quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Give it up already. The man is the chosen mod. And he doing alright. Trying to attract new memebers
you kiddin me, there isn't even a new member sticky. no announcements on name switches, come on son
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%.
That's a lie of course typical of undercover racists on this site like Swenet, Beyoku, Djehuti and now apparently Truthcentric (or maybe he's just a confused idiot that one). He wrote that to fool us.
Here below we can see Beja have 42.85% of Eurasian Y-DNA (35.71+2.38+4.76=42.85).
The samples you listed are from Hassan et al. The image that was posted is from Hirbo et al. (Page 83)
Don't be ridiculous, we can see in Appendix 1 in the Hirbo study (p191) that it didn't use the same samples for the Y-DNA, MtDNA and autosomal analysis. Another attempt to fool us. Failed.
Ok then that means we both screwed up.
We're not both screwed up, you're screwed up. You're the one who wanted to use the Beja to prove your point and it failed
I've shown everybody (again) you're a lying piece of shiit. And your constant failed attempts to fool us with lies and manipulation to prove your hamitic myth like crap demonstrate to us you're both a racist and an idiot. It's not surprising since both usually goes in pair.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: manipulation to prove your hamitic myth like crap
The person who insists that Beja inherit ~60% of their genome from a non-African source, then turns around and says that others are proponents of the Hamitic Myth.
Aint that a trip? Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^That's stupid. Yes modern Beja are admixed with Eurasian but it is recently (for the most part), well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt.
The same way modern Egyptians are not like Ancient Egyptians due to RECENT foreign conquests and admixtures (Assyrians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, etc). Beja also have substantial RECENT Eurasian admixtures.
Recent in the context of this forum means WELL after the foundation of Ancient Egypt:
3000 years ago is well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt and well after the Naqada, Badarian, Tasian and Green Saharan culture which were the foundation of Ancient Egyptian culture.
This is all explain in the Joseph K. Pickrell study:
quote: Conclusions
Based on these analyses, we can propose a model for the spread of west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa as follows. First, a large-scale movement of people from west Eurasia into Ethiopia around 3,000 y ago (perhaps from southern Arabia and associated with the D’mt kingdom and the arrival of Ethiosemitic languages ) resulted in the dispersal of west Eurasian ancestry throughout eastern Africa. This was then followed by a migration of an admixed population (perhaps pastoralists related to speakers of Khoe–Kwadi languages) from eastern Africa to southern Africa, with admixture occurring ∼1,500 y ago. Advances in genotyping DNA from archaeological samples may allow aspects of this model to be directly tested.
While 60% may be overestimating it due to SNP ascertainment bias and sample bias (discussed here). The uniparental evidence show us the RECENT eurasian admixture is evident in borderlines African states such as Horn Africa and within the Beja populations. This was mostly through Semitic (ethio-semitic) and Arab-muslim admixtures as explained above by Pickrell.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
CHANGE IN THE ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF MODERN EGYPT:
We all know in terms of ethnic composition, modern Egypt, is much different from Ancient Egypt.
Contemporary Egypt, is mostly an ethnic admixture between foreign invaders and conquerors and indigenous African people. Autosomally, as a whole, they tend to cluster more with Eurasian especially the Middle East. In the south, populations like Nubians probably cluster more with Africans. All this is because of massive immigration from Europe and western Asia which started already in dynastic time, culminating in the Hyksos (Aamu) foreign rule during the second intermediate period, as well as during the late periods up to now (Assyrians, Arab conquest, British colonization, etc).
quote: As a consequence the many invasions of ancient Egypt, the population has changed over the years. There were Hyksos (Heka Khasut) from Asia, who melted into the Delta Region around 1500 B.C.E., and then a series of invasions by the Assyrians, Persians and Greeks. With the arrival of large groups of Arabians in the seventh century C.E., the racial character of Egypt began to change.
The resultant mixtures of Africans, Arabs, Greeks and Persians were to be jointed with Turks, Russians, Albanians, British, and French to create a different population that there had been during the ancient times.
One cannot say that today's Egypt is the same as the Egypt of antiquity anymore than one can say that today's North America is the same as it was 5000 years ago.
- From The Oxford Encyclopedia of African Thought, Volume 1 (2010)
quote:With the passage of time, each wave of new immigrants has assimilated into the local mix of peoples , making modern Egypt a combination of Libyans, Nubians, Syrians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Circassians, Greeks, Italians, and Armenians, along with the descendants of the people of ancient Egypt.
- From A Brief History of Egypt by Jr. Goldschmidt Arthur (2007)
quote: - Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt, in 332 BCE, precipitated a period of mass immigration .
from Ethnicity (Riggs, 2012) see above/original post for more
quote:The Late Period is often singled out as the time when mass immigration into Egypt altered the character of the country
from A Companion to Ancient History Edited by Andrew Erskine (2009)
quote:The Muslim conquerors did not attempt a mass conversion of Christianity to Islam, if only because that would have reduced the taxes non-Muslims were compelled to pay, but a number of other factors were at work. Arab men could marry Christian women and their children would become Muslim. Large-scale Arab immigration into Egypt began during the eighth century.
from A History of Egypt: From Earliest Times to the Present by Jason Thompson (2009)Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti says: I really do the gist of what Truthcentric and Ahmanut are saying. Basically it is the fact that Euronuts through the decades up to the present day have been limiting and narrowing the definitions of 'negro', 'black African', or what have you while expanding their definition of 'white' or 'Caucasian' so as to claim not only Egypt but all cultures of North AND East Africa as well!
Indeed. And on ES, such stereotypical thinking has long since been debunked, although Truthcentric's so-called "sub-Saharan norms" remain a mystery he has yet to define.
I fail to see how Egyptsearch is the laughing stock of the anthro-blogosphere when you have blogs like Dienekes' 'Racial Reality' or Mathilda's Anthroplogy Blogspot. Hell even more 'mainstream' sites like Anthroscape and Biodiversity are overrun with erroneous info by racial propagandist who disseminate and perpetuate the lie of Caucasoid domains in Africa! In the latter sites I read things about Pleistocene Caucasoids of Sudan and Kenya to even Eurasian [read Caucasoid] origin of Khoisan which is espoused here by the fake black woman lyinass!
Correct. I don't see any so-called "laughing stock" either. If anything they fear, avoid, or are uneasy with the hard data and scholarship brought to bear on ES that has debunked their distorted notions time and time again. Of course they engage in desperate name-calling- (what else is to be expected?) but that only reveals their bankruptucy. And when confronted, as shown on numerous forums, ES members under a variety of names (Morpheus, Slugger, MKGlouis, TTJones, Big Mike, etc etc etc) have used the data here quite profitably, not merely to hammer facile Eurocentrics but to establish a solid baseline that speaks to an accurate understanding of Africa and the Nile Valley's diversity and history. The so-called "anthro-blogsphere" with its assortment of trolls, racists, "HBDers", distorters and "guardsmen"- (what was the name of that guy- the so-called 'Crimson Guard" who seems to be in love with Carleton Coons) is nothing special. You are exactly right- it is overrun with a load of racist nuts and other related types, and is no "role model" for anything. It is the so-called "anthro-blogsphere" that is often not only laughable, but inaccurate a well.
So while Egyptsearch may not be the perfect place to get accurate and scientific data on anthropology, I hardly see it as the horrible back-water 'ghetto' that many especially the Euronuts make it out to be.
Indeed, and their propaganda is laughable. No one ever claimed ES was this bastion of perfection. The reputed "glory days" were filled with trolls like "Hammer", "Akoben" etc as well as assorted racists and Eurocentrics, along with the usual Afroloons and inaccurate “enthusiasts”. But over time it has developed a solid, accurately cited, base of data that is widely and easily available on the web, defeating detractors and assorted moles that strive (and fail) to bury or obfuscate good scholarship. Doesn't have to be perfect.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Djehuti, are you aware of the archaeological industries in the Nile Valley and Libya in the UP and MP? I think the people in the Nile Valley at that time had common ancestry with OOA populations. I think the makers of UP tools in the Levant were in the same biological clade as the people who inhabited Egypt and Libya at that time. I think the UP tool makers of the Levant either represent a migration from Egypt or that their MP predecessors migrated to the Levant and blade-based industries were then made in the Levant.
If by MP and UP, you mean Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic respectively then yes I am familiar with the fact that AM humans made their first attempts at leaving Africa during the MP as is evidence by Qafzeh in the Levant and of course we have evidence of a Nubian Complex derived culture in Oman during that period also. I also think it is more than possible that there was more than one wave of OOA expansions that populated Eurasia with one that took place either right before or the beginning of the UP.
Be that as it may, the question is what do these early populations have to do with modern African populations of the same region as well as those of other regions of the continent? I am curious as to know what you think of the relations.
I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades. As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans and thus still corroborating Tishkoff's findings.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^And the part where I or Djehuti say that "black" excludes, say, contemporary European hunter gatherers? Or are you simply trolling?
The ancestors of Europeans and much of all of West Eurasia are suspected of having had the ancestral ancestral pigmentation alleles up until very recently, yet the Stuart Smith citation is used by some dogmatists with the tacit suggestion that OOA populations wouldn't also pass the touted "street experience" test *ahum* fallacy *ahum* during most of their stay in Eurasia. Nope, I'm not going to sit here and say that's truthful.
For the record, I don't believe European hunter-gatherers were black and all of a sudden became 'white'. Obviously there was a process of *gradual lightening* that first began even before they entered Europe. Dr. Jablonski made this clear in her works on the evolution of human skin. During the late Pleistocene much of Central Asia and Anatolia which are already at higher latitudes were cloudy regions at that time receiving less sun-light. The hypothesis was that European hunter-gatherers were at least 'brown' in color if not lighter and of course we have Khoisan of southern Africa as an example of less than the typical black complexion of Sub-Saharans so obviously the selective pressures for lighter color were already active.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades. As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans and thus still corroborating Tishkoff's findings.
For my part, I think this is pretty close to the truth. The skeletal and dental analyses showing a physical distinction between ancient Egypto-Nubians and West/Central Africans cannot be ignored, but neither can Amun-Ra's beloved autosomal DNA data which does suggest that ancient Egyptian genetic profiles would fit more snugly into the sub-Saharan range of genetic variation than that of any Out-of-Africa population. Once you reconcile this autosomal data with the skeletal data, the picture that emerges is that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians that everyone knows were most probably hybridized between the indigenous East Saharan substructure and later waves of sub-Saharan migrants.
As to the precise proportions of the mix, I don't think we on this forum have any direct way to gauge that right now from the genetic data. The DNA Tribes scores are not really admixture percentages, and it's doubtful that the small sample of STRs from the original JAMA and BMJ papers are even sufficient to provide admixture analysis. We'll need a larger sampling of genetic loci for that kind of stuff.
quote:For the record, I don't believe European hunter-gatherers were black and all of a sudden became 'white'. Obviously there was a process of *gradual lightening* that first began even before they entered Europe. Dr. Jablonski made this clear in her works on the evolution of human skin. During the late Pleistocene much of Central Asia and Anatolia which are already at higher latitudes were cloudy regions at that time receiving less sun-light. The hypothesis was that European hunter-gatherers were at least 'brown' in color if not lighter and of course we have Khoisan of southern Africa as an example of less than the typical black complexion of Sub-Saharans so obviously the selective pressures for lighter color were already active.
The original paper on that Mesolithic Spanish dude mentioned the finding of certain ancestral alleles for skin color (along with alleles associated with blue eyes), but I don't remember they being specific on exactly how dark he would have looked. We only have this reconstruction associated with press reports on the paper: Would you describe this dude as black-skinned in your usual chromatic sense? I notice that there's a sharp contrast between the highlights on the face and the shaded areas around it, so I'm having a hard time picking out midtones.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades . As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans
The belief in this mythical clade which is not based on science. Can be compared to a "leap of faith", "Magical Thinking" among racist people on this site (Swenet, Djehuti, Beyoku and Truthcentric). The idea is to promote the splittism approach mentionned by zarahan, to disconnect Ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa pulling it toward Eurasia, and promote the debunked hamitic race myth based on racist pseudo-science from the 19th century.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Not that I exclude the possibility that European hunter gatherers were exceptionally pigmented until the onset of the Neolithic (e.g. Australian Aboriginals), but I didn't necessarily mean to say that they were that densely pigmented, either. Generally speaking, the folks anyone calls "black" in ancient and modern West Asia and Mediterranean North Africa weren't that densely pigmented. They were just sufficiently pigmented to fall within the pigmentation range of modern day people who are seen as "black" in the mainstream, and this range includes various shades brown.
The point that I was trying to make is that I would never say something like this (at least not deliberately), where Asian people of the same range of pigmentation are excluded from "black":
In India you see a similarity of discrimination against dark skin people, like the black community.
Therefore, when I used the word "black" in the past, it had nothing to do with a specific ancestry, contrary to how some have deliberately misconstrued my posts. Let alone that my use of "black" in the past had anything to do with something as atrocious as "black African", a phrase frequently used, e.g. by Ahmanut, to wilfully exclude Africans who are deemed not African enough, not because of any scientific data, but because of whatever beefs and biases these True Negro advocates have with such Africans.
A bias I never knew "tropicals redacted" was hiding inside of him until he exposed it months ago by picking a fight with me for refusing to side with him when Kemp put him in his place in regards to this issue and when I refused to disagree with Hawass' statement that the black in Egypt is not necessarily the same as the people pigeon-holed by the West as "black", to the exclusion of other heavily pigmented Africans.
I guess the advice and analysis I gave him were only useful as long as they didn't threaten the pre-conceived notions he's emotionally attached to. Maybe he expected me to be a yes man who would nod at everything he says, like some of his other correspondents. Oh well.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: For my part, I think this is pretty close to the truth. The skeletal and dental analyses showing a physical distinction between ancient Egypto-Nubians and West/Central Africans cannot be ignored, but neither can Amun-Ra's beloved autosomal DNA data which does suggest that ancient Egyptian genetic profiles would fit more snugly into the sub-Saharan range of genetic variation than that of any Out-of-Africa population. Once you reconcile this autosomal data with the skeletal data, the picture that emerges is that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians that everyone knows were most probably hybridized between the indigenous East Saharan substructure and later waves of sub-Saharan migrants.
As to the precise proportions of the mix, I don't think we on this forum have any direct way to gauge that right now from the genetic data. The DNA Tribes scores are not really admixture percentages, and it's doubtful that the small sample of STRs from the original JAMA and BMJ papers are even sufficient to provide admixture analysis. We'll need a larger sampling of genetic loci for that kind of stuff.
But really my actual point is overall WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?? Whether more recent PN2 descendant or ancestral OOA, the point is these populations were *all* equally African. I mean really if one wants to nitpick all the nuances go ahead, but I noticed it is Euronut racialists who tend to do this while Afrocentrics like Ahmanut try to downplay it. As if such genetic differences take away from their African or even black identity.
quote:The original paper on that Mesolithic Spanish dude mentioned the finding of certain ancestral alleles for skin color (along with alleles associated with blue eyes), but I don't remember they being specific on exactly how dark he would have looked. We only have this reconstruction associated with press reports on the paper: Would you describe this dude as black-skinned in your usual chromatic sense? I notice that there's a sharp contrast between the highlights on the face and the shaded areas around it, so I'm having a hard time picking out midtones.
I don't know. The version on the right looks more 'white' than the one on right which is just hairless, but the coloring around the face looks more like dirt than actual pigmentation due to the disparity with the center of the face.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, what I consider for historical purpose Africans is people who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migrations. People who are mostly not the product of the back migrations of non-African/Eurasian people more than 30-40 000 years after the OOA migrations. People from the African A, B and E Y-DNA haplogroups and African MtDNA L haplogroups. Of course nowadays every African people are admixed at various degrees with non-African people either directly or through African intermediaries.
So for the ethnic affiliation of Ancient Egypt, I'm always wondering for myself: Are they mostly the product of the people who stayed back in Africa after the OOA migrations or are they mostly the product of some dynastic race of back migrating OOA migrants and this especially at their foundation stage.
Considering current genetic (BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes) and archaeological results (too various to cite) Ancient Egyptians were mostly Africans (at their foundation stage). Even at the foundation there probably was low level admixtures with non-African people (Y-DNA F and MtDNA M, N descendants haplogroups). So they were mostly Africans.
Along the years, AE grow more cosmopolitan and there was more and more people of foreign origins in Ancient Egypt. We can note for example the Aamu (Asian) Hyksos dynasty during the second intermediary period which were reversed (some say "expelled") by the 18th royal dynasty, and of course late foreign dynasty like Romans, Assyrians, Greeks, etc.
quote:Originally posted by Ama-nutcase The Ultimate: The belief in this mythical clade which is not based on science. Can be compared to a "leap of faith", "Magical Thinking" among racist people on this site (Swenet, Djehuti, Beyoku and Truthcentric). The idea is to promote the splittism approach mentionned by zarahan, to disconnect Ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa pulling it toward Eurasia, and promote the debunked hamitic race myth based on racist pseudo-science from the 19th century.
The clade(s) I was referring to are the ones ancestral to all non-Africans, dummy. As for what you call "splittism" well this is a scientific FACT as it comes to genetic lineages. In fact YOU yourself were the one who presented the following image.
It's interesting how the diagram above hows a split between African DE and Eurasian DE even though both share a common YAP ancestry in Africa. And as I said, your diagram shows CF originating in Eurasia even though there is a para-clade F* among populations in Sudan having nothing to do with Arabs.
Also, what are we to make of older clades that predate BOTH ancestral OOA and ancestral PN2 such as hgs A and B??! Genetically both CF (ancestral OOA) AND YAP (ancestral PN2) are more divergent genetically from A and B carriers than from each other!!
So in other words you seem more comfortable with some splits but not others and accuse me of "splittism". LOL You are as much hypocritical as you are dense!
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanutcase The Ultimate: For the record, what I consider for historical purpose Africans is people who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migrations. People who are mostly not the product of the back migrations of non-African/Eurasian people more than 30-40 000 years after the OOA migrations. People from the African A, B and E Y-DNA haplogroups and African MtDNA L haplogroups. Of course nowadays every African people are admixed at various degrees with non-African people either directly or through African intermediaries.
Hey dummy, nobody is disagreeing with your definitions. Of course the ancient Egyptians and other Nile Valley folks are populations who never left the continent!
This is besides my point.
What do YOU make of older clades that predate BOTH ancestral OOA and ancestral PN2 such as hgs A and B??! **Genetically both CF (ancestral OOA) AND YAP (ancestral PN2) are more divergent genetically from A and B carriers than from each other!!**
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, I post this image a lot. It shows that Africans are from the African A, B and E haplogroups.
When you know most Africans are from the haplogroup E and E-P2 Y-DNA haplogroups by looking at haplogroup frequency tables...
It also shows that East and West Africans have a common ancestry in Africa (the orange part) **after** the OOA migrations (after the common CT and DE haplogroups they BOTH share with Eurasians). For example, over 80% of East and West Africans are from the E-P2 haplogroups. Same could be said about the African MtDNA L haplogroups.
This is all mentioned in more details in this thread:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What do YOU make of older clades that predate BOTH ancestral OOA and ancestral PN2 such as hgs A and B??!
They are part of the African A, B and E Y-DNA haplogroups mentioned above. They are not in any way affiliated with Eurasians or non-Africans or OOA migrants. So they can't be used to prove any kind of hamitic race-like theory.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanutcase The Ultimate: [qb] For the record, what I consider for historical purpose Africans is people who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migrations. People who are mostly not the product of the back migrations of non-African/Eurasian people more than 30-40 000 years after the OOA migrations. People from the African A, B and E Y-DNA haplogroups and African MtDNA L haplogroups. Of course nowadays every African people are admixed at various degrees with non-African people either directly or through African intermediaries.
Hey dummy, nobody is disagreeing with your definitions.
On the other hand, beside the unnecessary insults, I'm glad "everybody" agrees with the definition above of Africans.
At least there's that.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades. As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans and thus still corroborating Tishkoff's findings.
For my part, I think this is pretty close to the truth. The skeletal and dental analyses showing a physical distinction between ancient Egypto-Nubians and West/Central Africans cannot be ignored, but neither can Amun-Ra's beloved autosomal DNA data which does suggest that ancient Egyptian genetic profiles would fit more snugly into the sub-Saharan range of genetic variation than that of any Out-of-Africa population. Once you reconcile this autosomal data with the skeletal data, the picture that emerges is that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians that everyone knows were most probably hybridized between the indigenous East Saharan substructure and later waves of sub-Saharan migrants.
From what i read so far on this forum when the term Egypto-Nubians is mention i think you mean lower A-group nubians and some later nubians of lower nubia in different time periods only.
Nubia was varied in looks as we know so far,and so was egypt and the rest of africa but A- group lower nubians were physically distinct from upper/southern nubia.
From a book i read awhile ago that Djehuti mention in a another thread, egypt,nubia and axum from kenny mann,physically A- group nubians would have more in common with egyptians or look more like them,while nubians from upper/southern nubia like yam, and kushites would have more common or look more like those africans from darfur,the nuba hills,west and central africa.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades. As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans and thus still corroborating Tishkoff's findings.
For my part, I think this is pretty close to the truth. The skeletal and dental analyses showing a physical distinction between ancient Egypto-Nubians and West/Central Africans cannot be ignored, but neither can Amun-Ra's beloved autosomal DNA data which does suggest that ancient Egyptian genetic profiles would fit more snugly into the sub-Saharan range of genetic variation than that of any Out-of-Africa population. Once you reconcile this autosomal data with the skeletal data, the picture that emerges is that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians that everyone knows were most probably hybridized between the indigenous East Saharan substructure and later waves of sub-Saharan migrants.
From what i read so far on this forum when the term Egypto-Nubians is mention i think you mean lower A-group nubians and some later nubians of lower nubia in different time periods only.
Nubia was varied in looks as we know so far,and so was egypt and the rest of africa but A- group lower nubians were physically distinct from upper/southern nubia.
From a book i read awhile ago,egypt,nubia and axum from kenny mann,physically A- group nubians would have more in common with egyptians or look more like them,while nubians from upper/southern nubia like yam, and kushites would have more common or look more like those africans from darfur,the nuba hills,west and central africa.
Nubia was never a term used by Ancient Egyptian or Kushite people to identify any people or territory. It doesn't appears in any of the Ancient Egyptian and Kushite literature as such.
Ancient Egyptians from the 1st dynasty often referred to the land south of their nation as Ta-Seti (Land of the Bow), from the 12th Dynasty the word Kush also started to be used to designate the region.
In books and studies about Ancient Egypt and Kushite empire modern egyptologists often translate every words related to the land south of Ancient Egypt like Ta-Seti and even the word Kush into Nubia. Kushites called themselves Kushites too in Meroitic texts. For example, King Kashta (Kings often go by various names in Africa)
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: From what i read so far on this forum when the term Egypto-Nubians is mention i think you mean lower A-group nubians and some later nubians of lower nubia in different time periods only.
Nubia was varied in looks as we know so far,and so was egypt and the rest of africa but A- group lower nubians were physically distinct from upper/southern nubia.
From a book i read awhile ago that Djehuti mention in a another thread, egypt,nubia and axum from kenny mann,physically A- group nubians would have more in common with egyptians or look more like them,while nubians from upper/southern nubia like yam, and kushites would have more common or look more like those africans from darfur,the nuba hills,west and central africa.
Such a cline would make intuitive sense, but the physical anthropological evidence doesn't all square well with it. Remember that Kerma is considered part of Upper Nubia, and yet the remains recovered from there have consistently shown such similarity to ancient Egyptians that often they're indistinguishable. For that matter, we have dental analyses on Mesolithic remains from way down in Khartoum showing a pattern like those of later Nubians and Egyptians. So, no, it doesn't look like even southern Nubians were more than subtly different from Egyptians.
As for the jet-dark portrayals of Nubians in Egyptian art, right now I'm inclined to think that was less a reflection of a real physical difference than a convention which helped the Egyptians distinguish themselves from other Nile Valley Africans. Since we're dealing with societies where most people went around half-naked and showed a lot of skin, assigning distinct skin colors to non-Egyptian Africans would have set them apart more than, say, subtle differences in loincloths.
This is how Nubians portrayed themselves in their own art, using the same color schemes as the Egyptians:
And this is how ancestral Eastern Saharans painted themselves thousands of years before: Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: But really my actual point is overall WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?? Whether more recent PN2 descendant or ancestral OOA, the point is these populations were *all* equally African. I mean really if one wants to nitpick all the nuances go ahead, but I noticed it is Euronut racialists who tend to do this while Afrocentrics like Ahmanut try to downplay it. As if such genetic differences take away from their African or even black identity.
To be fair, guys like Hawass and Kemp (the scholars whom Claus was arguing against) strike me as the sort who don't want Egyptians to be connected to other Africans in any sense. They'll take advantage of any distinction between Egyptians and the so-called "sub-Saharan" norm to justify the rift they've established in their minds. Even if Nile Valley Africans were perfect genetic clones of any extant sub-Saharan population, the orthodoxy will look for something else that they believe sets Egypt apart.
That Kemp, Hawass, and the rest weren't completely off-base when they suggested population substructure throughout Africa doesn't mean their underlying mentality can be excused.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: From what i read so far on this forum when the term Egypto-Nubians is mention i think you mean lower A-group nubians and some later nubians of lower nubia in different time periods only.
Nubia was varied in looks as we know so far,and so was egypt and the rest of africa but A- group lower nubians were physically distinct from upper/southern nubia.
From a book i read awhile ago that Djehuti mention in a another thread, egypt,nubia and axum from kenny mann,physically A- group nubians would have more in common with egyptians or look more like them,while nubians from upper/southern nubia like yam, and kushites would have more common or look more like those africans from darfur,the nuba hills,west and central africa.
Such a cline would make intuitive sense, but the physical anthropological evidence doesn't all square well with it. Remember that Kerma is considered part of Upper Nubia, and yet the remains recovered from there have consistently shown such similarity to ancient Egyptians that often they're indistinguishable. For that matter, we have dental analyses on Mesolithic remains from way down in Khartoum showing a pattern like those of later Nubians and Egyptians. So, no, it doesn't look like even southern Nubians were more than subtly different from Egyptians.
As for the jet-dark portrayals of Nubians in Egyptian art, right now I'm inclined to think that was less a reflection of a real physical difference than a convention which helped the Egyptians distinguish themselves from other Nile Valley Africans. Since we're dealing with societies where most people went around half-naked and showed a lot of skin, assigning distinct skin colors to non-Egyptian Africans would have set them apart more than, say, subtle differences in loincloths.
This is how Nubians portrayed themselves in their own art, using the same color schemes as the Egyptians:
And this is how ancestral Eastern Saharans painted themselves thousands of years before:
Keep in mind later in merotic art there were more varied differences too then the napatan art shown here,of course napatan art shows other varied ways,but not as much as later kushite art.
NUBIAN TOMBS DISCOVERED By Dr. Elena Pischikova
quote: When we started excavating three years ago, we could not be sure we would find anything. All that was left of the largest tomb in the area was a crack in the ground. For weeks we were digging with no results. Our only discoveries were pieces of burnt bedrock with no traces of hieroglyphic inscriptions or decoration. Only fifteen feet down from the surface of the desert did we find the first inscription with the titles of a dignitary. This small fragment with original ancient carving gave us hope that there was something still left in the tomb. A week later we found the first image of the owner of the tomb, the Nubian Priest Karakhamun. The face of Karakhamun displays bold Nubian features, round head with cropped hair, round full cheeks, nose broad at the nostrils, and full protruding lips. A long neck and large elegant eyes with thin pointed cosmetic lines make his features resemble those of the Nubian pharaoh Shebitqo who ruled Egypt and Nubia at the end of the eighth and beginning of the seventh century B.C.
Later kushite art you see darker skin tones on average in the art and of one of reasons is that kushite art on average later became more nubianized or there was more native influences in the art again.
Another example in later kushite art the art was more realistic,queens were shown has fat etc..
I should have mention kerma was abit different then what you see further south,but of course heads shapes etc.. were similar to egypt except egyptians were lighter on average, medium nosed on average and those kushites of kerma were broad nosed and were darker on average.
Further south in upper nubia and southern nubia there are those in kush or in those regions that are broad nosed types,and broader heads on average like the king posted in the reply and darker on average.
Like a few others mention in this thread,egyptians and kushites had things that were similar but they varied or had distinctions too and there was a common type in each region.
There were varied looks in ta-seti just like egypt or kemet,but ta-seti would have common type and so would ancient egypt/kemet.
Let me put this way,the average kushite will not be described as Somali like,the average ancient egyptian is described that way so there were differences.
Egyptians lighter,kushites darker,egyptians more narrowed headed and on average medium nosed,closer to narrow on average,while kushites on average broad nosed and broad heads or round headed.
That's the distinction i am was talking about and want to make clear again. You see these types in other parts of africa too.
Noba and kushites were indistinguishable of course and you could see the descendants of sudanese nile valley in other parts of sudan too in the nuba hills to darfur.
I posted some pics of these descendants in another thread and the average kushite and ancient noba would look more these these modern nubians.
Midob Nubians
and those you see in the nuba hills and those modern nubians you see in chad.
Here some modern nubians in nubia today. Lori at Nubian Village visit (Timinar)
In pics i posted there a mixed of broad-head/round head types and those with more narrow heads and medium head types but all broad nosed and darker then then the average ancient egyptian.
Like zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova said earlier there was mix african types in both regions in ta-seti and ancient egypt,but there was a common head type, nose type,skin tone type etc..i mentioned above.
What i could tell so far and what i have read, the average kushite was broad-headed or round-head and broad nosed and darker on average then the egyptians.
posted
This art image seems to me not the real skin tone of this king,but i could be wrong,but it looks like it's just gold painting on the statue.
It reminds of those statues when king tut is painted all black,but of course that's not his real skin tone either.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was posted before about kushite art i found on this forum.
quote:Originally posted by: this is a good reading on the subject of what the scholars call a classic kushite fold
Egypt: Child of Africa By Ivan Van Sertima of
if link does not work,copy and paste in address box
By Ivan Van Sertima quote- but king taharka is man of many faces,whether in relief;as a sphinx(amon temple at kawa);as a colossi(gerbel barkhal);on temple shrines (kawa) or a fresco (quasm ibrim).those elements of his facial features which define him as a african man are unmistakable.and at last,there is tanwetamani(in relief and on fresco)who succeeded taharka
scholars treatment on the image of taharka requires comment.while his image occures on many extant statues,reliefs,stele,frescoes and shrines,the image of him which have received the greatest attention and praise are those which do not reflect the characteristic kushite bulbous nose,the prominent fold around the nose,the large lips,round head and short neck.some scholars,leclant for example,describe as unflattering those portraits of takarka which depicts him with prominent nose,thick lips and drooping eyes
From Gebel Barkal, head from Temple B 500, body from B 904 Harvard University-MFA Boston Expedition, April 1916, field no. 16-4-32 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 23.731
With the retreat of the Kushite kings from Egypt, the art of the Napatan empire gains a new dimension. Its characteristic fashion of representing the human form and face were already visible in the works of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. But they were toned down through direct contact with the tradition-bound art of Egypt, failing to come to full fruition. Once freed, however, from the restrictions of the pharaonic legacy, a style develops in the Napatan dynasty that brings the more "African" components to the fore. Many colossal statue fragments from the original inventory of the great Amun Temple at Gebel Barkal were unearthed in a cache north of the first pylon. This statue of Senkamanisken was one of them. All of the stylistic tendencies of the preceding era come to light here, enhanced and expanded. The forcefully striding legs have become more massive, the feet larger. The arms end in balled fists that bespeak raw power; the musculature is strongly emphasized. The head rests heavy on the short neck, thickset in profile view. The southern facial type is characterized by the full lips, broad nose, the widely spaced, slightly bulging eyes, and the low brow. The double uraeus at the forehead is completely preserved—in the Napatan homeland the statues were spared the persecutions wrought by the succeeding dynasty in Egypt. The Kushite cap closely conforms to the round skull. Around the neck hangs the cord with three ram's heads. Surface areas left rough for gilding or silver plating include the jewelry bands on the upper arms, wrists, and ankles, the sandal straps, tripartite royal kilt, and the cap.
From the book Sudan: Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile, Dietrich Wildung, 1997, p. 218 Funerary Figurine of King Senkamanisken
This shabti, or funerary figurine, is typical of the nearly 1300 figurines found in Senkamanisken's pyramid at Nuri, the royal necropolis in the Kushite capital of Napata.
Housed in the Brooklyn Museum add text.
The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization By László Török
posted
I don't want to change the subject of this thread so if there is further talk about the Nehesi and their art it should be done in the thread below or other threads like that in the forum since the real subject of this thread is about nubian dna and should be about that only i believe.
Here is some talk about the Nehesi and their art images.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: @ Djehuti
quote: As if such genetic differences take away from their African or even black identity.
Exactly.
Genetic differences (substructure) happens between any people including within the same ethnic group, members of the same (nuclear) family or surprisingly enough even between twins. I'm sorry but if you want to invent one group of mythical Africans who are closer to Eurasians than to other Africans, corresponding to the hamitic race myth from the 19th Century, it is racist and it does take away their African identity by making them closer to Eurasians than other Africans. It's also stupid and not based on any science (as both East and West Africans share a common Y-DNA CT (and DE) and MtdNA L3 haplogroups with OOA migrants.
Saying otherwise is based on leap of faith and magical thinking and is ridiculous. The hamitic race myth was debunked decades ago. But its also a complete lie and it's in the lies people tell themselves you know where people truly stand on this forum.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades . As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans
The belief in this mythical clade which is not based on science. Can be compared to a "leap of faith", "Magical Thinking" among racist people on this site (Swenet, Djehuti, Beyoku and Truthcentric). The idea is to promote the splittism approach mentionned by zarahan, to disconnect Ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa pulling it toward Eurasia, and promote the debunked hamitic race myth based on racist pseudo-science from the 19th century.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: The belief in this mythical clade which is not based on science.
Says who? You? Don't make me laugh. You have never read a genetic article (or any anthro article for that matter) in your life. This impression instantly occurs to any reader of your posts who is not similarly ignorant of African population history. This is precisely why you and other crap mongers thrive here; the folks who agree with you on ES are equally ignorant of what they're talking about.
The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs, 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
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and it also mentions the RECENT (post OOA, post Dynastic era) back-migration of non-Africans into Africa.
Also this Cushitic and Fulani AAC is closer to other Africans AACs than to European AAC, as we can see from this graph from the same study:
Personally, I could see Ancient Egyptians to be were the Fulani are (due to their geographic locations, the eventual cosmopolitan nature of the empire think Hyksos) based on current genetic results. That is mostly Africans with some low level of Eurasian admixtures.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Yes, and it also mentions
So you admit that you were talking out the side of your neck when you said preOOA ancestry in extant Africans was not scientific?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Yes, and it also mentions
So you admit that you were talking out the side of your neck when you said preOOA ancestry in extant Africans was not scientific?
I never said that. I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups, share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
For example, modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants (since they are mostly from non-CT and non-L3 haplogroups) beside through recent admixtures.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then which pre-existing Nile Valley clades are you describing as "not based on science" and a "leap of faith"?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Yes, and it also mentions
So you admit that you were talking out the side of your neck when you said preOOA ancestry in extant Africans was not scientific?
For example, modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants (since they are mostly from non-CT and non-L3 haplogroups) beside through recent admixtures.
When looking at the image what does "OOA" mean (Orange Component)? Where do you see that "modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants"?
Talking out ass again. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The older mythical clade mentioned by Djehuti below supposedly splitting modern East and West Africans:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades . As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans
The belief in this mythical clade which is not based on science. Can be compared to a "leap of faith", "Magical Thinking" among racist people on this site (Swenet, Djehuti, Beyoku and Truthcentric). The idea is to promote the splittism approach mentionned by zarahan, to disconnect Ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa pulling it toward Eurasia, and promote the debunked hamitic race myth based on racist pseudo-science from the 19th century.
You can't use the admixture K=2 graph to demonstrate the OOA substructure since those K=2 graphs (which are not always similar btw) are based on modern populations and also take into account RECENT back migrations of non-Africans into Africa.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
What exactly is "not based on science" and a "leap of faith" about what Djehuti said? Which textual document (i.e. an actual scientific text, not a patchwork of propagandistic pictures and text you composed yourself) excludes the existence of such clades in the Nile Valley for you to claim what he said is not scientific?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What exactly is "not based on science" and a "leap of faith" about what Djehuti said?
The mythical and I quote "older clades" mentioned by Djehuti in the quote above. Such clade doesn't exist. Both modern East and West Africans are descendants of the same CT and L3 clades they have in common with OOA migrants as well as other African haplogroups which are not related to OOA migrants (like A, B Y-DNA haplogroups, L2a, L0a MtDNA haplogroups, etc).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
You can't use the admixture K=2 graph to demonstrate the OOA substructure since those K=2 graphs (which are not always similar btw) are based on modern populations and also take into account RECENT back migrations of non-Africans into Africa.
You just owned yourself. What back-migration are found in Mbuti, San, Anuak, Dinka, Biaka? What does "OOA" stand for in that image? If what you say is true, you should be able to say what "OOA" means as written by the author......and describe the present of that Component in SAN, Biaka, Mbuti as apposed to the differences in the K=2 analysis.
YOU WILL NOT DO THIS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DO THIS! Basically you are talking out your ass and when someone calls you on it you just dismiss the science on a whim.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Ignoring that load of propagandistic bs for a minute (that Tishkoff citation clearly says that OOA populations derive from East Africans, not West Africans), what in the scientific literature rules out the presence of lineages in the Nile Valley that would put its carriers in an intermediate position?
Post anything that YOU didn't write yourself, lol. Can you do it? Deal with a yawning gap in your theory without referring back to your own propaganda i.e. your self-perpetuating loop of bs?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
You can't use the admixture K=2 graph to demonstrate the OOA substructure since those K=2 graphs (which are not always similar btw) are based on modern populations and also take into account RECENT back migrations of non-Africans into Africa.
You just owned yourself. What back-migration are found in Mbuti, San, Anuak, Dinka, Biaka? What does "OOA" stand for in that image? If what you say is true, you should be able to say what "OOA" means as written by the author......and describe the present of that Component in SAN, Biaka, Mbuti as apposed to the differences in the K=2 analysis.
YOU WILL NOT DO THIS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DO THIS! Basically you are talking out your ass and when someone calls you on it you just dismiss the science on a whim.
You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph (which btw are not always similar).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
You can't use the admixture K=2 graph to demonstrate the OOA substructure since those K=2 graphs (which are not always similar btw) are based on modern populations and also take into account RECENT back migrations of non-Africans into Africa.
You just owned yourself. What back-migration are found in Mbuti, San, Anuak, Dinka, Biaka? What does "OOA" stand for in that image? If what you say is true, you should be able to say what "OOA" means as written by the author......and describe the present of that Component in SAN, Biaka, Mbuti as apposed to the differences in the K=2 analysis.
YOU WILL NOT DO THIS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DO THIS! Basically you are talking out your ass and when someone calls you on it you just dismiss the science on a whim.
You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph (which btw are not always similar).
Exactly....you dont even know what I am talking about. Lets start off small. There is an orange compoennet called "OOA" what does the OOA acronym stand for and what are the authors trying to hypothesize?
*EDIT. and Board take notice. This is when you know an idiot is flying by the seat of his pants making it all up as he goes along..he speaks on images that dont support his views. Then we they do he doesn't even know that is the case.
Amun Ra = All post OOA East and West Africans are "related". Amun Ra 2 minutes later: You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. "Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph" (as if they shouldn't according to his interpretation of uni-parentals).
Damn boy...
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Ignoring that load of propagandistic bs for a minute (that Tishkoff citation clearly says that OOA populations derive from East Africans, not West Africans), what in the scientific literature rules out the presence of lineages in the Nile Valley that would put its carriers in an intermediate position?
The literature cannot rules out what you invented. It doesn't even know of your theory.
For example a basic look at the haplogroups of the OOA migrants and modern Africans is enough to rule out your mythical clade. Like this graph, which I didn't create:
We can see above that Africans are from the A, B and E Y-DNA haplogroups.
The E haplogroup is the haplogroup shared between BOTH modern East and West Africans (along with other A and B haplogroups also unrelated to OOA migrants) **after** the OOA migrants (from the CT and DE haplogroups) already left Africa.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, you keep referring back to your own lying ass propaganda. Not a textual reference that supports your propaganda in sight. Aside from the fact that you're horribly oblivious to the fact that your spam tree is outdated, phylogenetic trees by definition only depict observed lineages.
Are you really that intellectually deprived to condense Africa's evolutionary history into a simplified Y Chromosome tree? Holy sh!t Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
Basically it says the chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa [for example over 80% of West Africans and African-Americans are from that haplogroup], trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa.
So Sub-Saharan Africans like West Africans and East Africans can trace their descent from a common E-P2 ancestor present in Eastern Africa .
Amun - I never said that. I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups,share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
Beyoku - What back-migration are found in Mbuti, San, Anuak, Dinka, Biaka? What does "OOA" stand for in that image?
Amun - You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph (which btw are not always similar).
LULZ.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
wig·gle room nouninformal capacity or scope for negotiation or operation, especially in order to modify a previous statement or decision.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic