quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Nor·dic/ˈnôrdik/ adjective relating to Scandinavia, Finland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands.
______________________
Today in 2017 wouldn't it be correct to say the ancient Egyptians were 0% Nordic ? [/QB]
Agh. I was using "Nordic" to mean white/light-pink skin, light eyes and fair hair. Old physical anthropologists divided Europe into three races, that more correspond to ecotypes - Nordic, Alpine, Mediterranean based on pigmentation differences (skeletally Europeans are very similar though, there are not large craniometric mean differences between populations in Europe). I'm well aware typology is obsolete and I gave it up years ago, but talking of pigmentation in terms of Nordic or Mediterranean is still useful and its still done by dermatologists.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
"The most troublesome factor in the whole North African racial problem lies in the necessity of explaining the origin of the local Nordics, whose presence as a minority in the populations of Tunisia, Algeria, and northern Morocco, if not in the Canary Islands cannot be denied."
Here we can just add Egypt to that list.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: First off Europe is a subcontinent of Asia or Eurasia if you will while Africa is its own continent. Egypt lies in the latter. Politics is not the issue but rather population genetics.
You're mistaken; Egypt is a trans-continental country. Even if it wasn't (and Sinai Peninsula was classified as Africa), we would still expect Levant ties to Lower Egypt based on geographical closeness; north Egypt and south Levant are not discontinuous landmasses, they're connected, i.e. the Sinai Peninsula is a land-bridge between the two continents - Eurasia and Africa.
quote:Again, your problem is you rely too much on morphometric data of skulls. Morphometrics are actually poor indicators of genetic relation. Non-metric traits are better indicators of genetic relation but are of course are no substitute for actual molecular genetics.
You repeat these claims, but they're unsubstantiated. Metrics vs. non-metrics has been debated since at least the 1960s; I would argue the former are more reliable, not latter. This is because non-metrics don't capture the complete morphology/surface-area of the skull, so they aren't an accurate measure of overall similarity; most non-metrics in studies are confined to limited cranial areas, particularly the jaw.
quote:Brace's clusters method is outdated for this very reason since this same method also shows sub-Saharan Somalis to cluster closer to Englishmen than to West Africans does this mean Somalis are genetically closer to English than to other Africans??
]
Who is geographically closer? For example I predict Somalis are closer genetically to Italians, than Zulu or Bushmen. Depends what western African populations, because like you said West Africa includes sub-Saharan and Saharan (north) populations.
quote:But the division of Africa into North and Sub-Sahara is subjective because North Africa can strictly mean only those nations that border the Mediterranean while the more inclusive definition is all African nations bordered by the Sahara desert which include not only Sudan, but Chad, Mali, and Niger which happen to include populations that approximate the 'true negro' type. Not to mention the fact that during pluvial periods the Sahara did not even exist with North Africa being as green and fertile as sub-Sahara thus NO barrier to population movements and gene-flows. It is for this very reason that Brace's clines model also fails.
The Sahara desert as a barrier or non-barrier is irrelevant (and I've actually argued since 2013 it was not a barrier), those populations in north Africa are distinguishable to those further south. Nothing falsifies Brace's model of clines.
quote:In your warped mind, prehistoric populations just moved one way with Africans heading northeast leaving the continent in the initial Out-of-Africa expansion over 65kya during the Pleistocene, thus northeast Africans like the Egyptians would be genetically closer to Eurasians than to sub-Saharans right? The problem is that this premise is based on the assumption that all populations at least in Africa became static after the Out-of-Africa even and no longer moved. This of course is absurd considering that all populations during the Paleolithic were nomadic hunter-gatherers.
I don't believe in OOA. I've always criticized it. I'm arguing for a long-term isolation-by-distance model. Also, Brace is a critic of Out of Africa.
quote:The ancient Nile Valley dwellers may not have been as closely related to West and Central Africans, as some Afrocentrics wish but they definitely were more related than they were to modern Europeans or Near Easterners.
Depends what populations you mean, but I generally disagree with this.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
This source (the same you used) has Egyptians, who I presume are an ancient rather than living sample at 84.8 mean crural index (this is almost identical to the 84.9 mean for the pooled-sex ancient Egyptian sample in [URL=Raxter, 2011]http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4500&context=etd[/URL]); Yugoslavs score 83.7.
I told you geographical populations between Egypt and Yugoslavia fill in those spaces on the plot between the Yugoslavians (83.7) and Egyptians (84.8), so for example Raxter's (2011)Mediterranean/South European sample is 83.9.
American Blacks score 85.3 and Pygmies 85.1, although Raxter (2011) has the latter on 85.6, but this might be down to the extremely small sample size of only 6 males and 3 females.
All I have to do is add more populations between South Europe and Egypt to close some of the distance between 83.9 and 84.8; it can easily be done since Raxter did not include south Levant samples and if those were included they would be more or less equidistant to Egyptians as the American Blacks and Pygmies. Do you get this yet?
Note though American Blacks don't closely resemble West Africans in crural index because of their sizable European admixture, for example compare American Blacks to West African means in Raxter (2011), the difference is fairly big, 85.3 vs. 86.2.
Last I checked, Raxter chose American blacks because of all Americans they approached Egyptian proportions. The excuse of "European admixture" is pathetic considering that both Pygmies and Melanesians cluster closely with the Egyptian sample as well. In your imaginary Y axis, New Mexican Indians align more closely to Egyptians than even the Yugoslavs but funny how you ignore them altogether as having any genetic ties to the Egyptians based on the same premise. LOL This issue was discussed before as I linked above with you (Thule) debunked already!
Get off this forum and take update your meds, psycho.
LOL. I'm not going over this one again.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:...blonde Nordic racial element was restricted to the egyptian royalty...
quote:...proto-dynastic and early dynastic ruling elite were blonde.
*I clarified not all of them were of course, hence I've published art of dark haired royals going back to 2010 when I first joined here.
Still going to deny Eurocentrism in Egyptology? Okay. Let's go some pages back:
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Yet no one has ever claimed Egyptians had skin colour like following:
quote: Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)
-You said no one was arguing Egyptian civilization wasn't founded by whites but then attribute theleaders and ruling class that would have ran the civilization was Nordic. Dynastic race theory.
- You said no one has claimed Egyptians had skin color like the doll above when again you were saying the class of Egyptians that were running the society over the darker Egyptians were Nordic light and blonde. Oh no there couldn't possibly be Eurocentrism in Egyptology theory EVAR. That's just an idea people made up! It never happened! Surely trying to liken Egyptian society to the Euro-African/light-dark colonial relationship is not Eurocentric racism injected into Egyptology research
quote:So again, please stop distorting/lying about my posts. You're worse than Carlos Coke with this sort of trolling.
So in Cassworld someone reviewing and criticizing what they've concluded to be lies on a messageboard is the same as doxxing people, hunting them down at school and looking up family! You sound like a real emotionally ticking timebomb. I'm not even trying to be funny or witty, are you THAT fvcking sensitive to make comparisons like that at your age? After how bad you said it was to go through that, any everyday criticism you get online has got you feeling this way now? Wow. Quit the melodrama, something is...really wrong with you right now. I mean you will probably always have some form of mental or emotional disorder reviewing your history but that right there was....woow. Again like...I'm not trying to be funny, but you sound severely unstable. Whatever's up with you, get help. And if you're taking something already or getting help, I implore you to get more help.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:...blonde Nordic racial element was restricted to the egyptian royalty...
quote:...proto-dynastic and early dynastic ruling elite were blonde.
*I clarified not all of them were of course, hence I've published art of dark haired royals going back to 2010 when I first joined here.
Still going to deny Eurocentrism in Egyptology? Okay. Let's go some pages back:
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Yet no one has ever claimed Egyptians had skin colour like following:
quote: Originally posted by cassiterides: posted 28 December, 2011 05:40 PM Early dynastic & old kingdom royalty was Nordic (blonde and fair skinned)
-You said no one was arguing Egyptian civilization wasn't founded by whites but then attribute theleaders and ruling class that would have ran the civilization was Nordic. Dynastic race theory.
- You said no one has claimed Egyptians had skin color like the doll above when again you were saying the class of Egyptians that were running the society over the darker Egyptians were Nordic light and blonde. Oh no there couldn't possibly be Eurocentrism in Egyptology theory EVAR. That's just an idea people made up! It never happened! Surely trying to liken Egyptian society to the Euro-African/light-dark colonial relationship is not Eurocentric racism injected into Egyptology research
quote:So again, please stop distorting/lying about my posts. You're worse than Carlos Coke with this sort of trolling.
So in Cassworld someone reviewing and criticizing what they've concluded to be lies on a messageboard is the same as doxxing people, hunting them down at school and looking up family! You sound like a real emotionally ticking timebomb. I'm not even trying to be funny or witty, are you THAT fvcking sensitive to make comparisons like that at your age? After how bad you said it was to go through that, any everyday criticism you get online has got you feeling this way now? Wow. Quit the melodrama, something is...really wrong with you right now. I mean you will probably always have some form of mental or emotional disorder reviewing your history but that right there was....woow. Again like...I'm not trying to be funny, but you sound severely unstable. Whatever's up with you, get help. And if you're taking something already or getting help, I implore you to get more help.
Newsflash: Dynastic Race Theory is not "Eurocentric". It has nothing to do with Europe, but southwest Asia [and if you read my 2011 posts I never said the "Nordics" in question were directly from Europe; I discussed things like Oric Bates blonde haired Libyan theory and see the Coon quote above about blondism in North African populations.] Furthermore DRT and Hamiticism I gave up 4 years ago. A number of Afrocentrists on this forum have also changed their views since this time. Since 2013 I've argued ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians. I became a critic of large-scale admixture models, hence in other thread I propose a cultural transmission model for the spread of Neolithic farming.
The blondism thing in Egyptians is an unknown but its still possible there was a higher percentage of fairer phenotypes in Egyptian royalty because of exogamous marriages that happened to secure political/foreign alliances.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote: Newsflash: Dynastic Race Theory is not "Eurocentric". It has nothing to do with Europe, but southwest Asia [and if you read my 2011 posts I never said the "Nordics" in question were directly from Europe; I discussed things like Oric Bates blonde haired Libyan theory and see the Coon quote above about blondism in North African populations.] Furthermore DRT and Hamiticism I gave up 4 years ago. A number of Afrocentrists on this forum have also changed their views since this time. Since 2013 I've argued ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians. I became a critic of large-scale admixture models, hence in other thread I propose a cultural transmission model for the spread of Neolithic farming.
The blondism thing in Egyptians is an unknown but its still possible there was a higher percentage of fairer phenotypes in Egyptian royalty because of exogamous marriages that happened to secure political/foreign alliances.
The ancient Egyptians were incredibly cautious and so did not even allow daughters of the Pharaohs to be married to foreign leaders in order to prevent any foreign derived claimants to the throne from compromising the State.
There are very few people in North Africa that are actually natural blondes, and so people are clearly reaching... from the services of their cherished racial political aims. Studies by Brothwell and Spearman attribute the observed reddish hair in some of the Mummies to the partial oxidation of the pigments. Bleaching by the alkaline in the Mummification process was responsible for the blonde hair. The ancient Egyptians [like other Northeast Africans] used Henna to colour their hair using vegetable colorants.
People with natural blonde hair or strands of it have also been found all over Northeast Africa and the mummification process helped this along. The ancient Egyptians only came across people with blonde hair by the Middle Kingdom.
Non-Africans only came into the picture long after Egypt had already been established, and so this attempt to neatly and equally parcel out ancient Egypt's legacy to the Levant and Northeast Africa is preposterous.
Do you really mean to assert that the Slavs would be more genetically closer to the ancient Egyptians over the Bushmen?
Yes, certainly. [/QB]
There is no genetic evidence for this. You must present such genetic evidence for this laughable assertion in order to allow it to morph into something more than just your flight of fancy. Please present the genetic evidence.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Do you really mean to assert that the Slavs would be more genetically closer to the ancient Egyptians over the Bushmen?
Yes, certainly.
There is no genetic evidence for this. You must present such genetic evidence for this laughable assertion in order to allow it to morph into something more than just your flight of fancy. Please present the genetic evidence. [/QB]
Geographic distance explains >75% of variation between populations.
"However, clusters explain only a minute fraction of the variance [8,49] relative to clines. As mentioned in the main text (Figure 1b), >75% of the total variance of pairwise FST can be captured by geographic distance alone. Adding information on genetic clusters to this model captures only an extra 2% of the variance." http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/pdf/Lawson%20Handley%20et%20al%20TIG%202007.pdfPosts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Do you really mean to assert that the Slavs would be more genetically closer to the ancient Egyptians over the Bushmen?
Yes, certainly.
There is no genetic evidence for this. You must present such genetic evidence for this laughable assertion in order to allow it to morph into something more than just your flight of fancy. Please present the genetic evidence.
Geographic distance explains >75% of variation between populations.
"However, clusters explain only a minute fraction of the variance [8,49] relative to clines. As mentioned in the main text (Figure 1b), >75% of the total variance of pairwise FST can be captured by geographic distance alone. Adding information on genetic clusters to this model captures only an extra 2% of the variance." http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/pdf/Lawson%20Handley%20et%20al%20TIG%202007.pdf [/QB]
I asked for specific evidence pertaining to your claim that the Slavs are genetically closer to Northeast Africans like the ancient Egyptians than the San. You provided a PDF on certain theories, but nothing specific to what was asked of you.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Newsflash: Dynastic Race Theory is not "Eurocentric". It has nothing to do with Europe, but southwest Asia [and if you read my 2011 posts I never said the "Nordics" in question were directly from Europe; I discussed things like Oric Bates blonde haired Libyan theory and see the Coon quote above about blondism in North African populations.] Furthermore DRT and Hamiticism I gave up 4 years ago.
Don't play stupid. Even if mainstream dynastic race theory isn't bold enough to say Europe (or to say it directly), the point was the existence of Eurocentrism among theorists and layfolk you said did not ever exist. Eurocentrics try to describe the dynastic race or affinities that can incorporate Europe. "Eurasia" or "Caucasoid" or "Nordic" are words that are slyly inferring early dynastic or predynastic associations to Europe that aren't supported. Oh and on the last one, you did not say "Libyan" blonde nor Libyan fair skin, you said "Nordic" hair and skin.
Compared to the Euro savior idea, there's more out there to support an origin of Egypt that involved African people not isolated by the Sahara. But Euro Egypt gets many white people excited. Euro Egypt out of every origin theory I've heard is the most absurd. But people can still make fanfare when igena created that Tut hoax. The news followed suit of the claim that a fair portion of European men are "related" to the pharaoh. To many common folks especially, this fantasy still exists.
Euro Egypt still has a following. Obviously a lot of Europeans know it's BS but there are still those who like seeing Egypt more European. We most assuredly wouldn't have had Gods of Egypt (nor a 150 million box office return). Yes that is NOT a great return b/c they spent 140 mil to make it, but many people still had to go for it to make that much.
quote:A number of Afrocentrists on this forum have also changed their views since this time. Since 2013 I've argued ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians. I became a critic of large-scale admixture models, hence in other thread I propose a cultural transmission model for the spread of Neolithic farming.
I don't care what your views are now. Where you lied was when you dismissed that there was ever a presence of Eurocentrism when the subject is Egypt.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Do you really mean to assert that the Slavs would be more genetically closer to the ancient Egyptians over the Bushmen?
Yes, certainly.
There is no genetic evidence for this. You must present such genetic evidence for this laughable assertion in order to allow it to morph into something more than just your flight of fancy. Please present the genetic evidence.
Geographic distance explains >75% of variation between populations.
"However, clusters explain only a minute fraction of the variance [8,49] relative to clines. As mentioned in the main text (Figure 1b), >75% of the total variance of pairwise FST can be captured by geographic distance alone. Adding information on genetic clusters to this model captures only an extra 2% of the variance." http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/pdf/Lawson%20Handley%20et%20al%20TIG%202007.pdf [/QB]
But how much is too much is subjective. SSA as a label means that from the fringes of the Sahel to the coasts of Southern Africa, Africans can still be labeled the same "enough" to be classified SSA irrespective of variability. A San and Zulu from South Africa an Ngwa Igbo from Nigeria, a Dinka from South Sudan and Omotic speakers in Ethiopia are all under one label. But the Sahel to Egypt is suddenly too far. Oh now the predynastic and early dynastic groups could not be same "enough" though there was no full return of the Sahara. Today there's like I said less distance iirc between Egypt and the Sahel.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that the Nilotic tribes like the Dinka, Nuer, Chollo and Anyuak use to live in North Sudan until very recently [13th century for the Dinka], I suppose the troll would agree that the Dinka are genetically closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Slavs using his geography criteria.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
I can imagine many modern Nilotics in Southern Sudan were in the North. It'd be great if we had a better understanding of migration patterns. Looking at this, southern Egypt hadn't completely turned desert. Almost none of Sudan (North or South) was desert at this time. North Sudan is a Savannah grasslands. So the "distance" of the Sahara by 3000 BC would've been from Northern Egypt to Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan according to this. This small distance is just "too great." But the entire distance of SSA and all the variability those distances would've contained... oh well ok, that's not too large. Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Considering that the Nilotic tribes like the Dinka, Nuer, Chollo and Anyuak use to live in North Sudan until very recently [13th century for the Dinka], I suppose the troll would agree that the Dinka are genetically closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Slavs using his geography criteria.
Just read any encyclopaedia and they state the ethno-genesis of all those ethnic groups/tribes was in southern Sudan. No doubt you will come back with some pseudo-historical Afrocentrist source saying otherwise. What genetics has shown for living Sudanese populations is geography is fairly strongly correlated with genetics. The "Negroid"-looking Sudanese from the southern Sudan (most from the far south; Republic of South Sudan) like Dinka, Shilluk and Nuer plot one extreme, furthest away from the more "Caucasoid" looking Nubians and Sudanese Arabs (although I would not call these "Caucasoid" proper, they just look less "Negroid" hence old anthropologists thought they were hybrids - I do not claim the latter since I re-interpret the data in a clinal context that takes into account genetic drift and selection, not solely gene flow), with central Sudanese populations filling the intermediate spaces. The following 2011 study found geographical distance explains the largest percentage of genetic variation between ethnic groups in Sudan (52%), although they note this should be even higher since they included a population outlier to Sudan, i.e. Somalis; regardless linguistics/culture only accounted for 21%, minor fraction of the genetic variation:
"For the genetic variation between groups, only a fraction of it could be attributed to the linguistic differences between groups (0.21%) or to the geographic distance between the locations of the groups (0.52%). However, at least within Sudan, geography plays a more important role in causing genetic differences between groups compared with the influence of language... the Somali population is separated both geographically and linguistically from the other populations included in our study, it is not surprising that it is also genetically distinct."
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hughes, Stephen W. and Wright, Richard and Barry, Mark D. (2005) Virtual reconstruction and morphological analysis of the cranium of an ancient Egyptian mummy. Australasian Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 28(2). pp. 122127
"A mummy of an Egyptian priestess dating from the 22nd dynasty (c. 770 BC), completely enclosed in an anthropoid (human shaped) coffin, was scanned on a CT scanner. An accurate reconstruction of the cranium was generated from 115 × 2 mm CT images using AVS/Express on a SGI computer. Linear measurements were obtained from six orthogonal cranial views and used in a morphometric analysis software package (CRANID). The analyses carried out were both linear and nearest neighbour discriminant analysis. The results show that there is a 52.9% probability that the mummy is an Egyptian female"
"The British Museum in London, UK, contains a collection of about 80 Egyptian mummies. One mummy on display in the museum is an Egyptian priestess dating from the 22nd dynasty (c.770 BC). The mummy was first X-rayed by Dawson and Gray1 in the 1960’s. The original report by Gray states that the mummy within the coffin is a “priestess, aged 25-40, in cartonagea, named Tjentmutengebtiub, daughter of Khnonsmes and Mehenmutemhat”. Tjentmutengebtiu was a priestess in the great temple at Karnak, near modern day Luxor on the River Nile. Tjentmutengebtiu arrived in the British Museum (BM), London in 1891."
"A computer program has been developed by one of the authors (RW) called CRANID for the morphometric analysis of the skull from 29 measurements. A description of an earlier version of CRANID is given by Wright5. The CRANID database includes measurements of 2,802 individuals from around the world. It is a slightly expanded version of the database originally collected by W.W. Howells6-7. The crania are only those of modern Homo sapiens. Most date from the last 1,000 years. They come from 33 geographical samples, most of which are divided by sex. This results in 64 samples for analysis. Among the new samples in the database are two that are particularly relevant to the analysis of the mummy, namely males and females from the Iron Age site of Lachish in Israel. The output of the program is a series of probabilities that the person is from a particular geographical sample within the database."
"Six views of Tjentmutengebtiu’s cranium were generated, as shown in figure 4. In each image the skull was rendered with no perspective so that accurate dimensions could be obtained. 27 measurements of Tjentmutengebtiu’s skull were obtained - two measurements fewer than the 29 normally used in CRANID, but enough to obtain good results. The estimated measurements in mm obtained from the mummy, using the codes defined by Howells6, are shown in table 1."
"Linear discriminant analysis identifies the mummy as most likely an Egyptian female, with a probability of 52.9%. This result, together with less probable contenders, are included in table 2 (samples reported are only those with a probability greater than 1.0%)."
"We see that the result by nearest neighbour analysis strengthens the case for an Egyptian identification, while still retaining a preference for female. By chance alone, we must expect only one Egyptian female on average from 53 hits. The fact that there are 10 such nearest neighbours is a very strong result."
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Don't play stupid. Even if mainstream dynastic race theory isn't bold enough to say Europe (or to say it directly), the point was the existence of Eurocentrism among theorists and layfolk you said did not ever exist.
It never did exist. The only people screaming "Eurocentrism" are racist blacks / black supremacist / Afrocentrist loons on internet forums like yourself as some conspiracy theory or paranoia about western academia.
Afrocentrism is recognised as a pseudo-science, but Eurocentrism isn't. Take a look at any skeptic website or dictionary.
quote:Eurocentrics try to describe the dynastic race or affinities that can incorporate Europe. "Eurasia" or "Caucasoid" or "Nordic" are words that are slyly inferring early dynastic or predynastic associations to Europe that aren't supported. Oh and on the last one, you did not say "Libyan" blonde nor Libyan fair skin, you said "Nordic" hair and skin.
No one has ever said ancient Egyptians came from Europe though, its your straw man, and I've already been over this (Dynastic race theory = southwest Asia, not Europe). The fact is it people like yourself who are trying to attach yourself to Egypt when you have no close biological ties, you then do some psychological projection and claim ethnic Europeans are doing this, when none do. And you're once again fooling around with terms - "Nordic" does not equal Northern European even though the latter have the highest frequency of "Nordic" pigmentation traits; Carleton Coon discussed in detail "Nordics" across West Asia and North Africa, their origin was never resolved, however no one was proposing some direct sort of migration of Scandinavians to early dynastic Egypt.
Also not sure what the fuss was about Gods of Egypt. They actually tried to darken the white actors by giving them tans or a light bronzy complexion.
Gerard Butler as Egyptian god Set
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: And you're once again fooling around with terms - "Nordic" does not equal Northern European even though the latter have the highest frequency of "Nordic" pigmentation traits; Carleton Coon discussed in detail "Nordics" across West Asia and North Africa, their origin was never resolved, however no one was proposing some direct sort of migration of Scandinavians to early dynastic Egypt.
.
Carleton Coon does not replace dictionary definitions, no need for eye rolling
This is an example of of Eurocentrism. You apply a word that by definitions refers to Northern Europe and then you try to pretend it doesn't
-maybe you should find another word !
Also you take the fact that there is a relationship between geographical distance and predicting genetics but you use this relationship to ignore the precision of the genetics and draw all conclusions by measuring distances from one place to another,
-as if there is no more need to analyze DNA, just go on a website that gives you airplane distance of one place to another and that tells you everything about the relationship of lack thereof form one population to another.
quote: Eurocentrics try to describe the dynastic race or affinities that can incorporate Europe. "Eurasia" or "Caucasoid" or "Nordic" are words that are slyly inferring early dynastic or predynastic associations to Europe that aren't supported. Oh and on the last one, you did not say "Libyan" blonde nor Libyan fair skin, you said "Nordic" hair and skin.
No one has ever said ancient Egyptians came from Europe though,
Eurocentrics do 1 of 2 things both of which you strawman in your response to avoid talking about. First, Eurocentrics will temporarily expand identity labels within academia to normalize among the unsuspecting the addition of Europeans in groups being labeled as candidates for the ancestral populations of AE. Even if modern Europeans weren't especially involved, the implication is that the civilization was made by a people who were the same "enough" because the labels we use to describe them say so. Whiteness does the same thing for Northern Europeans whenever Greece and Rome are brought up. By calling their cultures "white," "western civilization" or "European," it creates an identity label to classify them in a way that includes any other Europeans.
As for you, there is no reason to describe AE as "Nordic" instead of a label that extends to nearby populations. "Caucasoid" also denotes a label for humans frequently associated with Europeans and "Eur"Asia includes Europe without need. In fact Africa like Europe is not disconnected from Asia either. But Eurasia is used to often discuss the AE, while Afroeurasia is not a general way to discuss the rest of Africa (especially not SSA).
Then you have the Eurocentric that believes many modern Europeans were directly in Egypt. This is more the layman's Eurocentrism than the academic's. A relationship between modern Europeans and AE does not require a belief that the people came directly out of the region of Europe. It just requires the belief that the people that today live in Europe were there at the time. This is your play dumb strawan mentality at work again. How many Europeans still worship a white Jesus and portray the disciples, Moses and other biblical heroes as European (Nordic even)? Yet they are fearful of people that look like they come from the Middle East. They think the ancestors of modern Europeans were native to the area before modern Europeans came to concentrate more in Europe.
Why do Europeans emphasize the stories of European rulers of Egypt much more than they do Native Africans? Second to the story of Moses (who is frequently made out to be white in Europe), Greek rulers are the only real tale of common knowledge or interest to Europeans. People know of Tut but not of his story.
Oh but about Tut, thy WAS there any audience for Tut's supposed western European ancestry in the first place? Why were there so many people that went gaga over it, instead of thinking that sort of relationship would be a stretch? Because many Eurocentrics believe modern Europeans and AE shared common ancestry and they were in that area of the world at the time.
As I agreed in the other thread, some Eurocentrics will accept non Euros as founders of Egypt as long as it means they can helps to allow Eurocentric philosophy towards Africa remain unchallenged. It's not the ideal for a Eurocentric, but it's something.
quote:Also not sure what the fuss was about Gods of Egypt. They actually tried to darken the white actors by giving them tans or a light bronzy complexion.
lighting aside It's not hard to tell these guys are European. They are also very well known European actors sporting European accents (and often European) clothing.
There are plenty of people from Bollywood or the middle East trying to make it in acting. You wouldn't have a white guy play MLK, but you can have Egyptian Gods as white because well...many people believe they were white (and that Egypt is white culture). In the film the characters come out lighter depending on scene, but everyone knows they're European.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you think the Average Modern Egyptian, let alone Ancient Egyptian looks like Gerard Butler then you are as deluded as the hardcore Afrocentrists. What gets me is people like you will spam "We Wuz Kangs" when a Carthagenian is portrayed by an African American(ignoring the fact that Carthage had Tropical Africans or so called Negros as you call them living in Carthage) but stay quiet when a European portrays and Afro-Asiatic god.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [QUOTE] Also not sure what the fuss was about Gods of Egypt. They actually tried to darken the white actors by giving them tans or a light bronzy complexion.
Gerard Butler as Egyptian god Set
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If you think the Average Modern Egyptian, let alone Ancient Egyptian looks like Gerard Butler then you are as deluded as the hardcore Afrocentrists. What gets me is people like you will spam "We Wuz Kangs" when a Carthagenian is portrayed by an African American(ignoring the fact that Carthage had Tropical Africans or so called Negros as you call them living in Carthage) but stay quiet when a European portrays and Afro-Asiatic god.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [QUOTE] Also not sure what the fuss was about Gods of Egypt. They actually tried to darken the white actors by giving them tans or a light bronzy complexion.
Gerard Butler as Egyptian god Set
European populations are closer craniometrically [i.e genetically] than west/central sub-Saharan Africans ("Negroids) to ancient Egyptians though, so I don't see the hypocrisy. Observe Maghreb are also far closer to Europeans, than "Negroids":
Are Egyptians "Caucasoid". No. But they're a lot closer phenotypically to "Caucasoids" (West Eurasians) than "Negroids", best explained by geographical distance. Old physical anthropologists had Egyptians as a "Caucasoid-Negroid" (or "Capoid") blend with "Caucasoid" predominating, e.g. in most old anthropology literature Egyptians were 7/8 to 3/4 Caucasoid, while north Sudanese 1/2 Caucasoid and Horn Africans between 1/3 and 1/4 Caucasoid. I just re-interpret this now in a clinal context since I also take into account genetic drift and selection(in situ mechanisms), not just gene flow, so I don't have to explain things in terms of large scale admixture. The old race typology models were far too simplistic and did not know genetic drift or selection because they predated the modern evolutionary synthesis:
"...changes were, however, not only the results of migrations, but also of genetical developmental processes (e.g. selective adaptation, random genetic drift etc.)" - Strouhal, E. (1981). Current state of anthropological studies on ancient Egypt and Nubia. Bull, et Mem. de la Soc. d'Anthrop. de Paris. 8(XIII): 231-249 http://www.persee.fr/doc/bmsap_0037-8984_1981_num_8_3_3825Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: A load of spam from this Zaharaclown where he tries to bury his blunders.
quote:Your own map shows narrow noses in West/Central Africa by the way- within tropical Africa, and within "sub-Saharan" Africa.
The map does not show leptorrhine (narrow) nasal index in any part of west/central Africa - this is just another of your lies you invented.
Stop acting like a fool, rather stop being a fool! THIS ALL READY HAS BEEN DEBUNKED!
quote:Nose. Bantu: variable, ranging from platyrrhine to leptorrhine
—A. H. Keane, A. Hingston Quiggin, A. C. Haddon - 2011
Man: Past and Present - Page 85
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid: Nigerian nasal index: "The commonest type of nasal variability is Type A (70.5%), Platyrrhine nose, Type B (26.7%) especially in females (mesorrhine) and Type C (leptorrhine) (2.8%)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22030966
So only 3% of Nigerians have narrow noses. O dear.
The mantra "Sub-Saharans have the greatest phenotypic variation" Afrocentrists spam on this forum ad nauseam ignores the geographical structure of this variation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, it is not the case that "Caucasoid" features are common across the whole of East Africa, with the exception of some northern Ethiopian populations and Somalis and even then these "Caucasoid" traits at high frequency are confined to the nasal/mid-facial part of the skull, not other regions. Hence Somalis do not plot close to Europeans in craniometric analyses that use many measurements covering all surface-area of the skull (see Howells' data on East Africans).
1) Nigerians aren't the only West Africans.
2) You first claimed sub Saharans don't have narrow noses, which you are now discrediting yourself, after I already had debunked it a week ago.
3) West Africa has close to 400,000,000 inhabitance, of which there are 173.6 million Nigerians.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If you think the Average Modern Egyptian, let alone Ancient Egyptian looks like Gerard Butler then you are as deluded as the hardcore Afrocentrists. What gets me is people like you will spam "We Wuz Kangs" when a Carthagenian is portrayed by an African American(ignoring the fact that Carthage had Tropical Africans or so called Negros as you call them living in Carthage) but stay quiet when a European portrays and Afro-Asiatic god.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [QUOTE] Also not sure what the fuss was about Gods of Egypt. They actually tried to darken the white actors by giving them tans or a light bronzy complexion.
Gerard Butler as Egyptian god Set
European populations are closer craniometrically [i.e genetically] than west/central sub-Saharan Africans ("Negroids) to ancient Egyptians though, so I don't see the hypocrisy. Observe Maghreb are also far closer to Europeans, than "Negroids":
Are Egyptians "Caucasoid". No. But they're a lot closer phenotypically to "Caucasoids" (West Eurasians) than "Negroids", best explained by geographical distance. Old physical anthropologists had Egyptians as a "Caucasoid-Negroid" (or "Capoid") blend with "Caucasoid" predominating, e.g. in most old anthropology literature Egyptians were 7/8 to 3/4 Caucasoid, while north Sudanese 1/2 Caucasoid and Horn Africans between 1/3 and 1/4 Caucasoid. I just re-interpret this now in a clinal context since I also take into account genetic drift and selection(in situ mechanisms), not just gene flow, so I don't have to explain things in terms of large scale admixture. The old race typology models were far too simplistic and did not know genetic drift or selection because they predated the modern evolutionary synthesis:
"...changes were, however, not only the results of migrations, but also of genetical developmental processes (e.g. selective adaptation, random genetic drift etc.)" - Strouhal, E. (1981). Current state of anthropological studies on ancient Egypt and Nubia. Bull, et Mem. de la Soc. d'Anthrop. de Paris. 8(XIII): 231-249 http://www.persee.fr/doc/bmsap_0037-8984_1981_num_8_3_3825
Goodgrief, CLOWN. What you keep iterating has long been debunked, YOU RETARD!!!!!
quote: The Egypt, Nubia and Africa (‘Ethiopic’) groups form a cluster at some distance from others. But although the Africa (“Negroid”)’ group is placed next to the ‘Canary Islands (pre-Spanish)’ group, the substantial difference between them is indicated by how far one has to travel to the right along the branches of the dendrogram before meeting a linkage line. Indeed, the bottom two Africa’ groups could more reasonably (and without violating the overall arrangement) be rotated to the top of the diagram. If a three-dimensional display were to be adopted this oddity would be lost. After F.W.Rösing, Qubbet el Hawa und Elephantine; zur Bevölkerungsgeschichte von Ägypten, Stuttgart and New York, 1990, 209, Abb. 134.
Left (a). Similar dendrogram (from the CRANID program) which places Egypt amidst populations from the main world regions. In contrast to the previous diagram, Egypt is represented by only a single cemetery, that of the Late Period at Giza. The other dendrograms (especially those of Figure 17, pp. 56, 57) question how representative of ancient Egypt the Giza group is. After New Scientist, 23 February 2002, 23.
—Barry Kemp Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization
But he explains:
quote: "..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
—Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Routledge. (2006) (p. 52-60)
quote: "When the Elephantine results were added to a broader pooling of the physical characteristics drawn from a wide geographic region which includes Africa, the Mediterranean and the Near East quite strong affinities emerge between Elephantine and populations from Nubia, supporting a strong south-north cline.
—Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Routledge. (2006) (p. 54)
quote: "...sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
--Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation.( Routledge. p. 52-60)(2005)
quote: "When the Elephantine results were added to a broader pooling of the physical characteristics drawn from a wide geographic region which includes Africa, the Mediterranean and the Near East quite strong affinities emerge between Elephantine and populations from Nubia, supporting a strong south-north cline.
—Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Routledge. (2006) p. 54)
quote:"If, on the other hand, CRANID had used one of the Elephantine populations of the same period, the geographic association would be much more with the African groups to the south. It is dangerous to take one set of skeletons and use them to characterize the population of the whole of Egypt."
—Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2006) p. 55)
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: accidental repost "...changes were, however, not only the results of migrations, but also of genetical developmental processes (e.g. selective adaptation, random genetic drift etc.)" - Strouhal, E. (1981). Current state of anthropological studies on ancient Egypt and Nubia. Bull, et Mem. de la Soc. d'Anthrop. de Paris. 8(XIII): 231-249
We know RETARD!!!
quote:"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."
--Godde K.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
quote:[]b”As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups[/b] (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).
These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007).
Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)
quote: There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas
[…]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography”
--Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology) (1999, 2005, 2015)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [QB]European populations are closer craniometrically [i.e genetically] than west/central sub-Saharan Africans ("Negroids) to ancient Egyptians though, so I don't see the hypocrisy. Observe Maghreb are also far closer to Europeans, than "Negroids":
What does this have to do with what I said? Gerald Butler looks nothing like the Average Egyptian, further if you want to play the Affinity/closer game, the Closet population on the face of the Earth are the Nubians.
I mean I dont get people like you, you were so upset when a black person played a Nordic god, but have no problem when a white person plays an African god. I mean you realize alot of the Egyptian gods were developed in the South??
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Considering that the Nilotic tribes like the Dinka, Nuer, Chollo and Anyuak use to live in North Sudan until very recently [13th century for the Dinka], I suppose the troll would agree that the Dinka are genetically closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Slavs using his geography criteria.
Just read any encyclopaedia and they state the ethno-genesis of all those ethnic groups/tribes was in southern Sudan. No doubt you will come back with some pseudo-historical Afrocentrist source saying otherwise. What genetics has shown for living Sudanese populations is geography is fairly strongly correlated with genetics. The "Negroid"-looking Sudanese from the southern Sudan (most from the far south; Republic of South Sudan) like Dinka, Shilluk and Nuer plot one extreme, furthest away from the more "Caucasoid" looking Nubians and Sudanese Arabs (although I would not call these "Caucasoid" proper, they just look less "Negroid" hence old anthropologists thought they were hybrids - I do not claim the latter since I re-interpret the data in a clinal context that takes into account genetic drift and selection, not solely gene flow), with central Sudanese populations filling the intermediate spaces. The following 2011 study found geographical distance explains the largest percentage of genetic variation between ethnic groups in Sudan (52%), although they note this should be even higher since they included a population outlier to Sudan, i.e. Somalis; regardless linguistics/culture only accounted for 21%, minor fraction of the genetic variation:
"For the genetic variation between groups, only a fraction of it could be attributed to the linguistic differences between groups (0.21%) or to the geographic distance between the locations of the groups (0.52%). However, at least within Sudan, geography plays a more important role in causing genetic differences between groups compared with the influence of language... the Somali population is separated both geographically and linguistically from the other populations included in our study, it is not surprising that it is also genetically distinct."
Reading Wikipedia entries is no substitute for actual research, you idiotic son of a dog. Your understanding of Sudan and Northeast Africa is pathetic.
quote:The East African Nilotic culture evolved 2, 000 years ago in the Gezira, the land between the Blue and White Niles in present day Sudan . Over time the Nilotes migrated southwards in clans and currently reside in southern Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania.
The Western Nilotes, the greatest population of Nilotes people in Sudan, include the Dinka, Shilluk, Anuak, Nuer, Luo, Atwot, Acholi, and Burun (and numerous smaller groups). The Burun remain in the Gezira and the others reside in southern Sudan or on the Sudanese/Ethiopian border (Anuak) and Ugandan/Sudanese border (Acholi). (Encyclopedia of Africa, Volume 2)
quote:The homeland of these African Nilotic Sudanese was at one time in Central Sudan, specifically in the Gezira, and the last of them to leave, according to their traditions of migration, were the Dinka (in their own language the Jiang of Moinjiang) some time in the fifteenth century who pushed the Luo, who had gone before them, further into southern Sudan .(A History of Modern Sudan, Robert O. Collins)
quote:Linguisic studies such as those by Ehret suggest that the cradleland of all Nilotic languages lies north of the Ethiopian border between the Blue and White Niles in the Sudanese Gezira , specifically in the present-day home-land of the Burun. Nicholas David adds that a dialect chain of western, eastern, and southern branches of Nilotic languages diversify from a more northerly part of the Gezira in a southerly direction suggesting the language began in what is now the central Sudan and then spread south. Clarifying the puzzle, William Y. Adams argues that the original homeland of any language family emanates from that area where the various member languages have the widest diversity; in this case the country of the Burun west of the Ethiopian highlands in the Gezira. Thus, the cradleland of all Nilotic people, according to linguistics, was the Gezira. (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)
quote:Adding further evidence and looking back at the ancient linguistic history of the Nilotes, Ehret suggests the material culture of the Nilotes in the Gezira took shape during the Aquatic period around 9000-6000 B.C.E. The ancestral Nilotes took on a distinct identity from 6500 to 550 B.C.E. approximately, and as the Sudd shrank to modern proportions from 2000 to 1000 B.C.E. at the end of the Saharan wet phase, some of the Nilotes expanded southwards as far as Lake Turkana. (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)
quote: In the meantime the ancestors of the Dinka remained in the old homelands. Around 1400 A.D. the Dinka began their expansion out of the Gezira while the modern Luo speakers of all descriptions were pushed southwards to various peripheries. Within South Sudan today there are only Western and Eastern-speaking peoples. As the former are the numerically dominant, much of this volume is devoted to their histories in the region. Other recent scholarship also shows that the Dinka language has a close connection to classical Nubian of central Sudan. (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)
quote:Bender lists Nilotic and Nubian as Eastern Sudanic languages and linguistic studies conducted by Robin Thelwall suggest an unexpected degree of similarity in vocabulary between Dinka and the modern linguistic descendant of classical Nubian, Nobiin. Thelwall compared Daju, Nubian and Dinka and wrote: "The inter Daju-Nubian comparisons give a spread of ten to twenty-five percent...However, the check of Dinka gives one comparison (with Nobiin [the classical language of Nubia] of twenty-seven percent... and this stronger link to Dinka than to Daju implies that it was in close contact with Dinka. " In his first interpretation of this linguistic evidence, Thelwall attributed these similarities to a loaning process of historical interraction between speakers of classical Nubian and their Dinka contemporaries. The plausibility of this interpretation has more recently been enhanced by the demonstration that numbers of modern Arabic-speaking peoples of the central Nile valley Sudan previously spoke a Nubian language more closely related to Nobiin than to the modern-day Nubian language of Kenzi-Dongolawi. In the recent past Nubian speakers were widely distributed extending up the Nile as far as modern-day Khartoum and over much of the Gezira. The far southern Nubian kingdom was Alwa and, if the subjects of this kingdom spoke classical Nubian, as seems likely, they had at least a millenium in which to interract linguistically with the Dinka who claim to have resided in the same region . Archaeology also supports the Dinka claims of a central Sudanese homeland. (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)
quote: This chapter suggests that the original homeland of the East African Nilotes is the central Sudan between the Blue and White Niles in the Gezira. The largest of the Western Nilotic peoples in the Sudan today, the Dinka recount histories of migrations from north and south of the confluence of the Blue and White Niles, the modern-day capital of Khartoum, southwards into their present homelands in South Sudan. Thus, evidently, around the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries they were the last Nilotes to leave central Sudan. Emperical evidence in the form of linguistics and archaelogy in both central and Southern Sudan and historical accounts further support the above data. This includes Arab and Nubian geographers and travellers accounts of the eleventh to the thirteenth-century Nubian period along with more recent Northern Sudanese manuscripts and oral histories from the Gezira. As the forefathers of the Dinka migrated out of the central Sudan into their new homelands further south and southwest, however, they faced an onslaught of military resistance. (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)
quote: Archaelogical studies suggest a Nilotic presence in central Sudan many centuries ago. During the Meroitic period (c. 300 B.C.E. to 300 A.D.) the plains between the White Nile and its tributaries were rich corn-growing regions; the most fertile was that between the Blue and White Niles, the Gezira. It was covered with a dense forest of Mimosa thorn and plentiful in rain. In this region 270 kilometers south of present-day Khartoum (at the confluence of the Blue and White Niles) there is archaelogical evidence at Jebel Moya (in the center of the Gezira) of the Nilotic trait of evulsion of the lower teeth practised by 12.8 percent of the males and 18.1 percent of the females. Evulsion, or removal of the lower incisors and sometimes of the upper is a custom practised in the ethnographic present overwhelmingly by all the Western Nilotic people (Dinka, Nuer Shilluk, etc). Lipstuds, another Jebel Moya trait, are also worn by some Nilotic peoples today. More persuasive are a number of archaelogical studies from the Southern Sudan strongly supporting the view that the Dinka culture was not indigenous to this region. (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)
quote: Abialang Dinka Musa Ajak Liol states: "We chased the Funj [the former residents of the Nile/Sobat junction] all the way up to Omutholwi, east of Renk, then up to Parmi now called Gospami, and then chased them all the way to the Ethiopian border, called Jebel Toktok and left them there." It has been fairly well established that during the Nubian period (c. 300-1300 A.D.) a people called the Funj resided near the junction of the Nile and Sobat rivers as well as throughout the Gezira; indeed the Sultanate of the same name emerged in the sixteenth century. Dinka oral histories recount meeting the "Fung" people as they forged south up the Nile. Abialang Dinka Musa Ajak Liol states: "We found Funj in our areas and we fought with them and defeated them."In their travels south the Dinka remember many wars with the Funj which are noted in detail in the next chapter. A number of written accounts suggest the Dinka are closely related to the Nubians. They are derived from the precolonial and colonial Sudanese periods and, at very least, suggest that the Dinka resided in central Sudan. Early in the eighteenth century two manuscripts (one which claims to date back to 1738 and another by the Northern Sudanese writer Muhammed Walad Dolib the younger, both quote the thesis of the fourteenth-century North African traveller Ibn Khaldun that the Dinka were ancestrally connected to the Danagla (Nubians). (Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan, Stephanie Beswick)
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: [QB]European populations are closer craniometrically [i.e genetically] than west/central sub-Saharan Africans ("Negroids) to ancient Egyptians though, so I don't see the hypocrisy. Observe Maghreb are also far closer to Europeans, than "Negroids":
What does this have to do with what I said? Gerald Butler looks nothing like the Average Egyptian, further if you want to play the Affinity/closer game, the Closet population on the face of the Earth are the Nubians.
I mean I dont get people like you, you were so upset when a black person played a Nordic god, but have no problem when a white person plays an African god. I mean you realize alot of the Egyptian gods were developed in the South??
All people representing ancient Egyptians should look like the ancient Egyptians above - with a minority of actors with skin tones similar to or darker than the San people.
Heritage theft really should be a crime. Ancient Egyptians should only be represented by indigenous Upper Egyptians, Nubians in Egypt and Sudan, the Beja and our brave cousins in Somalia, the Afar, Oromo, Saho, Bilen and many others in our region.
The ancient Egyptians were Northeast African blacks and the mentally ill troll stammers in protest like an irate toddler when other black people in Africa try to associate themselves with these Northeast African blacks... absurdly insisting that his people in Europe are more closely related to Northeast blacks.
It's sick and pathetic.
He provides no genetic evidence for these ridiculous claims and tries to fake the funk by overemphasizing craniometrics over genetics, archaeology and culture.
The sick minded troll has been repeatedly told that "Eurasians" in Europe and the Levant are derived from the Northeast Africans that left Africa 60, 000 ago -- which would explain some of the craniometric similarities. Genetics is a far more useful tool for determining biological affinities.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no evidence Nilotes, or specifically Dinka trace their ethno-genesis to Gezira/central Sudan. If you actually read the only scholarly source you posted (Robert O. Collins, Cambridge University Press) what he says is that there is Nilotic tradition(s) of this: "according to their traditions of migration". For example, medieval English (my ancestors) claimed descent from Trojans - should we take them serious? Obviously traditions must be taken with a pinch of salt (not to deny some might hold a kernel of historical truth, but this only works when the tradition in question is backed by archaeology etc., there is none for this Dinka-Gezira homeland story).
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: There's no evidence Nilotes, or specifically Dinka trace their ethno-genesis to Gezira/central Sudan. If you actually read the only scholarly source you posted (Robert O. Collins, Cambridge University Press) what he says is that there is Nilotic tradition(s) of this: "according to their traditions of migration". For example, medieval English (my ancestors) claimed descent from Trojans - should we take them serious? Obviously traditions must be taken with a pinch of salt (not to deny some might hold a kernel of historical truth, but this only works when the tradition in question is backed by archaeology etc., there is none for this Dinka-Gezira homeland story).
Here's the entirety of the paragraph on the migrations of the Nilotic tribes from the Gezira:
quote:The Eastern Nilotes of Sudan, who also speak Eastern Sudanic languages, include a variety of modest-sized ethnic groups who number in the thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands -- the Bari, Fajulu, Kakwa, settled farmers, and the Mandari, Taposa, and Turkana, cattled herdsmen.
The homeland of these African Nilotic Sudanese was at one time in Central Sudan, specifically in the Gezira, and the last of them to leave, according to their traditions of migration, were the Dinka (in their own language the Jiang of Moinjiang) some time in the fifteenth century who pushed the Luo, who had gone before them, further into southern Sudan. (A History of Modern Sudan, Robert O. Collins)
quote:Throughout the first millenium CE the fertile Gezira was the homeland to several other Nilotic groups as well. At some time, probably after the turn of the millenium, Luo speakers gradually made their way southward from the Gezira into the southern Sudan in the vicinity of Rumbek, a contemporary administrative center in the Bahr al-Ghazal, from which they began their further migrations, reaching as far as East Africa in the sixteenth century. Their wanderings were in all likelihood related to the expasion of cattle keeping in the Upper Nile valley, as well as the growth of the population and the expanding militarism of their northern neighbors. (A History of Modern Sudan, Robert O. Collins)
In about the fifteenth century, another Nilotic group, the ancestral relatives of the modern Dinka, began to follow the Luo southward. They were driven out by devastating droughts and slave raiding by nomad Arabs whose infiltration into the Nile valley from Upper Egypt brought about the collapse of the Christian kingdom of Alwa. Their passage south was characterized by constant conflict with their predecessors or the indigenous peoples -- the Funj, Shilluk, Murle, Luel, and even the Luo -- for land to graze and cultivate before they ultimately consolidated their presence in the Upper Nile and Bahr al-Ghazal of the southern Sudan between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. ( A History of Sub-Saharan Africa, Robert O. Collins)
quote:Between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries the Upper Nile Basin experience several severe droughts, culminating in the long drought from 1587 to 1652, known among the Luo as Nyarubanga, the Great Famine, which coincided with their migrations -- undoubtedly in their search of well-watered pastures for their cattle. The Sanga and Zebu humpbacked cattle that are stronger, capable of traveling longer distances, and are more disease resistant than the humpless cattle of the Luo had yet to be introduced into the southern Sudan by the Dinka migrating from the Gezira. ( A History of Sub-Saharan Africa, Robert O. Collins)
You really are autistic, aren't you? Read the paragraph, again. Slowly, this time. In the first passage, Collins clearly affirms that the Gezira was the homeland of the Nilotic tribes; there are in fact half a dozen Nilotic tribes that still reside there to this day. Collins only mentions Dinka traditions of migration in the proceding portion of the paragraph with regards to the sequence of Nilotic migrations. In recognition of just how terribly dense you are... I'll repeat that. It's clear to any mentally healthy, functional human being that only the Dinka's departure from the Gezira (in relation to other Nilotic tribes) is deferred to them -- placed in the hands of their traditions of migration.
The Dinka were the very last of the migrating Nilotic tribes to leave the Gezira, and this is re-affirmed not only by their traditions of migration but by contemporary Nubian, Arab and Funj writers. This is annealed further by the accounts of another half a dozen Nilotic tribes.
These events transpired in the bright light of history... in the 13th and 15th Centuries. These recent events are corroborated by archaelogical evidence; by Sudanese geographers, historians and writers; by Sudanese tribes; by renowned linguists such as Ehret and by widely respected, authoritative scholars like Robert O. Collins.
To equate the multi-discplinary mounds of grit-edged evidence for recent events with the neurotic, desperate lies of your forebears in their attempts to associate themselves with bronze age glories is pathetic and necessarily means you're an idiot.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Collins and Beswick (your quote-mines) are based on oral traditions. You're too dumb to even know what you're quoting. Here's a review of Beswick, published in the journal The International Journal of African Historical Studies:
"The extensive and creative use of oral sources is one of the book's most impressive features. Between 1990 and 2000, Beswick conducted more than three hundred interviews with southern Sudanese living in Kenya, Egypt, the United States, Canada, and "South Sudan" (as many southern peoples have referred to their homeland since 1983, when the civil war against the northern government resumed). Through these oral sources, Beswick culled information about Dinka traditions, myths, and genealogies (stretching back, in some cases, a dozen generations or more), as well as recollections about conflicts, past and present. Indeed, the "blood memory" cited in the book's title refers to "long historical memories of wrongdoing" by others, including wars, slave and cattle raids, and so on, as recounted through oral narratives." (Sharkey, 2004)
The above review explains the political biases behind the author since it notes their agenda is to "blu[r] the significance of a North-South dichotomy" in Sudan, so no wonder the author clings to a historical revisionism which says the Dinka came from central Sudan, a lot further north than mainstream scholarship says. The above review also notes exactly this: "Beswick marshals her sources in order to challenge the view common in older scholarship that all the Western Nilotic peoples of Sudan originated in the southern regions where they now live." Beswick's key sources are though oral traditions and I've already explained why one has to be sceptical about this, needless to say mainstream scholars are not embracing this fringe/pseudo-history.
Collins (your other source) notes in his review of Beswick-
"To date there has been considerable speculation, nothing more, by archaeologists and linguists that the origins of the Dinka are to be found in the Gezira (Arabic for "island"), that fertile plain lying south from Khartoum between the Blue Nile and the White. The massive evidence from virtually every Dinka oral tradition enables Beswick to make a compelling case that the Dinka indeed originated in the Gezira." (Collins, 2005)
speculation "nothing more" Oral tradition, like I said. Please go read these sources before making yourself look even more stupid.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Collins is beyond repute and thus you did not even attempt to discount any of the conclusions he presented in his works. Collins is a widely respected academic and did not predicate these works on oral traditions... your neurotism and reading comprehension notwithstanding. Do you really think -I'm being kind- that you can somehow cite an apparent review by Collins of Beswick to undermine the very same conclusions that Collins himself presented. All third party observers will note that you've been completely eviscerated by the page worth of citations from Collins. Seek psychiatric help, Cass. You're admission of mental health problems in the past should spur some action on your part to finally get well.
I'll take the conclusions of great academics like Collins over the blatherings of an admittedly mentally afflicted individual on the internet - without so much as a smidgen of respect to his name. You are irrelevant and are thus dismissed, but do seek the help that you so desperately need, and perhaps you will no longer try to associate Serbians with ancient Egyptians. Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Collins is beyond repute and thus you did not even attempt to discount any of the conclusions he presented in his works. Collins is a widely respected academic and did not predicate his works on oral traditions... your neurotism and lack of reading comprehension notwithstanding. Do you really think -I'm being kind- that you can somehow cite an apparent review by Collins of Beswick to undermine the very same conclusions that Collins himself presented?
Wait, you do realise that the many citations just above your inane post are from Collins and not Beswick? You're a terribly befuddled man, so I have to make sure. Your citation of Collins apparent review of Beswick is not to be found anywhere on the internet and so I'll dismiss it as a fabrication until you present the source.
Furthermore, the works of Collins (A History of Sub-Saharan Africa in 2007) and (A History of Modern Sudan in 2008) affirms that the Nilotics originate in the Gezira.
Everybody here will note that you have been completely eviscerated by the works of Collins and you are too cowardly to directly discount any of his presentations. Seek the psychiatric help, Cass. You're admission of mental health problems in the past should spur some action on your part to finally get well.
I'll take the conclusions of great academics like Collins over the blathering nonsense of an admittedly mentally afflicted dolt without so much as a smidgen of respect to his name. You really are irrelevant, and are thus dismissed, but do seek the help that you so desperately need, and perhaps you will no longer assert the laughably insane notion that Serbians can be associated with ancient Egyptians based on your lack of understanding. Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
You really have taken the mantle of your lying ancestors, haven't you? You presented a review of Beswick's work -disfigured it- and tried to pass it off as a review by Collins. That's very deceitful.
Here is the review by Sharkey, Heather J. that you distorted by cutting out parts that did not meld with your delusions. A review that you then presented as being written by Collins.
Sudan's Blood Memory: The Legacy of War, Ethnicity, and Slavery in Early South Sudan. By Stephanie Beswick. Rochester Studies in African History and the Diaspora. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2004. Pp. xxx, 277; 10 maps. $75.00.
In Sudan's Blood Memory, Stephanie Beswick explores the history of the Nilotic peoples of Sudan from the fourteenth century to the present and focuses on the Dinka, who now constitute the largest ethnic bloc in southern Sudan. By assembling a wide array of evidence drawn from archaeology, linguistics, and other fields, as well as from oral sources, she reconstructs a precolonial history of migration, war, slave-raiding, ethnic expansion, and social adaptation. Her methods combine the longue durée approach to history associated with Fernand Braudel and the French Annales school with the oral history approach to African history associated with Jan Vansina.
The extensive and creative use of oral sources is one of the book's most impressive features. Between 1990 and 2000, Beswick conducted more than three hundred interviews with southern Sudanese living in Kenya, Egypt, the United States, Canada, and "South Sudan" (as many southern peoples have referred to their homeland since 1983, when the civil war against the northern government resumed). Through these oral sources, Beswick culled information about Dinka traditions, myths, and genealogies (stretching back, in some cases, a dozen generations or more), as well as recollections about conflicts, past and present. Indeed, the "blood memory" cited in the book's title refers to "long historical memories of wrongdoing" by others, including wars, slave and cattle raids, and so on, as recounted through oral narratives.
Beswick marshals her sources in order to challenge the view common in older scholarship that all the Western Nilotic peoples of Sudan originated in the southern regions where they now live. Noting the convergence of Dinka oral traditions with linguistic and other evidence, she makes a convincing case that the predecessors of the Dinka lived in the fourteenth century in what is now central Sudan (notably, the Gezira region just below the Blue Nile and White Nile junction where Khartoum is located today). She argues that the Dinka-or those whom we should perhaps call the proto-Dinka - migrated southward to escape from famine, slave raiding, and the political dislocations prompted by the collapse of the Nubian kingdoms. In the course of their southward migration these protoDinka fought wars with other peoples, such as the Shilluk, and absorbed and assimilated many of them over time (especially through polygamous intermarriage with local women). …
posted
Cass is either an outright liar OR totally deluded and misguided. Either way, he is erroneous!
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: You're mistaken; Egypt is a trans-continental country. Even if it wasn't (and Sinai Peninsula was classified as Africa), we would still expect Levant ties to Lower Egypt based on geographical closeness; north Egypt and south Levant are not discontinuous landmasses, they're connected, i.e. the Sinai Peninsula is a land-bridge between the two continents - Eurasia and Africa.
Correction. Egypt lies squarely in Africa with the exception of the Sinai which is truly transcontinental, however Egypt is a little more transcontinental than the nation of Djibouti which almost touches Yemen. The fact that Egypt does touch the Levant (which geologically along with Arabia was once part of the African tectonic plate) only means that it was easier for populations to cross which they indeed did, but to presume that the populations of ancient Egypt especially in its early period was somehow more related to Eurasians than other Africans is an outdated fallacy.
quote:You repeat these claims, but they're unsubstantiated. Metrics vs. non-metrics has been debated since at least the 1960s; I would argue the former are more reliable, not latter. This is because non-metrics don't capture the complete morphology/surface-area of the skull, so they aren't an accurate measure of overall similarity; most non-metrics in studies are confined to limited cranial areas, particularly the jaw.
LOL My claims have been substatiated by hundreds of studies and it is pretty much consensus in bio-anthropology that metric traits while helpful in assessing populations to an extent is still not as accurate as non-metric traits because metric traits are more typological than they are genetical and metric traits from one population may closely resemble those of another population without close genetic ties. Non-metric traits on the other hand are genetical and correspond more closely to direct heredity, though not as accurate as molecular genetics, they provide better assessment of population genetics than metric traits for reasons I will show.
quote:Who is geographically closer? For example I predict Somalis are closer genetically to Italians, than Zulu or Bushmen. Depends what western African populations, because like you said West Africa includes sub-Saharan and Saharan (north) populations.
Idiot, population relations are not based solely on geographic distance or proximity but rather genetics via recent common ancestry and/or gene-flow. The irony is that some Italians, particularly those in the southern areas and especially in Sicily are indeed related to Africans such as Somalis via their African E-M78 paternal lineage but then again so too are certain South African bushmen such as the !Kung and especially the Khwe via their E-M35 paternal lineage. The difference is that the former are Europeans admixed with recent (black) Africans whereas the latter case is Africans mixing with fellow Africans. LOL And just to prove how inferior craniometrics are in assessing genetic relations and how useless geographic distance is, let’s turn to a favorite tool that you Euronuts use, namely the MCLUST algorithm results based on Howells’ data set and the centroid value distances between the clusters:
The first thing that immediately stands out is that the racial group of “Caucasoid” is inflated in diversity by being split into two clusters—“Linear Caucasoid” and “Lateral Caucasoid”—while there is only a single “Negroid” cluster with “Bushmen” forming their own cluster and interestingly no “mongoloid” cluster but instead an “East Asian” one and the Buriat Mongols forming their own cluster. I’m assuming the “Amerindians” cluster is based on the Howells Arikara sample which is separate from the “Santa Cruz” sample even though both are Amerindians. Neanderthals as an entirely separate species is of course an outlier most distant to all other human clusters. All this aside note the discrepancies of some of the values.
1.The distance between “Negroid” and “Bushman” clusters is 24.5, but the cluster to which the Negroid one is closest to is the “East Asian” one at a value of 17.6. The second least distant clusters are the “Linear Caucasian” and “Andaman” at the same value of 19.8. Obviously these values contradict the actual genetic relations of these populations much less the vast geographic distances.
2.The Andamanese though both geographically and genetically closest to indigenous Australians of all the clusters listed only match the “Australoid” at 29.2 after “Amerindian” (28.4), “Santa Cruz” (26.6), “Linear Caucasoid” (23.4), and “East Asian” (21.1), with the “Negroid” cluster being the closest again at 19.8.
3.Australoids are closest to “Negroids” (22.4), then “Linear Caucasoids” (24.6), then “Santa Cruz” (25.4), then “East Asian” at 27.3.
4.East Asians are closest to “Linear Caucasoids” (16.2), then “Negroids” (17.6), then Mokapu/Easter Islanders (17.7), then Amerindians (18.1), then “Andaman” (21.1). Excluding Neanderthals, the most distant cluster is the Buriat (32.9) even though they are closest to the “East Asians” and technically are East Asians, then “Bushmen” (32.7), then “Eskimo” (27.8), then “Australoid” (27.3), then Santa Cruz (22.4), then “Lateral Caucasoid” (22.1).
5.The value between “Amerindians” and “Santa Cruz” is 14.7, the former then clusters with “Linear Caucasoids” (17.8), then East Asians (18.1), then “Lateral Caucasoid” (18.5). The latter then clusters with “Linear Caucasoids” (20.7), then East Asians (22.4), then “Lateral Caucasoid” (23.6). Despite their geographic proximity, the “Eskimo” clusters with “Amerindians” at a value of 42 and with “Santa Cruz” at a value of 38.8.
All in all, the values do NOT correspond with actual genetics or with even geographic distance and note that the two divisions of “Caucasoid” used conveniently clusters with disparate populations across the board.
quote:The Sahara desert as a barrier or non-barrier is irrelevant (and I've actually argued since 2013 it was not a barrier), those populations in north Africa are distinguishable to those further south. Nothing falsifies Brace's model of clines.
Yes, North Africans craniometrically are as distinguishable from sub-Saharans as northeast Asians are from southeast Asians but this does not mean genetically disparate. Also, there is more genetic distinction between Maghrebi (western) North Africans and Mashriqi (eastern) North Africans than there is between Maghrebi and sub-Saharan West Africans and between Mashriqi and sub-Saharan East Africans. And I not only showed how relying on metrics is flawed but Brace’s model of clines has been falsified by many studies showing recent gene-flow that refutes clinal models.
quote:I don't believe in OOA. I've always criticized it. I'm arguing for a long-term isolation-by-distance model. Also, Brace is a critic of Out of Africa.
quote:Depends what populations you mean, but I generally disagree with this.
The populations I mean are predynastic to dynastic ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans in general but mainly Sub-Saharan east Africans. Your disagreement with this is based on what again? I already showed you genetic evidence of Egyptians and their Nubian kin sharing maternal clades (Hpa I) and paternal clades (haplotype IV) as well as Benin variety of sickle-cell disease with sub-Saharan West Africans, can you show such genetic ties with modern Middle Easterners much less Europeans?? And now I just showed you how using craniometrics to prove genetic relations is faulty and especially using the Howells dataset.
Funny that you posted the above map on MCLUST from Dienekes’ site as proof that ancient Egyptians cluster closer to those European populations i.e. Zalavar and Berg than to sub-Saharans, yet we have the below from Dienekes himself:
Ashraf said: If I am not mistaken the first table shows that African Egyptians' skulls are from the same type of the European norses(cluster 1)and different from the African Zulus and Bushmen skulls(cluster 13) although 4 Egyptians and 1 Norse cluster with the Africans!!! To which Dienekes said: Yes, with Zalavar too, but remember that this is a single Egyptian series and there is variability in the ancient Egyptian osteological material.
Of course Dienekes is in his own opaque way is being modest by telling only half the truth. As I and others have said, the Egyptian series in the Howells data set is from northern Lower Egypt from the late periods of Egyptian history and is actually atypical of native Egyptians.
Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski said it better herself: Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed. The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples. The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample *cannot be considered* to be a typical Egyptian series.
So you can give it up with the Howells crap.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
This source (the same you used) has Egyptians, who I presume are an ancient rather than living sample at 84.8 mean crural index (this is almost identical to the 84.9 mean for the pooled-sex ancient Egyptian sample in [URL=Raxter, 2011]http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4500&context=etd[/URL]); Yugoslavs score 83.7.
I told you geographical populations between Egypt and Yugoslavia fill in those spaces on the plot between the Yugoslavians (83.7) and Egyptians (84.8), so for example Raxter's (2011)Mediterranean/South European sample is 83.9.
American Blacks score 85.3 and Pygmies 85.1, although Raxter (2011) has the latter on 85.6, but this might be down to the extremely small sample size of only 6 males and 3 females.
All I have to do is add more populations between South Europe and Egypt to close some of the distance between 83.9 and 84.8; it can easily be done since Raxter did not include south Levant samples and if those were included they would be more or less equidistant to Egyptians as the American Blacks and Pygmies. Do you get this yet?
Note though American Blacks don't closely resemble West Africans in crural index because of their sizable European admixture, for example compare American Blacks to West African means in Raxter (2011), the difference is fairly big, 85.3 vs. 86.2.
Last I checked, Raxter chose American blacks because of all Americans they approached Egyptian proportions. The excuse of "European admixture" is pathetic considering that both Pygmies and Melanesians cluster closely with the Egyptian sample as well. In your imaginary Y axis, New Mexican Indians align more closely to Egyptians than even the Yugoslavs but funny how you ignore them altogether as having any genetic ties to the Egyptians based on the same premise. LOL This issue was discussed before as I linked above with you (Thule) debunked already!
Get off this forum and take update your meds, psycho.
LOL. I'm not going over this one again.
LOL There's no need for you to. You or your ilk were debunked before.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Also not sure what the fuss was about Gods of Egypt. They actually tried to darken the white actors by giving them tans or a light bronzy complexion.
Gerard Butler as Egyptian god Set
ROTFL
Even your mentor Dienekes has never claimed the ancient Egyptians to look like bronzed or very dark Europeans but has always maintained that they look very similar to modern Northeast and Horn Africans albeit he claimed these peoples as "Caucasoid" also.
Your Hollywood fantasy of how ancient Egyptians looked like is no different from Mike's fantasy of ancient Greeks and Romans being black. Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of Dienekes’ Mahalanobis distance estimates are wrong, they're even contradicted by Howells' (1973, 1989, 1995) monographs [that I used to own]. For example, Howells (1973) clearly has Zulu, Dogon and Teita ("Negroids") a lot closer on his craniometric dendogram to Bushmen, when compared to East Asian populations. The Australian aborigine anomaly is well known. I've already addressed it before - lack of skull measurements. Howells always used a high number of metric variables as a standard in his work on craniometry (57), but his measurements went up to 80 in some instances. One of the measurements not often included in his work is now known to be highly diagnostic when distinguishing Australo-Melanesian populations like Tolai from "Negroid" (e.g. Zulu) skulls: "one character (glabella projection) showed a strong bimodality with respect to African and Melanesians with better than 90% accuracy, which would very likely clear up the Zulu-Tolai confusion" (Sarich, 1997).
And I can provide several studies demonstrating the correlation between craniometrics and geographical distance (isolation-by-distance):
* Wright, R. V. (1992). "Correlation between Cranial Form and Geography in Homo Sapiens: CRANID - A Computer Program for Forensic and Other Applications. Archaeology in Oceania. 27(3): 128-134. * Relethford, J. (2004). "Global patterns of isolation by distance based on genetic and morphological data". Hum. Biol. 76: 499–513.
"Under a linear IBD model, geographic distance between pairs of populations is a good predictor of phenotypic differentiation in males as well as in females...IBD proved a very good predictor of between-populations phenotypic differentiation, confirming Relethford’s findings on a smaller dataset (2004)... Climatic variables had much weaker explanatory power than geographic distance and, more importantly, their role was much reduced once we accounted for the underlaying IBD pattern." (Betti et al. 2010)
"The results presented here indicate a strong relation-ship between cranial morphology and geographic distance, similar to that found by Relethford (2004)." ( Hubbe et al. 2009)Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
The boy brings up Zulus again, while no one was talking about Zulus. The weirdo!
quote:As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups(Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).
These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
*This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley*. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007).
Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
This issue was discussed before as I linked above with you (Thule) debunked already!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic