (53.8%), and its sheer frequency suggests either a recent migration of this group to Africa and/or a restricted gene flow due to linguistic or cultural barriers. The high frequency of sub-clade E-V22, which is believed to be northeast African (Cruciani et al., 2007) and haplogroup R-M173, suggests an amalgamation of two populations/cultures that took place sometime in the past in eastern or central Africa. This is also evident from the frequency of the ‘‘T’’ allele of the lactase persistence gene that is uniquely present in considerable frequencies among the Fulani (Mulcare et al.,2004). Interestingly, Fulani language is classified in the Niger-Congo family of languages which is more prevalent in West Africa and among Bantu speakers, yet their Y-chromosomes show very little evidence of West African genetic affiliation. (“Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History” Cavalli-Sforza et al 2008
You don't understand that they are only speaking of ONE group of the Fulani in SUDAN. Other Fulani groups yield different results which is why Keita et al. responded to Hassan et al:
Hassan et al.’s (2008, p 321) suggestion of a non-African origin for the Fulani is a direct extrapolation based on the predominance (53.8%) of the R1*M173 lineage (an M89 lineage) in a single sample (n 5 26) from Sudan. However, analyses of other samples of Fulani give different results. Here, Y chromosome lineages are discussed in terms of their major markers, which will be understood to include downstream derivatives. For example, M35 will be used to mean both M35* and its derivatives M35/M81, M35/78, etc. In one sample from Guinea Bissau (n 5 59), the markers and frequencies are as follows: M2 275.6%, M35 213.6%, M33 26.8%, and 1.7% each of M75, M91, and M89-derived lineages (Rosa et al., 2007). In another study, based primarily on TaqI 49a, f variants, which can be ‘‘translated’’ into biallelic counterparts, a Fulani (called Peul) sample (n 5 54) from Burkina Faso has these frequencies: M2%–50%, M35 222.1% lineages (Lucotte et al., 2007). A small sample (n 5 20) of Fulbe from one area of the Cameroons has the M33 (E1*) lineage at a frequency of 52% (Scozzari et al., 1997, 1999). Hassan et al.’s sample also has a high percentage of M35 (34.6%). The mix of M2 and M35 lineages, both derivatives of P2 (or PN2) (see dendrogram in Hassan et al.), may reflect the sahara/sahel having served as an interaction zone of populations— a metapopulation which shuffled lineages—in the wetter periods of the early Holocene (Keita, 2005a; Kuper and Kropelin, 2006). The M2 lineage is sometimes almost characterized as being found only associated with the Niger Congo language phylum (Hassan et al., 321), of which Bantu is a subgroup. M2 lineages are found in populations languages from non-Bantu Niger Congo, Nilo-Saharan, and Afro-Asiatic phyla [see discussion in Keita (2005a)], and in high frequencies in West Africa including the Senegambia region Scozzari, 1997, 1999; Lucotte et al., 2007; Rosa et al., 2007).
Source: Keita et al. 2010: Letter to the Editor: Commentary on the Fulani—History, Genetics, and Linguistics, an Adjunct to Hassan et al., 2008
BTW, Hassan is the main contributor to that article, so it should be HASSAN ET AL. and not Cavalli-Sforza et al
quote:Now, where is a paper that refutes Cavalli-Sforza's 2008 study on the Fulani possessing 58% R-M173? Do you even have one?
The frequencies of R1* in the Fulani likely experienced what we call, GENETIC DRIFT. And it doesn't need to be refuted if that sample of Fulani is not representative of all the Fulani
quote:A role in the rise of the Egyptian state, but no Sub Saharan input til Roman times. That's is a damming blow to your ideology and also explains why you're so speechless as well.
Sub-Saharan Gene flow->Ancient
On the other hand, European gene flow didn't come in until the late period LOL!
Not to mention sub-Saharan Africans populated North Africa:
Molecular studies on the Y chromosome in North Africa are interpreted as indicating that the southern part of Africa, namely, the Horn/East Africa, was a major source of population in the Nile Valley and northwest Africa after the Last Glacial Maximum, with some migration into the Near East and southern Europe (Bosch et al. 2001; Underhill et al. 2001).--Frigi et al. 2010
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
*yawn* Perhaps a thread should be created entitled 'Why do Euro-Nuts continuously post their tired, DEBUNKED, Bullshit across the internet, and especially this forum??'.
Even these new trolls like IyamStupid are too easy fodder for the likes of us. Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I can say to this nonsense of Fulanis having Eurasian genes and therefore being mixed is that its WRONG.
In Cameroon where the Sudanese Fulbe are from, you find many ethnic groups with R1. The highest recorded being in the Uldeme who have R1 at over 90%+. This gene does NOT mean that fula are mixed Africans because we know that in Cameroon Africans with the socalled "true negro" phenotype have this gene. This new poster really needs to educate himself on African diversity.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: How come Rameses is said to have natural red hair? Could he have been a white pharaoh? They examined his hair and concluded that he was born a red head.
I don't know but there are many threads on Ramses attesting to his obscure origins. Linguistic dissimilarities are noted in the form of him giving one of his daughters a non-Egyptian/Semitic name and Cranio-Facial patterns even show a definite non-affinity with Egyptians of the previous dynasty leading into question that maybe the Ramsoids were of at least partly foreign extraction.
"Description of X-ray images of Royal Mummies in X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies"
quote:Ramesses II
Father: Seti I, Mother: Queen Mut-Tuy Rounded forehead with sagittal plateau. Slight, rounded glabella. Proclined upper incisors; receding chin with high ANB. Rather long ramus with weak inclination of mandible. Orthognathous.
Compared to say:
quote: "The Elder Lady"
First identified as Queen Tiye
The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism.
"In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity, while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period.
Though see this as well, since it should be informative and much of it was already covered by Rasol via Ausar.
Now, did you bother to read said study? Because if you did, you would realize that they used the HpaI 3592 marker which does not test for the most ancient sub-Saharan lineage in north Africa- i.e., L3. Only L1 and L2. Therefore giving unreliable results. More info on this in a sec
Quit crying and making up stuff. There is no negroid mtdna until Roman times and this is based on several studies as cited in Molak 2008. The Hpal 3592 marker is represented by L1 & L2 and has a single origin in Sub Sahara (Chen et al. 1995), which means all mtDNA types with this site are classified as southern, meaning L1 and L2 are essentially African specific, which they tested, yet L3 which is characterized by the loss of the HpaI site at np 3592 is ubiquitous, therefore not African specific.
If you bothered to read the study you would have noticed Molak et al is not discussing North Africa, but the Dakhleh Oasis located in south west Egypt. (North East Africa).
"The aim of the study was to characterize the ancient population from the Dakhleh Oasis. To allow for inferences regarding population changes at the oasis, 94 contemporary samples were also analyzed. 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 Hpa I 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."
Sub Saharan markers and its sub clades were tested. Still no Sub Saharan dna found imprinted on this important foundation of Egyptian civilization until Roman times. Case closed.
quote:And the period when sub-Saharan influence was greatest in north Africa was BEFORE there was a Sahara. Again I must repeat the fact that even the cited article by yourself says: "At least since 5,000 years ago".
The only mtdna Sub Saharan influence comes from L3 which is questionable since it's not African specific. The rest: L1 and L2 are recent.
The Dakhleh Oasis started coming into use during the drying phase "at least since 5,000 years ago".
"The aim of the study was to characterize the ancient population from the Dakhleh Oasis."
"In the south-east corner of Dakhleh, various stone-built structures are present; it remains unclear how typical this oasis was for the whole of the Western Desert, but it obviously contains the strongest cultural parallels with the Nile Valley. After 4900BC and especially from 4400BC onwards, the desert became less and less inhabitable because of the onset of the arid climate that continues up to the present day." Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt Ian Shaw 2003
But lets look at your quote again:
quote: And the period when sub-Saharan influence was greatest in north Africa was BEFORE there was a Sahara.
I seriously doubt that (as we will soon see), and North Africa is irrelevant to the discussion of the Dakhleh Oasis, but look at what you just admitted. Sub Saharan influence BEFORE the Sahara. Not AFTER. You are arguing against yourself.
quote:And as I pointed out, sub-Saharan gene flow into the Nile Valley region was PRE-Neolithic era (Mesolithic and before). How do we know? Because a more RECENT article has shown this to be the case:
And then you post a quote that has nothing to do with the Nile Valley region (below) but Tunisia and Siwa Berbers:
quote: In the present work, mtDNA data show a diversified distribution of African haplogroups. However, a question remains concerning the date of the sub-Saharan African inputs.
Our results demonstrate an ancient local evolution in Tunisia of some African haplogroups (L2a, L3*, and L3b). The most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced from eastern sub-Saharan populations to North Africa about 20,000 years ago. The Siwa oasis sample studied by Coudray et al. (2009) contains sub-Saharan haplogroups L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2, which are different from our Tunisian samples, in agreement with the heterogeneity of Berbers already shown in Tunisia. --Frigi et al. 2010
Which brings me to the point I was raising earlier.
Do you see Dakhleh Oasis in there? Do you? No, so you have no "point" sincenone of the papers you cited mention the Dakhleh Oasis. And TUNISIA? Are you kidding? Tunisa is NOT in Egypt and the Siwa Oasis is on the western border of Egypt and Libya. And besides that, you better try harder, than 20,000 years ago We're talking about the DAKHLEH Oasis of SW Egypt and you bring up some off point about Siwa oasis and Tunisia 10,000 years prior and completely irrelevant to the discussion.
quote:The article you mentioned did not test for L3 which we now know to have been introduced in ancient times. The same Frigi et al. goes on to say:
And where does Frigi go on to say anything about the Dakhleh Oasis?
quote:Our results also point to a less ancient western African gene flow to Tunisiainvolving haplogroups L2a and L3b. Thus the sub-Saharan contribution to northern Africa starting from the east would have taken place **before the Neolithic**. The western African contribution to North Africa should have occurred **before the Sahara’s formation (15,000 years BP)**. It seems likely that an expansion would have taken place in the Sahel zone starting about the time of a gradual climatic return to wetter conditions, when the Senegal River cut through the dunes (Burke et al. 1971). For subhaplogroup L2a1 (data not shown) we found some haplotypes that the Tunisian Berbers shared with Mauritanians and western sub-Saharan populations speaking a Niger-Congo language (studied by Salas et al. 2002).--Frigi et al. 2010
I don't see Dakheleh Oasis mentioned at all. Do you? No. Not even Egypt. And look at that, it eventually turns out L2a and L3b are RECENT in North Africa and rather RECENT in Sub Saharan Africa. Still nothing about the Dakhleh Oasis because you have no explanation, just diversion.
quote:So even the west African input was pre-Neolithic. And this is a time when there were WETTER conditions. You are speaking about the return of desert conditions.
Of course I'm talking about the Sahara's desiccation, I've pointed that out several times in my previous post after all, that is when the Dakhleh started to populate.
"The Sahara was a strong geographical barrier against gene flow, at least since 5,000 years ago, when desertification affected a larger region, but the Arab trans-Saharan slave trade could have facilitate enormously this migration of lineages." Harich et al, 2010
"The distribution of the main L haplogroups in North Africa clearly reflects the known trans-Saharan slave routes: West is dominated by L1b, L2b, L2c, L2d, L3b and L3d; the Center by L3e and some L3f and L3w; the East by L0a, L3h, L3i, L3x and, in common with the Center, L3f and L3w; while, L2a is almost everywhere. Ages for the haplogroups observed in both sides of the Saharan desert testify the recent origin (holocenic) of these haplogroups in sub-Saharan Africa, claiming a RECENT introduction in North Africa, further strengthened by the no detection of local expansions. Harich et al, 2010
^Harich et al, 2010 is echoed inyour source Fadhlaoui-Zid et al 2011 with no objections:
"The L1b, L3b, and L3f1b lineages, which have a mainly western African distribution (Salas et al., 2002; Harich et al., 2010) are more frequent in NW African samples and rare in NE African populations. Harich et al. (2010) proposed that the origin of most of the sub-Saharan sequences found in North Africa can be found in the impact of the trans-Saharan slave trade routes that were established during recent times.
Your source Fadhlaoui-Zid et al 2011 continues:
"The analysis of mitochondrial (mtDNA) lineages has shown that, in spite of an important sub-Saharan contribution, most haplogroups in North Africa are of Eurasian origin (Rando et al., 1998; Krings et al., 1999; Plaza et al., 2003; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2004; Harich et al., 2010). Some can be traced to ancient Paleolithic times (such as haplogroups U6, M1b, which are almost specific of northern African populations); however, some maternal lineages have been recently acquired from Europe or the Middle East (such as haplogroups U5, V, R0a, J1b, U3) (Maca-Meyer et al., 2003; Olivieri et al., 2006; Gonzalez et al., 2007). Several studies suggest that at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), around 13,000 ya, humans expanded from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge toward Europe and North Africa, spreading mtDNA haplogroups H1, H3, and V (Torroni et al., 1998, 2001; Achilli et al., 2004, 2005; Loogvali et al., 2004; Pereira et al., 2005; Cherni et al., 2009; Ennafaa et al., 2009; Rhouda et al., 2009; Ottoni et al., 2010).
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The passage certainly says nothing about any negroids taking over North Africa does it? It says "population replacement during the Neolithic from the Levant could explain the
genetic similarity between Libya, Egypt, and the European populations.”
Neolithic>Levant>genetic similarity
Funny how you completely dismiss it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I mean with outdated material. There is no genetic similarity with Egypt and Libya and ancient Egyptians certainly did not have an affinity with Europeans.
Yet you can't even refute that.
And the study on the Dakhleh Oasis debunks your claim. Quoting information on Tunisia and Libya, and on top of that 10,000 years before the state formation of Egypt is not a rebuttle against the Dakhleh Oasis inhabitants who gave rise to Egyptian civilization. All of the western Sub Saharan haplogroups mentioned show no ancient genetic similarity with Egypt and certainly not the Dakhleh Oasis, for which it was tested and evidently recently arrived with the trans Saharan slave trade. Outdated? You've posted outdated material. You're not even on point with this one.
Haplogroup U is named the Europa clan:
"U6a2, and U6d diffused to East Africa, possibly along the Nile Valley. Our phylogeographic studies of mtDNA haplogroups reinforce the scenario that the first Upper Paleolithic cultures in North Africa (Dabban) and Europe (Aurignacian) had a common source in the Levant (14, 25, 26) and in fact spread by migration from some core area in the Levantine Corridor. The dispersal of Levantine people to Europe and North Africa was then marked by the mtDNA haplogroups U5 and U6/M1, respectively." Olivieri et al. 2006
"Libya and Egypt are also the smallest genetic distances away from European populations. Demic diffusion during the Neolithic period could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe through a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East. The genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small.” Bosch et al 1997
Bosch et al 1997 also supported by more recent 2005 paper:
"population replacement during the Neolithic from the Levant could explain the genetic similarity between Libya, Egypt, and the European populations.” Population history of North Africa: Evidence from classical genetic markers” Human Biology; Bosch, E; Calafell, F; Perez-Lezaun, et al 2005
And more recently:
"Archaeological studies have revealed cultural connections between the two sides of the Red Sea dating to prehistory. The issue has still not been properly addressed, however, by archaeogenetics. We focus our attention here on the mitochondrial haplogroup HV1 that is present in both the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa. The internal variation of 38 complete mitochondrial DNA sequences (20 of them presented here for the first time) affiliated into this haplogroup testify to its emergence during the late glacial maximum, most probably in the Near East, with subsequent dispersion via population expansions when climatic conditions improved. Detailed phylogeography of HV1 sequences shows that more recent demographic upheavals likely contributed to their spread from West Arabia to East Africa, a finding concordant with archaeological records suggesting intensive maritime trade in the Red Sea from the sixth millennium BC onwards. Closer genetic exchanges are apparent between the Horn of Africa and Yemen, while Egyptian HV1 haplotypes seem to be more similar to the Near Eastern ones." Musilová et al June 9, 2011
"6th millennium BC onwards" : that's right on par with Egypt's state formation.
quote: The most recent article from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology:
"The distribution of subsets of haplogroups U6 and M1 also suggests the presence of a discontinuity between Libya and Egypt, separating western North Africa from eastern North Africa. Even if both haplogroups are thought to have been carried by a back-to-Africa migrationfrom the Near East, significant increased U6 frequencies have been detected in the West compared to the East. The network of all U6 sequences found in the database presents two nodes with star-like shape, U6a* and U6a1. In a similar way, M1a1 is the node with starlike topology in haplogroup M1, and the node where most of the eastern sequences are found." --Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2011
U6 decreases eastwards probably due to gene flow from the Near East as attested for the higher frequencies of H4, H5, H7, H8 and H11 subgroups.
Lets see what else your article states:
"The L1b, L3b, and L3f1b lineages, which have a mainly western African distribution (Salas et al., 2002; Harich et al., 2010) are more frequent in NW African samples and rare in NE African populations. Harich et al. (2010)proposed that the origin of most of the sub-Saharan sequences found in North Africa can be found in the impact of the trans-Saharan slave trade routes that were established during recent times.
You're willing to admit there were Caucasoids in the Levant and Caucasoids in Libya, but seem to think Egypt was completely void from them? LOL you think that these haplogroups just managed to hop skip and jump completely over Egypt without leaving any genetic legacy. Unbelievable!
quote: What genetic similarity you talking bout!
See all the above.
quote:This also shows on the Y chromosome data where the main Northwest African genetic variant E-M81 only reaches 10% in Egypt!
No source for your 10% claim.
BTW, your wonderful L2a is found in only 5% of Egyptians Kivisild et al., 2004 and E is designated as Eurasian Adam by Spencer Wells.
quote:"The interpolation analyses and complete sequencing of present mtDNA sub-Saharan lineages observed in North Africa support the genetic impact of recent trans-Saharan migrations, namely the slave trade initiated by the Arab conquest of North Africa in the seventh century. Saharan people did not leave traces in the North African maternal gene pool for the time of its settlement, some 40,000 years ago." (Harich et al, 2010) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see from the more RECENT article I cited above (Frigi et al) Harich et al. has been DEBUNKED
Nope. If it was "debunked" by Frigi, then Frigi would have directly debunked Harich or at least mentioned Harich et al 2010 in passing, but he didn't. Harich et al is a complete thorough study with all haplogroups/haplotypes listed, is cemented firmly in your own more recent source Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2011 Consider yourself DEBUNKED.
Not a single one of your sources even mention the Dakhleh Oasis . Refutation?Where is it? I asked for FIVE studies that DIRECTLY REFUTE the FIVE studies that support Molak's 2008 "DAKHLEH OASIS".
You couldn't even do that.
And since you have established that you can not provide 5 studies that refute Molak 2008, you have essentially confirmed that there was no Sub Saharan dna envolved at all in the Dakhleh Oasis or state formation process.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Iah: The point made, is that there were Caucasoids in Africa and is certainly reflected in the Fulani no matter how miniscule you think it was. But that is based on Fulani mtDNA. Now for Ydna:
"The Fulani, who possess the lowest population size in this study, have an interesting genetic structure, effectively consisting of two haplogroups or founding lineages. One of the lineages is R-M173 (53.8%), and its sheer frequency suggests either a recent migration of this group to Africa and/or a restricted gene flow due to linguistic or cultural barriers. The high frequency of sub-clade E-V22, which is believed to be northeast African (Cruciani et al., 2007) and haplogroup R-M173, suggests an amalgamation of two populations/cultures that took place sometime in the past in eastern or central Africa. This is also evident from the frequency of the ‘‘T’’ allele of the lactase persistence gene that is uniquely present in considerable frequencies among the Fulani (Mulcare et al.,2004). Interestingly, Fulani language is classified in the Niger-Congo family of languages which is more prevalent in West Africa and among Bantu speakers, yet their Y-chromosomes show very little evidence of West African genetic affiliation. (“Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History” Cavalli-Sforza et al 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't understand that they are only speaking of ONE group of the Fulani in SUDAN.
Which is all the evidence needed to establish the fact that Caucasoids penetrated deep into the region (among other findings).
quote:Other Fulani groups yield different results which is why Keita et al. responded to Hassan et al:
Diversion. We're not talking about other groups.
quote: Hassan et al.’s (2008, p 321) suggestion of a non-African origin for the Fulani is a direct extrapolation based on the predominance (53.8%) of the R1*M173 lineage (an M89 lineage) in a single sample (n 5 26) from Sudan. However, analyses of other samples of Fulani give different results. Here, Y chromosome lineages are discussed in terms of their major markers, which will be understood to include downstream derivatives. For example, M35 will be used to mean both M35* and its derivatives M35/M81, M35/78, etc. In one sample from Guinea Bissau (n 5 59), the markers and frequencies are as follows: M2 275.6%, M35 213.6%, M33 26.8%, and 1.7% each of M75, M91, and M89-derived lineages (Rosa et al., 2007). In another study, based primarily on TaqI 49a, f variants, which can be ‘‘translated’’ into biallelic counterparts, a Fulani (called Peul) sample (n 5 54) from Burkina Faso has these frequencies: M2%–50%, M35 222.1% lineages (Lucotte et al., 2007). A small sample (n 5 20) of Fulbe from one area of the Cameroons has the M33 (E1*) lineage at a frequency of 52% (Scozzari et al., 1997, 1999). Hassan et al.’s sample also has a high percentage of M35 (34.6%). The mix of M2 and M35 lineages, both derivatives of P2 (or PN2) (see dendrogram in Hassan et al.), may reflect the sahara/sahel having served as an interaction zone of populations— a metapopulation which shuffled lineages—in the wetter periods of the early Holocene (Keita, 2005a; Kuper and Kropelin, 2006). The M2 lineage is sometimes almost characterized as being found only associated with the Niger Congo language phylum (Hassan et al., 321), of which Bantu is a subgroup. M2 lineages are found in populations languages from non-Bantu Niger Congo, Nilo-Saharan, and Afro-Asiatic phyla [see discussion in Keita (2005a)], and in high frequencies in West Africa including the Senegambia region Scozzari, 1997, 1999; Lucotte et al., 2007; Rosa et al., 2007).Source: Keita et al. 2010: Letter to the Editor: Commentary on the Fulani—History, Genetics, and Linguistics, an Adjunct to Hassan et al., 2008
BTW, Hassan is the main contributor to that article, so it should be HASSAN ET AL. and not Cavalli-Sforza et al
And notice, Keita (like you) couldn't refute that study, instead he mocks it as a "suggestion" and completey diverts by injecting some other population. Other geneticists demonstrate similar findings:
Lokki et al 2011: "One novel DNA polymorphism, C/T-13906, in the immediate proximity of the main European mutation, was found in six of the Fulani samples... Among the 162 Fulani genotyped, the major Caucasian mutation C/T-13910 was by far the most common polymorphism"
Tishkoff et al. 2009: "Fulani, and eastern Afroasiatic speakers exhibit low to moderate levels of European–Middle Eastern ancestry, consistent with possible gene flow from those regions."
Cerny et al, 2006: "The haplogroups of Western Eurasian origin, such as J1b, U5, H, and V, were also detected but in rather low frequencies (8.1% in total).”
Paganotti et al 2004: "the Fulani are nomadic pastoralists recently settled in west Africa and supposed to have a Caucasoid origin" .
Cavalli-Sforza contributed just as well so don't tell me who to attribute the article to.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, where is a paper that refutes Cavalli-Sforza's 2008 study on the Fulani possessing 58% R-M173? Do you even have one? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The frequencies of R1* in the Fulani likely experienced what we call, GENETIC DRIFT. And it doesn't need to be refuted if that sample of Fulani is not representative of all the Fulani
In other words, no, you do not have a study that refutes Cavalli-Sforza's 2008 study so you can't refute it, (neither did Keita) so instead you react by directing us to some other population group not related to this one. just like how you completely deviated in the previous post.
And LOL @ "genetic drift" another inexcusable attempt at denial, at nearly 60% it's not. It's a FOUNDING lineage:
"The Fulani, who possess the lowest population size in this study, have an interesting genetic structure, effectively consisting of two haplogroups or founding lineages " Cavalli-Sforza et al 2008
"Although human Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup R1b are quite rare in Africa, being found mainly in Asia and Europe, a group of chromosomes within the paragroup R-P25* are found concentrated in the central-western part of the African continent, where they can be detected at frequencies as high as 95%. Phylogenetic evidence and coalescence time estimates suggest that R-P25* chromosomes (or their phylogenetic ancestor) may have been carried to Africa by an Asia-to-Africa back migration in prehistoric times. Here, we describe six new mutations that define the relationships among the African R-P25* Y chromosomes and between these African chromosomes and earlier reported R-P25 Eurasian sub-lineages. The incorporation of these new mutations into a phylogeny of the R1b haplogroup led to the identification of a new clade (R1b1a or R-V88) encompassing all the African R-P25* and about half of the few European/west Asian R-P25* chromosomes. A worldwide phylogeographic analysis of the R1b haplogroup provided strong support to the Asia-to-Africa back-migration hypothesis. The analysis of the distribution of the R-V88 haplogroup in >1800 males from 69 African populations revealed a striking genetic contiguity between the Chadic-speaking peoples from the central Sahel and several other Afroasiatic-speaking groups from North Africa. The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 9200–5600?kya, in the early mid Holocene. We suggest that R-V88 is a paternal genetic record of the proposed mid-Holocene migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers through the Central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin, and geomorphological evidence is consistent with this view. Fulvio Cruciani 2010
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A role in the rise of the Egyptian state, but no Sub Saharan input til Roman times. That's is a damming blow to your ideology and also explains why you're so speechless as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-Saharan Gene flow->Ancient
On the other hand, European gene flow didn't come in until the late period LOL!
Your sources only mention Tunisia and Siwa Berbers, not ancient Egyptians. The only one to mention European gene flow is you. But let's see what your source, Frigi et al 2010 said that you apparently ignored or didn't read:
"The dates for subhaplogroups H1 and H3 (13,000 and 10,000 years, respectively) in Iberian and North African populations allow for this possibility. Kefi et al.’s (2005) data on ancient DNA could be viewed as being in agreement with such a presence in North Africa in ancient times (about 15,000–6,000 years ago) and with the fact that the North African populations are considered by most scholars as having their closest relations with European and Asian populations " (Cherni et al. 2008; Ennafaa et al. 2009; Kefi et al. 2005; Rando et al. 1998). Frigi et al 2010
And then your source Fadhlaoui-Zid 2011:
"most haplogroups in North Africa are of Eurasian origin (Rando et al., 1998; Krings et al., 1999; Plaza et al., 2003; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2004; Harich et al., 2010). Some can be traced to ancient Paleolithic times (such as haplogroups U6, M1b, which are almost specific of northern African populations); however, some maternal lineages have been recently acquired from Europe or the Middle East (such as haplogroups U5, V, R0a, J1b, U3) (Maca-Meyer et al., 2003; Olivieri et al., 2006; Gonzalez et al., 2007).
Your source Fadhlaoui-Zid references Maca-Meyer et al 2003 (above) who in turn states:
"The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa.
Attested presence of Caucasian people in Northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times. From the archaeological record it has been proposed that, as early as 45,000 years ago (ya), anatomically modern humans, most probably expanded the Aterian stone industry from the Maghrib into most of the Sahara [1]. More evolved skeletal remains indicate that 20,000 years later the Iberomaurusian makers, replaced the Aterian culture in the coastal Maghrib. Several hypothesis have been forwarded concerning the Iberomaurusian origin. They can be resumed in those which propose an arrival, from the East, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa, and those which point to west Mediterranean Europe, either from the Iberian Peninsula, across the Gibraltar Strait, or from Italy, via Sicily, as their most probable homeland [2]. Between 10,000 and 6,000 ya the Neolithic Capsian industry flourished farther inland. The historic penetration in the area of classical Mediterranean cultures, ending with the Islamic domination, supposed a strong cultural influx.
Linguistic research suggests that the Afroasiatic phylum of languages could have originated and extended with these Caucasians, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa and that posterior developments of the Capsian Neolithic in the Maghrib might be related to the origin and dispersal of proto-Berber speaking people into the area.
From a mtDNA point of view, the most informative of these genetic markers is the North African clade U6. On the basis of complete mtDNA sequences, it has been proposed that U6 lineages, mainly found in North Africa, are the signatures of a return to Africa around 39,000–52,000 ya [8]. This stresses the importance of its detailed study in order to trace one of the earliest Caucasian arrivals to Africa. Although in moderate frequencies, the geographic range of this clade extends from the Near East to the Canary Islands, along the Atlantic shores of Northwest Africa and from the Sahel belt, including Ethiopia, to the southern Mediterranean rim.
The fact that 5 of the 8 U6a haplotypes detected in the Near East are unique of this area (Fig. ?(Fig.2),2), points to prehistoric demic movements as the most probable cause of the U6a Africa to Asia migration, although historic events cannot be completely ruled out. In frame with the estimated age of U6a are archaeological data supporting early migrations from Africa into the Near East [26]. The expansion of Caucasians in Africa has been correlated with the spread and diversification of Afroasiatic languages.
In summary, the phylogeography, nucleotide diversity, and coalescence ages of U6 lineages show that this clade came back to Africa in Paleolithic times. Its most probable origin was the Near East and not Europe, and since then, its presence in North Africa has been permanent. The focus of the first African expansion, detected by the spread of U6a, was Northwest Africa reaching the Near East also in the Paleolithic.[/B] The posterior U6a1 radiation most probably occurred in Northeast Africa again extending to the Near East. This movement is correlated in time with the attributed origin and expansion of Afroasiatic languages. This U6a1 wave also arrived to the Maghrib, the Northwest African margin, where the more localized U6b and U6c lineages were spreading.
Your source Fadhlaoui-Zid references Olivieri et al 2006 (above) who in turn states:
Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. Their arrival temporally overlaps with the event(s) that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans and was most likely the result of the same change in climate conditions that allowed humans to enter the Levant, opening the way to the colonization of both Europe and North Africa. Thus, the early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the “out of Africa” exit, but from the Mediterranean area; and the North African Dabban and European Aurignacian industries derived from a common Levantine source.
Your source Fadhlaoui-Zid references Gonzalez et al., 2007 (above) who in turn states:
Saudi Arabs had only a minority sub-Saharan Africa component (7%), similar to the specific North-African contribution (5%).
Egyptians were aligned in the cluster of Near East populations. /// The first component separated all the Near East populations from a cluster including Egyptians and other east African groups. The majority of L haplogroups, pulling positively, and haplogroup H, pulling negatively, were predominantly responsible for this split. The second component divided the Near East cluster into three groups. The first comprised northeastern populations characterized by higher frequencies of H haplogroups and absence of L haplogroups. The second combined the Levantine population with Egypt, and the three Arabian Peninsula samples were left in a third group.
And then there is Ottoni et al in Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia (yes that's Europe) 2010 who states:
"the maternal pool of Northern Africa appears to be characterized by at least two other major components: (i) a Levantine contribution (i.e. haplogroups U6 and M1, [11]), associated with the return to Africa around 45 kya, and (ii) a more recent West European input associated with the postglacial expansion. Overall, the results of this study support the hypothesis that most of the West Eurasian maternal contribution detectable in Northwest African populations is likely linked to prehistoric (i.e. the post-glacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula) rather than more recent historic events [26], [27], [37]." these H1 sub-clades most likely arose in North Africa after the arrival of the H1 European founder sequence, corresponding to the H1 node in Figure 1...Coalescence time estimates suggest an arrival of the European H1 mtDNAs at about 8,000–9,000 years ago.....Evidence of trans-Mediterranean contacts between Northern Africa and Western Europe has been assessed at the level of different genetic markers (e.g. [21], [22], [23], [24])."
Which is confirmed and complimented by an older study:
“We show that the main indigenous North African cluster is a sister group to the most ancient cluster of European mtDNAs, from which it diverged »50,000 years ago.” (“The Emerging Tree of West Eurasian mtDNAs: A Synthesis of Control-Region Sequences and RFLPs” Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford)
All these dates predate your recent (A.D.) trans-Saharan slave empire.
All of this equates to a damning blow to your ideology, especially in light of the fact that you won't, no, you couldn't even refute it.
quote: Not to mention sub-Saharan Africans populated North Africa:
Molecular studies on the Y chromosome in North Africa are interpreted as indicating that the southern part of Africa, namely, the Horn/East Africa, was a major source of population in the Nile Valley and northwest Africa after the Last Glacial Maximum, with some migration into the Near East and southern Europe (Bosch et al. 2001; Underhill et al. 2001).--Frigi et al. 2010
Paleolithic Horner's are not the same population as today's Horner's and there are more than enough genetic studies confirming this in the literature. Not only that, but your own article Frigi (above) states: "This would indicate that the North African populations arose from admixture rather than from local evolution, leading to an intermediate genetic structure between eastern sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians."
Therefore your own source betrays your idea of a "blacks only" Egypt. And we know from Harich et al, 2010 which is much more detailed exposed those Sub Saharan's in North Africa as being a result of the trans Saharan slave trade.
And you failed in any way shape or form to refute the information on the Fulani. Don't waste my time. All you offer is constant diversion and diversion is a tactic of the delusional.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly Iah, you are just acting like an idiot:
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Which is all the evidence needed to establish the fact that Caucasoids penetrated deep into the region (among other findings).
*sighs*
You just don't get what Keita et al. were saying, and instead you choose to stick to Hassan et al.'s interpretation of their data even though Keita et al. address their suggestion quite thoroughly. I don't really give a damn if you don't like it and decide to stick with the Hassan et al's suggestion which I may add they are not defending themselves.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Diversion. We're not talking about other groups.
Dumbass. We are talking about the Fulani and they don't just occupy the Sudan but they are widespread. Nor did they originate in Sudan. So in order to establish a biocultural origins we can not just look in on place they occupy.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: And notice, Keita (like you) couldn't refute that study, instead he mocks it as a "suggestion" and completey diverts by injecting some other population. Other geneticists demonstrate similar findings:
What the phuck are you talking about? Keita et al. don't mock anything - they are simply exploring the suggestion made by Hassan et al. of a non-African origin of the Fulani. Just because you're too stupid to understand Keita et al.'s response does not mean they didn't refute a non-African suggestion of the Fulani.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Lokki et al 2011: "One novel DNA polymorphism, C/T-13906, in the immediate proximity of the main European mutation, was found in six of the Fulani samples... Among the 162 Fulani genotyped, the major Caucasian mutation C/T-13910 was by far the most common polymorphism"
The article you are citing is basing this claim solely on another article from 2002 which identifies the T allele as main causative mutation for lactase persistence in European descent populations. I know this from reading their references. In this case, they are using the article:
"Identification of a variant associated with adult-type hypolactasia."
To back up their claim of the main European component being found in the Fulani. You would know this as well if you read their references. The relevance of this fact is that the are using an older (2002) article to substantiate the claim of the Fulani lactose persistence (LP) to be associated with Europeans. That said, the T allele isn't the only one linked to lactose persistence. Further reading in the Nucleotide specifis Here
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Tishkoff et al. 2009: "Fulani, and eastern Afroasiatic speakers exhibit low to moderate levels of European–Middle Eastern ancestry, consistent with possible gene flow from those regions."
And this proves the point I raised in the other thread about you selecting things you can twist to your liking. Tishkoff et al. NEVER interpreted anything in their data for a non-African origin of the Fulani. They clarify the issue here:
Furthermore, when they say that there are "low to moderate" levels of Middle Eastern-European ancestry, that is based at the K = 11. When we look at K = 14 we see that the Fulani have little if any Near Eastern ancestry, and in fact, as pointed out time and time again, the Dogon seem to have more non African AACs when looking at K= 14.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Cerny et al, 2006: "The haplogroups of Western Eurasian origin, such as J1b, U5, H, and V, were also detected but in rather low frequencies (8.1% in total).”
Exactly. Key words - low frequencies and 8.1% not indicative of a non-African origin.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Paganotti et al 2004: "the Fulani are nomadic pastoralists recently settled in west Africa and supposed to have a Caucasoid origin" .
You just cited Cerny et al. and now this? That makes no sense. Cerny et al. (2006) show the Fulani to have a predominant maternal gene pool west African in origin which in turn suggests a west African origin. Get your sh!t together.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: In other words, no, you do not have a study that refutes Cavalli-Sforza's 2008 study so you can't refute it, (neither did Keita) so instead you react by directing us to some other population group not related to this one. just like how you completely deviated in the previous post.
Nope. You're just to stupid to understand how Keita et al. addressed Hassan et al.'s interpretation of the Fulani paternal variation. I mean really, if you want to be stubborn about it and ignore the more recent interpretation offered go right ahead.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: And LOL @ "genetic drift" another inexcusable attempt at denial, at nearly 60% it's not. It's a FOUNDING lineage:
"The Fulani, who possess the lowest population size in this study, have an interesting genetic structure, effectively consisting of two haplogroups or founding lineages " Cavalli-Sforza et al 2008
Genetic drift certainly did play a role. As a matter of fact, you have the answer in your own citation. The Fulani from their study was a small sample size. Keita et al. also addressed that:
"The diversity of Y chromosome haplotypes found in Fulani samples is highly variable and is likely explained by ancient and recent events. The more recent political activities of Fulani in the 18th and 19th centuries led to the Fulbeization of various peoples, a process which had not ended by the mid-20th century (Hendrixson, 1980; David and Voas, 1981; Schultz, 1984). The frequencies in Hassan et al.’s sample are consistent with a secondary migration from the Cameroons where the Fulani are known to have bioculturally assimilated various groups (Schultz, 1984), and where there is a notable frequency of R1*M173 in published samples of various ethnolinguistic groups, including some Fulbe (Scozzari, 1997; Cruciani et al., 2002). Genetic drift could also have had a role. Space does not permit further discussion of R1*M173, which has a higher frequency in central Africa than in the Near East (Flores et al., 2005), and which may have come to Africa in a back migration (Cruciani, 2002) during the Late Stone Age, before the emergence of current or ancient African ethnic/linguistic groups/ peoples. R1*M173 became part of an African biocultural evolutionary history, perhaps shaped in part in a later Saharan metapopulation, and apparently later dispersed (along with other lineages) into the ancestral populations of various regions. The evidence supports the Fulbe having emerged in Africa.--Keita et al.
Oh wait, you're going to say that Keita et al. didn't refute Hassan et al's suggestions even though they responded in the same journal and their article has yet to be challenged by Hassan et al.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Fulvio Cruciani 2010
What's your point with Cruciani exactly?
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Your sources only mention Tunisia and Siwa Berbers, not ancient Egyptians. The only one to mention European gene flow is you. But let's see what your source, Frigi et al 2010 said that you apparently ignored or didn't read:
"The dates for subhaplogroups H1 and H3 (13,000 and 10,000 years, respectively) in Iberian and North African populations allow for this possibility. Kefi et al.’s (2005) data on ancient DNA could be viewed as being in agreement with such a presence in North Africa in ancient times (about 15,000–6,000 years ago) and with the fact that the North African populations are considered by most scholars as having their closest relations with European and Asian populations " (Cherni et al. 2008; Ennafaa et al. 2009; Kefi et al. 2005; Rando et al. 1998). Frigi et al 2010
And just when I though you couldn't get any more retarded than you already are.
In the above quote Frigi et al. is NOT talking about Nile Valley inhabitants but NORTHWEST Africans. Are you for some reason unable to check the references she is making there? The mtDNA for northwest Africa is not the same as for northeast Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: And then your source Fadhlaoui-Zid 2011:
"most haplogroups in North Africa are of Eurasian origin (Rando et al., 1998; Krings et al., 1999; Plaza et al., 2003; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2004; Harich et al., 2010). Some can be traced to ancient Paleolithic times (such as haplogroups U6, M1b, which are almost specific of northern African populations); however, some maternal lineages have been recently acquired from Europe or the Middle East (such as haplogroups U5, V, R0a, J1b, U3) (Maca-Meyer et al., 2003; Olivieri et al., 2006; Gonzalez et al., 2007).
Your source Fadhlaoui-Zid references Maca-Meyer et al 2003 (above) who in turn states:
"The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa.
Attested presence of Caucasian people in Northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times. From the archaeological record it has been proposed that, as early as 45,000 years ago (ya), anatomically modern humans, most probably expanded the Aterian stone industry from the Maghrib into most of the Sahara [1]. More evolved skeletal remains indicate that 20,000 years later the Iberomaurusian makers, replaced the Aterian culture in the coastal Maghrib. Several hypothesis have been forwarded concerning the Iberomaurusian origin. They can be resumed in those which propose an arrival, from the East, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa, and those which point to west Mediterranean Europe, either from the Iberian Peninsula, across the Gibraltar Strait, or from Italy, via Sicily, as their most probable homeland [2]. Between 10,000 and 6,000 ya the Neolithic Capsian industry flourished farther inland. The historic penetration in the area of classical Mediterranean cultures, ending with the Islamic domination, supposed a strong cultural influx.
Linguistic research suggests that the Afroasiatic phylum of languages could have originated and extended with these Caucasians, either from the Near East or Eastern Africa and that posterior developments of the Capsian Neolithic in the Maghrib might be related to the origin and dispersal of proto-Berber speaking people into the area.
From a mtDNA point of view, the most informative of these genetic markers is the North African clade U6. On the basis of complete mtDNA sequences, it has been proposed that U6 lineages, mainly found in North Africa, are the signatures of a return to Africa around 39,000–52,000 ya [8]. This stresses the importance of its detailed study in order to trace one of the earliest Caucasian arrivals to Africa. Although in moderate frequencies, the geographic range of this clade extends from the Near East to the Canary Islands, along the Atlantic shores of Northwest Africa and from the Sahel belt, including Ethiopia, to the southern Mediterranean rim.
The fact that 5 of the 8 U6a haplotypes detected in the Near East are unique of this area (Fig. ?(Fig.2),2), points to prehistoric demic movements as the most probable cause of the U6a Africa to Asia migration, although historic events cannot be completely ruled out. In frame with the estimated age of U6a are archaeological data supporting early migrations from Africa into the Near East [26]. The expansion of Caucasians in Africa has been correlated with the spread and diversification of Afroasiatic languages.
In summary, the phylogeography, nucleotide diversity, and coalescence ages of U6 lineages show that this clade came back to Africa in Paleolithic times. Its most probable origin was the Near East and not Europe, and since then, its presence in North Africa has been permanent. The focus of the first African expansion, detected by the spread of U6a, was Northwest Africa reaching the Near East also in the Paleolithic.[/B] The posterior U6a1 radiation most probably occurred in Northeast Africa again extending to the Near East. This movement is correlated in time with the attributed origin and expansion of Afroasiatic languages. This U6a1 wave also arrived to the Maghrib, the Northwest African margin, where the more localized U6b and U6c lineages were spreading.
No offense dude, but you're just really stupid. Did you not realize when reading any of the above quotes that they mainly discuss haplogroup U6? And if you would have paid attention to the article, U6 is rare to nonexistent in the Nile Valley. The above quotes deal with Northwest African specific clades, they have nothing to do with Northeast Africa that is genetically separated from the west which they subsequently go on to demonstrate in their article.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Your source Fadhlaoui-Zid references Olivieri et al 2006 (above) who in turn states:
Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups M1 and U6 reveals that these predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago. Their arrival temporally overlaps with the event(s) that led to the peopling of Europe by modern humans and was most likely the result of the same change in climate conditions that allowed humans to enter the Levant, opening the way to the colonization of both Europe and North Africa. Thus, the early Upper Palaeolithic population(s) carrying M1 and U6 did not return to Africa along the southern coastal route of the “out of Africa” exit, but from the Mediterranean area; and the North African Dabban and European Aurignacian industries derived from a common Levantine source.
That's better since the above mentions M1 which is the predominant clade in the East. However, if you would have realized when I cited Karima et al. 2011, my citation said: EVEN IF THOSE CLADES ARE THOUGHT TO BE BROUGHT FROM EURASIA. It doesn't change the fact that M1 is an East African specific haplogroup and U6 is North African specific. The origin of M1 has yet to be decided.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Saudi Arabs had only a minority sub-Saharan Africa component (7%), similar to the specific North-African contribution (5%).
Egyptians were aligned in the cluster of Near East populations. /// The first component separated all the Near East populations from a cluster including Egyptians and other east African groups. The majority of L haplogroups, pulling positively, and haplogroup H, pulling negatively, were predominantly responsible for this split. The second component divided the Near East cluster into three groups. The first comprised northeastern populations characterized by higher frequencies of H haplogroups and absence of L haplogroups. The second combined the Levantine population with Egypt, and the three Arabian Peninsula samples were left in a third group.
I have no idea what sub-Saharan admixture Saudi Arabia has to do with anything. What I find funny here, is that you emphasize on the 7% sub-Saharan input in Saudi Arabia, yet the Fulani had only 8% Eurasian maternal haplotypes. Why the double standard?
FYI, the above quote on Egyptians has to do with the population structure of the modern population, not the ancient.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: And then there is Ottoni et al in Mitochondrial Haplogroup H1 in North Africa: An Early Holocene Arrival from Iberia (yes that's Europe) 2010 who states:
"the maternal pool of Northern Africa appears to be characterized by at least two other major components: (i) a Levantine contribution (i.e. haplogroups U6 and M1, [11]), associated with the return to Africa around 45 kya, and (ii) a more recent West European input associated with the postglacial expansion. Overall, the results of this study support the hypothesis that most of the West Eurasian maternal contribution detectable in Northwest African populations is likely linked to prehistoric (i.e. the post-glacial expansion from the Iberian Peninsula) rather than more recent historic events [26], [27], [37]." these H1 sub-clades most likely arose in North Africa after the arrival of the H1 European founder sequence, corresponding to the H1 node in Figure 1...Coalescence time estimates suggest an arrival of the European H1 mtDNAs at about 8,000–9,000 years ago.....Evidence of trans-Mediterranean contacts between Northern Africa and Western Europe has been assessed at the level of different genetic markers (e.g. [21], [22], [23], [24])."
More retardation. H1=Northwest Africa. It has nothing to do with Northeast Africans and why you insist on associating it with Nile Valley inhabitants is beyond me. The Karima article clearly shows the Northeast African sequencies fall under the starlike node within M1, M1a1, not the Northwest African U6, H lineages etc., which are absolute irrelevancies.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Which is confirmed and complimented by an older study:
“We show that the main indigenous North African cluster is a sister group to the most ancient cluster of European mtDNAs, from which it diverged »50,000 years ago.” (“The Emerging Tree of West Eurasian mtDNAs: A Synthesis of Control-Region Sequences and RFLPs” Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford)
All these dates predate your recent (A.D.) trans-Saharan slave empire.
I'm getting really tired of this. The above study that you are using sampled - you guessed it northWEST Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: All of this equates to a damning blow to your ideology, especially in light of the fact that you won't, no, you couldn't even refute it.
All this equates to is that you are still unable to grasp the genetic separation of northwest and East Africans and how the former is not representative of the latter.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: And you failed in any way shape or form to refute the information on the Fulani. Don't waste my time. All you offer is constant diversion and diversion is a tactic of the delusional.
What's there to refute? It's quite simple. The Fulani sample from Hassan et al. was a relatively small sample size that showed a high incidence of R1*-M173. However, the problem arises when they tried to suggest a non-African origin for the Fulani based on their rather limited results. It should also be mentioned that R1*-M173 is rare to nonexistent in the Near East and Europeans carry the downstream mutation
quote:Originally posted by Iah: Paleolithic Horner's are not the same population as today's Horner's and there are more than enough genetic studies confirming this in the literature. Not only that, but your own article Frigi (above) states: "This would indicate that the North African populations arose from admixture rather than from local evolution, leading to an intermediate genetic structure between eastern sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians."
Therefore your own source betrays your idea of a "blacks only" Egypt. And we know from Harich et al, 2010 which is much more detailed exposed those Sub Saharan's in North Africa as being a result of the trans Saharan slave trade.
And you failed in any way shape or form to refute the information on the Fulani. Don't waste my time. All you offer is constant diversion and diversion is a tactic of the delusional.
I am getting tired of this. Once again, THE ABOVE QUOTE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NILE VALLY BUT BERBERS. Did you not bother to read the full context. The people who have an intermediate genetic structure are NOT those in the Nile Valley, but BERBERS. She makes this abundantly clear in the full context of your quote. You do realize that in the paper she says East Africa was a major population source for North Africa AND the Nile Valley which means that she is not treating the Nile Valley as a part of North Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Iah: And we know from Harich et al, 2010 which is much more detailed exposed those Sub Saharan's in North Africa as being a result of the trans Saharan slave trade.
LMAO!
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Quit crying and making up stuff. There is no negroid mtdna until Roman times and this is based on several studies as cited in Molak 2008. The Hpal 3592 marker is represented by L1 & L2 and has a single origin in Sub Sahara (Chen et al. 1995), which means all mtDNA types with this site are classified as southern, meaning L1 and L2 are essentially African specific, which they tested, yet L3 which is characterized by the loss of the HpaI site at np 3592 is ubiquitous, therefore not African specific.
You are basically proving my entire point to begin with. The only lineages that they designate as "sub-Saharan" in origin are ones with the Hpal (np3,592) and anything else they treat as non-African I assume. However, L3 lacks this site and it is without a doubt sub-Saharan in origin. And as you mention Chen et al. Here is what they have to say:
" "However, although we did not observe haplotypes lacking the 3592 HpaI site in the Pygmies, haplotypes lacking the 3592 HpaI site are not limited to Senegalese populations. These haplotypes have been described in 36% of the Bamileke from Cameroon (Scozzari et al. 1994), 12% of the Khoisan populations from Namibia (Soodyall and Jenkins 1992), and 23% - 89% of several Bantu-speaking populations from southern Africa (Johnson et al. 1983; Soodyall and Jenkins 1993). The finding of mtDNAs without the 3592 HpaI site in sub-Saharan populations, which are unlikely to be genetically admixed with European populations, suggests that at least some of the mtDNAs lacking the 3592 HpaI site in the Senegalese arose in Africa and are not the product of genetic admixture with populations from northern Africa, Europe, or Asia. Because of their widespread distribution in sub-Saharan populations, it is most likely that these mtDNAs have an ancient African origin. An African origin of the mtDNAs without the 3592 HpaI site, their similarity to European and Asian mtDNAs, and the absence of mtDNAs defined by the HpaI site at np 3592 in non-African populations, appear to suggest that African mtDNAs without the 3592 HpaI were the only mtDNAs that were carried from Africa by the Homo sapiens sapiens migrations, which ultimately gave rise to modern non-African populations."--Chen et al. 1995
So you can see why the results of the study you cited are highly suspect and can obviously not definitively speak about sub-Saharan gene flow only occurring recently given the flawed methods used to reach that conclusion.
quote:If you bothered to read the study you would have noticed Molak et al is not discussing North Africa, but the Dakhleh Oasis located in south west Egypt. (North East Africa).
No duh.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sub Saharan markers and its sub clades were tested. Still no Sub Saharan dna found imprinted on this important foundation of Egyptian civilization until Roman times. Case closed.
I can't believe you reference Chen et al. yet you come up with the above statement. The frequencies they obtained, whatever they were, were messed up simply because the Hpal (np3,592) marker does not test for all sub-Saharan lineages. Therefore, their conclusion is unreliable as for the method obtained to reach it. The interesting thing is that Krings et al. and CL Fox et al. both used the same mitochondrial DNA marker in regards to Nubian populations also giving messed up results and conclusions. More recent analysis of Sudanese show the main component of their maternal gene pool to be L3... the significance of this is quite simple when discussing the Dakhleh Oasis as we have recent findings revealing that those from the Dakhleh Oasis showed affinities to those in Lower Nubia (archaeological data) which in turn debunks Ian Shaw:
quote:The only mtdna Sub Saharan influence comes from L3 which is questionable since it's not African specific. The rest: L1 and L2 are recent.
L3 most certainly IS African specific mtDNA lineage. To say otherwise is just asinine.
Distribution map:
While it may be true that it isn't exclusive to the African continent, it was most certainly introduced in the Nile Valley from sub-Saharan Africa (people were moving back and forth in those times). What you are insinuating is that there is a possibility that L3 was introduced to Egypt from a non-African source - which in and of itself is ridiculous simply because outside of Africa L3 has negligible frequency being either extremely rare or non-existent (hence the problem in determining the origins of M1). Not to mention the age:
"The presence of mtDNA lineages belonging to the sub-Saharan Africa macrohaplogroup L in Eurasia and America is mainly explained as the result of the historic and infamous slave trade.In the Arabian peninsula, the incidence of L lineages differs according to country. The highest frequency is found in Yemen (38%), then in Oman and Qatar (16%) and drops to 10% in Saudi Arabia and UAE (Abu-Amero et al., 2008). The most probable source of these sub-Saharan Africa lineages is the geographically closest East African border. However, in that large region it is possible to distinguish at least a northern area conformed by Egypt, Nubia, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia in which, at mtDNA level, the L3 haplogroups have significantly greater frequencies than in the southern area represented by Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique where, in compensation, the most ancestral haplogroup L0 has comparatively higher frequencies.--Vicente M. Cabrera et al. 2009
You mean to tell me you are for some reason doubting that L3 was introduced from sub-Saharan Africa into Egypt and there is a possibility of a non African source for these lineages in Egypt even though wherever it appears outside Africa is recent?
quote:The Dakhleh Oasis started coming into use during the drying phase "at least since 5,000 years ago".
"The aim of the study was to characterize the ancient population from the Dakhleh Oasis."
Well - it looks like the aim of their study failed miserably until they learn to test for all sub-Saharan lineages and not resort to the methods of Krings and CL Fox.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:"In the south-east corner of Dakhleh, various stone-built structures are present; it remains unclear how typical this oasis was for the whole of the Western Desert, but it obviously contains the strongest cultural parallels with the Nile Valley. After 4900BC and especially from 4400BC onwards, the desert became less and less inhabitable because of the onset of the arid climate that continues up to the present day." Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt Ian Shaw 2003
Recent archaeological findings show their affinities with Southern Africans (Sudanese peoples. brings up the fact that Sudanese have a majority of L3 and gene flow was likely occurring) which brings emphasis on how the study should have used more up to date methods to obtain their results.
"It is more than likely that the Early Holocene colonisers of the southern Western Desert, the El Adam hunter-gatherer-cattle keepers, came to the south-eastern fringes of the Sahara from the Nile Valley. The El Adam technology and style is almost identical to that of the Arkinian, a final Late Palaeolithic culture known from the flooded village of Arkin in Lower Nubia, some 80km to the south-east of Nabta Playa (Schild et al. 1968)."--Maciej Jordeczka et al. 2011
Not done yet...
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:I seriously doubt that (as we will soon see), and North Africa is irrelevant to the discussion of the Dakhleh Oasis, but look at what you just admitted. Sub Saharan influence BEFORE the Sahara. Not AFTER. You are arguing against yourself.
I won't keep explaining the flawed methods the article you rely on used to reach it's conclusions... but the point of Frigi et al. is to show that sub-Saharan gene flow from West and East Africa is not solely the result of recent events. Which in turn contradicts Harich et al. The difference is that Frigi et al. observed the North Africans with lineages of West African origin to be divergent from those found in West Africa which indicates an ancient arrival. Of course, you can claim Harich et al. was more detailed all you want, it doesn't change the results obtained for Frigi et al. and their obvious contradicting conclusions.
BTW, of interest is that the Siwa inhabitants DO show mtDNA affinities to those in the Nile Valley (both show affinities to East Africans). And I never said that there was no sub-Saharan influence after the return of desert conditions. I said simply that sub-Saharan influence would have been greater before the return of desert conditions - which does not equate to no gene flow after. The subsequent wording in my statement means that there was lesser gene flow after this event.
quote:And then you post a quote that has nothing to do with the Nile Valley region (below) but Tunisia and Siwa Berbers:
The mtDNA gene pool of the Siwa Berbers shows affinities to those in the Nile Valley (L lineages and M1) and East Africa.
"Our results highlighted a clear genetic differentiation between Berbers from the Maghreb and **Egyptian Berbers**. The first seems to be more related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with **East African and Nile Valley populations** as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4∗, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. Probably, such a maternal diversity between North African Berbers would have been the result of a conjunction of several geographical, prehistoric, and historic factors which guided contacts (and thus exchanges) between local populations and migrating groups."--C. Coudray et al. 2009
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get why people think the genetic makeup of Northwest African Berbers is pertinent to the peopling of the Nile Valley. Looking at any physical map of Africa will show you that not only is the northern Maghreb cut off from Egypt by miles upon miles of desert but also by the Atlas Mountains:
Even if we allow for the Saharan Wet Phase removing the desert barrier, the hypothetical Wandering Caucasoids would still have to worry about hiking through mountains in order to get to the Nile Valley. It is for this reason that I don't think the northern Maghreb would have donated more than an insignificant trickle of genes to Egypt. That leaves Southwest Asia as pretty much the only plausible candidate for a source of Wandering Caucasoids.
quote:Which is all the evidence needed to establish the fact that Caucasoids penetrated deep into the region (among other findings).
No retard, ignorance has penetrated you brain, to use a similar example that refutes your retardology:
European Journal of Human Genetics (2005) 13, 856–866
quote:The BATWING expansion time estimated for K2 in our Somali population (3.3 ky)is consistent with an African southward dissemination of the K2 haplogroup.
Deep penetration of "Caucasoids'" I think not. Groups in Cameroon have R1* M173 at a frequency of 95%, not archaeological evidence exists for a "Caucasoid" penetration deep into Cameroon and the Fulani tested in Sudan do have a different Y chromosone profile than those from Western Africa which supports Keita's hypothesis that the Sudanese Fulani must be descendants of those who migrated east and mixed with another African population to obtain R1*-M173 and through founder effect or drift have an increased frequency of the lineage.
quote:And notice, Keita (like you) couldn't refute that study, instead he mocks it as a "suggestion" and completey diverts by injecting some other population. Other geneticists demonstrate similar findings
Strawman, Keita's intent wasn't to refute the findings of R1*-M173, just the Hassan et al's assertion that Fulani have an non-African origin, try reading within context retard.
More to come later, I have to go to work now.
Posts: 2598 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic