posted
The Beja People of Sudan, Eritrea and Egypt are an ancient people, who are linguistically, the closest kin to the ancient Egyptians. It is said that there is as much as a 70% correspondence between the Beja language and Ancient Egyptian!
The presence of the Beja people can be traced as far back as pre-dynasty times; their proud and uniquely huge crown of fuzzy hair (tiffa) was first recorded in Ancient Egyptian rock paintings.
Egyptologist, Emile Brugsch traced the clan of the Khawr kiji Beja through the matriarchal Female line to the 20th Dynasty.
The Khawr kiji Beja themselves claim their Ancestress Maternally was the Mother of an even earlier Dynasty.
In Ancient Egypt the Beja were known as the people of Ta-Seti - "People of the Land of the Bow" - and were renowned in Ancient Egypt for their skill with this weapon...
▬ ▬
The Beja were a formidable force in multi-ethnic Ancient Egypt as the "Prophecy of Neferti", written for King SnoFru of the 4th Dynasty suggests:
"Then a King will come from the South, Amen the Justified by name.
Son of a Ta-seti Woman, a child of Upper Egypt..
He will take the White Crown and He will wear the Red Crown, He will join the two Mighty Ones..
Rejoice O’ People of his time..
The Son of woman, will make his name for all Eternity !
Asiatic invaders will fall to his Sword..
Libyans will fall to his Flame..
Rebels to his wrath , Traitors to his Might !
As the serpent on his brow, subdue the rebels for him..
One will build the Walls -of- the- Ruler to Bar Asiatics from entering Egypt.."
▬ ▬
Mdu Ntr
Nefer.titi = Beauty arrives
Beja
Nefer.eta = Beauty came Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Do you actually think that anyone is buying anything your looney tune ass says?
I'll bet most of those people aren't even Beja.
Even one of the inventors of the Hamitic "Caucasoid" theory, Seligman, believed the Beja and the ancient Egyptians to be one and the same people.
If these people don't look Beja to you. You must not know anything about them. Most of them are wearing Beja hairstyles as well.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz: When I see the Beja, I do feel as if being in the presence of the characters portrayed on the tomb walls.
The southern section of the Eastern Desert is inhabited by the Hamitic Beja. Though claiming Arab descent, they are of different racial stock, with oval faces, straight noses, and large eyes; they bear a distinct resemblance to the surviving depictions of predynastic Egyptians. The Egyptian Beja are divided into two tribes-- the Ababdah and the Bisharin. The Ababdah occupy the Eastern Desert south of a line Qina and al-Ghurdaqah; there are also several groups settled along the Nile between Aswan and Qina. The Bisharin live mainly in The Sudan, although some dwell in the Elba Mountain region, their traditional place of origin. Both the Ababdah and Bisharin people are nomadic pastoralists who tend herds of camels, goats, and sheep.
The People of Egypt (Egypt), Britannica Encyclopedia, Vol. 18 Macropedia 1990 ed.
quote:Wally- You say "it is said" that their is ~70% correspondence between Beja language and ancient Egyptian- would you mind sending me the sources?
I suggest you look up To Bedawi (the Beja language) and Afroasiatic studies by Christopher Eheret and Carleton Hodge.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was invited to this Amhara set by an Amhara buddy of mine because this chick, who he knew that we had eyes for each other, was there - but that's another story...Well when I arrived, the gathering was formal Amhara - women cloistered in the kitchen and we men in the living room; everybody imbibing, when these two imbibers began to do a dance, sans swords and shields, which seemed remarkably like the one in this picture of Beja dancers...
Why don't you tell everyone why you said that Hamites really exists and they are located in "east" Africa.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: What the hell is your source for Beja nefer="beauty" to begin with?
What is your comparison supposed to mean anyway?
Wally is a nut. He has an east African fetish which causes him to dream up mythical connections of his hamite east Africans as the genesis of Ancient Egypt.
He dreams this stuff up despite the fact that Ancient Egypt was a part of what is called the saharan complexes of northern Africa.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE:
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
Mdu Ntr
Nefer.titi = Beauty arrives
Beja
Nefer.eta = Beauty came
What the hell is your source for Beja nefer="beauty" to begin with?
What is your comparison supposed to mean anyway?
Mdu Ntr
Nefer.titi = Beauty arrives
Beja
Nefer.eta = Beauty came (thanks to the contribution of albukhary)
...and if you don't understand the comparison between "beauty arrives" and "beauty came" - I can't help you; didja ever take English in school?
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
"The Afar Danakil (is) the sister culture of the ancient Ta-Seti people. Whereas the Ta-Seti culture (was) amongst the founding branches of the eastern Bejaw or Beja People; the Ta-Antyu (Puntite) Utjenet Culture were progenitors of the Afari and Tigre cultures. The Land of Punt was of pivotal importance to the development of Egypt’s pre-dynastic civilization and played a significant role throughout dynastic Egyptian history. The Utjenet and Ta-Seti cultures formed a single territory until Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period when opposing cultures of Omo ethnic clans from further south and west pushed into central Sudan, separating the two branches of the Ta-Antyw. The Northern most branch would become the Ta-Seti whilst the Southernmost populations would become the Afar."
posted
^ And what is the basis for the above claims?? Last time I checked the Antyu were a people who lived in the eastern areas of Nubia in northern Sudan and were the nomad allies of the Kushites just as the Medjay were the nomad allies of the Egyptians. The Utjenet was another people mentioned living in Nubia. I don't know what either have to do with Punt which is further south. Also what do modern Afar in Eritrea have to do with Ta-Seti??
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I would suggest that you read the entire article; keeping in mind that the author is writing about the dynamics of the historical processes - it is also assumed as common knowledge that the Beja (Ta Seti) and the Afar are virtually the same people and culture...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Beja man with Afro pick tucked into his Afro (tiffa)
Left: Beja man in typical Nile Valley stance - Right: Egyptian troops of the Beja clan Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yes. I understand that. I saw the source and have read it with my eyes. My question is where is the basis for their claims??
quote:I would suggest that you read the entire article; keeping in mind that the author is writing about the dynamics of the historical processes - it is also assumed as common knowledge that the Beja (Ta Seti) and the Afar are virtually the same people and culture...
I'm well aware of the dynamic of the historical process, but obviously the author is confused. The modern Beja are not the same as the ancient Setjau of Ta Seti. Also Beja and Afar although related are not the same since the Afar language is East Cushitic and closest related to Saho but related to Omo, Tana, Oromo, and Somali. The Beja language were once classified as North Cushitic but is now considered its own unique branch of Afrasian possessing close affinities to Egyptian as well as some to Cushitic. All these peoples as northeast Africans are obviously related to each other in some way but it is foolish to say that they are all one and the same.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Beja are genetically heavily Eurasian. They are far from pure Africans.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Why is it that any Africans with narrow facial features are suspected of being admixed with Eurasians despite their dark skin? It's like people think Africans can't naturally evolve narrower noses even though such noses are an ideal adaptation for arid climates.
posted
Global Cluster analysis by Tishkoff et al. 2009 -- see Supporting Online Material (PDF)
Beja Hadandawa Cushitic 49.2% European 33.5% Chadic 5.8% Niger-Congo 4.0% Nilo-Saharan 2.2% Indian 2.1% East Asian 0.8% Sandawe 0.6% Fulani 0.6% W. Pygmy 0.4% Hadza 0.3% American 0.2% Khoisan 0.1% Oceania 0.1%
Beja Banuamir Cushitic 51.4% European 31.7% Chadic 4.3% Niger-Congo 4.5% Nilo-Saharan 1.7% Indian 3.0% East Asian 1.0% Sandawe 0.9% Fulani 0.4% W. Pygmy 0.3% Hadza 0.3% American 0.2% Khoisan 0.2% Oceania 0.1%
posted
"There are several groups of people in East Africa very closely related to the Oromo. For instance, the Somalis are very similar in appearance and culture. The fact that the Somali and Oromo languages share between 30 percent and 40 percent of their vocabulary could be an indication that these two groups of people became differentiated very recently. Other Cushitic- speaking groups living in the same neighborhood who are closely related to the Oromo are Konso, Afar, Sidama, Kambata, Darassa, Agaw, Saho, Beja and other groups. Oromo language is very closely related to Konso, with more than fifty percent of the words in common, closely related to Somali and distantly related to Afar and Saho ..."
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Global Cluster analysis by Tishkoff et al. 2009 -- see Supporting Online Material (PDF)
Beja Hadandawa Cushitic 49.2% European 33.5% Chadic 5.8% Niger-Congo 4.0% Nilo-Saharan 2.2% Indian 2.1% East Asian 0.8% Sandawe 0.6% Fulani 0.6% W. Pygmy 0.4% Hadza 0.3% American 0.2% Khoisan 0.1% Oceania 0.1%
Beja Banuamir Cushitic 51.4% European 31.7% Chadic 4.3% Niger-Congo 4.5% Nilo-Saharan 1.7% Indian 3.0% East Asian 1.0% Sandawe 0.9% Fulani 0.4% W. Pygmy 0.3% Hadza 0.3% American 0.2% Khoisan 0.2% Oceania 0.1%
Conclusion: The Beja are heavily Eurasian admixed.
Exactly Thank you for pointing this out. Afrocentric trash have a tendency to compare the ancient Egyptians pictorially with heavily admixed Africans who have altered features. It's desperate as Hell on their point. Anyway spot on!
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haplogroup doesn't determine phenotype. Or do many Europeans populations have altered phenotypes as well, given the evidence for modern human gene flow from Africa into Europe for ages.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Exactly Thank you for pointing this out. Afrocentric trash have a tendency to compare the ancient Egyptians pictorially with heavily admixed Africans who have altered features. It's desperate as Hell on their point. Anyway spot on!
That's true indeed.
The Ancient Egyptians were likely even MORE Eurasian genetically than the Beja (who are heavily Eurasian to start with).
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Haplogroup doesn't determine phenotype. Or do many Europeans populations have altered phenotypes as well, given the evidence for modern human gene flow from Africa into Europe for ages.
Their Eurasian admixture is present in their autosomal DNA (see Tishkoff reference), which DOES control phenotype. Southern Europeans do not have more than ~2% African autosomal DNA, while the Beja have DOUBLE DIGIT figures of West Eurasian admixture!
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
White Noise and Perahu lets take what you say at face value lets say they are heavily Eurasian which is BULL Sh!TT but lets play your game,soo what?? they are still black and still Africans and they would then be noo different from many new world blacks which is the target of your hate and who want to say can lay no claim to any high civilization in the continent of their origin who would most definitely carry Eurasian ancestry, blk is still blk...and you would still hate them regardless.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
First king of the 18th family dynasty "Ahmoses" - Sa Re: Iohmeses
Afar man with same hairstyle with the addition of the Nile valley 'butter melt'
the Ancient Egyptians used to mix butter with fragrant herbs and put this mixture on top of their heads. The African heat made the butter-herb paste melt during the course of the day and this treated the hair and also gave it a pleasant aroma...Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: White Noise and Perahu lets take what you say at face value lets say they are heavily Eurasian which is BULL Sh!TT but lets play your game,soo what?? they are still black and still Africans and they would then be noo different from many new world blacks which is the target of your hate and who want to say can lay no claim to any high civilization in the continent of their origin who would most definitely carry Eurasian ancestry, blk is still blk...and you would still hate them regardless.
It isn't ''bullshit'', these are scientific facts.
The Beja are genetically CLOSER to Europeans than to most Sub-Saharan Africans.
Even their MAIN AFRICAN CLUSTER is said to be closest to Europeans than to other African clusters, and on top of that they have SIGNIFICANT EURASIAN ADMIXTURE.
quote:The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs [clusters], which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African AACs, consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans into Saharan and Eastern Africa.
Tishkoff et al. 2009 -- see p. 14 Supporting Online Material (PDF)
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
Eurasian admixture is very visible in their phenotype. Mainly Orientalid (Arabian) influence.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if it's ever occurred to Perahu that the reason people like the Beja may have some genetic similarity to Europeans is because Europeans experienced some gene flow with African-influenced immigrants like the Natufians during the Neolithic. Perahu has it backwards.
The Beja have scientifically measurable EURASIAN ancestry, not just a little but but A LOT yet you Afronuts blatantly deny it.
Since the Beja are heavily EURASIAN admixed that means the Ancient Egyptians (geographically closer to Europe and the Levant) would be even MORE Eurasian.
The average Beja is genetically closer to a European Caucasoid than to a West African Negroid (where most of you Afronuts probably descend from). So stop being so obsessed with people who are completely unrelated to you.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I wonder if it's ever occurred to Perahu that the reason people like the Beja may have some genetic similarity to Europeans is because Europeans experienced some gene flow with African-influenced immigrants like the Natufians during the Neolithic. Perahu has it backwards.
The Beja have SIGNIFICANT amounts of Eurasian, waaaaaaay more than the African admixture in S.Europeans. Tishkoff et al. 2009 -- see Supporting Online Material (PDF) and see Hassan et al. 2008 .
The Beja have a higher frequency of J1 (Arabian Y-DNA) than the Iraqi Arabs. Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: Why don't they resemble Europeans respectively?
To me they do. More specifically Arabians.
These are not genetically pure Africans.
You Afronuts only seem to show interest in heavily Caucasoid admixed Africans but are embarrassed of the genetically pure Africans.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
You idiot, that study used only West Africans and West African-influenced Bantu, when the people who would have migrated into southern Europe during the Neolithic were genetically influenced by Northeast Africans. This was pointed out to you before, but you were too stupid to absorb it.
"It appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African." ---L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza (2001), Genes, Peoples and LanguagesPosts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Regarding the usage of West Africans in the Moorjaani study, that's because Northeast Africans are not pure Africans, so using them as a measurement of African ancestry in Southern Europeans would only lead to skewed results.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Outdated study,
Knock, knock, it's 2011 not 2001.
Just because a study is old doesn't automatically invalidate its conclusions, and as was explained to you previously, the 2011 study you masturbate to was methodologically flawed.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Southern Europeans are not 33% Negroid, you are a joke. Show me any recent study that validates your claim.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Regarding the usage of West Africans in the Moorjaani study, that's because Northeast Africans are not pure Africans, so using them as a measurement of African ancestry in Southern Europeans would only lead to skewed results.
Let me get this straight...
You're arguing that the genetic affinity between NE Africans and Euros is because of Euro admixture in the former, whereas I'm arguing that you have it backwards. Your idea of a rebuttal is linking to a study that used only West African and Bantu populations. When I criticize that study's sampling, you say that Northeast Africans are admixed with Europeans and therefore aren't ideal for comparison, even though what we're trying to find out is whether it's NE Africans or Euros who are mixed. There's something circular about your reasoning here...
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tishkoff used a wide variety of Africans, she was even able to create a Cushitic cluster, and yet still found significant European and Middle Eastern influence in the Beja in her global structure clustering method.
This European influence was not found in significant numbers in Cushites from Kenya for example.
We not only find proof of West Eurasian genetic hybridization in Beja autosomes, but it is also evident in Beja Y-Chromosome variation (significant amounts of haplogroup J, of Middle Eastern origin).
The Beja are heavily West Eurasian admixed, whether you like it or not.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perahu come on son we playing your game for a sec you detest AAs and other new world blks who carries significant amount of Eurasian dna, you and White noise claim that the average north east Africans are essentially Eurasians but are some how different from AAs if so how so? if according to your wet dreams East Africans also carry Eurasian dna? A random search of AAs if any has Eurasian dna is a guess but they blk just like your East Africans who you obsess over who are not only blk but African born and bred carrying an African culture..so now what???
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
New World Blacks are completely unrelated to Ancient Egyptians and East Africans. They are irrelevant to this topic.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Tishkoff used a wide variety of Africans, she was even able to create a Cushitic cluster, and yet found significant European and Middle Eastern influence in the Beja in her global structure clustering method.
And this is what she had to say about it:
quote:The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs [clusters], which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African AACs, consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans into Saharan and Eastern Africa.
Did you notice the part I just bolded?
I admit that Beja probably have mixed with Arabs, but it doesn't necessarily follow from that they had broad facial features before this admixture. Why are you so adamant that pure Africans can't evolve narrow facial features even though such features are adaptive to the arid environments in which Northeast Africans live?
P.S. Y-chromosome Haplogroup E, an African haplogroup, is seen in Greeks at 25%. What do you make of that?
P.P.S. Since this discussion ultimately goes back to the biological relationships of the ancient Egyptians, what do you make of craniometric studies like this finding them to cluster with sub-Saharan Africans (yes, even broad-featured "pure" ones)?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Perahu is just an Dienekes disciple who knows not what he speaks. Tishkoff never claimed this was due to admixture, in fact, to the contrary. Going deeper into structure analysis will most likely show that the structure shared here with Europeans is not "European" structure. This has been beaten to death. Beja clearly reflect Horn African diversity as well as recent migration. This is what is said about the Horn African diversity according to Tishkoff, who he cited without context:
quote:The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
-- Tishkoff (2000)
^Hence, whatever makes Europeans unique would be minimal in the Beja. They share the African parts of the genome that Euros have retained. Bowcock et al. further sucks the life out of European uniqueness:
quote:Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units.
-- S.O.Y. Keita & Rick Kittles
"Europeans are 1/3 African and 2/3 Asian"--Cavali Sforza
Finally, if he is trying to correlate this structure with the presence of haplogroup J, people like Nebel, Keita, etc. have already shown that J in the Nile Valley and broader North Africa can be attributed to RECENT population movement of Arabs/Islam, and therefore has no bearing on the ancient Egyptians OR ancient Beja (Medjaw).
Try again...
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tishkoff was able to create a Cushitic cluster which was closer to European and other non-African clusters than to the other Sub-Saharan African clusters. So you have NO EXCUSE here. Despite the presence of an indigenous East African cluster, the Beja still showed ~35% West Eurasian admixture which could not be explained by Northeast African native genetic variation.
This is no surprise, considering the Beja are a peripheral group, living near Egyptians and Arabians.
We also find secondary evidence of West Eurasian hybridization through the Beja paternal haplogroups (high frequencies of J, which is through and through Middle Eastern).
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:New World Blacks are completely unrelated to Ancient Egyptians and East Africans.
No, YOU are unrelated to Egyptians and East Africans. Relatedness is directly reflected by familial descent, not structure (look up the definition) and PN2 is shared by over 75% of the continent, binding East, Northeast, and West Africans by a common descent that Euros don't share.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tishkoff was able to create a Cushitic cluster which was closer to European
You have it backwards which shows your Eurocentric agenda. As the quote above demonstrates, Cushitic structure is aboriginal so any closeness on the part of Europeans indicates that they are of recent Cushitic extraction or as Bowcock puts it, effectively 1/3 African due to ancestral structure via admixture. Isolating material without context doesn't help you. Also again, Nebel and others show J to be of recent provenance. There is no correlation between the two. These populations are African, get over it.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: No, YOU are unrelated to Egyptians and Easover 75% t Africans. Relatedness is directly reflected by familial descent, not structure (look up the definition) and PN2 is shared by over 75% of the continent, binding East, Northeast, and West Africans by a common descent that Euros don't share.
E-PN2 is 40KYA old, hardly any evidence of genetic relatedness.
It's as old as F-P14, which unites an Irishman, Australian Aborigine, and a Native American.
New World Blacks are completely unrelated to Ancient Egyptians and East Africans.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:New World Blacks are completely unrelated to Ancient Egyptians and East Africans.
No, YOU are unrelated to Egyptians and Easover 75% t Africans. Relatedness is directly reflected by familial descent, not structure (look up the definition) and PN2 is shared by over 75% of the continent, binding East, Northeast, and West Africans by a common descent that Euros don't share.
E-PN2 is 40KYA old, hardly any evidence of genetic relatedness.
.
Check the new typology, all of the various sub-clades of E-P2 diverged no more than 22-24 kya. Common European descent goes back three times farther into the past. Around this time Europeans were develoing their own unique haplogroups and phenotypes within the confines of Ice Age Europe. Relating any of these peoples with Europeans is just stupid.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic