Hey twit, "mixture explains all variation" as I theorize??!! It was YOU who assumed the Christian Nubians had to be "Roman admixed" to be as distant as they are from Kermans!! So when Germans are distant from Bohemians it is due to inherent variation but when Christian Nubians are distant from Kermans it is due to European admixture! Your double-think as well as your projection are all too embarassing!
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And again for the exremely brain-dead, that is your presumption based on what?? By your same logic the German sample may not be actual Germans but African migrants living in Germany!
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:“Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general.”
Irish’s results are particularly informative in light of his earlier study of the human mortuary remains from Nabta Playa (Irish, 2001). Analyses of dental and osseous non-metric traits exhibit both sub-Saharan and North African linkages, with cranial morphologies yielding a similar result.
--Michael Brass
Reconsidering the emergence of social complexity in early Saharan pastoral societies, 5000 – 2500 B.C.
posted
^ Now now Ish, don't do lioness's homework for her! She is after all a big girl who can wear big girl panties and do the big task of doing her own research...
Like proving that the Christian Nubian sample in Holliday's work comprised non-African individuals.
Until she can answer that, she will remain a childish nuisance.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^Someone is obviously trolling.
That is a stupid remark. You obviously don't know what "trolling" means
I am more informed about this article that others commenting on it. I know more about the samples, have read other information on them. So stop being a witless buffoon
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
ClydeWinters might be 100% correct, Lioness is an open troll account managed by multiple personnel.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^Someone is obviously trolling.
That is a stupid remark. You obviously don't know what "trolling" means
I am more informed about this article that others commenting on it. I know more about the samples, have read other information on them. So stop being a witless buffoon
ANYONE can read the chart and nowhere is it even saying that the Nubians are "partially" African or hardly African. What the heck are you even going on about.
By your silly logic Germans are now only "partially" European or hardly European due to being close to Nubians(again by your logic). See! See! I can troll too.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^Someone is obviously trolling.
That is a stupid remark. You obviously don't know what "trolling" means
I am more informed about this article that others commenting on it. I know more about the samples, have read other information on them. So stop being a witless buffoon
ANYONE can read the chart and nowhere is it even saying that the Nubians are "partially" African or hardly African. What the heck are you even going on about.
By your silly logic Germans are now only "partially" European or hardly European due to being close to Nubians(again by your logic). See! See! I can troll too.
I'm not using logic. I'm using additional information about the sample that I know about and you you dumb motherfuckas don't. I'm keeping it a secret for now to watch the antics
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no "secret". Attentive readers of African aDNA papers know Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration. Already posted earlier in this thread:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Said it several times. It's early Medieval in date. It's likely the same or a biologically closely related skeletal sample as the Christian Nubian sample used in Hanihara et al 2003, that, at times, has clustered outside of the "North African" subcluster (comprised of Naqada, Giza and Kerma) and with Europeans.
Holliday doesn't identify this sample in his later papers, at least not the ones I have. When he speaks on the provenance of this Nubian sample and his other oft-used samples, he simply refers his readers back to his dissertation, which isn't readily available. So this is all that we know about it for now.
We also have Christian era aDNA to help put these results in a better context:
quote:In dedicated aDNA facilities at University College Dublin, we successfully sequenced several specimens from Kulubnarti, Sudanese Nubia dated to the Early Christian era (500-1400 AD). [...] Quality control analysis indicated authenticity of the DNA and principle component analysis based on single nucleotide polymorphisms placed the individual around Middle Eastern and Central/South Asian clusters.
Now, back to the question at hand: why does the relative position of the German sample not indicate migration from a warmer region? Still waiting, lioness.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quote:” Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.” Is there genetic proof of that. As I said many times. And no one has proven and prove me incorrect to date.
There is no genetic proof that “Greek” and “Romans’ conquered Egypt and Africa. Nein! Unless the Greeks and Romans were E1b1b and other types of Africans. The only supposed invasion of Africa where there is proof is by the Ottoman Turks.
Henn et al and many others have confirmed there was no invasion of Arabs into Africa which means the Islamic of Spain/Iberians were either Indigenes to Spain or Africans conquering Spain.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.
Is there genetic proof of that.
There is, gramps. Read between the lines. Also read the Hassan 2008 aDNA paper. The Christian Nubian samples tested genetically so far are different. They tend to stand out from earlier periods. Some Christian Nubian samples studied metrically and non metrically also differ in a skeletal sense from older samples.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^Someone is obviously trolling.
I think the obsession is a mental illness. I am serious here.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Quote:” Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.” Is there genetic proof of that. As I said many times. And no one has proven and prove me incorrect to date.
There is no genetic proof that “Greek” and “Romans’ conquered Egypt and Africa. Nein! Unless the Greeks and Romans were E1b1b and other types of Africans. The only supposed invasion of Africa where there is proof is by the Ottoman Turks.
Henn et al and many others have confirmed there was no invasion of Arabs into Africa which means the Islamic of Spain/Iberians were either Indigenes to Spain or Africans conquering Spain.
Historically what is known in Egypt, is that Romans didn't go to the South. But you'll find small amounts of E-V13 in the South. Something like 3%, if I remember correctly. In the North the presence of E-V13 is much higher. Although some of Roman culture was transplanted there.
I found this here, but I am not sure if it is correct, since it speaks somewhat different for what I remember:
quote:"Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
--Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009 Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
In a proper reading of this chart only horizontal distances count. The chart shows Nubians closer to Germans than to East Africans.
That means the Nubians in the sample are only part indigenous Africans or not at all
In a more proper reading of the chart. The stems of the branches are taken into account. The 'Nubians' and Germans are on different stems of the dendogram, one on the African side and the other on the European side respectively. You claim Nubians are closer to Germans than they are to East Africans but by that very conjecture the Germans are closer to Nubians than they are to Central Europeans.
According to your reasoning, that means the Germans in the sample are only part indigenous Europeans or not at all.
Do you not understand??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are blowing smoke. The R1b found in the Hassan study is R1b-V88. So what are you on about? More BSing young man. Put up or shut up! Stop mis-directing readers. So I repeat again. There is no genetic proof of non-African invasion to Sudan in the Christian or other eras. Nein!
QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.
Is there genetic proof of that.
There is, gramps. Read between the lines. Also read the Hassan 2008 aDNA paper. The Christian Nubian samples tested genetically so far are different. They tend to stand out from earlier periods. Some Christian Nubian samples studied metrically and non metrically also differ in a skeletal sense from older samples. [/QUOTE]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There is no "secret". Attentive readers of African aDNA papers know Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration. Already posted earlier in this thread:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Said it several times. It's early Medieval in date. It's likely the same or a biologically closely related skeletal sample as the Christian Nubian sample used in Hanihara et al 2003, that, at times, has clustered outside of the "North African" subcluster (comprised of Naqada, Giza and Kerma) and with Europeans.
Holliday doesn't identify this sample in his later papers, at least not the ones I have. When he speaks on the provenance of this Nubian sample and his other oft-used samples, he simply refers his readers back to his dissertation, which isn't readily available. So this is all that we know about it for now.
We also have Christian era aDNA to help put these results in a better context:
quote:In dedicated aDNA facilities at University College Dublin, we successfully sequenced several specimens from Kulubnarti, Sudanese Nubia dated to the Early Christian era (500-1400 AD). [...] Quality control analysis indicated authenticity of the DNA and principle component analysis based on single nucleotide polymorphisms placed the individual around Middle Eastern and Central/South Asian clusters.
Now, back to the question at hand: why does the relative position of the German sample not indicate migration from a warmer region? Still waiting, lioness.
Indeed, I never denied foreign presence and/or influence in Christian era Nubia. My only query is why lioness's claim is one-sided wherein she states Nubian affinities to German but not German affinities to Nubian! Anyone with half a brain would notice this glaring hypocrisy but lioness herself.
So I await her explanation... if she ever gives one. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. Normally, samples on the peripheral edges of their respective branches (in this case, the Christian era Nubian and German samples) also have a degree of closeness to samples on other branches. So, in this case, the German sample has ties with the bottom branch (since it's on the bottom branch) AND a degree of closeness to samples on the upper branch.
Holliday also clearly explains in this paper that the German sample gravitates a bit towards the African samples. So lioness is arbitrarily singling out the Nubian sample and ignoring the German sample as you correctly pointed out pages ago.
quote:Among the higher latitude groups, the Germans are tied to the exclusively African cluster described earlier via a medium-length branch to the Nubian sample.
posted
E-V13 Quote from Wiki: However, earlier entry into Europe is also possible. Battaglia et al. (2008), for example, propose that the E-M78* lineage ancestral to all modern E-V13 men moved rapidly out of a Southern Egyptian homeland, in the wetter conditions of the early Holocene; arrived in the Balkans with only Mesolithic technologies and then only subsequently integrated with Neolithic cultures which arrived later in the Balkans. E-V13 is in any case often described in population genetics as one of the components of the European genetic composition which shows a relatively recent link of populations from the Middle East, entering Europe and presumably associated with bringing new technologies.[25][26][27] As such, it is also sometimes remarked that it is a relatively recent genetic movement out of Africa into Eurasia, and has been described as "a signal for a separate late-Pleistocene migration from Africa to Europe over the Sinai ... which is not manifested in mtDNA haplogroup distributions".[28]
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You are blowing smoke. The R1b found in the Hassan study is R1b-V88. So what are you on about? More BSing young man. Put up or shut up! Stop mis-directing readers. So I repeat again. There is no genetic proof of non-African invasion to Sudan in the Christian or other eras. Nein!
QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.
Is there genetic proof of that.
There is, gramps. Read between the lines. Also read the Hassan 2008 aDNA paper. The Christian Nubian samples tested genetically so far are different. They tend to stand out from earlier periods. Some Christian Nubian samples studied metrically and non metrically also differ in a skeletal sense from older samples.
Stop trying to 'beef up' and what I said so you can seem like you have winning point. I said "immigrants". How do you go from that to invasion?
quote:Haplogroups A-M13 was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods.
posted
That’s right. Change your tune from Greek and Roman (conquerors) to peasant “immigrants”. You do know immigrants imply poverty. Lol! You are hilarious. Carry on! DJ enjoys sucking black D…..
From Hassan 2008 Study Oh! As Table2 shows . There was no E-V13 found in the Sudanese sample from the Hassan 2008. Nein! No E-V13 nor R1b-M269! The R1b is R1b V88. So I repeat. Provide genetic proof that there were Romans and Greeks in Sudan?!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.
Is there genetic proof of that.
There is, gramps. Read between the lines. Also read the Hassan 2008 aDNA paper. The Christian Nubian samples tested genetically so far are different. They tend to stand out from earlier periods. Some Christian Nubian samples studied metrically and non metrically also differ in a skeletal sense from older samples.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That’s right. Change your tune from Greek and Roman (conquerors) to peasant “immigrants”. You do know immigrants imply poverty. Lol! You are hilarious. Carry on! DJ enjoys sucking black D…..
From Hassan 2008 Study Oh! As Table2 shows . There was no E-V13 found in the Sudanese sample from the Hassan 2008. Nein! No E-V13 nor R1b-M269! The R1b is R1b V88. So I repeat. Provide genetic proof that there were Romans and Greeks in Sudan?!
Oh! As Table2 shows . There was no E-V13 found in the Sudanese sample from the Hassan 2008. Nein! No E-V13 nor R1b-M269. The R1b is R1b V88. So I repeat. Provide genetic proof that there was Romans and Greeks in Sudan?!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.
Is there genetic proof of that.
There is, gramps. Read between the lines. Also read the Hassan 2008 aDNA paper. The Christian Nubian samples tested genetically so far are different. They tend to stand out from earlier periods. Some Christian Nubian samples studied metrically and non metrically also differ in a skeletal sense from older samples.
posted
Thats right. Roll your eyes and stop misleading readers. STOP IT!!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That’s right. Change your tune from Greek and Roman (conquerors) to peasant “immigrants”. You do know immigrants imply poverty. Lol! You are hilarious. Carry on! DJ enjoys sucking black D…..
From Hassan 2008 Study Oh! As Table2 shows . There was no E-V13 found in the Sudanese sample from the Hassan 2008. Nein! No E-V13 nor R1b-M269! The R1b is R1b V88. So I repeat. Provide genetic proof that there were Romans and Greeks in Sudan?!
Oh! As Table2 shows . There was no E-V13 found in the Sudanese sample from the Hassan 2008. Nein! No E-V13 nor R1b-M269. The R1b is R1b V88. So I repeat. Provide genetic proof that there was Romans and Greeks in Sudan?!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Christian era Nubia had non-African immigration.
Is there genetic proof of that.
There is, gramps. Read between the lines. Also read the Hassan 2008 aDNA paper. The Christian Nubian samples tested genetically so far are different. They tend to stand out from earlier periods. Some Christian Nubian samples studied metrically and non metrically also differ in a skeletal sense from older samples.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet, do you perhaps know from where they gathered this information?
quote: "I is a branch of haplogroup F* (M89 mutation), which first appeared in Africa some 45,000 years before the present. F* is believed to represent the "second-wave" of expansion out of Africa between 45 and 40 thousand years ago, that went directly to the Middle East"
quote: In human genetics, Haplogroup F* (M89) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup (Note: due to technical restrictions, the title of this page does not contain an "*").
This haplogroup first appeared in Africa some 45,000 years before present. It is believed to represent the "second-wave" of expansion out of Africa.
Haplogroup F* is an ancestral haplogroup to Y-chromosome haplogroups G (M201), H (M52), I (M170), J (12f2.1), and K (M9) along with its descendant haplogroups (L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R).
In a proper reading of this chart only horizontal distances count. The chart shows Nubians closer to Germans than to East Africans.
That means the Nubians in the sample are only part indigenous Africans or not at all
In a more proper reading of the chart. The stems of the branches are taken into account. The 'Nubians' and Germans are on different stems of the dendogram, one on the African side and the other on the European side respectively. You claim Nubians are closer to Germans than they are to East Africans but by that very conjecture the Germans are closer to Nubians than they are to Central Europeans.
According to your reasoning, that means the Germans in the sample are only part indigenous Europeans or not at all.
Do you not understand??
Why waste ATP on typing such things lmao Lioness should know the basic concept behind a neighbor joining tree ... I mean it's basic phylogenetic classification lol. Nonetheless, in what world would the Sudanese be more OOA related than both Somali & Egyptians, the fucking North African gatekeepers lmaoo.
I'm sorry, Lioness must be a cooperation, this trolling is a team effort, in which everyone isn't on the same page.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
what world would the Sudanese be more OOA related than both Somali & Egyptians, the fucking North African gatekeepers lmaoo.
I don't see you being able to formulate a clear thought. You're criticizing me yet raising the same issue I raised. That doesn't make sense. Then in your confusion you think the problem I mentioned is different, and you think that is trolling.
yes, why in the world would a Sudanese Nubian be closer to OOA populations than to Egyptians?
Tell us genius, tell us why that is not a problem
quote:Among the higher latitude groups, the Germans are tied to the exclusively African cluster described earlier via a medium-length branch to the Nubian sample. --Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence T. W. HOLLIDAY*
posted
^ The troll provocateur above does not understand that the Nubian sample still remains in the African branch while the German sample remains in the Eurasian branch. While both lie on different branches, they both are outliers within their respective branches. Why that is could be due to a number of reasons. Yet the troll provocateur claims the Nubians are outliers due to admixture or even being non-Africans yet she does not say the same for the Germans.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That’s right. Change your tune from Greek and Roman (conquerors) to peasant “immigrants”. You do know immigrants imply poverty...
And you apparently don't know that "immigrant" simply mean one who migrates into an area. There is no socio-economic status involved. An immigrant can be one of middle to upper-class who simply wants to live in a new area, and in the case of conquest colonization by the conquering peoples is still considered immigration you dummy! LOL
quote:Lol! You are hilarious. Carry on! DJ enjoys sucking black D…..
Now now, don't project your inclinations on to me. Just because I'm from Atlanta doesn't mean I engage in such activity though since it seems you can't keep my name out your posts you must have a thing for me.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The logic is simple. Nubians are at a more tropical latitude than Egyptians. Therefore if the people are indigenous they would have longer limb proportions than Egyptians. Instead this Christian Nubian sample from a Romano-Nubian cemetery have a less tropical proportions than Egyptians. Therefore the idea that they might not be Africans in the Nubian sample or might be admixed is quite reasonable and is a position that is actually more afrocentric. Between the Roman Empire and Nubia there was a relationship and interaction that lasted nearly seven centuries, from the first century BC to the sixth century AD.
That is why zarahan is not stupid like the rest of you, note the red print in his graphic. That Christian Nubian sample is the same 24 person sample in Holliday's 2010 and 2013 articles as well as 1995 dissertation
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This result where Africans don't neatly fall on the 'African' side of the tree is because of the inclusion of pelvic width as a variable (note that this Holiday paper uses six variables as compared to the five variables of Holliday 2013).
A lot of ideologues are salty about pelvic width. Studies that question that the AE were "super negroid" in overall bodyplan usually emphasize pelvic width (or some other correlate of body mass). See Raxter 2011 and Bleuze et al 2013.
Interestingly, the Afalou and Taforalt pelvic width is not cold adapted.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Swenet: Interestingly, the Afalou and Taforalt pelvic width is not cold adapted.
Correction.
I based this observation on Shackelford 2007. However, I tracked down and reread this paper just now and I can't verify some things she says about the Iberomaurusian sample. Also, I have reason to believe that it's more complex than she suggests. More on this later.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It looks like the troll provocatuer missed those factors. LOL
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
The logic is simple. Nubians are at a more tropical latitude than Egyptians. Therefore if the people are indigenous they would have longer limb proportions than Egyptians. Instead this Christian Nubian sample from a Romano-Nubian cemetery have a less tropical proportions than Egyptians. Therefore the idea that they might not be Africans in the Nubian sample or might be admixed is quite reasonable and is a position that is actually more afrocentric. Between the Roman Empire and Nubia there was a relationship and interaction that lasted nearly seven centuries, from the first century BC to the sixth century AD.
That is why zarahan is not stupid like the rest of you, note the red print in his graphic. That Christian Nubian sample is the same 24 person sample in Holliday's 2010 and 2013 articles as well as 1995 dissertation
The logic is simple enough yet YOU completely miss the other half of the equation. Germans are at a more cold latitude than Bosnians. Therefore if the people are indigenous they would have shorter limb proportions than Bosnians. Instead this German sample shows less cold adapted proportions than Bosnians. Therefore the idea that they might not be Europeans in the German sample or might be admixed is quite reasonable is a position that truly afrocentric and thus causing you anal pain. The provenance of Holliday's German sample must be better assessed to get a clearer picture.
This is why YOU are 2nd dumbest person in this forum (next to xyzman) because your euronut ideology blinds you to half of the picture that is you only see Eurasian presence or admixture in Africa but never the converse-- African presence or admixture in Europe!
I recommend you beg your boss Mathilda for help. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
The first millennium BC in Sudan sees the birth of the Kushite (Napatan and then Meroitic) Kingdom. Royal cities, cemeteries and centres of religious power have attracted archaeologists and historians while peripheral areas have only rarely seen any systematic investigations. This lack of research provides difficulties in interpreting the limited evidence of the Napatan and Meroitic periods located on the White and Blue Niles and limits our comprehension of the role of this region within the political, economic and cultural framework of the kingdom. Recently, a multiphase cemetery was discovered at the site of Al Khiday 2, on the west bank of the White Nile, which was also used by a small group that is thought to be closely related to the Meroitic. The graves excavated have produced a bio-archaeological sample that is presented here with detailed descriptions of the funerary practices, including different types of grave structures, grave goods, burial position and orientation of the inhumations, as well as an overview of the anthropological analysis of this population. These findings are placed within the wider context of Meroitic studies by providing comparisons with contemporaneous sites, highlighting the possible elements of contiguity with that world, as well as providing some reflection on future research directions.
--D. Usai, S. Salvatori, T. Jakob & R. David
The Al Khiday Cemetery in Central Sudan and its “Classic/Late Meroitic” Period Graves
Journal of African Archaeology, Volume 12 (2), 2014, pages 183-204, DOI 10.3213/2191-5784-10254
quote:"A preliminary comparison of dental nonmetric data in 15 late Pleistocene through early historic Nubian samples (n=795 individuals) with recently discovered remains from al Khiday in Upper Nubia may provide the answer. Dating to at least 9,000+ BP, the new sample (n=40) may be the first of Late Paleolithic age recovered in >40 years; however, until additional fieldwork and dating are conducted, the excavators prefer the more conservative term of "pre-Mesolithic."
Using the Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System to record traits and multivariate statistics to estimate pairwise affinities, it is evident that al Khiday is closely akin to most Holocene samples. It is widely divergent from Jebel Sahaba. As such, there does appear to be long-term biological continuity in the region after all.."
--Irish 2012. Population continuity after all? Potential late Pleistocene dental ancestors of Holocene Nubians have been found! AJPA Sup 54: 172-173
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excavating a unique pre-Mesolithic cemetery in central Sudan
Donatella Usai, Sandro Salvatori, Paola Iacumin, Antonietta Di Matteo, Tina Jakob & Andrea Zerboni
Introduction
The population of the pre-Mesolithic cemetery at Al Khiday 2 (16-D-4, Figure 1) in central Sudan must have had a unique outlook on the afterlife. Archaeologists associate flexed inhumation burials common to prehistoric cemeteries worldwide with the foetal position, a formal expression of a 'new life'. However, what explanation can be suggested for burying the deceased in a prone and extended position as found at Al Khiday 2? Here we report on this unique cemetery with its unusual burial rite (Figure 2)
The cemetery is a multi-stratified site on a low fluvial bar, probably deposited by the Nile in the Upper Pleistocene (Williamson 2009), and is located 35km south of Omdurman, on the western bank of the White Nile. The site of Al Khiday 2 was discovered during an extensive survey covering c. 245km˛. Archaeological work took place in 2006-2008 excavating c. 475m˛. A total of 120 skeletons have so far been excavated and bioarchaeological studies, including demography, metric and non-metric analysis to establish population differences, as well as skeletal and dental pathology, were carried out. The site was excavated stratigraphically and organic material (charcoals, bones and shells) was collected for radiocarbon dating, performed at BETA Analytic Laboratory, USA (Table 1). Archaeological contexts were defined by pottery decoration, according to a classification proposed by Caneva (Caneva 1988), and supported by layer-feature specific radiometric dating. Calibration (2σ in the text) of conventional and AMS radiocarbon results used INTCAL04 under OxCal v.3.10; uncalibrated years are reported as bp while calibrated age is indicated as cal years BC/AD
So far, 50 individuals (males, females and children of all ages) have been excavated by the Is.I.A.O. (Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente) Archaeological Mission, all buried lying on their front. On the basis of radiocarbon dates (conventional and AMS) and stratigraphy the burials date to a pre-Mesolithic phase. During a well-defined Mesolithic phase (6580-6440 cal BC) the site was used as a settlement and later by a Neolithic population as a burial ground (4360-4250 cal BC). More recently, a Meroitic group selected it as their cemetery (20-140 cal AD). A total of 120 graves have been excavated and, on the basis of surface finds, nearly half of the cemetery has now been investigated. Ongoing bioarchaeological analyses indicate that the three populations differ in robusticity, occurrence of skeletal and dental diseases and tooth modification practices.
The Mesolithic features, consisting of pits of different function, allow the reconstruction of the anthropic and natural disturbances affecting the oldest graveyard phase (Figures 3 and 4). The pre-Mesolithic skeletons cannot be directly dated, being almost completely depleted of organic material (collagen), but they are placed in time through the stratigraphic evidence provided by some of these pits. Three radiocarbon dates on charcoal and shell from pits cutting through the skeletons imply a date for the human remains before 6600 cal BC (6660-6500 cal BC; 7050-6400 cal BC; 6590-6380 cal BC). These dates are supported by the pottery assemblage from the pits, which is also radiocarbon dated from a stratified layer at the nearby Al Khiday 1 settlement (Salvatori & Usai 2009), to about 6640-6450 cal BC. A radiocarbon date of 6650-6470 cal BC on organic matter in a marsh deposit formed during the Mesolithic occupation of the site, after the burial of the prone individuals, supports the attribution to a pre-Mesolithic phase.
Why are you posting seemingly random text leaving people to wonder what you're trying to say? Sometimes it takes a couple of minutes to read an article and people assume there some sort of point related to the discussion they get out of reading it. If by the end there is no coherent point and you have to wonder what the point is, you're just wasting folks' time and energy.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the posts above about continuity between Meroe and earlier periods were meant as a passive aggressive vent against Hassan 2009's aDNA results, the F-M89 mutation was only found in the Christian sample, not in the Meroitic sample. Hence, why I highlighted Hassan's quote the way I did.
Veteran posters have no excuse to still not know the basics of Hassan's aDNA results by now. Especially not if they're going to complain about the results.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Why are you posting seemingly random text leaving people to wonder what you're trying to say? Sometimes it takes a couple of minutes to read an article and people assume there some sort of point related to the discussion they get out of reading it. If by the end there is no coherent point and you have to wonder what the point is, you're just wasting folks' time and energy.
It's bait on the Al Khiday. I will post it to you in the email inbox the reason why.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If the posts above about continuity between Meroe and earlier periods were meant as a passive aggressive vent against Hassan 2009's aDNA results, the F-M89 mutation was only found in the Christian sample, not in the Meroitic sample. Hence, why I highlighted Hassan's quote the way I did.
Veteran posters have no excuse to still not know the basics of Hassan's aDNA results by now. Especially not if they're going to complain about the results.
Nope that's not it, but I wondered about F-M89, since some sources say it arose in Africa itself, specifically Northeast Africa.
However,
quote: Some of them, as the male haplogroups E-M78 and F-M89 and the female haplogroups M1 and T, show the highest frequencies in Egypt.
--Hajer Ennafaa
Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome microstructure in Tunisia
Journal of Human Genetics (2011) 56, 734–741; doi:10.1038/jhg.2011.92;
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: ^ Wow really? Just when I thought discourse on this forum couldn't reach a new low.
As long as you have losers like xyzman resort to ad-hominem name-calling whenever I or others burst his delusional bubble, then yeah he will bring this forum to the gutter.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Why are you posting seemingly random text leaving people to wonder what you're trying to say? Sometimes it takes a couple of minutes to read an article and people assume there some sort of point related to the discussion they get out of reading it. If by the end there is no coherent point and you have to wonder what the point is, you're just wasting folks' time and energy.
Yeah I've been noticing this too. I wish Ish would give us some contextual clue as to the purpose of his citations.
quote: If the posts above about continuity between Meroe and earlier periods were meant as a passive aggressive vent against Hassan 2009's aDNA results, the F-M89 mutation was only found in the Christian sample, not in the Meroitic sample. Hence, why I highlighted Hassan's quote the way I did.
Veteran posters have no excuse to still not know the basics of Hassan's aDNA results by now. Especially not if they're going to complain about the results.
Indeed, Hassan's findings only confirm what the archaeological record shows--- that since the last Kushite kingdom (Meroe) there was a large influx into the Nubian Nile Valley of other peoples probably leading to its fall. The archaeological material shows that the source of most of these peoples is from the west in the Saharan region. So obviously there was no continuity. Even many linguists theorize that these Saharan migrants were the Nilo-Saharan speakers who displaced the native Afrisian speakers.
The question I have though is the provenance of F-M89. Hassan and others classify it as "Eurasian", yet its presence in Arabia is relatively rare compared to Africa. The highest frequency I've seen is in the Kordofan area which is overwhelmingly Nilo-Saharan speaking with a few Arabized tribes.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The logic is simple enough yet YOU completely miss the other half of the equation. Germans are at a more cold latitude than Bosnians. Therefore if the people are indigenous they would have shorter limb proportions than Bosnians. Instead this German sample shows less cold adapted proportions than Bosnians. Therefore the idea that they might not be Europeans in the German sample or might be admixed is quite reasonable is a position that truly afrocentric and thus causing you anal pain. The provenance of Holliday's German sample must be better assessed to get a clearer picture.
This is why YOU are 2nd dumbest person in this forum (next to xyzman) because your euronut ideology blinds you to half of the picture that is you only see Eurasian presence or admixture in Africa but never the converse-- African presence or admixture in Europe!
I recommend you beg your boss Mathilda for help.
Still waiting for an explanation.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
F-M89 in Hassan 2009 is not a haplogroup but an upstream mutation. In other words, it's not the case that Hassan's result was F(xI, J, K, G, H). Hassan did not sequence any actual 'haplogroup F' (as in: F1 or F2).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
you're saying good grief to pretend there is some obvious answer to the question. Yet everybody knows you're bluffing Now of course, you will put up some copy and paste quotes. More pretending. If not wait for someone else to save you
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic