quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] But the bottom portion doesn't' make any difference. As already noted above, it doesn't significantly affect the overall bottom line. Wheter it is included or not, makes no diff overall.
The raw data says the Lower ancient Egyptian limb ratios were closer to Khoisans and Southern Europeans than they were to other Africans
Only it doesn't and no amount of your obfuscation will change that. Overall results stand, and Khosians, dummy, ARE sub-Saharan Africans.
The upper portion of the Raxter statement only applies to the Upper Egyptians
As we can see zarahan is incorrect in his math
All we need to do is compare one male figure to another male figure and note the numerical difference So after you do this only the Khoisans and Upper Egyptians are closer to Lower Egyptians than Southern Europeans The rest of the Africans have a bigger difference than do Southern Europeans compared to Lower Egyptians.
As for females Southern European females are closer Lower Egyptian females than any African, only 0.3 difference
This is why you are never going to see Table 28 in a zarahan graphic
Do the math. it's simple subtraction, return to base
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am the one actually that first cites Table 28 above, and it proves what I say, and exposes the deception of the lying "Jake Speed" where Morpheus is posting.
You tout the .3 distance of the Lower Egypt fems, as if this is something earth-shattering, but the distance to the fem Khosians is not that much either: .5. The "Great White Hope" of female southern Europe is rather small beer. In any event the male indices on top of what I say above indicate a more substantial overall African trend. Indeed, even Raxter confirms the overall bottom line of greater African primacy. None of your "math" points change this bottom line.
You also keep repeating how close the Khosians are to the Lower Egyptians. lol, of course! And the Khosians ARE "Sub-Saharan" Africans. lol
You next try to "distance" the Khosians from other Africans by referring to "Eurasian" admixture. But using your own "supporting" references, it was demonstrated that your "Caucasoid Khosian Mix" was laughably small - most Khosians weighed in with about 5% of that old "Caucasoid" magic mix. And even that is rather recent- about 1,500 years ago. lol.
lioness says Reich and his colleagues found that DNA sequences in the Khoisan people most closely resemble some found in people who today live in southern Europe. That, however, does not mean the migration back to Africa started in Italy or Spain. More likely, the migration began in what is now the Middle East. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^^ lol, now you are trying to say that the Khosians are not sub-Saharan Africans, they must be more related to Europeans.
What you also fail to mention, conveniently, is that Pickrell's 2014 study found rather MINOR "Eurasian" influence among the Khosians. Your would be "Khosian Caucasoid Mix" is rather small beer. Only the Nama reach up to a "huge" 14% "mix". The bulk of the Khosians show a pitiful 5% "Caucasoid mix." Quote:
"The highest levels of west Eurasian ancestry are found in Khoe-Kwadi speakers (Table 1), particularly the Nama, where our estimate of west Eurasian ancestry reaches 14% (though note we cannot distinguish between the impact of recent colonialism and older west Eurasian ancestry in the Nama using this method). Other populations of note include the Khwe, Shua, and Haijjom, who we estimate to have approximately 5% west Eurasian ancestry. The apparent correlation between language group and west Eurasian ancestry may have implications for the origins of this ancestry in southern Africa; we return to this point in the discussion."
and even if there were this 'Eurasian" admixture through East Africa with the Khosians it is rather recent- dated to only 1,500 years ago, millennia after Egyptian civilization was in place. QUOTE:
”Based on these analyses, we can propose a model for the spread of west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa as follows: rst, a large-scale movement of people from west Eurasia into Ethiopia around 3,000 years ago (perhaps from southern Arabia and associated with the D'mt kingdom and the arrival of Ethiosemitic languages) resulted in the dispersal of west Eurasian ancestry throughout eastern Africa.This was then followed by a migration of an admixed population (perhaps pastoralists related to speakers of Khoe-Kwadi languages) from eastern Africa to southern Africa, with admixture occurring approximately 1,500 years ago."
Sorry, both on the "damage control" effort and the "Khosian Caucasoid Mix" angle, you fail again.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
No doubt you will try to tell us about female imports into Egypt from southern Europe. Do you have any data on these reputed ancient white Miss Daisies fluttering into ancient Egypt from Europe?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
whatever Khoisan limb ratios are they are irrelevant to the ancient Egyptians because they are far away from Egypt and have been so thousands of years so they are not candidates of being direct ancestors to dynastic Egyptians
Southern Europeans however are geographically close to Egypt and Levantines even closer
But that doesn't necessarily mean that the dynastic Egyptians were Southern European or in part
all it means is that you can't exclude all Europeans from comparisons to ancient Egyptians based on limb ratios as you often try to do
So don't get your panties in a bunch, Doug understands this point
Also keep in mind populations that are similar genetically and morphologically to the ancient Egyptians are not necessarily descendants of the people who lived in dynastic Egypt
There are two issues, who are most similar to the anceint Egyptians biologically and who has the most generational ancestry to the dynastic Egyptians -this could be two different results
I am not responsible for people making bum guesses as to what I will say next
lioness productions tactical team 4
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The example of Khosians is very relevant because they are "sub-Saharan" and they show the effect of climate. This is why the bogus "jake Speed" tried to exclude them. Khosians heavily move in a similar cooler Medit climate like that of Lower Egypt, and their limb proportions similarly reflect that climatic factor. Likewise Saharan peoples have had climate fluctuations over millennia as they moved back and forth into the Nile Valley under the Saharan "pump." In short, while all agree that there is the possibility of southern European immigration into the Nile Valley- particularly in the later Greek conquest and late New Kingdom when mercenaries were used in Egypt's army, climate factors were in place that easily account for much of the variation in Lower Egypt without needing the oft invoked "race mix" or incoming "European settlers" to explain why. Small scale movement of slaves, traders etc is of course always possible.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
African populations can have a range of crural indexes that overlap other populations whether they be in southern Europe or ancient Europe's tropically adapted populations. While Africans don't go as low on crurals as cold climate Europeans, they post an indigenous range of crurals on the scale falling below the southern Europeans.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I fail to see what End Game you get out of this.....and so far it has not been sufficiently explained. I will put into perspective how pitiful the discussions like this are:
Looking at all the diversity in what has been found in Ancient European DNA : Basal Eurasian, Western Hunter Gatherer, Ancestral Norther Eurasian, Early European Farmer:
quote: Early European Farmer (EEF): apparently this is a hybrid component, the result of mixture between "Basal Eurasians" and a WHG-like population possibly from the Balkans. It's based on a 7500 year old Linearbandkeramik (LBK) sample from Stuttgart, Germany, but today peaks at just over 80% among Sardinians.
West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG): this ancestral component is based on an 8,000 year old forager from the Loschbour rock shelter in Luxembourg, who belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup I2a1b. However, today the WHG component peaks among Estonians and Lithuanians, in the East Baltic region, at almost 50%.
Ancient North Eurasian (ANE): this is the twist in the tale, a component based on a 24,000 year old Upper Paleolithic forager from South Central Siberia, belonging to Y-DNA R*, and known as Mal'ta boy or MA-1. This component was very likely present in Southern Scandinavia since at least the Mesolithic, but only seems to have reached Western Europe after the Neolithic. At some point it also spread into the Americas. In Europe today it peaks among Estonians at just over 18%, and, intriguingly, reaches a similar level among Scots. However, numbers weren't given in the paper for Finns, Russians and Mordovians, who, according to one of the maps, also carry very high ANE, but their results are confounded by more recent Siberian (ENA) admixture.
When you ignore all these details....ignore all the interesting facts about the actual science and migrations......Ignore how these ancient ancestries related to your own ancestry..................and then you correspond with these geneticists for a long period of time in the SOLE ATTEMPT TO GET THEM TO SAY "ANCIENT EUROPEANS WERE WHITE" ............It makes you look like someone of really really of low intelligence. Alternatively, you sound like someone that has a mental problem. Or maybe both.
I agree, these kind of debates are pointless if your end-goals are more substantial than simply passing time on the Internet. No matter what you choose to describe AEs or any other native African population, there are just way too many people who have this aversion to associating them with "Black Africans" in any way. I don't 100% get why this is the case for so many people out there, but I question whether there's anything we can do to address it. In the end it's a simple psychological block with them.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of these guys would shift the goalposts of Black identity precisely to maintain their preconceived prejudice. I have a feeling most white supremacists would gladly cite problems in Ethiopia, Sudan, or Somalia as evidence of "Black African inferiority", but would deny that Black African identification once they're aware of affinities with AE. In which case, they'd switch to the strict, stereotyped West African sense of the word.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beyoku says: ..ignore how these ancient ancestries related to your own ancestry..................and then you correspond with these geneticists for a long period of time in the SOLE ATTEMPT TO GET THEM TO SAY "ANCIENT EUROPEANS WERE WHITE" ..
Well, well.. so then it seems that assorted white "HBD" or "biodiversity" types are writing scholars attempting to get them to say Ancient Europeans were "white." LMAO...
-------------------- 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
@ Zarahan - I think you missed the point of my writing. It was prefixed with this:
quote: I will put into perspective how pitiful the discussions like this are:
The contact with scholars in this instance was fictitious and hypothetical. I was stressing the interesting findings of Ancient European Genetic diversity and how stupid it would be correspond with professionals ignoring EVERYTHING that is interesting about the findings while concentrating on weaseling scholars into saying they were "white." It would be a waste of time and brain cells.
But now that you laugh at it I will take a step further. I would set you up with the question but I will just come out and make the statement 'matter of fact':
OBVIOUSLY you are laughing at the idea of them being "White" while having the ancestral genetic variant of Brown skin. Would this mean they are "Black"? IF so what USEFULNESS is there in using the term black when it applies to European remains, with a European culture, speaking a European language, with uni-parentalals and autosomal genetic diversity that originated in or is most dominant in Europe?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Aye.. Before I was unsure by what you meant, but now I get where you are coming from. "Black" in the context in discussions such as these can be not only "limiting" but confusing. Because like you said there are also remains of bronze aged Europeans with "brown skin", but are they "black". They are definitely NOT African.
Also the Andamanese people look "black", but are they African? Nope. A heavily mixed Dominican is more "black" than those Bronze aged Europeans and Andamanese people.
BUT... I personally consider the Ancient Egyptians "black". IMO if you would have taken an Ancient Egyptian through a time machine and take him to jim crow Mississippi, that Ancient Egyptian would have probably been viewed similar to African Americans at the time. This is just my opinion...
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Beyoku
Aye.. Before I was unsure by what you meant, but now I get where you are coming from. "Black" in the context in discussions such as these can be not only "limiting" but confusing. Because like you said there are also remains of bronze aged Europeans with "brown skin", but are they "black". They are definitely NOT African.
Regardless of how I consider them I would not force MY Definition of "Black" onto a scholar and then get into a SCIENTIFIC reason why they are. Once we start talking about science "Black" ceases to exists, it is descriptive but not indicative of any specific ancestry. Therefore when I want to get into population affinity of an ancient people the term Black is useless, its more than useless. Its even more useless than how euroclowns use "Caucasoid" as a descriptor of ancestry.
Once I (we) get passed an elementary level of Egyptology and Physical Anthropology (at the level ANY ES member SHOULD be) "Black" is pretty much useless in talking about the population affinity and genetic heterogeneity in terms of Saharan pastoralists, Red Sea Pastoralists, Western Desert Farmers, Proto AA humans, Proto NS humans, The Ethnic affinity of Aqualithic Eastward and Westward migrants, Wavy line Potters, Trans Saharan refugees and migrants, Wet Saharan migrants etc etc etc the list goes on.. When we want to discuss these populations and their affinity, how they connect and relate culturally/biologically/linguistically/ to humans today in and out of the continent : "Black" simply does not cut it! Telling me the populations were "Black" is the least amount of info to be gleaned.
I am calling out all intellectual Busters that would waste the time of scholars, not looking for them to shed any light on the groups above and how they relate to the peopling of Mesolithic/Holoscene/Neolithic Africa..............................and would instead goad scholars to concede that the amalgum of these populations in the Nile Valley carried the same skin tones as European Hunter Gatherers and nearly every population around the globe prior to 10'000 years ago. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Beyoku
Aye.. Before I was unsure by what you meant, but now I get where you are coming from. "Black" in the context in discussions such as these can be not only "limiting" but confusing. Because like you said there are also remains of bronze aged Europeans with "brown skin", but are they "black". They are definitely NOT African.
Regardless of how I consider them I would not force MY Definition of "Black" onto a scholar and then get into a SCIENTIFIC reason why they are. Once we start talking about science "Black" ceases to exists, it is descriptive but not indicative of any specific ancestry. Therefore when I want to get into population affinity of an ancient people the term Black is useless, its more than useless. Its even more useless than how euroclowns use "Caucasoid" as a descriptor of ancestry.
Once I (we) get passed an elementary level of Egyptology and Physical Anthropology (at the level ANY ES member SHOULD be) "Black" is pretty much useless in talking about the population affinity and genetic heterogeneity in terms of Saharan pastoralists, Red Sea Pastoralists, Western Desert Farmers, Proto AA humans, Proto NS humans, The Ethnic affinity of Aqualithic Eastward and Westward migrants, Wavy line Potters, Trans Saharan refugees and migrants, Wet Saharan migrants etc etc etc the list goes on.. When we want to discuss these populations and their affinity, how they connect and relate culturally/biologically/linguistically/ to humans today in and out of the continent : "Black" simply does not cut it! Telling me the populations were "Black" is the least amount of info to be gleaned.
I am calling out all intellectual Busters that would waste the time of scholars, not looking for them to shed any light on the groups above and how they relate to the peopling of Mesolithic/Holoscene/Neolithic Africa..............................and would instead goad scholars to concede that the amalgum of these populations in the Nile Valley carried the same skin tones as European Hunter Gatherers and nearly every population around the globe prior to 10'000 years ago.
Agreed 100%! "Black" is totally useless if we were to have scientific discussions like these. So its no duh that mainstream scientific scholars would refrain from using the term. Like I said using the term black would only cause confusions.
Black can be used for historical discussions, for example historical discussions about the Ancient Egyptians and how there are some Greek texts referring them to black, but when it start talking in the field of science that's when terms such as "black" should be out aside.
Again I totally get what you're saying when you say "black doesn't give us a bigger picture".
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Zarahan - I think you missed the point of my writing. It was prefixed with this:
quote: I will put into perspective how pitiful the discussions like this are:
The contact with scholars in this instance was fictitious and hypothetical. I was stressing the interesting findings of Ancient European Genetic diversity and how stupid it would be correspond with professionals ignoring EVERYTHING that is interesting about the findings while concentrating on weaseling scholars into saying they were "white." It would be a waste of time and brain cells.
But now that you laugh at it I will take a step further. I would set you up with the question but I will just come out and make the statement 'matter of fact':
OBVIOUSLY you are laughing at the idea of them being "White" while having the ancestral genetic variant of Brown skin. Would this mean they are "Black"? IF so what USEFULNESS is there in using the term black when it applies to European remains, with a European culture, speaking a European language, with uni-parentalals and autosomal genetic diversity that originated in or is most dominant in Europe?
It it was fictitious that you should be more clear. No one is here to read your mind. And why would you need any such "fictitious" scenario? There are a number of "biodiversity" types doing precisely that- asking scholars to say such and such ancients were white. They may not duplicate the exact approach of tropicals, but they are doing similar things. Madilda herself some years ago I recall referenced her correspondence along those lines.
And I am not laughing at the idea of them being white while having brown skin. *roll eyes**. Dusky Italians with nut brown skin are still recognized as "white" in Euro race constructs. Who doesn't know this? The idea of writing scholars and trying to get them to endorse a "white Egypt" or whatever desired ancient "Caucasoid of the month." in the light of data debunking such, is what is laughable.
As for spending time on well-worn 1990s debates when there is so much other interesting info that can be asked- sure, I have no problem with that. If I was writing Kemp I would not waste the relatively short window of opportunity these academics allow with certain social construct matters, and semantics which will can go around and around in circles.
In certain cases, where scholars have put out recent articles involving weak social construct claims then it is appropriate to write to them as seek clarification. In other cases where they put out more technical claims that tie into social constructs, it is also appropriate to seek clarification as well. Hence the Yurco admission on the "racial" Book Of Gates discussed on various threads. Yurco admitted certain things were shaky, because someone put together a reasonable query with reasonable supporting data, to challenge him. Such queries are old news- here's one from a decade ago.
And here's Truthcentric writing to Ehret about something Madilda claimed. After receiving the reply, he concluded that Madilda was lying. Was his effort "pitiful" in cross-checking Madilda's claim? Or do you hold such opinions selectively, depending on if a buddy is involved? http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006733
"First of all, Mathilda is not a credible source. She has been known to outright lie when it suits her. For instance, to back up an opinion of hers that Afroasiatic is of Eurasian rather than African origin, she's claimed, without citing a source, that proto-Afroasiatic contains words for Eurasian animals like camels and horses. However, when I corresponded with an actual linguist (Christopher Ehert) who is an expert in Afroasiatic, he told me that those words for Eurasian animals do not exist in any valid reconstruction of proto-Afroasiatic! I must conclude that Mathilda was pulling those words out of her ass." =============================================================================
It must also be remembered that issues such as population affinities in NE Africa are very much alive both among academia and among laymen. Keita for example has an abiding interest in such things- he has not abandoned such concerns in the field as "out of date." Here is what he has to say circa 2015: =============================================================================
"The Fula, variously called Fulani, Fulbe, Pula, Peul, have sometimes been seen as an “anomaly” in tropical West Africa, due to the physiognomy and skin color of the most distinctive subgroups, which on average have been noted to usually be different than the West African stereotype. Many have narrow noses and faces and “copper” colored skin. Fulani communities can be found in the Sahel belt from Senegal to Sudan, with southern extensions into the Cameroons. In a recent report the “origin” of the Fulani is said to be “unknown” with “tradition” relating them to “Hiksos and Nubians”, and their language is said to be related to Berber, an Afrosiatic family (Rosa et al. 2004). However, current research places the group’s “homeland” in West Africa (Keita et al. 2010, McIntosh and Scheinfeldt 2012), and the Fulani language in the Niger-Congo family (Ruhlen 1991). The Hyksos (‘Hiksos’) invaded Egypt from the Near East in about 1800 BC and likely were Semitic speakers. They were defeated and eventually returned to Asia. There is no evidence that they reached western Africa or penetrated into the populations of the Sahara or Sahel, and there is nothing about the Fulani that would seem to be primary evidence that indicates a specific Hyksos origin. The Nubians, who live in southern Egypt and Sudan, speak languages in the Nilo-Saharan family, and while there are populations that speak languages in this family far to the west of the Nile Valley there is nothing specifically Nubian that would make for convincing evidence that the Fulani have a specific Nubian origin. In short neither Hyksos nor Nubians can be shown to have likely been the ancestral group at the root of the historical origins of the Fulani. In terms of historiography these accounts are not justified.
The Balanta are another example, a population having some mtDNA signatures that are unexpected in the Senegambia. Specifically they have haplogroups that are called “Eurasian.” .. Also current research suggests that the ‘kushites’ of the Nile Valley are believed to have spoken a language from the Nilo-Saharan family. Furthermore, the Balanta do not speak a Bantu language, and this family is not thought to date to the Pleistocene, but rather be of late mid-Holocene date at the earliest. The Niger Congo (or Niger Kordofanian family) does have a branch in the Sudan—Kordofanian, but it is not linguistically close to the Balanta. Current research does not speak of ‘camitic’ invasions, and it is not certain to which ‘invasions’ the authors refer. ‘Camitic” is a synonym for Hamitic, a term no longer in common usage in modern African studies because the theories associated with it have been proven wrong..."
"The primary issue concerns the “peopling” of Nile valley, and how this happened. This means examining data that can plumb different time depths. The evidence can come from archaeology, various texts, in addition to the biological data. Is the north-south description of variants valid for all markers? Is it possible that the model positing the interaction of idealised discrete groups is false, and that a model that postulates more populations more as processes is more accurate? Archaeological data support the post-glacial re-peopling of the eastern Sahara after the long late pleistocene hiatus (Wendorf and Schild 1980, 2001), probably from multiple directions. " --Keita 2015. HISTORY AND GENETICS IN AFRICA: A NEED FOR BETTER COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TEAMS =============================================================================
^Keita also addresses " “back migrations to Africa” (he puts the phrase in quotes)" among other things, and demonstrates that these issues are far from "dead." Quite the contrary. The key is asking enough specific questions to make the interaction with these scholars productive, and having value in turn to provide to said scholars like additional references and summaries. Some like Keita actually welcome that- and have called for such publicly.
We have no real disagreement on getting as much value as possible out of correspondence with the various scholars. Sure- value added is good. And Morpheus is fine tuning his queries all the time to do so, and like Truthcentric, he will no doubt glean enough information to debunk assorted "biodiversity" claimants, as indeed he is now doing.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Beyoku
Aye.. Before I was unsure by what you meant, but now I get where you are coming from. "Black" in the context in discussions such as these can be not only "limiting" but confusing. Because like you said there are also remains of bronze aged Europeans with "brown skin", but are they "black". They are definitely NOT African.
Regardless of how I consider them I would not force MY Definition of "Black" onto a scholar and then get into a SCIENTIFIC reason why they are. Once we start talking about science "Black" ceases to exists, it is descriptive but not indicative of any specific ancestry. Therefore when I want to get into population affinity of an ancient people the term Black is useless, its more than useless. Its even more useless than how euroclowns use "Caucasoid" as a descriptor of ancestry.
Once I (we) get passed an elementary level of Egyptology and Physical Anthropology (at the level ANY ES member SHOULD be) "Black" is pretty much useless in talking about the population affinity and genetic heterogeneity in terms of Saharan pastoralists, Red Sea Pastoralists, Western Desert Farmers, Proto AA humans, Proto NS humans, The Ethnic affinity of Aqualithic Eastward and Westward migrants, Wavy line Potters, Trans Saharan refugees and migrants, Wet Saharan migrants etc etc etc the list goes on.. When we want to discuss these populations and their affinity, how they connect and relate culturally/biologically/linguistically/ to humans today in and out of the continent : "Black" simply does not cut it! Telling me the populations were "Black" is the least amount of info to be gleaned.
I am calling out all intellectual Busters that would waste the time of scholars, not looking for them to shed any light on the groups above and how they relate to the peopling of Mesolithic/Holoscene/Neolithic Africa..............................and would instead goad scholars to concede that the amalgum of these populations in the Nile Valley carried the same skin tones as European Hunter Gatherers and nearly every population around the globe prior to 10'000 years ago.
Agreed 100%! "Black" is totally useless if we were to have scientific discussions like these. So its no duh that mainstream scientific scholars would refrain from using the term. Like I said using the term black would only cause confusions.
Black can be used for historical discussions, for example historical discussions about the Ancient Egyptians and how there are some Greek texts referring them to black, but when it start talking in the field of science that's when terms such as "black" should be out aside.
Again I totally get what you're saying when you say "black doesn't give us a bigger picture".
Black does have validity in science when talking about biological adaptations to environments producing dark skin. Meaning skin color is part of human biological and evolutionary development and is just as scientific as the study of skeletal metrics and other metrics. The PROBLEM is white European scientists created "race science" and use skin color one of the primary metrics for their racial classification schemes. And now because of the negative stigma associated with discussions of skin color because of it some people avoid it in science. But I DISAGREE with that nonsense. European science and its hypocrisy and contradictions regarding the use of terminology and classifications in order to promote white supremacy are the problem. Humans are diverse and any study of human history and anthropology should reflect all characteristics of that diversity. To say that we should leave skin color out of it because Europeans have misused it is a cop out. Africans never did such a thing so why on earth should we be dancing around it when we should be upholding it most of all? Not saying we should be promoting black supremacy but being proud of the skin you are in is perfectly normal and natural.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@zarahan . Looking at the context of the thread. Truthcentric was in shaky ground in the first place regarding his convictions of AE bio affinity. With that said he asked real questions to Ehret. In that example it was not a waste of time. That was over 5 years ago and Mathilda is irrelevant as she left the scene 5 years ago.
Reg: Fulani. Are they not a genetic anomaly in west Africa? I fail to see what the argument is. I don't even know why you pasted that wall of text if you agree that Tropicals and Morpheus are wasting time with rehashed stuff from 10 years ago. Those questions they asked are like a amateur hour in africana
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I never expected to get much out of that VNN thread, but I've grown weary of trolling them alongside Morph. You can only debate with willfully obtuse people so long before they bore or frustrate you and you remember the utter futility of the whole exercise.
I will say though that the Jake Speed character is especially obnoxious. He doesn't seem to be one of the white supremacists, but he IS an arrogant blowhard who's convinced himself that ANY characterization of AE as primarily African is "Afrocentric black supremacism". I bet he'd even consider the likes of beyoku or Swenet to be "Afrocentrists" since they're not totally down with his claims of Lower Egyptians always being "Mediterranean".
And frankly those kind of people are the most aggravating of all. They present themselves as champions of science or history, yet they can be just as biased and obtuse as any honest racialist. As much as reasoning with them is impossible, it is unfortunate that there's such a sizable contigent of supposed "liberal rationalists" that is still so savagely hostile to African AE to the point of calling it inherently "black supremacist".
posted
Ancient DNA from the Kushite population in various era:
In the Neolithic, Meroitic (Kingdom) and Post-Meroitic era all the haplogroups collected from the Kushite individuals are from the African A(M13) and E(YAP) haplogroups. There's no individual from Eurasian haplogroups.
In the Christian Era, there's no more specimen from the A haplogroup. The Eurasian F (M89) haplogroup begin to appear in the christian era (obviously). In the whole study, three individuals are from unknown haplogroups; probably from other African A and B haplogroups by the process of elimination.
This is very interesting because the Neolithic era near the Sudan/Egypt border is where Ancient Egyptians and Kushites had their common origin and we see there was no Eurasian haplogroups at that time. If there was Eurasian haplogroups they would have been rare.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: You know, I never expected to get much out of that VNN thread, but I've grown weary of trolling them alongside Morph. You can only debate with willfully obtuse people so long before they bore or frustrate you and you remember the utter futility of the whole exercise. .
You have to realize what type of people your are dealing with. I dont know if I still have the image, it was maybe from 10 years ago. On some debate on a shitty forum they banned me. Private messages between someone posing as a white supremacist and the Admin that removed my post and banned me basically admitted they didnt believe an any "White Egypt" theories....and the evidence that I submitted could not be countered and may be too tough for the poor readers to accept. That is why they deleted my post and banned me. 'Knowing that the hypothesis is false there are still others that can hold true to white Egypt ideals and not have their faith shaken by the evidence i posted.'
The conversation went something like that, then with the person posing as a WN asking the mod why wouldn't they just admit it. Subsequently that person was banned too. Dont remember the forum but it not longer exists. This is the type of person you are dealing with. With folks like this it is a waste of time to argue. Understand you are entering a WHITE SUPREMACIST site to argue with them. They are not SANE in the first place, they are losers, usually uneducated.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree with some of what tropicals is doing, if indeed he is misusing the academics as charged elsewhere. Morpheus I more agree with- and only would say that value be added/extracted for ANY correspondence (whoever is doing it) with these academics, which he looks to be doing.
And from what I have seen Morpheus has also asked real questions similar to what Truthcentric asked Ehret. Ehret has been cautioning about the would be Middle Eastern migration claims for over 2 decades now. He was an old argument at the time Truthcentric wrote him. Why someone would spend time to write Ehret to counter someone like Madilda, whether it be 5 years ago or 3 years ago, can also be criticized. I don't see Morpheus' queries as any less worthy than Truthcentric. They are just as valid.
In any event, these themes pop up in very current arguments- whether in popular books about human evolutionary history or scientific papers. Keita's latest cited above, talks at length about such issues. Madilda may be gone for now, but Keita, and Graves show these issues are very much alive.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Truthcentric was asking of something very specific regarding unsourced Eurasian specific root words in Proto Afro-Asiatic. Truthcentric is not a linguist and wouldn't know of such info that is why he referred to an expert in linguistics. Are you telling me you know the specifics regarding Eurasian loan words in Proto-AA? Have you read any linguistic books that deal with Proto-AA (If so please name them.)
That is totally different than wasting time about skin tone....or asking for a sample size in a document you can simply OPEN and READ to get the sample size! It is LAZY. You may think its all good but spamming walls of text and rehashed quotes massaged with images that are not even in the context of the quote...but its just preaching to the choir who cant even sing. It gets redundant...It gets old and it has gotten to the point were I am calling it out.
COLLECTIVELY, the people that post on ES would get OWNED in an argument about Egyptian Biological affinity....or North African Biological Affinity. Once someone asks specifics...or ask things to be explain in a way that does not use a quotebox ES is doomed.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the question Truthcentric asked can also be criticized as wasted "amateur" time, since Ehret long ago put data on the table that debunks Madilda multiple times. And I have seen other questions Morpheus has asked and they are a lot more specific than mere characterization of "Skin tone." You simply don't know but presume to lecture as if you are a notable "guru" of righteousness. And per own admission, you spend huge amounts of "wasted" time repeating the same arguments again and again to the very same racialists and racist forums- some of whom you complain above have "banned" you. If you are concerned about "wasted" time check your own behavior. And the information and quotes are some of what you yourself have used when it fits your purposes. Indeed people who support you on said forums themselves use the same quotes and information we all do from Keita, etc etc. But you have no problem when that information suits your agenda. Your holier than thou posture, as if you are so much better than everyone else gets old as well.
And if ES is such a bad place, what are you doing here? Shouldn't you concentrate your efforts in the same "mo betta" racialist forums where you complain above about the people being such uneducated losers? Why do you spend your time among the uneducated losers in a white forum, if as you say "With folks like this it is a waste of time to argue"?
If they are so much more more "worthy" of your time than the mere negroes here on ES, why are you even here? You had no problem criticizing Morpheus for "wasted" correspondence, but suddenly change you tune when its your buddy Truthcentric sending out the same correspondence on matters long ago detailed by Ehret. Suddenly, THAT's OK then. Check your double standards.
Look, as I said before, I don't seen any whopping disagreement here. I have no problem with getting greater value from correspondence. I would have asked Keita for example a different set of initial questions, as I said on the other thread. But if Morpheus is getting clarification on something, and is continually fine tuning how he does this- well more power to him. Rather than his efforts being run down as somehow "unworthy", he should be commended for defending Africa, its history, and its diversity, as many others here do and have done. The information we ALL use in such battles, debates or simple info sharing is important in doing just that. If you feel you are so much better than everyone else, and such an expert, well then, go for it. And if you feel the questions you have to ask various academics are so much more important well go for it by all means. The more the merrier.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading and comprehension man. I clearly stated that conversation took place about 10 YEARS AGO! NOW, Nearly all my talk on AE bio history has to do with identifying African heterogeneous substratums that existed in the Northern half of the continent in ancient times and how migrations lead to the peopling today. That is pretty much it. Those are the mysteries that have not been solved. Also I don't think I ever use your collages dude, I think they are outdated, inappropriate, and a distasteful way of delivering information. I actually have brought this up before so you know my stance on that.
As for you being privy to discussions of substance between Morpheus and Scholar X...that's all good. That is the kind of stuff that should be posted at ES. Or maybe ES gets the crap....maybe this is like the instance where 50 Cents interviews with GQ and describes business and investing OTOH when interviewing with The Source magazine he talks about busting guns, drugs, hoes and money?
I am here cause some jackass called my name. While I am here I am going to call BS as I see it.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there are still a lot of key issues, some old unfortunately, that have not been resolved though the landscape is a lot more balanced than 20 yrs ago. The collages were always secondary to the actual text quotes which is what gets more duplicated on the web - and they were developed in part to educate newer readers, and to counter some of what Madilda, Salassin, Anglo etc were putting out at the time. They have also come in pretty handy for other fighters or info seekers on the web, and have been updated as needed with new ones, and reformatted as old enemies like Anglo and White Nord fade. Some fundamentals of course never change, such as Africa's greater diversity. With some for example the fundamentals have to be stressed. They have not yet substantially moved beyond Diop 1964. Even scholar Graves above is still using old stuff, circa 2013, in what is supposed to be a mainstream reference.
Yeah some might say it could be like your 50-cent example. Different audiences (and enemies), at different times, might need different formatting though ultimately its all the same info, and whatever the venue, we are all after the same thing ultimately. There are various levels and street-corners people can work. I think you are doing some needed work on ForumBiodiversity- kudos to you- and I am in agreement with you as to getting as much value for the limited time period in which these scholars might correspond- keeping the powder dry for key targets. Peace.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Well there are still a lot of key issues, some old unfortunately, that have not been resolved though the landscape is a lot more balanced than 20 yrs ago.
This is my gripe right now. I dont know of any old key issues you speak of that have not been solved. Whatever they are they dont seem to be discussed here. New key issues? They dont seem to be discussed here either, nor with scholars who instead are hounded about the simplicity of "Blackness" and that correspondence IS discussed here. This is why I said in my last post that collectively ES would get owned in a Biological affinity argument on Egypt. Keita quotes will not be able to save ES.
From my analysis of ES's decline over the years......the most productive member on the site as far as delivering content that has not been seen is Lioness. And Lioness is a troll. That does not bode well.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ here is a person that defines anybody who is not part of the mob, who has independant opinions, as a "troll" and further contradicts the meaning of the term by saying that that person contributes content
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ here is a person that defines anybody who is not part of the mob, who has independant opinions, as a "troll" and further contradicts the meaning of the term by saying that that person contributes content
I have been here long enough to recognize your antics and remember your actions when you were first introduced to this site. Once a troll always a troll. The fact that the most contributing member came to Egyptsearch in order to troll it does not bode well.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
But just to point out I don't see the need to lynch the OP. I feel he just wanted to share his discussion he had with a scholar.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ At this point I think we need a bit of self reflection in order to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Online forums like this one that deal more so in Bio-Anthropology and not simply "Egyptology" have all recently made a push into more hard science with the abundance of published data dealing with the recent advances in population genetics. ES needs to be critiqued...this is not a blame game.
This is where Egyptsearch has dropped the ball without even going into the Administration issues:
-Collectively there is a lack of understanding of the data or at least a lack of application of this knowledge in any type of THOROUGH investigation/hypothesis into African Bio-history. Sure things are glossed over, we all know about E-M78 in the Balkans, but these ideas are not discussed in depth here.....they are more used as soundbytes to argue with white folks. This is where ES fails compared to other Bio/Anthro forums. While most of this is our own fault, other Euro demographic Forum have the luxury of not being a haven to refute Afrocentric myth and are more geared to the study of themselves. There can be no in-depth discussion of African Substructure if the most vocal members of the site think 'All Africans are genetically close to each other' and ideas like this pretty much run unchecked. This decline is all the more evident with the exodus of veteran members. As it stands NOW National Geographic would not needs to make a list refuting or copying the theories of ES as there is no new theory from ES to refute/copy. (To 2009 Members, it would seem that Nat Geo was reading ES and compiled the data you see from ES knowledge-base.....of course the story is more complicated but this is the just of it.)
-ES lacks the knowledge or the Will to use publicly available tools to analyze publicly available data-sets. This simply is what it is and I dont think we can fault anyone. I would have hoped younger members being more technically inclined would have picked up this slack but it does not seem to be the case. We can rant and rave about STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE and how it fails to capture the diversity of SSA but collectively ES is not using publicly available tools to analyze data and form our own hypothesis. Other forums have members that do this, ES misses out big with this.
-ES Members lack the Will, Interest or financial resources to use commercially available companies in analyzing our own Genomic data and seeing how it relates to what we study. Dont know the reason behind it. I think only a hand full of folks have been tested...maybe 5. In other Forum this is a focal point of discussion both in terms of Uni-Parental data and Autosomal. Knowledge of self also leads to the discussion of SELF and away from refuting others which is more of a circular waste of time.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: There can be no in-depth discussion of African Substructure if the most vocal members of the site think 'All Africans are genetically close to each other'
It's not that all African populations are genetically close to each other. But African populations are usually genetically (and culturally) closer to each others than they are to Eurasian populations. That much is obvious. Not you or anybody can deny this.
As Keita have noted many times, most African populations are related through the same paternal lineage E-P2 (PN2). He calls it the "PN2 Bridge". So most Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers share the same paternal lineages as well as sharing maternal lineages and being close autosomally. Ramses III was determined to be of this lineage (P2/E1b1a).
Clearly African populations like Somali are closer to other African populations like Yoruba or African Americans than Europeans (CEU) despite recent Eurasian admixtures in East Africa. 0.019/0.015 is lower than 0.024.
The shared lineages and genetics is important to analyse the history of African populations.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
You ran off only to repeat the same nonsense here. As we speak NOW there is a cline of Ancestry/diversity that starts as usual from Hunter Gatherers/Khoi Pastoralists - And proceeds smoothly into the Middle East. Practically ALL Sub Saharan and African populations will be intermediate between Khoisan and Bedouin. Some will be closer to the Khoi (TWA) while others will be very close to the Bedouin (Mozabite). This genetic cline is based on many factors. OOA, African sub Structure. African --> Eurasian geneflow, Eurasian --> African gene flow. etc etc. The fact that the shared admixture happened AFTER OOA is EXACTLY THE POINT!
Looking at that chart linked above the ENTIRE CLINE OF Eurasians centered on Sardinians FITS IN BETWEEN the distance of Jo Hoan North to African Americans.
IN that same link I quote from the article that clearly states:
quote: The African diversity estimate is even higher than that between Africans and Eurasians
Repetition for emphasis :
quote: The African diversity estimate is even higher than that between Africans and Eurasians
Notice the world BETWEEN.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ At this point I think we need a bit of self reflection in order to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Online forums like this one that deal more so in Bio-Anthropology and not simply "Egyptology" have all recently made a push into more hard science with the abundance of published data dealing with the recent advances in population genetics. ES needs to be critiqued...this is not a blame game.
I understand 100% where you are coming from. And I'll even admit that in bio-anthropology that I am really still in the "basics" and have a lot of learning to do. I'm more versed in History. This seems to be the case for most on Egyptsearch, which isn't a bad thing imo... But history irrelevant in bio-anthropology discussions.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: This is where Egyptsearch has dropped the ball without even going into the Administration issues:
-Collectively there is a lack of understanding of the data or at least a lack of application of this knowledge in any type of THOROUGH investigation/hypothesis into African Bio-history. Sure things are glossed over, we all know about E-M78 in the Balkans, but these ideas are not discussed in depth here.....they are more used as soundbytes to argue with white folks.
As a new member I actually seem this. Studies not being studied in depth, but only being used as a tool against Eurocentrics. This is not a bad thing as I still do this on other sites, but again like you said that's not getting the full understandings of the data. Point is the 'Africanness' of Ancient Egypt has been won a long whole ago(at least in the academia online community). what else is there to prove? Now resources shoild be focused on "finding some of those mysteries/new ides." I believe that is what you are trying to hit home.
We already know most the Ancient Egyptians were [I]"black"[/], but what populations did they cluster closely to in Africa? What were their migrations? And were they homogeneous or heterogeneous. Not that I am just trying to paraphrase what you been saying in how I read it.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: This is where ES fails compared to other Bio/Anthro forums. While most of this is our own fault, other Euro demographic Forum have the luxury of not being a haven to refute Afrocentric myth and are more geared to the study of themselves. There can be no in-depth discussion of African Substructure if the most vocal members of the site think 'All Africans are genetically close to each other' and ideas like this pretty much run unchecked. This decline is all the more evident with the exodus of veteran members. As it stands NOW National Geographic would not needs to make a list refuting or copying the theories of ES as there is no new theory from ES to refute/copy. (To 2009 Members, it would seem that Nat Geo was reading ES and compiled the data you see from ES knowledge-base.....of course the story is more complicated but this is the just of it.)
Good points and interesting. Yeah I heard ES was pretty big back in the day. Heck just looking at the older threads. Being that this is the internet I am not surprised that some data posted on ES influenced some mainstream scholars, but yeah just arguing back and forth with old studies could stump the growth of ES.
I'm not gonna sit here and lie, I too am in a habit of continuing to use old studies and even theories.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
-ES lacks the knowledge or the Will to use publicly available tools to analyze publicly available data-sets. This simply is what it is and I dont think we can fault anyone. I would have hoped younger members being more technically inclined would have picked up this slack but it does not seem to be the case. We can rant and rave about STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE and how it fails to capture the diversity of SSA but collectively ES is not using publicly available tools to analyze data and form our own hypothesis. Other forums have members that do this, ES misses out big with this.
-ES Members lack the Will, Interest or financial resources to use commercially available companies in analyzing our own Genomic data and seeing how it relates to what we study. Dont know the reason behind it. I think only a hand full of folks have been tested...maybe 5. In other Forum this is a focal point of discussion both in terms of Uni-Parental data and Autosomal. Knowledge of self also leads to the discussion of SELF and away from refuting others which is more of a circular waste of time. [/qb]
I do one day would like to test my Autosomal DNA one day. My older sister who is in Ethiopia right now said she wants to get a ancestry DNA test and asked my mother and even grandfather to take the test with her, because they would be needed. But yeah I know of forums like Biodiversity having discussions about their Autosomal DNA. One of the few things I find interesting about that site.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: [QB] The fact that the shared admixture happened AFTER OOA is EXACTLY THE POINT!
Well, it's not only after. Most modern West African populations share the CT haplogroup with Europeans populations (as well as maternal and autosomal dna). The E and F haplogroups most common in Africa and Europe respectively are all descendants of the CT haplogroup. The study I posted above with the table of genetic distances show us that Eurasian populations have haplotypes specific to Yoruba from West Africa dating from the OOA migrations (it is surprising even to me)!
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Amun-Ra The Ultimate - That is a minor point of the text that is totally unrelated to what we are now discussing. Notice the bolded text i quoted from the article you linked:
"The African diversity estimate is even higher than that between Africans and Eurasians"
This is why i said : Looking at that chart linked above the ENTIRE CLINE OF Eurasians centered on Sardinians FITS IN BETWEEN the distance of Jo Hoan North to African Americans."
There is no genetically homogeneous mass of black people on the continent. There are clusters and clines and multidirectional admixtures. Think of an island like Cuba. There is a 3 way mixture of mostly European, West African and Amerindian ancestry. There is a mass of folks with different admixtures making them closer to different source populations. Why don't you MAN UP and give an explanation of the Text AND of the image linked.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Your quote and opinion have no value when I just posted a genetic distance table using full genome so we can check things out for ourselves...
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: As a new member I actually seem this. Studies not being studied in depth, but only being used as a tool against Eurocentrics. This is not a bad thing as I still do this on other sites, but again like you said that's not getting the full understandings of the data. Point is the 'Africanness' of Ancient Egypt has been won a long whole ago(at least in the academia online community). what else is there to prove? Now resources shoild be focused on "finding some of those mysteries/new ides." I believe that is what you are trying to hit home.
We already know most the Ancient Egyptians were "black", but what populations did they cluster closely to in Africa? What were their migrations? And were they homogeneous or heterogeneous. Not that I am just trying to paraphrase what you been saying in how I read it.
Ideally we would get away from the whole "were AE 'Black'" question and shift to more specific questions like what you suggested. Problem is that there aren't that many venues for such discussions. If ES posters seem fixated on arguing that AE were "Black", the rest of the Internet won't even entertain a non-Eurasian affinity for them. I certainly can't see such advanced discussions as you propose happening on ForumBiodiversity or Anthroscape, where all their interest in Africa has Hamiticist underpinnings. How are you going to raise a discussion on which African populations contributed the most to AE (still a worthy question IMO) in front of people who won't even see them as African?
That's not to say such issues can't be raised somewhere. They absolutely could. But it would require people who knew something about African populations and history and didn't have this or that racial ax to grind. Outside of exclusive Facebook groups, where are you going to find such a community if it isn't ES? Not being sarcastic here, I would honestly appreciate suggestions.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Outside of exclusive Facebook groups
You must be joking this holier-than-thou shitt gets old. You, beyoku and swenet must be some of the most stupid and racist idiots out there. Even in this thread, always looking out to separate Ancient Egyptians from most African populations including African-Americans. Even Ramses III being E1b1a or Keita's talk of the PN2 bridge or the DNA Tribes results or the ancient neolithic DNA from the Sudan/Egypt border doesn't stop your buffoonery.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Watch the Amun Ra fraud run away from explaining why Mota has seemingly no Eurasian ancestry, yet it's positioned intermediately between North Africans, Middle Easteners and West Africans.
What is Amun Bla going to do next, convince himself that the authors are "wasists" and "widicilous", abandon this thread in panic and resurface elsewhere with his previously debunked crackpot quackery when he thinks the coast is clear? Lol. Buffoon. Every forum he posts on, people think of him as an incompetent buffoon at best and a fraud at worst.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
What you say doesn't matter. You're being stupid only by bringing this up like some kind of great argument.
Ancient Egyptians probably also have an intermediary position between West Africans and Eurasians. It doesn't mean they are not genetically closer, share more genes with West African and other African populations as current aDNA from Ancient Egyptian mummies have demonstrated. Ancient Egyptians are still genetically closer to most African populations than West Asians or European populations. For the most part they originate in Africa, they are indigenous Africans, they are not from those regions.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blessed by Horus says: We already know most the Ancient Egyptians were [I]"black"[/], but what populations did they cluster closely to in Africa? What were their migrations? And were they homogeneous or heterogeneous.
But all these are "old" issues as well. We already know they cluster mostly with other northeast Africans. We already know their migration patterns such as via the Saharan "pump" as well as movement from the Sudanic area, Sahara and elsewhere, depending on era examined. Isn't all this "old news"? Why does it keep coming up even in these other forums that are supposed to be so much better? Why do these other places talk about such "old" issues so much? And why does Keita allude to such "old" issues circa 2015?
Problem is that there aren't that many venues for such discussions. If ES posters seem fixated on arguing that AE were "Black", the rest of the Internet won't even entertain a non-Eurasian affinity for them. Sure venues are limited. But its a strawman to say ALL ES posters are "fixated" on arguing about Blackness. Matter of fact quite a few have pointed out the problems with an uncritical use of the word. Hell even Amun-Ra has warned against blind claims about "black" this and that. Now SOME people may throw around the word loosely, others do not, or prefer better, more accurate terminology. This too is an old issue. But if as you say people on these other Forums refuse to even accept the basics about African diversity, then what's the point of spending so much time there?
I certainly can't see such advanced discussions as you propose happening on ForumBiodiversity or Anthroscape, where all their interest in Africa has Hamiticist underpinnings.
Well then, these other forums are just as biased as anything here on ES. They just have more people, people with more time, and owners/admins that have the resources to maintain their propaganda machine. Isn't spending so much time there just allowing these racists to generate more pageview revenue off the content you post? Now sure they have to be confronted- combat is unavoidable. But why do they get so MUCH time and content, compared to Africana forums as Tukler once asked years ago?
How are you going to raise a discussion on which African populations contributed the most to AE (still a worthy question IMO) in front of people who won't even see them as African?
Isn't your question "old news"? We already know Northeast Africans. Way back in 1989, Yurco said the Nubians are ethnically the closest cousins of the Egyptians. That has been reinforced by subsequent data.
Amun-Ra syays: You, beyoku and swenet must be some of the most stupid and racist idiots out there. Even in this thread, always looking out to separate Ancient Egyptians from most African populations including African-Americans. Even Ramses III being E1b1a or Keita's talk of the PN2 bridge or the DNA Tribes results or the ancient neolithic DNA from the Sudan/Egypt border doesn't stop your buffoonery.
Dude this is a very broad-brush claim. In what threads have they supported the racist forum claims?
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see Amun Ra is still twitching and contorting. I wonder, when he looks at the image below showing affinities to Mota and the latter not necessarily "preferring" Sub-Saharan African groups over Maghrebis and Middle Easterners, does it sting? Does it make him want to curl up in a fetal position and cry in a corner? After all those years of pretending to know something about African population genetics and picking fights with people?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
But all these are "old" issues as well. We already know they cluster mostly with other northeast Africans. We already know their migration patterns such as via the Saharan "pump" as well as movement from the Sudanic area, Sahara and elsewhere, depending on era examined. Isn't all this "old news"? [/QB]
Oh really now? Humans from the "Sudanic area" have genetic affiliations with North East Africans? Humans from the Sahara have genetic affiliations with North East Africans? Humans from "Elswerwhere" have genetic affiliations with North East Africans? What about the early pottery makers of Mali, genetic affiliations with North East Africans? Aqualithic culture inhabitants....genetic affiliations with North East Africans? Wadi Halfans? Jebel Sahabans? Wadi Howar inhabitans? All = North East Africans?
DEFINE North East Africans Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Here is a recent email exchange I had with Joseph Graves.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano has shown that Egypt was neither a "Caucasian" society, as claimed by Morton and other nineteenth-century racists, nor solely a sub-Saharan African society, as claimed by many modern Afrocentrists; see Ortiz de Montellano, "Melanin, Afrocentricity, and Pseudoscience," Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36 (1993): 33-58; and Ortiz Montellano, "Multiculturalism, Cult Archeology, and Pseudoscience," in Cult Archeology and Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past, ed. F.B. Harrold and R.A. Eve (Iowa City: University of iowa Press, 1995).
[...]
Now I know from your work that you disapprove of Afrocentric versions of pseudoscience as much as Eurocentric ones. I too disagree with Black Supremacist ideas like Melanin theory.
Interesting column.
1)The black vs white Egypt "debate" has shifted to negroe vs caucasoid.
With it that caucasoids are now diverse and negroes not. Caucasoids are superior and negroes inferior. This is what I retrieved from online debates. Where folks literally stated this. To euroctrism prognathism seems like a real big deal, only when it suites their case of course. They will post "black Africans" with extensive prognathism all day. Yet when you show data that of the Nazlet Khater or Badarians they then say that is not a negroe trait?
2)How is talking about melanin black supremacy?
How I became interested in this topic, somewhere in the 90's I was at the library in Rotterdam, Holland, roaming around, picking up books to read as I did often. When I saw this coffee table book on Egyptology. It had large colorful images. With pictures of people who appeard black to me. I was like in my early teens, a grown woman was also in the section of history books, as she looked at me, looked at the pictures on the page of that book, then smiled at me. At that same time an elderly man, about 60 years old entered the section, also looked at what I was reading, but gave this hateful look full of anger and envy. It was an odd and confusing experience. Later that day, I went to my cousin and older nice, looked at my her and told her about my experience and how much she looked like those females depicted, with almond shaped eyes.
Her skin tone is what we call caramel, while mine is what we call chocolate. We are both being considered black in this society.
Now, some of the things I learned here while being on Egyptsearch as I learned on the topic. Are things like prognathism and other biological "affinities" members here spoke about, this from both parties. Before this time I never looked at people (in general) like this.
This even confuses me more, because some of my family has prognathism, others slightly and others have none. This goes across all color barriers we have, as well as hair texture. But in society we are all looked at as blacks.
Yet, when it comes to the topic of Egypt. ... When I was in Egypt people considered me local, ever since my arrival at Hurghada, as did "whites" who were traveling along the same route.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
But all these are "old" issues as well. We already know they cluster mostly with other northeast Africans. We already know their migration patterns such as via the Saharan "pump" as well as movement from the Sudanic area, Sahara and elsewhere, depending on era examined. Isn't all this "old news"?
Oh really now? Humans from the "Sudanic area" have genetic affiliations with North East Africans? Humans from the Sahara have genetic affiliations with North East Africans? Humans from "Elswerwhere" have genetic affiliations with North East Africans? What about the early pottery makers of Mali, genetic affiliations with North East Africans? Aqualithic culture inhabitants....genetic affiliations with North East Africans? Wadi Halfans? Jebel Sahabans? Wadi Howar inhabitans? All = North East Africans?
DEFINE North East Africans [/QB]
Still waiting. Notice when questioned he left the thread faster than a Japanese bullet train.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Roundup: if we were to go by limb ratios the ancient Egyptians were closest to the Khosians followed by Southern Europeans
So we can see how the limb ratio data doesn't reveal much
Actually its only SOME LOWER EGYPTIAN FEMALES. And: (a) Khosians are sub-Saharan Africans living often in cool Medit climes though they move in and out of other zones at will, (b) females sometimes show more variability in crural index even in cold climate populations. So more female variation in the Lower Egypt is nothing special.
And your attempted minimization of limb data still falls flat. Overall results still stand- the primary affinity is with African peoples. Raxter notes this bottom line- no amount of obfuscation will change it:
"Ancient Egyptians and Nubians of both sexes are consistently significantly different in limb length proportions from Northern and Southern Europeans, with their brachial and crural indices grouping with the majority of other Africans. " --Raxter 2011.
Sorry, it is, what it is.
No need to be sorry,
here is more of what it is, I don't know why you keep cutting out the end of the paragraph
"Ancient Egyptians and Nubians of both sexes are consistently significantly different in limb length proportions from Northern and Southern Europeans, with their brachial and crural indices grouping with the majority of other Africans. One group Lower Egyptian males, is only significantly different from Northern Europeans in crural index. However, this is expected since they are situated in the northernmost area of Northeast Africa, closest to the Mediterranean Sea, and thus would have had the greatest opportunity for gene flow with Southern Europeans." --Raxter 2011
no amount of deleting the end of the paragraph will change it
However, it doesn't matter what the opinion in the text says we have the raw data The raw data says the Lower ancient Egyptian limb ratios were closer to Khoisans and Southern Europeans than they were to other Africans
So don't worry about what the researcher says just put all the table 28 data in your next graphic
As for female lower Egyptians, their limb ratios were nearly the same as female Southen Europeans, 83.5 vs 83.3 Think about that
Semantically speaking Lower Egypt, North Africa is indeed obviously close to the Mediterranean sea.
To me it's not surprising the that Lower Egyptians and Khosians are closest. Since the Khosians also live in a region with similar temperature range. We came to this conclusion years ago.
I also wonder what happened to the "African female slave trade" taken to the Mediterranean, theory? Does it not suite now?
Reconstructing ancient mitochondrial DNA links between Africa and Europe
posted
Sub-Saharan Africa is not synonymous with tropical Africa.
The tropic of Capricorn passes through the following: Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Mozambique & Madagascar. So parts of these countries (including most of South Africa) are not at tropical latitude.
Ancient Lower Egyptian crural indices are not "tropical". For females, they appear closest to Southern Europeans in Raxter (2011), and for males, Khoisan. The latter are not tropically adapated.
Note the trickery at play by Zaharan - you refute his "Egyptians are tropical" and he shifts to Sub-Saharan Africa (to include the Khoisan from South Africa who are not tropically adapted).
Posts: 63 | From: Carlos coke is gay | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:How I became interested in this topic, somewhere in the 90's I was at the library in Rotterdam, Holland, roaming around, picking up books to read as I did often. When I saw this coffee table book on Egyptology. It had large colorful images. With pictures of people who appeard black to me. I was like in my early teens, a grown woman was also in the section of history books, as she looked at me, looked at the pictures on the page of that book, then smiled at me. At that same time an elderly man, about 60 years old entered the section, also looked at what I was reading, but gave this hateful look full of anger and envy. It was an odd and confusing experience. Later that day, I went to my cousin and older nice, looked at my her and told her about my experience and how much she looked like those females depicted, with almond shaped eyes.
Her skin tone is what we call caramel, while mine is what we call chocolate. We are both being considered black in this society.
Now, some of the things I learned here while being on Egyptsearch as I learned on the topic. Are things like prognathism and other biological "affinities" members here spoke about, this from both parties. Before this time I never looked at people (in general) like this.
This even confuses me more, because some of my family has prognathism, others slightly and others have none. This goes across all color barriers we have, as well as hair texture. But in society we are all looked at as blacks.
Yet, when it comes to the topic of Egypt. ... When I was in Egypt people considered me local, ever since my arrival at Hurghada, as did "whites" who were traveling along the same route.
Rather lame. By the same logic, an Englishman can attach himself to Balto-Slavic or Scandinavian history or culture -thousands of miles away-, just because these peoples trivially share pale-pink/white skin.
Posts: 63 | From: Carlos coke is gay | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is why I said in my last post that collectively ES would get owned in a Biological affinity argument on Egypt. Keita quotes will not be able to save ES.
Ruh Roh....and so it begins. Someone from the opposite side has come here to troll and after giving us a basic glimpse into what they know I think ES will be Ducking and Covering
Quick, why dont you talk about North East African dental affinity and how it clusters with Caucasoids?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Only ancient/modern Lower Egyptians and coastal Maghrebians fall in Flower's Index "microdont" (small tooth) category. Upper Egyptians/Nubians/Somalis and inland-Maghrebians are all mesodont, with the Somalis sitting on the border of microdonty:
"Most of our sub-Saharan African samples fall into the “megadont” category used by Flower to indicate relative tooth size (Brace and Hunt, 1990; Brace et al., 1991; Flower, 1885), but the Somalis from the Horn of East Africa sit right on the dividing line between “mesodont” and “microdont.” Evidently the ancestors of the Somalis had long been associated with food preparation practices that reduced the selective force intensity maintaining tooth size. This is consistent with the possibility that the Ethiopian highlands were the locale of one of the ancient and semi-independent centers of plant domestication (Harlan, 1969, 1971; Harlan et al., 1976; Stemler, 1980; Vavilov, 1951)." (Brace et al. 1993)
Posts: 63 | From: Carlos coke is gay | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It was prefixed with this: 
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic