quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: If you care so much about African history being appropriated, you should try to Advocate for those who carry Autochthonous ancestry regardless of there skin color. New phenotypic data of the North Africans of the neolithic shows that they likely lacked the usual genes for lighter skin. You can no longer attribute darker skin color to the slave trade. And we know for certain the degree of Non African ancestry in North Africa because all of academia have been looking for it proper for over 2 decades. No one is appropriating anything.
There is a cumulative bias is recent academia that supports your side of the argument. Despite that we lack clarity in understanding the region and anywhere else in Africa. The reason is because said biases lead to anti-imperical practices. Talks about the anthropological history of Africa is often stalled due to a lack of clear headed research and ideas. Case in point this thread felt like a case of Appropriating to you just because the potential phenotype of Seti I scared you. This pattern persists and continues to kill excitement on the topics everywhere.
It is truly surprising that someone as intelligent and knowledgeable as you would still advocate for the notion of an ancient black North Africa, despite all the information you've come across. However, it is important to note that North Africans do indeed possess indigenous ancestry, and the non-indigenous ancestry you mention has been present in the region since the Pleistocene era. Light skin appeared in the region since at least the mid-6th millennium BC, alongside an Anatolian component that constituted a significant portion of the DNA in ancient and modern samples. Furthermore, numerous migrations during the Copper and Bronze Ages introduced additional European ancestry.
Moreover, there is no reason to believe that Pleistocene North Africans would have had the same level of skin pigmentation as equatorial Africans, particularly considering their evolution in the Mediterranean region over an extended period. I fail to understand your argument in this regard, as the presence or absence of dark skin does not establish any genetic or morphological similarities between North Africans and Afro-Americans, who often attempt to appropriate the history and heritage of our ancestors.
Regardless of whether you believe in a "cumulative bias," the existing data does not support your position. Additionally, I see no reason for the "potential phenotype" of Seti I to instill fear in me, as I am already aware of the typical appearance of Egyptians during his time.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] I am one of the few North Africans on the internet who acknowledges the existence of black skinned populations in ancient times, particularly in the Sahara.
Is this supposed to be some sort of generosity on your part, admitting to obvious fact...and this is the side you advocate for, who can't even admit the f-king obvious, FACT...lol, but Afrocentrists are the only problem..smh
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mentioned on the thread before it was deleted that you get harassment comments...
My response is, so what? You're literally rolling in the mud with rabid dogs, don't be upset if you come up with fleas. I've debated Afrocentrists and got called all sort of names. You feel justified defending your people so who cares what some internet thug says. Your people literally control North Africa and your side controls the narrative...
Black Presence above the magical SSA barrier is of slave decent per mainstream consensus...any sort of conflicting narriative is Afrocentrism worthy of Viral World Wide media melt down...
So cry me a river.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You wrote..
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] I am one of the few North Africans on the internet who acknowledges the existence of black skinned populations in ancient times, particularly in the Sahara.
Is this supposed to be some sort of generosity on your part, admitting to obvious fact...and this is the side you advocate for, who can't even admit the f-king obvious, FACT...lol, but Afrocentrists are the only problem..smh
Many of the so called "black" in North Africa are, in fact, more closely related to us or Eurasians than to West Africans like yourself. So stop playing the black panther in their name. and yes I do hold a more nuanced perspective on this matter, as I have extensively studied numerous books and papers on the subject. However, believing that ancient Egyptians or Mediterranean North Africans were universally "black" in the American sense is unrealistic and inconsistent with the available data.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does this have to do with what I said, can you for once in your life stay on topic without resorting to one-trick pony-ism, "They're not West African/SSA Mantra Talking points?
Did I say anything about who or what they were related to
or did I mention that its YOUR
Y O U R
Side who can't even admit to plain and simple fact born out by primary evidence.
Why is that?
Why cant' you discuss that without obfuscation?
Are you going to discuss with me or continue to play games?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You wrote..
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] I am one of the few North Africans on the internet who acknowledges the existence of black skinned populations in ancient times, particularly in the Sahara.
Is this supposed to be some sort of generosity on your part, admitting to obvious fact...and this is the side you advocate for, who can't even admit the f-king obvious, FACT...lol, but Afrocentrists are the only problem..smh
Many of the so called "black" in North Africa are, in fact, more closely related to us or Eurasians than to West Africans like yourself. So stop playing the black panther in their name. and yes I do hold a more nuanced perspective on this matter, as I have extensively studied numerous books and papers on the subject. However, believing that ancient Egyptians or Mediterranean North Africans were universally "black" in the American sense is unrealistic and inconsistent with the available data.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You mentioned on the thread before it was deleted that you get harassment comments...
My response is, so what? You're literally rolling in the mud with rabid dogs, don't be upset if you come up with fleas. I've debated Afrocentrists and got called all sort of names. You feel justified defending your people so who cares what some internet thug says. Your people literally control North Africa and your side controls the narrative...
Black Presence above the magical SSA barrier is of slave decent per mainstream consensus...any sort of conflicting narriative is Afrocentrism worthy of Viral World Wide media melt down...
So cry me a river.
It appears that you are unaware of the persistent harassment we face, even when we refrain from interacting with them. Simply discussing our history or ancestors is enough to attract a significant amount of harassment from them. This issue is even more severe when it comes to Egyptians. When we respond to their harassment, they often feign victimhood and accuse us of being racist. This is precisely why I find it difficult to believe certain individuals here when they claim that most Afro-Americans do not claim North Africa and that Afrocentrists only represent a small minority.
Moreover, it is a factual reality that the vast majority of "blacks" in modern North Africa are descendants of slaves. Centuries of slavery cannot be dismissed simply because it makes you uncomfortable with it. The prevalence of slave ancestry is so widespread that distinguishing individuals with indigenous heritage becomes practically impossible. I previously started a thread on this topic, which you evidently chose to ignore.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] What does this have to do with what I said, can you for once in your life stay on topic without resorting to one-trick pony-ism, "They're not West African/SSA Mantra Talking points?
Did I say anything about who or what they were related to
or did I mention that its YOUR
Y O U R
Side who can't even admit to plain and simple fact born out by primary evidence.
Why is that?
Why cant' you discuss that without obfuscation?
Are you going to discuss with me or continue to play games?
Which side are you talking about ? You think we all share the same opinions ? Most North Africans on the internet are totally unaware of their history and I certainly don't side with any of them.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:It appears that you are unaware of the persistent harassment we face, even when we refrain from interacting with them. Simply discussing our history or ancestors is enough to attract a significant amount of harassment from them. This issue is even more severe when it comes to Egyptians. When we respond to their harassment, they often feign victimhood and accuse us of being racist.
No one is taking them serious, North Africa is firmly in the hands of Arabs and native Amazigh, Your side controls the narriative
Cry me a River...
The End...
quote:This is precisely why I find it difficult to believe certain individuals here when they claim that most Afro-Americans do not claim North Africa and that Afrocentrists only represent a small minority.
I'll admit that "Afrocentrism" if you count bogus ideologies like Black Hebrewism etc., then its not a minority..
quote:Moreover, it is a factual reality that the vast majority of "blacks" in modern North Africa are descendants of slaves. Centuries of slavery cannot be dismissed simply because it makes you uncomfortable with it. The prevalence of slave ancestry is so widespread that distinguishing individuals with indigenous heritage becomes practically impossible. I previously started a thread on this topic, which you evidently chose to ignore.
Ignore? LOL
More like IDGAF, I know all about your people's history of enslaving and racism. Why do I need to read your trashy thread when I've read actual academic books on the subject years ago..lol
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You mentioned on the thread before it was deleted that you get harassment comments...
My response is, so what? You're literally rolling in the mud with rabid dogs, don't be upset if you come up with fleas. I've debated Afrocentrists and got called all sort of names. You feel justified defending your people so who cares what some internet thug says. Your people literally control North Africa and your side controls the narrative...
Black Presence above the magical SSA barrier is of slave decent per mainstream consensus...any sort of conflicting narriative is Afrocentrism worthy of Viral World Wide media melt down...
So cry me a river.
It appears that you are unaware of the persistent harassment we face, even when we refrain from interacting with them. Simply discussing our history or ancestors is enough to attract a significant amount of harassment from them. This issue is even more severe when it comes to Egyptians. When we respond to their harassment, they often feign victimhood and accuse us of being racist. This is precisely why I find it difficult to believe certain individuals here when they claim that most Afro-Americans do not claim North Africa and that Afrocentrists only represent a small minority.
Moreover, it is a factual reality that the vast majority of "blacks" in modern North Africa are descendants of slaves. Centuries of slavery cannot be dismissed simply because it makes you uncomfortable with it. The prevalence of slave ancestry is so widespread that distinguishing individuals with indigenous heritage becomes practically impossible. I previously started a thread on this topic, which you evidently chose to ignore.
How would you know, don't you live in France?
Stop being insecure and delusional.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: No one is taking them serious, North Africa is firmly in the hands of Arabs and native Amazigh, Your side controls the narriative
Cry me a River...
The End...
Firmly in our hands ? Yes I can see that XD :
Go check how she portrayed ancient egyptians literally at the MET museum...
you can add this too
And these are only 2 very recent examples. I can easily show you 30 more examples.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: More like IDGAF, I know all about your people's history of enslaving and racism. Why do I need to read your trashy thread when I've read actual academic books on the subject years ago..lol
It wasn't about history but about genetics since it seems many members here tend to underestimate the impact this slave trade had. This is why you posting pictures of black north africans without even checking their ancestry/history is useless.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Go check how she portrayed ancient egyptians literally at the MET museum...
you can add this too
And these are only 2 very recent examples. I can easily show you 30 more examples.
I mention your side controls the academic mainstream and you post examples of Art..Are you serious?
Let me say this, because I usually don't post on these crocodile tears, white knight, archeopatryx pearl clutching style threads, but this is an example of Art expression, people have depicted the Ancient Egyptians in Art all over the world, and a museum hosting Art has no bearing on what is accepted in mainstream circles, esp. considering the exibit is showcased as artistic interpretation/expression and not historical reality
Don't waste my time man, show me an example of the media sensationlism that came any where near what that Dog Whistling Abu-sier study, with its dog whistling sensationalist title, created when it dropped
Ill wait
quote:It wasn't about history but about genetics since it seems many members here tend to underestimate the impact this slave trade had. This is why you posting pictures of black north africans without even checking their ancestry/history is useless.
No one would be posting pictures of black North Africans if it was'nt seen as an almost recognized fact that somehow N/A and hell the rest of the world is devoid of a black, no matter what academic, artistic, archeological etc. evidence this Hamite magical barrier fantasy is upheld and touted in mainstream academic circles...something you yourself admit is wrong and that your one of the few people to point it out...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
I mention your side controls the academic mainstream and you post examples of Art..Are you serious?
Let me say this, because I usually don't post on these crocodile tears, white knight, archeopatryx pearl clutching style threads, but this is an example of Art expression, people have depicted the Ancient Egyptians in Art all over the world, and a museum hosting Art has no bearing on what is accepted in mainstream circles, esp. considering the exibit is showcased as artistic interpretation/expression and not historical reality
Don't waste my time man, show me an example of the media sensationlism that came any where near what that Dog Whistling Abu-sier study, with its dog whistling sensationalist title, created when it dropped
Ill wait
Are you even serious ? This situation is even worse because most researchers studying North Africa are not even from the region. So, what exactly are we controlling? I am pointing out that the narrative is being influenced by foreigners who, in many cases, due to their "white guilt," promote Afrocentrism in order to appear progressive, inclusive, and to project a seemingly neutral and objective approach to history.
Now, regarding the Abusir study you mentioned, do you recall what some medias said? They attempted to portray ancient Egyptians as being closer to Europeans and suggested that modern Egyptians differ due to additional sub-Saharan African ancestry. So again who is controlling the narrative ? Clearly, not us.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: No one would be posting pictures of black North Africans if it was'nt seen as an almost recognized fact that somehow N/A and hell the rest of the world is devoid of a black, no matter what academic, artistic, archeological etc. evidence this Hamite magical barrier fantasy is upheld and touted in mainstream academic circles...something you yourself admit is wrong and that your one of the few people to point it out...
No, those are used to portray them as indigenous people and remnants of an earlier population that was eradicated by invasive Euro-Arab forces. However, the reason they are often restricted to Sub-Saharan Africa is simply because that is where the majority of black Africans reside. Historically, the Sahara region had a very low population density, and those populations, to my knowledge, were not part of the Berber world until a relatively late period. Furthermore, they did not play a significant role in the history of Mediterranean Africa.
That would be like me obsessing over pictures of spanish gypsies and insisting that Indians are not restricted to South Asia and then implying that they may actually be seen as indigenous spaniards because pleistocene spaniards were dark skinned. See why it can bother us ?
I don't want to write a whole paragraph on this since I know you don't like them but imo the tendency of the Afro-diaspora to assert their presence in various contexts might indicate their desire for acceptance and recognition. It's clearly pathological.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Imagine thinking north africans were/are only black because of slavery. Prime example of racist pseudo scholarship
EDIT: actually, I would not even call it "scholarship".
Posts: 2491 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: It is truly surprising that someone as intelligent and knowledgeable as you would still advocate for the notion of an ancient black North Africa, despite all the information you've come across. However, it is important to note that North Africans do indeed possess indigenous ancestry, and the non-indigenous ancestry you mention has been present in the region since the Pleistocene era. Light skin appeared in the region since at least the mid-6th millennium BC, alongside an Anatolian component that constituted a significant portion of the DNA in ancient and modern samples. Furthermore, numerous migrations during the Copper and Bronze Ages introduced additional European ancestry.
Moreover, there is no reason to believe that Pleistocene North Africans would have had the same level of skin pigmentation as equatorial Africans, particularly considering their evolution in the Mediterranean region over an extended period. I fail to understand your argument in this regard, as the presence or absence of dark skin does not establish any genetic or morphological similarities between North Africans and Afro-Americans, who often attempt to appropriate the history and heritage of our ancestors.
Regardless of whether you believe in a "cumulative bias," the existing data does not support your position. Additionally, I see no reason for the "potential phenotype" of Seti I to instill fear in me, as I am already aware of the typical appearance of Egyptians during his time.
You can barely address my position let alone tell if the data supports it. I literally tell you what's going to happen before it happens (Academically) and yet you still equate some of my arguments to a simplified and generalized assertion of "Equatorial Africans in North Africa." You weave together false points to argue against because the obvious nuance makes you uncomfortable. There are literally still Dark skinned North Africans today. The extent as to how much the pocketed dark skinned North Africans owe their ancestry to the slave trade hasn't been fully explored. We had a.DNA of North Africans who are genotypically dark skinned despite the generalized Eurasian ancestry. We have the "Eurasian" Aka North African Ancestors of the Equatorial Ancestors Academia was so keen in investigating. ...they were dark skinned and culturally African. Why you can't accept these facts as is, I have no clue.
You say "there is no reason to believe that Pleistocene North Africans would have had the same level of skin pigmentation as equatorial Africans." This is a meaningless assertion. Which equatorial Africans? There's evidence that some Equatorial Africans have darkened in the last 70kya maybe, but other than those groups there is no evidence to suggest that the North Africans or even the Pleistocene Eurasians had light skin outside of the variation covered by putative Africans today. This is evidenced by the fact that North Africans such as yourself carry the same alleles for skin pigmentation that we've identified a 1000 times over. and still the Average North African is relatively darker than their related southern or western European of today.
you also say, -"as the presence or absence of dark skin does not establish any genetic or morphological similarities between North Africans and Afro-Americans." - Which hilariously has nothing to do with my argument. But since you want to go there and target African Americans, lets go there. Do you specifically deny Morphological Overlap with Ancient North Africans and African Americans.
I'm going to write the question again in a slightly different way to make it abundantly clear what I'm asking lol.
...ready?
Are you arguing that what people considered today as African American have no Morphological or phenotypic overlap with Ancient North Africans?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You can barely address my position let alone tell if the data supports it. I literally tell you what's going to happen before it happens (Academically) and yet you still equate some of my arguments to a simplified and generalized assertion of "Equatorial Africans in North Africa." You weave together false points to argue against because the obvious nuance makes you uncomfortable. There are literally still Dark skinned North Africans today. The extent as to how much the pocketed dark skinned North Africans owe their ancestry to the slave trade hasn't been fully explored. We had a.DNA of North Africans who are genotypically dark skinned despite the generalized Eurasian ancestry. We have the "Eurasian" Aka North African Ancestors of the Equatorial Ancestors Academia was so keen in investigating. ...they were dark skinned and culturally African. Why you can't accept these facts as is, I have no clue.
You mention that I am uncomfortable with nuance, but you are doing the exact same thing to me. You keep repeating the same statement about me denying the existence of indigenous dark-skinned populations. I have already informed you numerous times that I acknowledge their existence, and I have even provided an explanation of how we could identify them through autosomal results.
But what I dont like is the way you speak about them as if you were more legitimate to speak about them than me. As if you had 30-40% Iberomaurusian ancestry like us.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You say "there is no reason to believe that Pleistocene North Africans would have had the same level of skin pigmentation as equatorial Africans." This is a meaningless assertion. Which equatorial Africans? There's evidence that some Equatorial Africans have darkened in the last 70kya maybe, but other than those groups there is no evidence to suggest that the North Africans or even the Pleistocene Eurasians had light skin outside of the variation covered by putative Africans today. This is evidenced by the fact that North Africans such as yourself carry the same alleles for skin pigmentation that we've identified a 1000 times over. and still the Average North African is relatively darker than their related southern or western European of today.
The specific population doesn't matter. In general, equatorial populations tend to have much darker skin compared to populations living at latitudes such as Mediterranean NA. Are you going to argue that skin color is no longer adaptive ? I fail to understand why you are so fixated on such a trivial trait. Additionally, these populations, whether dark-skinned or not, are not genetically or morphologically similar to modern Sub-Saharan African populations. Their culture was also distinct and unique. Furthermore, I fail to see the relevance of these ancient Pleistocene populations to figures like Seti I. It appears to be a desperate attempt by individuals trying to insert themselves everywhere. This is why you see so many afrocentrist fixating on prehistoric populations because they know that's the only time where they can see a more widespread presence of what they consider "black".
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: you also say, -"as the presence or absence of dark skin does not establish any genetic or morphological similarities between North Africans and Afro-Americans." - Which hilariously has nothing to do with my argument. But since you want to go there and target African Americans, lets go there. Do you specifically deny Morphological Overlap with Ancient North Africans and African Americans.
I'm going to write the question again in a slightly different way to make it abundantly clear what I'm asking lol.
...ready?
Are you arguing that what people considered today as African American have no Morphological or phenotypic overlap with Ancient North Africans? [/QB]
Indeed they have no morphological or phenotypic overlap with populations like Iberomaurusians or capsians (let alone late neolithic and historical north africans). However, I anticipate your response where you might bring up the Qarunian or Jebel Sahaba specimens and argue, "Well, those are from North Africa, aren't they?" But feel free to proceed, as I have compelling information regarding those as well.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: But what I dont like is the way you speak about them as if you were more legitimate to speak about them than me. As if you had 30-40% Iberomaurusian ancestry like us.
I don't get why you're saying this. The first thing I asked is why aren't you advocating for all endemic phenotypes in the region. That's contradictory to me ensuing that you aren't qualified enough to talk about North African people.
quote: You mention that I am uncomfortable with nuance, but you are doing the exact same thing to me. You keep repeating the same statement about me denying the existence of indigenous dark-skinned populations. I have already informed you numerous times that I acknowledge their existence, and I have even provided an explanation of how we could identify them through autosomal results.
How would you Autosomally differentiate the late neolithic white samples from Kehf el Barhoud from the Earlier Neolithic black samples of Kehf Taht el Ghar?
quote:The specific population doesn't matter. In general, equatorial populations tend to have much darker skin compared to populations living at latitudes such as Mediterranean NA. Are you going to argue that skin color is no longer adaptive ? I fail to understand why you are so fixated on such a trivial trait. Additionally, these populations, whether dark-skinned or not, are not genetically or morphologically similar to modern Sub-Saharan African populations. Their culture was also distinct and unique. Furthermore, I fail to see the relevance of these ancient Pleistocene populations to figures like Seti I. It appears to be a desperate attempt by individuals trying to insert themselves everywhere. This is why you see so many afrocentrist fixating on prehistoric populations because they know that's the only time where they can see a more widespread presence of what they consider "black".
Skin color is highly adaptive. but that goes against your point. Reason why is because I know you're not referring to Active melanogenesis or any epigenetic factors that can alter skin to within 2-3 generations.
I know you aren't referring to any of the above because you want to refer to all SSA groups. You likely failed to see that the wide variability in Africans is not solely driven by their genotype. However, It is only skin lightening a few standard deviations outside of the range of "Equatorial Africans" that we need to look to genetic Variation. All populations with skin color outside of the range of Equatorial African groups have multiple identifiable and studied variants responsible for their lighter skin. It is not a difficult concept to understand. There's no evidence that the relevant populations discussed who lacked aforementioned variants will be outside of the range of African skin color variation.
You have to get out of your feelings. I'm just stating ignored but obvious facts, I'm not inserting anything anywhere.
quote:Indeed they have no morphological or phenotypic overlap with populations like Iberomaurusians or capsians (let alone late neolithic and historical north africans). However, I anticipate your response where you might bring up the Qarunian or Jebel Sahaba specimens and argue, "Well, those are from North Africa, aren't they?" But feel free to proceed, as I have compelling information regarding those as well.
Jebel sahaba, and especially the Iberomaurasian (and likely the Qarunian) have morphologies and phenotypes possibly only represented at an extreme deviation in the distribution African American variation.
With that being said I'll allow you to think about the question again.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I don't get why you're saying this. The first thing I asked is why aren't you advocating for all endemic phenotypes in the region. That's contradictory to me ensuing that you aren't qualified enough to talk about North African people.
?? I did talk about them and highlighted that they were already a minority during antiquity.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: How would you Autosomally differentiate the late neolithic white samples from Kehf el Barhoud from the Earlier Neolithic black samples of Kehf Taht el Ghar?
I was talking about modern indigenous "black" north africans and I haven't read the whole skhirat paper yet.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Skin color is highly adaptive. but that goes against your point. Reason why is because I know you're not referring to Active melanogenesis or any epigenetic factors that can alter skin to within 2-3 generations.
I know you aren't referring to any of the above because you want to refer to all SSA groups. You likely failed to see that the wide variability in Africans is not solely driven by their genotype. However, It is only skin lightening a few standard deviations outside of the range of "Equatorial Africans" that we need to look to genetic Variation. All populations with skin color outside of the range of Equatorial African groups have multiple identifiable and studied variants responsible for their lighter skin. It is not a difficult concept to understand. There's no evidence that the relevant populations discussed who lacked aforementioned variants will be outside of the range of African skin color variation.
I fail to see how your response contradicts my statement. Nobody said it would be out the range of African skin color variation but to suggest that they evolved during more than 15k years in mediterranean africa without any adaptative changes is clearly far-fetched. Additionally, are you implying that we have already discovered all the genetic variants that could have influenced skin color during the Pleistocene era ?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Jebel sahaba, and especially the Iberomaurasian (and likely the Qarunian) have morphologies and phenotypes possibly only represented at an extreme deviation in the distribution African American variation.
With that being said I'll allow you to think about the question again. [/QB]
Can you develop and provide sources ? Especially for the IBM overlap.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I was talking about modern indigenous "black" north africans and I haven't read the whole skhirat paper yet.
You do a poor job of defining what you're talking about. And I believe you do so purposefully. The people in the thread which sparked this one were making phenotypic inferences on an ancient North African individual. There no need to assume anything other than continuity or a lack thereof within the region in some shape or form to compare. There are post-Neolithic samples of various autosomal makeups within or representing the Maghreb. A handful of them share variants with you for skin color, but most of them do not. They seem to be darker skinned. Why aren't you protecting their identities as well?
quote:I fail to see how your response contradicts my statement. Nobody said it would be out the range of African skin color variation but to suggest that they evolved during more than 15k years in mediterranean africa without any adaptative changes is clearly far-fetched. Additionally, are you implying that we have already discovered all the genetic variants that could have influenced skin color during the Pleistocene era ?
Your statement was conjecture. living individuals who lack the known variants we discovered and studied for lighter pigmentation are considered dark skinned or black even, regardless of the climate in which they reside. There are black people who lived in temperate climates for 100's of years. They adapt but they're still considered black. That consideration is linked to the genetic legacy of their ancestors; a lack of lightskin mutations. There hasn't yet been found any evidence of unique alleles in ancient North Africa for skin lightening. The assumption that they'll be out of the range of adaptive "skin lightening" of other African groups is an assertion unfounded. It's very very very simple logic.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Jebel sahaba, and especially the Iberomaurasian (and likely the Qarunian) have morphologies and phenotypes possibly only represented at an extreme deviation in the distribution African American variation.
With that being said I'll allow you to think about the question again.
Can you develop and provide sources ? Especially for the IBM overlap.
I absolutely can not provide sources which is why I made that statement. Read and try to understand what I'm saying.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You do a poor job of defining what you're talking about. And I believe you do so purposefully. The people in the thread which sparked this one were making phenotypic inferences on an ancient North African individual. There no need to assume anything other than continuity or a lack thereof within the region in some shape or form to compare. There are post-Neolithic samples of various autosomal makeups within or representing the Maghreb. A handful of them share variants with you for skin color, but most of them do not. They seem to be darker skinned. Why aren't you protecting their identities as well?
Most of the post-Neolithic do not ? What are you talking about ? You saw the 2 copper age samples being described as dark by HirisPlex and think you have resolved the whole issue ?
FYI This is dark to black according to HirisPlex :
By our standards, that skin tone is obviously not considered "dark," and easily 3/4 if not more of the North African population has that skin tone today.
Also I do not understand why you focus so much on such a trivial and meaningless trait. What about their Autosomal profile ? Their facial morphology ?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Your statement was conjecture. living individuals who lack the known variants we discovered and studied for lighter pigmentation are considered dark skinned or black even, regardless of the climate in which they reside. There are black people who lived in temperate climates for 100's of years. They adapt but they're still considered black. That consideration is linked to the genetic legacy of their ancestors; a lack of lightskin mutations. There hasn't yet been found any evidence of unique alleles in ancient North Africa for skin lightening. The assumption that they'll be out of the range of adaptive "skin lightening" of other African groups is an assertion unfounded. It's very very very simple logic.
You are the first one to highlight the significance of Pleistocene diversity, yet you seem to disregard its relevance when it comes to North Africans. Additionally, I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but are you seriously comparing the Afro-American experience spanning 400 years with Iberomaurusians who existed for over 15,000 years ? Let's not forget that the latter had ancestral connections to a Eurasian population that inhabited even higher latitudes.
When I suggest that UP North Africans could possibly have a lighter complexion due to their evolution in a non-equatorial environment, this is what I am proposing :
And again I did not claim they'll be out of the range of what we find among Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I absolutely can not provide sources which is why I made that statement. Read and try to understand what I'm saying. [/QB]
Yes okay you're just playing on semantics and you do not have anything to back up your "possibly". Iberomaurusians were physically very different from modern west africans including the european admixed afro-american.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
Early north africans had dark skin.
IAM (moroccan early neolothic) did not possess the genes for light skin, and had dark skin and eyes.
KEB (moroccan late neolithic) possessed genes that made it possible for light skin and eye color.
KEB (moroccan late neolithic) suggest either a population replacement or an important genetic influx into Morocco between 5,000 and 3,000 BCE.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: the european admixed afro-american.
I don't know why you keep saying this(in fact i think i know why),just say african americans etc..but when you bring up white or european americans you do to not bring up the every time they have african admixture and what you said is non-sense /incorrect anyway.
If you bring up white americans next time i want you to keep that same energy and write something like this.
Antalas quote-
quote: Yes okay you're just playing on semantics and you do not have anything to back up your "possibly". Iberomaurusians were physically very different from modern europeans including the african admixed euro-american.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Afro-americans have NW european ancestry
Originally posted by Firewall: The way you write this you make it seem like it's all,but it's not true. Some african americans have NW european ancestry,not all.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Most of the post-Neolithic do not ? What are you talking about ? You saw the 2 copper age samples being described as dark by HirisPlex and think you have resolved the whole issue ?
Antalas, starting from the Neolithic most North west North African samples that we have with phenotypic data have been predicted to be dark skinned.
for example: Neolithic samples of Ifri n Amr Moussa Neolithic samples of Kehf taht el Ghar (Autosomally similar to KEB but slightly more shifted to Iberians) Neolithic sample of Skhirat Chalcholithic sample of Sardinia
I merely made an objective statement about available data.
quote:FYI This is dark to black according to HirisPlex :
By our standards, that skin tone is obviously not considered "dark," and easily 3/4 if not more of the North African population has that skin tone today.
The photo of C represents the range within the interediate skin tone secondary prediction, I noted this to you and Brandon before. D is a skin tone that is certainly considered black by most. What are you trying to do here? The North African samples as you note were dark to black, which is D or darker. Most Afram for example have a skin tone similar to D.
quote:Also I do not understand why you focus so much on such a trivial and meaningless trait. What about their Autosomal profile ? Their facial morphology ?
You made this thread in response to me saying you should advocate autochthonous ancestry regardless of there skin color. You were the one making a big deal about the skin color of Seti I. If it's trivial, stop bitching about it.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Your statement was conjecture. living individuals who lack the known variants we discovered and studied for lighter pigmentation are considered dark skinned or black even, regardless of the climate in which they reside. There are black people who lived in temperate climates for 100's of years. They adapt but they're still considered black. That consideration is linked to the genetic legacy of their ancestors; a lack of lightskin mutations. There hasn't yet been found any evidence of unique alleles in ancient North Africa for skin lightening. The assumption that they'll be out of the range of adaptive "skin lightening" of other African groups is an assertion unfounded. It's very very very simple logic.
You are the first one to highlight the significance of Pleistocene diversity, yet you seem to disregard its relevance when it comes to North Africans. Additionally, I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but are you seriously comparing the Afro-American experience spanning 400 years with Iberomaurusians who existed for over 15,000 years ? Let's not forget that the latter had ancestral connections to a Eurasian population that inhabited even higher latitudes.
When I suggest that UP North Africans could possibly have a lighter complexion due to their evolution in a non-equatorial environment, this is what I am proposing :
And again I did not claim they'll be out of the range of what we find among Africans.
It is possible they had that skin tone but that ideal is still conjecture. I can look at that reconstruction and tell that their influence was pulled from populations who do carry derived skin tone alleles, though darkened either due to heterogeniety and environment. Just compare the reconstruction to living individuals/populations and double check the available genotypes for said populations/individuals. Nonetheless These skin tones are also probable. You can check which living populations carry their phenotype (for pigmentation) and see if there's genotypic correspondence. It's just a simple flow of logic.
Also Pleistocene diversity has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Epipaleolithic samples were almost completely irrelevant here to begin with.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I absolutely can not provide sources which is why I made that statement. Read and try to understand what I'm saying.
Yes okay you're just playing on semantics and you do not have anything to back up your "possibly". Iberomaurusians were physically very different from modern west africans including the european admixed afro-american.
This isn't an example of arguing semantics it's just another example of a lack of comprehension. I don't think modern African Americans look that much like any of those samples (maybe excluding Qurmurian). You just don't try to understand. I believe African Americans particularly those with Iberian ancestry can definitely overlap with more recent ancient North Africans in terms of physical appearance. The pleistocene samples are quite divergent.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Skhirat having darker pigmentation seems probable to me, but I don’t remember that recent paper describing their phenotype anywhere. How did you find out about it?
UPDATE:
NM, it's buried in the supplementary files.
Kinda funny that the KTG sample, one of the more European-shifted samples in the study, ended up being predicted with "dark to black" skin anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Antalas, starting from the Neolithic most North west North African samples that we have with phenotypic data have been predicted to be dark skinned.
for example: Neolithic samples of Ifri n Amr Moussa Neolithic samples of Kehf taht el Ghar (Autosomally similar to KEB but slightly more shifted to Iberians) Neolithic sample of Skhirat Chalcholithic sample of Sardinia
I merely made an objective statement about available data.
See ? Now you're backtracking. You mentionned most "post-neolithic" samples would be dark skinned, but you lack any supporting evidence for this assertion.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The photo of C represents the range within the interediate skin tone secondary prediction, I noted this to you and Brandon before. D is a skin tone that is certainly considered black by most. What are you trying to do here? The North African samples as you note were dark to black, which is D or darker. Most Afram for example have a skin tone similar to D.
Hahaha Ok you're just trolling at this point XD If that's considered black then 3/4 of North Africans are "black" if not darker than Afro-americans.
These typical North Africans below would be lighter than the "dark to black" prediction of Hirisplex ?
"Dark to Black" is way too broad and inaccurate.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You made this thread in response to me saying you should advocate autochthonous ancestry regardless of there skin color. You were the one making a big deal about the skin color of Seti I. If it's trivial, stop bitching about it.
And I repeatedly told you that skin color didn't matter and even highlighted the presence of indigenous black North Africans in the Sahara. Regarding Seti I, my response was simply a reaction to incorrect statements. It is actually you who seems to get easily provoked, as usual, and your consistent focus on the phenotypic data from those studies is quite telling.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: It is possible they had that skin tone but that ideal is still conjecture. I can look at that reconstruction and tell that their influence was pulled from populations who do carry derived skin tone alleles, though darkened either due to heterogeniety and environment. Just compare the reconstruction to living individuals/populations and double check the available genotypes for said populations/individuals. Nonetheless These skin tones are also probable. You can check which living populations carry their phenotype (for pigmentation) and see if there's genotypic correspondence. It's just a simple flow of logic.
Also Pleistocene diversity has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Epipaleolithic samples were almost completely irrelevant here to begin with.
That doesn't make sense because in order to make such a comparison, you would need to consider a population that has evolved in a similar environment to Mediterranean NW Africa for thousands of years and lacks the specific alleles you are referring to. I am not aware of any present-day African population that fits this particular scenario (except maybe some communities of Khoisans in Southern Africa but I'm not sure).
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: This isn't an example of arguing semantics it's just another example of a lack of comprehension. I don't think modern African Americans look that much like any of those samples (maybe excluding Qurmurian). You just don't try to understand. I believe African Americans particularly those with Iberian ancestry can definitely overlap with more recent ancient North Africans in terms of physical appearance. The pleistocene samples are quite divergent. [/QB]
I already told you to refrain from using the excuse of "English skill" or comprehension when you lack arguments. Your current statement is based solely on speculation, and using such reasoning, one could also claim that North European skulls might exhibit an extreme deviation in the distribution of African American variation. Remember the concept of the "one-drop rule"?
I mean seriously wtf is this : "I believe African Americans particularly those with Iberian ancestry"
Please stop resorting to desperate measures as it is becoming rather pitiful.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Antalas Now, it's possible because my mother does have European ancestry as her father appears to be a mulatto but I have a sister between the color or both men in your photos.
My mother would be a griffe or a person more than 50% African and our fathers are dark skin men.
Though I'm joking,I constantly point out how "yellow" my sister is because of her lighter skin tone.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Antalas, starting from the Neolithic most North west North African samples that we have with phenotypic data have been predicted to be dark skinned.
for example: Neolithic samples of Ifri n Amr Moussa Neolithic samples of Kehf taht el Ghar (Autosomally similar to KEB but slightly more shifted to Iberians) Neolithic sample of Skhirat Chalcholithic sample of Sardinia
I merely made an objective statement about available data.
See ? Now you're backtracking. You mentionned most "post-neolithic" samples would be dark skinned, but you lack any supporting evidence for this assertion.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The photo of C represents the range within the interediate skin tone secondary prediction, I noted this to you and Brandon before. D is a skin tone that is certainly considered black by most. What are you trying to do here? The North African samples as you note were dark to black, which is D or darker. Most Afram for example have a skin tone similar to D.
Hahaha Ok you're just trolling at this point XD If that's considered black then 3/4 of North Africans are "black" if not darker than Afro-americans.
These typical North Africans below would be lighter than the "dark to black" prediction of Hirisplex ?
"Dark to Black" is way too broad and inaccurate.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You made this thread in response to me saying you should advocate autochthonous ancestry regardless of there skin color. You were the one making a big deal about the skin color of Seti I. If it's trivial, stop bitching about it.
And I repeatedly told you that skin color didn't matter and even highlighted the presence of indigenous black North Africans in the Sahara. Regarding Seti I, my response was simply a reaction to incorrect statements. It is actually you who seems to get easily provoked, as usual, and your consistent focus on the phenotypic data from those studies is quite telling.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: It is possible they had that skin tone but that ideal is still conjecture. I can look at that reconstruction and tell that their influence was pulled from populations who do carry derived skin tone alleles, though darkened either due to heterogeniety and environment. Just compare the reconstruction to living individuals/populations and double check the available genotypes for said populations/individuals. Nonetheless These skin tones are also probable. You can check which living populations carry their phenotype (for pigmentation) and see if there's genotypic correspondence. It's just a simple flow of logic.
Also Pleistocene diversity has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Epipaleolithic samples were almost completely irrelevant here to begin with.
That doesn't make sense because in order to make such a comparison, you would need to consider a population that has evolved in a similar environment to Mediterranean NW Africa for thousands of years and lacks the specific alleles you are referring to. I am not aware of any present-day African population that fits this particular scenario (except maybe some communities of Khoisans in Southern Africa but I'm not sure).
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: This isn't an example of arguing semantics it's just another example of a lack of comprehension. I don't think modern African Americans look that much like any of those samples (maybe excluding Qurmurian). You just don't try to understand. I believe African Americans particularly those with Iberian ancestry can definitely overlap with more recent ancient North Africans in terms of physical appearance. The pleistocene samples are quite divergent.
I already told you to refrain from using the excuse of "English skill" or comprehension when you lack arguments. Your current statement is based solely on speculation, and using such reasoning, one could also claim that North European skulls might exhibit an extreme deviation in the distribution of African American variation. Remember the concept of the "one-drop rule"?
I mean seriously wtf is this : "I believe African Americans particularly those with Iberian ancestry"
Please stop resorting to desperate measures as it is becoming rather pitiful. [/QB]
Now, you're basically sating a bunch of nothing. You're getting emotional.
You made this thread in response to me critiquing your assessment on skin color. It matters to you or this wouldn't be a thread.
you really can't tell Sample D is exposed to light?
Yes, those people you posted especially the men would have a higher secondary estimate for the intermediate skin color phenotype.
I'm not blaming your lack of comprehension on your language btw. There's something else keeping you from understanding simple concepts.
Also have you not read a single study on the morphological variance in African Americans? can you honestly say that the lady you posted can represent an Ancient NA but no Afram can?
Just reread my posts starting from the beginning. (besides the "post"-neolithic) my stance has been consistent. And try to understand what I'm saying.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: you really can't tell Sample D is exposed to light.
I don't know whether or not you're responding to me here since the rest of your post addresses Antalas, but it's pretty obvious to me Sample D is, in fact, exposed to bright light. The bright highlight running across the image gives it away for me.
EDIT: OK, I see it was a typo since you just replaced the period at the end with a question mark.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: you really can't tell Sample D is exposed to light.
I don't know whether or not you're responding to me here since the rest of your post addresses Antalas, but it's pretty obvious to me Sample D is, in fact, exposed to bright light. The bright highlight running across the image gives it away for me.
It was supposed to be a question to Antalas. I posted the source to the image a couple of years ago here. Yeah it is exposed to light. And if Irc it is actually the arm of an African American.
EDIT actually it wasn't this study it was one where they included images of the body. Not the source of his post.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
The darker color on the photo lies within the variety of todays North Africans. In this case the man to the left is a bit darker than the D sample.
If people where I live should randomly classify him they would probably call him "Arab" or "North African". Some would maybe not know how to call him. Probably people here would not call him "negro" which in older times Subsaharan Africans, but also African Americans were called here.
The HIrisPlex-S also categorize people like the Karitiana as dark-black
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The darker color on the photo lies within the variety of todays North Africans. In this case the man to the left is a bit darker than the D sample.
If people where I live should randomly classify him they would probably call him "Arab" or "North African". Some would maybe not know how to call him. Probably people here would not call him "negro" which in older times Subsaharan Africans, but also African Americans were called here.
The HIrisPlex-S also categorize people like this Karitiana woman as dark-black
Some Karitiana people are very dark. and they are fixed for ASIP. They will have elevated estimates for the lighter pigmentation estimates. I don't understand why you'd try to obfuscate the point by using this woman's image.
And I believe you're smart enough to not use a color picker on a pixel of static image to discern phenotypes of different lighting conditions and photo quality... c'mon man.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Some Karitiana people are very dark. and they are fixed for ASIP. They will have elevated estimates for the lighter pigmentation estimates. I don't understand why you'd try to obfuscate the point by using this woman's image.
Yes, we know by now that lighter skin in East Eurasian populations (including Native Americans and Polynesians) evolved independently of Europeans. So Natives lacking European alleles for lighter skin doesn't mean they lack alleles for lighter skin at all.
posted
The point is that the HIrisPlex-S is not always so exact in its color predictions. So when it says dark_black we do not always know exactly what it means in real life.
Also that the picture of the arm falls into todays variation of colors in North Africa.
And Karitianas are a bit varied in skin color, some a bit lighter some a bit darker.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
True. Though the intra-population variation is picked up nowadays because we're now more aware skin color variants.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The point is that the HIrisPlex-S is not always so exact in its color predictions. Also that the picture of the arm falls into todays variation of colors in North Africa. And Karitianas are a bit varied in skin color, some a bit lighter some a bit darker.
So your purpose is to Obsfuscate? lol. HIrisPlex-S is not always exact, true. It's only relevant due to the route the conversation I was having with Antalas... IE dealing with known variants in a selected region.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not want to obfuscate, just problematize the matter of assessing skin colors.
But keep on discussing with Antalas, he knows more about North Africa than me. He actually comes from there. Many of those who discuss with him have not even been there.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I did not want to obfuscate, just problematize the matter of assessing skin colors.
But keep on discussing with Antalas, he knows more about North Africa than me. He actually comes from there. Many of those who discuss with him have not even been there.
Have you been there? No need to answer the question is irrelevant. In-fact the conversation itself is unfocused. If certain baseline parameters can't be set there's no need for a conversation at all.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The point is that the HIrisPlex-S is not always so exact in its color predictions. So when it says dark_black we do not always know exactly what it means in real life.
Also that the picture of the arm falls into todays variation of colors in North Africa.
And Karitianas are a bit varied in skin color, some a bit lighter some a bit darker.
I am not surprised, and indeed it falls into the variation we see today among North Africans, but that maestro wants you to believe that "dark to black" necessarily implies that our ancestors were significantly darker than us and then often feign to be "stating the objective fact" without any nuance, despite the clear understanding that the category itself is excessively broad and ambiguous.
On a side note, I have observed that many African Americans rely solely on skin color to assess kinship. This is why you often see them fixating on it and disregarding other important factors such as Autosomal, Uniparental, or morphological data. It is amusing how many of them approach me with the "IBM were dark-skinned" as if it would somehow make them more closely related or similar to African Americans. Some individuals even go to the extent of claiming Indian or Negrito heritage based solely on dark skin color.
This is why you can't discuss with those people. They're simply trying to insert themselves everywhere for acceptance and appropriating our ancestors/History.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not claim any expertise on North Africa. My professional field of work is Scandinavian archaeology. So I do not claim to know how all people in todays, or yesterdays North Africa look or looked like.
But I have been in America and Asia (and in several European countries) so I have some knowledge about those too. I mostly came here to ES to learn more about Egyptology and North Africa, but I have seen that many discussions are not always so informative. But one get some good reading tips regarding studies and books. I actually plan to go to Egypt now when the Corona has loosened its grip, and among other things visit the new Egyptian museum (plus the pyramids and other historic sites).
I think one can not become an expert on any geographic area without going there and study its history and people in place.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Known variants for integument Identified in world wide populations.
said variants are studied in population A.
many people in population A with X phenotype has has variants. Some do not.
ancient samples come up in aDNA without variants.
Conclusion ancient samples have X phenotype because poulation B has pictures of lighter skinned individuals where the forearm matches the variation in modern day population A.
...Pivots to African Americans & kinship.
lol wow. I didn't think this would be so hard to understand.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The point is that the HIrisPlex-S is not always so exact in its color predictions. So when it says dark_black we do not always know exactly what it means in real life.
Also that the picture of the arm falls into todays variation of colors in North Africa.
And Karitianas are a bit varied in skin color, some a bit lighter some a bit darker.
I am not surprised, and indeed it falls into the variation we see today among North Africans, but that maestro wants you to believe that "dark to black" necessarily implies that our ancestors were significantly darker than us and then often feign to be "stating the objective fact" without any nuance, despite the clear understanding that the category itself is excessively broad and ambiguous.
On a side note, I have observed that many African Americans rely solely on skin color to assess kinship. This is why you often see them fixating on it and disregarding other important factors such as Autosomal, Uniparental, or morphological data. It is amusing how many of them approach me with the "IBM were dark-skinned" as if it would somehow make them more closely related or similar to African Americans. Some individuals even go to the extent of claiming Indian or Negrito heritage based solely on dark skin color.
This is why you can't discuss with those people. They're simply trying to insert themselves everywhere for acceptance and appropriating our ancestors/History.
Yes I noticed that some African Americans seem to want to claim all sorts of ancient cultures like Olmecs, Minoans, Etruscans, ancient Israelites and even Chinese. Not all do that of course, but online there is a loud minority who make the most fantastic claims. I have Native American friends who have had some encounters with those type of peoples, and even been harrassed and received threats by the most fanatical ones.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Known variants for integument Identified in world wide populations.
said variants are studied in population A.
many people in population A with X phenotype has has variants. Some do not.
ancient samples come up in aDNA without variants.
Conclusion ancient samples have X phenotype because poulation B has pictures of lighter skinned individuals where the forearm matches the variation in modern day population A.
...Pivots to African Americans & kinship.
lol wow. I didn't think this would be so hard to understand.
Just pointing out that there is a marginal of error in the tools and methods for assessing skin color in ancient populations. The pictures was only an illustration of some of the variety that is included in certain terms, like dark-black.
Here is an example from another population about the uncertainty of skin color prediction.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The point is that the HIrisPlex-S is not always so exact in its color predictions. So when it says dark_black we do not always know exactly what it means in real life.
Also that the picture of the arm falls into todays variation of colors in North Africa.
And Karitianas are a bit varied in skin color, some a bit lighter some a bit darker.
I am not surprised, and indeed it falls into the variation we see today among North Africans, but that maestro wants you to believe that "dark to black" necessarily implies that our ancestors were significantly darker than us and then often feign to be "stating the objective fact" without any nuance, despite the clear understanding that the category itself is excessively broad and ambiguous.
On a side note, I have observed that many African Americans rely solely on skin color to assess kinship. This is why you often see them fixating on it and disregarding other important factors such as Autosomal, Uniparental, or morphological data. It is amusing how many of them approach me with the "IBM were dark-skinned" as if it would somehow make them more closely related or similar to African Americans. Some individuals even go to the extent of claiming Indian or Negrito heritage based solely on dark skin color.
This is why you can't discuss with those people. They're simply trying to insert themselves everywhere for acceptance and appropriating our ancestors/History.
Yes I noticed that some African Americans seem to want to claim all sorts of ancient cultures like Olmecs, Minoans, Etruscans, ancient Israelites and even Chinese. Not all do that of course, but online there is a loud minority who make the most fantastic claims. I have Native American friends who have had some encounters with those type of peoples, and even been harrassed and received threats by the most fanatical ones.
I don't want to speak for African Americans or nothing, but Some Ancient Swedes lacked some genes for skin lightening. Are you afraid that pointing that out is a declaration of ownership by the African American congregation?
I believe Scandinavia is now fixed for most of the big skin lightening related genes... Do you think that Ancient Samples from up there will have the color of the typical modern day Scandinavian? Why, why not?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
True. Though the intra-population variation is picked up nowadays because we're now more aware skin color variants.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: The point is that the HIrisPlex-S is not always so exact in its color predictions. Also that the picture of the arm falls into todays variation of colors in North Africa. And Karitianas are a bit varied in skin color, some a bit lighter some a bit darker.
So your purpose is to Obsfuscate? lol. HIrisPlex-S is not always exact, true. It's only relevant due to the route the conversation I was having with Antalas... IE dealing with known variants in a selected region.
Are there even any recorded cases of Native Americans and East Eurasian people scoring "dark-black" in HIrisPlex-S? Surely the people behind that software are aware of East Eurasian alleles for lighter skin as well as West Eurasian ones?
How likely is it that Neolithic populations in North Africa even had the East Eurasian alleles in the first place? I have yet to see any evidence of significant East Eurasian admixture in any of the aDNA samples so far.
Also, I swear I've seen Antalas argue in other threads that suntans make modern North Africans look darker-skinned than they originally were. How does he know those modern North African people he wants to pass off as resembling the Neolithic samples aren't simply tanned as well?
posted
No one is afraid of discussing ancient Swedish phenotypes. In another thread I mention the waves of people that immigrated to Sweden during the stone age, like the WHG, who according to many was rather dark. They mixed with another wave who came from East, the EHG. They together became the SHG, Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers. They are exemplified in the Motala findings from around 8000 years, who had derived alleles for lighter pigmentation. They also had derived allele of the EDAR gene, a component that seem to have come from the East.
So no one is denying anything. In Scandinavia, during roughly 14 000 years we had many waves of immigration, first in late Paleolithic and Mesolithic time, then at least two waves bringing about the Neolithic. During the Bronze age we had immigrants from the East contributing in shaping the Sami cultures.
So here our history is rather short, compared with Africa or other parts of Europe, but it is still interesting.
No, I do not think that many African Americans claim Scandinavia, even if I heard some claims of Black Vikings from some fringe elements on social media.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Are there even any recorded cases of Native Americans and East Eurasian people scoring "dark-black" in HIrisPlex-S? Surely the people behind that software are aware of East Eurasian alleles for lighter skin as well as West Eurasian ones?
How likely is it that Neolithic populations in North Africa even had the East Eurasian alleles in the first place? I have yet to see any evidence of significant East Eurasian admixture in any of the aDNA samples so far.
Also, I swear I've seen Antalas argue in other threads that suntans make modern North Africans look darker-skinned than they originally were. How does he know those modern North African people he wants to pass off as resembling the Neolithic samples aren't simply tanned as well?
I'm not in the interest of creating a faction here.
Tanned no tan, none of that lookership matters if a clear logical path for the grounds of which we speak can not be agreed upon.
East Asians typically don't score dark-black. Unless they're actually dark to black. Amerindians show more variation both phenotypically and genotypically in that regard. If it's better for people to sleep at night if a dark Amerindian can represent the skin tone of a Dark North African it's okay. But I have no clue what that has to do with African Americans or even my initial point which is that dark skin color of the latter region could be due to continuity.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Are there even any recorded cases of Native Americans and East Eurasian people scoring "dark-black" in HIrisPlex-S? Surely the people behind that software are aware of East Eurasian alleles for lighter skin as well as West Eurasian ones?
There is an article from 2020, if I remember correctly, where Karitiana individuals scored as dark-Black on HIrisPlex-S. It have to be added though that in Snipper 10 they were classified as intermediate. So it seems that different tools can get different results. Snipper 10 has only 3 color categories though since it uses another color system than HIrisPlex-S..
I shall try to find the article.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: No one is afraid of discussing ancient Swedish phenotypes. In another thread I mention the waves of people that immigrated to Sweden during the stone age, like the WHG, who according to many was rather dark. They mixed with another wave who came from East, the EHG. They together became the SHG, Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers. They are exemplified in the Motala findings from around 8000 years, who had derived alleles for lighter pigmentation. They also had derived alle of the EDAR gene, a component that seem to have come from the East.
So no one is denying anything. In Scandinavia, during roughly 14 000 years we had many waves of immigration, first in late Paleolithic and Mesolithic time, then at least two waves bringing about the Neolithic. During the Bronze age we had immigrants from the East contributing in shaping the Sami cultures.
So here our history is rather short, compared with Africa or other parts of Europe, but it is still interesting.
No, I do not think that many African Americans claim Scandinavia, even if I heard some claims of Black Vikings from some fringe elements on social media.
Well now I don't know what to say. Following this thread i didn't know such a sound and logical conclusion on predictive skin color vs known variants was possible.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I'm not in the interest of creating a faction here.
Tanned no tan, none of that lookership matters if a clear logical path for the grounds of which we speak can not be agreed upon.
East Asians typically don't score dark-black. Unless they're actually dark to black. Amerindians show more variation both phenotypically and genotypically in that regard. If it's better for people to sleep at night if a dark Amerindian can represent the skin tone of a Dark North African it's okay. But I have no clue what that has to do with African Americans or even my initial point which is that dark skin color of the latter region could be due to continuity. [/QB]
Ok fair enough let's agree on this but there is a lack of clarity regarding which population would exhibit such continuity. Moreover, the term "dark" is subjective and can vary in interpretation depending on whether one is an average European, Middle Eastern, or from SSA. To the average European or Middle Eastern individual, North Africans may appear 'dark,' although this perception may not be shared by individuals from SSA.
Furthermore, I have personally observed the autosomal results of numerous black north africans, and it is often the case that they possess a minimal amount of Meso/Neolithic North African ancestry. Instead, a predominant or substantial West African-like genetic component is frequently present. How come there is such a correlation between dark skin and SSA ancestry in North Africa ? A coincidence ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I'm not in the interest of creating a faction here.
Tanned no tan, none of that lookership matters if a clear logical path for the grounds of which we speak can not be agreed upon.
East Asians typically don't score dark-black. Unless they're actually dark to black. Amerindians show more variation both phenotypically and genotypically in that regard. If it's better for people to sleep at night if a dark Amerindian can represent the skin tone of a Dark North African it's okay. But I have no clue what that has to do with African Americans or even my initial point which is that dark skin color of the latter region could be due to continuity.
Ok fair enough let's agree on this but there is a lack of clarity regarding which population would exhibit such continuity. Moreover, the term "dark" is subjective and can vary in interpretation depending on whether one is an average European, Middle Eastern, or from SSA. To the average European or Middle Eastern individual, North Africans may appear 'dark,' although this perception may not be shared by individuals from SSA.
Furthermore, I have personally observed the autosomal results of numerous black north africans, and it is often the case that they possess a minimal amount of Meso/Neolithic North African ancestry. Instead, a predominant or substantial West African-like genetic component is frequently present. How come there is such a correlation between dark skin and SSA ancestry in North Africa ? A coincidence ? [/QB]
No it's not a coincidence. There's a higher likelihood that recent more equatorial ancestry in Modern North Africa is responsible for the darker skin in most of those individuals.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: No it's not a coincidence. There's a higher likelihood that recent more equatorial ancestry in Modern North Africa is responsible for the darker skin in most of those individuals. [/QB]
Ok so now which north africans do you think will show the continuity you were talking about ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic