posted
Here's the post xyyman, Truthcentric, Akachi, Sweety, beyoku and Tukuler are trying to avoid:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ...wait, Akachi is endorsing melanin supremacism now? Is he intent on digging his own grave deeper than he already has?
^^^2 sides of the same coin.
Akachi is phoney and make stupid and racist posts. But I don't see how this is different from Swenet, Beyoku, and apparently you, Truthcentric, trying to say Ancient Egpytians were closer to Eurasians than to most African populations like West, Great Lakes and Southern Africa. Trying to revive the debunked Hamitic race myth. All this based on prejudice, racism and knee-jerk reactions.
I can say this is based on prejudice, racism and knee-jerk reactions because genetics, archeological(cultural) and biological anthropology analysis of Ancient Egyptians (well recent studies) show them clustering with African populations in general, not Eurasians.
Nobody pretend that modern West Africans or modern East Africans are direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians (at least not to a significative level). Ancient Egyptians were their own people but are still more related to other African populations (West,East,South) than to Eurasians populations. Modern post-dynastic foreign conquests, migrations and demographic expansion changed the ethnic composition and affiliations of modern Egyptians.
Modern Horners like Modern Egyptians and modern Africans in general (accent on modern), are the products of demographic changes in the last 6000-8000 years (genetic drift, change in lifestyles, demographic expansion, admixtures, post-dynastic migrations and conquests, etc). Ancient Egyptians are their own people but are more closely related to other African populations than to non-African populations. That is all before those foreign conquests and migrations. This is scientifically speaking. Ancient Egypt is a child of Africa and the Green Sahara. A mostly indigenous African process and development.
1) Genetically: The current ancient DNA analysis of Ancient Egyptians mummy specimen have identified the haplogroup E1b1a for Ramses III and the screaming mummy. The most common haplogroup among Sub-Saharan Africans and African-Americans. Autosomal STR have them clustering with Great Lakes, Southern and West Africans. Not Eurasians. This is all from the JAMA , BMJ and DNA Tribes studies mentioned in this thread and forum. Ancient DNA in general has the best discriminative power to identify related and non-related populations.
2) Cultural Archaeology: Same here, Ancient Egyptian share many cultural characteristic with Ancient Egyptians. It has been demonstrated that Ancient Egypt was mostly the product of an indigenous African development. From their common origin in Eastern Africa, to the Green Sahara culture (Wavy-line pottery), to Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian, Naqada culture.
3) Biological Anthropology: Same here, Ancient Egyptians cluster with modern African populations not modern Eurasian populations. The change in physiology between them and their North-East African ancestors/predecessor is related to the change in lifestyles and diet and genetic drift. For example, the transition from hunter-gatherers, to pastoralism to agriculture lifestyles. Ancient Egyptians have been demonstrated to be continuous with their North-East African ancestors/predecessors in modern studies.
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Clearly, we can see Niger-Congo speakers (Tanzania, Dahomey, Congo), Nubians, Somali, Naqada clustering on the same branch. Completely distinct from modern Eurasian populations like in Egypt, Middle East, Italy, France, or Germany.
Same for post-cranial analysis:
We can see African populations (including East, West Africans and African-Americans) clustering at the top and non-African populations clustering at the bottom.
This study has the same analysis: 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 people (and Ancient Egyptians of course) have a common origin in Eastern Africa well after the Out of Africa migrations of Eurasian people ancestors .
Genetically: Y-DNA:
And here for MtDNA (other L haplogroups were obviously not part of the OOA migrations so I didn't include them in the graph):
It's impossible that ONLY East Africans were genetically closer to Eurasians after the OOA migrations (before any admixtures) if they share a common Y-DNA grandfather and common mtDNA grandmothers with other African populations but not with Eurasians. It's impossible. The genetic structure at the moment of the OOA migrations was between the L3 haplogroup carriers and non-L3 haplogroup carriers. As well as CT carriers and non-CT carriers. Both L3 and CT haplogroups unites most modern African people including East and West Africans. Other African people and haplogroups are related to them through admixtures.
Linguistically: All modern African languages family, including Niger-Congo have their ancient origin in North-Eastern Africa: From:Reconstructing Ancient Kinship in Africa by Christopher Ehret (From Early Human Kinship, Chap 12)
Ultimately, most African people, including Somali, Yoruba and Ancient Egyptians share a common origin in North-Eastern Africa at a time period after the OOA migrations of non-Africans.
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).
Ultimately, most African people, including Somali, Yoruba and Ancient Egyptians share a common origin in North-Eastern Africa at a time period after the OOA migrations of non-Africans.Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
The indications of exclusion, however, are much easier to interpret. For example, the likelihood that either the Giza or Naqada configuration could occur in West Africa, the Congo, or points south is vanishingly small-0.000 and 0.001. --Brace 1993
We collected measurements for a single specimen from what was called the Nubian X Group in Reisner’s terminology (Reisner, 1909). This was a population that immediately preceded the early Christian Nubians of AD 550 (Carlson and Van Gerven, 19791, and, in the subjective treatment of a generation gone by, had been regarded as evidence for a “Negroid incursion’’ (Batrawi, 1935; Smith, 1909; Seligman, 1915). As our figures show, the probability of finding our representative specimen in a sub- Saharan population is 0.009, which is highly unlikely. Its column loadings are generally similar to the loadings in the column for the Predynastic Naqada sample, and, except for the fact that it is only marginally unlikely that it can be excluded from the Giza sample, it cannot be denied membership in the Naqada, European, or South Asian samples. --Brace 1993
The authors are always at pains to point out that the pure negro element appears to have been minute in the groups analysed; two skeletons in a hundred, for example, at Naga-ed-Der in early predynastic times, and one in fifty-four in Lower Nubia (Massoulard, 1949, p396 and pp410-411), although all anthropologists concur in acknowledging the existence of a "negroid" component in the mixed population which constitutes the primitive Egyptian "ethnic group", at least from neolithic times onwards. --Vercoutter 1974
Of the total of 117 [Badarian] skulls, 15 were found to be markedly Europoid, 9 of these were of the gracile Mediterranean type (Figs. ia & b), 6 were of very robust structure reminiscent of the North African Cromagnon type.24 Eight skulls were clearly Negroid (Figs. 2a and b), and were close to the Negro types occurring in East Africa. --Strouhal 1971
Regardless of this, however, the Negroid component among the Badarians is anthropologically well based. Even though the share of 'pure' Negroes is small (6.8 per cent), being half that of the Europoid forms (12-9 per cent), the high majority of mixed forms (80.3 per cent) suggests a long-lasting dispersion of Negroid genes in the population. --Strouhal 1971
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
At best 2% of the dynastic Upper Egyptian (Abydos) series classified with West/Central Africans, per Keita 1996.
Caveat Keep in mind that these are statistical and pseudo- statistical analyses. While they're useful to make inferences about the segments of the AE samples that looked like individuals or averages from other populations in terms of the employed variables, they don't say if individuals from these foreign populations were actually present. In other words, these analyses do not provide support that any of the crania that classified as European or "mixed" were necessarily biologically European or European- African hybrids.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
In this figure we see the Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations. The Craniofacial measures are very interesting.
.
. The craniometrics highlight the correspondence between the Sub-Saharan Africans and the Black Europeans .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed Clyde. Strouhal 1971 is woefully obsolete, and uses a "true negro" approach so that all not meeting that stereotype can be labeled as something else. Brace 1993 is OK as far as its narrow statistical procedures but contains several weaknesses in sampling and in other matters. All these things have long been noted on ES.
Keita 2005 criticizes Brace and Keita elsewhere criticizes Strouhal, and the "race mix" model of some.
Clyde, scholars in Egyptian studies have often excluded or lumped "negroid" samples together with something else, Keita notes, which downplays or distorts the full picture of African elements in the data
"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." --(S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Strouhal 1971 is woefully obsolete, and uses a "true negro" approach so that all not meeting that stereotype can be labeled as something else.
Your criticisms of Brace and Strouhal pertain to the probabilities/classification percentages that were cited, how?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Indeed Clyde. Strouhal 1971 is woefully obsolete
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Clyde, scholars in Egyptian studies have often excluded or lumped "negroid" samples together
This is the 2nd time you reply to my posts in an underhanded manner. First time I thought it was a miscommunication, now I'm noticing a pattern. Why not reply directly to the person whose claims you have an issue with, instead of hiding behind Clyde, Lioness and others?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amun-Ra says: 1) Genetically: The current ancient DNA analysis of Ancient Egyptians mummy specimen have identified the haplogroup E1b1a for Ramses III and the screaming mummy.
Ramses I heard of but who is this "screaming mummy"?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Screaming Mummy is also known as Unknown Man E. It's the other mummy that was tested alongside Ramses III in the BMJ study. A google search about the screaming mummy (or Unknown man E) can yield some results for those curious.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Here's the post xyyman, Truthcentric, Akachi, Sweety, beyoku and Tukuler are trying to avoid:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ...wait, Akachi is endorsing melanin supremacism now? Is he intent on digging his own grave deeper than he already has?
^^^2 sides of the same coin.
Akachi is phoney and make stupid and racist posts. But I don't see how this is different from Swenet, Beyoku, and apparently you, Truthcentric, trying to say Ancient Egpytians were closer to Eurasians than to most African populations like West, Great Lakes and Southern Africa. Trying to revive the debunked Hamitic race myth. All this based on prejudice, racism and knee-jerk reactions.
Question: Where in Truthcentric's post do you see any claim that the Egyptians are closer related to Eurasians or any talk of 'Hamitic race'??!
You cite one small post yet that post fails to support your claims (LIES). Are you really this nuts??
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really dont understand this Amun-Ra The Ultimate guy. What is his agenda?
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Melanin deficiency? schizophrenia...he may be admixed with whites.
Just kidding bro.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL I'm laughing because in the past we did encounter people of mixed (black-and-white) ancestry who did behave in such an irrational manner perhaps due to issues of confused identity. Anyway...
I just want to point out further that so-called 'Horner' does NOT necessarily entail those of a 'gracile' 'elongated' or so-called 'Hamitic' appearance. The Horn of Africa like many parts of Africa is diverse and 'Horner' populations also include the below people.
Many a Euronut would often mistake such people as "Bantus" or newcomers to the region but they are in fact a very ancient population that speak their own branch of Afrisian. They are as much "Horner" if not more so than other Horners.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is really the question at hand. Where would the African ancestry of Ancient Egyptians be? Where would Sudanese be for that matter. What bout extinct populations from the Maghreb 40kya? What about Omotics and other Afroasiatic speakers?
Amun ra?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amun the Trolltimate, Pussachi? Anyone else who believes Ancient Egypto-Nubians were "True Negro" as opposed to predominantly having their own local metric and non-metric eastern Saharan character? Anyone else have issues with what I'm saying and wants to counter these statistical observations with counter arguments that actually make sense? Reply now out in the open or do the passive aggressive thing--pout in the corner like a little schoolgirl. What's it gonna be?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The indications of exclusion, however, are much easier to interpret. For example, the likelihood that either the Giza or Naqada configuration could occur in West Africa, the Congo, or points south is vanishingly small-0.000 and 0.001. --Brace 1993
We collected measurements for a single specimen from what was called the Nubian X Group in Reisner’s terminology (Reisner, 1909). This was a population that immediately preceded the early Christian Nubians of AD 550 (Carlson and Van Gerven, 19791, and, in the subjective treatment of a generation gone by, had been regarded as evidence for a “Negroid incursion’’ (Batrawi, 1935; Smith, 1909; Seligman, 1915). As our figures show, the probability of finding our representative specimen in a sub- Saharan population is 0.009, which is highly unlikely. Its column loadings are generally similar to the loadings in the column for the Predynastic Naqada sample, and, except for the fact that it is only marginally unlikely that it can be excluded from the Giza sample, it cannot be denied membership in the Naqada, European, or South Asian samples. --Brace 1993
The authors are always at pains to point out that the pure negro element appears to have been minute in the groups analysed; two skeletons in a hundred, for example, at Naga-ed-Der in early predynastic times, and one in fifty-four in Lower Nubia (Massoulard, 1949, p396 and pp410-411), although all anthropologists concur in acknowledging the existence of a "negroid" component in the mixed population which constitutes the primitive Egyptian "ethnic group", at least from neolithic times onwards. --Vercoutter 1974
Of the total of 117 [Badarian] skulls, 15 were found to be markedly Europoid, 9 of these were of the gracile Mediterranean type (Figs. ia & b), 6 were of very robust structure reminiscent of the North African Cromagnon type.24 Eight skulls were clearly Negroid (Figs. 2a and b), and were close to the Negro types occurring in East Africa. --Strouhal 1971
Regardless of this, however, the Negroid component among the Badarians is anthropologically well based. Even though the share of 'pure' Negroes is small (6.8 per cent), being half that of the Europoid forms (12-9 per cent), the high majority of mixed forms (80.3 per cent) suggests a long-lasting dispersion of Negroid genes in the population. --Strouhal 1971
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
At best 2% of the dynastic Upper Egyptian (Abydos) series classified with West/Central Africans, per Keita 1996.
Caveat Keep in mind that these are statistical and pseudo- statistical analyses. While they're useful to make inferences about the segments of the AE samples that looked like individuals or averages from other populations in terms of the employed variables, they don't say if individuals from these foreign populations were actually present. In other words, these analyses do not provide support that any of the crania that classified as European or "mixed" were necessarily biologically European or European- African hybrids.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Here's the post xyyman, Truthcentric, Akachi, Sweety, beyoku and Tukuler are trying to avoid:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ...wait, Akachi is endorsing melanin supremacism now? Is he intent on digging his own grave deeper than he already has?
^^^2 sides of the same coin.
Akachi is phoney and make stupid and racist posts. But I don't see how this is different from Swenet, Beyoku, and apparently you, Truthcentric, trying to say Ancient Egpytians were closer to Eurasians than to most African populations like West, Great Lakes and Southern Africa. Trying to revive the debunked Hamitic race myth. All this based on prejudice, racism and knee-jerk reactions.
Question: Where in Truthcentric's post do you see any claim that the Egyptians are closer related to Eurasians or any talk of 'Hamitic race'??!
Djehuti, you're a retarded racist. You even dumber than Swenet and Beyoku. So why not shut the **** up instead of humiliating yourself.
I don't understand why you reply in the place of Truthcentric. Is he your girl or something. I think he's old enough to defend himself. If I misunderstood his point of view. He could always say so himself. I've read some post of him on the internet saying the contrary, but I go with what he said to me here on this forum.
Beyoku acted like Djehuti here, but when I asked him the question directly he admitted I was right.
So what about you Djehuti. I will ask you the question directly so I don't misconstrue your opinion:
Do you believe Ancient Egyptians to be genetically closer to Eurasians than to most Africans like West Africans, Great Lakes Africans and Southern Africans?
Don't forget to try to keep your undercover racist status intact, unlike trollP.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Your long winded and emotional ad-hominem post fails to answer my simple question of where in Truth's post is there any racist anti-African rhetoric.
Of course Truthcentric is not my girlfriend but I come to his defense as I would any other poster if he or she is being besmirched or defamed. And that's all you've been doing of late is besmirching and defaming others while failing miserably to defend certain assertions you've made.
And to answer your question, of course Egyptians are closer related to other Africans than Eurasians because Egyptians ARE African and NOT Eurasians!
However, you fail to realize that being related to Africans does NOT mean being closely related to Africans of a locale across the continent or sharing a great deal of genetic or metric features.
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^You just evade the question. That's retarded. The only problem is you think people reading this forum are as retarded as you.
Everybody can see you try to evade the question Djehuti like Swenet and Beyoku before they admitted I was right.
Djehuti: Based on current aDNA results on Ancient Egyptian mummies, do you believe Ancient Egyptians to be genetically closer to Eurasians than to West African people for example?
Don't forget to try to stay "undercover" when answering. Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
However, you fail to realize that being related to Africans does NOT mean being closely related to Africans of a locale across the continent or sharing a great deal of genetic or metric features.
For the record, I have demonstrated many times that this is false. African populations are indeed relatively closely related to each others genetically speaking. I explained it in this following linked post Djehuti and the others try to avoid:
Most African populations are genetically relatively close to each others (compared to between any of them and Eurasian populations) because most of them, for example, are from the E haplogroup and have a common origin in North-Eastern Africa well after the OOA migrations. Other haplogroups are related to them through admixtures. Same for MtDNA and autosomal analysis.
For example, E and E-P2 are the most common haplogroups among East and West Africans and appeared after the OOA migrations. For example, over 80% of Somali and Yoruba are E-P2 carrier. All this was explained more thoroughly in the link above.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Based on current aDNA results on Ancient Egyptian mummies, do you believe Ancient Egyptians to be genetically closer to Eurasians than to West African people for example?Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
However, you fail to realize that being related to Africans does NOT mean being closely related to Africans of a locale across the continent or sharing a great deal of genetic or metric features.
[African populations are indeed relatively closely related to each others genetically speaking.
Spamming and lying is your only way of coping with the fact that your crackpot claim of African inter- populational homogeneity was annihilated herePosts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Based on current aDNA results on Ancient Egyptian mummies, do you believe Ancient Egyptians to be genetically closer to Eurasians than to West African people for example?
Your claim that current aDNA results prove that Ancient Egyptians were necessarily closer related to West African populations than OOA populations has been refuted here, here and herePosts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right, Amun-Ra, I'm sick of your repetitive bullshitting and slander too:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Based on current aDNA results on Ancient Egyptian mummies, do you believe Ancient Egyptians to be genetically closer to Eurasians than to West African people for example?
I would say Northeast Africans might be genetically closer to Out-of-Africa than West or Central Africans, but not necessarily due to "Hamitic" back-migration. It's been explained to you countless times that since OOA populations are ultimately an offshoot of Northeast Africans, they will appear closely related. It's like how you or I probably have more in common genetically with our parents than we do our distant cousins.
As for the ancient Egyptians in particular, while the skeletal data you keep ignoring supports a Northeast rather than West African affinity for them, one has to wonder what's up with the DNA Tribes MLI scores. I agree with Swenet that these specific results shouldn't be taken literally by themselves, but I for one am at a loss as to how to reconcile the MLI results with the skeletal analyses.
One explanation I have toyed with is that these ancient Egyptians' ostensible West/Central/Southern African affiliation really reflects the relative paucity of ancestry that would be present in OOA but not Northeast Africans, namely a Neanderthal/Denisovan component. In other words, maybe the Neanderthal ancestry in OOA is steering them away from the mummies despite a shared Northeast African origin?
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^A scientific model is a model that can explain ALL data, metric, non-metric, cultural, genetic, etc. and that can make theoretical predications that will not deviate from future empirical data. aDNA from neolithic genomes from the Near East has completely annihilated the predication of many members on this forum that the partly Egyptian populations who brought E-M78 to southern Europe were especially closely related to West/Central Africans. This means their model has been tested and falsified.
Egyptsearch is a pseudo-scientific forum; people here do not strive to incorporate all scientific data known about African anthropology to come to a conclusion that is supported by ALL evidence. They only post things that suit their agenda. That's why when data from Irish, Ricaut 2008, Hannihara 2003 etc. come out, which debunks their notion that Egypto-Nubians necessarily overlap completely with the variations of Africans outside of the Eastern Sahara, people here get cognitive dissonance and ignore the inconvenient implications:
People here on ES, with some notable exceptions of people like Djehuti and Troll Patrol and some others, are complete jokes. They purport to document evidence about the ancient Nile Valley but when you really examine their posts closely, they post the 50% that agrees with their claims and ignore the other 50%. Then when you post the other 50% they left to rot in the closet, they act like you've said something outrageous or heretic.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: All right, Amun-Ra, I'm sick of your repetitive bullshitting and slander too:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Based on current aDNA results on Ancient Egyptian mummies, do you believe Ancient Egyptians to be genetically closer to Eurasians than to West African people for example?
I would say Northeast Africans might be genetically closer to Out-of-Africa than West or Central Africans, but not necessarily due to "Hamitic" back-migration. It's been explained to you countless times that since OOA populations are ultimately an offshoot of Northeast Africans, they will appear closely related. It's like how you or I probably have more in common genetically with our parents than we do our distant cousins.
As for the ancient Egyptians in particular, while the skeletal data you keep ignoring supports a Northeast rather than West African affinity for them, one has to wonder what's up with the DNA Tribes MLI scores. I agree with Swenet that these specific results shouldn't be taken literally by themselves, but I for one am at a loss as to how to reconcile the MLI results with the skeletal analyses.
One explanation I have toyed with is that these ancient Egyptians' ostensible West/Central/Southern African affiliation really reflects the relative paucity of ancestry that would be present in OOA but not Northeast Africans, namely a Neanderthal/Denisovan component. In other words, maybe the Neanderthal ancestry in OOA is steering them away from the mummies despite a shared Northeast African origin?
I also tried to tell him Eurasians were off-shoot of Northeast Africans and thats why NE Africans are closer to Eurasian than other Africans. I even explained in full detail but he didnt listen.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: All right, Amun-Ra, I'm sick of your repetitive bullshitting
There's no bullshitting since I stated your opinion correctly.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Based on current aDNA results on Ancient Egyptian mummies, do you believe Ancient Egyptians to be genetically closer to Eurasians than to West African people for example?
I would say Northeast Africans might be genetically closer to Out-of-Africa than West or Central Africans, but not necessarily due to "Hamitic" back-migration. It's been explained to you countless times that since OOA populations are ultimately an offshoot of Northeast Africans, they will appear closely related.
Thanks for stating your opinion again.
But as I asked you. Why would Eurasian be closer ONLY to modern East Africans instead of both modern East and West Africans? Since at that time, West African ancestors were for the most part still in Northeast Africa sharing the CT and L3 haplogroups with other people there.
Why ***ONLY** modern Eastern Africans instead a all CT and L3 carriers in Africa?
Eurasian have their origin in North Eastern Africa but so do both modern East and West Africans. When future Eurasian left Africa East and West Africans didn't even exist. They were people from the CT and L3 haplogroups. It's only later on that E then the E-P2 haplogroup appeared. The same can be said about MtDNA:
Y-DNA:
And here for MtDNA (other L haplogroups were obviously not part of the OOA migrations so I didn't include them in the graph):
quote: It's like how you or I probably have more in common genetically with our parents than we do our distant cousins.
To use your analogy. Eurasian share great great great grandparents (aka CT and L3) with both East and West Africans.
But East and West Africans share both the E-P2 parents as well as many L3 descendant mothers (L3eijk, L3bf, L3cd).
quote: As for the ancient Egyptians in particular, while the skeletal data you keep ignoring supports a Northeast rather than West African affinity for them, one has to wonder what's up with the DNA Tribes MLI scores.
Maybe, that's something we don't know for sure. Nobody pretend to be direct descendant of Ancient Egyptians. If East Africans didn't have so much recent post dynastic admixtures with Eurasians they would probably have scored higher on the MLI scores as you said so yourself previously on this forum. Same for modern Egyptians. As long as you don't try to say Ancient Egyptians were closer to Eurasians that to most Africans beside the modern NorthEast Africans (also known before as the hamitic race).
posted
Don't want to get in the middle of this arguement, but I have read enough to realize that people don't seem to be speaking to each other, but speaking above each other.
The ego is rediculous.
Let me say that its clear that Egyptians are closer Eurasians, not because of color, but because Eurasians come from NE Africa, the very home that the Egyptians live in. Just because you share the continent, does not mean your the same from north, south, east and west. There is differences.
Egyptians are close to Africans because they Are Africans. Eurasians are close to Egyptians, because thats who they come from NE Africans, Its a complicated matter and cant be described in yes or no answers.
Truthcentric knows what he says and I agree with him.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would still want Truthcentric to state why does he thinks Eurasians were closer only to modern East Africans at the moment of the OOA migrations instead of all CT and L3 carriers like modern East and West Africans?
I asked him the question many times, but still get no answer.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I would still want Truthcentric to state why does he thinks Eurasians were closer only to modern East Africans at the moment of the OOA instead of all CT and L3 carriers like modern East and West Africans?
I asked him the question many times, but still get no answer.
I hear you Amun,
Its just that when people think of West Africans, they sometimes forget that majority lived Higher up in the North and came down to the places they are now.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: It's like how you or I probably have more in common genetically with our parents than we do our distant cousins.
To use your analogy. Eurasian share great great great grandparents (aka CT and L3) with both East and West Africans.
And East and West Africans share both the single E-P2 grandparent as well as many L3 descendant grandmothers (L3eijk, L3bf, L3cd, L2a, etc).
So who is closer to each other great great grandparents or grandparents?
For example, taking frequencies from the Hirbo study : Yoruba L3 45.45% (12.12+6.06+21.21+6.06) Somali L3 44.68% (7.41+3.74+7.47+11.11+3.74+3.74+7.47)
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I would still want Truthcentric to state why does he thinks Eurasians were closer only to modern East Africans at the moment of the OOA instead of all CT and L3 carriers like modern East and West Africans?
I asked him the question many times, but still get no answer.
I hear you Amun,
Its just that when people think of West Africans, they sometimes forget that majority lived Higher up in the North and came down to the places they are now.
Yes, in fact modern West Africans have both their linguistic origin (the origin of the Niger-Kordofanian languages) and their genetic origin (like E-P2, over 80-90% of West Africans are from the E-P2 haplogroup) in Northeastern Africa well after the OOA migrations of non-Africans.
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 .
posted
Amun Ra the Trolltimate's crackpot claim of African inter-populational homogeneity was annihilated here among other places
Amun Ra the Trolltimate's crackpot claim that there is no difference between the proportion of L3 among Africans was annihilated here and here among other places
Amun Ra the Trolltimate's crackpot claim that West Africans didn't exist prior to OOA has been annihilated herehere and here among other places
Amun Ra the Trolltimate's crackpot claim that Ancient Egyptians were necessarily closer related to West African populations than OOA populations has been refuted here, here and here among other places
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ama-Raving Lunatic The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
However, you fail to realize that being related to Africans does NOT mean being closely related to Africans of a locale across the continent or sharing a great deal of genetic or metric features.
For the record, I have demonstrated many times that this is false. African populations are indeed relatively closely related to each others genetically speaking. I explained it in this following linked post Djehuti and the others try to avoid:
Most African populations are genetically relatively close to each others (compared to between any of them and Eurasian populations) because most of them, for example, are from the E haplogroup and have a common origin in North-Eastern Africa well after the OOA migrations. Other haplogroups are related to them through admixtures. Same for MtDNA and autosomal analysis.
For example, E and E-P2 are the most common haplogroups among East and West Africans and appeared after the OOA migrations. For example, over 80% of Somali and Yoruba are E-P2 carrier. All this was explained more thoroughly in the link above.
LOL Notice how when I answered his silly question he then goes after another statement I made without fully understanding.
Of course the Egyptians as Africans would be closely related to other African groups even sharing many of the same clades or haplogroups, however as Swenet and others have pointed out many times AFRICA CONSISTS OF MANY *DIVERSE* POPULATIONS. Therefore the specific genetic ties VARY DEPENDING ON THE POPULATION. As Swenet explained, all African populations while being related are NOT GOING TO BE RELATED EQUALLY AT THE SAME LEVELS. This is the reason why East Africans have a closer relation to Eurasians than West Africans' relation to Eurasians because Eurasians *descend* from East Africans and NOT because East Africans have Eurasian admixture!! Nobody in here has ever stated that Egyptians or East Africans in general overall are closer to Eurasians than to other Africans!! I think this is crux of your insanity.
You think we say that Egyptians and other East Africans are *overall* related to Eurasians than to other Africans. We never said that.
We are only saying that in comparison the relation that East Africans have to Eurasians is closer *than the relation that West Africans have with Eurasians*
This is because Eurasians descend from a subset of East Africans. You understand this right??
Posts: 26280 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Well, I AM saying that I can't exclude that certain dynastic Egyptians would have inherited a larger proportion of the pre-OOA ancestry that would have been there since the Upper Palaeolithic, in the same way I'm saying that these Beja have it at K=2 and that it's making them closer to Eurasians than West Africans because of it.
When Amun Ra the degenerate keeps repeating that others are saying that AE would have been closer to Eurasians, with the tacit lie that this is somehow mutually exclusive with being indigenously African, he's thinking it's somehow going to make us backpaddle and flip flop by appealing to ridicule. Don't fall into this trap Djehuti. Appealing to ridicule:
quote: Appeal to Ridicule (also known as: appeal to mockery, the horse laugh)
Description: Presenting the argument in such a way that makes the argument look ridiculous, usually by misrepresenting the argument or the use of exaggeration.
Logical Form:
Person 1 claims that X is true.
Person 2 makes X look ridiculous, by misrepresenting X.
Therefore, X is false.
Example #1:
It takes faith to believe in God just like it takes faith to believe in the Easter bunny -- but at least the Easter bunny is based on a creature that actually exists!
Explanation: Comparing the belief in God to belief in the Easter bunny is an attempt at ridicule, and not a good argument. In fact, this type of fallacy usually shows desperation in the one committing the fallacy.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] This is the reason why East Africans have a closer relation to Eurasians than West Africans' relation to Eurasians because Eurasians *descend* from East Africans and NOT because East Africans have Eurasian admixture!!
I understand your point of view but Eurasians don't descend from modern East Africans (accent on modern) at the OOA moment. They don't descend from modern E1b1b carriers.
Eurasians descended from an ancient East African population from about 60 000 ago carrying the L3 and CT haplogroups. This is also the haplogroup from which descend modern East and West Africans (and most African for matter beside Haplogroup A and B carrier). At the time of the OOA migrations, West Africans were still living in North-Eastern Africa. Most West Africans are E-P2 carriers (like East Africans). West African migrants from NorthEast Africa also carried L2a, L3bf , L3cd , L3eijx, L0a, which they also have in common with modern East Africans (the frequencies can be seen on the Hirbo study for example).
After the OOA migrants left Africa. The African populations who stayed back in Africa were not static. Africans continued to evolve, interact, admix with each others as well as migrating to other areas including West Africa and the Horn of Africa.
We know both East Africans and West Africans, for example, descend from the same E-P2 grandfather. Carrying it for over 80% of the population. The common African E-P2 grandfather which originated in Eastern Africa.
Same for mtDNA (L3eikx,L3bc, etc): For example, taking frequencies from the Hirbo study : Yoruba L3 45.45% (12.12+6.06+21.21+6.06) Somali L3 44.68% (7.41+3.74+7.47+11.11+3.74+3.74+7.47)
quote: Nobody in here has ever stated that Egyptians or East Africans in general overall are closer to Eurasians than to other Africans!!
You're kind of contradicting yourself. But if you truly speak for everybody. Then the problem is solved since that was my only problem about that aspect. It didn't make sense to me since both East and West Africans, for example, share a common grandfather and common grandmothers much closer than with the OOA migrants.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: It's like how you or I probably have more in common genetically with our parents than we do our distant cousins.
To use your analogy. Eurasians share great great great grandparents (aka CT and L3) with both East and West Africans.
And East and West Africans share both the single Y-DNA E-P2 grandparent as well as many L3 descendant grandmothers (L3eijk, L3bf, L3cd, etc) with each others.
So who is closer to each other great great grandparents or grandparents?
For example, taking frequencies from the Hirbo study : Yoruba L3 45.45% (12.12+6.06+21.21+6.06) Somali L3 44.68% (7.41+3.74+7.47+11.11+3.74+3.74+7.47)
posted
Persaonally, i don't see how quoting Strouhal or Brace is helping anyone's arguments because when you read their methods and especially the motivations of Brace it is obvious that the latter fudged his data to prove AEs were not black and used a strawman that when people say AEs were black they MUST have looked like West Africans. No one ever said that so why even quote that study?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Persaonally, i don't see how quoting Strouhal or Brace is helping anyone's arguments because when you read their methods and especially the motivations of Brace it is obvious that the latter fudged his data to prove AEs were not black and used a strawman that when people say AEs were black they MUST have looked like West Africans. No one ever said that so why even quote that study?
^I suggest you read the thread fully to get a basic grasp of what's discussed here. This thread was made PRECISELY because the argument was made that all the AE pharaohs were "True Negroids".
There is nothing wrong with Brace et al 1993. As I stated, his results are a function of variables he used. Among other things, his variables capture the nasal skeleton and facial flatness. Whether or not his intentions are questionable is irrelevant to why I posted it. The differentiation of Dynastic Egypto-Nubians and West/Central Africans along the lines of prominance of the nasal skeleton and facial flatness are pronounced and speak to the point I was making, i.e. that dynastic Egypto- Nubians are not transplants from West/Central Africa or the other way around.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Persaonally, i don't see how quoting Strouhal or Brace is helping anyone's arguments because when you read their methods and especially the motivations of Brace Ais obvious that the latter fudged his data to prove AEs were not black and used a strawman that when people say AEs were black they MUST have looked like West Africans. No one ever said that so why even quote that study?
Indeed Bass. It opens the way for Amun-Ra to argue that he is fighting against a distorted picture of Africans in the Nile Valley. Strouhal 1971 is woefully obsolete, and uses a "true negro" approach so that all not meeting that stereotype can be labeled as something else. Brace 1993 is OK as far as its narrow statistical procedures but contains several weaknesses in sampling and in other matters. All these things have long been noted on ES.
On top of that, scholars in Egyptian studies have often excluded or lumped "negroid" samples together with something else, Keita notes, which downplays or distorts the full picture of African elements in the data.
"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." --(S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48) [/QB][/QUOTE]
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd prefer the results of Strouhal and Brace all day over this sort of nitpicked cartoons which distort the Keita paper, what he was saying, and the observations in it. You've spammed it several times now in relation to points I was making, so we know you have a some point you're anxious to make, but how exactly it relates to the discussion at hand is a complete mystery to me. Keita also never denied the statistical soundness of either Brace's or Strouhal's results--he just criticised the way they interpret their results, which I did as well in that exact same post.
What Keita actually said in that paper:
The results are not supportive of European agriculturalists colonizing el-Badari in the early- to mid-Holocene. The Badarian series evinces greater phenetic affinity with the tropical African comparative groups and, notably, the east African Teita. This affinity is relative and not to be taken as indicating identity. This finding can only be interpreted as showing a particular broad similarity in the morphometric space circumscribed by the particular groups used. The Badarians were a local Saharo-Nile Valley population, based on archaeological and other data (see below). --Keita 2005
Key points your little cartoon conveniently leaves out:
--They were, per Keita's words, a local Saharo- Nile Valley population, not transplants from elsewhere in Africa --This affinity is relative and indicates a broad similarity.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just seems to me atleast that Whats happening in the World of Africa, is just confusing the issues.
1 study comes out links Egypt to aFRICA, Then another comes out and links them closer to eurasians.
The game being played is the ying and yang affect. I credit Xyyman, Swenet Amun, Zarahan and now Charlie Bass for shedding the nuggets of truth found in all these studies, because to most...To wade through the lies is hard work, and peoples have 15min attention spans thanks to the media being on the internet and the Get famous nonsense being spewed.
Let me just your hardwork is appreciated, Just wish some did not have bias for certain info or only post what agrees with them.
Lay it all out so all can see the game being played by these gymnastic europeans and there schizo(no diss) information
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're still butthurt, troll? How exactly do these DFA results gel with your theory that the ancient Egyptians weren't biologically rooted in the Eastern Sahara, but in the Great Lakes, South Africa and West Africa?
The indications of exclusion, however, are much easier to interpret. For example, the likelihood that either the Giza or Naqada configuration could occur in West Africa, the Congo, or points south is vanishingly small-0.000 and 0.001. --Brace 1993
We collected measurements for a single specimen from what was called the Nubian X Group in Reisner’s terminology (Reisner, 1909). This was a population that immediately preceded the early Christian Nubians of AD 550 (Carlson and Van Gerven, 19791, and, in the subjective treatment of a generation gone by, had been regarded as evidence for a “Negroid incursion’’ (Batrawi, 1935; Smith, 1909; Seligman, 1915). As our figures show, the probability of finding our representative specimen in a sub- Saharan population is 0.009, which is highly unlikely. Its column loadings are generally similar to the loadings in the column for the Predynastic Naqada sample, and, except for the fact that it is only marginally unlikely that it can be excluded from the Giza sample, it cannot be denied membership in the Naqada, European, or South Asian samples. --Brace 1993
The authors are always at pains to point out that the pure negro element appears to have been minute in the groups analysed; two skeletons in a hundred, for example, at Naga-ed-Der in early predynastic times, and one in fifty-four in Lower Nubia (Massoulard, 1949, p396 and pp410-411), although all anthropologists concur in acknowledging the existence of a "negroid" component in the mixed population which constitutes the primitive Egyptian "ethnic group", at least from neolithic times onwards. --Vercoutter 1974
Of the total of 117 [Badarian] skulls, 15 were found to be markedly Europoid, 9 of these were of the gracile Mediterranean type (Figs. ia & b), 6 were of very robust structure reminiscent of the North African Cromagnon type.24 Eight skulls were clearly Negroid (Figs. 2a and b), and were close to the Negro types occurring in East Africa. --Strouhal 1971
Regardless of this, however, the Negroid component among the Badarians is anthropologically well based. Even though the share of 'pure' Negroes is small (6.8 per cent), being half that of the Europoid forms (12-9 per cent), the high majority of mixed forms (80.3 per cent) suggests a long-lasting dispersion of Negroid genes in the population. --Strouhal 1971
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
At best 2% of the dynastic Upper Egyptian (Abydos) series classified with West/Central Africans, per Keita 1996.
Caveat Keep in mind that these are statistical and pseudo- statistical analyses. While they're useful to make inferences about the segments of the AE samples that looked like individuals or averages from other populations in terms of the employed variables, they don't say if individuals from these foreign populations were actually present. In other words, these analyses do not provide support that any of the crania that classified as European or "mixed" were necessarily biologically European or European- African hybrids.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"while most of today's African American ancestors originated from West Africa during the infamous slave trade, Ehret and Tishkoff found strong evidence that many of those West African people came from groups that had migrated from the continent's eastern areas"
"Finally, patterns of genetic similarity among inferred African segments of African-American genomes and genomes of contemporary African populations included in this study suggest African ancestry is most similar to non-Bantu Niger-Kordofanian-speaking populations, consistent with historical documents of the African Diaspora and trans-Atlantic slave trade."
"This is in contrast to Brazil, where the black population was reputedly of more diverse origin, including many Bantu speakers from Angola as well as West Africans."
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
AMRTU need some mental help. I am not sure what the brotha is on. Even Africans have some "red" bars.....adjacent to SLC24A5(wink).Tic! Toc!
-------------------- 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 Child Of The KING: It just seems to me atleast that Whats happening in the World of Africa, is just confusing the issues.
1 study comes out links Egypt to aFRICA, Then another comes out and links them closer to eurasians.
The game being played is the ying and yang affect. I credit Xyyman, Swenet Amun, Zarahan and now Charlie Bass for shedding the nuggets of truth found in all these studies, because to most...To wade through the lies is hard work, and peoples have 15min attention spans thanks to the media being on the internet and the Get famous nonsense being spewed.
Let me just your hardwork is appreciated, Just wish some did not have bias for certain info or only post what agrees with them.
Lay it all out so all can see the game being played by these gymnastic europeans and there schizo(no diss) information
KING, I would agree, there should be clarity, which is what makes ES such a great source, despite some who posture as if they are so much more wiser and better than everyone else, and condemn the forum as useless deadwood, and so beneath them. Strangely, some who have this holier than thou attitude keep reappearing time and time again, even after they have declared they have left or done with threads. Why do they keep returning? What obsessive need brings them back to the very same forums they declare as "dead"?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than the fact that you're a hypocrite (your buddy Bass says the forum is shadow of its past all the time, but when he says it, you're on some nepotist ish, aren't you?), yeah I post here whenever I feel like it, and I still think it's a worthless forum. If that gets you hot and bothered, grab a tissue and go have another one of those monologues with yourself in one of your lonely "HBD biodiversity types" or "database" threads.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm laughing because in the past we did encounter people of mixed (black-and-white) ancestry who did behave in such an irrational manner perhaps due to issues of confused identity. Anyway...
[/url]
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic