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.
The measurements and results he came up with are valid but the methodology and interpretation of results are the problem and why even waste time refuting a strawman argument against a nonexistent entity called "True Negroids?" Who made any such claim that AEs came from West Africa? If you say West Africans who are you speaking of? They have considerable diversity, so are you stereotyping all West Africans as being True Negroes? Are you talking about modern day West Africans or West Africans as they looked like in predynastic times? Are yu implying todays West Africans and modern day West Africans looked the same and all like True Negroes? According to Keita the Badarians were more like "True Negroes" in resemblance, but Brace only studied Naqada and used measurements that heavily favoured the nose, look at the study and see the measurements themselves.
I stand by what I say, using Strouhal and Brace doesn't help your case.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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.
NOTE, I agree essentially with what you're saying in that similarity in looks doesn't imply that said people migrated from that population or geographical area. Where as Keita correctly stated that similarity isn't indicative of identity, Brace goes way off track saying that such morphology found in AE is NOT present in Sub-Saharan Africa and we know that isn't true, he even contradicts himself because he used Somalis in his(Braces's) study, saw the similarity between Somalis and AE's (Naqada) and still says there is no similarity with SSA despite Somalia being in SSA.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Guys IF YOU WANT TO SEE EGYPTSEARCH RETURN LIKE A PHOENIX, BE THAT FLAME.
All people crying about egyptsearch and saying the golden days are over, just instill a New Glory day. I mean I tell people all the time about this forum and its progressiveness. And I know there is an absolutely Huge presence of watchers who read and use the info in their life.
Keep The Fyah Burning and then we will see more and more people comeback.
Doug is Back, Charlie, Soon Mystery Solver, Narmer is back Arwa is Back I mean these forums pull the conscious. I see no reason why the Glory of Egyptsearch can't return. Just a matter of time.
Bless
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| 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.
The measurements and results he came up with are valid but the methodology and interpretation of results are the problem and why even waste time refuting a strawman argument against a nonexistent entity called "True Negroids?" Who made any such claim that AEs came from West Africa? If you say West Africans who are you speaking of? They have considerable diversity, so are you stereotyping all West Africans as being True Negroes? Are you talking about modern day West Africans or West Africans as they looked like in predynastic times? Are yu implying todays West Africans and modern day West Africans looked the same and all like True Negroes? According to Keita the Badarians were more like "True Negroes" in resemblance, but Brace only studied Naqada and used measurements that heavily favoured the nose, look at the study and see the measurements themselves.
I stand by what I say, using Strouhal and Brace doesn't help your case.
Who do you think you're kidding? YOU are the one who used the phrase: "the latter fudged his data to prove AEs were not black and used a srawman that when people say AEs were black they MUST have looked like West Africans." I can ask you the same questions. What do you mean Charlie, do you think West Africans are monoliths? Makes no sense for you to go down this road and talk about everything other than the fact that you came here and went on a tangent not even knowing what you're talking about. You now realize that you blundered and you try to change the subject with a type of inquisition one would reserve for some rookie. Spare me the lecture; you were wrong, plain and simple. If you choose to stand by conclusions derived from a non-existent understanding of what my posts were arguing against, that's your prerogative, but don't continue to act like you weren't, and are still, groping in the dark. You're reaching for a pretext to justify your presumptuous entry into this thread.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Brace goes way off track saying that such morphology found in AE is NOT present in Sub- Saharan Africa and we know that isn't true,
Not only is the multivariate configuration Brace captured in the Naqada and Gizeh sample exceedingly rare in the West/Central African populations that were forwarded as the "pharaonic type", they are, in fact, the anti-thesis of the configuration of said populations. They couldn't be any more different in the variables Brace employed, hence the low probabilities of finding the Naqada or Gizeh configurations in those populations. Any West African population that approaches pred. Egyptians in terms of this variable set has ancestry from elsewhere and didn't adapted their phenotype in the areas Brace listed. If you're so adamant about your denial of this fact, then post evidence. We've already seen that Zaharan failed with his cartoon. The distance values of the Badarians to the Dogon, Zulu and Teita pale compared to the distance values Badarians and Naqadans have to pred. and dynastic Nubians and other Africans in the Eastern Sahara, and that the much more climate sensitive variables used by Keita pull the Badarians closer to Zulu, Dogon and Teita than would have been the case in Strouhal's or Brace' analysis. Where are your cited sources?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Listen Swenet, lol, let me explain this on finer terms since I actually had email contact with Brace years ago and why his methodology and using his study isn't helping your case. I inquired about Fulani and whee do they sit in his analyses and to my surprise he said he grouped them in a "Northeast African cluster," which to me is shocking since the sample he studied came from West Africa. The Somali sample he studied came from Somalia, now why does he group populations that are GEOGRAPHICALLY from sub-Saharan Africa and exclude them FROM Sub-Saharan Africa when they DO NOT fit the trend of what he thinks is "truly sub-Saharan African? In other words, in Brace's mind and watch what I say here, IF THEY DON'T LOOK what he considers sub-Saharan he systematically excludes them and puts them in a geographically distant area from where they are truly from and apart of, that's why when he says and I quote
"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
He is being bogus and contradicts himself, how can you quote him and overlook this? narrow featured, thin nosed people are found to be native in West Africa and in sub-Saharan Africa, its just that when they encounter such populations they exclude them from being "True" West African or sub-Saharan if they do not fit the ideal of what they think is truly sub-Saharan, thats why you can't quote Brace or Strouhal. I do agree that having similar morphology doesn't mean they came from the area where they show similarity to, but Brace even goes as far as to say AEs aren't even "African" because they don't look like SSAs(his ideal). AEs don't come from Europe nor South Asia but he implies it but you quot him anyway then use Keita's quote, you contradict yourself.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He may contradict himself in terms of wording here and there, and he may have other flaws, some of which I outlined earlier myself, but none of this pertains to the excerpts I posted and in the context I posted them (i.e. in response to someone who made certain claims).
Ancient populations native to the regions Brace listed do not have that cranio-facial configuration, as shown by Chamla's, Brauer's and Devilliers' descriptions of the native pre-Bantu populations in those areas. Besides, Fulanis and Somalis aren't even native to the regions in Brace' restrictive sense of "Sub-Saharan Africa", however unfair such an arbitrary description of "West Africa" or "Sub-Saharan Africa" is.
If Somalis and Fulanis aren't native to this arbitrary SSA region, his comments in regards to the likelihood of finding the Naqada configuration there don't pertain to them. If his comments don't pertain to them and you yourself admit that he said his comments don't pertain to them, you're arguing about semantics. If one were to make a list of authors that have similar inconsistencies and inaccuracies, do you have any idea how many studies which you have posted many times in certain contexts, are subject to the same criticisms?
Don't ask others to uphold to standards you don't live up to yourself. Either provide evidence that Brace is wrong about his probabilities of finding the Naqada configuration in the autochtonous populations of the regions Brace mentioned (i.e. West Africa, Congo Basin and points south), you really have no point, even with the Fulani and Somali taken into consideration.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Learned more From Charlies posting without insults, then having to wade through the ish throwing of other peoples posts.
I remember Brace is he still making studies or his embarassements and lies caught up to him?
Anyone who thinks that AE did not have anything to do with SSA simply because of a few Skulls, is out to lunch because we know in Africa, ALL TYPES OF HUMAN SKULLS, FEATURES, AND BODYPLANS are found their. To delimit African diversity when it comes to this is simply Bias and fearing the truth, Which is Eursaians had nada to do with Egypt. That's why I take studies with agrain of salt and dot read all the fluff. You can only learn so much from the studie steering you in the bias direction.
When their is more Articles done by people who think and perceive instead of just write, then my Interest will be piqued.
But let the racist keep braces studies, We don't need it. Why fight for a racists mans views on Africa when he himself changed his views in 2008.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My position is that NO one set of discreet features should be used to characterise an entire region, The Khoisan have cranial features that distinguish them from Bantus and West Africans, they are sub-Saharans, yet using Brace's methodology they wouldn't. I see your point and where you are coing from so I am not arguing against you, if you are saying that AEs on the whole were more closer to elongated types I would agree, BUT it still must be noted that Badarians were closer to the broad trend type than Naqada. Both sets of features are found in SSA, ijs, don't quote a study that argues against this as proof to refute Amun ra when it isn't necessary and plays more into his hands
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll share this email I got from him when I asked about where would Sahelians and Saharans would fit and remembering the results of of 1993 study you will see the flaw when he says Naqada and Giza doesn't fit with SSA:
Me to him:
quote:Dear Mr. Rigaud,
I used those particular Africans since they were the only Niger-Congo speakers in my sample. I have a number of other samples, some from the northern parts of West Africa, and they clearly fall in between the Niger-Congo speakers and those on the Mediterranean coast. I wish I had some from the Sudan. The closest I can come is the Nubians I measured in the collection in Boulder, Colorado. I have a smattering of Southern Africans and they are still different as one might expect. But the big contrast as one goes south from North Africa is most clearly demonstrated by the Niger-Congo speakers which is why I used them. I did not want to get into a treatment of the varieties of Africans in an essay that was focused on the westward spread of the Neolithic.
But thanks for your interest!
C. L. Brace
--On Friday, December 30, 2005 10:02 AM -0800 Charles Rigaud <cr_rigaud@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Dr Brace, this is Charles Rigaud again, I've > excahnged emails with you in the past. I have a > question concerning your recently published study "The > questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the > Bronze Age to European craniofacial form." In your > study, which is brillant by the way, you use only > Haya, Congo, and Dahomey to represent "Sub-Saharan" > Africans. In a previous email you have acknowledged > not having measured samples from the African Sahel and > Sahara, so my question is, do you think that those > three populations you used in your latest > study[Dahomey, Haya and Congo] represent the total sum > of diversity found in "sub-Saharan Africa"? How would > peoples like the Teda, Kanuri, Fulani, Tuareg, Hausa, > and Nilotes plot had you included them amongst your > samples? Again I wish to reaffirm that your study was > indeed brillant and accurate, but I just wish to have > your opinion about the above questions I put forth. > Thanks in advance. > > Best Regards, > > Charles Rigaud
His reply
quote:Dear Mr. Rigaud,
I used those particular Africans since they were the only Niger-Congo speakers in my sample. I have a number of other samples, some from the northern parts of West Africa, and they clearly fall in between the Niger-Congo speakers and those on the Mediterranean coast. I wish I had some from the Sudan. The closest I can come is the Nubians I measured in the collection in Boulder, Colorado. I have a smattering of Southern Africans and they are still different as one might expect. But the big contrast as one goes south from North Africa is most clearly demonstrated by the Niger-Congo speakers which is why I used them. I did not want to get into a treatment of the varieties of Africans in an essay that was focused on the westward spread of the Neolithic.
But thanks for your interest!
C. L. Brace
Note he said samples from northern West Africa(not Northwest Africa) fall in between "Niger-Congo" speakers(Fulani ARE Niger Congo speakers, but anyways) and people's from the Mediterranean Coast, now I would like for you to tell me that if those samples were used in his 1993 study would AEs really be as distant from SSAs?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Put what you feel will give you YOUR Truth, and not THEE truth.
See it all the time. Brace deep down knew what his results would be if he used people like the Fulbe, who are by the way Niger Congo Atlantic speakers. So he took them out to get his stacked decked results.
Euros are natural snake oil salesman and this study is up therr for sure.
I also made a mistake about CL Brace, his other main study was in 2006. But he was under pressure to tow the company line for that one too, too the fact that he stated that SSA Was diluted out by the time of intermingling with White Euros.
Its all about soothing the egos of Whites why things like this come out like that. Whites are looking for themselves, They can't find it in the past, so they make themselves up there fantasy history.
I take heart knowing that Egyptsearch survived through the great wars of Study publishing and critiqueing that destroyed other weaker forums. Remember those days Brothas and sistahs? Rasol, Suopercar,Thought, Djehuti, Tukuleur, Doug, Charlie, Ausar, Arwa, Yonis, Heck the whole crew and thensome waged war against racist of all types and while other forums fell, WE STILL HERE.....Why not bring the glory days back by inviting people to the forum for discussion on these heavy topics...Of course racist don't come on these forums no more because they know the fight is almost up and there obsessions are being revealed as lies so many don't have the will to fight..Some even apologized for their racist ways.
Truss It people, Whenever I mention evgyptsearch on the web, people run and hide. Aint no thang, They Hold us as Black Supremist, Revolutionist, Free Thinkers, Study critiquers, Hard to refute, Destroyers of other forums best, They respect Us people so much so they know their racist distortions wont hold weight on these forum. They actuall remember those days on the web when people were falling left and right. Beyoku is killing it on the forum biodiversity and all they can say is "Go back to Egyptsearch" since they can refute his post. It cracks me up everytime I read there sad sack forums and there "gracile euros" "Progressives" etc. I mean whats with these terms??? Some of the stupidest things I have heard. Yet that and Egyptsearch is the main forums for Study critiques and discussion on ethncitiy. They will be 2nd best because none compare to the Original King.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Note he said samples from northern West Africa(not Northwest Africa) fall in between "Niger-Congo" speakers(Fulani ARE Niger Congo speakers, but anyways) and people's from the Mediterranean Coast, now I would like for you to tell me that if those samples were used in his 1993 study would AEs really be as distant from SSAs?
Interesting post as a whole. It's pretty obvious in all those studies (even those with "positive" results for the "Africanity" of Ancient Egyptians like the 2005 Brace study ) only use a small samples of the E-P2 and Niger-Congo populations diversity. Maybe unadmixed Niger-Congo populations from other language branches like Atlantic (Wolof) and Mande could be used too to be a bit more representative of that diversity.
The results would probably be pretty similar ( as African people along the Nile went through their own physiological changes and adaptation, as any world and African populations ) but with some differences too. Giving us a more accurate and balanced vision of the situation. Fulani are not good example because people would say it's because they are admixed to some degree (even at a small degree) with Eurasian that they have this or that feature. And they would a have point of course. Other unadmixed Niger-Congo populations like the Wolof and many others would provide a better range for the diversity of Niger-Congo speakers before any kind of substantial admixtures. I say Wolof and Mande because they are from different branch of the Niger-Congo languages, so are more like to present some physiological differences, but even Igbo and Yoruba could present different physiological attributes between each others (due to drift, adaptation, etc) even if it's a bit less likely than from Niger-Congo populations from different branches with different migrations history, in-situ adaptations and time of divergence.
It would also be interesting to see other E and E-P2 haplogroup carriers, as well as various A and B carriers used for those studies (Dinka, Fur, Omotic speakers, Tebu, Ethiopians, etc etc etc). More representative of the diversity of E-P2 carriers and African as a whole like it was done to some degree for Europe. This probably would highlight more intermediary values in African populations (within the African branch also containing Naqada, Nubia, etc).
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Of course, we must also take into account other archaeological (cultural continuity, etc) and Ancient DNA data. Briefly mentioned here . We can't only study evidences in isolation from each others. While each evidences individually can be questioned (wrongfully or not), it's all the evidences combined as a whole which represent a more accurate view of the situation (the population history of Ancient Egyptians).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to add something about the common origin of East and West Africans .
When we study the similarities and differences between lets say Somali and Yoruba. We study the similarities and differences between various E-P2 carriers. More than 80% of those African populations are E-P2 Haplogroup carriers.
Before their migrations toward different regions of Africa, the similarities would be from their common origin (and convergent evolution to a lower degree) while their differences (subject to genetic drift and adaptation to new conditions) brought upon *after* their migrations toward different geographical areas where E-P2 carriers now inhabit across Africa. A similar analysis could be made for MtDNA.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Child Of The KING: Yeah Charlie The slight of hand trick.
Put what you feel will give you YOUR Truth, and not THEE truth.
See it all the time. Brace deep down knew what his results would be if he used people like the Fulbe, who are by the way Niger Congo Atlantic speakers. So he took them out to get his stacked decked results.
Euros are natural snake oil salesman and this study is up therr for sure.
I also made a mistake about CL Brace, his other main study was in 2006. But he was under pressure to tow the company line for that one too, too the fact that he stated that SSA Was diluted out by the time of intermingling with White Euros.
Its all about soothing the egos of Whites why things like this come out like that. Whites are looking for themselves, They can't find it in the past, so they make themselves up there fantasy history.
I take heart knowing that Egyptsearch survived through the great wars of Study publishing and critiqueing that destroyed other weaker forums. Remember those days Brothas and sistahs? Rasol, Suopercar,Thought, Djehuti, Tukuleur, Doug, Charlie, Ausar, Arwa, Yonis, Heck the whole crew and thensome waged war against racist of all types and while other forums fell, WE STILL HERE.....Why not bring the glory days back by inviting people to the forum for discussion on these heavy topics...Of course racist don't come on these forums no more because they know the fight is almost up and there obsessions are being revealed as lies so many don't have the will to fight..Some even apologized for their racist ways.
Truss It people, Whenever I mention evgyptsearch on the web, people run and hide. Aint no thang, They Hold us as Black Supremist, Revolutionist, Free Thinkers, Study critiquers, Hard to refute, Destroyers of other forums best, They respect Us people so much so they know their racist distortions wont hold weight on these forum. They actuall remember those days on the web when people were falling left and right. Beyoku is killing it on the forum biodiversity and all they can say is "Go back to Egyptsearch" since they can refute his post. It cracks me up everytime I read there sad sack forums and there "gracile euros" "Progressives" etc. I mean whats with these terms??? Some of the stupidest things I have heard. Yet that and Egyptsearch is the main forums for Study critiques and discussion on ethncitiy. They will be 2nd best because none compare to the Original King.
I know I should try to be here more but I have a little family I'm raising, 3 daughters and one infant son, lol. I went from 0 kids to four fast, but I do lurk
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: That is me
Why don't you post with the original ID?
Also do you only read about the history of the Nile Valley or do you (did you) study the history of other populations in Africa too?
I'm asking that question because when I have exchanges with people like Truthcentric (sorry, I didn't mean to put you on a stand like that, just an example), it's obvious to me that they don't read (read much) about the African history outside Ancient Egypt and the Nile Valley.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have as much interest in this stuff like I once did, especially on the genetics side because they flip flop much to much and never take a multi-disciplinary approach, they obtain their results and try to re-write to fit their results and that turned me away.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you also a politician? You didn't answer any of my questions.
1) Why don't you post with the original ID? 2) Do you, or at least did you, read about the history of other African populations?
Personally, I don't see what you mean about flipflop and genetics, so I don't know what you're talking about. What do you mean?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats my old ID, no longer usable because password is forgotten, and I am not a politician
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're not a politician but you surely act like one. Clearly you don't want to answer the question about whether or not you do or did study African history outside the Nile Valley.
What do you mean about the flip flop and genetics?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: we need unity
What do you mean unity Lioness? ES never was an amen corner, like the shiny new alternative forums so touted by some. These allow those who seek Head Negro In Charge status to preen, but their tarnish is apparent. Its amazing lioness, how those who haughtily dismiss the forum, and haughtily dismiss good, solid veterans like Tukler as "gramps", still keep returning, pathetically crying out for attention, as their own sluggish forum withers on the vine. They proudly claimed to be "pioneering" sweeping new vistas and venues that were so much better than here, but it has turned out to be much less than advertised.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Note he said samples from northern West Africa(not Northwest Africa) fall in between "Niger-Congo" speakers(Fulani ARE Niger Congo speakers, but anyways) and people's from the Mediterranean Coast, now I would like for you to tell me that if those samples were used in his 1993 study would AEs really be as distant from SSAs?
Look, I don't know what your beef is, but your posts smack of the fact that you're groping in the dark here. It's basic courtesy to at least familiarize yourself with the topic before you barge in and start lecturing. There is no need to make this last any longer than it has to:
1) The Teda, Fulani, Somali, Naqada etc. are either not native SSA populations, or (as in the case of the Fulani and Teda) a sizeable chunk of their ancestry doesn't originate there. The mere existence of Teda, Somali etc. on the face of the earth does not invalidate the fact that the Naqada configuration had a low probability of occurring in Brace' SSA sample.
2) Brace' measurements are such that they will necessarily segregate African population along the SSA/Saharan line. Among other things, prominence of the nasal skeleton and various other measures of facial flatness tend to not overlap between native SSA populations and certain other African populations, including Naqadans, lower Nubians and others. This has been reproduced across many studies.
3) AE and lower Nubians cluster on the Saharan side of this line, as do certain other African populations, and no amount of complaining about Brace' or Strouhal's terminology or sampling strategies is going to change that.
4) Neither you nor Zaharan have presented evidence to the contrary, nor do either of you intend to (both of you have proven that you're just in it to nag and complain about Brace and Strouhal), so, as far as this topic is concerned, this is nothing left to say. The onus is on you to present evidence to the contrary. I've already made plenty of falsifiable claims for you to test against the literature. You don't falsify them because you know you can't. Hence, why we're seeing complaints about Brace and Strouhal, which are not without merit, but they have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
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.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry. If Brace says that groups like Fulani, Teda and Kanuri plot in between "Niger Congo" speakers and people's of the Mediteranean Coast you know full well AEs plot in the same position. Keita's study on Northeast Africa craniofacial Variation confirmed it, so the notion tht AEs don't overlap with SSAs is bogus and it makes no sense to cite a study thats loaded with geographically distant populations like Teita, Haya, Gabonese, etc proves there is no overlap
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry. If Brace says that groups like Fulani, Teda and Kanuri plot in between "Niger Congo" speakers and people's of the Mediteranean Coast you know full well AEs plot in the same position. Keita's study on Northeast Africa craniofacial Variation confirmed it, so the notion tht AEs don't overlap with SSAs is bogus and it makes no sense to cite a study thats loaded with geographically distant populations like Teita, Haya, Gabonese, etc proves there is no overlap
Excuse me, but I believe what's really being said here is that Egypto-Nubians didn't look exactly like stereotypical West Africans with broad facial features despite what Akachi et al claim. That's not the same as saying you can't find people in the West African or larger sub-Saharan region who do have narrower features. Given that you don't dispute the elongated morphology of Egypto-Nubians yourself, what exactly are you arguing against?
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry.
Where do (parts of) these populations originate? Is it below the Sahara or in the Sahara? Did you pay attention when you read Tishkoff and Hodgon or do you only intend to read what you want to read? It is YOU who is losing credibility. I still see no evidence that refutes anything I've said. I'll let that be the judge on who is trolling and who is speaking facts.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: so the notion tht AEs don't overlap with SSAs is bogus
More spreading of confusion and lies. I guess this is what you have to resort to when normal means of intellectual engagement (i.e. posting evidence) don't offer a way out of the mess you know you've created for yourself.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with you Bass(no diss intended) but you need some cohunas. Getting depressed because Genetic researchers do not write things the way you expect is a sign of weakness.
You should know by now what the game is. EVERYTHING is controlled by the Euros. Even the so-called “progressive” Genecist have lean towards Eurocentricism because that is how they butter their bread. You should know that..
You read, and if you understand, you break it down. It is that simple. Yes, we all agree they twist the interpretation and sometimes outright lie.
I expect more outright lies in the future.
If you like communicating with researchers, ask them pointed questions.
Here is one - I just finished “Izagirre et al An mtDNA analysis in ancient Basque populations Implications for haplogroup V as a marker for a major….”. To my surprise, in the words of the author there were several “non-European mtDNA HG in the ancient Basque sample, he did NOT list what they were. No supplemenatals were provided with the information. He included hg-U, hg-X and hg-T and hg-H etc . as European (shrug)
Why don’t you write and ask what these non-European aDNA HG found in the Basque samples were? I speculate it is hg-L. I don’t expect an East Asian hg like hg-C to be present in pre-historic Iberia.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: we need unity
What do you mean unity Lioness? ES never was an amen corner, like the shiny new alternative forums so touted by some. These allow those who seek Head Negro In Charge status to preen, but their tarnish is apparent. Its amazing lioness, how those who haughtily dismiss the forum, and haughtily dismiss good, solid veterans like Tukler as "gramps", still keep returning, pathetically crying out for attention, as their own sluggish forum withers on the vine. They proudly claimed to be "pioneering" sweeping new vistas and venues that were so much better than here, but it has turned out to be much less than advertised.
I can tell that you have a grudge and that you're salty, as evidenced by the fact that you're resorting to telling lies (I never called Tukuler gramps). Notice also how you said "but it has turned out to be much less than advertised" instead of "much less than on ES". Until your informant (whoever it was) will be able to tell you that the FB group is the same rotten cesspool as ES, I will consider the FB initiative a fail. Until then, you and your fellow ES posters will have to take the L for being the most worthless forum. But I think you understand this yourself, hence why you didn't make a direct comparison between the FB group and ES (or ESR). Oh yeah. ESR. The forum you moderated. What happened?
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.
posted
He calls me gand another poster(long gone) gramps also.
He calls- Tukuler a flip-flopper.
It ain't no thing. Doesn't bother me. We are too sensitive here sometimes.
-------------------- 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 .Charlie Bass.: The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry. If Brace says that groups like Fulani, Teda and Kanuri plot in between "Niger Congo" speakers and people's of the Mediteranean Coast you know full well AEs plot in the same position. Keita's study on Northeast Africa craniofacial Variation confirmed it, so the notion tht AEs don't overlap with SSAs is bogus and it makes no sense to cite a study thats loaded with geographically distant populations like Teita, Haya, Gabonese, etc proves there is no overlap
Excuse me, but I believe what's really being said here is that Egypto-Nubians didn't look exactly like stereotypical West Africans with broad facial features despite what Akachi et al claim. That's not the same as saying you can't find people in the West African or larger sub-Saharan region who do have narrower features. Given that you don't dispute the elongated morphology of Egypto-Nubians yourself, what exactly are you arguing against?
There AEs in fact who had broad features, they were found in Badarians, my point is that using Brace's and Strouhal studies don't help because neither one acknowledges elongated morphology as being native to SSA. Given the right sample you will get matches.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The problem with you Bass(no diss intended) but you need some cohunas. Getting depressed because Genetic researchers do not write things the way you expect is a sign of weakness.
You should know by now what the game is. EVERYTHING is controlled by the Euros. Even the so-called “progressive” Genecist have lean towards Eurocentricism because that is how they butter their bread. You should know that..
You read, and if you understand, you break it down. It is that simple. Yes, we all agree they twist the interpretation and sometimes outright lie.
I expect more outright lies in the future.
If you like communicating with researchers, ask them pointed questions.
Here is one - I just finished “Izagirre et al An mtDNA analysis in ancient Basque populations Implications for haplogroup V as a marker for a major….”. To my surprise, in the words of the author there were several “non-European mtDNA HG in the ancient Basque sample, he did NOT list what they were. No supplemenatals were provided with the information. He included hg-U, hg-X and hg-T and hg-H etc . as European (shrug)
Why don’t you write and ask what these non-European aDNA HG found in the Basque samples were? I speculate it is hg-L. I don’t expect an East Asian hg like hg-C to be present in pre-historic Iberia.
Dude, lol, my mtDNA haplogroup is L4b2, you some idiots trying to say its Eurasian and came from Eurasia along with its sister group L3, I found that to be ridiculous. Then they flipped back and said its East African in origin
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry.
Where do (parts of) these populations originate? Is it below the Sahara or in the Sahara? Did you pay attention when you read Tishkoff and Hodgon or do you only intend to read what you want to read? It is YOU who is losing credibility. I still see no evidence that refutes anything I've said. I'll let that be the judge on who is trolling and who is speaking facts.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: so the notion tht AEs don't overlap with SSAs is bogus
More spreading of confusion and lies. I guess this is what you have to resort to when normal means of intellectual engagement (i.e. posting evidence) don't offer a way out of the mess you know you've created for yourself.
Where do you think the ancestors of modern West Africans come from? The Sahara, that is before it dried up. The flip side to this is look at Bantus, they are not a homogeneous people and derive their ancestry comes from several sources depending on who you test, some have mixed with Pygmies, some have mixture from Khoisan, some have mixed with Horners nd other East Africans like Nilotes, why make it look like Saharan groups are much more complex than the Bantus who you and Brace count and true sub-Saharans?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're now comparing populations who migrated to northern regions and returned to equatorial Africa mostly unaltered genetically, to populations whose language phylum originated in the Sahara and who actually had/have uniparental lineages and lithic industries that testify to their deeply intertwined histories with the Sahara and extinct Saharan populations (e.g. Teda, Fulani, Ancient Egyptians Lower Nubians)? What is your point exactly? I have no idea where you're going with this or how anything you're saying refutes what got your panties up in a bunch repeatedly, re: the strong SSA/Sahara divide with certain variables (e.g. Brace 1993, Irish, Hanihara), and a more mild, but still noticeable divide using other variables (e.g. Keita's variable set). Are you going to say something on topic that refutes what got you so emotional or are you just going to keep on trolling?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry. If Brace says that groups like Fulani, Teda and Kanuri plot in between "Niger Congo" speakers and people's of the Mediteranean Coast you know full well AEs plot in the same position. Keita's study on Northeast Africa craniofacial Variation confirmed it, so the notion tht AEs don't overlap with SSAs is bogus and it makes no sense to cite a study thats loaded with geographically distant populations like Teita, Haya, Gabonese, etc proves there is no overlap
Excuse me, but I believe what's really being said here is that Egypto-Nubians didn't look exactly like stereotypical West Africans with broad facial features despite what Akachi et al claim. That's not the same as saying you can't find people in the West African or larger sub-Saharan region who do have narrower features. Given that you don't dispute the elongated morphology of Egypto-Nubians yourself, what exactly are you arguing against?
There AEs in fact who had broad features, they were found in Badarians, my point is that using Brace's and Strouhal studies don't help because neither one acknowledges elongated morphology as being native to SSA. Given the right sample you will get matches.
I actually agree with this.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
XYZ fair enough. But for someone who rails against this forum and how bad it is, strange that they keeps coming back here to post for hours and pages on end. 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. And as you and I know ESR is doing just fine with Anansi at the helm. It never was high volume to begin with, never expected to be by the Bass or Tukler, two of its founders, who wanted a more troll free venue, and a backstop in case ES went down. In this vision they succeeded, and now have substantially the full range of information that used to be on ES, as well as new studies and data posted by yourself and several others. It certainly gets more hits and has more members than the putative "second coming" touted on Facebook. And its detailed data is cited more on the web in different venues.
Apparently, for would be "pioneering" Head Negroes In Charge, who posture as so much better than everyone here, are finding that their touted "promised land" is a dull bust. Hence they keep returning again to a place they dismissed as dead and useless. Bass and others have long said ES was not what it was back in the day, and that is understandable- things, and people move on - and the opponents of old like Madilda and Evil Euro no longer appear to debate as in olden time.
But the Bass, Tukler etc they never haughtily declared themselves as so superior to everyone else, and always valued the info on the forum. This is unlike self-styled Head Negroes. Furthermore the Bass and Tukler always sought to advance the knowledge pool, and always had the sharing of knowledge as one of their bottom lines, whatever the specific disagreements. But notice how different this is from self-styled Head Negroes, who have abandoned that bottom line, and haughtily declare they are so much better, with so much better places to be.
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?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^As has already been exposed by Xyyman, you're now resorting to lying left and right. That is the true extent of your desperation. But it's already known that you habitually lie through your teeth. Case in point:
"In analyses of facial flatness, ancient Egyptians group with other Egyptians and other Africans like Nubians, than with Europeans or Middle Easterners" --Zaharan
^Note the carefully nitpicked image from Hanihara. Hanihara 2000's empirical data doesn't distinguish these Saharan populations from the Middle Eastern and European samples. Quite the opposite is noted by Hanihara et al. The aspects of Brace 1993's analysis that investigated facial flatness came to the same conclusion as Hanihara 2000. It's clear now what Zaharan's real problem with Brace and Strouhal is. Hanihara et al use no racially charged language, and you STILL have a problem with their data. What exactly about Brace, Hannihara and Irish et al is making you so emotional that you'd lie about their findings and dismiss them out of hand?
^Is this your idea of reporting science--cutting the data off that you don't like? Why did you cut this image off below the Nubian samples? Would that have something to do with that you simply cover up any results you don't like with your systematic omissions and lies?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're now comparing populations who migrated to northern regions and returned to equatorial Africa mostly unaltered genetically, to populations whose language phylum originated in the Sahara and who actually had/have uniparental lineages and lithic industries that testify to their deeply intertwined histories with the Sahara and extinct Saharan populations (e.g. Teda, Fulani, Ancient Egyptians Lower Nubians)? What is your point exactly? I have no idea where you're going with this or how anything you're saying refutes what got your panties up in a bunch repeatedly, re: the strong SSA/Sahara divide with certain variables (e.g. Brace 1993, Irish, Hanihara), and a more mild, but still noticeable divide using other variables (e.g. Keita's variable set). Are you going to say something on topic that refutes what got you so emotional or are you just going to keep on trolling?
Out of 24 variables, most of them were nasal and out of the sampled populations NONE were in the Sahel or Saharan, the Sahel is part of SSA and there are numerous populations in the Sahara that are Saharo-tropical. I never disputed the results, its the methodology that somehow AE's don't overlap with SSAs because they are not similar to Haya, Dahomey, Gabon and Zanzibar. Dahomey doesn't represent all of West Africa, smh
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're now comparing populations who migrated to northern regions and returned to equatorial Africa mostly unaltered genetically, to populations whose language phylum originated in the Sahara and who actually had/have uniparental lineages and lithic industries that testify to their deeply intertwined histories with the Sahara and extinct Saharan populations (e.g. Teda, Fulani, Ancient Egyptians Lower Nubians)? What is your point exactly? I have no idea where you're going with this or how anything you're saying refutes what got your panties up in a bunch repeatedly, re: the strong SSA/Sahara divide with certain variables (e.g. Brace 1993, Irish, Hanihara), and a more mild, but still noticeable divide using other variables (e.g. Keita's variable set). Are you going to say something on topic that refutes what got you so emotional or are you just going to keep on trolling?
Out of 24 variables, most of them were nasal and out of the sampled populations NONE were in the Sahel or Saharan, the Sahel is part of SSA and there are numerous populations in the Sahara that are Saharo-tropical. I never disputed the results, its the methodology that somehow AE's don't overlap with SSAs because they are not similar to Haya, Dahomey, Gabon and Zanzibar. Dahomey doesn't represent all of West Africa, smh
Don't the Wolof people of Senegal feature "elongated" type features that are not considered "Negroid" yet they are "Sub-Saharan Africans".
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
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?
Even as regards facial flatness, the issue is that in in analyses of facial flatness, Ancient Egyptians group with other Egyptians (Gizeh, Naqada & Badari) and more with other Africans like Nubians, than with Europeans or 'Middle Easterners.' That's it. But there seems even here to be a curious pattern as to this fact. Nubians as we all know are Africans. The data you mention above also show that Egyptians group with other Africans. Yet this seems to be subtly downplayed. Even the Bass noticed this. COuld this be part of a subtle pattern to downplay the Africanity of Egyptians, as you have been saying all along?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Charlie Bass said: Out of 24 variables, most of them were nasal and out of the sampled populations NONE were in the Sahel or Saharan, the Sahel is part of SSA and there are numerous populations in the Sahara that are Saharo-tropical. I never disputed the results, its the methodology that somehow AE's don't overlap with SSAs because they are not similar to Haya, Dahomey, Gabon and Zanzibar. Dahomey doesn't represent all of West Africa, smh
Indeed. Could it be as Amun-Ra has been saying all along that there is are subtle attempts to downplay the links SSA Africans share with others? Even the fact that Somalis cluster with other sub-Saharan Africans seems to be downplayed. Is this downplaying pattern part of why you questioned use of the obsolete Strouhal and the flawed Brace?
-------------------- 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
Son of Ra says Don't the Wolof people of Senegal feature "elongated" type features that are not considered "Negroid" yet they are "Sub-Saharan Africans".
Why would "elongated features" not be "Negroid"? "Sub-Saharan" Africans or "negroids" in various formulas have the most phenotypic diversity in the world. Do not fall into the "true negro" stereotypical trap that denies the full diversity of Africans. This is what Amun-Ra was warning about all along- how subtle attempts and denial or downplaying were obscuring African diversity, and apparently why the Bass questioned the use of obsolete studies that seemed to follow these stereotypes.
-------------------- 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 |
The inclusion of those samples wouldn't have mattered because the samples you're referring to have ancestry from the same or a similar ancestral source. I've already told you this only to have you spazz out. You're arguing in circles. The Teda, Fulani et al have Saharan ancestry (or something similar) that's driving them to be more similar to the northeast African samples using Brace variable set. The very fact that you can only mention populations whose Saharan-like ancestry has already been attested by Tishkoff and others proves this. Where is your exception to this observation? You have yet to post it.
The truth of the matter is that you're using populations with KNOWN Saharan-like components as evidence that SSA have the Naqada configuration captured by Brace. What kind of logic is that?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Son of Ra says Don't the Wolof people of Senegal feature "elongated" type features that are not considered "Negroid" yet they are "Sub-Saharan Africans".
Why would "elongated features" not be "Negroid"? "Sub-Saharan" Africans or "negroids" in various formulas have the most phenotypic diversity in the world. Do not fall into the "true negro" stereotypical trap that denies the full diversity of Africans. This is what Amun-Ra was warning about all along- how subtle attempts and denial or downplaying were obscuring African diversity, and apparently why the Bass questioned the use of obsolete studies that seemed to follow these stereotypes.
You missed what I was saying. I know there is no such thing as "true Negroid", and trust me I don't fall for no such nonsense.
The discussion is(someone correct me if I am wrong) that Africans with "broad features" AKA "Negroid are considered "true" Sub Saharan Africans while does with non-Broad features are not categorized as sub Saharan Africans. The Wolof iirrc have narrower features and yet they are Sub Sahara African and live in West Africa. Not only that I believe they cluster with other "sub sahara Africans". I think I know where this discussion is at; I just wanted to include the Wolof who maybe would add to this discussion.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
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: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am still not understanding exactly what the point of contention between Charlie and Swenet is. Neither of you agree with Akachi et al, and both of you agree that Egypto-Nubians were indigenous Africans who evolved their particular features in a eastern Saharan context. You see eye-to-eye on the key issues, so why lunge at each others' throats with name-calling and trolling accusations?
That said, it might be worth considering that, throughout the last 130,000 years, the Sahara has fluctuated between green states and states where it was even more inhospitable today. In the latter case (i.e. the last glacial maximum), even the Nile itself was broken up into a string of oases as I recall. Would there really have been a whole bunch of people running around the eastern Sahara during these hyper-arid phases? There are a few remains from this time period like Nazlet Khater, but there's no way they could have outnumbered the population living south of the desert. On the other hand, we would expect the Sahara would have been most heavily populated when it merged with sub-Sahara during the greener stages.
I guess what I mean to ask is whether a lot of people from sub-Saharan latitudes could have migrated north into the eastern Sahara and Nile areas during the latest green phase. Keep in mind that it was the northward drift of the tropical monsoon that turned the Sahara green in the first place, so we would expect the bulk of migration to have come from further south (i.e. the Upper Nile region). Why couldn't such migrations have contributed to later Nile Valley ancestry along with whomever was scrapping a meager living in the eastern Sahara during the last glacial maximum?
I'm not disputing the modern West African/Egypto-Nubian distinction, but who says everyone in sub-Sahara during the late Pleistocene/Early Holocene need look like extant West Africans?
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point of contention is that Zaharan and Charlie can't stand this and will use any means available to them to hide it, obfuscate it and cover it up. I have no idea what's getting them so emotional and teary eyed, to the point where they start to systematically deny and dismiss empirical data that homes in on the ancient populations that are ancestral to the AE. Apparently, the ancestral population doesn't agree with the pre-conceived ideas they've grown emotionally attached to:
quote:Using the Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System to record traits and multivariate statistics to estimate pairwise affinities, it is evident that al Khiday is closely akin to most Holocene samples. It is widely divergent from Jebel Sahaba. As such, there does appear to be long-term biological continuity in the region after all – though with late Pleistocene Upper- instead of Lower Nubians. While it cannot be proven that the al Khiday people were directly related, they are, minimally, indicative of what such an ancestor would be like – assuming that phenetic affinities are indicators of genetic variation.
Charlie, can you explain why this dental pattern is nowhere to be found in native SSA populations and why it appears to be specific to the Sahara?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
^Indeed. But he's making half of it up anyway he has an obsession for the FB group, he can't stop talking about it. He talks about it more than us.
What the person he's talking to forgot to say is there are no casual conversations on the FB group. We strictly posted data and comment on it. If there is no big data to analyze for the moment, there is nothing to say, plain and simple. Not like ES where people go off on tangents and make "conversation" half of the time. If we were to factor that in.. imagine how much worse ES would be off in comparison. The off topic posts on ES are roughly the same amount as the on topic posts.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The point of contention is that Zaharan and Charlie can't stand this and will use any means available to them to hide it, obfuscate it and cover it up. I have no idea what's getting them so emotional and teary eyed, to the point where they start to systematically start to deny and dismiss empirical data that homes in on the ancient populations that are ancestral to the AE. Apparently, the ancestral population doesn't agree with the pre-conceived ideas they've grown emotionally attached to:
quote:Using the Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System to record traits and multivariate statistics to estimate pairwise affinities, it is evident that al Khiday is closely akin to most Holocene samples. It is widely divergent from Jebel Sahaba. As such, there does appear to be long-term biological continuity in the region after all – though with late Pleistocene Upper- instead of Lower Nubians. While it cannot be proven that the al Khiday people were directly related, they are, minimally, indicative of what such an ancestor would be like – assuming that phenetic affinities are indicators of genetic variation.
Charlie, can you explain why this dental pattern is nowhere to be found in native SSA populations and why it appears to be specific to the Sahara?
We get it, Egypto-Nubian dental plans are different from those of West Africans and their Bantu-speaking offshoots. No disputing that. There is still the issue of where this phenotype you keep calling "Saharan" ultimately came from. Like I said, while there were people present in the eastern Sahara during the LGM, they couldn't have been numerous in population due to the super-arid climate, at least not in comparison with whomever was living south of the desert during the same time period. On the other hand, the eastern Sahara region would have been most populous precisely when its climate and vegetation merged with those of sub-Sahara, i.e. during the green phases. In those stages there would have been nothing to prevent geographically sub-Saharan groups from moving north into the Sahara as you know. If you think about it, such movements would have logically swamped whatever populations were already scavenging in the region during previous drier phases.
Given that, could it be possible that the phenotype you keep calling "Saharan" actually is of geographic sub-Saharan origin? It may not necessarily be the case that everyone in Pleistocene/early Holocene sub-Sahara resembled the modern West African type, especially so long before the Bantu expansion. I even recall certain anthropologists calling prehistoric East African crania (e.g. Gamble's Cave in Kenya) "Europid" or "Caucasoid", which may hint that your "Saharan" phenotype did have a presence in sub-Sahara at one point in prehistory.
Posts: 7082 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^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 skeletons you mention may very well not represent a separate clade from Saharan populations, given the tradition of dental ablation among them.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: We get it, Egypto-Nubian dental plans are different from those of West Africans and their Bantu-speaking offshoots. No disputing that.
"we" get it? Did you see to what lengths Zaharan goes, to actively block out/ignore this non- metric discontinuity between SSA and dynastic Egypto-Nubians?
^If this (cutting off images to make unsupported conjecture about the dental relationships between Africans appear consistent with the paper) is not deliberate fraud, I don't know what is.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic