quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Trying to pretend that the word "mutational" changes your absurd argument that Africans in Africa were "transitioning" into Eurasians before leaving Africa is absurd.
More evidence that Doug is an impostor purely speculating and pontificating and doesn't know anything. The actual science says that OOA populations were already an intermediate population compared to the ancestors of most living Africans BEFORE OOA:
quote:The model estimated the initial separation from Africans at approximately 110,000 YBP. This intermediate population then underwent a long period of decreasing population size culminating in a bottleneck 50,000 YBP followed by an expansion into Asia and Europe. The split and subsequent bottleneck were thus two distinct events separated by a long intermediate period of genetic drift in the Middle East.
No, I didn't "answer" your question. I debunked you thoroughly and completely throughout this thread. Stop trying to minimize how much you've been abandoning and modifying your claims and goalposts.
quote:I don't agree with the wording of "intermediate"
But no one cares what you think. You're not qualified to have an opinion or to pontificate. There are no sources in your posts. That's ALL you. And you don't know anything so it's all speculation and pontification.
This isn't pontificating about anything this is about clarity. I think you think everybody is attacking you when as I said earlier I am not really attacking you only questioning your use of words.
Hence my question:
quote: If the first Arabians came from Africa how on earth could their black skin predate African mixture, especially given that there has probably been movement back and forth between Africa and arabia for many thousands of years? See the Tihama region for an example or Southern Saudi Arabia and other regions in Arabia for example.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet Where is the contradiction?
1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers 3) OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
You see a contradiction because you're in the kumbaya-my-lord-by-the-campfire crew. Your real objection is that I didn't call these OOA settlers of Arabia 'Africans'; I treated them just like other OOA populations. Yep. We saw right through your 'dark skin only' facade when you refused prehistoric dark skinned Europeans membership in your racial dark skin club.
To summarize, if the first settlers were black when did the non blackness come into play or when would black skin have arisen separately from said black African settlers?
You said:
quote: 1) OOA settlers came in 2) African admixture happened with said settlers
But between 1 and 2 there is an implied SPLIT that occurred somewhere between the original OOA Africans and later descendants. If the OOA settlers were black then 2 isn't required to explain black skin (not saying it didn't happen, just that it wasn't REQUIRED since the local population could have retained such a phenotype based on in situ adaptation similar to other South Asian populations and Oceanic populations). 2 is only required if there was some sort of substantial split and divergence of not only genetic lineages but phenotype. (Hence the 2 pages of back and forth since and really it wasn't meant to be that big of a sidebar related to how we identify splits genetically)
Anyway then you said:
quote: 3: OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
And I am saying of course it predates it because it came directly from the first African settlers and stayed in place through local adaptation to similar environmental conditions. Therefore, there may have been different lineages that arose in later Arabians but never any split or divergence in phenotype that would "separately" give rise to black skin in Arabia after the initial settlement by Africans.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're trying to reframe the conversation so as to not look like you've been reduced to a wobbly jelly pudding. Just give it up. You've been thoroughly debunked and the only thing you can do is damage control and muddy up what happened in the discussion. Clown.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're trying to reframe the conversation so as to not look like you've been reduced to a wobbly jelly pudding. Just give it up. You've been thoroughly debunked and the only thing you can do is damage control and muddy up what happened in the discussion. Clown.
Again, not addressing what was said and still just playing defensive mode.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Answer my question. How are Horners and Arabians the same population without it implying that Horners are Eurasians, but when I say EEF are the same population as AE, with less SSA ancestry and more Eurasian ancestry, it's a problem?
What's stopping me from concluding that you're an inconsistent, flip flopping, hypocrite clown?
Come on you can't be serious. Who said Horners and Arabians are the same population? How can you come to that conclusion? I never said they were the same and therefore I never said they both could be called "Eurasian". So again, the question is back on you to justify how the similarity of one African population that never left Africa to populations outside of Africa somehow makes Africans into "Early European Farmers" or "Eurasians" when as we have already posted the key markers for Eurasians are splits in genetic lineages and phenotype that differentiate them from Africans.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on you can't be serious. Who said Horners and Arabians are the same population?
Gelatine Doug just can't catch a break. He out here lying and flip flopping and thinks I'm going to allow him to create a new reality where all his blunders never happened:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: These kinds of populations in the Horn are not that much different than the black Southern Arabians. So what on earth are you talking about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdV3PKTpMrA
So, again, why is it okay for this clown to say Arabians and Horners are not "that different" but when I say it in regards to EEF and AE, this astronomical hypocrite is in his feelings. Regardless of the differences between AE and EEF, surely AE and EEF are more similar than Ethiopians and Arabian descendants of OOA. SMH. AE and EEF are like West Africans and some Afro Colombian communities. Arabian descendants of OOA and Horners are not related in any meaningful way that somehow excludes other Middle Eastern populations like Palestinians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet if AE and EEF are similar is it because EEF shares a Basal Eurasian African component that came from Africa or is it because Europeans brought European DNA into AE ?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: 3: OOA settlers' dark skin predates African admixture.
And I am saying of course it predates it because it came directly from the first African settlers and stayed in place through local adaptation to similar environmental conditions. Therefore, there may have been different lineages that arose in later Arabians but never any split or divergence in phenotype that would "separately" give rise to black skin in Arabia after the initial settlement by Africans. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet if AE and EEF are similar is it because EEF shares a Basal Eurasian African component that came from Africa or is it because Europeans brought European DNA into AE ?
Both. When you model AE genomes as EEF + various types of SSA ancestry you can account for BOTH the Eurasian ancestry (to whatever extent it was present) and Basal Eurasian. When you try to model dynastic Egypt as Doug suggests (Basal Eurasian + various types of SSA ancestry) you will get a crappy model and the software you're using will tell you it's a crappy model. No one thinks dynastic AE were a 100% African. Not Keita, not anyone worth taking seriously. Only deluded race activists like Doug who get a kick out of these purity fantasies think this.
If people want to discuss AE when they were at their most African, they should talk about the neolithic and predynastic (or before that), not the dynastic and definitely NOT dynastic Lower Egypt. What you'll see many people here do is they'll talk about ancient Egypt and then systematically avoid dynastic Lower Egypt or only discuss thinngs like dynastic Lower Egyptian limb proportions or hide heterogeneity by using non-metric markers.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet if AE and EEF are similar is it because EEF shares a Basal Eurasian African component that came from Africa or is it because Europeans brought European DNA into AE ?
Both. When you model AE genomes as EEF + various types of SSA ancestry you can account for BOTH the Eurasian ancestry (to whatever extent it was present) and Basal Eurasian. When you try to model dynastic Egypt as Doug suggests (Basal Eurasian + various types of SSA ancestry) you will get a crappy model and the software you're using will tell you it's a crappy model. No one thinks dynastic AE were a 100% African. Not Keita, not anyone worth taking seriously. Only deluded race activists like Doug who get a kick out of these purity fantasies think this.
quote: The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200 – 8,800 BCE. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, whose people pioneered the use of wild cereals, which then evolved into true farming.
A modeling methodology is one thing as per how categories are named in these programs
But when discussing a topic we can be more detailed.
If we there is any Eurasian inout into Ancient Egypt it would more likely be the Levant rather than Europe because it's closer and believed to be the location origin of farming.
So putting aside what methodology you use in these modeling programs and just discussing what the most accurate term would be, in regard to possible admixture in ancient Egyptians wouldn't it be more probable to call it "Early Near Eastern Farmers" which could be abbreviated as NEF rather than "Early European Farmers" EEF?
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would think that the model would reflect what you're saying. But remember that some studies suggest that Sardinians and LBK (EEF) are the best fit for the non-Sub-Saharan ancestry in this region (and, again, non-Sub-Saharan African includes BOTH indigenous African Basal Eurasian and Eurasian ancestry). Not Yemeni Jews or Askhenazi Jews, etc.
But you're right, the historically accurate population the AE were in contact with to the north would be an EEF-like population from the Middle East.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I didn't bother to read all the ongoing arugments, I have been skimming through the posts and this caught my eye.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Here are the demented loser's pure OOA Arabians who supposedly need no recent African ancestry to explain at least some of their dark skin:
quote:On the basis of a sample of 117 chromosomes, we have demonstrated the multicentric origin of the sickle mutation in Northern Oman. Three major haplotypes coexist: 52.1% Benin (typical and atypicals), 26.7% Arab-India, and 21.4% Bantu. These haplotypes are not autochthonous to Oman but originated elsewhere and arrived in Oman by gene flow. The distribution of haplotypes is in excellent agreement with the historical record, which establishes clear ancient contacts between Oman and sub-Sahara west Africa and explains the presence of the Benin haplotype; contacts with Iraq, Iran, present-day Pakistan, and India explain the presence of the Arab-India haplotype. More recent contacts with East Africa (Zanzibar/Mombasa) explain the presence of the Bantu haplotype. The pattern of the Arab-India haplotype in the populations of the Arabian peninsula reinforces the hypothesis that this particular mutation originated in the Harappa culture or in a nearby population and in addition reveals that the Sassanian Empire might have been the vehicle by which this Indo-European sickle mutation migrated (gene flow) to the present-day Arabian peninsula, including Oman.
Where does the above map come from, and what haplotypes do they represent? HBS? If so, I had no idea Benin HBS was that prevalent in Arabia, and what is AI??
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^As you can see, all the best models include the Yoruba sample, even though the Yoruba-like admixture (independent of the Yoruba-like ancestry that's already in the used Middle Eastern reference samples) is low. What does that tell you? It says that trying to model an AE genome as 100% African when it has even a couple of Eurasian percentages will result in an imperfect model.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Where does the above map come from, and what haplotypes do they represent? HBS? If so, I had no idea Benin HBS was that prevalent in Arabia, and what is AI??
The image is from the paper that was referenced. AI=Arab-Indian and the map depicts the various types of sicklemia in Arabia.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ So it is HBS. I'm actually genuinely surprised that the Benin form that prevalent in Arabia. For a while I thought the farthest east Benin HBS was prevalent in was the Nile Valley.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You would think that the model would reflect what you're saying. But remember that some studies suggest that Sardinians and LBK (EEF) are the best fit for the non-Sub-Saharan ancestry in this region (and, again, non-Sub-Saharan African includes BOTH indigenous African Basal Eurasian and Eurasian ancestry). Not Yemeni Jews or Askhenazi Jews, etc.
But you're right, the historically accurate population the AE were in contact with to the north would be an EEF-like population from the Middle East.
I think a huge factor is the Mediterranean basin itself. The earliest evidence of modern human settlement in the Mediterranean islands dates to the Neolithic and is associated with neolithic expansion of the first farmers. Interestingly, the Biblical Table of Nations connects two islands somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean to Egypt. Not to mention the many Minoan frescoes showing very dark skinned people with long wavy hair who are also depicted in a few Egyptian murals of Levantine inhabitants. The Nile Delta is key to such connections especially in the Mediterranean coasts but archaeology this area is very hard to excavate due to the obvious issue of water-logging.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could be.. But remember that the best fitting models aren't necessarily consistent with historical admixture. The reference populations just fit well but they weren't necessarily involved. See what I said in another thread about the Muge sample, which might turn out to be modeled well as EEF + something else (a local Maghrebi variant of Basal Eurasian?, SSA?, Aterian?), even though EEF colonists from Anatolia likely weren't literally involved in their formation:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Here is more info on what I think Basal Eurasian is. It should be kept in mind that ancient Egyptians aren't EEF or the other way around. EEF is a mix of the ancestors of ancient Egyptians more than 10.000 years ago (see below) + Eurasian elements 10.000 years ago. This mix happened over thousands of years in the eastern and northern Mediterranean Basin, until a population emerged in Europe which we know in the literature as 'EEF', or Early European Farmer. This is the mainstream story, but, as I said in the quoted post below, a similar (and independent) mix happened in the Iberian Peninsula several times in between the Mesolithic and the late Neolithic (e.g. the Muge sample and the Late Atlantic Neolithic).
See also Henn et al who said that the Luhya are the best fit for modeling the SSA ancestry in Maghrebis. But this is almost certainly not a historical admixture event. Maghrebis have mtDNAs that reflect admixture with West Africans, not with Southeast Africans. Still, the Luhya genomes are a better fit presumably because they capture additional ancestry that the Maghrebis have, that the Yoruba sample doesn't have.
quote:We use a Bantu-speaking population from Kenya as a source population for this migration, as North African individuals with sub-Saharan ancestry appeared to be closer to the Luhya than the Nigerian Yoruba (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure S2). However, there are likely other western African populations genetically similar to Kenyan Bantu-speakers. We do not interpret this association as an explicit migration from Kenya to southern Morocco.
—Henn et al 2012
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for that paper on sicklemia, credit goes to King Scorpion IIRC who posted it a long time ago. The original thread might still be up.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on you can't be serious. Who said Horners and Arabians are the same population?
Gelatine Doug just can't catch a break. He out here lying and flip flopping and thinks I'm going to allow him to create a new reality where all his blunders never happened:
quote: Originally posted by Doug M: These kinds of populations in the Horn are not that much different than the black Southern Arabians. So what on earth are you talking about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdV3PKTpMrA
So, again, why is it okay for this clown to say Arabians and Horners are not "that different" but when I say it in regards to EEF and AE, this astronomical hypocrite is in his feelings. Regardless of the differences between AE and EEF, surely AE and EEF are more similar than Ethiopians and Arabian descendants of OOA. SMH. AE and EEF are like West Africans and some Afro Colombian communities. Arabian descendants of OOA and Horners are not related in any meaningful way that somehow excludes other Middle Eastern populations like Palestinians.
You are over generalizing and totally missing the point. Again, Africans first settled in Arabia thousands of years ago. We don't know for sure what lineages they carried but some evidence does suggest it was a remote ancestor of the R lineages. At some point in time, this population is theorized to have mixed with Neanderthals and at some point in time there arose distinct genetic variations that would be distinguished from the lineages in Africa. At this point in history these populations would have still been black like their African ancestors.... Much later on various waves of migration took place, including some from Africa itself that has produced admixture in Arabia. And some downstream element of those lineages from the original settlement are still in place I believe. However, in pure theoretical terms, the black skinned Arabians in South Arabia do not require any African mixture to justify their black skin. Otherwise, that would imply that any black skinned population outside Africa is black because of recent African mixture. Which is false. It is the environment that determines skin color and any population migrating out of Africa that settled in a tropical/sub tropical environment would retain black skin pigmentation over thousands of years because of that environment. Arabians would therefore cluster with Indians as early South Asians in that respect as OOA populations similarly adapted to tropical/sub tropical environments.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet if AE and EEF are similar is it because EEF shares a Basal Eurasian African component that came from Africa or is it because Europeans brought European DNA into AE ?
Both. When you model AE genomes as EEF + various types of SSA ancestry you can account for BOTH the Eurasian ancestry (to whatever extent it was present) and Basal Eurasian. When you try to model dynastic Egypt as Doug suggests (Basal Eurasian + various types of SSA ancestry) you will get a crappy model and the software you're using will tell you it's a crappy model. No one thinks dynastic AE were a 100% African. Not Keita, not anyone worth taking seriously. Only deluded race activists like Doug who get a kick out of these purity fantasies think this.
If people want to discuss AE when they were at their most African, they should talk about the neolithic and predynastic (or before that), not the dynastic and definitely NOT dynastic Lower Egypt. What you'll see many people here do is they'll talk about ancient Egypt and then systematically avoid dynastic Lower Egypt or only discuss thinngs like dynastic Lower Egyptian limb proportions or hide heterogeneity by using non-metric markers.
The problem I have with your argument is that it is a contradiction in terms on multiple levels and really is not an accurate description of what is being said.
First, the main problem is this concept of "basal Eurasian". Why? Because this is a purely theoretical construct that is being used to identify a population and set of genetic lineages that arose in Africa and migrated into the Near East and participated in the rise of farming. Now the problem with it is that it is really just a name for some population of Africans or some populations in Arabia carrying a large degree of African ancestry. Therefore, if the intent is to model migrations and movements then this theoretical genetic component representing a migration and movement of African genetic markers should be labeled as such. Something like "African proto-Neolithic" or some such thing, because that more accurately describes what it represents.
Second, EEF describes populations IN EUROPE that are the populations that absorbed this African genetic component and from whom the rise of farming is attributed. Because it is compromised of a mixture between already in place ancient Eurasian lineages and new recent African derived lineages, it is impossible to separate the two back into their respective origin components. Hence, any populations labelled as 'EEF' are a representation of any European population carrying PRE-NEOLITHIC Eurasian lineages mixed with this later African component. And this assemblage of lineages went on to spread throughout Europe after the Neolithic. Therefore, the intent behind the label "EEF" is to model the migration of populations associated with the rise of farming in the Near East into Europe as identified by the unique "African Proto-Neolithic" lineages that they carried. But at the end of the day we are talking about a primarily Eurasian population with some African genetic mixture.
That said, trying to model migrations WITHIN Africa using the label 'EEF' is problematic. Primarily because if you are using "EEF" to identify the populations and lineages IN AFRICA from which the later "African Proto-Neolithic" arose you are contradicting the meaning of the term "EEF" as described previously. First, these people never left Africa. Therefore they did not participate in mixture with Eurasians and did not participate directly in the rise of farming in Europe. Therefore, these populations carrying said lineages are best described as African as their lineages were already in place prior to the rise of farming in the Neolithic and therefore the presence of said genetic lineages is not a reflection of migrations of "European farmers" during or after the neolithic. I am NOT saying that some amount of mixture with said European farmers did not exist, but what I am saying is that to lump those European populations with the African populations because they carry some component of an African lineage that remained in situ in Africa as "the same people" is ridiculous. Any population in Eurasia labeled as "EEF" is a composite of various Eurasian lineages plus the African ones. That is totally different from any populations in Africa. Any mixture with subsequent European farmers migrating back into Africa would carry other distinct Eurasian lineages in addition to whatever African "proto-neolithic" lineages they carried and thus could be modeled as Eurasian mixture, but that mixture would still be distinct from any African populations already in place carrying components of the same "African proto-neolihic" lineages. And most certainly the base population settling much of the Sahara and Nile Valley would definitely not be identified as "European farmers".
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Could be.. But remember that the best fitting models aren't necessarily consistent with historical admixture.
they should be consistent why aren't they?
It's like cooking. When you make a soup dish you can choose to find all the individual ingredients (e.g. meat + salt + spices) or you can use ingredients that are already combined (bouillon cube). Some cooks never use bouillon cubes, but you can still replicate their soup dish better using bouillon cubes than using only salt and no spices and meat.
Just like the cook who never cooked his soup dish with with bouillon cubes, Henn et al's southeast African Bantu speakers weren't literally involved in the admixture of Maghrebi populations. But you can still replicate the SSA component in Maghrebi genomes better using southeast African Bantu speakers than by using the Yoruba (southeast African Bantu speakers combine a Yoruba component(s) + other components they share with the Maghrebis).
Southeast African Bantu speakers can be modeled as Yoruba + other SSA components they've absorbed in or en route to East Africa, making them better matches for the similarly diverse SSA components in Maghrebis (yellow, orange, red, below):
posted
Despite Luhya forming the better model due to the fact that they can model the overall African components in Maghrebis better, we should all know by now that this Luhya affinity is not primarily caused by historical contact between Maghrebis and Luhya. The mtDNA picture rules out strong southeast African Bantu migration to the Maghreb and instead supports West/Central African migration:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^As you can see, over reliance on the Harich paper as a generalization of all of North Africa leads to problems as the northern Nile Valley doesn't have as many L3b'd and L3e variants as the Maghreb does. The Sub-Saharan lineages found in the Nile Valley, the Egyptian oases and parts of Libya on the one hand and the Maghreb on the other hand have their main source in respectively East Sub-Saharan Africa and West/Central Sub-Saharan Africa:
quote:"The most plausible explanation for the differences found between NW and NE Africa is the presence of a demographic corridor along the Nile Valley. This corridor might have allowed the contact between Egypt, East Africa, and the Near East; influencing only slightly the rest of NW Africa."
quote:"Unlike other North Africans, Egyptians are closer to East than to West Africans. (Note that, if Eurasian haplogroups were included, North and West Africans would be much more clearly distinguished, since, in the former, the major contribution is from European and Near Eastern mtDNAs [Rando et al. 1999].)"
This, again, indicates that the better model formed by Luhya is simply because they INCLUDE Yoruba-like ancestry anyway and can account better for the northeast African ancestry of Maghrebis that corresponds with L3f, M1, E-M78, E-M81, etc.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
That means you should be able to discuss the bioarchaeology and genetics in precise terms for a general discussion and discuss terms that lead to the best modeling methods in genetics programs separately. Otherwise people get confused when the two are mixed. Somebody wants to talk about the flavor of bay leaf that was in the made from scratch soup but that keeps getting compared to the bouillon cube. So people get concerned here which of two similar things came first. So if Asians are found to have some similarities to some Native Americans it's important indicate that the similarity is derived from some of the Native Americans descending from Asians not Asians deriving from Native Americans. So you need to talk about the historically accurate terms first and then talk about the less precise terms that produce the best modeling results - or combine the terms. for instance BlessedbyHorus has a thread up called "Major racial bias found in leading genomics databases" I think the term "Basal Eurasian" is an example. I think the term should be "Basal Eurasian African" If you switch to that it solves the problem and at the same time shows the modeling reference.
The main problem is this term EEF. If EEF are similar to Nile Valley Africans but AEs came first you can't call the Nile Valley Africans EEFs. They have to be Basal Eurasian Africans only and from that point always mentioned before discussing modeling that shows the EEF similarity to them not the Nile Valley Africans similarity to the EEF as if they came first. You can only call AEs EEF if they are primarily EEF and you can prove European Farmers historically migrated to Ancient Egypt.
So if you are having a discussion with someone who doesn't run modeling programs. You have to be able to discuss the topic in the most accurate way possible making no assumptions by terminology and no reference to terms relating to what produces the best results in modeling. Then after that separately you can discuss modeling. This is what the scientific papers do. They talk about the history first and what is probable in terms of admixture historically. Then after that in the methods section they talk in terms that relate to methodology that produce the most informative results. In the conclusion they go back to the historically accurate and this has become informed by the analysis methodology. But at Egyptsearch we can do it even more. For instance I advocate not using the term "North Africa" because it has 4-5 definitions. It's better to use Maghreb, Nile Valley or Sahel when talking about anthropology.
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with a lot of what you say. But that's why I used the term MODEL. When you use this term you don't have the be historically accurate!
Would you criticize a cartographer for not having life-sized buildings on his map? C'mon man. Do I really have to explain on and on what a model is?
When I talk I assume people have a basic education. I can't do everything for everyone. I can't have a conversation and then also provide a glossary for all the terms people use in anthropology or online. People here should get off their lazy ass and read a damn book, not come on egyptsearch to rely on forum gurus or to put up guru facade and pretend they're qualified to have an opinion as in the case of Doug. People should take responsibility for their own grasp of anthro language.
To have a good model of a genome:
doesn't mean it has to involve the actual mixing populations doesn't mean it has to be geographically accurate doesn't mean the named genetic components have to be nominally accurate doesn't mean the reference populations have to be older/ancestal than the genome that is being modeled doesn't mean it has to be politically correct doesn't mean it has to spare hurt feelings
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] I agree with a lot of what you say. But that's why I used the term MODEL. When you use this term you don't have the be historically accurate!
See if the person talking to you is familiar with modeling programs and are using them. If not maybe it's better to switch to not talking about them and changing to anthropological historical discussion
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already explained to the person I was talking to that AE aren't EEF, in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Here is more info on what I think Basal Eurasian is. It should be kept in mind that ancient Egyptians aren't EEF or the other way around. EEF is a mix of the ancestors of ancient Egyptians more than 10.000 years ago (see below) + Eurasian elements 10.000 years ago. This mix happened over thousands of years in the eastern and northern Mediterranean Basin, until a population emerged in Europe which we know in the literature as 'EEF', or Early European Farmer. This is the mainstream story, but, as I said in the quoted post below, a similar (and independent) mix happened in the Iberian Peninsula several times in between the Mesolithic and the late Neolithic (e.g. the Muge sample and the Late Atlantic Neolithic). [...] Ancient Egyptians, on the other hand, are a continuation of their 10kya eastern Saharan ancestors + other elements of uncertain origin, especially in dynastic Lower Egypt (see Keita 1992 and Zakrzewski 2002). As a whole, predynastic Egyptians north and south are more like these 10ky old eastern Saharan ancestors than dynastic Egyptians.
^And in this very thread and other threads as well as in my private conversation with the person I was talking to I've already explained that the "elements of uncertain origin" push dynastic Lower Egyptians to EEF samples in craniofacial analysis. Any confusion on the part of people who skimmed through this 40 page thread and/or who are supposedly familiar with my views over a period of years is suspect.
I also clearly said that EEF-like mixtures have independently emerged several times, so I don't see why my mention of EEF in my model should necessarily invoke historical admixture involving the EEF colonists coming from anatolia:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: a similar (and independent) mix happened in the Iberian Peninsula several times in between the Mesolithic and the late Neolithic (e.g. the Muge sample and the Late Atlantic Neolithic).
posted
Why on earth would anyone dispute that Dynastic Lower Egyptians had some Eurasian admixture? One only has to look at where the area is located. I don't think there was any civilization that was not at all admixed. Ancient Greece and Rome would have had admixture.
It doesn't matter at all. Ancient Egyptian civilization has its origins in Upper Egypt and this region would have had the least amount of admixture.
The South was supreme and Lower Egypt was just a backwater that was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered by Narmer.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^People who insist that typically dynastic Lower Egyptians were 100% African hurt themselves because it means that modern Egyptians, who tend to overlap strongly with these dynastic Lower Egyptians, already had a strong presence in ancient Egypt since the beginning.
Plus they just look ridiculous because typically dynastic Lower Egyptian samples (again, not all samples from the north, but those that are typically Lower Egyptian) can be discriminated from samples with an Upper Egyptian affinity with 100% accuracy in some analyses. For instance:
quote:The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the Late period group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied. Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from other Nile Valley population clusters, but not always separate from 'Africans' as a whole (Keita 1995).
—Zakrzewski 2002
This difference is explained by Zakrzewski as based on the fact that this sample is late dynastic, but this sample (E-series) doesn't differ much from earlier typically Lower Egyptian samples, so this difference should be interpreted as due to the fact that the E series is dominated by individuals with a typically Lower Egyptian affinity.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why on earth would anyone dispute that Dynastic Lower Egyptians had some Eurasian admixture? One only has to look at where the area is located. I don't think there was any civilization that was not at all admixed. Ancient Greece and Rome would have had admixture.
It doesn't matter at all. Ancient Egyptian civilization has its origins in Upper Egypt and this region would have had the least amount of admixture.
The South was supreme and Lower Egypt was just a backwater that was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered by Narmer.
I wonder how true this really is. Sure, Egypt was unified from the south which was the cradle of early Egyptian civilization, and the First and Second Intermediate Periods ended with the south conquering the north as well. But then, an awful lot of the Old Kingdom monuments were built in the north of Egypt since that's where the capital Narmer established (Memphis or Men-Nefer) was located. That isn't exactly consistent with the south always having primacy in AE.
As I recall, Karl Butzer's research indicated that the two main population centers in Egypt were the far south and the Fayum/Delta region, with Middle Egypt being sparsely populated for the comparison. That must have underlay the Egyptians' own perception that their country could be divided into two "lands" in the south and north.
EDIT: See here, apparently the northern population concentration was between the Fayum and the start of the Delta:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why on earth would anyone dispute that Dynastic Lower Egyptians had some Eurasian admixture? One only has to look at where the area is located. I don't think there was any civilization that was not at all admixed. Ancient Greece and Rome would have had admixture.
It doesn't matter at all. Ancient Egyptian civilization has its origins in Upper Egypt and this region would have had the least amount of admixture.
The South was supreme and Lower Egypt was just a backwater that was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered by Narmer.
I don't see the big deal here either especially with the KNOWN trade and interaction between Egypt and SW Asia in the Badarian period. That still doesn't change the predominately indigenous character of AE (by that metric no population would be indigenous as nearly every major civ had some type of admixture)
As far as your other point and what Nodnarb mentioned there were certainly times where the North exerted dominance (i.e. the Ramesside period) but even then reverence was paid to the south iirc.
@Swenet: I did go back through our private correspondence and do feel rather foolish, everyone has their off days :S
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I wonder how true this really is. Sure, Egypt was unified from the south which was the cradle of early Egyptian civilization, and the First and Second Intermediate Periods ended with the south conquering the north as well. But then, an awful lot of the Old Kingdom monuments were built in the north of Egypt since that's where the capital Narmer established (Memphis or Men-Nefer) was located. That isn't exactly consistent with the south always having primacy in AE.
As I recall, Karl Butzer's research indicated that the two main population centers in Egypt were the far south and the Fayum/Delta region, with Middle Egypt being sparsely populated for the comparison. That must have underlay the Egyptians' own perception that their country could be divided into two "lands" in the south and north.
EDIT: See here, apparently the northern population concentration was between the Fayum and the start of the Delta:
Yes, but you are referring to predynastic Egyptians. Even Swenet says the Egyptians were possibly 'pure' or pristinely African during the predynastic and only became admixed during the dynastic periods.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe Nodnarb was commenting on the following assertion..
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The South was supreme and Lower Egypt was just a backwater that was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered by Narmer.
Which I don't believe is true either, for the simple fact that most capitals are the most diverse region in a nation as well as the most susceptible to an extent.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I believe Nodnarb was commenting on the following assertion..
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The South was supreme and Lower Egypt was just a backwater that was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered by Narmer.
Which I don't believe is true either, for the simple fact that most capitals are the most diverse region in a nation as well as the most susceptible to an extent.
I concur. Just because Ta Mehu (Lower Egypt) was not formally organized into a polity the same as Ta Shemau (Upper Egypt), does not make the former a "backwater". Even the culture of Ta Mehu was remarkable for its time.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^People who insist that typically dynastic Lower Egyptians were 100% African hurt themselves because it means that modern Egyptians, who tend to overlap strongly with these dynastic Lower Egyptians, already had a strong presence in ancient Egypt since the beginning.
Plus they just look ridiculous because typically dynastic Lower Egyptian samples (again, not all samples from the north, but those that are typically Lower Egyptian) can be discriminated from samples with an Upper Egyptian affinity with 100% accuracy in some analyses. For instance:
quote:The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the Late period group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied. Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from other Nile Valley population clusters, but not always separate from 'Africans' as a whole (Keita 1995).
—Zakrzewski 2002
This difference is explained by Zakrzewski as based on the fact that this sample is late dynastic, but this sample (E-series) doesn't differ much from earlier typically Lower Egyptian samples, so this difference should be interpreted as due to the fact that the E series is dominated by individuals with a typically Lower Egyptian affinity.
One thing I will add is that "Dynastic Egypt" spans many years. Based of what I have read, of course the south retained more of its "Africaness "for a lot longer time, but if pre-dyanstic lower Egyptians were like pre-dynastic southern egyptians, they just would not have not morphed overnight. Typical Lower Egyptian samples from the late Period would be different from lets say the early dynastic or old kingdom from lower egypt. I think that it safe to say that Lower egypt retained its ""Africaness" until at least the old kingdom. I know that Asiatic invasions started to happen short there after and I do think the lower eygpt became mixed alot quicker and earlier then upper egypt, it seemed to be mixed well before the start of the late period Also the intermediate position is also probably to the fact that they are closer to Eurasia.....
Posts: 89 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: but if pre-dyanstic lower Egyptians were like pre-dynastic southern egyptians, they just would not have not morphed overnight.
Not to get into this (I'm going to stay away from this topic on this site from now on, unless I have to), but a big change did happen and Zakrzewski 2002 talks about this, as does the other paper I mentioned (i.e. Keita 1992).
Of course, there would have been northern Egyptians that didn't have this typically Lower Egyptian cranio-facial affinity. The OK Giza sample mentioned below, for instance, seems to be an example of this:
quote:Cephalometric work on Old and New Kingdom remains demonstrates variability in the ancient period, as noted in observations by Harris and Weeks (1973:123) of a Seventeenth Dynasty pharoah: "His [Seqenenre Tao] entire facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs (it is closest in fact to his son Ahmose) that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian- that is, non-Egyptian-origin for Sequenre and his family, and his facial features suggest that this might indeed be true. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian- that is, non-Egyptian-origin for Sequenre and his family, and his facial features suggest that this might indeed be true."
—Keita 1990
The OK sample in that Zakrzewski plot is also partly (~66%) from Giza and this sample doesn't have overlap with the late dynastic Giza sample so, again, not all dynastic northern samples had this typically dynastic Lower Egyptian affinity.
posted
^ So when did the big change happen? I think I recall you saying it happened in the either the 2nd Intermediate period or the beginning of the New Kingdom.
Also, how do you think it relates to the classic Batrawi findings on differences between Upper and Lower Egyptians?
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ So when did the big change happen? I think I recall you saying it happened in the either the 2nd Intermediate period or the beginning of the New Kingdom.
Also, how do you think it relates to the classic Batrawi findings on differences between Upper and Lower Egyptians?
If I know which papers he's citing, I believe he is talking about the early dynastic period.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The image is from the paper that was referenced. AI=Arab-Indian and the map depicts the various types of sicklemia in Arabia.
I forgot to ask you Swenet, the map already has Arab-Indian so what is the point of having another?
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why on earth would anyone dispute that Dynastic Lower Egyptians had some Eurasian admixture? One only has to look at where the area is located. I don't think there was any civilization that was not at all admixed. Ancient Greece and Rome would have had admixture.
It doesn't matter at all. Ancient Egyptian civilization has its origins in Upper Egypt and this region would have had the least amount of admixture.
The South was supreme and Lower Egypt was just a backwater that was incredibly fortunate to have been conquered by Narmer.
I wonder how true this really is. Sure, Egypt was unified from the south which was the cradle of early Egyptian civilization, and the First and Second Intermediate Periods ended with the south conquering the north as well. But then, an awful lot of the Old Kingdom monuments were built in the north of Egypt since that's where the capital Narmer established (Memphis or Men-Nefer) was located. That isn't exactly consistent with the south always having primacy in AE.
As I recall, Karl Butzer's research indicated that the two main population centers in Egypt were the far south and the Fayum/Delta region, with Middle Egypt being sparsely populated for the comparison. That must have underlay the Egyptians' own perception that their country could be divided into two "lands" in the south and north.
EDIT: See here, apparently the northern population concentration was between the Fayum and the start of the Delta:
It was unified from the South and that's precisely where most of the dynasties came from; it was the South that came up with writing and was Egypt's cultural center. Invaders were almost invariably evicted by leaders from the South.
I don't see how a Southern leader [Narmer] conquering the North and marking his conquest of the North by placing the Capital at Memphis puts Lower Egypt on equal footing with Upper Egypt.
The Tigray-Tigrinya the Amhara tribes lord over "Ethiopia" even though the Capital is at Addis Ababa -- the land of the Oromo, a people they subjugate.
The Dinka dominate the South [Sudan] but the capital is at Juba.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^People who insist that typically dynastic Lower Egyptians were 100% African hurt themselves because it means that modern Egyptians, who tend to overlap strongly with these dynastic Lower Egyptians, already had a strong presence in ancient Egypt since the beginning.
Plus they just look ridiculous because typically dynastic Lower Egyptian samples (again, not all samples from the north, but those that are typically Lower Egyptian) can be discriminated from samples with an Upper Egyptian affinity with 100% accuracy in some analyses. For instance:
quote:The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the Late period group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied. Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from other Nile Valley population clusters, but not always separate from 'Africans' as a whole (Keita 1995).
—Zakrzewski 2002
This difference is explained by Zakrzewski as based on the fact that this sample is late dynastic, but this sample (E-series) doesn't differ much from earlier typically Lower Egyptian samples, so this difference should be interpreted as due to the fact that the E series is dominated by individuals with a typically Lower Egyptian affinity.
People like that don't seem to realise that by insisting on such racial fantasy they make it remarkably easy for their opponents to dismiss everything else of merit they may put forward.
I thought Lower Egyptians were biracial like Barack Obama and would only overlap with modern Egyptians based on their common African ancestry.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^People who insist that typically dynastic Lower Egyptians were 100% African hurt themselves because it means that modern Egyptians, who tend to overlap strongly with these dynastic Lower Egyptians, already had a strong presence in ancient Egypt since the beginning.
Plus they just look ridiculous because typically dynastic Lower Egyptian samples (again, not all samples from the north, but those that are typically Lower Egyptian) can be discriminated from samples with an Upper Egyptian affinity with 100% accuracy in some analyses. For instance:
quote:The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the Late period group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied. Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from other Nile Valley population clusters, but not always separate from 'Africans' as a whole (Keita 1995).
—Zakrzewski 2002
This difference is explained by Zakrzewski as based on the fact that this sample is late dynastic, but this sample (E-series) doesn't differ much from earlier typically Lower Egyptian samples, so this difference should be interpreted as due to the fact that the E series is dominated by individuals with a typically Lower Egyptian affinity.
People like that don't seem to realise that by insisting on such racial fantasy they make it remarkably easy for their opponents to dismiss everything else of merit they may put forward.
I thought Lower Egyptians were biracial like Barack Obama and would only overlap with modern Egyptians based on their common African ancestry.
No, I don't think that it is black people or "Afrocentrics" engaging in racial fantasies at all. Remember the whole historical context. White people will tell you that these same scientific studies prove Egypt was primarily a mixed population with blacks being the lowest rung of the ladder and the lighter skinned people on top. So the problem is they like to use "weasel words" in their scientific reports to justify this perception. Hence a term like EEF becomes a way for them to de-Africanize the entire population of the Nile Valley even before the dynastic period and likewise much of the Sahara. Thereby they can claim that during the dynastic era the AE were already mixed and hence mostly light skinned mulattoes. This is the reason we should be precise in our language on the subject and not wittingly or unwittingly fall into their traps. Nobody is saying that there was "no mixture" in ancient Egypt, rather than the mixture did occur but it didn't replace the indigenous black populations, even in Lower Egypt until much later. That is absurd.
Keep in mind that if Egypt was open to mixture from Africa then why isn't Greece or the Near East open to mixture from Africa? Note the contradiction here, considering the discussion of "basal Eurasian" and "EEF". In reality as already discussed, EEF and Basal Eurasian really represent African mixture and influence leading to the development of farming in the Near east. But the terminology and wording downplays that and totally erases that influence and semantically makes it a pristine "Eurasian" phenomena. Likewise, this has been known since the analysis of Natufian remains, but they have figured out a way to erase the African element in these populations not only genetically and physically but also behaviorally. The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution. But all of this is minimized and omitted by the words and phrases being used here. Similarly this distinctly African pattern of subsistence plays an important role in the development of the distinct African pastoral tradition which is UNLIKE Eurasian patterns of cattle raising which would become the hallmark of African Neolithic farming and sustenance across the Sahara and Nile Valley. These would truly be your populations identified as "EEF" but such a term totally obliterates that fundamental distinct African pattern of subsistence and the influence of said Africans on the development of farming in the first place. In fact I can go even further on how the images of cow jumping in Minoan art could truly be an example of this influence as this is still a tradition found in parts of the Sahara and Nile Valley and the dark skinned Minoans being an example of said ancient African mixture and influence in Europe.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution.
That is an unproven theory and it pertains to Mozambique
Stone Age sorghum found in African cave Harvesting of wild grains may have begun more than 100,000 years ago.
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: It was unified from the South and that's precisely where most of the dynasties came from; it was the South that came up with writing and was Egypt's cultural center. Invaders were almost invariably evicted by leaders from the South.
I don't see how a Southern leader [Narmer] conquering the North and marking his conquest of the North by placing the Capital at Memphis puts Lower Egypt on equal footing with Upper Egypt.
Nobody is arguing against the salient historical facts you brought up, however your views on cultural development seem rather imperialistic or politically bias to assume that Ta Mehu was a "backwater" as you said earlier. Just because they had no political central unity or authority does not mean Ta Mehu was any less developed or "backward" than Ta Shemau. Even archaeology shows they had a thriving culture of their own albeit very different from their southern neighbors.
quote:The Tigray-Tigrinya the Amhara tribes lord over "Ethiopia" even though the Capital is at Addis Ababa -- the land of the Oromo, a people they subjugate.
Actually the Oromo were newcomers to the area themselves as their prior home lay to the southeast.
quote:The Dinka dominate the South [Sudan] but the capital is at Juba.
The Dinka had no political central authority either as they are divided into different clans each with their own leaders. By your standards, the Shilluk further south are a better example as they formally had kingdoms under ruling monarchs called reth.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some archaeological material I read did say Lower Egypt was much less developed than Upper Egypt. I don't see anything "political bias" about what sudaniya said when some materials I read said the same thing. I'll try to find the one I'm looking for.
However I agree that Lower Egypt starting in the middle dynastic period was just as or more developed than Upper Egypt.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
I thought Lower Egyptians were biracial like Barack Obama and would only overlap with modern Egyptians based on their common African ancestry. [/QB]
That immediately brought to mind this quote from the database
"
"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time"
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
Keep in mind that if Egypt was open to mixture from Africa then why isn't Greece or the Near East open to mixture from Africa? Note the contradiction here, considering the discussion of "basal Eurasian" and "EEF". In reality as already discussed, EEF and Basal Eurasian really represent African mixture and influence leading to the development of farming in the Near east. But the terminology and wording downplays that and totally erases that influence and semantically makes it a pristine "Eurasian" phenomena. Likewise, this has been known since the analysis of Natufian remains, but they have figured out a way to erase the African element in these populations not only genetically and physically but also behaviorally. The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution. But all of this is minimized and omitted by the words and phrases being used here. Similarly this distinctly African pattern of subsistence plays an important role in the development of the distinct African pastoral tradition which is UNLIKE Eurasian patterns of cattle raising which would become the hallmark of African Neolithic farming and sustenance across the Sahara and Nile Valley.
I concur that there has been a labeling problem and manipulation of labels to de-Africanize African people. Keita himself notes the issue. And there is a double-standard at play re Europe. If African DNA elements are found among Greeks for example why isn't there more labeling of the Greeks as "mixed"? Likewise Keita notes how assorted scholars do not hesitate to apply a "true negro" stereotype but conveniently avoid defining a "true white." EEF and "basal Eurasian" can be taken up in a specific technical sense, but at another level the old labeling games remain. The double standard issue is still very much alive.
Re the African pastoral tradition, what do you have on data showing it was unlike the Eurasian patterns of cattle raising?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution.
That is an unproven theory and it pertains to Mozambique
Indeed. I have run into people who rigidly insist on a totally pure, pristine Kemet without any outside admixture until the Greeks arrived. They set themselves up for easy defeat when they have to defend that argument in debates.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Some archaeological material I read did say Lower Egypt was much less developed than Upper Egypt. I don't see anything "political bias" about what sudaniya said when some materials I read said the same thing. I'll try to find the one I'm looking for.
However I agree that Lower Egypt starting in the middle dynastic period was just as or more developed than Upper Egypt.
My argument really is against Sudaniya's label of Ta Mehu as a "backwater". Being less developed does not mean a total state of feckless primitivity is all I mean.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Doug says:
Keep in mind that if Egypt was open to mixture from Africa then why isn't Greece or the Near East open to mixture from Africa? Note the contradiction here, considering the discussion of "basal Eurasian" and "EEF". In reality as already discussed, EEF and Basal Eurasian really represent African mixture and influence leading to the development of farming in the Near east. But the terminology and wording downplays that and totally erases that influence and semantically makes it a pristine "Eurasian" phenomena. Likewise, this has been known since the analysis of Natufian remains, but they have figured out a way to erase the African element in these populations not only genetically and physically but also behaviorally. The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution. But all of this is minimized and omitted by the words and phrases being used here. Similarly this distinctly African pattern of subsistence plays an important role in the development of the distinct African pastoral tradition which is UNLIKE Eurasian patterns of cattle raising which would become the hallmark of African Neolithic farming and sustenance across the Sahara and Nile Valley.
I concur that there has been a labeling problem and manipulation of labels to de-Africanize African people. Keita himself notes the issue. And there is a double-standard at play re Europe. If African DNA elements are found among Greeks for example why isn't there more labeling of the Greeks as "mixed"? Likewise Keita notes how assorted scholars do not hesitate to apply a "true negro" stereotype but conveniently avoid defining a "true white." EEF and "basal Eurasian" can be taken up in a specific technical sense, but at another level the old labeling games remain. The double standard issue is still very much alive.
Re the African pastoral tradition, what do you have on data showing it was unlike the Eurasian patterns of cattle raising?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution.
That is an unproven theory and it pertains to Mozambique
Indeed. I have run into people who rigidly insist on a totally pure, pristine Kemet without any outside admixture until the Greeks arrived. They set themselves up for easy defeat when they have to defend that argument in debates.
Most of my references on African Pastoralism and the evolution of subsistence are based on an in situ evolution of older behavior patterns as documented in various studies focusing on early pre neolithic remains in Nabta Playa, the Upper Nile Valley and elsewhere.
quote: ntroduction
Before the advent of food production, individual hunting populations in Africa were small and spatially separated over long periods of time. Food producers, both pastoralists and farmers, began movements across the continent that transformed African societies and ultimately led to complex political groupings, usually with hunters as the lowest rung in the social hierarchy. This was due to their ability to feed larger populations, as well as to control land and store surplus food. Many African hunters were egalitarian, immediate-return foragers who tended not to store food. Early farming and pastoralism, or food production, in Africa can be separated into several categories: animals, grains, and tropical plants, all of which prevailed in different places and at different times. Animal domestication is the earliest recorded, but is highly disputed. Large cattle bones found in Egypt dated to the 10th millennium BP are deemed to be domestic on the basis that they could not have survived without human intervention and were found associated with pottery. The alternative view is that the timing is such that these cattle were wild, and that domestic cattle that arrived in the 8th millennium BP were derived from different Levantine stock. The waters are further muddied by the genetics of African cattle suggesting an independent strain, but this also has its critics. With the general drying of the Sahara around 5000 BP, herders and their cattle and small stock moved south with the tsetse belts into West and East Africa, and by 2000 BP had reached Southern Africa. The question of hunters becoming food producers without apprenticeship is debated, as is the concept of a Stone Age pastoral or agricultural “Neolithic” in Africa. Although winter rainfall crops, such as wheat and barley, were used in Dynastic Egypt, domestication of grain outside the Nile Valley was considerably later than that of animals, only occurring in the Sahel c. 3800 BP, although wild grains most probably had been collected by herders long before this. The beginnings of tropical plant domestication are more difficult to see, as preservation has made the plant residues hard to find. These plants include yams, rice, and oil-bearing trees. Often, environmental change, such as forest clearing, has to be used as a proxy for farming activities in tropical zones. In addition, the development of iron technology is closely correlated with the spread of farming societies in sub-Saharan Africa after 3000 BP. The history of food production in Africa lags somewhat behind the research done in the Near East and Europe, but genomic work on modern Africans has started in parallel with advanced linguistic work. Ancient DNA will be the next technological input now that the problems of contamination have been successfully addressed.
Cattle pastoralism is an important trait of African cultures. Ethnographic studies describe the central role played by domestic cattle within many societies, highlighting its social and ideological value well beyond its mere function as ‘walking larder’. Historical depth of this African legacy has been repeatedly assessed in an archaeological perspective, mostly emphasizing a continental vision. Nevertheless, in-depth site-specific studies, with a few exceptions, are lacking. Despite the long tradition of a multi-disciplinary approach to the analysis of pastoral systems in Africa, rarely do early and middle Holocene archaeological contexts feature in the same area the combination of settlement, ceremonial and rock art features so as to be multi-dimensionally explored: the Messak plateau in the Libyan central Sahara represents an outstanding exception. Known for its rich Pleistocene occupation and abundant Holocene rock art, the region, through our research, has also shown to preserve the material evidence of a complex ritual dated to the Middle Pastoral (6080–5120 BP or 5200–3800 BC). This was centred on the frequent deposition in stone monuments of disarticulated animal remains, mostly cattle. Animal burials are known also from other African contexts, but regional extent of the phenomenon, state of preservation of monuments, and associated rock art make the Messak case unique. GIS analysis, excavation data, radiocarbon dating, zooarchaeological and isotopic (Sr, C, O) analyses of animal remains, and botanical information are used to explore this highly formalized ritual and the lifeways of a pastoral community in the Holocene Sahara.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic