quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^You've mentioned this explanation before, so why are you still at square one and not testing your hypothesis by reading the literature and coming up with more than just possible scenarios? I've already done my homework. How do you explain the burial practice similarity of al Khiday with Wadi Kubbaniya and one OOA specimen? This indicates long term continuity as WK predates the Wet Sahara by 10kya. Then there is the fact that no one knows how old this al Khiday population is, just that they predate 9k. The skeletal remains seem fossilized which adds credence to their antiquity beyond the Wet Sahara.
As a last point, the Kenyan skeletals you mention may very well not be distinct from Saharan populations, given the tradition of dental ablation among them.
Fair enough, there probably is common ancestry between Wadi Kubbaniya and al-Khiday as you say. Still, I wonder how widespread across East Africa your "East Saharan" phenotype would have been in prehistory. If there is indeed a link between Wadi Kubbaniya, al-Khiday, and the Kenyan remains with dental ablation, maybe it wouldn't matter just where in the eastern half of Africa the progenitors of Egypto-Nubians came from anyway.
But yeah, the people who populated the eastern Sahara during the Holocene Wet Phase were distinct from West Africans and Bantu. No arguing with you there, even if Zaharan won't admit it.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Empty words when no evidences are presented.
From Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements by F. X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS (2008)
This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972;Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger- Congo populations).
This affinity between Ancient and modern Northeastern African populations and Niger-Congo speakers (which form the majority of African people) can also be seen genetically and linguistically. As modern East and West African populations including Ancient Egyptians have a common origin in Eastern Africa (after the Out of Africa migrations) .
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| 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 .
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE]
5) And no, I don't care about whether or not anything I say rubs Amun (or anyone else for that matter) the wrong way. The fact that both you and Zaharan call for data to be posted that is palatable to him (or is this just code for that you don't like the data yourselves?) and his fellow loons shows where your priority lies, and it's not with the empirical data.
A bit funny coming from someone who's ignoring other more recent studies cranial and post-cranial (even from the same author) and ignoring ancient DNA taken from actual Ancient Egyptian mummies and not any random mummies but Ancient Egyptian remains from the 2 different Royal families.
Amun Ra would you say that the use of obsolete Strouhal and flawed Brace is indicative of the charges you made earlier- that there seems to be an effort to downplay the links between other Africans and Egyptians? Even Charlie Bass raises this issue, and the curious use of these examples. Could they be a symptom of what you were saying all along?
Of course. I'm just surprised you didn't see it before (if indeed you didn't).
For me, it became almost evident just looking at the way they tried to twist the JAMA, BMJ and DNA Tribes results to fit their own racist agenda.
It showed to me they were very prejudicial in their assessment of scientific results.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am going to bite...for the thrist for knowledge.
What images? Anything worthwhile.
quote:Originally posted by :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: And I am told the supposedly so much "mo betta" FB page is rather sluggish, with the same few people talking to one another, using leached material originally posted on Dinekenes and elsewhere, as some on ES have noted in various theads. ........................ Fine. If it's so bad, shouldn't they be off "pioneering" these supposedly vast new vistas of information? What happened? If they have better places to be, why are they still here?
This for the most part is nonsense. As it stands the group has 112 images. Many posted from Purchased books and 224 Uploaded documents. There is no official post count. If there was any kind of consistency in files that are actually UPLOADED instead of simply posted the file count, I would guess.......would be perhaps 600. Compare that to the posts here or ESR. Matter of fact compare that to posts on any board.
I stopped back here cause some jackass dumbo keeps calling my name.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The supposed Neolithic Kenyan skulls with 'narrow' features (e.g. Elmenteita A) from Bromhead's site, have been re-dated. They are only 2k years old.
The 7000 BP date is from Leakey (1935) and Protsch (1978). Rightmire (1984) shows it is erroneous:
Bromshead is only 2500 - 2000 BP.
Gamble's Cave is reliably dated to 8000 BP based on a post-cranial fragment. However the 5 skulls from Gamble's Cave are not the 'narrow' featured Elmenteita skulls commonly cited.
The Bromhead's site is only 4 miles from Gamble's Cave, which is why they are often confused.
The two skulls (IV, V) from Gambles' Cave are damaged; in fact they're mostly speculative plaster reconstructions, and accurate measurements cannot be taken:
quote:With respect to the two skulls from Gamble's Cave, the qualification must be made that they are very fragmented and heavily recon-structed in plaster so that the measurements are not very reliable
- Bräuer, G. (1980). "Human skeletal remains from Mumba rock shelter, northern Tanzania". American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 52(1), 71-84.
quote:The skeletons were said by L. B. S. Leakey (1935) and others to show a number of non-Negroid characteristics. However the evidence has never been very solid. Of five burials exhumed at Gamble's Cave, only two have crania that are even partially complete, and neither of these have been reconstructed entirely satisfactorily. Skull number 4 has been warped, and much of the base and part of the face are present in plaster only.
- Rightmire, 1984
Look here:
This is Skull V without the plaster. How on earth did they decide this had a narrow nasal aperture?
LOL.
Skull IV is even more damaged than V.
Once you take these out the equation, and since Bromhead has been re-dated to 2000 BP - there are no prehistoric 'narrow' featured skulls in Kenya.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Look who has returned, it's our old friend cassertides (I knew you've hung around this website for a while because you have 2387 posts here)!
I just recovered it from the Admin. Looks like someone else had access to it. The last time I posted on it was like 3 years back.
What are the debates on this forum nowdays?
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass: I just recovered it from the Admin
Which admin would this be, exactly?
@Truthcentric I'd rather you hit the books and test your hypothesis (assuming you still think your scenario is worthwile). That's what science is about--testing hypotheses and working the results into a working model. Not like this Zaharan fraud who posts selectively, doctors the scientific data and blames all evidence that wreck his theory on supposedly faulty sampling strategies and "narrow statistics". SMH.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I no longer really do this 'race' stuff and don't plan to post here after now, but if you guys have Amazon accounts... Just buy Climatic Races and Descent Groups by Grover Krantz (1980).
He discusses a "Saharan climatic race":
"Saharan: Skin color was dark with a medium fringe on the northern edge. Dark eyes and hair were universal. Cranial hair was wavy or curly with tight spiraling only in the extreme south. Body and facial hair were probably scant."
He goes on to describe their noses as being narrow or narrowish: "There is no distinction here between the Caucasoid and Saharan climatic races" and also discusses their elongated limbs, which in post-crania puts them closer to "Negroid". He describes Saharan's as being an intermediate eco-cline between "Caucasoids" and "Negroids", but as the result of in situ climatic adaptation to the dry-heat of the Sahara, rather than some outdated admixture Hamitic model.
Krantz' "Saharan climatic race" is basically the northern reddish/lighter brown skinned variant of Hierneux' "Elongated African" that Keita referenced in his debate with Snowden. The ancient egyptians were predominantly this reddish northern "Elongated African" or "Saharan".
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I agree with everything that you said, except for the nasal index thing. When Egyptians were in the Sahara as mobile pastoralists they--as averages samples--didn't have narrow nasal indices. At least not in the samples I've come across. Other than that, there is nothing to disagree with in your assessment, as it's all based on evidence that has been reproduced over and over again. But then again, maybe there is something to disagree with if you belong to Egyptsearch' lying and denialist tradition. Simply deny and omit what you don't like. And when you're making photoshopped cartoons, that's when the fun really starts for certain individuals. That's when they get to cut, cover up, nitpick scientific data and randomly insert half naked women, while they're at it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really pertinent to the prehistoric distribution of East Saharan types throughout Africa, but I did find a study showing that the very earliest West Eurasian people (Skhul and Qafzeh, from ~100 kya) had a dental plan closer to the modern sub-Saharan norm:
So maybe the East Saharan dental plan actually post-dates OOA? That or the Skhul/Qafzeh humans really did represent a dead end...
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Truthcentric: So maybe the East Saharan dental plan actually post-dates OOA?
But the EUP sample doesn't cluster with the Qafzeh/ Skhul sample. If you're using Qafzeh/Skhul as a theoretical proxy for OOA populations, how would you explain that? And what do you make of the fact that the Europeans apparently had their dental pattern since OOA?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: But the EUP sample doesn't cluster with the Qafzeh/ Skhul sample. If you're using Qafzeh/Skhul as a theoretical proxy for OOA populations, how would you explain that? And what do you make of the fact that the Europeans apparently had their dental pattern since OOA?
You're right, the EUP does lean more towards the recent Europeans and North Africans than to Qafzeh/Skhul. So maybe Qafzeh/Skhul do represent a dead end instead of OOA.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I think the dental pattern of EUP is also informative in terms of the dental pattern of the OOA populations before they left Africa and the populations who remained in North Africa (hint hint).
I've been thinking about this stuff and it's implications for years. It's amazing what you can come up with when you move away from ES' philosophy of ignoring, distorting and lying about evidence that disagrees with your pre-conceived notions.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I think the dental pattern of EUP is also informative in terms of the dental pattern of the OOA populations before they left Africa (hint hint).
We both agree that this dental pattern is ultimately of African origin even if it is distinct from the sub-Saharan norm. But then just who were these Skhul/Qafzeh people with more sub-Saharan-like dental patterns? Do they have any connection with later West Eurasians at all?
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This book says no.
All right, then the East Saharan/OOA dental plan post-dates these inhabitants of the Levant from 100 kya. That might lend support to younger dates for the conclusive Out-of-Africa migrations.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Truthcentric: So maybe the East Saharan dental plan actually post-dates OOA?
But the EUP sample doesn't cluster with the Qafzeh/ Skhul sample. If you're using Qafzeh/Skhul as a theoretical proxy for OOA populations, how would you explain that? And what do you make of the fact that the Europeans apparently had their dental pattern since OOA?
Explain this to me, if broad trend morphology was not present in early Northeast African please explain how the Natufians acquired this morphology and their origin is said to be in Northeast Africa. I'm not trying to argue that AEs came from populations like like those used by Brace, that's why I keep saying Brace uses a strawman argument, no one ever made that claim.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Truthcentric: So maybe the East Saharan dental plan actually post-dates OOA?
But the EUP sample doesn't cluster with the Qafzeh/ Skhul sample. If you're using Qafzeh/Skhul as a theoretical proxy for OOA populations, how would you explain that? And what do you make of the fact that the Europeans apparently had their dental pattern since OOA?
Explain this to me, if broad trend morphology was not present in early Northeast African please explain how the Natufians acquired this morphology and their origin is said to be in Northeast Africa. I'm not trying to argue that AEs came from populations like like those used by Brace, that's why I keep saying Brace uses a strawman argument, no one ever made that claim.
Just how are you defining "broad trend morphology" if it isn't synonymous with the stereotyped West African norm?
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Exactly. Charlie Bass caught up in his own web again. BTW, I've never said that the broad trend wasn't present in Northeast Africa.
@Truthcentric
Correction of what I said earlier. Upon closer inspection, the Qafzeh/Skhul dentally isn't very different from the EUP sample. It has dual ties with both SSA and EUP. Look for yourself. Very interesting, these dual ties.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Exactly. Charlie Bass caught up in his own web again.
@Truthcentric
Correction of what I said earlier. Upon closer inspection, the Qafzeh/Skhul dentally isn't significantly different from the EUP sample. It has dual ties with both SSA and EUP. Look for yourself. Very interesting, these dual ties.
Um NOOOOOOOOOO. I specifically said BROAD trend, NOT SSA nor West African morphology. smh
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Exactly. Charlie Bass caught up in his own web again.
@Truthcentric
Correction of what I said earlier. Upon closer inspection, the Qafzeh/Skhul dentally isn't significantly different from the EUP sample. It has dual ties with both SSA and EUP. Look for yourself. Very interesting, these dual ties.
Um NOOOOOOOOOO. I specifically said BROAD trend, NOT SSA nor West African morphology. smh
But isn't "Broad" trend more or less the same as the stereotypical West African pattern? How can you say certain Africans have Broad facial features without resembling West Africans?
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well i'm only describing the very few skeletal traits that show temperature/humidity signatures. Most cranial morphology instead is a product of neutral processes. However you can actually use the link between temperature and cephalic index (breadth x 100, divided by length) to discredit any mass influx of Eurasians into ancient Egypt.
The correlation between climate and CI is lower than nasal index, but still quite high (r = 0. 59). Beals (1972) found that ethnic groups from northern latitudes have a mean cephalic index about 5 units higher than those living within or near the tropics. This is pretty significant.
I took the measurements from Dart, R. A. (1939). "Population Fluctuation over 7,000 years in Egypt". Roy. Soc. S. Afr. 27. pp. 95-145. I never had the study, but found bits of it quoted online.
Dart compiled the CI's of 2,861 Egyptian skulls; he even broke down their % of dolichocephaly, mesocephaly, or brachycephaly, by Dynasty/Era.
There is no influx of brachycephaly (it is as low as 1 - 3 percent) until Dynasty IX, and the mesocephaly is always low or fairly low, until the late historical periods (Romans, Greeks etc).
So the pre-dynastic/dynastic Egyptians were predominantly long-headed. Of course the CI has been described as being highly plastic, however with an invasion or large movement of Eurasians into Egypt you would expect to still find a higher percentage of rounder skulls during a dynasty or period, but they are absent.
Anyway that's the last thing i really looked at, I more or less retired from 'race'/physical anthro having renounced all the junk i believed in before.
Posts: 2408 | From: My mother's basement | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Correction of what I said earlier. Upon closer inspection, the Qafzeh/Skhul dentally isn't significantly different from the EUP sample. It has dual ties with both SSA and EUP. Look for yourself. Very interesting, these dual ties.
I didn't notice that from the dendrogram, but I do see what you're talking about in Table 3. There, Qafzeh/Skhul diverge from SSA with a value of 0.020 , but the equivalent value for EUP is 0.019. Must represent an offshoot of an intermediate/transitional trend.
@ cass
I admit I was suspicious when I saw you returned to this forum, but it looks like you've matured a lot since the last time we saw you around. That's actually some interesting data you've just shared with us. I apologize for my earlier mistrust towards you.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Exactly. Charlie Bass caught up in his own web again.
@Truthcentric
Correction of what I said earlier. Upon closer inspection, the Qafzeh/Skhul dentally isn't significantly different from the EUP sample. It has dual ties with both SSA and EUP. Look for yourself. Very interesting, these dual ties.
Um NOOOOOOOOOO. I specifically said BROAD trend, NOT SSA nor West African morphology. smh
But isn't "Broad" trend more or less the same as the stereotypical West African pattern? How can you say certain Africans have Broad facial features without resembling West Africans?
The only one associating broaf trend morphology with stereotypical West Africans is you and Swenet, I am noting that said morphology isn't limited to just stereotypical West Africans, thats why I am not making that link, YOU and Swenet are. If you want my take I think AEs were just like populations you see in modern day Sudan with a mix of broad trend and elongated types and everything in between and that the Lower Egyptian type was more similar in appearance to people like Siwa and Tuaregs.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Charlie Bass: The only one associating broaf trend morphology with stereotypical West Africans is you and Swenet
Not at all. The very reason why you brought that up is BECAUSE you tacitly wanted to make that deterministic link between West Africa and the broad trend in northeast Africa. Again, anyone even remotely familiar with my posts knows that I've NEVER denied the presence of the broad trend in North Africa. Why even bring up the broad trend of the Natufians, and ask me to clarify something if your tacit suggestion wasn't ultimately to make link between West Africans and Natufians? There is no inconsistency on my part in simultaneously accepting the broad trend in North Africa and my other claims you have issues with, so why ask me to clarify if you didn't think it was a cute segue into attributing the broad trend to something beyond the Nile Valley and adjacent areas?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: If you want my take I think AEs were just like populations you see in modern day Sudan with a mix of broad trend and elongated types and everything in between and that the Lower Egyptian type was more similar in appearance to people like Siwa and Tuaregs.
For my part, I wager that the average ancient Egyptian would have resembled modern North Sudanese more than anyone else living today. North Sudan technically is in the Eastern Sahara after all. It wouldn't be a perfect match due to Arab and other migrations into the region in the last 3,000 years, but then a perfect modern-day match for any ancient population is going to be difficult to come by.
Does anyone know if there is physical continuity between modern North Sudanese and earlier Nubians (whom we all know overlapped with Egyptians in phenotype to the point of barely being distinguishable)? I think Irish has mentioned continuity between Neolithic to Christian-era Nubians in one of his studies from 2005 (here).
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A post I've made a couple of days ago, when Akachi made the claim that the broad trend or a phenotype that plots in that direction is specific to Niger- Congo speaking populations. I've NEVER denied that the broad trend (i.e. populations with broad faces and noses) was in the Nile Valley.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: Tell me what other population on Earth has this "Sub Saharan" "Niger-Congo" aka "Negroid" skull shape?
What other population? How about EVERY SSA population that has existed in the last 200k years. Your dumbass is taking a general non-specific cranio-facial appearance and appropriating/restricting it to a language speaking meta-population which is only ~12kya. You also do this with Mesolithic Nubians and the fact that they have the SSA dental pattern. This dental pattern is vastly older than 200.000 years and has, in terms of origin, nothing whatsoever to do with West Africans.
^It is THIS claim that necessarily equates "negroid" morphologocal elements with Niger-Congo speakers that caused me to post Brace and Strouhal. But Bass keeps on lying that I had no reason to post Brace and Strouhal, and posted it because of some ulterior agenda. Again, why do you even barge in and start lecturing people when you have no idea what you're talking about Charlie? And even IF I posted Brace in absence of Akachi's claims what is your beef with it? What Brace observed about the probability of finding the Naqada configuration in his SSA sample infuriates you, doesn't it?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cass: Well i'm only describing the very few skeletal traits that show temperature/humidity signatures. Most cranial morphology instead is a product of neutral processes. However you can actually use the link between temperature and cephalic index (breadth x 100, divided by length) to discredit any mass influx of Eurasians into ancient Egypt.
The correlation between climate and CI is lower than nasal index, but still quite high (r = 0. 59). Beals (1972) found that ethnic groups from northern latitudes have a mean cephalic index about 5 units higher than those living within or near the tropics. This is pretty significant.
I took the measurements from Dart, R. A. (1939). "Population Fluctuation over 7,000 years in Egypt". Roy. Soc. S. Afr. 27. pp. 95-145. I never had the study, but found bits of it quoted online.
Dart compiled the CI's of 2,861 Egyptian skulls; he even broke down their % of dolichocephaly, mesocephaly, or brachycephaly, by Dynasty/Era.
There is no influx of brachycephaly (it is as low as 1 - 3 percent) until Dynasty IX, and the mesocephaly is always low or fairly low, until the late historical periods (Romans, Greeks etc).
So the pre-dynastic/dynastic Egyptians were predominantly long-headed. Of course the CI has been described as being highly plastic, however with an invasion or large movement of Eurasians into Egypt you would expect to still find a higher percentage of rounder skulls during a dynasty or period, but they are absent.
Anyway that's the last thing i really looked at, I more or less retired from 'race'/physical anthro having renounced all the junk i believed in before.
Welcome back Cass.
It seems that to get to the nitty gritty of the Skulls in Egypt and The Nile is difficult but not way out there that we cant get an heads up.
Swenet and Truth posted some good studies on the Skulls found in these regions and who closely identifies with them. Thanks for your part in unravelling This.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Charlie Bass: The only one associating broaf trend morphology with stereotypical West Africans is you and Swenet
Not at all. The very reason why you brought that up is BECAUSE you tacitly wanted to make that deterministic link between West Africa and the broad trend in northeast Africa. Again, anyone even remotely familiar with my posts knows that I've NEVER denied the presence of the broad trend in North Africa. Why even bring up the broad trend of the Natufians, and ask me to clarify something if your tacit suggestion wasn't ultimately to make link between West Africans and Natufians? There is no inconsistency on my part in simultaneously accepting the broad trend in North Africa and my other claims you have issues with, so why ask me to clarify if you didn't think it was a cute segue into attributing the broad trend to something beyond the Nile Valley and adjacent areas?
Dude, stop building strawman, I never implied anything like that, smh, I asked a simply question, as I said again, my point is that bROAD TREND morphology isn't limited to specific areas in Africa, you keep ignoring and avoiding that I have repeated, the only ones associating West African stereotype with broad trend is you and Truthicentric
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then why did you bring it up? You start your query with "if broad trend morphology was not present in early Northeast African" but your premise (i.e. that it supposedly wasn't present in the Nile Valley pre-holocene according to me) doesn't follow out of anything anyone said. This is what makes me suspect that you're just trolling at this point. How does your question fit in anything we've discussed thus far? If you're going to make a connection between something I've said and your seemingly random question when you reply back, quote me, please. No more empty accusations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Then why did you bring it up? You start your query with "if broad trend morphology was not present in early Northeast African" but your premise (i.e. that it supposedly wasn't present in the Nile Valley pre-holocene) doesn't follow out of anything anyone said. This is what makes me suspect that you're just trolling at this point. How does your question fit in anything we've discussed thus far? If you're going to make a connection between, something I've said and your seemingly random question, quote me, please.
My most charitable guess is that the Bass didn't bother reading the whole thread and had a knee-jerk reaction to your invocation of Brace et al. We've all seen how Euronuts have used Brace's 1993 work to justify their whitewashed portrayal of ancient Egypt, so he must have mistaken you for one of them. At any rate it's sad to see him go down like this.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Then why did you bring it up? You start your query with "if broad trend morphology was not present in early Northeast African" but your premise (i.e. that it supposedly wasn't present in the Nile Valley pre-holocene) doesn't follow out of anything anyone said. This is what makes me suspect that you're just trolling at this point. How does your question fit in anything we've discussed thus far? If you're going to make a connection between, something I've said and your seemingly random question, quote me, please.
My most charitable guess is that the Bass didn't bother reading the whole thread and had a knee-jerk reaction to your invocation of Brace et al. We've all seen how Euronuts have used Brace's 1993 work to justify their whitewashed portrayal of ancient Egypt, so he must have mistaken you for one of them. At any rate it's sad to see him go down like this.
I don't think he was whitewashing, but I do think that he was trying to carve up Africa into all these distinct units morphology wise, I was simply saying that Brace's study does NOT prove that BROAD trend morphology was absent in the Nile Valley. I don't understand why he would quote Brace to prove anything.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand why you're still addressing my posts. One thing you fail to understand is that I don't care about your sensitivities regarding AE phenotypes. I don't give a birdsdrop about what the AE looked like. I don't deal with the childish inclinations you, Zaharan and Amun have where AE have to be closer to this population but not that population. I'm reporting the empirical data as they are. The very fact that you dismiss said data on grounds you can't substantiate shows that you govern yourself by pseudo-science.
Every time you reply to my post and complain instead of refuting what I'm saying, you're proving how much of a fail your presence in this thread is. You know full well you can't refute what I'm saying, but yet you dislike what I'm saying? But if you're someone who dislikes data on a priori grounds, then what are you into science for?
Is this the type of science you're into? Zaharan- cut-and-paste-ism?
posted
Now you're getting personal while I am limiting my responses to what you posted as far as data and studies. That which you just posted is about non-metric traits which are not measurements but about the frequencies and occurrences of groves, notches etc in a skull, but in METRIC traits they don't cluster close with other Africans like Niger Congo speakers, you saw that in Brace's study, smh
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter what it's based on. It's empirical data that is known to segregate populations along ancestry lines, albeit with certain caveats. This is exactly what I mean. Where do you get the audacity to pick and choose what you're going to adhere to? Do you have any idea how pseudo-scientific that is? Are you kidding me? You're setting a very dangerous precedent where people just get to pick and choose what's palatable to them. You're not just doing it with non-metric data, but also with Brace 1993's, Strouhal's and Hanihara 2000's empirical data (i.e. sans the racially charged interpretations they may have). That no alarm bells go off internally when you utter your wilful preference for certain data, makes me question what your real motives are. You and Zaharan have some balls to question my motives after your embarrassing display here, I'll tell you that.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It doesn't matter what it's based on. It's empirical data that is known to segregate populations along ancestry lines, albeit with certain caveats. This is exactly what I mean. Where do you get the audacity to pick and choose what you're going to adhere to? Do you have any idea how pseudo-scientific that is? Are you kidding me? You're setting a very dangerous precedent where people just get to pick and choose what's palatable to them. You're not just doing it with non-metric data, but also with Brace 1993's, Strouhal's and Hanihara 2000's empirical data (i.e. sans the racially charged interpretations they may have). That no alarm bells go off internally when you utter your wilful preference for certain data, makes me question what your real motives are. You and Zaharan have some balls to question my motives after your embarrassing display here, I'll tell you that.
Do you understand the difference between metric and metric traits? This discussion is done because apparently you are looking to argue
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
BTW- The premise of the book makes absolute sense. Too expensive on Amazon.
quote:Originally posted by cass: The Admin is the "sam" dude by email.
I no longer really do this 'race' stuff and don't plan to post here after now, but if you guys have Amazon accounts... Just buy Climatic Races and Descent Groups by Grover Krantz (1980).
He discusses a "Saharan climatic race":
"Saharan: Skin color was dark with a medium fringe on the northern edge. Dark eyes and hair were universal. Cranial hair was wavy or curly with tight spiraling only in the extreme south. Body and facial hair were probably scant."
He goes on to describe their noses as being narrow or narrowish: "There is no distinction here between the Caucasoid and Saharan climatic races" and also discusses their elongated limbs, which in post-crania puts them closer to "Negroid". He describes Saharan's as being an intermediate eco-cline between "Caucasoids" and "Negroids", but as the result of in situ climatic adaptation to the dry-heat of the Sahara, rather than some outdated admixture Hamitic model.
Krantz' "Saharan climatic race" is basically the northern reddish/lighter brown skinned variant of Hierneux' "Elongated African" that Keita referenced in his debate with Snowden. The ancient egyptians were predominantly this reddish northern "Elongated African" or "Saharan".
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Charlie Bass: The only one associating broaf trend morphology with stereotypical West Africans is you and Swenet
Not at all. The very reason why you brought that up is BECAUSE you tacitly wanted to make that deterministic link between West Africa and the broad trend in northeast Africa. Again, anyone even remotely familiar with my posts knows that I've NEVER denied the presence of the broad trend in North Africa. Why even bring up the broad trend of the Natufians, and ask me to clarify something if your tacit suggestion wasn't ultimately to make link between West Africans and Natufians? There is no inconsistency on my part in simultaneously accepting the broad trend in North Africa and my other claims you have issues with, so why ask me to clarify if you didn't think it was a cute segue into attributing the broad trend to something beyond the Nile Valley and adjacent areas?
Dude, stop building strawman , I never implied anything like that, smh, I asked a simply question, as I said again, my point is that bROAD TREND morphology isn't limited to specific areas in Africa [/QB]
You've just taken out 99.9% of his posts contents. It's all about strawman argumentation. Waste of time. Mildly entertaining.
Those 2 idiots, still try to avoid the fact that East and West Africans, before any back migrations, share common ancestors for most of their genome well after the OOA migrations of non-Africans.
posted
Here we can see again, African populations like Fulani, Cushitic, Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo clustering closer to each others than they do with Eurasian populations before any high level of back migrations.
From the same Tishkoff (2009) study linked above. Direct link to supplement pdf: DOWNLOAD
quote: Originally posted by Charlie Bass: The only one associating broaf trend morphology with stereotypical West Africans is you and Swenet
Not at all. The very reason why you brought that up is BECAUSE you tacitly wanted to make that deterministic link between West Africa and the broad trend in northeast Africa. Again, anyone even remotely familiar with my posts knows that I've NEVER denied the presence of the broad trend in North Africa. Why even bring up the broad trend of the Natufians, and ask me to clarify something if your tacit suggestion wasn't ultimately to make link between West Africans and Natufians? There is no inconsistency on my part in simultaneously accepting the broad trend in North Africa and my other claims you have issues with, so why ask me to clarify if you didn't think it was a cute segue into attributing the broad trend to something beyond the Nile Valley and adjacent areas?
Dude, stop building strawman , I never implied anything like that, smh, I asked a simply question, as I said again, my point is that bROAD TREND morphology isn't limited to specific areas in Africa
You've just taken out 99.9% of his posts contents. It's all about strawman argumentation. Waste of time. Mildly entertaining.
Those 2 idiots, still try to avoid the fact that East and West Africans, before any back migrations, share common ancestors for most of their genome well after the OOA migrations of non-Africans.
They may indeed share a common origin from way back, but have been differentiated long enough to be distinct from each other. Modern West Africans appear to be more recent
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Charlie Bass: The only one associating broaf trend morphology with stereotypical West Africans is you and Swenet
Not at all. The very reason why you brought that up is BECAUSE you tacitly wanted to make that deterministic link between West Africa and the broad trend in northeast Africa. Again, anyone even remotely familiar with my posts knows that I've NEVER denied the presence of the broad trend in North Africa. Why even bring up the broad trend of the Natufians, and ask me to clarify something if your tacit suggestion wasn't ultimately to make link between West Africans and Natufians? There is no inconsistency on my part in simultaneously accepting the broad trend in North Africa and my other claims you have issues with, so why ask me to clarify if you didn't think it was a cute segue into attributing the broad trend to something beyond the Nile Valley and adjacent areas?
Dude, stop building strawman , I never implied anything like that, smh, I asked a simply question, as I said again, my point is that bROAD TREND morphology isn't limited to specific areas in Africa
You've just taken out 99.9% of his posts contents. It's all about strawman argumentation. Waste of time. Mildly entertaining.
Those 2 idiots, still try to avoid the fact that East and West Africans, before any back migrations, share common ancestors for most of their genome well after the OOA migrations of non-Africans.
They may indeed share a common origin from way back, but have been differentiated long enough to be distinct from each other. Modern West Africans appear to be more recent [/QB]
I agree with that. But it must be noted that the differention with modern East African due to genetic drift and adaptation to new lifestyles, etc, is complicated by the recent back migrations of non-African in the region mostly since the end of the Ancient Egyptian empire (a bit during pre-dynastic time, much more during the dynastic era (think Hyksos, late foreign dynasties), and even much more so in recent times accompanied by demographic expansion after the dynastic era).
Basically, all African populations are their own people, with their own characteristics but at the same time they are related to each other through common origin (after OOA of course).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am going to bite...for the thrist for knowledge.
What images? Anything worthwhile.
quote:Originally posted by :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: And I am told the supposedly so much "mo betta" FB page is rather sluggish, with the same few people talking to one another, using leached material originally posted on Dinekenes and elsewhere, as some on ES have noted in various theads. ........................ Fine. If it's so bad, shouldn't they be off "pioneering" these supposedly vast new vistas of information? What happened? If they have better places to be, why are they still here?
This for the most part is nonsense. As it stands the group has 112 images. Many posted from Purchased books and 224 Uploaded documents. There is no official post count. If there was any kind of consistency in files that are actually UPLOADED instead of simply posted the file count, I would guess.......would be perhaps 600. Compare that to the posts here or ESR. Matter of fact compare that to posts on any board.
I stopped back here cause some jackass dumbo keeps calling my name.
All kinds of stuff. I will not share what others have posted. But I just added this yesterday :
Here is a map from U175. Which is E1b1a8
Know of any others on the web?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It doesn't matter what it's based on. It's empirical data that is known to segregate populations along ancestry lines, albeit with certain caveats. This is exactly what I mean. Where do you get the audacity to pick and choose what you're going to adhere to? Do you have any idea how pseudo-scientific that is? Are you kidding me? You're setting a very dangerous precedent where people just get to pick and choose what's palatable to them. You're not just doing it with non-metric data, but also with Brace 1993's, Strouhal's and Hanihara 2000's empirical data (i.e. sans the racially charged interpretations they may have). That no alarm bells go off internally when you utter your wilful preference for certain data, makes me question what your real motives are. You and Zaharan have some balls to question my motives after your embarrassing display here, I'll tell you that.
Do you understand the difference between metric and metric traits? This discussion is done because apparently you are looking to argue
There never was a discussion. There was trolling from your end and there was me calling it out. You wouldn't have been able to name a native SSA population in which Brace' Naqada configuration would have high probabilities because the literature's consistency in documenting the rift between Saharan and SSA populations with Brace' variables decimates your hopes of ever finding one. You thought it was a coincidence that the only populations you were able to muster up (Teda, Fulani, etc.) as 'samples that were left out' all have some measure of Sahara-like ancestry? Back to the drawing board for you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was trolling? For raising a point that Brace's study isn't helping your case? Man, I tell you, smh
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I was trolling? For raising a point that Brace's study isn't helping your case? Man, I tell you, smh
All right, so how would you reconcile all the data Swenet et al has posted (e.g. Brace, Hanihara, Strouhal) in this thread and others with whatever position you are advocating? Let's see your answers.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^That might be the most progress promoting question asked so far. Cuts through the BS and gets to the bottom of things. But I'm afraid a useful answer won't be forthcoming because he's already committed himself to dismissing the data he doesn't like.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I was trolling? For raising a point that Brace's study isn't helping your case? Man, I tell you, smh
The last time you said my Brace and Strouhal citations don't "help my case" is when you made Sahelian and Saharan populations with known Saharan ancestry out to be representatives of native SSA populations. You then strangely ridiculed the fact that these populations aren't entirely SSA. After I reminded you of Tishkof and others, you seemed to have sobered up, but I'm still at a loss as to how the Brace and Strouhal excerpts don't help my case. I understand that they debunk YOUR case and the case of the denialists here who ignore the implications of Irish, Hanihara, Ricaut, etc, but my case? Please explain.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Nobody denies that African populations (including Ancient Egyptians) have a diverse set of physiology created by genetic drift, within Africa migrations, change of lifestyles etc. Read more about it HERE.
It's just that most African populations also share a common origin in North-Eastern Africa as we can see genetically, linguistically and archaeologically.
We have also have DNA results on actual Ancient Egyptian mummies with the JAMA, BMJ and DNA Tribes studies. With Ramses III being E1b1a while their autosomal DNA beeing more prevalent in the Great Lakes, Southern and Western African region (the same region where E1b1a is prevalent, thus confirming each others).
It's a lock. You 2 sounds retarded now.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic