LOL. This is exactly my point. 99.9% of people don't consider that guy black (he's too light brown skinned), nor would this guy identify as black himself. If Doug thinks this guy is black, then most Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern populations must be black too.
What I said was this guy is not "Out of Place" as a Nile Valley African and yes he is black, just like this guy is. You are trying to say that his light brown skin and other "features" make him less black and less African than other Africans.
Light brown skin is not a feature of "white people" by definition. And those features originate in Africa not Europe (pointy noses, etc). Yet this is the underlying argument of their "race theories", wherein they try to claim certain features as "non African" when those features originated in Africa to begin with.
And plenty of black folks have those features.
Current President of Ethiopia Mulatu Teshome Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're talking pigmentation only. As others have pointed out - Doug is a massive "flip-flopper" who constantly shifts definitions of who is black from pigmentation to the social construct (that has different criteria that depend on the classifier). Make up your mind.
I don't consider these examples you posted to have black skin pigmentation. Also note that Doug is cherry-picking the lightest brown skinned Ethiopians he can find. As a comparison, here's the Ethiopian football team:
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
"In the three highland groups of Amharas, Gallas, and Sidamos, the Amharas are lightest skinned, with the majority of shades concentrated in the medium brown category, between von Luschan #21 and #25; individually the series runs as light as #13, a brunet-white, which is approximately the color of the former Emperor, Hailie Selassie. At the other extreme it reaches #34, which is almost jet black, nearer the color of the great Emperor Menelik II. Thus among the Amharas almost the entire range of human skin color intensity is covered, with the exception of rosy or pinkish-white, which probably does not exist among Ethiopians. The Gallas run somewhat darker, with their concentration in the medium to chocolate-brown class, between #22 and #29; their range is somewhat less than that of the Amharas, and the rare brunet-white of the former is in some cases replaced by a yellow of Bushman intensity. Most of the Sidamos are darker than #30, and are thus really dark brown or black.... Among the Somalis... the majority are lumped around the von Luschan #29. Numbers 27 and 30 account for most of the others; hence there is a single and characteristic Somali color, which is a rich, glossy, chocolate-brown, which accounts for seven-eights of the entire Somali group. A very few are darker, and individuals are as light as light brown, in a very few cases as light as Arabs."
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are no Ethiopian/Horn African populations with mean light brown skin hues; they range from medium to chocolate/dark brown (of course lighter skinned individuals can be found, but those are outliers). Coon's data on this is verified by modern reflectance spectrophotometry. The Afrocentrists on this forum completely ignore population means and cherry-pick atypical or outliers in a population, e.g. 7/8 Somalis have dark brown skin (Coon), but Afrocentrists will focus on the minority 1/8 who do not. There's not much point in wasting time with this stupidity. By the same reasoning someone could argue northern Europeans are "frizzy" haired because studies found very curly/frizzy hair at a negligible <1% frequency.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: We're talking pigmentation only. As others have pointed out - Doug is a massive "flip-flopper" who constantly shifts definitions of who is black from pigmentation to the social construct (that has different criteria that depend on the classifier). Make up your mind.
I don't consider these examples you posted to have black skin pigmentation. Also note that Doug is cherry-picking the lightest brown skinned Ethiopians he can find. As a comparison, here's the Ethiopian football team:
Doug wasn't arguing every SSA or African that identifies as "black" has literal jet black or dark brown skin. Why can't ethiopians, west Africans, etc have lighter skin without mixture? I don't think Doug was trying to say that darker tones are absent, but that it's not unheard of to see lighter skin in these ethnic groups. It's not something that needs whites either.
Genetic Architecture of Skin and Eye Color in an African- European Admixed Population – Mark Shriver (2013)
"Our results indicate that Cape Verdean pigmentary variation is the result of variation in a different set of genes from those determining variation within Europe, suggest that long-range regulatory effects help to explain the relationship between skin and eye color, and highlight the potential and the pitfalls of using allele distribution patterns and signatures of selection as indicators of phenotypic differences..
The strong effect of genomic ancestry on skin color is also striking in the context of eye color; there is only a weak correlation between skin and eye color in Cape Verdeans (R‘2 =0.14), and African genomic ancestry is also weakly correlated (R‘2 = 0.08) with eye color (Figure 1c, 1d). Overall, these observations point to different genetic architectures for skin and eye color...
These results suggest that an APBA2 (OCA2) mutation conferring light skin arose BEFORE the spread of humans out of Africa, and that a HERC2 (OCA2) mutation conferring pale eye color arose much later."
No. Stop. Light Skin is indigenous to Africa. You already admitted your issues accepting Egypt as part of Africa is political and has nothing to do with science.
1. There are FOUR skin pigmentation gene not ONE. The four genes are ADDITIVE!!! That means the more you have of the four genes the lighter is that population/person.
2. They concluded that there is NOT a direct correlation between so called “European” admixture and light skin in Cape Verdeans. Hence “unexplained heritability”. This what one of the charts I posted shows. They used mathematical models to come to that conclusion.
3. They included other primates in the study, which is sound science, to determine the ancestral (underived) genotype. Concluding that the genes origin is IN Africa. Thus their conclusion “light skin originated” BEFORE AMH left Africa.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Of course certain Indians have derived light-skin alleles like those of Europeans. Unfortunately for you, it probably is due to recent admixture.
quote:In India, nearly all people today are admixed between two distinct genetic groups, one most closely related to present-day Europeans, Central Asians, and Near Easterners, and one most closely related to an isolated population living in the Andaman islands (Reich et al., 2009). Moorjani et al., 2013 showed that much of this admixture occurred within the last 4,000 years.
Incidentally, 4 kya coincides will the collapse of the indigenous Harappan civilization and the incoming of Indo-Europeans from Central Asia. So we even have a historical correlate for this admixture event. [/QB]
A more recent major study criticized the Reich and Moorjani et al studies. Basu et al 2016 show "ANI" are not closely related to Europeans/Near Easter's (see their PCA), but some Central Asians (dividing them into two groups, one being central-south Asians like the Burusho and Pashtuns from Pakistan). Really no surprise since northern India is a geographical neighbour to Pakistan.
So there was a migration of Indo-European speaking peoples from Pakistan to north India 2000-1000 BCE. None of this refutes what I said, that light skin alleles are selected at that latitude.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: There are no Ethiopian/Horn African populations with mean light brown skin hues; they range from medium to chocolate/dark brown (of course lighter skinned individuals can be found, but those are outliers).
Even among AE the "mean" wasn't very light skin. Like some African populations it was certainly there, but not as overstated as lot of people seem to make it.
AE typically used colors like this:
While light skin was likely present, people still whining about Egypt being part of Africa will use things like faded/poorly preserved murals to discuss what the average looked like. Take the thread they attempted to hijack a few days ago. All that squabbling and ignoring the better preserved pigment of the face, the faded pigment of the arms still would not have been passing the paper bag test in the U.S (and if so, hardly).
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Of course certain Indians have derived light-skin alleles like those of Europeans. Unfortunately for you, it probably is due to recent admixture.
quote:In India, nearly all people today are admixed between two distinct genetic groups, one most closely related to present-day Europeans, Central Asians, and Near Easterners, and one most closely related to an isolated population living in the Andaman islands (Reich et al., 2009). Moorjani et al., 2013 showed that much of this admixture occurred within the last 4,000 years.
Incidentally, 4 kya coincides will the collapse of the indigenous Harappan civilization and the incoming of Indo-Europeans from Central Asia. So we even have a historical correlate for this admixture event.
A more recent major study criticized the Reich and Moorjani et al studies. Basu et al 2016 show "ANI" are not closely related to Europeans/Near Easter's (see their PCA), but some Central Asians (dividing them into two groups, one being central-south Asians like the Burusho and Pashtuns from Pakistan). Really no surprise since northern India is a geographical neighbour to Pakistan.
So there was a migration of Indo-European speaking peoples from Pakistan to north India 2000-1000 BCE. None of this refutes what I said, that light skin alleles are selected at that latitude. [/QB]
So the closest ANI affinity is with certain light-skinned Central Asians rather than Europeans or Middle Easterners. So what? It doesn't refute my argument that these alleles for lighter skin aren't native to India but were instead brought in by groups from further north. It doesn't matter whether these groups were closer to Europeans or Central Asians.
Posts: 7103 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole thread has gone off the rails. It's a mess. The troll has no leg to stand on and is just wasting our time. He does not even dispute the fact that Upper Egyptians were/are closely related to other "eastern Saharans" like North Sudanese and the people of the Horn. To concede Upper Egypt is to lose the debate before it has even begun.
The people of Upper Egypt were physically, linguistically and culturally related to other populations in Northeast Africa and stem from a common origin in the Predynastic period. This is not disputed by any serious, rational person in any of the disciplines. It was a "Sudanese transplant"
Upper Egypt created the Egyptian civilization and established virtually all its political and cultural features; Upper Egyptians conquered the sparsely populated, disorganised, weaker and poorer North; Upper Egyptians were the demographic majority, and since they resembled (still do) other Northeast Africans... there is nothing to debate. The ancient Egyptians were black like other Northeast Africans.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: There are no Ethiopian/Horn African populations with mean light brown skin hues; they range from medium to chocolate/dark brown (of course lighter skinned individuals can be found, but those are outliers). Coon's data on this is verified by modern reflectance spectrophotometry. The Afrocentrists on this forum completely ignore population means and cherry-pick atypical or outliers in a population, e.g. 7/8 Somalis have dark brown skin (Coon), but Afrocentrists will focus on the minority 1/8 who do not. There's not much point in wasting time with this stupidity. By the same reasoning someone could argue northern Europeans are "frizzy" haired because studies found very curly/frizzy hair at a negligible <1% frequency.
All of those color ranges you listed were found in Ancient Egypt and thus not any different from other African populations. But you made my point for me. "Light Brown" skin does not equate to Eurasian admixture or closeness to Eurasian populations outside of Africa, even as the mean skin complexion of most AE people was much darker.
posted
Does it matter r what color the AEians were? They were Africans and NOT Europeans. Based upon the geographic niche the occupy the would range from Black, to light Brown. In the modern geo-politics they would be classified as "Black" or Negros. they are indigenous Africans related to other Africans to the south and west of the Nile. Anthropologically they are tropical Africans. Can we stop the idiocy of AEians being anything but Black Africans. You white need to-get-a-life.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
But you made my point for me. "Light Brown" skin does not equate to Eurasian admixture or closeness to Eurasian populations outside of Africa, even as the mean skin complexion of most AE people was much darker.
Light brown may or may not be the result of an African person who has non-African ancestry.
The term "black" is a social contruct because shades of brown are what are being discussed rather than shades of blacks which might be called greys
But if one insists that the term "black" is relevant and it pertains to darkness level alone then one would have to select the range of numbers above that should be "black" and then attribute a generalized color or colors to the remaining numbers
But of course nobody wants to go there and attempt a selection, attempt to make a standard so instead the term can be adjusted one way or the other at the moment
Posts: 42964 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Of course certain Indians have derived light-skin alleles like those of Europeans. Unfortunately for you, it probably is due to recent admixture.
quote:In India, nearly all people today are admixed between two distinct genetic groups, one most closely related to present-day Europeans, Central Asians, and Near Easterners, and one most closely related to an isolated population living in the Andaman islands (Reich et al., 2009). Moorjani et al., 2013 showed that much of this admixture occurred within the last 4,000 years.
Incidentally, 4 kya coincides will the collapse of the indigenous Harappan civilization and the incoming of Indo-Europeans from Central Asia. So we even have a historical correlate for this admixture event.
A more recent major study criticized the Reich and Moorjani et al studies. Basu et al 2016 show "ANI" are not closely related to Europeans/Near Easter's (see their PCA), but some Central Asians (dividing them into two groups, one being central-south Asians like the Burusho and Pashtuns from Pakistan). Really no surprise since northern India is a geographical neighbour to Pakistan.
So there was a migration of Indo-European speaking peoples from Pakistan to north India 2000-1000 BCE. None of this refutes what I said, that light skin alleles are selected at that latitude.
So the closest ANI affinity is with certain light-skinned Central Asians rather than Europeans or Middle Easterners. So what? It doesn't refute my argument that these alleles for lighter skin aren't native to India but were instead brought in by groups from further north. It doesn't matter whether these groups were closer to Europeans or Central Asians. [/QB]
My point is native northern Indians pre-Indo-European migration(s) were same complexion; they were from roughly the same latitude as the Indo-Aryan migrants, not much further north. For example, in Basu et al's map one of south-central-Asian populations (Sindhi) appear at an identical (or even slightly lower) latitude to a north Indian population sample. So why would migrants from Pakistan at roughly the same latitude be significantly lighter skinned than native north indians? I'm simply arguing everyone at that latitude was the same complexion in ancient times - the same applies to Egypt.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: My point is native northern Indians pre-Indo-European migration(s) were same complexion; they were from roughly the same latitude as the Indo-Aryan migrants, not much further north. For example, in Basu et al's map one of south-central-Asian populations (Sindhi) appear at an identical (or even slightly lower) latitude to a north Indian population sample. So why would migrants from Pakistan at roughly the same latitude be significantly darker skinned? I'm simply arguing everyone at that latitude was the same complexion in ancient times - the same applies to Egypt.
You liar, Indo-Europeans did come from further north (in eastern Europe specifically). So even going by your logic, they would have been lighter-skinned than the ancient Indian or Pakistani populations that assimilated them.
Not to mention, you still haven't explained why the light-skin alleles found in modern North Indians (and North Africans) are the exact same ones that developed >20 kya in Europe. How does that square with your apparent belief that the presence of these alleles (and the resulting lighter skin color) in these populations isn't due to recent admixture?
Posts: 7103 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indo-Aryans moved into northern India from Pakistan (mostly corresponding to the modern Punjab region, but a few more southern sites), not the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European homeland.) The time between Indo-Aryans moving into northern India and the PIE dispersal(s) is 2000-3000 years. I think you've completely missed how Indo-European culture, including languages spread. There's very little if any genetic continuity between PIE's and Indo-Aryans (as with Indo-Iranians and other groups that split millennia after PIE). Look up elite dominance model of how languages spread.
"David Anthony, in his "revised Steppe hypothesis" notes that the spread of the Indo-European languages probably did not happen through "chain-type folk migrations," but by the introduction of these languages by ritual and political elites, which are emulated by large groups of people."
"A relatively small immigrant elite population can encourage widespread language shift among numerically dominant indigenes in a non-state or pre-state context if the elite employs a specific combination of encouragements and punishments." (Anthony, 2007)
The average Indo-Aryan who settled in northern India c. 1900 - 1500 BCE did not look like someone from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, or eastern Europe.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
I've seen you create mods trying to darken skin colour of Egyptians in computer games.
I own most the Settlers games, including these toy figures that came with a limited edition collectors copy of settlers III
My view is this is accurate for what the average ancient Egyptian would have looked like in pigmentation, but there was obviously a cline along the Nile, so Upper Egyptians approaching Nubia would have been somewhat darker.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
None of what you're arguing even matters. Pakistan, India, North Africa & Europe's Widespread distribution of slc24a5 is due to the same fvcking even't. It's almost fringe science to believe a population independently selected for the same snp elsewhere w/o introgression.
You have to prove that pre-Nile valley inhabitants were apart of the bottleneck resulting in the reduction of genetic diversity & widespread distribution of slc24a5 of Maghrebs & OOA populations.
Like I said before, claims of Aegyptians having mysteriously lighter skin outside of the range of typical African pigmentation is fundamentally baseless at this point in time.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Indo-Aryans moved into northern India from Pakistan (mostly corresponding to the modern Punjab region, but a few more southern sites), not the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European homeland.) The time between Indo-Aryans moving into northern India and the PIE dispersal(s) is 2000-3000 years. I think you've completely missed how Indo-European culture, including languages spread. There's very little if any genetic continuity between PIE's and Indo-Aryans (as with Indo-Iranians and other groups that split millennia after PIE). Look up elite dominance model of how languages spread.
"David Anthony, in his "revised Steppe hypothesis" notes that the spread of the Indo-European languages probably did not happen through "chain-type folk migrations," but by the introduction of these languages by ritual and political elites, which are emulated by large groups of people."
"A relatively small immigrant elite population can encourage widespread language shift among numerically dominant indigenes in a non-state or pre-state context if the elite employs a specific combination of encouragements and punishments." (Anthony, 2007)
The average Indo-Aryan who settled in northern India c. 1900 - 1500 BCE did not look like someone from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, or eastern Europe.
One linguist's hypothesis on how Indo-European may have spread, as quoted by Wikipedia, is still not going to save your ass from the reality of northern Indians and North Africans having substantial levels of light-skin alleles of recent (>20 kya) West Eurasian origin. A reality which you persistently evade.
How does that square with your apparent belief that the presence of these alleles (and the resulting lighter skin color) in these populations isn't due to recent admixture?Posts: 7103 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: This whole thread has gone off the rails. It's a mess. The troll has no leg to stand on and is just wasting our time. He does not even dispute the fact that Upper Egyptians were/are closely related to other "eastern Saharans" like North Sudanese and the people of the Horn. To concede Upper Egypt is to lose the debate before it has even begun.
The people of Upper Egypt were physically, linguistically and culturally related to other populations in Northeast Africa and stem from a common origin in the Predynastic period. This is not disputed by any serious, rational person in any of the disciplines. It was a "Sudanese transplant"
Upper Egypt created the Egyptian civilization and established virtually all its political and cultural features; Upper Egyptians conquered the sparsely populated, disorganised, weaker and poorer North; Upper Egyptians were the demographic majority, and since they resembled (still do) other Northeast Africans... there is nothing to debate. The ancient Egyptians were black like other Northeast Africans.
My position is summarised by this quote-
"Lower Egyptian groups have tended to pool more with European and Mediterranean groups, while Upper Egyptians are biologically more similar to southern African groups. The geographic proximity of Lower Egyptians to the Mediterranean Sea and of Upper Egyptians to Nubia likely explains the phenotypic and genotypic differences between the two areas." (Klales, 2014)
Taken as a whole, Egypt plots intermediate between Sudan, in the south, and the east-Mediterranean, in he north. But when you examine Lower/Upper Egypt individually you find them closest to their neighbours.
Concerning terminology, Brace et al. call Egyptians as "[indigenous] Egyptians" and nothing else. They criticize the term "African".
How many studies on ancient Greeks call them biologically "European"? None I know of for the simple reason Europe is not homogenous culturally/genetically, so using the term "European" is too simplistic and not appropriate. This is also why I avoid calling Egyptians, Africans (in a biological context).
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Persistent nonsense is all I hear from our resident troll. Considering that the Upper Egyptians are biologically, linguistically and culturally aligned with other Northeast Africans - reflecting a common origin-; established the civilization; were the overwhelming demographic majority ;held the keys of power; resembled other Northeast Africans - with brown to dark-brown skin, like other Northeast Africans... there is absolutely no space for desperate hypotheticals that could even remotely even begin to challenge this reality, especially when we have the indigenous Upper Egyptians serving as walking and breathing refutations of these vapid attempts to dissasociate ancient Egypt from its Northeast African roots and context.
Upper Egyptians resemble other Northeast Africans like North Sudanese, Somalis, etc -- so references to latitude that attempt to bridle the irrefutable fact that Upper Egyptians originated further South and adapted to the same ecological zone as the 'Nubians' (ethnically closest to them) have failed and will continue to fail.
There is simply no way of disregarding all the images that I provided of black ancient Egyptians (a small fraction of the thousands of such images) and the images of their unmistakably black descendants. Insisting that modern North Indians could be placed in liu of these people as physical representatives of what the ancient Egyptians looked like on average is retarded and desperate.
The troll is essentially throwing ice cubes at the sun - laughable, pitiful and pointless. Even if your assertion on Lower Egypt was iron-clad, that would still leave you with a situation in which the black Upper Egyptians created the civilization and were the overwhelming demographic majority lording over Egypt... so you're essentially -inadvertently- arguing that ancient Egypt was created by black Upper Egyptians and it was a majority black civilization with biracial Lower Egyptians at the bottom of its power structure for most of its history. Good job, mate. That's progress of a kind.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: This whole thread has gone off the rails. It's a mess. The troll has no leg to stand on and is just wasting our time. He does not even dispute the fact that Upper Egyptians were/are closely related to other "eastern Saharans" like North Sudanese and the people of the Horn. To concede Upper Egypt is to lose the debate before it has even begun.
The people of Upper Egypt were physically, linguistically and culturally related to other populations in Northeast Africa and stem from a common origin in the Predynastic period. This is not disputed by any serious, rational person in any of the disciplines. It was a "Sudanese transplant"
Upper Egypt created the Egyptian civilization and established virtually all its political and cultural features; Upper Egyptians conquered the sparsely populated, disorganised, weaker and poorer North; Upper Egyptians were the demographic majority, and since they resembled (still do) other Northeast Africans... there is nothing to debate. The ancient Egyptians were black like other Northeast Africans.
My position is summarised by this quote-
"Lower Egyptian groups have tended to pool more with European and Mediterranean groups, while Upper Egyptians are biologically more similar to southern African groups. The geographic proximity of Lower Egyptians to the Mediterranean Sea and of Upper Egyptians to Nubia likely explains the phenotypic and genotypic differences between the two areas." (Klales, 2014)
Taken as a whole, Egypt plots intermediate between Sudan, in the south, and the east-Mediterranean, in he north. But when you examine Lower/Upper Egypt individually you find them closest to their neighbours.
Concerning terminology, Brace et al. call Egyptians as "[indigenous] Egyptians" and nothing else. They criticize the term "African".
How many studies on ancient Greeks call them biologically "European"? None I know of for the simple reason Europe is not homogenous culturally/genetically, so using the term "European" is too simplistic and not appropriate. This is also why I avoid calling Egyptians, Africans (in a biological context).
And you are lying again. The AE clustered closest with other Nile Valley Africans, like the so-called Nubians before any other population. They had no similarity in looks or features to any other populations other than Africans which is what you are trying to claim. On all fronts this has been proven to you over and over again but you will just make up whatever facts you want to pretend otherwise.
You are basically ignoring the facts and just using whatever justification to reinforce your belief. In other words, stop lying.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: My position is summarised by this quote-
"Lower Egyptian groups have tended to pool more with European and Mediterranean groups, while Upper Egyptians are biologically more similar to southern African groups. The geographic proximity of Lower Egyptians to the Mediterranean Sea and of Upper Egyptians to Nubia likely explains the phenotypic and genotypic differences between the two areas." (Klales, 2014)
Taken as a whole, Egypt plots intermediate between Sudan, in the south, and the east-Mediterranean, in he north. But when you examine Lower/Upper Egypt individually you find them closest to their neighbours.
Concerning terminology, Brace et al. call Egyptians as "[indigenous] Egyptians" and nothing else. They criticize the term "African".
How many studies on ancient Greeks call them biologically "European"? None I know of for the simple reason Europe is not homogenous culturally/genetically, so using the term "European" is too simplistic and not appropriate. This is also why I avoid calling Egyptians, Africans (in a biological context).
No THIS is your position
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: They were not biologically isolated to create the distinctions from the rest of Africa racists crave so vehemently.
So by that mind-set, blonde haired Swedes can claim or try to attach themselves to ancient Greek civilization? African-Americans/west sub-Saharan Africans who latch onto Egypt self-hate their own history and heritage. And I will think you will find they're the real "racists".
Your issue with Egypt being biologically connected to the rest of Africa is political, not scientific. You can keep trying to dress it up over and over, but it'll make no difference. "Lower Egyptians pool with Europeans and Meds" but there's supposedly no such way to determine people biologically connected to Europe or Africa, not even with a multidisciplinary approach. Egypt today is heavily mixed, we covered that very early in the discussion. Still, Upper Egypt is generally considered more representative of what KMT would've been like. Upper Egypt also harbored majority of the civilization's population. Stop mixing up your time periods, we're talking about Ancient Khemet, not the modern Arab Republic of Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Indo-Aryans moved into northern India from Pakistan (mostly corresponding to the modern Punjab region, but a few more southern sites), not the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European homeland.) The time between Indo-Aryans moving into northern India and the PIE dispersal(s) is 2000-3000 years. I think you've completely missed how Indo-European culture, including languages spread. There's very little if any genetic continuity between PIE's and Indo-Aryans (as with Indo-Iranians and other groups that split millennia after PIE). Look up elite dominance model of how languages spread.
"David Anthony, in his "revised Steppe hypothesis" notes that the spread of the Indo-European languages probably did not happen through "chain-type folk migrations," but by the introduction of these languages by ritual and political elites, which are emulated by large groups of people."
"A relatively small immigrant elite population can encourage widespread language shift among numerically dominant indigenes in a non-state or pre-state context if the elite employs a specific combination of encouragements and punishments." (Anthony, 2007)
The average Indo-Aryan who settled in northern India c. 1900 - 1500 BCE did not look like someone from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, or eastern Europe.
One linguist's hypothesis on how Indo-European may have spread, as quoted by Wikipedia, is still not going to save your ass from the reality of northern Indians and North Africans having substantial levels of light-skin alleles of recent (>20 kya) West Eurasian origin. A reality which you persistently evade.
How does that square with your apparent belief that the presence of these alleles (and the resulting lighter skin color) in these populations isn't due to recent admixture?
We don't actually know where that light skin mutation/derived allele arose, although it probably was somewhere in West Eurasia. I'm simply explaining its moderate-to-high frequency in North Africans + North Indians as selection, rather than admixture. I'm not proposing a separate source (parallel evolution) of the mutation in each population, it obviously spread out from a single centre by gene flow. However, selection can explain its high frequency rather than mass migration/large-scale admixture.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no point in this debate. At all. AE is still connected to the rest of Africa, whether they had light or dark skin. They were not isolated from rest of Africa.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Indo-Aryans moved into northern India from Pakistan (mostly corresponding to the modern Punjab region, but a few more southern sites), not the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European homeland.) The time between Indo-Aryans moving into northern India and the PIE dispersal(s) is 2000-3000 years. I think you've completely missed how Indo-European culture, including languages spread. There's very little if any genetic continuity between PIE's and Indo-Aryans (as with Indo-Iranians and other groups that split millennia after PIE). Look up elite dominance model of how languages spread.
"David Anthony, in his "revised Steppe hypothesis" notes that the spread of the Indo-European languages probably did not happen through "chain-type folk migrations," but by the introduction of these languages by ritual and political elites, which are emulated by large groups of people."
"A relatively small immigrant elite population can encourage widespread language shift among numerically dominant indigenes in a non-state or pre-state context if the elite employs a specific combination of encouragements and punishments." (Anthony, 2007)
The average Indo-Aryan who settled in northern India c. 1900 - 1500 BCE did not look like someone from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, or eastern Europe.
One linguist's hypothesis on how Indo-European may have spread, as quoted by Wikipedia, is still not going to save your ass from the reality of northern Indians and North Africans having substantial levels of light-skin alleles of recent (>20 kya) West Eurasian origin. A reality which you persistently evade.
How does that square with your apparent belief that the presence of these alleles (and the resulting lighter skin color) in these populations isn't due to recent admixture?
We don't actually know where that light skin mutation/derived allele arose, although it probably was somewhere in West Eurasia. I'm simply explaining its moderate-to-high frequency in North Africans + North Indians as selection, rather than admixture. I'm not proposing a separate source (parallel evolution) of the mutation in each population, it obviously spread out from a single centre by gene flow. However, selection can explain its high frequency rather than mass migration/large-scale admixture.
...so in other words, its current near-fixture in parts of North Africa and India isn't due to admixture, but since the alleles originated somewhere in West Eurasia, they would have needed to obtain them through admixture.
If you're trying to portray this as being like the presence of African sickle-cell haplotypes in certain European countries, notice their presence in these countries doesn't reach the same level of fixture as the light-skin alleles in North Africa and northern India.
Posts: 7103 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't place much stock into the genetic profile of modern Lower Egyptians, as that region was constantly compromised by invasions from Western Asia and southern Europe. Provide and cite studies on ancient Lower Egyptians that place them closer to Eurasians than to Northeast Africans.
Lower Egyptians adapted to their region and may have had skin tones similar to the San people of southern Africa. I have seen studies in which predynastic and early dynastic Lower Egyptians group more with Africans than they do with Eurasians. Ancient Egypt may well have been the first cosmopolitan civilization on earth and we see this is in the fact that Syrians and other Asiatics were allowed to become naturalised Egyptians - serving as scribes and soldiers; and so there may have been a biracial component in Lower Egypt that gradually increased as time went on with an even smaller component of Eurasians in the mix.
This still would not help you.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow! Joshua Conner Moon believes slc25a2 Arose in Eurasia and STILL believes Aegyptians selected for it somehow... THIS IS INCREDIBLE! lmaooo
Yeah, this was a waste of bandwidth after all.
you basically offed yourself JCM... GG... GN
...I have a philosophy; "that the only thing more dangerous than a fool... is a fool with access to a scientific article." It's seems to be holding up in this sense. I wonder how many people JCM had actually lead to disarray up until this point in time.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Furthermore, we know from other data that modern Egyptians do in fact carry a huge hunk of ancestry that is related to that of European and Arab populations. As I mentioned in another thread:
The biggest ancestry components in this Egyptian sample are blue (like Europeans) and green (like Qatari Arabs). There's also a red component like those of modern Maghrebis, and the same study determined this too has Eurasian genetic influence (e.g. it has traces of Neanderthal ancestry). So yes, it does look like modern Egyptians have accrued plenty of recent Eurasian admixture even if you dismiss the light-skin alleles as primarily the product of "selection".
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Wow! Joshua Conner Moon believes slc25a2 Arose in Eurasia and STILL believes Aegyptians selected for it somehow... THIS IS INCREDIBLE! lmaooo
What WHAT?! How can he argue that and then say he doesn't believe wandering Eurasians helped to populate Egypt? Well if he's trying to say it arose in Eurasia, in comes a trojan argument filled the dynastic race bs....
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I don't place much stock into the genetic profile of modern Lower Egyptians, as that region was constantly compromised by invasions from Western Asia and southern Europe. Provide and cite studies on ancient Lower Egyptians that place them closer to Eurasians than to Northeast Africans.
Lower Egyptians adapted to their region and may have had skin tones similar to the San people of southern Africa. I have seen studies in which predynastic and early dynastic Lower Egyptians group more with Africans than they do with Eurasians. Ancient Egypt may well have been the first cosmopolitan civilization on earth and we see this is in the fact that Syrians and other Asiatics were allowed to become naturalised Egyptians - serving as scribes and soldiers; and so there may have been a biracial component in Lower Egypt that gradually increased as time went on with an even smaller component of Eurasians in the mix.
This still would not help you.
I don't even see why Lower Egyptians are a problem. From what I've read though they had some morphological differences from Upper Egyptians/Nubians, they were still indigenous and more closely related to Upper Egyptians than any outside group.
Per this map they would've been darker than the San actually(though this map also doesn't account for migrations seeing as how ancient Mauretanians and several of the later Maghrebi populations were described as black skinned which I also think was partly because of later infusions from the Sahara-Sahel region and more southernly West Africa)and I believe the same would hold for Lower Egyptians receiving infusions from up the Nile.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's not forget that some Southern Europeans did retain ancestral alleles for darker skin even as recently as the Mesolithic.
quote:Here we sequence an approximately 7,000-year-old Mesolithic skeleton discovered at the La Braña-Arintero site in León, Spain, to retrieve a complete pre-agricultural European human genome. Analysis of this genome in the context of other ancient samples suggests the existence of a common ancient genomic signature across western and central Eurasia from the Upper Paleolithic to the Mesolithic. The La Braña individual carries ancestral alleles in several skin pigmentation genes, suggesting that the light skin of modern Europeans was not yet ubiquitous in Mesolithic times. Moreover, we provide evidence that a significant number of derived, putatively adaptive variants associated with pathogen resistance in modern Europeans were already present in this hunter-gatherer.
I don't know how this particular individual would compare to southern Khoisan, let alone equatorial Africans. But it is one line of evidence that makes me think living a "Mediterranean" latitude isn't always sufficient to prompt a population into evolving lower pigmentation.
And then there are the Tasmanian Aborigines who lived even further from the Equator than any Khoisan peoples. While color photographs aren't easy to come by for this population, as far as I can tell from the black-and-white photos and European paintings of them, they were mostly dark rather than light brown.
As an aside, the southernmost area of Africa (where light-skinned Khoisan would have presumably evolved) actually does extend a bit further from the Equator than Lower Egypt. The northern shore of Lower Egypt barely extends above 30 degrees North, but there is a sizable chunk of South Africa that runs south of 30 degrees South. Cape Agulhas in South Africa is almost 35 degrees South, whereas Baltim on the northernmost Egyptian coast is less than 32 degrees.
Posts: 7103 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: I don't even see why Lower Egyptians are a problem. From what I've read though they had some morphological differences from Upper Egyptians/Nubians, they were still indigenous and more closely related to Upper Egyptians than any outside group.
According to Keita 1990, ancient northern Egyptians (represented by Sedment from the 9th dynasty and the Late Dynastic "E" series) tended to have a heterogeneous composition like the ancient (not modern) Maghreb. Which is to say, some crania in these samples looked more African, others more "European", and yet others were intermediate. That's a more diverse picture from the more homogeneously African crania of Upper Egypt and Nubia, but it's consistent with our picture of a basically African population that had assimilated some Middle Eastern admixture. But like Sudaniya points out, Lower Egypt wasn't the wellspring of native Egyptian civilization to the same extent as the south.
Posts: 7103 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Nodnarb There's no element based solely on latitude that determines what genes you'd have for pigmentation.
levels in UVR is dependent on multiple variables, one of the leading contributors is air mass. South Africa and southern south america, are expose to more UVR than most habitable areas equidistant and above the equator.
Selection is typically determined by the ability to survive, mate or both. We do not mutate to adapt, in actuality, extreme depigmentation to the extent we see today in northern regions are an enigma.
Like you said, European inhabitants were diversely pigmentated until 6kya... this means that there was 50,000+ years of no true evidence of selection.... not to mention.... Neanderthals were also pigmented as well.
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: @ nodarb
I've seen you create mods trying to darken skin colour of Egyptians in computer games.
I own most the Settlers games, including these toy figures that came with a limited edition collectors copy of settlers III
My view is this is accurate for what the average ancient Egyptian would have looked like in pigmentation, but there was obviously a cline along the Nile, so Upper Egyptians approaching Nubia would have been somewhat darker.
If we're talking about how civilizations' populations are represented in the strategy games I tend to mod...
In Civilization VI for example, the American civilization's units are represented as all Northern European in appearance. This is obviously not literally accurate as we have a bunch of people of African, Native American, and other ancestries in our country. Even some of the "white" people in the US have Southern rather than Northern European ancestries (e.g. the Italian-Americans). Ergo, the "mean" skin tone for the US population would probably be some sort of light brown rather than pale.
Now try making a mod that gave the American units this light-brown average skin tone. And then upload it onto Steam. My bet is that the same people who protest ancient Egyptians being represented as generally "black" in my mods would be the first to complain about the US being represented as anything other than a lily-white nation. And in the latter case, they would argue that American units should be represented as Northern European since the country was founded by the descendants of British settlers, and because white Americans are still the largest demographic.
It's funny how a degree of admixture with Middle Easterners in Lower Egypt is enough to make people hesitant to generalize ancient Egyptians as a dark-skinned African population, yet the same crowd doesn't think twice about the US being represented with white faces.
Posts: 7103 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Furthermore, we know from other data that modern Egyptians do in fact carry a huge hunk of ancestry that is related to that of European and Arab populations. As I mentioned in another thread:
The biggest ancestry components in this Egyptian sample are blue (like Europeans) and green (like Qatari Arabs). There's also a red component like those of modern Maghrebis, and the same study determined this too has Eurasian genetic influence (e.g. it has traces of Neanderthal ancestry). So yes, it does look like modern Egyptians have accrued plenty of recent Eurasian admixture even if you dismiss the light-skin alleles as primarily the product of "selection".
Have seen this and Pagani that estimates a similar figure (>80%) for Eurasian admixture among modern Egyptians. Pagani also estimates 50% for Oromo and Amhara and <40% for Somalis. But another study estimates much lower for these:
Amhara <20%, Oromo >10% and Somalis 0%. If these are much lower, then so too should the Egyptian?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Furthermore, we know from other data that modern Egyptians do in fact carry a huge hunk of ancestry that is related to that of European and Arab populations. As I mentioned in another thread:
The biggest ancestry components in this Egyptian sample are blue (like Europeans) and green (like Qatari Arabs). There's also a red component like those of modern Maghrebis, and the same study determined this too has Eurasian genetic influence (e.g. it has traces of Neanderthal ancestry). So yes, it does look like modern Egyptians have accrued plenty of recent Eurasian admixture even if you dismiss the light-skin alleles as primarily the product of "selection".
Have seen this and Pagani that estimates a similar figure (>80%) for Eurasian admixture among modern Egyptians. Pagani also estimates 50% for Oromo and Amhara and <40% for Somalis. But another study estimates much lower for these:
Amhara <20%, Oromo >10% and Somalis 0%. If these are much lower, then so too should the Egyptian?
Let's look at the graph in the study you provided:
How about that, Egyptians in this study appear:
- 26% Arabian - 25% Levantine/Caucasian - 16.7% Southern European - 12.6% Berber (I presume this is referring to northern Mediterranean Berbers that do have Eurasian admixture)
According to this graph, Egyptians are almost 81% Eurasian. You aren't even trying at this point, are you?
Posts: 7103 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: According to this graph, Egyptians are almost 81% Eurasian. You aren't even trying at this point, are you? [/QB]
I'm aware of this. My point was that study estimates negligible to low Eurasian percentages for Amhara, Oromo and Somali etc, when they are moderate to relatively high in Pagani et al. and other studies. That study also has Wolayta as 7% Eurasian, when Pagani estimates >30%. What's going on here?
Although that study has Egyptians >80% Eurasian (like Pagani et al and the study you posted), one of the authors notes: "their [Pagani] sample of modern Egyptians, like ours, does not reflect all modern Egyptians. Furthermore, it has not been established that original Nile Valley inhabitants are in some sense covered." Is the discrepancy for low vs. high Eurasian percentages in Ethiopians/Somalis explained by the population samples?
"limitations of these types of studies are (1) the extent to which convenience samples are used, in comparison to a complete catalog of all ethno-linguistic or biogeographical groups"
If so, as one of the authors admits there are flaws with the Egyptian sample and he didn't choose to amend this like the Ethiopian and Somali samples.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: We're talking pigmentation only. As others have pointed out - Doug is a massive "flip-flopper" who constantly shifts definitions of who is black from pigmentation to the social construct (that has different criteria that depend on the classifier). Make up your mind.
I don't consider these examples you posted to have black skin pigmentation. Also note that Doug is cherry-picking the lightest brown skinned Ethiopians he can find. As a comparison, here's the Ethiopian football team:
So, how does a national soccer team represents the overall population? lol
Btw, de spite of your cherry picking they all have brown skin with reddish undertone, in various degrees.
Posts: 22245 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: According to this graph, Egyptians are almost 81% Eurasian. You aren't even trying at this point, are you?
I'm aware of this. My point was that study estimates negligible to low Eurasian percentages for Amhara, Oromo and Somali etc, when they are moderate to relatively high in Pagani et al. and other studies. That study also has Wolayta as 7% Eurasian, when Pagani estimates >30%. What's going on here?
Although that study has Egyptians >80% Eurasian (like Pagani et al and the study you posted), one of the authors notes: "their [Pagani] sample of modern Egyptians, like ours, does not reflect all modern Egyptians. Furthermore, it has not been established that original Nile Valley inhabitants are in some sense covered." Is the discrepancy for low vs. high Eurasian percentages in Ethiopians/Somalis explained by the population samples?
"limitations of these types of studies are (1) the extent to which convenience samples are used, in comparison to a complete catalog of all ethno-linguistic or biogeographical groups"
If so, as one of the authors admits there are flaws with the Egyptian sample and he didn't choose to amend this like the Ethiopian and Somali samples. [/QB]
LOL SMH
quote: The Muslim conquerors did not attempt a mass conversion of Christianity to Islam, if only because that would have reduced the taxes non-Muslims were compelled to pay, but a number of other factors were at work. Arab “men could marry Christian women and their children would become Muslim. Large-scale Arab immigration into Egypt began during the eighth century.”
—A History of Egypt: From Earliest Times to the Present by Jason Thompson (2009)
quote:
Colored dots indicate genetic diversity. Each new group outside of Africa represents a sampling of the genetic diversity present in its founder population. The ancestral population in Africa was sufficiently large to build up and retain substantial genetic diversity.
--Brenna M. Henna, L. L. Cavalli-Sforzaa,1, and Marcus W. Feldmanb,2 Edited by C. Owen Lovejoy, Kent State University, Kent, OH, and approved September 25, 2012 (received for review July 19, 2012)
quote: According to the current data East Africa is home to nearly 2/3 of the world genetic diversity independent of sampling effect. Similar figure have been suggested for sub-Saharan Africa populations [1]. The antiquity of the east African gene pool could be viewed not only from the perspective of the amount of genetic diversity endowed within it but also by signals of uni-modal distribution in their mitochondrial DNA (Hassan et al., unpublished) usually taken as an indication of populations that have passed through ‘‘recent’’ demographic expansion [33], although in this case, may in fact be considered a sign of extended shared history of in situ evolution where alleles are exchanged between neighboring demes [34].
Figure S1 Neighbor joining (NJ). NJ tree of the world populations based on MT-CO2 sequences. The evolutionary relationship of 171 sequences and evolutionary history was inferred using the Neighbor-Joining method. The optimal tree with the sum of branch length = 0.20401570 is shown. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Maximum Composite Likelihood method and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. Codon positions included were 1st+2nd+3rd+Noncoding. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated from the dataset. There were a total of 543 positions in the final dataset. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted in MEGA4. Red dots: east Africa, Blue: Africa, Green: Asia, Yellow: Australia, Pink: Europe and gray: America. (TIF)
Figure S2 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 2nd and 3rd coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 nuclear microsatellite loci from 469 individuals of 24 world populations. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. The figure, besides a separate clustering of east Africans, indicates the substantial contribution of Africans and east Africans to the founding of populations of Europe and Asia. (TIF)
Figure S3 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 3rd and 4th coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite loci, across the human genome in 469 individuals from 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. The central position of east Africans and some other Africans emphasizes the founding role of east African gene pool and the disparate alignment on coordinates along which the world populations were founded including populations of Aftica aligning along the 4th dimension. (TIF)
Figure 4. Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). A. First and second coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite Marshfield data set across the human genome for 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS plot was constructed from pairwise differences FST generated by Arlequin program (Table S3). B. First and second coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite loci, across the human genome in 469 individuals from 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. East Africans cluster to the left of the plot, while Beja (red cluster in the middle), assumes intermediate position. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097674.g004
Figure S4 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). First and second coordinates of an MDS plot based on MT-CO2 data set constructed from pairwise differences FST generated by Arlequin v3.11. Population code as follows: Nara: Nar, Kunama (Kun), Hidarb (Hid), Afar (Afa), Saho (Sah), Bilen (Bil), Tigre (Tgr), Tigrigna (Tig), Rashaida (Rsh), Nilotics (Nil), Beja (Bej), Ethiopians(Eth), Egyptians (Egy), Moroccans (Mor), Southern Africans (Sth), Pygmy (Pyg), Saudi Arabia (Sdi), Asia (Asi), Europe (Eur), Native Americans (NA), Australians (Ast), Nubians (Nub), Nuba (Nba) (TIF)
--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
The Episode of Genetic Drift Defining the Migration of Humans out of Africa Is Derived from a Large East African Population Size
PLoS One. 2014; 9(5): e97674. Published online 2014 May 20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097674
quote: The L374F polymorphism of the SLC45A2 gene, encoding the membrane-associated transporter protein that plays an important role in melanin synthesis, has been suggested to be associated with skin color in human populations. In this study, the detailed distribution of the 374f and 374l alleles has been investigated in 2,581 unrelated subjects from 36 North, East, West, and Central African populations. We found once more the highly significant (p 0.001) correlation coefficient (r = 0.957) cline of 374f frequencies with degrees of latitude in European and North African populations. Almost all the African populations located below 16° of latitude are fixed for the 374l allele. Peul, Toucouleur, and Soninké populations have 374l allele frequencies of 0.06, 0.03, and 0.03, respectively.
Near Fixation of 374l Allele Frequencies of the Skin Pigmentation Gene SLC45A2 in Africa
quote:The two genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 were recently identified as major determinants of pigmentation in humans and in other vertebrates. The allele p.A111T in the former gene and the allele p.L374F in the latter gene are both nearly fixed in light-skinned Europeans, and can therefore be considered ancestry informative marker (AIMs). AIMs are becoming useful for forensic identification of the phenotype from a DNA profile sampled, for example, from a crime scene. Here, we generate new allelic data for these two genes from samples of Chinese, Uygurs, Ghanaians, South African Xhosa, South African Europeans, and Sri Lankans (Tamils and Sinhalese). Our data confirm the earlier results and furthermore demonstrate that the SLC45A2 allele is a more specific AIM than the SLC24A5 allele because the former clearly distinguishes the Sri Lankans from the Europeans. Authors
--Soejima M, Koda Y, Population differences of two coding SNPs in pigmentation-related genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: This whole thread has gone off the rails. It's a mess. The troll has no leg to stand on and is just wasting our time. He does not even dispute the fact that Upper Egyptians were/are closely related to other "eastern Saharans" like North Sudanese and the people of the Horn. To concede Upper Egypt is to lose the debate before it has even begun.
The people of Upper Egypt were physically, linguistically and culturally related to other populations in Northeast Africa and stem from a common origin in the Predynastic period. This is not disputed by any serious, rational person in any of the disciplines. It was a "Sudanese transplant"
Upper Egypt created the Egyptian civilization and established virtually all its political and cultural features; Upper Egyptians conquered the sparsely populated, disorganised, weaker and poorer North; Upper Egyptians were the demographic majority, and since they resembled (still do) other Northeast Africans... there is nothing to debate. The ancient Egyptians were black like other Northeast Africans.
My position is summarised by this quote-
"Lower Egyptian groups have tended to pool more with European and Mediterranean groups, while Upper Egyptians are biologically more similar to southern African groups. The geographic proximity of Lower Egyptians to the Mediterranean Sea and of Upper Egyptians to Nubia likely explains the phenotypic and genotypic differences between the two areas." (Klales, 2014)
Taken as a whole, Egypt plots intermediate between Sudan, in the south, and the east-Mediterranean, in he north. But when you examine Lower/Upper Egypt individually you find them closest to their neighbours.
Concerning terminology, Brace et al. call Egyptians as "[indigenous] Egyptians" and nothing else. They criticize the term "African".
How many studies on ancient Greeks call them biologically "European"? None I know of for the simple reason Europe is not homogenous culturally/genetically, so using the term "European" is too simplistic and not appropriate. This is also why I avoid calling Egyptians, Africans (in a biological context).
This actually confirms what we have been saying here, all along. The Lower Egyptians have admixture or are at times completely foreign to indigenous native / ancient Egyptians.
quote:
Secondly, there remains discourse as to whether Upper Egyptian groups share a population history with the Lower Egyptian groups or if each area shares a more similar population biology with another non-Egyptian group than with each other. Greene (1981) notes a prevalent North-South phenotypic cline in the modern Egyptian population, specifically in cranial form and skin color.
[…]
Lower Egyptian groups have tended to pool more with European and Mediterranean groups, while Upper Egyptians are biologically more similar to southern African groups (Morton 1844 as found in Keita 1993, Howells 1973, Hillson 1978, Kieta 1990).
[…]
Historically estimates of ancient Egyptian stature have been based on total mummy bundle length (Smith 1912). More recently Trotter and Gleser’s (1958) equation for “Negro” populations replaced the use of bundle length. The “Negro” equations have been used as opposed to the “White” equations, because the limb proportions of dynastic Egyptians are more similar to groups of African rather than Caucasian descent (Robins and Shute 1983, Zakrzewski 2003). Furthermore, the limb proportions in ancient Egyptians has remained relatively stable through time and show no evidence of variation related to class (Zakrzewski 2003, Raxter et al. 2008). A modified version of the Trotter and Gleser equation was presented by Robins and Shute for ancient Egyptians (1986).
—Klales, (2014)
quote: Coming down to Thebes in Upper Egypt, then going northwards over Assiut, Akhmim and Bani Suëf and at last reaching the Delta the areas being reached by the floods in ancient times highly increase and the qualities of their soil are much better than in the southern regions (Picture 3).
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:Outside influence and admixture with extra-regional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007).
—Irish JD et al. (2006, 2009) "Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians". American Journal of Physical Anthropology
quote: “While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.“
—Irish JD et al. (2006). "Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples". Am J Phys Anthropol 129
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: I'm aware of this. My point was that study estimates negligible to low Eurasian percentages for Amhara, Oromo and Somali etc, when they are moderate to relatively high in Pagani et al. and other studies. That study also has Wolayta as 7% Eurasian, when Pagani estimates >30%. What's going on here?
Although that study has Egyptians >80% Eurasian (like Pagani et al and the study you posted), one of the authors notes: "their [Pagani] sample of modern Egyptians, like ours, does not reflect all modern Egyptians. Furthermore, it has not been established that original Nile Valley inhabitants are in some sense covered." Is the discrepancy for low vs. high Eurasian percentages in Ethiopians/Somalis explained by the population samples?
"limitations of these types of studies are (1) the extent to which convenience samples are used, in comparison to a complete catalog of all ethno-linguistic or biogeographical groups"
If so, as one of the authors admits there are flaws with the Egyptian sample and he didn't choose to amend this like the Ethiopian and Somali samples.
You're stepping on your own toes, Go to the Materials and Methods (Henn 2012, or Pagani 2015) section, and read where they primarily got their sampled Egyptian population from. You'll see why they said this...
"their [Pagani] sample of modern Egyptians, like ours, does not reflect all modern Egyptians. Furthermore, it has not been established that original Nile Valley inhabitants are in some sense covered"
Then Google the typical Egyptian from the most represented region in the sample set.
Now once you've done that, use what ever ability you have to deductively reason and connect the dots.And reflect on how all of this concludes that your points are null and void.
As a matter of fact, how about you also remind the forum of what you're arguing now exactly? -& please don't detract by talking about erroneous characteristics of Ethiopian skin color.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Wow! Joshua Conner Moon believes slc25a2 Arose in Eurasia and STILL believes Aegyptians selected for it somehow... THIS IS INCREDIBLE! lmaooo
What WHAT?! How can he argue that and then say he doesn't believe wandering Eurasians helped to populate Egypt? Well if he's trying to say it arose in Eurasia, in comes a trojan argument filled the dynastic race bs....
I've already explained: selection. There only needs to be minor/trivial amounts of gene flow if there is directional selection causing an allele to shift over time in frequency. I'm proposing there was selection in Egypt and North India for this since both are above the tropic of cancer; in Jablonski's study on pigmentation, a large portion of Egypt falls outside the high-UV zone that more or less maps onto the tropics where solar radiation is most intense.
What I am proposing is not new, Brace et al 1993 argued for it-
"Instead, it could just be the result of selection operating on the people who were already there... our own data are comfortably compatible with a picture of long-term local regional continuity. That would make the skin color gradient running from Cairo via Khartoum 1,600 km to the south and deep into the tropics an example of a true cline (Huxley, 1938)."
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Wow! Joshua Conner Moon believes slc25a2 Arose in Eurasia and STILL believes Aegyptians selected for it somehow... THIS IS INCREDIBLE! lmaooo
What WHAT?! How can he argue that and then say he doesn't believe wandering Eurasians helped to populate Egypt? Well if he's trying to say it arose in Eurasia, in comes a trojan argument filled the dynastic race bs....
I've already explained: selection. There only needs to be minor/trivial amounts of gene flow if there is directional selection causing an allele to shift over time in frequency. I'm proposing there was selection in Egypt and North India for this since both are above the tropic of cancer; in Jablonski's study on pigmentation, a large portion of Egypt falls outside the high-UV zone that more or less maps onto the tropics where solar radiation is most intense.
What I am proposing is not new, Brace et al 1993 argued for it-
"Instead, it could just be the result of selection operating on the people who were already there... our own data are comfortably compatible with a picture of long-term local regional continuity. That would make the skin color gradient running from Cairo via Khartoum 1,600 km to the south and deep into the tropics an example of a true cline (Huxley, 1938)."
You don't know what you are talking about.
How can a population select for the same SNP without introgression or geneflow from a population who already had the mutation. If you understood the basics of biological science you would see exactly where you shot yourself in the head. Contemporary slc24a5 mutations in the Egyptian population can not be indicative of early Nile valley population selection IF SLC24A5 AROSE OOA.
What you are suggesting is literally fringe science with no basis!!!!!!!
Let me repeat!!
None of what you're arguing even matters. Pakistan, India, North Africa & Europe's Widespread distribution of slc24a5 is due to the same fvcking even't. It's almost fringe science to believe a population independently selected for the same snp elsewhere w/o introgression.
You have to prove that pre-Nile valley inhabitants were apart of the bottleneck resulting in the reduction of genetic diversity & widespread distribution of slc24a5 of Maghrebs & OOA populations.
Like I said before, claims of Aegyptians having mysteriously lighter skin outside of the range of "black" African pigmentation is fundamentally baseless at this point in time.Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Palaeo-anthropology does not support the idea that the most noticeable or salient "Caucasoid" traits like narrow noses and small teeth arose in Africa. They're completely absent from the Upper Paleolithic skeletal/fossil record across Africa (North + Sub-Saharan Africa). However, I would not propose these features were introduced with a large amount of admixture (i.e. mass-migration from Eurasia), but trivial gene flow, i.e. selection explains their high frequency in certain African populations.
Those Afrocentrists arguing the most noticeable or salient "Caucasioid" features originated in Africa would need to explain why they appear in the European Upper Palaeolithic skeletal/fossil record, some 30,000 years before they show in Africa. This is because we have many nasal indices of UP crania. None in Africa are leptorrhine or have microdont dentition.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
...btw, you're 0/2 in regards to your previous statement about your "proposal" on selection above. Read Jonnalagadda 2016 and silently go away. Come back better suited and well equipped with an actual argument please.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ^ Lmao, I got one word for you.
MOTA
...btw, you're 0/2 in regards to your previous statement about your "proposal" on selection above. Read Jonnalagadda 2016 and silently go away. Come back better suited and well equipped with an actual argument please.
Mota is only 4500 BP. Also I've never seen a study on its cranial measurements, nor even a photo. But point is-
"Cro-Magnons were already racially European, i.e., Caucasoid. This has always been accepted because of the general appearance of the skulls: straight faces, narrow noses, and so forth." (Howells, 1997)
Contemporary populations to European Cro-Magnon living in Africa did not have these most salient "Caucasoid" features. They're completely absent, for example -
"The nasal index, which lies just over the border of chamaerrhiny, furnishes a real metrical difference between Afalou and Crô-Magnon. The elevation of the index is due to a shorter height as well as to a greater width. Not one of the Afalou skulls is actually leptorrhine." - Coon, 1939
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic