posted
As I posted in my first thread: a prediction of the isolation-by-distance model in population genetics is ancient Egyptians will be closest genetically to their nearest geographical neighbours, but since Europe is smaller than Sub-Saharan Africa, that populations from Europe and east Mediterranean, will plot closer than many Sub-Saharan African populations.
As expected (although I was mocked for saying this) Nubian skeletal samples from northern Sudan plot closer to Zalavar+Berg+Norse than Sub-Saharan populations such as Zulu.
Howells, 1995-
" Indeed, in nine cases a European population measured by Howells provided the closest match to one of the Nubian specimens studied by Williams et al. (2005)" Bulbeck, 2011
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
You brothas do realize you are chasing a "red herring"? don’t you? His argument is "Ford makes a white car so all white cars are Fords" lol! . Caucasoid is a label used to steal African history. AEians are nothing but indigenous Africans. The real argument should be what happened is Greece and Rome 1000BC. Time they start aDNAing the ancient Greeks. Modern Greeks are about 30% African. Ask Larry Angel to release some of those Menos and Lerna Skull for testing. My money is in they are all PN2. And mark my word. They will carry E1b1a!!!!! Yes,not only E1b1b but E1b1a. Why? Tic! Toc!
Quote: 'Tales of Ethiopia as a mythical land at the farthest edges of the earth are recorded in some of the earliest Greek literature of the eighth century B.C., including the epic poems of Homer. Greek gods and heroes, like Menelaos, were believed to have visited this place on the fringes of the known world. However, long before Homer, the seafaring civilization of Bronze Age Crete, known today as Minoan, established trade connections with Egypt. The Minoans may have first come into contact with Africans at Thebes, during the periodic bearing of tribute to the pharaoh. In fact, paintings in the tomb of Rekhmire, dated to the fourteenth century B.C., depict African and Aegean peoples, most likely Nubians and Minoans. However, with the collapse of the Minoan and Mycenaean palaces at the end of the Late Bronze Age, trade connections with Egypt and the Near East were severed as Greece entered a period of impoverishment and limited contact.
During the eighth and seventh centuries B.C., the Greeks renewed contacts with the northern periphery of Africa. They established settlements and trading posts along the Nile River and at Cyrene on the northern coast of Africa. Already at Naukratis, the earliest and most important of the trading posts in Africa, Greeks were certainly in contact with Africans[[[[[. It is likely that images of Africans,*** if not*** Africans themselves, began to reappear in the Aegean.]]]]] In the seventh and early sixth centuries B.C., Greek mercenaries from Ionia and Caria served under the Egyptian pharaohs Psametikus I and II.
All black Africans were known as Ethiopians to the ancient Greeks, as the fifth-century B.C. historian Herodotus tells us, and their iconography was narrowly defined by Greek artists in the Archaic (ca. 700–480 B.C.) and Classical (ca. 480–323 B.C.) periods, black skin color being the primary identifying physical characteristic. It is recorded that Ethiopians were among King Xerxes’ troops when Persia invaded Greece in 480 B.C. Thus, the Greeks would have come into contact with large numbers of Africans at this time. Nonetheless, most ancient Greeks had only a vague understanding of African geography. They believed that the land of the Ethiopians was located south of Egypt. In Greek mythology, the pygmies were the African race that lived furthest south on the fringes of the known world, where they engaged in mythic battles with cranes (26.49).
Ethiopians were considered exotic to the ancient Greeks and their features contrasted markedly with the Greeks’ own well-established perception of themselves. The black glaze central to Athenian vase painting was ideally suited for representing black skin, a consistent feature used to describe Ethiopians in ancient Greek literature as well. Ethiopians were featured in the tragic plays of Aeschylus, Sophokles, and Euripides; and preserved comic masks, as well as a number of vase paintings from this period, indicate that Ethiopians were also often cast in Greek comedies.
Well into the fourth century B.C., Ethiopians were regularly featured in Greek vase painting, especially on the highly decorative red-figure vases produced by the Greek colonies in southern Italy (50.11.4). One type shows an Ethiopian being attacked by a crocodile, most likely an allusion to Egypt and the Nile River. Depictions of Ethiopians in scenes of everyday life are rare at this time, although one tomb painting from a Greek cemetery near Paestum in southern Italy shows an Ethiopian and a Greek in a boxing competition.
With the establishment of the Ptolemaic dynasty and Macedonian rule in Egypt, after the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C., came an increased knowledge of Nubia (in modern Sudan), the neighboring kingdom along the lower Nile ruled by kings who resided in the capital cities of Napata and later Meroe. Cosmopolitan metropolises, including Alexandria in the Nile"
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Time they start aDNAing the ancient Greeks. Modern Greeks are about 30% African.
So if modern Greeks are only 30% African then whey are you running around saying Europeans are depigmented Africans?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: As I posted in my first thread: a prediction of the isolation-by-distance model in population genetics is ancient Egyptians will be closest genetically to their nearest geographical neighbours, but since Europe is smaller than Sub-Saharan Africa, that populations from Europe and east Mediterranean, will plot closer than many Sub-Saharan African populations.
The return of the Sahara desert after millennia of it's absence played a role in the creation of Egypt. Africa is not static. Back then, there was no "Sahara" desert that racists try to explain made a barrier.Since there was no Sahara, other Africans that didn't live in the Sahara would've been closest to the people who'd made Egypt. Any "specimens" that demonstrated features closer to Europeans would've been a subset of African biological diversity. In fact, Egypt as a civilization was along the nile, a river that extends into SSA.
quote:"Howells database: lacks the distinct morphology necessary for classifying unknown crania." - . Leathers, J. Edwards, G.J. Armelagos. et. al
"Howells data set....CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series." - Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski
"Howells’ data attribute the Nubian specimens to populations on several continents, whereas the Forensic Data Bank series provides no explainable pattern of population attribution. These results suggest that Fordisc 2.0 cannot accurately identify the biological affinity of ancient Nubians." - R. Belcher1, F. Williams et. al.
posted
YDNA PN2 not autosomally. They are 90% African autosomally which proves that all sex related haplogroups is African originated. Since both autosome and sex related hg cannot be separated.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Time they start aDNAing the ancient Greeks. Modern Greeks are about 30% African.
So if modern Greeks are only 30% African then whey are you running around saying Europeans are depigmented Africans?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: As I posted in my first thread: a prediction of the isolation-by-distance model in population genetics is ancient Egyptians will be closest genetically to their nearest geographical neighbours, but since Europe is smaller than Sub-Saharan Africa, that populations from Europe and east Mediterranean, will plot closer than many Sub-Saharan African populations.
As expected (although I was mocked for saying this) Nubian skeletal samples from northern Sudan plot closer to Zalavar+Berg+Norse than Sub-Saharan populations such as Zulu.
" Indeed, in nine cases a European population measured by Howells provided the closest match to one of the Nubian specimens studied by Williams et al. (2005)" Bulbeck, 2011
Clown, the region of the Nile Valley is already many times larger than the entire of tiny Europe. lol smh The fact that Africa has more diversity is logically. And in that first thread you've made you've been crushed completely.
Here you can reread about your traumatic experience.
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."
(Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
Ps, Nobody knows why you keep chatting about the Zulu's. smh
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: 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.
LOL SMH
quote:
Southeast and south Asian populations are also often thought to be derived from the admixture of various combinations of western Eurasians (‘Caucasoids’), east Asians and Australasians. ...
These findings, coupled with the recently discovered presence of haplogroup U in Ethiopia [11], support a scenario in which a northeast African population dispersed out of Africa into India, presumably through the Arabian peninsula, before 50,000 years ago (Figure 2). Other migrations into India also occurred, but rarely from western Eurasian populations. ...
Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’— that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.
--Todd R. Disotell.
Human evolution: The southern route to Asia
Volume 9, Issue 24, 30 December 1999, Pages R925–R928
quote: The lack of Late Pleistocene human fossils from sub-Saharan Africa has limited paleontological testing of competing models of recent human evolution. We have dated a skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, to 36.2 +/- 3.3 thousand years ago through a combination of optically stimulated luminescence and uranium-series dating methods. The skull is morphologically modern overall but displays some archaic features. Its strongest morphometric affinities are with Upper Paleolithic (UP) Eurasians rather than recent, geographically proximate people. The Hofmeyr cranium is consistent with the hypothesis that UP Eurasians descended from a population that emigrated from sub-Saharan Africa in the Late Pleistocene.
—Grine FE et al.
Late Pleistocene human skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and modern human origins.
PubMed study: Science. 2007 Jan 12;315(5809):226-9.
the region of the Nile Valley is already many times larger than the entire of tiny Europe.
who would believe that madness?
smh You exaggerate all the time, give me a break. But from a Nile Valley cultural perspective it is certainly true.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: might be an exaggeration but Sudan, south Sudan, Egypt and Ethiopia can pretty much cover all of mainland Europe with the exception of turkey.
The Nile is about long enough to run from the northern most tip of Sweden to Greece or from east Ukraine to Portugal.
quote:This book contains convincing evidence and persuasive arguments to cause a stir among historians - Egyptologists in particular - as it will expose archaeological findings excavated in an area that has never been thought to have historical significance. This is no place other than Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland, and surrounding areas. While the ground-breaking information contained in this book is hoped to bring the long standing argument on the location of the mysterious Land of Punt almost to a close, it will also shed a new light on the race controversy surrounding ancient Egyptian
--Ahmed Ibrahim Awale
The Mystery of the Land of Punt Unravelled (2015)
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, the debate in this thread was pretty much pointless.... might as well measure some sh!t, for fun or whatever.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I mean, the debate in this thread was pretty much pointless.... might as well measure some sh!t, for fun or whatever.
JoshuaConnerMoon is going in circles, like a mad dog. He keeps biting himself in his own behind.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Upper Egyptians would have been a darker brown though, but it doesn't approach 'black' until Sudan:
"On the average, between the Delta in northern Egypt and the Sudan of the Upper Nile, skin color tends to darken from light brown to what appears to the eye as bluish black." - Trigger, B. [1978]. “Nubian, Negro, Black, Nilotic?”. Wenig, Steffen (ed.). In: Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. Brooklyn Museum, New York.
Hmmm…,
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
The fossil record falsifies what you are saying. Narrow nasal aperture of skulls and small teeth don't show in Africa until the Neolithic, i.e. Capsian culture of the Maghreb (and even then later specimens than early) and the Gamble's Cave crania (East Africa). That's a gap of 30,000 years i.e these features were present in early Upper Palaeolithic European specimens like the Predmosti and Dolni Vestonice crania. You're arguing these two "Caucasoid" cranial features are 'native' to Africa, so why don't they appear in any Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic fossils?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: As I posted in my first thread: a prediction of the isolation-by-distance model in population genetics is ancient Egyptians will be closest genetically to their nearest geographical neighbours, but since Europe is smaller than Sub-Saharan Africa, that populations from Europe and east Mediterranean, will plot closer than many Sub-Saharan African populations.
The return of the Sahara desert after millennia of it's absence played a role in the creation of Egypt. Africa is not static. Back then, there was no "Sahara" desert that racists try to explain made a barrier.Since there was no Sahara, other Africans that didn't live in the Sahara would've been closest to the people who'd made Egypt. Any "specimens" that demonstrated features closer to Europeans would've been a subset of African biological diversity. In fact, Egypt as a civilization was along the nile, a river that extends into SSA.
quote:"Howells database: lacks the distinct morphology necessary for classifying unknown crania." - . Leathers, J. Edwards, G.J. Armelagos. et. al
"Howells data set....CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series." - Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski
"Howells’ data attribute the Nubian specimens to populations on several continents, whereas the Forensic Data Bank series provides no explainable pattern of population attribution. These results suggest that Fordisc 2.0 cannot accurately identify the biological affinity of ancient Nubians." - R. Belcher1, F. Williams et. al.
You're miles behind learning about population genetics, physical anthropology etc. There is no "African" biological grouping, so Egyptians are not going to plot closer to all African populations than non-Africans.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: @Ish Gebor
The fossil record falsifies what you are saying. Narrow nasal aperture of skulls and small teeth don't show in Africa until the Neolithic, i.e. Capsian culture of the Maghreb (and even then later specimens than early) and the Gamble's Cave crania (East Africa). That's a gap of 30,000 years i.e these features were present in early Upper Palaeolithic European specimens like the Predmosti and Dolni Vestonice crania. You're arguing these two "Caucasoid" cranial features are 'native' to Africa, so why don't they appear in any Upper Palaeolithic or Mesolithic fossils?
Where is this evidence?
The climate of the region suites for morphology, sorry.
quote:"This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
[...]
"From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that sub-Lines: 369 to 3770.0pt PgVar Normal PagePgEnds: TEX [554], Saharan genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill2 et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniog¢lu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniog¢lu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003;6 Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al.7 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward10 to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.
"Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt—such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)—show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic–early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."
--F X Ricaut · M Waelkens
Article: Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements
Human Biology 11/2008; 80(5):535-64. DOI:10.3378/1534-6617-80.5.535 · 1.52 Impact Factor
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: As I posted in my first thread: a prediction of the isolation-by-distance model in population genetics is ancient Egyptians will be closest genetically to their nearest geographical neighbours, but since Europe is smaller than Sub-Saharan Africa, that populations from Europe and east Mediterranean, will plot closer than many Sub-Saharan African populations.
The return of the Sahara desert after millennia of it's absence played a role in the creation of Egypt. Africa is not static. Back then, there was no "Sahara" desert that racists try to explain made a barrier.Since there was no Sahara, other Africans that didn't live in the Sahara would've been closest to the people who'd made Egypt. Any "specimens" that demonstrated features closer to Europeans would've been a subset of African biological diversity. In fact, Egypt as a civilization was along the nile, a river that extends into SSA.
quote:"Howells database: lacks the distinct morphology necessary for classifying unknown crania." - . Leathers, J. Edwards, G.J. Armelagos. et. al
"Howells data set....CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series." - Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski
"Howells’ data attribute the Nubian specimens to populations on several continents, whereas the Forensic Data Bank series provides no explainable pattern of population attribution. These results suggest that Fordisc 2.0 cannot accurately identify the biological affinity of ancient Nubians." - R. Belcher1, F. Williams et. al.
You're miles behind learning about population genetics, physical anthropology etc. There is no "African" biological grouping, so Egyptians are not going to plot closer to all African populations than non-Africans.
It is you who is miles behind in genetics, Africans are most diverse in geno- and phenotype. Different African groups are responsible for different dispersals over time:
Remarkable, the author writes:
(FW. Rosing, Who were the ancient Egyptians)
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:"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:"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'... we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
quote: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 inmigration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential inmigration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK
—Sonia R. Zakrzewski
Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State
quote: The origins of the ancient Egyptian state and its formation have received much attention through analysis of mortuary contexts, skeletal material, and trade. Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying craniometric variation within a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the evidence for migration over the period of the development of social hierarchy and the Egyptian state. Craniometric variation, based upon 16 measurements, was assessed through principal components analysis, discriminant function analysis, and Mahalanobis D2 matrix computation. Spatial and temporal relationships were assessed by Mantel and Partial Mantel tests. The results indicate overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process. Nevertheless, significant differences were found in morphology between both geographically-pooled and cemetery-specific temporal groups, indicating that some migration occurred along the Egyptian Nile Valley over the periods studied. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2007.
—Sonia R. Zakrzewski
Population continuity or population change: Formation of the ancient Egyptian state
American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 132, Issue 4, pages 501–509, April 2007
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."
—(Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
The Y-chromosome haplogroup tree has been constructed manually following YCC 2008 nomenclature20 with some modifications.35 The tree (Supplementary Figure S1) contains the E haplogroups of Eritrean populations from this study and those reported in the literature.22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Genotyping results for E-V13, E-V12, E-V22 and E-V32 reported for Eritrean samples and elsewhere23, 27 were retracted to E-M78 haplogroup level. All the analyses in this study were done at the same resolution using the following 17 bi-allelic markers: E-M96, E-M33, E-P2, E-M2, E-M58, E-M191, E-M154, E-M329, E-M215, E-M35, E-M78, E-M81, E-M123, E-M34, E-V6, E-V16/E-M281 and E-M75.
[...]
Interestingly, this ancestral cluster includes populations like Fulani who has previously shown to display Eastern African ancestry, common history with the Hausa who are the furthest Afro-Asiatic speakers to the west in the Sahel, with a large effective size and complex genetic background. 23 The Fulani who currently speak a language classified as Niger-Kordofanian may have lost their original tongue to as sociated sedentary group similar to other cattle herders in Africa a common tendency among pastoralists. Clearly cultural trends exemplified by populations, like Hausa or Massalit, the latter who have neither strong tradition in agriculture nor animal husbandry, were established subsequent to the initial differentiation of haplogroup E. For example, the early clusters within the network also include Nilo-Saharan speakers like Kunama of Eritrea and Nilotic of Sudan who are ardent nomadic pastoralists but speak a language of non-Afro-Asiatic background the predominant linguistic family within the macrohaplogroup.
[...]
The Sahel, which extends between the Atlantic coast of Africa and the Red Sea plateau, represents one of the least sampled areas and populations in the domain of human genetics. The position of Eritrea adjacent to the Red Sea coast provides opportunities for insights regarding human migrations within and beyond the African landscape.
—Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim1
European Journal of Human Genetics (2014) 22, 1387–1392; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.41; published online 26 March 2014
Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism WEJHGOpen
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice how the argument shifts upon every rebuttal, now there's "no African grouping in population genetics & anthropology"... Interesting. I hope he reevaluate and revamps his position to adjust to that veiw.
Mind you, he failed to see why mentioning a species like MOTA literally throws a wrench in his argument despite the age of the specimen.
...here's a hint, Mota is less Eurasian than staple anti-Eurasian sample set ...the YRI.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Notice how the argument shifts upon every rebuttal, now there's "no African grouping in population genetics & anthropology"... Interesting. I hope he reevaluate and revamps his position to adjust to that veiw.
Mind you, he failed to see why mentioning a species like MOTA literally throws a wrench in his argument despite the age of the specimen.
...here's a hint, Mota is less Eurasian than staple anti-Eurasian sample set ...the YRI.
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: You're miles behind learning about population genetics, physical anthropology etc. There is no "African" biological grouping, so Egyptians are not going to plot closer to all African populations than non-Africans.
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: As I posted in my first thread: a prediction of the isolation-by-distance model in population genetics is ancient Egyptians will be closest genetically to their nearest geographical neighbours, but since Europe is smaller than Sub-Saharan Africa, that populations from Europe and east Mediterranean, will plot closer than many Sub-Saharan African populations.
How is possible to discuss populations as European and East Mediterranean but not African? You didn't state particular groups of Europeans or Easterners, you just referred to them as a biological group. Yes the image attempts to create more specific groups, but what you say and what you cite are often very different. If someone believes no one can biologically group people, it'd be more believable that they are consistent when discussing this to say a Greek for example is closer to an Egyptian than other Europeans or M/ANY "Sub Saharan." When you actually discuss this matter in your own words, You've been biologically grouping people when it suits your argument. When others do the same and contradict your argument you say it then cannot be done. You've already confessed that your problem with grouping AE as part of Africa is political. As long as you have social or political interests to separate AE from Africa, I don't really think there's anything anybody can say to you, no scientific evidence that'll ever be enough. Nobody's that's debating you anymore thinks it's possible the science can reach you, they just hope your deeply rooted political woes don't confuse people who may read the things you say.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
How is possible to discuss populations as European and East Mediterranean but not African? You didn't state particular groups of Europeans or Easterners, you just referred to them as a biological group. Yes the image attempts to create more specific groups, but what you say and what you cite are often very different. If someone believes no one can biologically group people, it'd be more believable that they are consistent when discussing this to say a Greek for example is closer to an Egyptian than other Europeans or ANY "Sub Saharan." When you actually discuss this matter in your own words, You've been biologically grouping people when it suits your argument. When others do the same and contradict your argument you say it then cannot be done. You've already confessed that your problem with grouping AE as part of Africa is political. As long as you have social or political interests to separate AE from Africa, I don't really think there's anything anybody can say to you, no scientific evidence that'll ever be enough. Nobody's that's debating you anymore thinks it's possible the science can reach you, they just hope your deeply rooted political woes don't confuse people who may read the things you say.
Beautiful... well said. If I were you and there were still mods on this site, I'd ask that they lock this thread at this point.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I knew mods were around I'd have asked them to close the thread the moment he brought his political issues into it. No matter how much evidence or data you bring, his political/social positioning is not going to change after this.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: How is possible to discuss populations as European and East Mediterranean but not African? You didn't state particular groups of Europeans or Easterners, you just referred to them as a biological group. Yes the image attempts to create more specific groups, but what you say and what you cite are often very different. If someone believes no one can biologically group people, it'd be more believable that they are consistent when discussing this to say a Greek for example is closer to an Egyptian than other Europeans or M/ANY "Sub Saharan." When you actually discuss this matter in your own words, You've been biologically grouping people when it suits your argument. When others do the same and contradict your argument you say it then cannot be done. You've already confessed that your problem with grouping AE as part of Africa is political. As long as you have social or political interests to separate AE from Africa, I don't really think there's anything anybody can say to you, no scientific evidence that'll ever be enough. Nobody's that's debating you anymore thinks it's possible the science can reach you, they just hope your deeply rooted political woes don't confuse people who may read the things you say. [/QB]
Lol. Nowhere did I refer to Europeans or east-Mediterraneans as a biological grouping/cluster, I said populations in those regions: "populations from Europe and east Mediterranean" and my usage of European/east-Mediterranean/Sub-Saharan Africa is strictly geographical. For the same reason C. Loring Brace recognises there is a systematic (i.e. geographical) population structure to human variation, but as a biological anthropologist he knows that it is clines rather than clusters; populations do not form natural biological groupings/clusters, but are part of a genetic continuum and grade into one another:
"Yes, we can recognize people from a given area. What we are seeing, however, is a pattern of features derived from common ancestry in the area in question, and these are largely without different survival value. To the extent that the people in a given region look more like one another than they look like people from other regions, this can be regarded as "family resemblance writ large." And as we have seen, each region grades without break into the one next door. There is nothing wrong with using geographic labels to designate people." (Brace, 2000)
The retention of geographical labels is simply for convenience; there are over 5000 ethnic groups world-wide and obviously researchers don't use all population samples, e.g. its obviously a lot easier to just say "Chinese" than list all 56 ethnic groups native to China, and that explains the geographical labels in Brace, while he cautions they are not biological clusters (there is no "Chinese race").
If you actually read my posts properly you will see I have been consistent on this, hence why I describe ancient Egyptians as plotting intermediate between the south-Levant and Sudan. You keep mentioning political biases, but like most Afrocentrists on this forum you're following a pan-Africanist political agenda that tries to lump all African populations together (your statement AE's are closer to all Africans than non-Afrcans is false). You're basically projecting what you're doing yourself onto me.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who are these mythical Afrocentrics you keep referencing? Like, Its all well and good when you ignore the demographic history of said region.
--Yes Moroccan Berbers smoothly transitions into Senegalese pigmy, western Chinese transitions perfectly into the kalesh, lest forget how southern Bantus are an intermediate between the Khoisan and southern horners. All populations developed to form a gradient.-- (sarcasm)--
Idk, if I should call it naivety, pseudoscientific, or deceitful. But to go through 5+ pages of scientific/historical breakdown and still arrive at such a conclusion is class A trolling.
Posts: 1782 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Lol. Nowhere did I refer to Europeans or east-Mediterraneans as a biological grouping/cluster, I said populations in those regions: "populations from Europe and east Mediterranean" and my usage of European/east-Mediterranean/Sub-Saharan Africa is strictly geographical.
I'm going to try to refrain from sarcasm as much as I can in this post, but you don't have to explicitly refer to them as a cluster to participate in the act of clustering them. Being "geographical" is meaningless if you're saying it's wrong to lump people in by region. To refer to regions is to make arbitrary "clusters." I'll even go as far as to say you don't have to discuss a specific ethnic group anymore because that's clustering too. The difference is often scale.
...Would've sounded more sincere if you had discussed a specific ethnic group and remained consistent about it though IJS...
quote: The retention of geographical labels is simply for convenience; there are over 5000 ethnic groups world-wide and obviously researchers don't use all population samples, e.g. its obviously a lot easier to just say "Chinese" than list all 56 ethnic groups native to China, and that explains the geographical labels in Brace, while he cautions they are not biological clusters (there is no "Chinese race").
Even if it's easier you're arguing it's wrong to lump Africans. But now it's fine to label/lump together 56 ethnic groups as "China" because "it's easier." Objectively there are probably no biological clusters and both regional and ethnic distinctions or language groups are arbitrarily defined or selected to create comparative biological populations. Han Chinese as an ethnic group stand about 800 million. But discuss "Han Chinese" as a biological population is still "clustering" people and rendering them with enough sameness/similarity to compare them with another population. But is everyone whose Han Chinese "the same?" No. And even among the Han you can divide them by language and regional groups further with labels like as Mandarin, Wu, Yue and Min? And even among language groups you have dialects,etc. At what point do people become "the same" enough to cluster with each other isn't objective. Even "family resemblance writ large." as a concept is making generalizations. Using geographic,ethnic (or language) labels to group people is still arbitrarily "clustering people." Establishing "populations" to compare is clustering. This is the same idea many other posters have put forward discussing Africa or Sub Saharan Africa as geographical labels. I don't have a very big problem with regional labels, I just have a problem with you thinking it's only something people are allowed to do when it benefits your claims.
quote:If you actually read my posts properly you will see I have been consistent on this, hence why I describe ancient Egyptians as plotting intermediate between the south-Levant and Sudan.
Again! "Levant" or "South Levant" is an 'arbitrary' regional generalization that clusters people. You're not even discussing or summarizing consistently what specific ethnic groups or language groups within ethnic groups you think they're closer to. And again it's still "clustering" people, but at least it wouldn't be such a blatant regional generalization you refuse to allow people to do for Africa (when it doesn't bolster your views). Even if we agreed about the "Levant" not everyone is going to have equal biological closeness to AE in the Levant to just lump them together. That was the very point you just got through when people were discussing AE as part of Africa. Oh wait I forgot it's okay for YOU to discuss matters by regions, but not anybody else! When anybody else discusses AE as showing more of a biological and cultural connection to the Africa (especially SSA), then you can't do that!
quote: You keep mentioning political biases, but like most Afrocentrists on this forum you're following a pan-Africanist political agenda that tries to lump all African populations together (your statement AE's are closer to all Africans than non-Afrcans is false).
I don't think AE are genetically connected to "all Africans" to the same degree.This for example suggests SSA are closer to Ancient Amarnas than North Africans.
For example many Africans are heavily admixed by recent migrations into Africa dating back centuries ago. so no I don't believe all of Africa is the same. That wasn't really the claim tho and you don't mind comparing regions when it benefits you. When we're discussing populations in terms of region as (you've been allowed to do), they overall reflect stronger biological and cultural connection to many Africans before "Eurasia," (and yes, that includes SSA). When academia does it, it's fine. When you do it, it's fine. When people do it to discuss Egypt as a population that is regionally included as African (contradicting your viewpoint) it's some "Afrocentric falsehood."
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: You're miles behind learning about population genetics, physical anthropology etc. There is no "African" biological grouping, so Egyptians are not going to plot closer to all African populations than non-Africans.
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: As I posted in my first thread: a prediction of the isolation-by-distance model in population genetics is ancient Egyptians will be closest genetically to their nearest geographical neighbours, but since Europe is smaller than Sub-Saharan Africa, that populations from Europe and east Mediterranean, will plot closer than many Sub-Saharan African populations.
How is possible to discuss populations as European and East Mediterranean but not African? You didn't state particular groups of Europeans or Easterners, you just referred to them as a biological group. Yes the image attempts to create more specific groups, but what you say and what you cite are often very different. If someone believes no one can biologically group people, it'd be more believable that they are consistent when discussing this to say a Greek for example is closer to an Egyptian than other Europeans or M/ANY "Sub Saharan." When you actually discuss this matter in your own words, You've been biologically grouping people when it suits your argument. When others do the same and contradict your argument you say it then cannot be done. You've already confessed that your problem with grouping AE as part of Africa is political. As long as you have social or political interests to separate AE from Africa, I don't really think there's anything anybody can say to you, no scientific evidence that'll ever be enough. Nobody's that's debating you anymore thinks it's possible the science can reach you, they just hope your deeply rooted political woes don't confuse people who may read the things you say.
quote:Originally posted by Charlie_Bass
I recently e-mailed Dr. Brace about the biological affinities of East Africans, particularly peoples of the Upper Nile and Horn and this is his reply. I will forward the e-mail to Ausar to authenticate it.
Here is is reply:
"As I see it, the appearances of the Upper Nile Valley and Horn people has little if anything to do with admixtures and much the result of in situ circumstances. The elongation of the nose is clearly a climate-induced phenomenon and takes a long time to manifest itself. The same thing is true for the reduction in tooth size which markedly distinguishes those people form the Niger-Congo people. One has to suggest that Vavilov's identification of that as one of the early areas of crop domestication would have meant that food preparation techniques reducing the pressures for mastication had been operating there for a long time, and tooth size reduction in situ would be one of the expected consequences.
quote:I would suggest that there are very few who, of their own experience, have actually perceived at first hand the nature of human variation. What we know of the characteristics of the various regions of the world we have largely gained vicariously and in misleadingly spotty fashion. Pictures and the television camera tell us that the people of Oslo in Norway, Cairo in Egypt, and Nairobi in Kenya look very different. And when we actually meet natives of those separate places, which can indeed happen, we can see representations of those differences at first hand.
But if one were to walk up beside the Nile from Cairo, across the Tropic of Cancer to Khartoum in the Sudan and on to Nairobi, there would be no visible boundary between one people and another. The same thing would be true if one were to walk north from Cairo, through the Caucasus, and on up into Russia, eventually swinging west across the northern end of the Baltic Sea to Scandinavia. The people at any adjacent stops along the way look like one another more than they look like anyone else since, after all, they are related to one another. As a rule, the boy marries the girl next door throughout the whole world, but next door goes on without stop from one region to another.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I'm going to try to refrain from sarcasm as much as I can in this post, but you don't have to explicitly refer to them as a cluster to participate in the act of clustering them. Being "geographical" is meaningless if you're saying it's wrong to lump people in by region. To refer to regions is to make arbitrary "clusters." I'll even go as far as to say you don't have to discuss a specific ethnic group anymore because that's clustering too.
Yes, which is unavoidable. Even using the term "Egyptian" (that everyone on this forum does) is grouping together smaller populations; less arbitrary groupings would be those at the micro-level (that population geneticists study) as breeding populations ('demes'), such as tribes, rural villages etc., hence J. H. Relethford put out a number of studies on Irish villagers. See "What is a population?" in his 2012 book Human Population Genetics. Brace's point about using geographical labels is that they are for mere convenience, they're not natural (in the sense of taxonomy/cladistics) and I made that clear.
quote: Even if it's easier you're arguing it's wrong to lump Africans. But now it's fine to label/lump together 56 ethnic groups as "China" because "it's easier." Objectively there are probably no biological clusters and both regional and ethnic distinctions or language groups are arbitrarily defined or selected to create comparative biological populations. Han Chinese as an ethnic group stand about 800 million. But discuss "Han Chinese" as a biological population is still "clustering" people and rendering them with enough sameness/similarity to compare them with another population. But is everyone whose Han Chinese "the same?" No. And even among the Han you can divide them by language and regional groups further with labels like as Mandarin, Wu, Yue and Min? And even among language groups you have dialects,etc. At what point do people become "the same" enough to cluster with each other isn't objective. Even "family resemblance writ large." as a concept is making generalizations. Using geographic,ethnic (or language) labels to group people is still arbitrarily "clustering people." Establishing "populations" to compare is clustering. This is the same idea many other posters have put forward discussing Africa or Sub Saharan Africa as geographical labels. I don't have a very big problem with regional labels, I just have a problem with you thinking it's only something people are allowed to do when it benefits your claims.
We're discussing the biology of the ancient Egyptians. You made the pseudo-scientific claim that all Africans somehow are closer genetically than non-Africans (this is in your posts). This contradicts the clinal approach you are suddenly adopting. In other words you are all over the place and don't seem to know what you are posting. If all Africans are closer genetically than non-Africans you aren't proposing an arbitrary cluster, you're actually adopting a racialist view and that is what I was criticizing.
Ancient Egyptians are not closer genetically to all African populations than those outside Africa. You made this claim and its opposed to the clinal view of human variation you've adopted all of a sudden. If someone wanted to use the term "Sub-Saharan African" for geographical convenience, I never objected. I've even used this term a few posts ago. But this doesn't mean I think there is a "Sub-Saharan African" cluster that many Afrocentrists on this forum propose.
And I objected to the term "African" once in this thread because its far too broad in geographical scope. Brace also tends to avoid this term, but uses "Sub-Saharan African", "North African" etc for the same reason; Europe is far smaller than Africa. Using terms that cover too much geography isn't convenient in any analysis because you will end up with too many population samples under a single label. If we use "Africa" as a single label to arbitrarily group populations, that will cover like 60% of the samples in Brace's studies because Africa is a huge landmass.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I don't think AE are genetically connected to "all Africans" to the same degree.This for example suggests SSA are closer to Ancient Amarnas than North Africans.
You posted you think AE's are genetically closer to all populations from Africa than those outside. This is your posts pages back and a comment on this page can also be interpreted the same - you're shifting from a cluster/racial to clinal view and are not consistent.
"Egyptians were distinct from Melano-Africans [tropical Africans] and Europeans alike, and are situated in an intermediate position... a gradient between these diverse populations precludes the establishment of 'racial barriers'." - Froment, A. (1992). "Origines du Peuplement de l'Egypte Ancienne: l'Apport de l'anthropobiologie". Archéo-Nil. 2:79-98
Your whole argument from the start of this thread has been against this.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: AE were culturally and genetically connected to the rest of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun I agree that an indigenous African origin that was not "distinct" from the rest of Africa
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:they overall reflect stronger biological and cultural connection to many Africans before "Eurasia," (and yes, that includes SSA).
Again, please take note of position of "Negroid" (Western Sub-Saharan Africans) here-
If you're African-American this is more or less where you would plot. Even Europeans (all the samples) are closer to ancient Egyptians than you. That's why its so crazy you people try to attach yourself to AE civilization. Stop the self-hate.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Egyptians are not closer genetically to all African populations than those outside Africa. [/qb]
Ok, now please present the ancient Egyptian autosomal DNA that lets us confirm your position. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Egyptians are not closer genetically to all African populations than those outside Africa.
Ok, now please present the ancient Egyptian autosomal DNA that lets us confirm your position. [/QB]
I don't need autosomal DNA, I can demonstrate what I posted by archaeology, i.e. small-scale movement into Egypt from the south Levant, meaning there will be a cline south levant>lower Egypt>upper Egypt>Nubia. This cline was in place before the proto-dynastic, for example look at the archaeological research on Neolithic cultural interactions and direct bi-lateral trade between southern levant and lower Egypt/Nile Delta.
Ancient Egyptians are not closer genetically to all African populations than those outside Africa.
Ok, now please present the ancient Egyptian autosomal DNA that lets us confirm your position.
I don't need autosomal DNA, I can demonstrate what I posted by archaeology, i.e. small-scale movement into Egypt from the south Levant, meaning there will be a cline south levant>lower Egypt>upper Egypt>Nubia. This cline was in place before the proto-dynastic, for example look at the archaeological research on Neolithic cultural interactions and direct bi-lateral trade between southern levant and lower Egypt/Nile Delta.
No you DO need DNA because: You dont know what type of prehistoric hunter gatherer populations were in the North Eastern quadrant of Africa at that time. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians "Afro-Asiatic" Ancestors from the Eastern Saharan, Red Sea Coast, Horn of Africa or Southern Levant. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians ancestors from the Eastern or Western Deserts. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians ancestors that are refugees from the Eastern Sahara. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians ancestors from the Central Sahara. -You dont know the genetic affinities of Ancient Egyptians ancestors who are associated with the Mesolithic of Khartoum.
You dont know the genetic affinities of ANY of Egyptians AFRICAN ancestors (out of their many lines of ancestry) because none of these ANCIENT populations have ever been sequenced - Except for Ethiopian MOTA ......and 18/20th dynasty low resolution Autosomal STR's if you want to count that. (but i know you dont )
You cannot make genetic inferences about ancient populations without ancient remains. LOOK at what has happened in Europe with all of their ancestors: Neanderthal, ANE, Hunter Gatherer, Neolithic Farmer from the middle East, Steppe Herder, Anatolian Farmer. etc.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Your whole argument from the start of this thread has been against this.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: AE were culturally and genetically connected to the rest of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun I agree that an indigenous African origin that was not "distinct" from the rest of Africa
At this point you're just playing stupid for as long as you can. This goes back to what i said about you being able to speak in ways that generalizes people into arbitrarily defined regions, but finding it wrong that people do it with Africa. Just like you generalized the Levant as a region, I was discussing Africa the same way. Obviously if we want to be technical (which I know you don't need to be, but are doing so to drag this out as long as possible), some Africans will be closer to AE than others. Looking at the chart, North Africans are placed lower than Asiatics. However when we consider Africa or even SSA as a regional whole it is generally closer. Even with your theory on the Levant, everyone in the Levant is not going to have data that shows they're closer to AE, but you generalized by region, the exact thing you complained about others doing for Africa.
quote:If you actually read my posts properly you will see I have been consistent on this, hence why I describe ancient Egyptians as plotting intermediate between the south-Levant and Sudan.
The South Levant is a region just like Africa. You are generalizing many ethnic groups to a single arbitrary region and discussing them as a biological group. The same can be said for Sudan. You think you're the only one allowed to do this, and complain when anybody else does it. Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: "Egyptians were distinct from Melano-Africans [tropical Africans] and Europeans alike, and are situated in an intermediate position... a gradient between these diverse populations precludes the establishment of 'racial barriers'." - Froment, A. (1992). "Origines du Peuplement de l'Egypte Ancienne: l'Apport de l'anthropobiologie". Archéo-Nil. 2:79-98
This thing has been debunked upside down and round and round. smh
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
If you're African-American this is more or less where you would plot. Even Europeans (all the samples) are closer to ancient Egyptians than you. That's why its so crazy you people try to attach yourself to AE civilization. Stop the self-hate.
You are lame in the head and irrelevant. Again, Africa is most diverse in geno- and phenotype. You are making yourself look dumber than you actually are. And believe me, it is not pretty.
quote: “Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general.”
--Michael Brass
Reconsidering the emergence of social complexity in early Saharan pastoral societies, 5000 – 2500 B.C.
Ancient Egyptians are not closer genetically to all African populations than those outside Africa.
Ok, now please present the ancient Egyptian autosomal DNA that lets us confirm your position.
I don't need autosomal DNA, I can demonstrate what I posted by archaeology, i.e. small-scale movement into Egypt from the south Levant, meaning there will be a cline south levant>lower Egypt>upper Egypt>Nubia. This cline was in place before the proto-dynastic, for example look at the archaeological research on Neolithic cultural interactions and direct bi-lateral trade between southern levant and lower Egypt/Nile Delta.
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:Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan.
—Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.
quote:Christopher Ehret noted that the intensive use of plants among the Natufians was first found in Africa, as a precursor to the development of farming in the Fertile Crescent.
--Ehret (2002) The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia
quote:The Natufians existed in the Mediterranean region of the Levant 15,000 to 11,500 years ago. Dr. Grosman suggests this grave could point to ideological shifts that took place due to the transition to agriculture in the region at that time.
quote: Examination of African barbed bone points recovered from Holocene sites provides a context to interpret three Late Pleistocene occurrences from Katanda and Ishango, Zaire, and White Paintings Shelter, Botswana. In sites dated to ca. 10,000 BP and younger, such artifacts are found widely distributed across the Sahara Desert, the Sahel, the Nile, and the East African Lakes. They are present in both ceramic and aceramic contexts, sometimes associated with domesticates. The almost-universal presence of fish remains indicates a subsistence adaptation which incorporates a riverine/lacustrine component. Typologically these points exhibit sufficient similarity in form and method of manufacture to be subsumed within a single African “tradition.” They are absent at Fayum, where a distinct Natufian form occurs. Specimens dating to ca. 20,000 BP at Ishango, possibly a similar age at White Paintings Shelter, and up to 90,000 BP at Katanda clearly fall within this same African tradition and thus indicate a very long-term continuity which crosses traditionally conceived sub-Saharan cultural boundaries.
--John E. Yellen
September 1998, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 173–198 Barbed Bone Points: Tradition and Continuity in Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa
quote:Linguistics and writing can give some clues to migration or major cultural interactions. Semitic and perhaps Sumerian speakers in the Near East developed agriculture some 2,000 years before it emerged in the Nile Valley. If Egypt had been peopled by a mass migration of farmers from the Near East, ancient Egyptians would have spoken either a Semitic language or Sumerian (considered a language isolate, meaning that it has no obvious close relatives). Although certain major domesticated species used in Egypt came from the Near East, it is interesting to note that the words for these in Egyptian were not borrowed from any members of the Semitic family whose common ancestor had terms for them. They are all Egyptian. The beginnings of Egyptian writing can be traced back to the cultures that led to dynastic Egypt. Flora and fauna used in the hieroglyphs are Nilotic, indicating that the writing system developed locally, with some symbols traceable back to a period before the first dynasty rulers emerged. The titles for the king, major officials, and the royal insignia are Egyptian, which is of interest because one old theory held that the dynastic Egyptians or their elites came from the Near East; however, the archaeological evidence shows that they came from southern Egypt.
—S. O. Y. Keita, Senior Research Associate, National Human Genome Center, Howard University; Research Associate, Anthropology, Smithsonian Institute
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: I don't need autosomal DNA, I can demonstrate what I posted by archaeology, i.e. small-scale movement into Egypt from the south Levant, meaning there will be a cline south levant>lower Egypt>upper Egypt>Nubia. This cline was in place before the proto-dynastic, for example look at the archaeological research on Neolithic cultural interactions and direct bi-lateral trade between southern levant and lower Egypt/Nile Delta.
The more you type the funnier it becomes.
quote:The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa...
--C Brace et al. (2005)
quote:HAPLOGROUP L2A1
L2a can be further divided into L2a1, harboring the transition at 16309 (Salas et al. 2002). This is observed in West Africa among the Malinke, Wolof, and others; in North Africa among the Maure/Moor, Hausa, Fulbe, and others; in Central Africa among the Bamileke, Fali, and others; in South Africa among the Khoisan family including the Khwe and Bantu speakers; and in East Africa among the Kikuyu from Kenya. Related variants have been observed among the Dinka in the Nile Valley, the Tuareg in North and West Africa, and the Somali in Kenya.(Ely et al. 2006; Watson et al. 1997)
All Ethiopian L2 lineages can be seen as derived from the two subclades L2a1 and L2b. L2a1 is defined by mutations at 12693, 15784 and 16309. Most Ethiopian L2a1 sequences share mutations at nps 16189 and 16309. However, whereas the majority (26 out of 33) "African Americans" share Haplogroup L2a complete sequences could be partitioned into four subclades by substitutions at nps L2a1e-3495, L2a1a-3918, L2a1f-5581, and L2a1i-15229. None of those sequences, were observed in Ethiopian 16309 L2a1 samples. (Salas 2002) et al.
Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500 - 6000 BCE.[13]
Your whole argument from the start of this thread has been against this.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: AE were culturally and genetically connected to the rest of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun I agree that an indigenous African origin that was not "distinct" from the rest of Africa
At this point you're just playing stupid for as long as you can. This goes back to what i said about you being able to speak in ways that generalizes people into arbitrarily defined regions, but finding it wrong that people do it with Africa. Just like you generalized the Levant as a region, I was discussing Africa the same way. Obviously if we want to be technical (which I know you don't need to be, but are doing so to drag this out as long as possible), some Africans will be closer to AE than others. Looking at the chart, North Africans are placed lower than Asiatics. However when we consider Africa or even SSA as a regional whole it is generally closer. Even with your theory on the Levant, everyone in the Levant is not going to have data that shows they're closer to AE, but you generalized by region, the exact thing you complained about others doing for Africa.
quote:If you actually read my posts properly you will see I have been consistent on this, hence why I describe ancient Egyptians as plotting intermediate between the south-Levant and Sudan.
The South Levant is a region just like Africa. You are generalizing many ethnic groups to a single arbitrary region and discussing them as a biological group. The same can be said for Sudan. You think you're the only one allowed to do this, and complain when anybody else does it.
Anyone can make an arbitrary cluster/grouping, what I falsified is your claim that ancient Egyptians are genetically closer to all African populations than non-African populations. Even if you made an arbitrary "African" group to fit your pan-African politics, this wouldn't change this fact, e.g. Levant and European populations still plot closer to ancient Egyptians (see Kemp) than many Sub-Saharan African populations in craniometric analyses.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Levant and European populations still plot closer to ancient Egyptians (see Kemp) than many Sub-Saharan African populations in craniometric analyses.
You are delusional, he is suggesting an interpretation in that plot / dendrogram, you ignorant fool.
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: Detailed analysis determined that the two series were not identical, but the later one, instead of looking more ‘Egyptian’, resembled most closely the male population of a Sudanese site (Kerma) from even further south. The anthropologist responsible concluded that none of the hypotheses put forward fully explained the data. The lack of a clear answer in a better-than-normal situation underlines the intrinsic difficulties of matching skeletal populations to the cultural groups that we construct from other kinds of evidence.
6 In a database of human cranial variation worldwide (CRANID) based on standardized sets of measurements, the population that is used to characterize ancient Egypt lies firmly within a Europe/Mediterranean bloc (Figure 16a, p. 52).78 The original source is the largest series of skulls from Egypt (1,500), collected by Petrie in 1907 from a cemetery on a desert ridge to the south of Giza and dating from the 26th to the 30th Dynasties. Some of the skulls bear weapon injuries. The cultural material found with them is wholly Egyptian, but was small in quantity. Conceivably the community was immigrant, perhaps mercenaries and their families. Or it could be that, by this period, northern Egyptians, so long exposed to population mixing, were tending towards a greater similarity with European populations than had been the case earlier. 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 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:Egypt's first mummies
Careful removal of the upper layer of matting and linen pads around the head resulted in the preservation of her entire head of hair, revealing a shoulder-length style of natural waves extending c.22cm from the crown of the head with a left side parting and asymmetrical fringe made up of S-shaped curls bordering the forehead. In addition to the excellent preservation of the cranial hair, the right eyebrow also survived.
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: … You made the pseudo-scientific claim …
quote:
quote:"Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
Burial 85 belonged to a young woman (16-20 years) who we nick-named Paddy. She was discovered intact, still fully covered by a double layer of matting. Beneath the matting, her hands and lower arms had been padded with thick bundles of linen and then wrapped. Bundles of linen were also used to pad the area around the base of the skull, the neck and jaw. Yet the major part of the face, the eyes, nose, and mouth were not covered. Her burial contained no grave goods in the usual sense. Only a couple of rounded sherds and a flint flake were found in the crook of her knees.
quote:The cemetery called HK43, belonging to the non-elite (or workers) segment of the predynastic population, is located on the southern side of the site beside the Wadi Khamsini. Work here in 1996 when a land reclamation scheme threatened its preservation and excavations continued until 2004, resulting in the discovery of a minimum of 452 graves holding over 500 individuals of Naqada IIB-IIC date (roughly 3650-3500BC).
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: We're discussing the biology of the ancient Egyptians. You made the pseudo-scientific claim that all Africans somehow are closer genetically than non-Africans (this is in your posts).
I was saying AE are closer to Africa or Sub Saharan Africa when generalized as a regional population group and compared with places like Europe the "the Levant" or "Eurasia."
quote: And I objected to the term "African" once in this thread because its far too broad in geographical scope. Brace also tends to avoid this term, but uses "Sub-Saharan African", "North African" etc for the same reason; Europe is far smaller than Africa.
This is of course an arbitrary restriction no one needs to agree to. There are many other ways (i.e islands, states/countries) to group locales to be smaller than Europe and it would yield more specific results. Demanding that Europe or a region of comparable stand-in to be standard for what is "just right" for how large a region can be for generalized comparison is Eurocentric. Won't even get into the size of "Eurasia" for the times I've seen that term.
quote:Anyone can make an arbitrary cluster/grouping, what I falsified is your claim that ancient Egyptians are genetically closer to all African populations than non-African populations.
But generalizing regions isn't saying that anymore than saying every person from "Europe" or the "Levant" is closer to AE than every person in Africa. When you say it, it's can be a generalization. Someone else tries to do the same thing and now you want to nitpick and say they mean every single person in Africa is closer than anyone in the U.S or "Eurasia." Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Anyone can make an arbitrary cluster/grouping, what I falsified
Sure,
quote: Cranial and dental evidence then tends to support a scenario of biological continuity in Egypt.
[...]
The main skeletal sample consisted of 492 males and 528 females, all adults from the Predynastic and Dynastic Periods, a time spanning c. 5500 BCE-600 CE.
Egyptian body dimensions were compared to Nubian groups, as well as to modern Egyptians and other higher and lower latitude populations.
The present study found a downward trend in ancient Egyptian stature for both sexes through time, as well as decreased sexual dimorphism in stature. The decreases may be associated with dietary and social stress with the intensification of agriculture and increased societal complexity.
Modern Egyptians in the study’s sample are generally taller and heavier than their predecessors; however, modern Egyptians exhibit relatively lower sexual dimorphism in stature.
Ancient Egyptians have more tropically adapted limbs in comparison to body breadths, which tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations.
These results may reflect the greater plasticity of limb lengths compared to body breadth.
The results might also suggest early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa.
-- Michelle H. Raxter (2011)
Egyptian Body Size: A Regional and Worldwide Comparison
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: The South Levant is a region just like Africa. You are generalizing many ethnic groups to a single arbitrary region and discussing them as a biological group. The same can be said for Sudan. You think you're the only one allowed to do this, and complain when anybody else does it.
Do you have access to the Cambridge database?
3 - Agricultural origins
By Christopher Ehret Edited by Graeme Barker, University of Cambridge, Candice Goucher, Washington State University
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: We're discussing the biology of the ancient Egyptians. You made the pseudo-scientific claim that all Africans somehow are closer genetically than non-Africans (this is in your posts).
I was saying AE are closer to Africa or Sub Saharan Africa when generalized as a regional population group and compared with places like Europe the "the Levant" or "Eurasia."
quote: And I objected to the term "African" once in this thread because its far too broad in geographical scope. Brace also tends to avoid this term, but uses "Sub-Saharan African", "North African" etc for the same reason; Europe is far smaller than Africa.
This is of course an arbitrary restriction no one needs to agree to. There are many other ways (i.e islands, states/countries) to group locales to be smaller than Europe and it would yield more specific results. Demanding that Europe or a region of comparable stand-in to be standard for what is "just right" for how large a region can be for generalized comparison is Eurocentric. Won't even get into the size of "Eurasia" for the times I've seen that term.
quote:Anyone can make an arbitrary cluster/grouping, what I falsified is your claim that ancient Egyptians are genetically closer to all African populations than non-African populations.
But generalizing regions isn't saying that anymore than saying every person from "Europe" or the "Levant" is closer to AE than every person in Africa. When you say it, it's can be a generalization. Someone else tries to do the same thing and now you want to nitpick and say they mean every single person in Africa is closer than anyone in the U.S or "Eurasia."
lol. Please stop lying.
"Egyptians cluster more with African populations" - Oshun (you posted this a page back)
Its like you only googled what clines are after I told you yesterday and you're now trying to shift your position and deny your old posts.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
smh You exaggerate all the time, give me a break. But from a Nile Valley cultural perspective it is certainly true.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic