posted
Maybe sometime it's good to remind people on forum such as these that there's more diversity within populations than between populations. That is, there's more diversity within African populations or within European population that between African populations and Europeans populations.
All the studies we analyze on this forum, or phylogenetic trees we see, graph we see, etc, are concentrating on specific hand picked DNA which have been shown to explain migration and population structure (aka differences). They are cherry picked.
For example, we analyze the distribution in the world of one SNP mutation called P2 or M2 or M35 (aka DNA which differs from one another by one base pairs). There's about 3 billions base pairs in humans. In fact, it's interesting to know that each humans beings are born with about 100 mutations. We are all pretty unique and not only a combination of our mothers and fathers DNA!!
As for the rest, I think I made my case solidly. I don't need to repeat myself as long as people don't counter-argument what I already exposed. All the studies above shows that there's no pure Cushite, no pure Nilo-Saharans. They are all mix of DNA corresponding to the mix of DNA pre-existing in the population they all originate from in Sudan/Ethiopia/East Africa which differs in their frequency distribution by the effect of genetic drift and relative isolation brought by geographical distance from the homeland.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
I could be wrong but i thought E1b1b origin was from nilo-saharan speakers and this spread was from them has well.
What is your view on this beyoku and Amun-Ra The Ultimate?
It seems the origin from the map above points to southern ethiopia,a area of Nilo-saharans speakers in ethopia.
The arrow seems to go from lower nubia to western sudan has well where the fur and others live at and it goes from lower nubia(nilo-saharan speakers) to somalia.
Again a area of nilo-saharan speakers.
The are some nubians that live in darfur has well,and chad.
I agree. Populations are usually composed of a mix of haplogroups, not just one hg lineage (especially non-basal hg). Proto Nilo-Saharans were part of the population in which the E1b1b appeared originally. IMO, the population who was speaking the Negro-Egyptian language determined by Theophile Obenga using the comparative linguistic methodology.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
E-M293 is a subclade of E-M35. It is identified by ISOGG as the second clade within E-Z830. It was discovered before E-Z830, being announced in Henn 2008, which associated it with the spread of pastoralism from Eastern Africa into Southern Africa. So far high levels have been found in specific ethnic groups in Tanzania and Southern Africa. Highest were the Datog (43%), Khwe (Kxoe) (31%), Burunge (28%), and Sandawe (24%). Henn (2008) in their study also found two Bantu-speaking Kenyan males with the M293 mutation. Other E-M215 subclades are rare in Southern Africa. The authors state...
Without information about M293 in the Maasai, Hema, and other populations in Kenya, Sudan, and Ethiopia, we cannot pinpoint the precise geographic source of M293 with greater confidence. However, the available evidence points to present-day Tanzania as an early and important geographic locus of M293 evolution.
They also say that "M293 is only found in sub-Saharan Africa, indicating a separate phylogenetic history for M35.1 * (former) samples further north". E-P72 appears in Karafet (2008). Trombetta et al. 2011 announced that this is a subclade of E-M293.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
E-V68, is dominated by its longer-known subclade E-M78. Three "E-V68*" individuals who are in E-V68 but not E-M78 have been reported in Sardinia, by Trombetta et al. 2011, when announcing the discovery of V68. The authors noted that because E-V68* was not found in the Middle Eastern samples, this appears to be evidence of maritime migration from Africa to southwestern Europe. E-M78 is a commonly occurring subclade, widely distributed in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, (the Middle East and Near East) "up to Southern Asia", and all of Europe. The European distribution has a frequency peak centered in parts of the Balkans (up to almost 50% in some areas)and Sicily, and declining frequencies evident toward western, central, and northeastern Europe. Based on genetic STR variance data, Cruciani et al. 2007 suggests that E-M78 originated in the region of Egypt and Libya. about 18,600 years ago (17,300 - 20,000 years ago). Battaglia et al. 2008 describe Egypt as "a hub for the distribution of the various geographically localized M78-related subclades" and, based on archaeological data, they propose that the point of origin of E-M78 (as opposed to later dispersal from Egypt) may have been in a refugium which "existed on the border of present-day Sudan and Egypt, near Lake Nubia, until the onset of a humid phase around 8500 BC. The northward-moving rainfall belts during this period could have also spurred a rapid migration of Mesolithic foragers northwards in Africa, the Levant and ultimately onward to Asia Minor and Europe, where they each eventually differentiated into their regionally distinctive branches". Towards the south, Hassan et al. 2008 also explain evidence that some subclades of E-M78, specifically E-V12 and E-V22, "might have been brought to Sudan from North Africa after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000-8,000 years ago". And similarly, Cruciani et al. 2007 propose that E-M78 in Ethiopia, Somalia and surrounding areas, back-migrated to this region from the direction of Egypt after acquiring the E-M78 mutation.
Sub Clades of E-M78 There are four recognized subclades, which were mostly defined by Cruciani et al. 2006.
# E-V12 Found in Egypt, Sudan, and other places. Has an important subclade E-V32 which is very common among Ethiopian Oromo, Borana Oromo from Kenya and Somalis.
# E-V13 This is the most common type of E-M215 found in Europe and is especially common in the Balkans.
# E-V22 Found in Egypt, the Middle East and other places.
# E-V65 Associated with the Maghreb, but also found in Italy and Spain.
# E-M521 Found in two individuals in Greece by Battaglia et al. 2008
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: The authors noted that because E-V68* was not found in the Middle Eastern samples, this appears to be evidence of maritime migration from Africa to southwestern Europe.
Interesting. Maritime migration from Africa directly to southwestern Europe (not M81 carriers btw). I already mentioned something similar in this forum just looking at the Cruciani study (although he didn't mention it). Now it is confirmed by other genetic observations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You mean Southeastern Europe. And yes, this was noted many times before.
'Y-Chromosomal Evidence of the Cultural Diffusion of Agriculture in Southeast Europe'
European Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 17, 820–830; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.249; published online 24 December 2008 Vincenza Battaglia et al The presence of E-M78* Y chromosomes in the Balkans (two Albanians), previously described virtually only in northeast Africa, upper Nile,28, 63 gives rise to the question of what the original source of the E-M78 may have been. Correlations between human-occupation sites and radiocarbon-dated climatic fluctuations in the eastern Sahara and Nile Valley during the Holocene64 provide a framework for interpreting the main southeast European centric distribution of E-V13. A recent archaeological study reveals that during a desiccation period in North Africa, while the eastern Sahara was depopulated, a refugium existed on the border of present-day Sudan and Egypt, near Lake Nubia, until the onset of a humid phase around 8500 BC (radiocarbon-calibrated date). The rapid arrival of wet conditions during this Early Holocene period provided an impetus for population movement into habitat that was quickly settled afterwards.64 Hg E-M78* representatives, although rare overall, still occur in Egypt, which is a hub for the distribution of the various geographically localized M78-related sub-clades.28 The northward-moving rainfall belts during this period could have also spurred a rapid migration of Mesolithic foragers northwards in Africa, the Levant and ultimately onwards to Asia Minor and Europe, where they each eventually differentiated into their regionally distinctive branches.
Two archaeological sites located near Lake Nubia dating to the time period mentioned are Wadi Halfa and Jebel Sahaba.
skull from Wadi Halfa
skull from Jebel Sahaba
And Swenet is right, you guys run into problems when you try to correlate language to genome. While E-M78 is carried by many Nilo-Saharan speakers, E-M35 and other branches of E1b1b are carried by Afrasian speakers. As I mentioned the highest concentration of E1b1b carriers in the world is in the Horn specifically Somalia. And then E1b1b* original has its highest frequency among Khwe bushmen who are Khoisan speakers!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Don't forget there's 3 fingers pointing right back at you. You're an "anomaly" no doubt.
Don't get mad at Beyoku because y'all don't know what y'all talking about.
Speaking of whom, Beyoku do you still have that study you posted in Biodiversity about the neolithic Nubian remains that were analyzed and found to carry hg A-M13? These were the same remains by the way that were classified as 'Caucasian' cranio-facially wise.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^LMAO. Rescuing? How can you be so full of yourself and your command of population genetics when you don't even know that 'E-M35' isn't spelled like: 'E-35'. You retards are just learning as you go, parasiting on posters like Beyoku, Djehuti, and others, using the information they post as leads to follow up on, so you can come back to this forum and argue as if you knew it all along. So see-through.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^LMAO. Rescuing? How can you be so full of yourself and your command of population genetics when you don't even know that 'E-M35' isn't spelled like: 'E-35'. You retards are just learning as you go, parasiting on posters like Beyoku, Djehuti, and others, using the information they post as leads to follow up on, so you can come back to this forum and argue as if you knew it all along. So see-through.
How old are you? I made a typo one time but spelled E-M35 like 20 times only in this thread. What are you so mad about?
Stop acting so butt-hurt Swenet. If we all had the same opinions on this forum, this forum would be boring. I don't mind you or beyoku having different opinions than me.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Djehuti - The highest frequencies of E-M35* are usually found in Ethiopians . As far as subclades: E-M81 has been found at 100% in Tunisians Berbers. Also southern Africans have little to No E-m35*. Nearly all of it has been reclassified as E-m293. New research shows the diversity of Ethiopian E-m35 particularly in southern Ethiopia to be Very high.
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate I dont know if I can help you dude. There is pretty much established research that E-m35 lineages that spread from the Horn of Africa have a clear correlation with Afro-Asiatic languages that also spread from the horn of Africa. It has also been acknowledge that A3b2 and B2a1a are the core lineages of Eastern Nilo-Saharan speakers, especially Southern Nilotics. There are some clear overlaps looking at an E-m35 / M1 mtdna (other lineages not to be excluded) combination with the spread of Afroasiatic languages.
There is also an ABSENCE of Nilo-Saharan related early cultural material in areas known to have been inhabited by the core Afrasian/E-m35 populations. IE - E-m35 lineages are present very early in the Levant and of course the Horn where they have their origin yet these population are at the tail end of a Sudanic pottery tradition. The horn is at the tail end of a Nilo-Saharan affiliated Pastoral tradition. The horn is at the tail end as far as being he RECIPIENT of Sudanic and Sahelian Crops. I shouldn't have to post it again but even EGYPTIAN languages shows influence from Nilo-Saharan in refernce to Cattle Domestication and food production.
I guess some of the strongest evidence to drive the point home would be the analysis of Ancient Egyptians closest Neighbors - Nubians. Remember the analysis of Stone Aged Neolithic Nubians = Predominance of A-M91.
quote: Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley , and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba / Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13.
Not sure what else I can add. The only folks that I have seen that seem to be "troubled" by such a strong Nilo-Saharan connection is the few Horn Africans that have some type of complex and feel their genetic connection to Egypt is being usurped.............or the Euroclowns that found it acceptable for a Horn influence but not anything that can be close to a "true Negro" influence.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The majority of ancient Egyptians probably spoke Niger-Congo languages--not Nilo-Saharan.
. I don't believe Nubian speakers lived in ancient Egypt. They probably entered Nubia in Roman times , since they were not related to the Kushites or Egyptians.
The Nubians or Nobatai lived in the area from Aswan to Maharraqa called the Dodekaschoenas which was first under the rule of the Ptolemies and later the Romans. Most researchers believe that by 200 BC most of the region was occupied by Nubians. Ptolemy, noted that in the mid-2nd Century AD that the Nubae lived on the Westside of the Nile, and that they were not subjects of the Kushites.
David O'Connor makes it clear in Ancient Nubia: Egypt's Rival in Africa (1993), that the Nubians or Nobatai "adopted a Romano-Egyptian culture very different from that of Meroitic Lower Nubia" (p.72).
Welsby, in The Kingdom of Kush,also believes that the Dodekaschoenas was not fully occupied by Meroites. But there were some Meroites in the major cities.
When the Romans left the area in AD 270, the Diocletian agreement was between the Nobatae and the Romans, not the Romans and Kushites. This makes it clear that the Nubian speakers were Western oriented and not Meroites. In fact the oldest known Noba inscriptions were written in Greek and Coptic, not Meroitic. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great info Clyde Im happy to learn that the word Nubian is synonimous to Nobatai.The Nubian/Nobatae and the Kushite/Meroe were different black tribes of Soudan. Clyde are the words Nobatae and Nabatean of the Nabatean Kingdom of Jordan similar?.There was a Nobata Christian kingdom in Medieval Nubia.The word Napata seem similar to Nobatai.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^LMAO. Rescuing? How can you be so full of yourself and your command of population genetics when you don't even know that 'E-M35' isn't spelled like: 'E-35'. You retards are just learning as you go, parasiting on posters like Beyoku, Djehuti, and others, using the information they post as leads to follow up on, so you can come back to this forum and argue as if you knew it all along. So see-through.
How old are you? I made a typo one time but spelled E-M35 like 20 times only in this thread. What are you so mad about?
Stop acting so butt-hurt Swenet. If we all had the same opinions on this forum, this forum would be boring. I don't mind you or beyoku having different opinions than me.
The only one who is butt hurt is you. You know Obenga isn't supported by genetics, hence all your acrobatics to make the genetic data fit his work.
You don't even know how to spell E-M35. Until a few weeks ago you thought an SNP was a microsatellite. You think U6 plays a role in events that date to 94kya. Until a couple of days ago you thought that E-M78 was the same as E-M35, and you called E1b1b 'E-M35' (which it isn't). You thought that the relatively young E-M78 subclades in Fur and Masalit were evidence that E-M35 was native to Nilo-Saharans. You still think that relatively young E-M293 is evidence of native macrogroup E-M35 in Southern Africans (not realizing that E-M293 has ancestors that are marginal in Southern Africans). The list goes on.
You laughably try to turn this issue into a conflict of opinions, rather than a conflict of evidence backed views vs conjecture of someone who knows next to nothing about population genetics other than what ES posters have thought you. Just stop embarrassing yourself, and stay in your lane.
posted
^ Now, now, Swenet. Even if Amun-Ra was ignorant about some things, it's best to educate and elevate our fellow posters instead of putting them down. I'd rather have folks like Amun-Ra than Euronut clowns like Castrated or Afronut clowns like Clyde Winters who refuse to learn and still cling to their outdated notions of race and absurd linguistics.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Djehuti - The highest frequencies of E-M35* are usually found in Ethiopians . As far as subclades: E-M81 has been found at 100% in Tunisians Berbers. Also southern Africans have little to No E-m35*. Nearly all of it has been reclassified as E-m293. New research shows the diversity of Ethiopian E-m35 particularly in southern Ethiopia to be Very high.
So I was right about the Horn being an early hub for the MRCA of E1b1b. Yet you identify these people with Afrasian speakers. Are we even sure that Afrasian was a major language phylum in that area? I thought Afrasian originated in the Sudan-Egypt region.
quote:@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate I dont know if I can help you dude. There is pretty much established research that E-m35 lineages that spread from the Horn of Africa have a clear correlation with Afro-Asiatic languages that also spread from the horn of Africa. It has also been acknowledge that A3b2 and B2a1a are the core lineages of Eastern Nilo-Saharan speakers, especially Southern Nilotics. There are some clear overlaps looking at an E-m35 / M1 mtdna (other lineages not to be excluded) combination with the spread of Afroasiatic languages.
Not that I agree with Amun-Ra about the Nilotic thing concerning E-M35 or that I disagree with your assertion that Afrasian speakers weren't there in the Horn during the time of E-M35 hearth in the Horn but I am curious about the A and B lineages associated with Neolithic Nubians and associated culture similar to that found in Uganda(?)
quote:There is also an ABSENCE of Nilo-Saharan related early cultural material in areas known to have been inhabited by the core Afrasian/E-m35 populations. IE - E-m35 lineages are present very early in the Levant and of course the Horn where they have their origin yet these population are at the tail end of a Sudanic pottery tradition. The horn is at the tail end of a Nilo-Saharan affiliated Pastoral tradition. The horn is at the tail end as far as being he RECIPIENT of Sudanic and Sahelian Crops. I shouldn't have to post it again but even EGYPTIAN languages shows influence from Nilo-Saharan in refernce to Cattle Domestication and food production.
I totally concur. In fact I myself have posted several times the linguistic evidence of Nilo-Saharan influence on Egyptians and other Afrasian speakers when it comes to neolithic culture, but hunting and gathering terms are still Afrasian.
quote:I guess some of the strongest evidence to drive the point home would be the analysis of Ancient Egyptians closest Neighbors - Nubians. Remember the analysis of Stone Aged Neolithic Nubians = Predominance of A-M91.
Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley, and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba / Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13. Not sure what else I can add. The only folks that I have seen that seem to be "troubled" by such a strong Nilo-Saharan connection is the few Horn Africans that have some type of complex and feel their genetic connection to Egypt is being usurped.............or the Euroclowns that found it acceptable for a Horn influence but not anything that can be close to a "true Negro" influence.
LOL Indeed, the Euronuts and their Horn-supremacist useful idiot cronies are in deep doo-doo.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Excuse my French but I just have no patience for people who wilfully ignore data and/or masquerade as know-it-alls when all they're doing is Googling what we say and writing a comeback based on whatever scraps of information they can find. I've been nice to these loonies in the past, only to be made out for a biased ignoramus who ''just doesn't like the evidence''.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Great info Clyde Im happy to learn that the word Nubian is synonimous to Nobatai.The Nubian/Nobatae and the Kushite/Meroe were different black tribes of Soudan. Clyde are the words Nobatae and Nabatean of the Nabatean Kingdom of Jordan similar?.There was a Nobata Christian kingdom in Medieval Nubia.The word Napata seem similar to Nobatai.
I don't know about the relationship between the Jordanians and Noba.
In relation to Napata and Nobata, I don't believe they were the same. The people of Napata were Kushites, the noba appear to have migrated into Nubia after the rise of Meroe.
after the fall of Meroe, most of these groups migrated into West Africa, while the Bantu went south.
posted
Don't mean to change the subject since it was brought up,but i just want to make this clear.You guys could go back to main topic after this.
T.kendall Quote- Are the modern Nubians descendents of the ancient?
The modern Nubians are surely descended from the ancient peoples of Kush. Judging from the well preserved bodies of bowmen found in graves at Kerma and dating to about 2000 BC, the people of Nubia have changed very little physically from then to now, a fact which is also verified by the representations of Nubians in Egyptian art. Just as modern Arabic has almost eradicated the old Nubian language, so did the tongue of the ancient "Noba" eradicate very rapidly the ancient Meroitic language after the collapse of the Kushite monarchy in the fourth century AD. Although the Noba and the Kushites were separate language and culture groups, they had probably co-existed in the region for centuries, and physically they were probably indistinguishable. When the power of Meroe declined, the two groups surely intermingled, if they had not done so earlier; the Noba may have assumed dominance, but they retained close ties to their Meroitic roots. One way of being certain of this is from the fact that many Nubians, even now, still wear the same facial scars that can be seen on the images of the Kushite rulers on their monuments at Meroe and other sites. These marks are handed down through families from one generation to the next and identify one's tribal affiliation. Obviously they have passed down to the present from remote antiquity, transcending dynastic, tribal, cultural, religious, and linguistic change.
_____________________________________________
The kushites mostly remain were they at,some like the noba spread to other areas of sudan and nearby countries but most became nobaized and some intermarried.
That's why today's nubians could say they were kushites and the noba.
They were of the same ethnic group but they were different sub-groups or tribes or sub-ethnic groups,because they share the same basic culture and are closely related . The only difference was the language but everything thing else was basically the same in culture of course some variations but They still belong to the same ethnic group,just different tribes, like greeks and macedonians Nubian scholars know this and it was mention before from a nubian scholar i talked to years ago.
We do know the name of the main ethnic group they belong ,but egyptians called them all Neshesi.One day we may learn the NAME of main ethnic group the kasu and noba called themselves but i think we already know. More on that below.
They were something like the mande groups.,but at least we know the that bambara,and mandinka etc belong to a main ethnic group called mande.
Of course we may already know whay the ethnic group the kushite(kasu) and noba belong too.Remember that names and groups like kushite and noba are sub-ethinc groups or tribes that belong to a main or bigger group called NEHESI,NEHASYU etc.. This can't be ignored anymore.
Historical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Nubia By Richard A. Lobban Jr. page- 382 quote- TA-Nehesi,TA-NEHESIU,TA-NEHASYU,NEHESI.This middle and new kingdom egyptian reference to nubia means the "the land of nehesi,"Unlike the word "Ta-Setiu,' or land of the bowmen,' this appears to be an ethnic reference and may represent a term used by nubians for themselves.Some speculate that word "nehes" survives in modern nubians ethnic nomenclature as the :mahas." One delta king,nehesy(q.v.) is known in the second intermediate period,and one late viceroy of nubia,pa-nehesia(qq.v.)is believed to have been of nubians origin,judging from this root in his name.
___________________________________________________________________________ David O' CONNER Ancient nubia:Egypt's Rival in Africa page 74 QUOTE- Yet by christian times nubian,was spoken throughout nubia,and it's existence has been detected as early has the late bronze age.did meriotic and nubian speakers share the nubian nile?
David O'Conner was talking about meroite nubians,not the noba nubians. page 72
quote- By A.d. 200 settlement in both both roman and meroitic lower nubia became tense. Most of the dodekaschoenos'inhabitants were in fact probably nubian (and roman and meroitic officials collaborated in thier governance)but they adopted a romano-egyptian culture very different from that of meroitic lower nubia.
Derek A. Welsby THE KINGDOM OF KUSH -THE NAPATAN AND MEROITIC EMPIRES BOOK
Kushies on the world stage page-71 Two third-century kings of the kushites are recorded at philae,one in a graffito,the other in an inscription.The earlier of the may be the graffito recording in demotic the name of king Tqrrm,who has been identified with the Teqerideamani buried in pyramid Beg.N.23 at Meroe.It dates from the third year of the roman emperor trebonianus gallus(AD 253).
The other king 'Yesbokheamani' the name written above the figure of a king who is also named at Qasr Ibrim.It has been suggested that this king reigned from AD 283-300 and that during that period there may have been a Kushite reoccupation of lower nubia after diocletian withdrew roman forces back to aswan AD 298.
Others noting the activities of kushites,including officials of the king,in the dodekaschoinos has far north as the sanctuary of philae,have envisaged a de facto kushite control of that area for at least part of the third century.Diocletian is credited with a victory over the kushites and blemmyes in AD 297 but the where abouts of the fighting is not clear.
Diocletian's withdrawal from the dodekaschoinos may have been a formal acceptance of the status quo,in the same way that the emperor aurelian in AD 270 had been forced to acknowledge officially the loss of dacia.
The sixth-century roman historian procopius mentions that diocletian's agreement was with the nobate and not with that of the kushites. By the end of third century the stability of the northern frontier zone was under threat from other peoples,but this story belongs to that of the decline an fall of the kushite kingdom.
A good book dealing with this too is
At Empire's Edge: Exploring Rome's Egyptian Frontier. Robert B. Jackson - 2002
The decline and fall of the kushite kingdom page-196 QUOTE- It's end is shrouded in as mystery as it's beginnings well over a thousand years ago. It is clear,certainly,that no natural disaster stimulated these events.
The nubia of the early medieval period was a similar place,with the same potential for agriculture and settlement as the late period of the kushite period.
The period were also largely the same and there is little evidence for massive movements of population.
In the past the theory of mass migration theories are now out of fashion in the in archaeology the world over.
Continuity is seen as the normal state of cultural development.To some extent the end of the kushite state is now discounted altogether.
Lower nubia page 196-197 QOUTE- The byzantine historian procopius,writing in the mid-sixth century AD,records that diocletian withdrew the frontier to the first cataract and called upon the nobate to occupy and defend the vacated territory against the hostile desert tribes collectively called the blemmyes.
There is no mention of the kushites and it is generally assumed that they were no postion to play in the occupation of the old roman province.Althought there are some obvious errors in procopius account,the sequence of events has rarely been challenged.A close scrutiny of what little additional literary evidence there is indicates that probably at least as late as AD 336,the kushites were still a force to be reckoned with in the affairs of lower nubia.
A joint embassy to the emperor constantine,probaby on the occasion of his tricennalia,the thirtieth anniversary of his accession to power,came from the Ethiopians(kushites) and the blemmyes.
With the withdrawal of the roman frontier to the first cataract,it may have been the kushites who stepped in to fill the political vacuum,the situation recorded by procopius being more relevant to his time when the kushites had faded into history.The archaeological evidence may be interpreted to support the argument for a kushite presence in the fourth century.
The discovery of stone lion at qasr ibrim bearing the name of the kushite king Yesbokheamani (Amain-Yeshbehe), who is generally dated to the period AD 283-300,and the presence of his name philae and in the lion temple at meroe,indicate the territorial integrity of the kushite state at this time.
page 202 Continuity and change
David O' Conner shares this view
QUOTE- In the fourth and fifth centuries we are faced with the apparent contradiction of strong evidence for continuity and equally strong evidence for change.Some aspects of kushite life continued into this period while others disappeared entirely.Many of the discontinuities are in fact a re-emergence of very ancient local traditions.The most obvious of these is the use of tumuli as royal funerary monuments.This is the type of royal funerary monument we see at Kerma in the cemetery of the Kerma Kings.,and el kurru in the burials of early kushite rulers.
page 203 QUOTE- there was a gradual assimilation of of peoples from the east and west of into the nile valley,most notably the noba.These peoples will have been partly acculturated and influences emanating from them,like those coming from the north,will have been instrumental in bringing about developments in kushite culture.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
While E-M78 is carried by many Nilo-Saharan speakers, E-M35 and other branches of E1b1b are carried by Afrasian speakers. As I mentioned the highest concentration of E1b1b carriers in the world is in the Horn specifically Somalia. And then E1b1b* original has its highest frequency among Khwe bushmen who are Khoisan speakers!
This seems to be right.
E-M78(E1b1b) s have it's origin from Nilo-saharan speakers or proto Nilo-saharan and E-M35 (E1b1b) seems have origin it's from Afrasian speakers or proto-Afrasian speakers from what i have read so far. I am still kinda of new at this and still learning about it.
Origins The modern population of E-M215 and E-M35 lineages are almost identical, and therefore by definition age estimates based on these two populations are also identical. E-M215 and its dominant subclade E-M35 —formerly Haplogroup 21 - are believed to have first appeared in East Africa about 22,400 years ago.
All major sub-branches of E-M35 are thought to have originated in the same general area as the parent clade: in North Africa, East Africa, or nearby areas of the Near East. Some branches of E-M35 left Africa many thousands of years ago. For example Battaglia et al. (2007) estimated that E-M78 (called E1b1b1a1 in that paper) has been in Europe longer than 10,000 years. And more recently, human remains excavated in a Spanish funeral cave dating from approximately 7000 years ago were shown to be in this haplogroup. Nevertheless, E-M35 represents a more recent movement of people out of Africa than haplogroup CT, which otherwise dominates human populations outside Africa. Underhill (2002), for example, believes that the structure and regional pattern of E-M35 subclades potentially give "reagents with which to infer specific episodes of population histories associated with the Neolithic agricultural expansion".
Concerning European E-M35 within this scheme, Underhill & Kivisild (2007) have remarked that E-M215 seems to represent a late-Pleistocene migration from North Africa to Europe over the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. While this proposal remains uncontested, it has more recently been proposed by Trombetta et al. (2011) that there is also evidence for additional migration of E-M215 carrying men directly from Africa to southwestern Europe, via a maritime route.
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate I dont know if I can help you dude. There is pretty much established research that E-m35 lineages that spread from the Horn of Africa have a clear correlation with Afro-Asiatic languages that also spread from the horn of Africa. It has also been acknowledge that A3b2 and B2a1a are the core lineages of Eastern Nilo-Saharan speakers, especially Southern Nilotics. There are some clear overlaps looking at an E-m35 / M1 mtdna (other lineages not to be excluded) combination with the spread of Afroasiatic languages.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Also I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers.
I don't need help at all. You're the one who need some help. I never argued that Cushite or Chadic people didn't have M35. I just argued that the original Nilo-Saharans like the original Cushite and Chadic people were also M35 carriers. You said so yourself!!!: "I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers." That means you admit yourself that M35 was an original lineages among the original Nilo-Saharan speakers. That's the only thing I'm saying here. Really!
I just didn't understood why you were saying it's rare or something, when clearly it isn't. If M35, like you say, were part of the lineage of the original Nilo-Saharan speakers, then there's no way for you (or me) to know what percentages it had at that time (it was small at one time then has grown by definition of any genetic lineages) and recent percentages shows that some Nilo-Saharan people like the Masalit and Fur, Nilo-Saharan from Kenya to a lower degree, got some of the highest level of M35 in the world. That's fact.
You say "anomaly" but why do you say that when you admit yourself M35 were part of the original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers. That's what I don't understand. Please explain that to me.
If M35 were part of the original genetic lineages of the Nilo-Saharans then its perfectly normal, not an anomaly at all, if some Nilo-Saharans speakers got 70%+ of M35 while others have 30%+ and others maybe 2% or even 0%. Perfectly normal, low level, genetic drift effect created by geographic isolation from the motherland and the founder effect.
That's what I want you to explain to me. Why do you think the high percentage of M35 in Nilo-Saharan is an anomaly when you admit yourself than the original Nilo-Saharan people were M35 carriers? You're contradicting yourself.
What happened is that Cushite, Chadic, and Nilo-Saharan speakers were all original carriers of M35 mutations. Now they have different percentage of it due to the effect of genetic drift, founder effect, geographical distance and isolation from their ancestral homeland.
quote: There is also an ABSENCE of Nilo-Saharan related early cultural material in areas known to have been inhabited by the core Afrasian/E-m35 populations. IE - E-m35 lineages are present very early in the Levant and of course the Horn where they have their origin yet these population are at the tail end of a Sudanic pottery tradition. The horn is at the tail end of a Nilo-Saharan affiliated Pastoral tradition.
I don't know why you say Afrasian/E-M35 when you admit yourself Nilo-Saharan where part of the original carriers of M35, but yes Cushite and Chadic people too were carriers of M35 too if that's what you mean. At one point, Cushite and Chadic people separated from the Negro-Egyptian homeland which led to the dialectisation and ultimately to the creation of distinct proto-cushite and proto-chadic languages while proto-Nilo-Saharan did the same. This dialectisation is characterized evidently by relative isolation and thus the creation of distinct culture like the Nilo-Saharan with the Wavy line pottery making tradition and the creation of the food producing culture (which you call just below Sudanic and Sahelian cattle domestication and food production) .
quote: The horn is at the tail end as far as being he RECIPIENT of Sudanic and Sahelian Crops. I shouldn't have to post it again but even EGYPTIAN languages shows influence from Nilo-Saharan in refernce to Cattle Domestication and food production.
I guess some of the strongest evidence to drive the point home would be the analysis of Ancient Egyptians closest Neighbors - Nubians. Remember the analysis of Stone Aged Neolithic Nubians = Predominance of A-M91.
quote: Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley , and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba / Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13.
Not sure what else I can add. The only folks that I have seen that seem to be "troubled" by such a strong Nilo-Saharan connection is the few Horn Africans that have some type of complex and feel their genetic connection to Egypt is being usurped.............or the Euroclowns that found it acceptable for a Horn influence but not anything that can be close to a "true Negro" influence.
That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
Euroclown and horn supremacists can just eat it!!
In the other thread, as you now, I characterize that ancient Saharan culture and show the linkage between it and the Ancient Egyptians as you just pointed out. I will have to post that genetic linkage you just pointed out here in that thread too. It's also interesting that the pottery making tradition in Africa started in Mali (they have the oldest pottery in Africa), themselves influenced by the very ancient West African microlithic technocomplex culture. It's crazy to see how African people are all interrelated.:
posted
This long post supports what I wrote earlier. The Noba entered Nubia late, were supporters of the Romans--and replaced the Kushites as the dominent group in Nubia after the fall of the Meroitic empire.
.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Don't mean to change the subject since it was brought up,but i just want to make this clear.You guys could go back to main topic after this.
T.kendall Quote- Are the modern Nubians descendents of the ancient?
The modern Nubians are surely descended from the ancient peoples of Kush. Judging from the well preserved bodies of bowmen found in graves at Kerma and dating to about 2000 BC, the people of Nubia have changed very little physically from then to now, a fact which is also verified by the representations of Nubians in Egyptian art. Just as modern Arabic has almost eradicated the old Nubian language, so did the tongue of the ancient "Noba" eradicate very rapidly the ancient Meroitic language after the collapse of the Kushite monarchy in the fourth century AD. Although the Noba and the Kushites were separate language and culture groups, they had probably co-existed in the region for centuries, and physically they were probably indistinguishable. When the power of Meroe declined, the two groups surely intermingled, if they had not done so earlier; the Noba may have assumed dominance, but they retained close ties to their Meroitic roots. One way of being certain of this is from the fact that many Nubians, even now, still wear the same facial scars that can be seen on the images of the Kushite rulers on their monuments at Meroe and other sites. These marks are handed down through families from one generation to the next and identify one's tribal affiliation. Obviously they have passed down to the present from remote antiquity, transcending dynastic, tribal, cultural, religious, and linguistic change.
_____________________________________________
The kushites mostly remain were they at,some like the noba spread to other areas of sudan and nearby countries but most became nobaized and some intermarried.
That's why today's nubians could say they were kushites and the noba.
They were of the same ethnic group but they were different sub-groups or tribes or sub-ethnic groups,because they share the same basic culture and are closely related . The only difference was the language but everything thing else was basically the same in culture of course some variations but They still belong to the same ethnic group,just different tribes, like greeks and macedonians Nubian scholars know this and it was mention before from a nubian scholar i talked to years ago.
We do know the name of the main ethnic group they belong ,but egyptians called them all Neshesi.One day we may learn the NAME of main ethnic group the kasu and noba called themselves but i think we already know. More on that below.
They were something like the mande groups.,but at least we know the that bambara,and mandinka etc belong to a main ethnic group called mande.
Of course we may already know whay the ethnic group the kushite(kasu) and noba belong too.Remember that names and groups like kushite and noba are sub-ethinc groups or tribes that belong to a main or bigger group called NEHESI,NEHASYU etc.. This can't be ignored anymore.
Historical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Nubia By Richard A. Lobban Jr. page- 382 quote- TA-Nehesi,TA-NEHESIU,TA-NEHASYU,NEHESI.This middle and new kingdom egyptian reference to nubia means the "the land of nehesi,"Unlike the word "Ta-Setiu,' or land of the bowmen,' this appears to be an ethnic reference and may represent a term used by nubians for themselves.Some speculate that word "nehes" survives in modern nubians ethnic nomenclature as the :mahas." One delta king,nehesy(q.v.) is known in the second intermediate period,and one late viceroy of nubia,pa-nehesia(qq.v.)is believed to have been of nubians origin,judging from this root in his name.
___________________________________________________________________________ David O' CONNER Ancient nubia:Egypt's Rival in Africa page 74 QUOTE- Yet by christian times nubian,was spoken throughout nubia,and it's existence has been detected as early has the late bronze age.did meriotic and nubian speakers share the nubian nile?
David O'Conner was talking about meroite nubians,not the noba nubians. page 72
quote- By A.d. 200 settlement in both both roman and meroitic lower nubia became tense. Most of the dodekaschoenos'inhabitants were in fact probably nubian (and roman and meroitic officials collaborated in thier governance)but they adopted a romano-egyptian culture very different from that of meroitic lower nubia.
Derek A. Welsby THE KINGDOM OF KUSH -THE NAPATAN AND MEROITIC EMPIRES BOOK
Kushies on the world stage page-71 Two third-century kings of the kushites are recorded at philae,one in a graffito,the other in an inscription.The earlier of the may be the graffito recording in demotic the name of king Tqrrm,who has been identified with the Teqerideamani buried in pyramid Beg.N.23 at Meroe.It dates from the third year of the roman emperor trebonianus gallus(AD 253).
The other king 'Yesbokheamani' the name written above the figure of a king who is also named at Qasr Ibrim.It has been suggested that this king reigned from AD 283-300 and that during that period there may have been a Kushite reoccupation of lower nubia after diocletian withdrew roman forces back to aswan AD 298.
Others noting the activities of kushites,including officials of the king,in the dodekaschoinos has far north as the sanctuary of philae,have envisaged a de facto kushite control of that area for at least part of the third century.Diocletian is credited with a victory over the kushites and blemmyes in AD 297 but the where abouts of the fighting is not clear.
Diocletian's withdrawal from the dodekaschoinos may have been a formal acceptance of the status quo,in the same way that the emperor aurelian in AD 270 had been forced to acknowledge officially the loss of dacia.
The sixth-century roman historian procopius mentions that diocletian's agreement was with the nobate and not with that of the kushites. By the end of third century the stability of the northern frontier zone was under threat from other peoples,but this story belongs to that of the decline an fall of the kushite kingdom.
A good book dealing with this too is
At Empire's Edge: Exploring Rome's Egyptian Frontier. Robert B. Jackson - 2002
The decline and fall of the kushite kingdom page-196 QUOTE- It's end is shrouded in as mystery as it's beginnings well over a thousand years ago. It is clear,certainly,that no natural disaster stimulated these events.
The nubia of the early medieval period was a similar place,with the same potential for agriculture and settlement as the late period of the kushite period.
The period were also largely the same and there is little evidence for massive movements of population.
In the past the theory of mass migration theories are now out of fashion in the in archaeology the world over.
Continuity is seen as the normal state of cultural development.To some extent the end of the kushite state is now discounted altogether.
Lower nubia page 196-197 QOUTE- The byzantine historian procopius,writing in the mid-sixth century AD,records that diocletian withdrew the frontier to the first cataract and called upon the nobate to occupy and defend the vacated territory against the hostile desert tribes collectively called the blemmyes.
There is no mention of the kushites and it is generally assumed that they were no postion to play in the occupation of the old roman province.Althought there are some obvious errors in procopius account,the sequence of events has rarely been challenged.A close scrutiny of what little additional literary evidence there is indicates that probably at least as late as AD 336,the kushites were still a force to be reckoned with in the affairs of lower nubia.
A joint embassy to the emperor constantine,probaby on the occasion of his tricennalia,the thirtieth anniversary of his accession to power,came from the Ethiopians(kushites) and the blemmyes.
With the withdrawal of the roman frontier to the first cataract,it may have been the kushites who stepped in to fill the political vacuum,the situation recorded by procopius being more relevant to his time when the kushites had faded into history.The archaeological evidence may be interpreted to support the argument for a kushite presence in the fourth century.
The discovery of stone lion at qasr ibrim bearing the name of the kushite king Yesbokheamani (Amain-Yeshbehe), who is generally dated to the period AD 283-300,and the presence of his name philae and in the lion temple at meroe,indicate the territorial integrity of the kushite state at this time.
page 202 Continuity and change
David O' Conner shares this view
QUOTE- In the fourth and fifth centuries we are faced with the apparent contradiction of strong evidence for continuity and equally strong evidence for change.Some aspects of kushite life continued into this period while others disappeared entirely.Many of the discontinuities are in fact a re-emergence of very ancient local traditions.The most obvious of these is the use of tumuli as royal funerary monuments.This is the type of royal funerary monument we see at Kerma in the cemetery of the Kerma Kings.,and el kurru in the burials of early kushite rulers.
page 203 QUOTE- there was a gradual assimilation of of peoples from the east and west of into the nile valley,most notably the noba.These peoples will have been partly acculturated and influences emanating from them,like those coming from the north,will have been instrumental in bringing about developments in kushite culture.
That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
What are these elements? The vast majority of Egyptian terms are related to the Niger-Congo group.
posted
Well it's not completely what you said,but i will let that go,but one other thing i have to correct you on is that noba were supporters of the romans.
Most were not,it was just the northern nubian kingdom(lower nubia)the nobatai at times that were allies with them and other times raided roman egypt just like the noba of upper/southern nubia.
The noba of southern/upper nubia were not roman supporters.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate I dont know if I can help you dude. There is pretty much established research that E-m35 lineages that spread from the Horn of Africa have a clear correlation with Afro-Asiatic languages that also spread from the horn of Africa. It has also been acknowledge that A3b2 and B2a1a are the core lineages of Eastern Nilo-Saharan speakers, especially Southern Nilotics. There are some clear overlaps looking at an E-m35 / M1 mtdna (other lineages not to be excluded) combination with the spread of Afroasiatic languages.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Also I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers.
I don't need help at all. You're the one who need some help. I never argued that Cushite or Chadic people didn't have M35. I just argued that the original Nilo-Saharans like the original Cushite and Chadic people were also M35 carriers. You said so yourself!!!: "I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers." That means you admit yourself that M35 was an original lineages among the original Nilo-Saharan speakers. That's the only thing I'm saying here. Really!
I just didn't understood why you were saying it's rare or something, when clearly it isn't. If M35, like you say, were part of the lineage of the original Nilo-Saharan speakers, then there's no way for you (or me) to know what percentages it had at that time (it was small at one time then has grown by definition of any genetic lineages) and recent percentages shows that some Nilo-Saharan people like the Masalit and Fur, Nilo-Saharan from Kenya to a lower degree, got some of the highest level of M35 in the world. That's fact.
You say "anomaly" but why do you say that when you admit yourself M35 were part of the original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers. That's what I don't understand. Please explain that to me.
If M35 were part of the original genetic lineages of the Nilo-Saharans then its perfectly normal, not an anomaly at all, if some Nilo-Saharans speakers got 70%+ of M35 while others have 30%+ and others maybe 2% or even 0%. Perfectly normal, low level, genetic drift effect created by geographic isolation from the motherland and the founder effect.
That's what I want you to explain to me. Why do you think the high percentage of M35 in Nilo-Saharan is an anomaly when you admit yourself than the original Nilo-Saharan people were M35 carriers? You're contradicting yourself.
What happened is that Cushite, Chadic, and Nilo-Saharan speakers were all original carriers of M35 mutations. Now they have different percentage of it due to the effect of genetic drift, founder effect, geographical distance and isolation from their ancestral homeland.
quote: There is also an ABSENCE of Nilo-Saharan related early cultural material in areas known to have been inhabited by the core Afrasian/E-m35 populations. IE - E-m35 lineages are present very early in the Levant and of course the Horn where they have their origin yet these population are at the tail end of a Sudanic pottery tradition. The horn is at the tail end of a Nilo-Saharan affiliated Pastoral tradition.
I don't know why you say Afrasian/E-M35 when you admit yourself Nilo-Saharan where part of the original carriers of M35, but yes Cushite and Chadic people too were carriers of M35 too if that's what you mean. At one point, Cushite and Chadic people separated from the Negro-Egyptian homeland which led to the dialectisation and ultimately to the creation of distinct proto-cushite and proto-chadic languages while proto-Nilo-Saharan did the same. This dialectisation is characterized evidently by relative isolation and thus the creation of distinct culture like the Nilo-Saharan with the Wavy line pottery making tradition and the creation of the food producing culture (which you call just below Sudanic and Sahelian cattle domestication and food production) .
quote: The horn is at the tail end as far as being he RECIPIENT of Sudanic and Sahelian Crops. I shouldn't have to post it again but even EGYPTIAN languages shows influence from Nilo-Saharan in refernce to Cattle Domestication and food production.
I guess some of the strongest evidence to drive the point home would be the analysis of Ancient Egyptians closest Neighbors - Nubians. Remember the analysis of Stone Aged Neolithic Nubians = Predominance of A-M91.
quote: Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley , and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba / Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13.
Not sure what else I can add. The only folks that I have seen that seem to be "troubled" by such a strong Nilo-Saharan connection is the few Horn Africans that have some type of complex and feel their genetic connection to Egypt is being usurped.............or the Euroclowns that found it acceptable for a Horn influence but not anything that can be close to a "true Negro" influence.
That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
Euroclown and horn supremacists can just eat it!!
In the other thread, as you now, I characterize that ancient Saharan culture and show the linkage between it and the Ancient Egyptians as you just pointed out. I will have to post that genetic linkage you just pointed out here in that thread too. It's also interesting that the pottery making tradition in Africa started in Mali (they have the oldest pottery in Africa), themselves influenced by the very ancient West African microlithic technocomplex culture. It's crazy to see how African people are all interrelated.:
That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
What are these elements? The vast majority of Egyptian terms are related to the Niger-Congo group.
.
The elements are predominance of A-M91 among the Neolithic Nubians(Kushite) aDNA, food producing, religious and cattle domestication culture transferred to the Ancient Egyptians.
I think the Nile Valley and the Sahara were zones of linguistic and cultural compression and decompression related to climatic changes. This idea is discuss here in Anselin.
Consider this map:
At one point, Nilotic speakers as well as Chadic, Cushitic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers were "compressed" in one areas at the source of the Nile/Ethiopian/Sudan/East African approximate region. All those languages have their homeland in this area. This correspond to the A map in the image above. That is before 8500 BC. Maybe at 8500BC there was already some dialectisation of the Negro-Egyptian language, but that's beside the point. *Before* 8500BC, the A map, Nilotic, Chadic, Cushite, Niger-Kordofanian speakers were all compressed in one area. Their linguistic (thus genetic) homeland.
Then when the Sahara got green due to the shifting of the Monsoon rains, they separated from each others leading to full dialectisation and thus distinct language creation. The creation (or full blossoming) of proto-Nilotic, proto-Chadic, proto-Cushitic and proto-Niger Kordofanian languages. That is the decompression phases. B and C on the above map.
Then when the Sahara got dry again, all those "newly" distinct languages and people had to move back toward the Nile and other regions of Africa in search of greener pastures. The re-compression phase we see at D.
So before and during the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state, the D map, Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic speakers were now compressed along the Nile. Laying their genetic, linguistic and cultural influences in the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state. Ancient Egyptians were a melting pot composed by those people (and unified under one state by Narmer).
At one point, those people choose a language to be their lingua franca. They have chosen the proto-Ancient Egyptian language. A language influenced by ancient Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic languages (probably closer to Chadic and Cushitic though).
IMO, it's pretty normal for people like you to see some Niger-Congo (Niger-Kordofanian) words in Ancient Egyptians because some of their speakers were compressed along the Nile. Same as people can see Nilo-Saharan, Chadic and Cushite words in Ancient Egyptian. For the same reasons. They also share words from their Negro-Egyptian days (which also explain why Africans, that is Nilo-saharan, Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic speakers who didn't migrate all toward the Nile Valley during the desertification D map re-compression phase also share words and grammar forms. That is even when you don't take account the linguistic compression along the Nile Valley, those language groups still share many words and grammar forms). The Nile Valley after the desertification of the Sahara during the late Holocene became a zone of linguistic and cultural compression. All those languages (thus people) influenced to various degree the Ancient Egyptian lingua franca language as well as the culture they were all part of.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate . I am not about to reply to all of your Gobbledygook. After you read something you have to think long and hard about its implications as a hypothesis. You cannot just mishmash a bunch of data together which seems to be what you are doing.
quote: There is also an ABSENCE of Nilo-Saharan related early cultural material in areas known to have been inhabited by the core Afrasian/E-m35 populations . IE - E-m35 lineages are present very early in the Levant and of course the Horn where they have their origin yet these population are at the tail end of a Sudanic pottery tradition. The horn is at the tail end of a Nilo-Saharan affiliated Pastoral tradition. - Beyoku
Notice I said the "CORE" E-m35 carriers. E-m35 originated in the Horn of Africa and could have spread to Nilo or Proto-Nilo-Saharans much earlier than the influence of Nilo-Saharan technology the other way. A-m91 would still be indicative of a Core Nilo Saharan population while E-m35 a core Proto-AfroAsiatic one. If the core E-m35 population in the horn were Nilo-Saharan then they would not be lacking in Nilo Saharan technology. Southern Nilotics of Sudan are seen as the best population representing the Remnant of the Sudanic pastoral complex. They are overwhelmingly A and B. If anything the reverse is true and A-M91 has a longer presence among Afroastic speakers but that is s different argument for a different day.
Addressing your Climate controlled Occupation of the Egyptian Sahara: This is some of what Kropelin and Kuper state:
quote: The Eastern Sahara of Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Chad was home to nomadic people who followed rains that turned the desert into grassland. When the landscape dried up about 7,000 years ago, there was a mass exodus to the Nile and other parts of Africa.
Now remember what one of the first articles I linked to said about how the population of Wadi Hower in ANCIENT Sudan were the Ancestors of SOUTHERN Sudanese and Chadian Nilo-Saharan speakers. E1b1b lineages are not Key in Southern Sudanese or Chadians Nilo-Saharans. IN fact the mutation of V32 found in Modern Sudan didn't even exist at some of these early dates.
quote: Nomadic human settlers moved in from the south, taking up residence beside rivers and lakes. They were hunter-gatherers at first, living off plants and wild game. Eventually they became more settled, domesticating cattle for the first time, and making intricate pottery.
This is somewhat indicative of the Entire Sahara. Research does not indicate E-M35 lineages in Africa push from from some Central Sub Saharan or even East Central sub Saharan source. Instead E-m35 has a clear northward migration associated with areas of the Horn and Red Sea. Most of the research do date does not show E-m35 having some kind of Ancient East to West Sahelian migration. Furthermore, during these early dates the core E-m35 region on in the Horn does not even have pottery, nor do they have cattle this early.
quote: Humid conditions prevailed until about 6,000 years ago, when the Sahara abruptly dried out. There was then a gradual exodus of people to the Nile Valley and other parts of the African continent.
Again, E-M35 lineages do not show a distribution of being pushed into the Nile AND to "other parts of the African continent" (Think West and Central Sub Saharan Africa) E-M35 shows a Magreb, Horn, and Nile valley distribution pushing south mainly through the Nile Basin and Rift Valley only. E-M2, A3b2, and B2a1a show a wide distribution and would better fit such a hypothesis.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Amun-Ra The Ultimate . I am not about to reply to all of your Gobbledygook.
That's not what I ask you anyway. I didn't ask you to agree with me on all points. You simply avoid answering my simple question.
quote: You say the high percentage of M35 among Masalit and Fur nilotic speakers is an "anomaly" but why do you say that when you admit yourself M35 were part of the original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers. That's what I don't understand. Please explain that to me.
If M35 were part of the original genetic lineages of the Nilo-Saharans then its perfectly normal, not an anomaly at all, if some Nilo-Saharans speakers got 70%+ of M35 while others have 30%+ and others maybe 2% or even 0%. Perfectly normal, low level, genetic drift effect created by geographic isolation from the motherland and the founder effect.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: If the core E-m35 population in the horn were Nilo-Saharan then they would not be lacking in Nilo Saharan technology.
Sure they could. Both ancient Nilo-Saharans and ancient Cushitic/Chadic people lived somewhere in Eastern Africa(Sudan,Ethiopia, etc), lets say horn Africa to make you happy, that is before they developed their languages , many of them had M35 mutations (not all of them), then they separated from each others by migrating to other regions. It is after the migration to other region that Nilo-saharan developed their Nilo Saharan technology. It's also where they developed their proto-Nilo-Saharan language.
It's why Nilo-Saharan while sharing M35 mutation with Cushitic and Chadic speakers don't share the same language or developed the same technology. They shared their M35 mutation with Chadic and Cushitic speakers before the proto-nilotic and proto Cushitic/Chadic language existed. At that time they spoke another common language.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Addressing your Climate controlled Occupation of the Egyptian Sahara: This is some of what Kropelin and Kuper state:
quote: The Eastern Sahara of Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Chad was home to nomadic people who followed rains that turned the desert into grassland. When the landscape dried up about 7,000 years ago, there was a mass exodus to the Nile and other parts of Africa.
Now remember what one of the first articles I linked to said about how the population of Wadi Hower in ANCIENT Sudan were the Ancestors of SOUTHERN Sudanese and Chadian Nilo-Saharan speakers. E1b1b lineages are not Key in Southern Sudanese or Chadians Nilo-Saharans. IN fact the mutation of V32 found in Modern Sudan didn't even exist at some of these early dates.
quote: Nomadic human settlers moved in from the south, taking up residence beside rivers and lakes. They were hunter-gatherers at first, living off plants and wild game. Eventually they became more settled, domesticating cattle for the first time, and making intricate pottery.
This is somewhat indicative of the Entire Sahara. Research does not indicate E-M35 lineages in Africa push from from some Central Sub Saharan or even East Central sub Saharan source. Instead E-m35 has a clear northward migration associated with areas of the Horn and Red Sea. Most of the research do date does not show E-m35 having some kind of Ancient East to West Sahelian migration. Furthermore, during these early dates the core E-m35 region on in the Horn does not even have pottery, nor do they have cattle this early.
quote: Humid conditions prevailed until about 6,000 years ago, when the Sahara abruptly dried out. There was then a gradual exodus of people to the Nile Valley and other parts of the African continent.
Again, E-M35 lineages do not show a distribution of being pushed into the Nile AND to "other parts of the African continent" (Think West and Central Sub Saharan Africa) E-M35 shows a Magreb, Horn, and Nile valley distribution pushing south mainly through the Nile Basin and Rift Valley only. E-M2, A3b2, and B2a1a show a wide distribution and would better fit such a hypothesis.
None of what you said contradict anything I said in my reply to Clyde Winters. It does seem that M35 carriers whether they were Nilotic speakers or Chadic/Cushitic speakers eventually move more northward or stayed in the East African region (for example Masalit and Fur either stayed or migrated and stayed to North-Western Sudan). They don't seem to have migrated to Western or Central Africa in great numbers. At least that's the data we have at the moment (the samples of those regions in the Sahara are still scarce). While E-M2, A3b2, and B2a1a carriers speaking Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian language migrated to central Sahara and West Africa among other places. It is those people who developed pottery and cattle domestication in the Sahara and Sudanese region. The earliest pottery in Africa can be found in Mali. Horn Africans were on the receiving side of those technology as you said earlier.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
What are these elements? The vast majority of Egyptian terms are related to the Niger-Congo group.
.
The elements are predominance of A-M91 among the Neolithic Nubians(Kushite) aDNA, food producing, religious and cattle domestication culture transferred to the Ancient Egyptians.
I think the Nile Valley and the Sahara were zones of linguistic and cultural compression and decompression related to climatic changes. This idea is discuss here in Anselin.
Consider this map:
At one point, Nilotic speakers as well as Chadic, Cushitic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers were "compressed" in one areas at the source of the Nile/Ethiopian/Sudan/East African approximate region. All those languages have their homeland in this area. This correspond to the A map in the image above. That is before 8500 BC. Maybe at 8500BC there was already some dialectisation of the Negro-Egyptian language, but that's beside the point. *Before* 8500BC, the A map, Nilotic, Chadic, Cushite, Niger-Kordofanian speakers were all compressed in one area. Their linguistic (thus genetic) homeland.
Then when the Sahara got green due to the shifting of the Monsoon rains, they separated from each others leading to full dialectisation and thus distinct language creation. The creation (or full blossoming) of proto-Nilotic, proto-Chadic, proto-Cushitic and proto-Niger Kordofanian languages. That is the decompression phases. B and C on the above map.
Then when the Sahara got dry again, all those "newly" distinct languages and people had to move back toward the Nile and other regions of Africa in search of greener pastures. The re-compression phase we see at D.
So before and during the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state, the D map, Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic speakers were now compressed along the Nile. Laying their genetic, linguistic and cultural influences in the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state. Ancient Egyptians were a melting pot composed by those people (and unified under one state by Narmer).
At one point, those people choose a language to be their lingua franca. They have chosen the proto-Ancient Egyptian language. A language influenced by ancient Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic languages (probably closer to Chadic and Cushitic though).
IMO, it's pretty normal for people like you to see some Niger-Congo (Niger-Kordofanian) words in Ancient Egyptians because some of their speakers were compressed along the Nile. Same as people can see Nilo-Saharan, Chadic and Cushite words in Ancient Egyptian. For the same reasons. They also share words from their Negro-Egyptian days (which also explain why Africans, that is Nilo-saharan, Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic speakers who didn't migrate all toward the Nile Valley during the desertification D map re-compression phase also share words and grammar forms. That is even when you don't take account the linguistic compression along the Nile Valley, those language groups still share many words and grammar forms). The Nile Valley after the desertification of the Sahara during the late Holocene became a zone of linguistic and cultural compression. All those languages (thus people) influenced to various degree the Ancient Egyptian lingua franca language as well as the culture they were all part of.
quote: East Africa. The sub-clade A3b2 is present at high frequencies in Eastern African populations, in particular among Nilo-Saharan speakers. Based on the analysis of this lineage in Uganda, Gomes et al. 2010 proposed its association with this linguistic phylum. Our estimates of A3b2 antiquity (9 Kya; CI 3.7-20.2 Kya) do not refute this hypothesis, as they are broadly in agreement with the initial date for the spread of Nilo-Saharan phylum approximately between 12 and 18 Kya (Ehret 2000; Blench 2006).
Also keep in mind the Masalit and the Fur you speak (as well as some Groups in Kenya) of carry high frequencies of a RECENT TERMINAL Branch of E-m78 - the V32 mutation. It has an age of about 8500 years and supposed to have reached Somalia by only 4-5 KYA. The spread of E-m35 and its subclades have a distribution from the Horn to To Egypt as far as Ancestral to Terminal. IF the E-m78 lineages found in the Nilo-Saharans in question were autochthonous then you would see a Saharan or Sahelian to Egypt distribution as far as Ancestral to Terminal. The Sahelian and Saharan lineages and those of western Sudan should predate those of Egypt in the Same way that Sahelian E-M2 lineages predate those of west Central and possible West Africa.
You are better off disregarding the frequency of the Fur and Massalit and instead concentrating on the Borgu which have a significant amount of E-M35* The presence of E-m35 in Southern Sudanese is actually quite lacking - A Singleton in ALL of the samples.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Great paper. Thanks.
.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
What are these elements? The vast majority of Egyptian terms are related to the Niger-Congo group.
.
The elements are predominance of A-M91 among the Neolithic Nubians(Kushite) aDNA, food producing, religious and cattle domestication culture transferred to the Ancient Egyptians.
I think the Nile Valley and the Sahara were zones of linguistic and cultural compression and decompression related to climatic changes. This idea is discuss here in Anselin.
Consider this map:
At one point, Nilotic speakers as well as Chadic, Cushitic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers were "compressed" in one areas at the source of the Nile/Ethiopian/Sudan/East African approximate region. All those languages have their homeland in this area. This correspond to the A map in the image above. That is before 8500 BC. Maybe at 8500BC there was already some dialectisation of the Negro-Egyptian language, but that's beside the point. *Before* 8500BC, the A map, Nilotic, Chadic, Cushite, Niger-Kordofanian speakers were all compressed in one area. Their linguistic (thus genetic) homeland.
Then when the Sahara got green due to the shifting of the Monsoon rains, they separated from each others leading to full dialectisation and thus distinct language creation. The creation (or full blossoming) of proto-Nilotic, proto-Chadic, proto-Cushitic and proto-Niger Kordofanian languages. That is the decompression phases. B and C on the above map.
Then when the Sahara got dry again, all those "newly" distinct languages and people had to move back toward the Nile and other regions of Africa in search of greener pastures. The re-compression phase we see at D.
So before and during the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state, the D map, Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic speakers were now compressed along the Nile. Laying their genetic, linguistic and cultural influences in the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state. Ancient Egyptians were a melting pot composed by those people (and unified under one state by Narmer).
At one point, those people choose a language to be their lingua franca. They have chosen the proto-Ancient Egyptian language. A language influenced by ancient Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic languages (probably closer to Chadic and Cushitic though).
IMO, it's pretty normal for people like you to see some Niger-Congo (Niger-Kordofanian) words in Ancient Egyptians because some of their speakers were compressed along the Nile. Same as people can see Nilo-Saharan, Chadic and Cushite words in Ancient Egyptian. For the same reasons. They also share words from their Negro-Egyptian days (which also explain why Africans, that is Nilo-saharan, Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic speakers who didn't migrate all toward the Nile Valley during the desertification D map re-compression phase also share words and grammar forms. That is even when you don't take account the linguistic compression along the Nile Valley, those language groups still share many words and grammar forms). The Nile Valley after the desertification of the Sahara during the late Holocene became a zone of linguistic and cultural compression. All those languages (thus people) influenced to various degree the Ancient Egyptian lingua franca language as well as the culture they were all part of.
Thanks means a lot coming from you. Much of what I said was inspired by what the Anselin paper said.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: When did you read the Anselin paper for the first time?
Why don't we talk about the content of the Anselin paper itself? Related to the topic of this thread. Have you read it? What do you think about it? I find the concept of linguistic and cultural compression, decompression and re-compression very interesting among other things. It seems to goes in line with the archeology of the region among other things.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: When did you read the Anselin paper for the first time?
Why don't we talk about the content of the Anselin paper itself? Related to the topic of this thread. Have you read it? What do you think about it? I find the concept of linguistic and cultural compression, decompression and re-compression very interesting among other things. It seems to goes in line with the archeology of the region among other things.
Well you cannot even seem to get past the basics which is the association of E-m35 with the migration of Afroasiatic speakers.........As well as the recent origin and migration of E-V32. Also I noted some clear autsomal affinities of the populations you are arguing about and you still fail to grasp it or you are stubbornly arguing against it - Right now I am not sure which one.
There is no way That I am going to read something and then so quickly incorporate it into some larger theory without looking at ALL the details and caveats that exist. You did this last time with the Sudanic crop/Pottery/Nilo-Saharan/E1b1a argument. You cannot just run with someones theory because you dont know the details they had to go through to come up with it, nor all the inconsistencies the creator of such a theory already knows about. Anselin for the most part does not say anything NEW. But if you cannot see past the basic E-m35 = Afroasiatic then you need to put him to the side.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Also I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers.
A lot of fluff for nothing. My reply to Clyde Winters got nothing to do with the M35 among Cushitic/Chadic and Nilo-Saharan speakers. Even yourself agrees with me that E-M35 is part of the original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers. But yes it does seems that Chadic, Cushitic and Berber speaking people too carry a great proportion of E-M35. E-M35 predates the dialectisation/creation of those language groups.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Also I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers.
A lot of fluff for nothing. My reply to Clyde Winters got nothing to do with the M35 among Cushitic/Chadic and Nilo-Saharan speakers. Even yourself agrees with me that E-M35 is part of the original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers. But yes it does seems that Chadic, Cushitic and Berber speaking people too carry a great proportion of E-M35. E-M35 predates the dialectisation/creation of those language groups.
LOL, Becuase I didnt argue it wasn't an original lineages does not mean I would argue it was. I am keeping my neutrality on an issue like that. And of course ALL these lineages predate and language families but they can still be utilized to point to some of the CORE carriers and what can be an indication of admixture or absorption of some of these Carriers. Haplogroup J and T2 are found in Ethiopian Afroasiatic speakers at even higher frequency than E-m35 lienages are found in Nilo-Saharans!.........Do you hypothesize these lineages were integral in spreading Afroasiatic languages and were "Original lineages" of Afroasiatic speakers?
The basic story is this:
-Afroasiatic seem to develop in an area where the people carried E-M35 lineages. -NiloSaharan developed in an area somewhat Void of E-m35 lineages. -Some of these areas overlapped (which is what the OP was about) but this is comparatively LATE in the evolutionary history of the lineages in question. IE Nilo-Saharans are void of E1b1* while Horner Afroasiatics are void of E1b1a. etc. -MOST of the E-m35 lineages found in Nilo-Saharan are RECENT mutations of E-m35. You hardly find the E-M215*, E-M35*. What you MOSTLY find is recent M78(V32) lineages, mostly associated with the southern Migration of Cushtiic speakers or other humans that have admixed or absorbed Cushitic speakers. Along with V32 there is usually the addition of Maternal lineages considered North East African or Non-African. These lineages are not known to have spread directly to populations that far south in the Rift but are seen as African mediated Geneflow from the Horn of Africa.
The most ANCIENT DNA results of assumed Nilo-Saharan speakers in Sudan (A-Group) showed the predominance of A-M91, one of the Core lineages of Modern Nilo-Saharan speakers and the article spoke of YAP lineages as an INTROGRESSION ONTO this Nilotic Base. If anything A3b2 being the second and most important lineage in the Horn of Africa represents a an older Substratum and not necessarily "Admixture" recent Nilo-Saharans. There is better evidence of this.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Great paper. Thanks.
.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
What are these elements? The vast majority of Egyptian terms are related to the Niger-Congo group.
.
The elements are predominance of A-M91 among the Neolithic Nubians(Kushite) aDNA, food producing, religious and cattle domestication culture transferred to the Ancient Egyptians.
I think the Nile Valley and the Sahara were zones of linguistic and cultural compression and decompression related to climatic changes. This idea is discuss here in Anselin.
Consider this map:
At one point, Nilotic speakers as well as Chadic, Cushitic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers were "compressed" in one areas at the source of the Nile/Ethiopian/Sudan/East African approximate region. All those languages have their homeland in this area. This correspond to the A map in the image above. That is before 8500 BC. Maybe at 8500BC there was already some dialectisation of the Negro-Egyptian language, but that's beside the point. *Before* 8500BC, the A map, Nilotic, Chadic, Cushite, Niger-Kordofanian speakers were all compressed in one area. Their linguistic (thus genetic) homeland.
Then when the Sahara got green due to the shifting of the Monsoon rains, they separated from each others leading to full dialectisation and thus distinct language creation. The creation (or full blossoming) of proto-Nilotic, proto-Chadic, proto-Cushitic and proto-Niger Kordofanian languages. That is the decompression phases. B and C on the above map.
Then when the Sahara got dry again, all those "newly" distinct languages and people had to move back toward the Nile and other regions of Africa in search of greener pastures. The re-compression phase we see at D.
So before and during the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state, the D map, Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic speakers were now compressed along the Nile. Laying their genetic, linguistic and cultural influences in the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state. Ancient Egyptians were a melting pot composed by those people (and unified under one state by Narmer).
At one point, those people choose a language to be their lingua franca. They have chosen the proto-Ancient Egyptian language. A language influenced by ancient Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic languages (probably closer to Chadic and Cushitic though).
IMO, it's pretty normal for people like you to see some Niger-Congo (Niger-Kordofanian) words in Ancient Egyptians because some of their speakers were compressed along the Nile. Same as people can see Nilo-Saharan, Chadic and Cushite words in Ancient Egyptian. For the same reasons. They also share words from their Negro-Egyptian days (which also explain why Africans, that is Nilo-saharan, Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic speakers who didn't migrate all toward the Nile Valley during the desertification D map re-compression phase also share words and grammar forms. That is even when you don't take account the linguistic compression along the Nile Valley, those language groups still share many words and grammar forms). The Nile Valley after the desertification of the Sahara during the late Holocene became a zone of linguistic and cultural compression. All those languages (thus people) influenced to various degree the Ancient Egyptian lingua franca language as well as the culture they were all part of.
Thanks means a lot coming from you. Much of what I said was inspired by what the Anselin paper said.
Given your interest in the work of Anselin you may want to check out his journal i-Medjet.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] Also I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers.
A lot of fluff for nothing. My reply to Clyde Winters got nothing to do with the M35 among Cushitic/Chadic and Nilo-Saharan speakers. Even yourself agrees with me that E-M35 is part of the original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers. But yes it does seems that Chadic, Cushitic and Berber speaking people too carry a great proportion of E-M35. E-M35 predates the dialectisation/creation of those language groups.
LOL, Becuase I didnt argue it wasn't an original lineages does not mean I would argue it was.
That's ridiculous. Why tell people on this forum that you "never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers", if that's what you think and what you're actually arguing? You're dishonest and ridiculous.
As for newer V32, it could have developed among Nilo-Saharan speakers carrying M35 and be transmitted to other people at the same time of their Nilo-Saharan pottery and food producing technology or even before that. You admit yourself that Horn Africans were at the tail end of those innovations. They could have been on the tail end of the newer mutations like V32 too. Masalit got higher level of M78 and V32 than Somali and other East Africans after all (comparing Cruciani numbers about East Africans with Hassan numbers about Masalit).
While interesting, I don't bank too much on paragroups as they are often simply haplogroups waiting to be defined (by genetic analysis). Each humans are born with about 100 mutations after all. Some of those mutations are bound to become dominant through genetic drift. Especially in ancient times with smaller population sizes. Although they do show that particular people carrying some specific paragroup are not direct descendant of the people with haplogroups already defined even if they share some ancestral haplogroup. For example, we know South Africans carrying former E-M35* didn't receive it from Nilo-Saharan people carrying the M78 mutations (although they did receive it from Nilo-Saharans carrying M35, even linguistic analysis proves it). Now that their haplogroup is defined as M293 it changes nothing about that.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: While interesting, I don't bank too much on paragroups as they are often simply haplogroups waiting to be defined (by genetic analysis).
LMAO. I can distinctly remember you equating what used to be unresolved Khoisan E-M35 with E-M35 itself a few weeks ago. When are you going to stop acting like you knew all of this all along, when everyone knows you get everything you know from Googling the pieces of information you find here? Why are you masquaring as a know it all, when you're just a fraud who comes here to debate what he picks up as here learns?
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Also note in the same table the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung, Khwe and Bantu populations. Since they have no E-M78 in their population they likely acquired the M35 mutation within a population which didn't have the M78 mutation yet. A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation. The Khwe got the highest frequency of E-M35* haplogroup in the world.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: While interesting, I don't bank too much on paragroups as they are often simply haplogroups waiting to be defined (by genetic analysis).
LMAO. I can distinctly remember you equating what used to be unresolved Khoisan E-M35 with E-M35 itself a few weeks ago. When are you going to stop acting like you knew all of this all along, when everyone knows you get everything you know from Googling the pieces of information you find here? Why are you masquaring as a know it all, when you're just a fraud who comes here to debate what he picks up as here learns?
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Also note in the same table the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung, Khwe and Bantu populations. Since they have no E-M78 in their population they likely acquired the M35 mutation within a population which didn't have the M78 mutation yet. A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation. The Khwe got the highest frequency of E-M35* haplogroup in the world.
That's what I just said in the post above. While I didn't know the paragroup of the Southern African population was already defined as M293, I knew it could have already been defined without me knowing about it or could be in the future, so I took good care in my post in mentioning that the main aspect was them not having receiving it from M78 carrying population (or other already defined M35 descendant haplogroups) as just stated in the post above. Which of course is still true. They received it from Nilo-Saharans populations carrying M35 who didn't carried M78 mutations (nor E-V32 for that matter).
Let's recall that according to the study which defined the M293 mutation.
quote:The high level of Y-STR diversity on the M293 background in the Datog population, coupled with highest frequency, suggests that the Datog have carried M293 longer than any other population.
Any other population (hint: including Cushitic speakers too)!! So Nilo-Saharan Datog received an older form of M35 and are the originator of the M293. Same way as Hassan suggest Masalit "proximity to the origin of the [E-V32] haplogroup".
For the record, I never pretended to know it all and you don't know it all either. I look forward in exchanging information, opinions, argumentation and counter-argumentation with anybody on this forum. If people provide good argumentation about any subjects, I may even change opinion.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: That's what I just said in the post above.
Stop lying. Back then you thought that the aterisk meant that the clade being referred to was the most upstream version. **I** was the one who told you that the Khoisan specific E-M35 was not native to them and unresolved E-M35.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I knew it could have already been defined without me knowing about it or could be in the future, so I took good care in my post in mentioning that the main aspect was them not having receiving it from M78 carrying population
That is not what you were saying. You're such a lying lamo. You CLEARLY said that Khoisan E-M35* HAD to be basal, because the Khoisan lack of E-M78 is testament to the non-existence of E-M78 back then. Otherwise, you wouldn't even have referred to this E-M35 as ''E-M35 that's close to E-P2''. This is another example of you being schooled on this forum, googling information, and then acting like you knew it all along a couple of days later.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: They received it from Nilo-Saharans populations carrying M35 who didn't carried M78 mutations (nor E-V32 for that matter).
Your reasoning is too retarded for words. The entire E-M35 phylogenetic tree connects all individuals within Afrasan speaking groups, from the tips of various twigs at the bottom (E-M81, E-M34), to the roots at the top (E-M215). You then find a tiny, young, twig somewhere near the bottom of this clearly intrinsically Afrasan tree, and you then claim that this haplogroup can just magically appear in the Nilo-Saharan phylogenetic tree, independent of Afrasan admixture. If I didn't know any better I'd say you're an Euronut trying to make a caricature out of Afronuts by making them look super dumb. But no, you're actually obtuse enough to think that it makes sense that individual sub-clades of E-M35 can appear in Nilo-Saharans, without them possessing the necessary ancestors clades. According to you, haplogroups can just magically appear in any population; they don't need to be present in an ancestral state first, right?
quote:So Nilo-Saharan Datog received an older form of M35 and are the originator of the M293.
See what I write above. You don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
quote:Same way as Hassan suggest Masalit "proximity to the origin of the [E-V32] haplogroup".
LMAO. Do you think that Hassan excerpt is in agreement with you? I feel sorry for you, because you clearly have an impaired frontal lobe, lol.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: For the record, I never pretended to know it all
Of course you do. That's why, ever since you went outside of the bounds of your picture thread, you've been arguing with established ES posters (who have a much longer history of reading and analysing research than you do), about the most basic, accepted scientific tenets.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: That's what I just said in the post above.
Stop lying. Back then you thought that the aterisk meant that the clade being referred to was the most upstream version. **I** was the one who told you that the Khoisan specific E-M35 was not native to them and unresolved E-M35.
This never happened, if it did show us where (what post number in this thread ,or some other thread). You're delusional. The rest of the post is crap too. I don't know why you so mad and why you so butt-hurt about my posts but you need to lay off the emotional baggage from other threads. Can't we just have adult and fun discussions and have different opinions without you throwing a fit every time somebody disagree with you? That type of posts you're making make you sound retarded and juvenile. If you were truly confident about your positions you wouldn't have to do that.
N.B Swenet won't be able to produce where this has happened because this isn't true and he's delusional.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: That's what I just said in the post above.
Stop lying. Back then you thought that the aterisk meant that the clade being referred to was the most upstream version. **I** was the one who told you that the Khoisan specific E-M35 was not native to them and unresolved E-M35.
N.B Swenet won't be able to produce where this has happened because this isn't true and he's delusional.
the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung (....) A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation. --Amun-Ra the ultimate (liar)Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic