...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Because some fools don't know how to make their own thread about the race of kemet (Page 9)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13   
Author Topic: Because some fools don't know how to make their own thread about the race of kemet
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

So JCM is Cassiteredes...lol

WOW...smh

You just now figured this out? Are you really that surprised?? LOL

The guy obviously stopped taking his meds so he's back to his old habits again.

As a native Brit, instead of wasting his time trying to impose his white-wash fantasies of ancient Africa perhaps he can do something for his community or country in trying to stop Islamists from taking over his country and raping the little girls in his community. [Embarrassed]

I don't know why the rest of you guys even bothered arguing with the nutcase for several more pages especially in regards to his laughable comments on the history of African Americans here in America.

The guy is just as deluded as Clyde Winters and so should be put on the ignored ones list.

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now come on, I know there's certainly more constructive things he could be doing but PLEASE don't bring Islam into it thats exactly what he wants ppl to do. As understandably upsetting its gonna be for Muslims most esp. to read that I'm hoping he's not going to use your words to bait here.

 -

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well he seems alot calmer than before, IDK if its just a front though.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

So JCM is Cassiteredes...lol

WOW...smh

You just now figured this out? Are you really that surprised?? LOL

The guy obviously stopped taking his meds so he's back to his old habits again.

As a native Brit, instead of wasting his time trying to impose his white-wash fantasies of ancient Africa perhaps he can do something for his community or country in trying to stop Islamists from taking over his country and raping the little girls in his community. [Embarrassed]

I don't know why the rest of you guys even bothered arguing with the nutcase for several more pages especially in regards to his laughable comments on the history of African Americans here in America.

The guy is just as deluded as Clyde Winters and so should be put on the ignored ones list.


Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

Now come on, I know there's certainly more constructive things he could be doing but PLEASE don't bring Islam into it thats exactly what he wants ppl to do. As understandably upsetting its gonna be for Muslims most esp. to read that I'm hoping he's not going to use your words to bait here.

 -

The problem in his country is not Muslims but Islamic supremacists who think they can get away with sex trafficking young girls as long as they are kufar (infidels) and the government does let them get away with it, not to mention the imposition of Shariah in certain parts of London and other cities. BUt that is a seperate political issue on its own.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why must Islam be introduced into the conversation like so?

You are talking about criminals pretending to be Muslim. Islam does not condone such aberrant conduct; the actions of these Godless creatures are not condoned by the Holy Quran.

What is your understanding of Shariah, my friend? Sharia merely regulates how one conducts himself and regulates family matters. What is the issue here?

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Candice Lynn Potter:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I'm completely calm, mate. In fact, this is akin to watching videos of stupid people just acting out and receiving immediate karma. The concept of "Middle Egypt" is a 19th Century administrative invention. The people of Faiyum were Upper Egyptians and were intimated with the rest of their peope in Upper Egypt, so your pathetic attempt to assign them to Lower Egypt in order to prop up the significance of the latter is just a complete fail.

Upper Egypt was larger, more populated, wealthier, more sophisticated and far more significant than Lower Egypt, and there is simply no way of circumventing this fact. This further demonstrates just how dominant Upper Egypt was; it's remarkable that the people of Upper Egypt occupied such a large territory.

Upper Egyptians were tropically adapted; created ancient Egypt; were undoubtedly the demographic majority, and since they resemble their kin - other Northeast African blacks, you lose. [Razz] [Big Grin]


Your context and the manner in which you employ it, is irrelevant. Question to forum: Should I go by the administrative units established by my ancestors or should I subscribe to the subjective whims of some insignificant salty European on the net? Hmmm, decisions, decisions, decisions... get real, mate - nobody cares about your context.

lol lol. Do you really expect people to think you're an Egyptian, Nubian, Beja, Sudanese Arab or whatever you claim? Location: Australia and most likely you're African-American. All posters on this forum (including a former mod called Ausar) who claimed to be Egyptian/Nubian/Sudanese Arab turned out to be impersonating one.

And here's my question to you, if Upper Egyptians are blacks, why did Arabs only give the name bilād as-sūdān (بلاد السودان), or "the lands of the Blacks", to Sudan and not (Upper) Egypt?

Oh, man, you got me. [Big Grin]

This is the first time I'm being accused of being non-Sudanese.

It's usually Eurocentrics that pretend to be aggrieved Egyptians all over the net. Abaza was one such character.

Based on the little I've come to expect from you, I'm really surprised that you didn't make a mess of the Arabic citation. Your refusal to accept facts that debunk your long cherished beliefs really is irrelevant. I'm not here to sway you one way or the other; my intention is to make use of your stupidity and instransigence -- to use it as proxy in order to debunk certain misconceptions and myths.

Sudan -North and South- is comprised of more than just the few groups you seem to be aware of. I truly believed in the New Sudan vision and so I identify as Sudanese first and foremost. I have ancestry from both sides of the Greater Sudan border...

..Which brings me to my next point. The Arab geographers did not include our brothers in the South as part of Bilad as-Sudan, even though they stumbled upon them as early as the 15th Century, so are we to assume that the Dinka, Nuer, Chollo, Anyuak, Burun, Maban, Oduk and others are not black?


The British differed with the Arabs on this and actually used the term in reference to Southern Egypt and Sudan. [Big Grin]

One could also question why regions like Lower "Nubia", the Siwa Oasis and Egypt's Southeast red sea coast were not included by the Arab geographers. Were Lower "Nubians", Siwa and Beja not black at that point? [Razz] The Arab geographers primarily used this term in reference to black *countries* they came across in the Medieval period. The Arabs already had a name for Egypt, so why on earth would they create a new term for multiple non-contiguous regions in Egypt where even large groups of Western-Asia Arabs and Turks had already settled in?

The indigenous people of the Siwa oasis in Northern Egypt are black as are the indigenous people of Luxor, Esna, Aswan, Edfu, Kom Ombo in the South and the people of the red sea coast.

I thought this could not get anymore amusing but you've truly outdone yourself in retardation. You now realise that Lower Egypt really was not all that significant and that the tropically adapted black Upper Egyptians were so preponderant that you now want to claim them. Good luck with that... the science is against you and we do have the living and breathing people of Upper Egypt.

A moron in a forum certainly isn't going to overturn genetics, bio-anthropological data and archaeological evidence. Good luck indeed.

The Arab geography for "land of the blacks" is virtually identical to the ancient Greek usage of Aethiops: those populations below the tropic of cancer i.e. northern Libyans/berbers were not aethiops - only th southern interior nomadic tribes were; in Herodotus the Garamantians are not black/aethiops but hunted the black/aethiops tribes below them. For the same reason Egyptians were not Aethiops/blacks because they have lighter brown pigmentation. The tropic of cancer was the yardstick of black, consistent in several ancient and medieval cultures.
It's remarkable how everything just completely goes over your head. Is the Arab geography really virtually identical to the Greek usage of Aethiopia?

I hope you realise that Aethiopia was first used on areas in the Levant - areas in modern Palestine. Do you mean to assert that the people of the Levant were darker than the ancient Egyptians... indigenous Northeast Africans of the same stock as North Sudanese, Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and so on?

That's an interesting claim that I look forward to you addressing.

This entire thread has been an entertaining waste of time. You have already conceded that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous Northeast Africans of the same stock as North Sudanese and *Sub-Saharan* Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritre and Djibouti.

The ancient Egyptians (and their modern descendants in Upper Egypt) are virtually indistinguishable from other Northeast Africans, despite the demographic damage that has been inflicted by waves of invasions from "Eurasia".

Africans are all varying shades of brown -- gradients of brown that are almost universally regarded as 'black, and the ancient Egyptians were well within the range of 'black' of other Northeast African blacks.

Most people understand that virtually no populations are literally 'black' or literally 'white'. The Northeast African stock of blacks (of which AE is one of many) don't need to have the same skin as the Dinka and Nuer to be called 'black'.

Are the San black in your wacky estimation? I assume that you consider North Sudanese, Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and so on to be blacks. Ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant and cannot be divorced from its family group using the objective disciplines.

Genetics, bio-anthropology, archaeology, skin reflectance analysis, melanin dosage tests and culture (material and otherwise) indisputably places ancient Egypt into the group of other Northeast African blacks.

This is not disputed by any of the disciplines.



You admittedly harbour animus toward blacks, and so your aversion to the usage of black on AE is merely an emotional response- a derivative of your discomfort to acknowledging that the world's first advanced civilization was created by the objects of your hatred.

You arrived at your position via emotion - not science.

Northeast Africans and West Africans have a common origin in the once wet Sahara, and so divorcing them is impossible, especially when objective sciences are employed. Ancient Egyptian is linguistically closest to Chadic... language group that spans from Chad to Nigeria.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
 -

 -

The pharaoh Senusret I:

 -

 -

 -


 -


Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:

Why must Islam be introduced into the conversation like so?

You are talking about criminals pretending to be Muslim. Islam does not condone such aberrant conduct; the actions of these Godless creatures are not condoned by the Holy Quran.

What is your understanding of Shariah, my friend? Sharia merely regulates how one conducts himself and regulates family matters. What is the issue here?

Again, I have no beef with Islam per say. I merely brought up the problem in Anglo's country of those criminals who do practice abhorant things under the guise of shariah. Instead of taking it up with me, why not talk to one of those criminals??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I hope you realise that Aethiopia was first used on areas in the Levant - areas in modern Palestine. Do you mean to assert that the people of the Levant were darker than the ancient Egyptians... indigenous Northeast Africans of the same stock as North Sudanese, Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and so on?

Aethiops has a false/pseudo-etymology, i.e. the word aethiops or aithiops did not originally mean burnt-faced (black). That term only came about when Greeks encountered black peoples from the 6th century BCE, prior to this the word Aethiops had no reference to pigmentation whatsoever and was describing people much closer to Greece. In fact the original east Aethiopia (there were two, an east and west, if you read Homer) might have been Paeonia/Macedonia. I only propose Aethiopia from the 6th century BCE came to mean populations below Egypt; in Homer, Ethiopia isn't even in Africa and the Greeks at that time had no knowledge of Nubia/lands below Egypt.

quote:
This entire thread has been an entertaining waste of time. You have already conceded that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous Northeast Africans of the same stock as North Sudanese and *Sub-Saharan* Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritre and Djibouti.
Those Sub-Saharan Africans don't show as close genetic affinity as northern Sudanese and modern Egyptians (to ancient Egyptians). So I would not favour pooling all these together. In cranial metric/non-metric studies, Nubians always plot closer than north Ethiopian (Tigray) or Somali samples. This is simply down to geographical distance.

quote:
Africans are all varying shades of brown -- gradients of brown that are almost universally regarded as 'black, and the ancient Egyptians were well within the range of 'black' of other Northeast African blacks.
If you use this reasoning, then Levant and south European are also black - they have brown pigmentation (southern Europeans are a faint light brown or olive complexion). No Afrocentrist however is consistent with this, labelling west Asian and a large portion of (south) European peoples "black" doesn't suit their politicalized pan-African usage of black.

quote:
Most people understand that virtually no populations are literally 'black' or literally 'white'. The Northeast African stock of blacks (of which AE is one of many) don't need to have the same skin as the Dinka and Nuer to be called 'black'.

Are the San black in your wacky estimation? I assume that you consider North Sudanese, Somalis, Ethiopians, Eritreans and so on to be blacks. Ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant and cannot be divorced from its family group using the objective disciplines.

See my posts earlier in this thread on who is/isn't black based on reflectance spectrophotometry. Also look at the [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Luschan%27s_chromatic_scale]Luschan scale[/url], there are 7 skin pigmentation categories that do not match what you are saying. Now what?

quote:


Genetics, bio-anthropology, archaeology, skin reflectance analysis, melanin dosage tests and culture (material and otherwise) indisputably places ancient Egypt into the group of other Northeast African blacks.

This is not disputed by any of the disciplines.



You admittedly harbour animus toward blacks, and so your aversion to the usage of black on AE is merely an emotional response- a derivative of your discomfort to acknowledging that the world's first advanced civilization was created by the objects of your hatred.

You arrived at your position via emotion - not science.

Northeast Africans and West Africans have a common origin in the once wet Sahara, and so divorcing them is impossible, especially when objective sciences are employed. Ancient Egyptian is linguistically closest to Chadic... language group that spans from Chad to Nigeria. [/QB]

"West Africans have a common origin in the once wet Sahara, and so divorcing them is impossible".

"Ancient Egyptian is linguistically closest to Chadic... language group that spans from Chad to Nigeria. "

lol. Pan African lunacy again. And you aren't from Sudan, you're an African-American which is why you cling to this pan-African political ideology.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Those Sub-Saharan Africans don't show as close genetic affinity as northern Sudanese and modern Egyptians (to ancient Egyptians).

 -

 -

 -

Modern Egyptians being heavily mixed

 -


It doesn't really matter. Lets assume everyone agreed with your position. "Close enough" is a subjective approximation. For example Southern/Upper Egyptians and Nubians are closer than Lower Egyptians. Does this mean lower Egyptians are not "close enough" to the AE because they aren't "as close to AE as" today's Upper Egyptians and Nubians? If there are modern Egyptians with 80% foreign admixture from centuries ago, they're going to be even more distant to the biology of the AE than many Sub Saharans even though they may descend from the AE. So to say those members of the modern Egyptian population are biologically closer would mean you'd have to include all the Sub Saharans that they'd have had closer biological affinities with AE. Oh noes! But apparently the Sub Saharans cannot feel they are biologically "close enough" to them.


quote:
quote:
Africans are all varying shades of brown -- gradients of brown that are almost universally regarded as 'black, and the ancient Egyptians were well within the range of 'black' of other Northeast African blacks.
If you use this reasoning, then Levant and south European are also black - they have brown pigmentation (southern Europeans are a faint light brown or olive complexion). No Afrocentrist however is consistent with this, labelling west Asian and a large portion of (south) European peoples "black" doesn't suit their politicalized pan-African usage of black.
No Europeans and Levanites would not be included in "blackness" anymore than a San or Red Igbo would be "white." Blackness is like I said a African centered concept that's foundation is African heritage. Whiteness is a Pan Euro idea, which means people with darker tones are included in that idea as long as they're indigenous modern Europeans.


quote:
Most people understand that virtually no populations are literally 'black' or literally 'white'. The Northeast African stock of blacks (of which AE is one of many) don't need to have the same skin as the Dinka and Nuer to be called 'black'.

[QUOTE]

lol. Pan African lunacy again. And you aren't from Sudan, you're an African-American which is why you cling to this pan-African political ideology.

You and the other Eurocentrics created a regional identity of "Sub Saharan" blacks, but the cultures that made dynastic Egypt were NOT Saharan. For THOUSANDS of years they shared Africa with "Sub Saharans" and there was NO desert you could claim acted as a genetic barrier. The windowspan for the full return of the Sahara came a little before or a little after dynastic Egypt. When the Sahara did fully return AE then had nile which not only supported life but allowed them contact with SSA people. It's not "Pan African lunacy." You guys are the main ones dividing Africa by which side of the Sahara people lived. But foundations of AE civilization were from people who were not "Saharan." [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

Brace used 24 measurements, Howells used 57. See my other replies. One of the reasons CRANID was invented is so there is a moderate amount of measurements (29) as a minimum - to avoid the problems with FORDISC which some anthropologists have used with too few measurements [although Howells used 57 for FORDISC's predecessor DISPOP or POPKIN and this is the standard number used in FORDISC publications, including the 3.0 manual].

Note that Brace uses less measurements (24) than CRANID's absolute minimum (29). Howell's 57 measurements reliably cover the whole crania; the problem with using fewer measurements is they don't cover the complete surface-area of the skull, or not accurately, and so won't capture overall craniometric similarity. There is clear discrepancy between Howells and Brace's data based on this fact. Howell's has Natufians closest to a European population sample (Zalavar).

Natufians don't show Sub-Saharan African craniometric ties - if the data is read correctly and importance of number of measurements is understood. Anyway, if you respond this is "Eurocentrism" remember that Howells used a lot more measurements on the Gamble's Cave/Elmenteita skulls to falsify earlier anthropologists like Coon that these crania are Caucasoid. Coon (1939) thought prehistoric East Africans were Caucasoid/'White' skeletally because he used less than 10 measurements.

"Both of the Gamble’s Cave skulls seem to be fully or nearly “white” in the skeletal sense." - Coon, 1939

You obviously missed the point that Howells used the Giza E series of skulls which were shown to be foreigners and not native Egyptians as pointed out by Sonia Zakrzewski back in a 2002 study. As for Natufians, some (though not all) do show sub-Saharan affinities like blurred margins, avleolar prognathism, and even post-bregmatic depression, all of which together are considered classic diagnostic "negroid" traits. Unless you cite the specific measurements instead of throwing out number of measurements used, you are not getting anywhere.

By the way, even Coon said the Natufians had a "slight negroid tendency" which he said was common for "proto-mediterraneans" LOL How very telling of him, and now the DNA evidence confirms their African/"negroid" ancestry.

What on earth are you talking about?

"What little we have from Palestine, mostly scraps of bone and a few teeth, is also Caucasoid. For example, the Mesolithic Natufian skulls and long bones from that country are those of ancestral Mediterraneans." (Coon, 1965)

DNA also says the opposite of what you are posting-

"However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians."
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311

About the Sonia Zakrzewski study, probably you mean 2004 and not 2002: I cannot find it anywhere though. Googling the paper and you just find it quote-mined, mostly by Afrocentrists.

The source is:

Zakrzewski, S. R. (2004). Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania. American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement (38): 215

The Gizeh sample aka Howell's "E Series" dates 664–343 BCE., however the Sedment sample dates a lot earlier and shows the same south Levant ties, so your argument doesn't really make sense.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
why do you dislike blacks?

Most members of ethnic groups have in-group bias/favouritism, this is an innate tendency to favour, prefer, like etc. their own group over others. Its probably correlated with genetic distance, so there is a spectrum, e.g. an Englishman will favour English over a German, but a German over an Italian, and an Italian over an Iranian, and an Iranian over a Nigerian etc. (see genetic distances below). That makes sense to me.

 -

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Cass-
quote:
I'm not arguing ancient Lower Egyptians were significantly mixed. What I am saying is since there was gene flow (restricted/small scale but recurrent), there is a smooth gradient/cline running from south levant > lower Egypt > upper Egypt > lower Nubia > Upper Nubia. For your theory to work you would have to be some discontinuity or steepness in the cline from the south levant > lower Egypt. I
You fail because you are learned on facial-cranial data but are lost when it comes to genetic affinity. All the while you are trying to make a genetic argumrnt using phenotype as a basis. There isn't just a south/north cline of ancestry there would likely also be an East/West one revolving around multiple different types of Eurasian, Sub Saharan, Saharan and coastal North African ancestries.

What you are saying is just to simple for the settlement history of the Nile valley and doesn't pass the sniff test.

4 peer reviewed studies on link below show how craniofacial measurements indicate genetic relatedness.
http://archhades.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/genes-and-skulls-tell-same-story.html

As this blogger says "genes and skulls tell the same story". Much, if not all, the craniometric data supports the simple IBD model I am proposing. When ancient DNA for Egyptians is studied (probably by 2020), I don't think there will be major discrepancies between the skeletal and modern genetic data.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Cass-
quote:
I'm not arguing ancient Lower Egyptians were significantly mixed. What I am saying is since there was gene flow (restricted/small scale but recurrent), there is a smooth gradient/cline running from south levant > lower Egypt > upper Egypt > lower Nubia > Upper Nubia. For your theory to work you would have to be some discontinuity or steepness in the cline from the south levant > lower Egypt. I
You fail because you are learned on facial-cranial data but are lost when it comes to genetic affinity. All the while you are trying to make a genetic argumrnt using phenotype as a basis. There isn't just a south/north cline of ancestry there would likely also be an East/West one revolving around multiple different types of Eurasian, Sub Saharan, Saharan and coastal North African ancestries.

What you are saying is just to simple for the settlement history of the Nile valley and doesn't pass the sniff test.

4 peer reviewed studies on link below show how craniofacial measurements indicate genetic relatedness.
http://archhades.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/genes-and-skulls-tell-same-story.html

As this blogger says "genes and skulls tell the same story". Much, if not all, the craniometric data supports the simple IBD model I am proposing. When ancient DNA for Egyptians is studied (probably by 2020), I don't think there will be major discrepancies between the skeletal and modern genetic data.

This is bs. Take a look at Kennewick Man. See the genetic affinity of ancient Europeans who look like austrailoids. See the genetic affinity of Early native Americans that have cranial profiles similar to Africans and Melanesians.......hell look at all the Negrito diversity that is at the opposite end of the genetic spectrum from Africans.

You are too caught up on cranial metrics and just linked data from 2011 before a lot of major sampling of ancient DNA occurred. Why don't you take a look at your caucasoid ancient Egyptians and look at their Autosomal profile ala DNA Tribes.

I am not going to give you sources. You are going to have to learn about this on your own. Just start googling the genetic results of the said remains and then look at their reconstruction. Start with how your folks went Gaga over Kennewick Man and was shut down when his DNA was released. See how Afro loons were shut down when ancient American DNA was releaded of "negroid" looking remains. You ideas a part of the pre DNA old guard.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:

What on earth are you talking about?

"What little we have from Palestine, mostly scraps of bone and a few teeth, is also Caucasoid. For example, the Mesolithic Natufian skulls and long bones from that country are those of ancestral Mediterraneans." (Coon, 1965)

Boy, don't play dumber than you actually are!

"They were clearly a Negroid people with wide faces flat- noses and long large heads...
Several features stand out quite definitely'' he asserted; first the Natufians were a long-headed people - they had cap-shaped occiputs (the lower back part of the head). Secondly, the dimensions or their heads were greater than in the pre-dynastic Egyptians. Thirdly, their faces were short and wide. Fourthly, they were prognathous (with projecting jaws). Fifthly, their nasal bones were not narrow and high, but formed a wide, low arch. Sixthly, their chins were not prominent, but were masked by the fullness of the teeth-bearing parts of the jaw.
"
Sir Arthur Keith (1932)

"The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the subdolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today. The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin prominence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low-vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscularity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities...."
Carleton Coon (1939)

"If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."
C. Loring Brace (2005)

Brace's 2005 dendogram based on craniometrics
 -

quote:
DNA also says the opposite of what you are posting-

"However, no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as **present-day** sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians."
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311

Keyword "present-day" Sub-Saharans. I suggest you look up the phrase 'basal Eurasian' here, here, and here.

Not to mention the fact that Natufians carry paternal clade E-M34 and maternal clade L2b.

quote:
About the Sonia Zakrzewski study, probably you mean 2004 and not 2002: I cannot find it anywhere though. Googling the paper and you just find it quote-mined, mostly by Afrocentrists.

The source is:

Zakrzewski, S. R. (2004). Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania. American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement (38): 215

The Gizeh sample aka Howell's "E Series" dates 664–343 BCE., however the Sedment sample dates a lot earlier and shows the same south Levant ties, so your argument doesn't really make sense.

Although I cannot find the study at the moment, Zakrzewski makes it clear that many specimens from the E series are from the Ptolemaic era and thus it's no surprise that metrically and non-metrically they cluster with Aegean populations before native Egyptians. So my argument still stands. Also, the Sedment samples shows as much affinities to Maghreb Africans as they do early south Levant, but just like the E series they are considered outliers removed from other ancient Nile Valley samples including other Egyptians to their immediate south. So if you're using the Sedment series as par examples of Egyptians you still fail.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Cass-
quote:
I'm not arguing ancient Lower Egyptians were significantly mixed. What I am saying is since there was gene flow (restricted/small scale but recurrent), there is a smooth gradient/cline running from south levant > lower Egypt > upper Egypt > lower Nubia > Upper Nubia. For your theory to work you would have to be some discontinuity or steepness in the cline from the south levant > lower Egypt. I
You fail because you are learned on facial-cranial data but are lost when it comes to genetic affinity. All the while you are trying to make a genetic argumrnt using phenotype as a basis. There isn't just a south/north cline of ancestry there would likely also be an East/West one revolving around multiple different types of Eurasian, Sub Saharan, Saharan and coastal North African ancestries.

What you are saying is just to simple for the settlement history of the Nile valley and doesn't pass the sniff test.

4 peer reviewed studies on link below show how craniofacial measurements indicate genetic relatedness.
http://archhades.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/genes-and-skulls-tell-same-story.html

As this blogger says "genes and skulls tell the same story". Much, if not all, the craniometric data supports the simple IBD model I am proposing. When ancient DNA for Egyptians is studied (probably by 2020), I don't think there will be major discrepancies between the skeletal and modern genetic data.

This is bs. Take a look at Kennewick Man. See the genetic affinity of ancient Europeans who look like austrailoids. See the genetic affinity of Early native Americans that have cranial profiles similar to Africans and Melanesians.......hell look at all the Negrito diversity that is at the opposite end of the genetic spectrum from Africans.

You are too caught up on cranial metrics and just linked data from 2011 before a lot of major sampling of ancient DNA occurred. Why don't you take a look at your caucasoid ancient Egyptians and look at their Autosomal profile ala DNA Tribes.

I am not going to give you sources. You are going to have to learn about this on your own. Just start googling the genetic results of the said remains and then look at their reconstruction. Start with how your folks went Gaga over Kennewick Man and was shut down when his DNA was released. See how Afro loons were shut down when ancient American DNA was releaded of "negroid" looking remains. You ideas a part of the pre DNA old guard.

LOL! Hey could you please PM or post me here the genetic data on Ancient Americans??? That's actually a good comparison. What studies or cranial data were they using to pass the Ancient Americans as black (if any). If you want Cass learn solo plz PM! [Big Grin]
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just see any of Clyde winters or mikes nonsence that doesn't differentiate genotype from phenotype. I am posting from a phone it is cumbersome to post links. I will give a full post with references later. For natives just google "paleo american" DNA. That is what they described the remains. So far there have been 50-100 ancient American skeletons sequenced.......they havent found an African yet.

CASS - Also look at the link it's a blog. Also that year is a post on Ancient Egyptian racial type. Look at the dendrogram showing Africans linking with Australia-Melanesians.

Africans and Australia-Melanesians are at opposite ends of the genetic spectrum. That debunks you.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dr.Nieda Guidon claims that Africans were in Brazil 100,000 years ago. The evidence that fire existed in Brazil 65kya is an indication that man was at the site 65,000 years ago, since researchers found charcoal, which is the result of fire making.
The New York Times, reported that humans were Brazil 100,000 years ago .

If you would see the New York Times video you would noted that Dr.Nieda Guidon supports her dating of human population in Brazil 100,000 years ago to ancient fire and tool making.
Look at the New York Times video: Human’s First Appearance in the Americas @:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?hp&_r=4


If you view the video you will see that human occupation of Brazil 100,000 years ago is supported by man made fire, e.g., the charcoal, and tools.

Dr. Guidon who conducted excavation at the site notes at 2:09 the site is 100,000 years old. At 3:17 in the video scientists proved that the tools are the result of human craftsmanship . You reject this evidence because it proves that Blacks were here before the mongoloids.

It is interesting that it is becoming clear that people may have left Africa 100kya, instead of 60kya to settle the world. This may indicate that Australians made their way to America before the Khoisan.


 -
The new evidence of anatomically modern humans (AMH) in Arabia, on Crete and now Brazil around 100,000 years ago suggest that AMH left Africa before 60kya.

We all know that humans originated in Africa over 150,000 years ago. The new evidence suggest five out of Africa (OoA) There were probably four major migration of the Africans into the Pacific. The first migration events.
The first people to migrate out of Africa 100-60kya were the Australians. These people demonstrate the physical type associated with the early homo sapien sapiens.
 -
The Australians appear to have made their way to every continent.

The second migration OoA event was the migration of Khoisan and Bushman people out of Africa 45kya.

The first researcher to claim that the PaleoAmericans were Blacks was Dr. W. A. Neves of Brazil. Neves had the PaleoAmerican from Brazil reconstructed. This Black woman is called Luzia.


 -


Using craniometric quantitative analysis and multivariate methods, Dr. Neves determined that Paleo Americans were either Australian, African or Melenesians (Neves , Powell and Ozolins, 1998,1999a,199b; Powell, 2005). The research of Neves indicated that the ancient Americans represent two populations, paleoamericans who were phenotypically African, Australian or Melanesian and a mongoloid population that appears to have arrived in the Americas after 6000 BC.

Below are articles that say the PaleoAmericans were phenotypically Black. See:

  • Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1989. Extra-continental biological relationships of early South American human remains: a multivariate analysis. Cieˆncia e Cultura, 41: 566–75
    Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1990. The origins of the first Americans: an analysis based onthe cranial morphology of early South American human remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 81: 247.
    Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1991. Morphological affinities of the first Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains. Journal of Human Evolution, 21: 261–73.
    Neves, W. A. and Meyer, D. 1993. The contribution of the morphology of early South and Northamerican skeletal remains to the understanding of the peopling of the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 16 (Suppl): 150–1.
    Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F., Prous, A. and Ozolins, E. G. 1998. Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: morphologial affinities or the earliest known American. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 26(Suppl): 169.
    Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. and Ozolins, E. G. 1999a. Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli Aike, southern Chile. Intercieˆncia, 24: 258–63.
    Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. and Ozolins, E. G. 1999b. Modern human origins as seen from the peripheries. Journal of Human Evolution, 37: 129–33.
    Neves W.A . and Pucciarelli H.M. 1991. "Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains". Journal of Human Evolution 21:261-273.
    Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50:263-268
    Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli-Aike, Southern Chile". Interciencia 24:258-263. http://www.interciencia.org/v24_04/neves.pdf
    Neves, W.A., Gonza´ lez-Jose´ , R., Hubbe, M., Kipnis, R., Araujo, A.G.M., Blasi, O., 2004. Early Holocene Human Skeletal Remains form Cerca Grande, Lagoa Santa, Central Brazil, and the origins of the first Americans. World Archaeology 36, 479-501
    Neves, W. A., and M. Hubbe. 2005. Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:18,309–18,314.
    NYT (New York Times). (2015) Human’s First Appearance in the Americas . http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?hp&_r=4

    Powell,J.F. (2005). First Americans:Races, Evolution and the Origin of Native Americans. Cambridge University Press.

Many of the articles of Neves can be found at Academia edu.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can prove the first Americans were Khoisan based on craniometrics and the reconstruction of the first Americans. The Solutrean origin theory for the rise of the first Americans unite the Khoisan of Africa, Europe, and the Americas.

Researchers have found evidence that Solutrean artifacts have been found on North American sites where Paleo-Native Americans have been found. Soutrean is an ancient culture from Europe.This has led some researchers to create the so-called Solutrean hypothesis that proposes that ancient America was settled by ancient Europeans.

The proposed Solutrean migration route seems highly unlikely because these early men would have had to brave glaziers and Ice Age tempertures which would have made it impossible to reach North America.

 -


Although a migration from Europe seems highly unlikely 20-30kya because of the Ice Age. Ancient man could have made their way to the Americas directly from Africa which is a shorter distance to the Americas than Europe, and also ancient sailors could have made their way to the Americas on Currents, especially the Gulf Stream, that regularly flow from Africa, to the Americas.



The first Americans Naia, and Luzia dating to 12,000 BC were Negroes

 -

NAIA of Mexico


Archaeologist have reconstructed the faces of ancient Americans from Brazil and Mexico. These faces are based on the skeletal remains dating back to 12,000BC.


Researchers agree that the first Americans, Naia of Mexico, Luzia of Brazil and Kennewick Man, found near the Columbia River in Washington, were all Negroes. This finding is not so significant because the first Europeans were also Blacks.

 -

It appears that the first Europeans entered Western Europe across the Straits of Gibraltar. These people were Khoisan. The Khoisan took their art and culture to Europe 40kya. Here they contructed the Aurignacian, Grimaldi and Solutrean cultures. Since the first Europeans had come from North Africa, we also find a Solutrean culture in Africa.

Africa is closer to the Americas than Europe. As you can notice from the map above the Currents could have easily carried the Khoisan from Africa to the Americas. This view is supported by the face that most ancient archaeological sites of paleo-Indian habitation are nearer to the Atlantic Ocean, than the Pacific.

 -

In addition in Africa we find the Dafuna boat. The Dafuna boat has been dated to 8000 B.C., the culture associated with the people who built the Dafuna boat date back to 12,000 BC. This would indicate that around the time Kennewick man, Naia and Luzia inhabited the Americas, Khoisan in Africa had the naval technology to have sailed to the Americas.

In summary , the Solutrean artifacts in the Americas probably relate to Khoisan from Africa sailing to America. The fact that these ancient people in Europe, Africa and the Americas indicate that for a considerable period of time the world was dominated by Black or Negro people.


The world’s oldest surviving boat is a simple 10 feet (3 metre) long dugout (logboat) dated to 7400 BC. It was discovered in Pesse, Holland in the Netherlands.

 -

Controversy surrounds the Pesse boat, while some archaeologist claim it is a boat, others say it may have been an animal feeder.

This is in sharp contrast to the Dafuna boat from Nigeria that is alledgedly 6000 years old.

 -

As you can see this is an undisputed boat. The culture associated with this boat existed 14kya,

 -

The Dafuna boat and boat engravings throughout the Sahara and Sahel highlight the naval technology of Africans, and suggest a corresponding naval sciences.

The craniometrics and tool kits show an African presence in far away places 100,000 years ago, i.e., Arabia, Crete and Brazil, they couldn't have floated to these locations so the people had boats not rafts.

 -

Africans probably early created boats to sail the numerous Mega-lakes which formerly existed in Africa. Take MegaChad at its prime 15kya, the lake was 350,000km . This Lake was larger than the distance between Africa and Brazil which is 9,382km.

Look at the river connecting MegaChad and MegaCongo we can imagine that if people communicated between these distant places they would have used boats, not rafts. Moreover, traveling these great distance would have called for the sailors to probably get use to gathering foods and supplies for the long voyages just between towns along the MegaChad and MegaCongo Lakes.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The fact remains that Naia's DNA was contaminated and Kennewick man carries the African haplogroup X. Moreover Kennewick man is more related to Africans, Andamanese and Melanesians, rather than mongoloid Native Americans craniometrically and genetically.


Read the Kennewick Man DNA article. Kennewick is recognized as a PaleoAmerican therefore he has negro ancestry. The researchers claim the Kennewick man’s DNA is mainly related to Native Americans living in South America, rather than North America except for the Colville people on the West Coast. The researchers wrote
quote:

“Despite this similarity, Anzick-1 and Kennewick Man have dissimilar genetic affinities to contemporary Native Americans. In particular, we find that Anzick-1 is more closely related to Central/Southern Native Americans than is Kennewick Man (Extended Data Fig. 5). The pattern observed in Kennewick Man is mirrored in the Colville, who also show a high affinity with Southern populations (Fig. 2c), but are most closely related to a neighbouring population in the data set (Stswecem’c; Extended Data Fig. 4c).”

The authors also noted that:

“However, the genetic affinities of Kennewick Man reveal additional complexity in the population history of the Northern lineage. The finding that Kennewick is more closely related to Southern than many Northern Native Americans (Extended Data Fig. 4) suggests the presence of an additional Northern lineage that diverged from the common ancestral population of Anzick-1 and Southern Native Americans (Fig. 3). This branch would include both Colville and other tribes of the Pacific Northwest such as the Stswecem’c, who also appear symmetric to Kennewick with Southern Native Americans (Extended Data Fig. 4).”

The Pacific coast were a mixture of mongoloid and Pacific Island negro Native Americans.

 -

The Colville tribe which is related to Kennewick man is a Confederation of Indians who did not die of diseases or murdered by whites so they could take their land.

The Colville tribe is the name given to various Christian Native American tribes that lived at Fort Colville. They include Native American groups that were not exterminated by the whites. The twelve bands are the Methow, Okanogan, Arrow Lakes, Sanpoil, Colville, Nespelem, Chelan, Entiat, Moses-Columbia, Wenatchi, Nez Perce, and Palus. These remnants of Pacific coast tribes formerly mixed with the Black Native Americans this is obvious when we look at Ohlone people who lived in missions on the West Coast.

 -

This means that the Colville tribe is admixed with the Black Native American tribes that formerly dominated the Pacific coast.

The authors like most Europeans attempt to lie about the negro origin of Kennewick man, the multivariate analysis of Kennewick man’s skull does not support their conclusion. The carniometric measurements also confirm the negro origin of Kenewick man. The researchers wrote:

quote:

Although our individual-based craniometric analyses confirm that Kennewick Man tends to be more similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples than to Native Americans, Kennewick Man’s pattern of craniometric affinity falls well within the range of affinity patterns evaluated for individual Native Americans (Supplementary Information 9). For example, the Arikara from North Dakota (the Native American tribe representing the geographically closest population in Howells’ data set to Kennewick), exhibit with high frequency closest affinities with Polynesians (Supplementary Information 9). Yet, the Arikara have typical Native-American mitochondrial DNA haplogroups30, as does Kennewick Man. We conclude that the currently available number of independent phenetic markers is too small, and within-population craniometric variation too large, to permit reliable reconstruction of the biological population affinities of Kennewick Man.

 -
Arikara

 -


Kennewick man carried mtDNA haplogroup X, this haplogroup is rare among United States Indians. This haplogroup is carried by Africans.

Amerindians carry the X hg. Amerindians and Europeans hg X are different (Person, 2004). Haplogroup X has also been found throughout Africa (Shimada et al,2006). Shimada et al (2006) believes that X(hX) is of African origin. Amerindian X is different from European hg X, skeletons from Brazil dating between 400-7000 BP have the transition np 16223 ( Martinez-Cruzado, 2001; Ribeiro-Dos-Santos,1996). Transition np 16223 is characteristic of African haplogroups. This suggest that Africans may have taken the X hg to the Americas in ancient times. This transference is supported by the haplogroups carried by Kennewick man.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
  • ABSTRACT
    The Paleoamericans are classified phenotypically as African, Australian or Melanesian based on
    multivariate methods and quantitative analysis. This grouping should only be Sub-Saharan African and
    Australian populations because the Melanesians and Sub-Saharan Africans share the same craniometric
    measurements. The craniometrics illustrate that PaleoIndians belonged to the Black Variety, but they do
    not allow us to establish conclusively where the Paleoamericans originated. Some researchers believe the
    Paleoamericans came from East Asia across the Beringa Straits or from Europe because of the Solutrean
    tools found throughout North America. These points of origination are unlikely because the Ice shelf in
    the Northern Latitudes would have prevented passage from these destinations to South America where the
    oldest Paleoamerican sites have been excavated. The most likely place the Paleoamericans came from
    was Africa which is closer to the Americas, than either Europe or East Asia, and also the location where
    the Solutrean culture originated, and later expanded into Iberia.
.


 -


Click on the Picture to see the article

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] Dr.Nieda Guidon claims that Africans were in Brazil 100,000 years ago. The evidence that fire existed in Brazil 65kya is an indication that man was at the site 65,000 years ago, since researchers found charcoal, which is the result of fire making.
The New York Times, reported that humans were Brazil 100,000 years ago .


If all humans came from Africa but some have since transformed into non-Africans that means if Africans had migrated and settled into a region outside of Africa 65,000, that by now their descendants would have transformed into non-Africans.

Kennewick man was of haplogroup X2a and the Y-chromosome haplogroup Q-M3. Modern Native Americans are the most similar to Kennewick man.

So Clyde you need to compare Kennewick man's DNA to that of people living today to see which living population is most similar.

This combination of Q-M23 and X2a is not similar to modern African populations.

Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Clyde

International Journal of Innovative Research and Review that you published your article in - is a scam. Its' not properly peer-reviewed and is a pseudo-journal.

Complete List of Fake Predatory or Bogus Journals. The publisher Centre For Info Bio Technology (CIBTech) is also blacklisted across the internet; I get these fake Indian journals spam my own email asking me to publish in them all the time.

The article you published is low-quality and would not have passed scholarly peer-review/refereeing in a proper academic journal.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clyde Winters you are counter intelligence, i have your figured out. Nobody can be that stupid.

You are like the Black hebrew Israelite that argues that Enslaved Negroes are not "Africans" even after they are pulling DNA from Slave Graveyards in america and they are grouping with Senegambians and Nigerians.

This is how Negro looking Americans plot in DNA

quote:
Morphologically, Naia does not look like a contemporary Native American, but mitochondrial DNA testing -- maternally inherited DNA -- carried out by Brian Kemp, Washington State University, and his collaborators shows that she has a D1 haplotype. This is consistent with the hypothesis that her ancestors' origins were in Beringia , a now partially submerged landmass including parts of Siberia, Alaska and the Yukon. Early humans moved into this area from elsewhere in Asia and remained there for quite some time. During that time they developed a unique haplotype that persists today in Native Americans. Genetically, Paleoamericans have similar attributes as modern Native Americans even if their morphology appears different.


OR read this link

quote:
But therein lies a puzzle: "Modern Native Americans closely resemble people of China, Korea, and Japan… but the oldest American skeletons do not, " says archaeologist and paleontologist James Chatters, lead author on the study and the owner of Applied Paleoscience, a research consulting service based in Bothell, Washington.

The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution."

The newly discovered skeleton—named Naia by the divers who discovered her, after the Greek for water—should help to settle this speculation. Though her skull is shaped like those of other early Americans, she shares a DNA sequence with some modern Native Americans. In other words, she’s likely a genetic great-aunt to indigenous people currently found in the Americas.

Thats it......"They came before Columbus" is pretty much dead in the water UNTIL they identify recent Africans in the genetic record. . We start to be on the genetic record about 350 years ago give or take. TRUST ME, I have been watching and WAITING to be surprised by ancient American dna. Aint happened yet, probably wont happen.

Here are 92 ancient american skeletons.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501385.full

MTDNA L, charactersitic of Africa is missing in action from 8600-1500 year ago.

Here is an article on Kennewick man, to the horror of Euroclowns worldwide he is Native Amerian regardless of his so called Caucasoid phenotype
Here are the genetic results of Kennewick man

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Cass - Here is another one for you:

http://www.thecoli.com/threads/the-face-of-prehistoric-european-modern-humans.266766/

[QUOTE] it seems that during the Ice Age anatomically modern European humans did not fit the Nordic ideal of tall, blonde, and gracile. One reason I posted the image of the skull of K14 in the post below is that even without professional background in analysis of skeletal morphology it is visually obvious that this individual was rather robust. There’s a reason that it was apparently termed “Australoid” by earlier anthropologists. The native people of Australia and Papua are among the most robust humans alive today. In contrast other populations have gone through a great deal of gracilization, especially over the last 10,000 years. What about the coloring? I couldn’t find a reference in Seguin-Orlando et al. to any analysis of the functions of the genome, but in Anne Gibbons’ piece in Science she states that K14 was ” a short, dark-skinned, dark-eyed man.” I doubt she would say this unless she knew from the research team what the genotype of this individual was/QUOTE]

Nearly all of those Ancient Europeans have the ancestral state for skin color = BROWN. These are your ancestors. This is not to go Afro-Loon mode and argue your ancestors were "Black" with a recent association to sub Saharan africa. No, but rather the gracialized phenotype of today is somewhat NEW as is the ligher skin tones of the region, The genetic affinity on the other hand is quite old......as shown by European remains going back some 40 thousand years. You are smart enough to know this. You are doing yourself a disservice by holding on so long to outdated ideas of craniometry while not understanding populations genetics.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
This is bs. Take a look at Kennewick Man. See the genetic affinity of ancient Europeans who look like austrailoids. See the genetic affinity of Early native Americans that have cranial profiles similar to Africans and Melanesians.......hell look at all the Negrito diversity that is at the opposite end of the genetic spectrum from Africans.

You are too caught up on cranial metrics and just linked data from 2011 before a lot of major sampling of ancient DNA occurred. Why don't you take a look at your caucasoid ancient Egyptians and look at their Autosomal profile ala DNA Tribes.

I am not going to give you sources. You are going to have to learn about this on your own. Just start googling the genetic results of the said remains and then look at their reconstruction. Start with how your folks went Gaga over Kennewick Man and was shut down when his DNA was released. See how Afro loons were shut down when ancient American DNA was releaded of "negroid" looking remains. You ideas a part of the pre DNA old guard. [/QB]

The "Caucasoid" Kennewick Man thing was not based on any peer-review study though; the scientist who made those comments (James Chatters) made them in an anthropology news-letter: "presence of Caucasoid traits, [and] lack of definitive Native-American characteristics" ('Encounter with an Ancestor'. Anthropology Newsletter 38(1):9–10), this was just his opinion from looking at the skull, not actually taking any measurements. Jantz & Owsley (2001) who published one of the earliest craniometric analyses on early Holocene crania from North America, concluded they show "no similarity to morphometric pattern of recent American Indians". However, 2 years later they criticized their own study (see below); this was the same point I raised earlier in this thread about using too few craniometric measurements. Jantz & Owsley (2001) only used 22 measurements out of 57 (Howells, 1973, 1989, 1995). Unfortunately they didn't re-measure early Holocene crania using more dimensions/variables, but if they did they would have found modern Native Americans are closest to early Holocene North American crania. This is because Jantz and Owsley (2003) demonstrated this for Upper Palaeolithic European crania (i.e closest to Norse or Hungarians), when using 55 measurements:

"[T]hose skulls expressing Norse affinity are the most complete and have the highest number of measurements (x̄ = 50.8), while those expressing affinity to African populations (Bushman or Zulu) are the most incomplete, averaging just 16.8 measurements per skull. Use of highly incomplete or reconstructed crania may not yield a good estimate of their morphometric affinities. When one considers only those crania with 40 or more measurements, a majority express European affinity... To examine this idea further, we use the eight Upper Paleolithic crania available from the test series of Howells (1995), all of which are complete. Our analysis of these eight, based on 55 measurements, is presented in Table 1. Using raw measurements, 6 of 8 express an affinity to Norse." - Jantz, R.L. and D.W. Owsley, (2003). 'Reply to van Vark et al.: Is European Upper Paleolithic cranial morphology a useful analogy for early Americans?', Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 121:185-188

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
Clyde Winters you are counter intelligence, i have your figured out. Nobody can be that stupid.

You are like the Black hebrew Israelite that argues that Enslaved Negroes are not "Africans" even after they are pulling DNA from Slave Graveyards in america and they are grouping with Senegambians and Nigerians.

This is how Negro looking Americans plot in DNA

quote:
Morphologically, Naia does not look like a contemporary Native American, but mitochondrial DNA testing -- maternally inherited DNA -- carried out by Brian Kemp, Washington State University, and his collaborators shows that she has a D1 haplotype. This is consistent with the hypothesis that her ancestors' origins were in Beringia , a now partially submerged landmass including parts of Siberia, Alaska and the Yukon. Early humans moved into this area from elsewhere in Asia and remained there for quite some time. During that time they developed a unique haplotype that persists today in Native Americans. Genetically, Paleoamericans have similar attributes as modern Native Americans even if their morphology appears different.


OR read this link

quote:
But therein lies a puzzle: "Modern Native Americans closely resemble people of China, Korea, and Japan… but the oldest American skeletons do not, " says archaeologist and paleontologist James Chatters, lead author on the study and the owner of Applied Paleoscience, a research consulting service based in Bothell, Washington.

The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution."

The newly discovered skeleton—named Naia by the divers who discovered her, after the Greek for water—should help to settle this speculation. Though her skull is shaped like those of other early Americans, she shares a DNA sequence with some modern Native Americans. In other words, she’s likely a genetic great-aunt to indigenous people currently found in the Americas.

Thats it......"They came before Columbus" is pretty much dead in the water UNTIL they identify recent Africans in the genetic record. . We start to be on the genetic record about 350 years ago give or take. TRUST ME, I have been watching and WAITING to be surprised by ancient American dna. Aint happened yet, probably wont happen.

Here are 92 ancient american skeletons.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501385.full

MTDNA L, charactersitic of Africa is missing in action from 8600-1500 year ago.

Here is an article on Kennewick man, to the horror of Euroclowns worldwide he is Native Amerian regardless of his so called Caucasoid phenotype
Here are the genetic results of Kennewick man

Thus this is examplar par excellence of why people shouldn't rely too much on morphology alone for phylogenetic origins of a population. I and others on this forum have been repeating this often not just in regards to Paleo-Amerindians. Mind you the same thing can be said about early populations of East Asia proper (look up the Zhoukoudian and Liujiang AM human crania) or Minatogawa man of Okinawa.

"Things don't get clearer for the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans, many resembled present-day Australian aborigines or sub-Saharan Africans than present Europeans."
Chris Stringer, African Exodus (2013)

But at least in the case of Indigenous Americans and to an extent East Asians there is genetic continuity.

What the Castrated Anglo refuses to admit however is that there was not such continuity in Europe due to the intrusion of Neolithic forebears from the Middle East as well as North Africa proper who carry African genetic clades. Which is why today one-third of Europeans carry paternal E-M215 derived clade. The Anglo-idiot can call these Neolithic immigrants "proto-Mediterraneans" all he wants but it won't change their African phylogenetic profile.

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lol.

"Things don't get clearer for the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans, many resembled present-day Australian aborigines or sub-Saharan Africans than present Europeans."
Chris Stringer, African Exodus (2013)

They don't. Read my response above.

In Van Vark's study using <17 measurements on Upper Palaeolithic European skulls showed them to be closest to Zulu, Australian aborigines etc. However using >40 measurements, showed them closest to Norse and Zalavar (Hungarians). The issue is the number of measurements, using too few and you get dubious results.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Cass - Here is another one for you:

http://www.thecoli.com/threads/the-face-of-prehistoric-european-modern-humans.266766/

[QUOTE] it seems that during the Ice Age anatomically modern European humans did not fit the Nordic ideal of tall, blonde, and gracile. One reason I posted the image of the skull of K14 in the post below is that even without professional background in analysis of skeletal morphology it is visually obvious that this individual was rather robust. There’s a reason that it was apparently termed “Australoid” by earlier anthropologists. The native people of Australia and Papua are among the most robust humans alive today. In contrast other populations have gone through a great deal of gracilization, especially over the last 10,000 years. What about the coloring? I couldn’t find a reference in Seguin-Orlando et al. to any analysis of the functions of the genome, but in Anne Gibbons’ piece in Science she states that K14 was ” a short, dark-skinned, dark-eyed man.” I doubt she would say this unless she knew from the research team what the genotype of this individual was/QUOTE]

Nearly all of those Ancient Europeans have the ancestral state for skin color = BROWN. These are your ancestors. This is not to go Afro-Loon mode and argue your ancestors were "Black" with a recent association to sub Saharan africa. No, but rather the gracialized phenotype of today is somewhat NEW as is the ligher skin tones of the region, The genetic affinity on the other hand is quite old......as shown by European remains going back some 40 thousand years. You are smart enough to know this. You are doing yourself a disservice by holding on so long to outdated ideas of craniometry while not understanding populations genetics.

I've heard this argument before, basically it says morphometrics is a poor indicator for the determination of ancestral-descendant relationships between the Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic vs. later Holocene because there were significant in situ craniofacial changes during the Early-to-Late Neolithic, i.e. a reduction in robusticity, jaws, toothsize reduction etc. I perfectly get that and we should not expect descendants to look 100% like their ancestors many millennia ago because of micro-evolutionary changes. My point though is Upper Palaeolithic/Mesolithic skulls are closest to modern populations native to their regions, when compared to populations from other regions - providing a large number of cranial measurements are taken.

Also I've always said the inhabitants of Europe were mostly brown skinned until the late Holocene, although I probably underestimated since they were somewhat darker than "olive".

November, 2011

quote:
Originally posted by cassiterides:
The ancestral Upper Paleolithic Caucasoid (e.g. Cro-Magnon) population was olive skinned.

Since 2013 I became more cautious about the term "Caucasoid" hence I now highlight it with "; I prefer to now access things using the more local 28 populations samples (e.g. Norse, Zulu, Tolai) in Howells' craniometric data set and FORDISC, similarly Howells' himself came to do the exact same thing for example compare his early books to his more recent and you will see the " added to Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid in his final works. I'm not though going to get too worked up on labels, since these still capture variation and everyone knows the distinction between these "types" as craniometric means.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
You and the other Eurocentrics created a regional identity of "Sub Saharan" blacks, but the cultures that made dynastic Egypt were NOT Saharan. For THOUSANDS of years they shared Africa with "Sub Saharans" and there was NO desert you could claim acted as a genetic barrier. The windowspan for the full return of the Sahara came a little before or a little after dynastic Egypt. When the Sahara did fully return AE then had nile which not only supported life but allowed them contact with SSA people. It's not "Pan African lunacy." You guys are the main ones dividing Africa by which side of the Sahara people lived. But foundations of AE civilization were from people who were not "Saharan." [Roll Eyes]

You're just making stuff up. Look at the map you posted in other thread-

 -

Zoom:

 -

Observe most settlement movement is Egyptians moving west (not that far in km) into the desert from the Nile valley and vice-versa back east in Egypt; there was not some sort of mass exodus into Sub-Saharan Africa and the fewer more distant settlements south of Egypt, such as northern Sudan are still in the Sahara if you check the latitude and desert boundary:

 -

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] Dr.Nieda Guidon claims that Africans were in Brazil 100,000 years ago. The evidence that fire existed in Brazil 65kya is an indication that man was at the site 65,000 years ago, since researchers found charcoal, which is the result of fire making.
The New York Times, reported that humans were Brazil 100,000 years ago .


If all humans came from Africa but some have since transformed into non-Africans that means if Africans had migrated and settled into a region outside of Africa 65,000, that by now their descendants would have transformed into non-Africans.

Kennewick man was of haplogroup X2a and the Y-chromosome haplogroup Q-M3. Modern Native Americans are the most similar to Kennewick man.

So Clyde you need to compare Kennewick man's DNA to that of people living today to see which living population is most similar.

This combination of Q-M23 and X2a is not similar to modern African populations.

I no longer accept this view. It is clear that non-African populations are different from Black and African people. They carry genes that are carried by Africans, but in reality ere given different names to make it appear as if there is a difference for example , haplogroup D, is nothing more than the African haplogroup M1; and haplogroup R among Africans is the same as the so-called Q haplogroup. This makes the haplogroups carried by non-African related to modern African haplogroups.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Clyde

International Journal of Innovative Research and Review that you published your article in - is a scam. Its' not properly peer-reviewed and is a pseudo-journal.

Complete List of Fake Predatory or Bogus Journals. The publisher Centre For Info Bio Technology (CIBTech) is also blacklisted across the internet; I get these fake Indian journals spam my own email asking me to publish in them all the time.

The article you published is low-quality and would not have passed scholarly peer-review/refereeing in a proper academic journal.

I could care less what you or anybody else thinks about my work. You are really saying my research would not be acceptable to Eurocentrists who deny Black people have a history.

This list of journals just relates to the racist ideas of the authors of the list. This list is racist because it assumes that any journal published by non-whites is fake. This is false and based on the white supremacist ideal that anything not published by the European Academe is inferior.

Its not that I can't publish in a European supported journal I have already proven this by the following articles listed by the PMC: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=clyde+winters

1. A comparison of Fulani and Nadar HLA
Clyde Winters
Indian J Hum Genet. 2012 Jan-Apr; 18(1): 137–138. doi: 10.4103/0971-6866.96686
PMCID: PMC3385173
ArticlePubReaderCitation
Select item 2930572

2. The Fulani are not from the Middle East
Clyde Winters
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Aug 24; 107(34): E132. Published online 2010 Aug 3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1008007107
PMCID: PMC2930572
ArticlePubReaderPDF–485KCitation
Select item 3168144

3.Can parallel mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-I motifs in Indian M haplogroups
Clyde Winters
Indian J Hum Genet. 2007 Sep-Dec; 13(3): 93–96. doi: 10.4103/0971-6866.38982
PMCID: PMC3168144
ArticlePubReaderCitation

I refuse to pay as much as $2500 to publish an article in Journals like PLOS. But I have published many comments to articles published by journals like PLOS that don't cost anything to publish.

Until you can falsify my research your comments mean nothing. You are just mad that Euronuts no longer control the publication of research articles.
.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Technical Report: Assessment of the genetic analyses of Rasmussen et al. (2015)
John Novembre, PhD, David Witonsky, Anna Di Rienzo, PhD April 4, 2016

SYNOPSIS

The primary aim of the analysis undertaken here (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St Louis
District Contract #W912P9-16-P-0010) is to provide an independent validation of the genetic evidence underlying a recent publication by Morten Rasmussen and colleagues on July 23rd, 2015, in Nature (Vol 523:455–58). Based on our analysis of the Kennewick Man’s sequence data and Colville tribe genotype data generated by Rasmussen et al., we concur with the findings of the original paper that the sample is genetically closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide. We carried out several analyses to support this conclusion, including (i)principal component analysis (PCA; Patterson et al. 2006), (ii) unsupervised genetic clustering
using ADMIXTURE (Alexander, Novembre, and Lange 2009), (iii) estimation of genetic affinity to
modern human populations using f3 and D statistics (Patterson et al. 2012), and (iv) a novel approach based on the geographic distribution of rare variants. Importantly, these distinct analyses, spanning three non-overlapping subsets of the data, are each consistent with Native American ancestry.


Craniometric and skeletal evidence indicates that Paleoamericans were related to the Australian, Polynesian or Sub-Saharan type.Novembre et al (2016) argue that Kennewick man is related more to modern Native Americans, instead of the PaleoAmericans. In support of this hypothesis Novembre et al (2015) conclude that Kennewick man is closely related to the South American Karitiana people.

The finding by Novembre et al (2015) that genetically Kennewick man related mostly to the Karitiana falsifies their population. It is falsified because Skoglund et al (2015) found that the Karitiana and other Amozonian people in South America have an Australasian heritage. The identification of a relationship between Kennewick man and the Karitiana would continue to situate this Native American in the Paleoamerican group--not contemporary Native Americans.

The Amerindian haplogroups (hg) are descendant from the L3(M,N, & X) macrohaplogroup): ABCDN
and X. The L3 (M,N,X) marcogroup converge at np 16223.

The mtDNA haplogroups ABC and X are subclades of haplogroup N. In Table 1, we see the
distribution of haplogroup N, in the Americas.
The phylogeography of haplogroup C suggest that this American founder haplogroup differentiated in
Siberia-Asia (24). The situation is not so clear for haplogrop B2, but A2 and D1 probably differentiated after the mongoloid Native American lineages diverged after crossing the Beringa Straits (24)

Haplogroup A2 has the motif 16111T,16223c, 16290T, 16319A and 16223C (25). Haplogroup A is
rare in Siberia (26). Interestingly, haplogroup A absent in western North America is common in parts of Central America and Northern America where the Spanish reported the existence of Black Native
American communities(1-2).

In a recent study of post-Classic Mexicans at Tlatilco , dating between 10-13 centuries the subjects carried the founder haplogroups A (36%), B (13%), C (4.3%) and D (17.4%) (27). We should note, that in Yucatec, the Mayans were predominately haplogroup A, the Maya in Hondurus, a stronghold of the Black Native Americans belonged to haplogroup C.

The mtDNA haplogroup A common to Mexicans is also found among the Mande speaking people and
some East Africans (28-29). Haplogroup A found among Mixe and Mixtecs (28).The Mande speakers
carry mtDNA haplogroup A, which is common among Mexicans (30). In addition to the Mande
speaking people of West Africa, Southeast Africa Africans also carry mtDNA haplogroup A (29).
The major American Indian male lineages include R1, C,D and Q3.There is evidence of African
admixture in the American y-chromosome haplogroups. The Q y-haplogroup has the highest
frequency among indigenous Mexicans. The frequency hg Q varies from a high of 54% for Q-M243,
and a low of 46% for QM (34).

African y-chromosome are associated with YAP+ and 9bp. The YAP-à associated with A-àG transition
at DYS271 is found among Native Americans. The YAP+ individuals include Mixe speakers (32-33).
YAP+ is often present in haplogroups (hg) C and D.
The DYS271 transition is of African origin (32).The DSY271 Alu insertion is found only in
chromosomes bearing Alu insertion (YAP+) at locus DYS287 (33). The DYS271 transition was found
among the Wayuu, Zenu and Inzano. The Mexican Native American y-chromosome bearing the
African markers is resident in haplogroups C and D (34).

R-M173 is also found in Mexico. Haplogroups R and Q are part of the CT microgroup which dates
back 56kya. Haplogroup R branches from hg Q, with the SNP M242.

The CT haplogroup has SNP mutation M168, along with P and M294. Haplogroup P (M45) has two
branches Q (M242) and R-M207 which share the common marker M45.

The M45 chromosome is subdivided by the biallelic variant M173 (35). In Africa we find P (M173),
R1b (M343) and V88; and R1b1a2 (M269).

Native Americans carry a high frequency of R-M173 (48). The predominate y-chromosome in North
America is R-M173. R-M173 is found only in the Northeastern United States along with mtDNA
haplogroup X (25%). Both haplogroups are found in Africa, but is absent in Siberia.

There are varying frequencies of y-chromosome M-173 in Africa and Eurasia. Whereas only between
8% and 10% of M-173 is carried by Eurasians, 82% of the carriers of this y-chromosome are found in
Africa.

This is very interesting given the presence on R-M173 is found among many American Indian groups
(48). R-M173 among the North American Algonquian group range from Ojibwe (79%), Chipewyan
(62%), Seminole (50%), Cherokee (47%), Dogrib (40%) and Papago (38%) . These Indian groups
have a long association with Africans and many live in areas were Europeans found Black Native
Americans.

In most studies of North American Indians, any evidence of African haplogroups are excluded from
all analyses (47). Exclusion of evidence of non-Amerindian admixture and non-foundational
Amerindian haplogroups is regularly left out of publications on Native American DNA (49).

The R haplogroup is carried by Mexicans. The frequency of hg R varies from Tarahumara (5.6%),
Otomi (14.3%), Yucateca Maya (10.5%). There is also a high frequency of haplogroup R among the
Ch'ol and Chontal which stood around 15% (38). The Ch'ol and Chontal also carry E1b1b (38). The
Spanish identified the Otomi as a Black Native American tribe(11).

African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with
African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African
skeletons among the Olmec and Mayan people. Lisker et al, noted that "The variation of Indian
ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast" (22).

A recent study of African - Mexican admixture yielded a frequency range between 22-41% (25). In
one study the researcher found that 3% of Native Americans showed African haplogroups (25).
Underhill et al , noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y
chromosome" (31). This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande
substratum, in addition to African genetic markers (3) Plus the Chontal were identified as a Black
Native American tribe (11).

The African haplogroups among indigenous Mexicans include L0a1a'3, L2a1, L3b, L3d, and U6a (25).
Interestingly, an individual at Laguna de los Condores, Peru dating between AD 1000-1500 carried L3 (36). Green et al also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters (25).

An important indicator of African admixture is 9bp (22,27). Haplogroup B is defined by 9bp (27) and is linked to haplogroup A.

The 9bp marker is reported among the North Mexicans. It is common among the Mixtec (27).
Some indigenous Mexicans show the G6PD deficiency. In a study of Yucatecos, Tzellzal-Tzoltzil,
Mixteca and Mestizo it was found that people on the Oaxaca coast suffered from G6PD deficiency
(22). Lisker also found G6PD deficiency in Costa Chica (22). The G6PD deficiency is usually carried
by SSA.

Indigenous Indians at Tlaxcala contains 8% African genes, but historically no Africans lived in the area (37). Researchers have also found L1, L2 & L3 clusters among many Mexicans including the Cora,
Mixtec and Zapotecs (39-41)

It is interesting to note that the proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States (41). This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher than that of European hyplotypes"(41).

Human Leukocyte Antigens (HLA) polymorphism is used to investigate ethnic relationships and
origins. Africans and Indigenous Mexicans share HLA alleles. In Table 2 we outline the
relationship. Gutherie in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the V
antigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in
Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization (45). Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common
among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya (45).

In addition to A*28 , there is a high frequency of HLA B*35 among Mexicans and SSA (46). The
frequency of HLA B*35 among indigenous Mexicans and SSA is high ranging between 22-31%
among SSA populations and 30-45% among MA groups (46). It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a
Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.

It is time that researchers stop claiming the first Native Americans were not Negroes.


Reference:

Skoglund et al (2015), Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas , NATURE ,525 ( 3 SEPTEMBER):104-108. Retrieved 5/1/2016 at : http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14895.epdf?referrer_access_token=4TuRenNBfBRS7tHNMAY1qdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N6yB-nEyCdRoL51ykMO5E9z_7mdrRF_UTJvxtpDQnayOfwuJnrOCxIhdm8_7djDnDo9O bq-VbpDatHfBozg8WnuFcDDHGC6D1QQbbgmyediLKefzmJLdqOP9IYieqkoaey_M8XA-n4Ua9CD3IbOslIqWUnXzIWbLwafl9bJMOQNAJlELt6cfooH162H7W_3B8%3D&tracking_referrer=mobile.nytimes.com
.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

It is clear that non-African populations are different from Black and African people. They carry genes that are carried by Africans, but in reality ere given different names to make it appear as if there is a difference for example , haplogroup D, is nothing more than the African haplogroup M1; and haplogroup R among Africans is the same as the so-called Q haplogroup. This makes the haplogroups carried by non-African related to modern African haplogroups.

You start out saying that saying it is clear that non-African populations are different from Black and African people.
Then instead of supporting that premise with something to back it up you go on to say that the DNA is in actuality the same.

So then what is the fundamental difference between non-African populations and Black African people?

Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] Dr.Nieda Guidon claims that Africans were in Brazil 100,000 years ago. The evidence that fire existed in Brazil 65kya is an indication that man was at the site 65,000 years ago, since researchers found charcoal, which is the result of fire making.
The New York Times, reported that humans were Brazil 100,000 years ago .


If all humans came from Africa but some have since transformed into non-Africans that means if Africans had migrated and settled into a region outside of Africa 65,000, that by now their descendants would have transformed into non-Africans.

Kennewick man was of haplogroup X2a and the Y-chromosome haplogroup Q-M3. Modern Native Americans are the most similar to Kennewick man.

So Clyde you need to compare Kennewick man's DNA to that of people living today to see which living population is most similar.

This combination of Q-M23 and X2a is not similar to modern African populations.

I no longer accept this view. It is clear that non-African populations are different from Black and African people. They carry genes that are carried by Africans, but in reality ere given different names to make it appear as if there is a difference for example , haplogroup D, is nothing more than the African haplogroup M1; and haplogroup R among Africans is the same as the so-called Q haplogroup. This makes the haplogroups carried by non-African related to modern African haplogroups.
Dammit man what the Fvck are you talking about or smoking. What you just said makes no damn sense in the known universe! Do you NOT understand how Y-Chromosomes have the positive or negative presence of known Diagnostic SNPs?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
You're just making stuff up. Look at the map you posted in other thread-

 - [/qb]

quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:

Look at the image before it. AT 5,300 BC it's still green. BETWEEN the periods of 5,300 to 3,500 it looked like this. Around 3,500 to 3,000 BC is the window people usually give for the modern Sahara. At 6k BC there was a temporary arid phase throughout Africa that lasted on average 800-1000 years. Things improved and then collapsed near 3k BC.

Rainfall regimes of the Green Sahara

Jessica E. Tierney1,*, Francesco S. R. Pausata2 and Peter B. deMenocal3

quote:
"During the “Green Sahara” period (11,000 to 5000 years before the present), the Sahara desert received high amounts of rainfall, supporting diverse vegetation, permanent lakes, and human populations. Our knowledge of rainfall rates and the spatiotemporal extent of wet conditions has suffered from a lack of continuous sedimentary records. We present a quantitative reconstruction of western Saharan precipitation derived from leaf wax isotopes in marine sediments. Our data indicate that the Green Sahara extended to 31°N and likely ended abruptly.We find evidence for a prolonged “pause” in Green Sahara conditions 8000 years ago, coincident with a temporary abandonment of occupational sites by Neolithic humans. The rainfall rates inferred from our data are best explained by strong vegetation and dust feedbacks; without these mechanisms, climate models systematically fail to reproduce the Green Sahara. This study suggests that accurate simulations of future climate change in the Sahara and Sahel will require improvements in our ability to simulate vegetation and dust feedbacks."
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601503.full

 -

The image could be an oversimplification for that entire period, but probably about accurate if we're talking about how Egypt would've looked by 3000 BC. From 6k BC to 5k BC there was temporary drying. Where it dried was not uniform either. Certain latitudes faced drying periods, others didn't, and they weren't uniform in how long these dry spells went on for. Latitudes 26 and 30 for example didn't have the brief drying event 8kya, but some of the more southernly areas did. A full and continuous effect of the Sahara drying to levels we see today didn't happen until thousands of years later. Even places like South Sudan and Ethiopia were experiencing dry periods that spanned from 800-1000 years. This ironically would explain why so many researchers insisted some populations towards the south moved north to make AE.


quote:

Observe most settlement movement is Egyptians moving west (not that far in km) into the desert from the Nile valley and vice-versa back east in Egypt; there was not some sort of mass exodus into Sub-Saharan Africa and the fewer more distant settlements south of Egypt, such as northern Sudan are still in the Sahara if you check the latitude and desert boundary:

 -

Technically this is irrelevant. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate SSA people had no capability of contact with Egypt for a long period of time. That they adapted in isolation long enough by the time dynastic AE arived to be "non African." Reviewing what genetic data we have and the climate history of Africa, this doesn't seem like what happened at all.

quote:
to prove there was a geological barrier.
 - [/QB]

There was no geological barrier. Egypt had the Nile, the temporary arid phase affected both the modern north and south, and the Sahara hadn't gone fully dry until around 3000 B.C. By that time the cultures that formed dynastic Egypt if not AE itself were already there. Ecological pressures were also affecting the south, and it was likely this event that made the people of the desert responded by moving north.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By the way, Naia does not appear anymore 'African' than many Eurasian populations especially during her time period.

 -

Luzia on the other hand may be a different story.

 -

Though despite her physical appearance she may actually represent Australo-Melanesians types who were the first to cross the Pacific Ocean.

http://sciencenordic.com/mysterious-link-between-people-south-america-and-australia

Interestingly, this is supported by Polynesian legends of black peoples who inhabited certain islands before them.

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:

You're just making stuff up. Look at the map you posted in other thread-

 -

Zoom:

 -

Observe most settlement movement is Egyptians moving west (not that far in km) into the desert from the Nile valley and vice-versa back east in Egypt; there was not some sort of mass exodus into Sub-Saharan Africa and the fewer more distant settlements south of Egypt, such as northern Sudan are still in the Sahara if you check the latitude and desert boundary:

 -

LMAO [Big Grin]

The only one making stuff up is YOU! You are obviously too ignorant to realize there was no "sub-Sahara" in certain time periods because there was NO SAHARA at all. Haven't you heard of pluvial or wet periods of geology before??

Oshun made a recent thread about it here.

Here is an even better picture of the map.

 -

Notice in the first map subtitled 'before 8,500 B.C.E.' North Africa was desert therefore all the populations were huddled along the Nile. It was only when conditions became moist and North Africa became verdant that populations expanded west deeper into what is today the Sahara. When conditions dessicated again, they retreated either to the Nile or to oases.

Now the burden of proof is on you to prove that these populations have no connection to so-called 'sub-Saharans'.

You have yet to do this. Virtually all bio-anthropologists agree that Nile Valley Africans i.e. both Egyptians and their Nubian neighbors are biologically continuous with Africans to their south. Yet you are the only one denying these facts.

The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)

"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid:
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
You can't have it both ways. Either melas allows for a range of darker pigmentation as does the word leukos for lighter, or it allows only for a very limited light brown pigmentation. You're saying melanchroes as applied to Egyptians only allowed for light brown skin, which is patently ridiculous given people like Tiye, Senusret I, Amenhotep III, et all who trended towards the even darker end of that range.


What color is Tiye??? She was from Akhmim in Upper Egypt btw not North Sudan.

I'm saying melanchroos when applied to-

Individual Greeks like Odysseus = sunburnt or faint light brown.
Egyptians as an average = light brown to medium brown
Nubians as an average = dark brown i.e black

There is overlap with the two colours i.e. the lightest spectrum of melas with the darkest spectrum of leukos, meaning the lightest brown shades like the barley crop I posted. Colours of course grade into each other, this is to be expected.

In contrast the afrocentric model is

everyone melanchroos in Africa = black and completely ignore the skin colour variation cline in the Nile valley running from the nile delta, to upper Egypt, to Sudan

"Ancient Egyptians, like their modern descendants, varied in complexion from a light Mediterranean type, to a light brown in Middle Egypt, to a darker brown in southern Egypt." (Snowden, 1997)

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.)

Every argument you post has been debunked already, why do you go in circles? It's just ridiculous, foolish and stupid!


quote:


Were the ancient Greeks and Romans colour blind?

Wednesday 19 February 2014 11:50AM


Homer left historians with the impression that the ancient Greeks and Romans had an underdeveloped appreciation of colour. The ancients, in fact, were a shade more sophisticated than that and understood colour in a completely different way to us, argues Mark Bradley

Gladstone noted that Homer actually uses very few colour terms, that black and white predominate, and that he uses the same colours to describe objects which look quite different.


According to Bradley, the Greeks viewed chroma (in Latin color) as essentially the visible outermost shell of an object. So a table wouldn't be brown, it was wood-coloured. A window would be glass-coloured. Hair would be hair-coloured, skin would be skin-coloured. 'They wouldn't talk in terms of the abstract colours that we are used to today.'

The term 'synaesthetic' can be used to broadly describe the different kind of association that the ancient Greeks made between the five senses. 'If colours are the external manifestations of objects, then the perception of that colour can tap into other ideas such as smell, liquidity, saturation, touch, texture.'

In what we would tend to think of as purely visual, the ancient Greeks brought other senses into play. 'In antiquity, in pre-modern societies, there is much more capacity for the way you describe the world to tap into several different senses simultaneously,' says Bradley.

So what of Homer's wine-dark sea (oinops pontos)? Bradley describes this as antiquity's best-known colour problem and one that's given rise to various theories. One interpretation is that it describes the sea at sunset when it's a sort of fiery red. Another interpretation hold that it's an allusion to a now obsolete type of French wine called le petit bleu or le gros bleu, a blue wine, which, if it even existed in antiquity, might explain the metaphor.

—Amanda Smith

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bodysphere/features/5267698


So, tell how did Homer describe these?


 -


 -


 -


http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009586;p=3#000125

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid:

Nigerian nasal index:
"The commonest type of nasal variability is Type A (70.5%), Platyrrhine nose, Type B (26.7%) especially in females (mesorrhine) and Type C (leptorrhine) (2.8%)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22030966

So only 3% of Nigerians have narrow noses. O dear.

The mantra "Sub-Saharans have the greatest phenotypic variation" Afrocentrists spam on this forum ad nauseam ignores the geographical structure of this variation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, it is not the case that "Caucasoid" features are common across the whole of East Africa, with the exception of some northern Ethiopian populations and Somalis and even then these "Caucasoid" traits at high frequency are confined to the nasal/mid-facial part of the skull, not other regions. Hence Somalis do not plot close to Europeans in craniometric analyses that use many measurements covering all surface-area of the skull (see Howells' data on East Africans).

1) Nigerians aren't the only West Africans.

2) You first claimed sub Saharans don't have narrow noses, which you are now discrediting yourself, after I already had debunked it a week ago.

3) West Africa has close to 400,000,000 inhabitance, of which there are 173.6 million Nigerians.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This man got manhandled on pg 1.
Dragged by lioness pg. 3
Died on pg. 5
Somehow resurrected by pg.7 only to get bopped again by pg.8.

You guys are in the ballroom with a corpse. There's no fundamental argument being made... For the last few pages, all people here have been engaged in semantics under the disguise of "interpretation of evidence."

What does JCM actually believe the AEgyptians were?

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Sub-Saharan Africans don't show as close genetic affinity as northern Sudanese and modern Egyptians (to ancient Egyptians)

[…]

"West Africans have a common origin in the once wet Sahara, and so divorcing them is impossible".

"Ancient Egyptian is linguistically closest to Chadic… language group that spans from Chad to Nigeria. "

lol. Pan African lunacy again. And you aren't from Sudan, you're an African-American which is why you cling to this pan-African political ideology.

Your arguments are relucloously funny.


1) Show there is no genetic relation between West Africa and Northern Egypt. (I already debunked it btw)

2) Chadic is a Afrasan languages clustering in the Afrasan phylum.



Rogerblench,

http://rogerblench.info/Language/Afroasiatic/General/AALIST.pdf


Issues in the Historical Phonology Issues in the Historical Phonology of Chadic Languages of Chadic Languages H. Ekkehard Wolff Chair: African Languages & Linguistics Leipzig University

http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/conference/08_springschool/pdf/course_materials/Wolff_Historical_Phonology.pdf


 -

 -


Now the real question comes.

How come your precious Northern European folks don't speak a related Afrasan language?

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
lol.

"Things don't get clearer for the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans, many resembled present-day Australian aborigines or sub-Saharan Africans than present Europeans."
Chris Stringer, African Exodus (2013)

They don't. Read my response above.

In Van Vark's study using <17 measurements on Upper Palaeolithic European skulls showed them to be closest to Zulu, Australian aborigines etc. However using >40 measurements, showed them closest to Norse and Zalavar (Hungarians). The issue is the number of measurements, using too few and you get dubious results.

Yes, they do, as was already exposed on your repetitive Zalavar (Hungarians), the outlier plot of the Nubian population in Magyar.


quote:

"...the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans....were more like present-day Australians or Africans..."

--Chris Stringer, African Exodus ((Michael Witzel, The Origins of the World's Mythologies) 2013)

Oxford University Press


quote:
Today, most paleoanthropologists agree that the Cro-Magnons came from Africa (5).
--Stringer, C. B.(2003) Nature 423 , 692–695. pmid:12802315
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/16/5705.full


quote:
"The so-called Old Man [Cro-Magnon 1] became the original model for
what was once termed the Cro-Magnon or Upper Paleolithic "race" of
Europe.. there's no such valid biological category, and Cro-Magnon 1 is
not typical of Upper Paleolithic western Europeans- and not even all that
similar to the other two make skulls found at the site. Most of the genetic
evidence, as well as the newest fossil evidence from Africa argue against
continuous local evolution producing modern groups directly from any
Eurasian pre-modern population.. there's no longer much debate that a
large genetic contribution from migrating early modern Africans infuenced
other groups throughout the Old World.“

--B. Lewis et al. 2008. Understanding Humans: Introduction to Physical


quote:

If this analysis shows nothing else, it demonstrates that the oft-repeated European feeling that the Cro-Magnons are “us” (47) is more a product of anthropological folklore than the result of the metric data available from the skeletal remains.

--C. Loring Brace(2006)
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form


quote:
It has been proposed that heat adapted, relatively long-legged Homo sapiens from Africa replaced the cold adapted, relatively short-legged Homo neandertalensis of the Levant and Europe

--J Hum Evol 32 (1997a) 423], Bogin B, Rios L. et al.


quote:
The subsequent post-28,000-B.P. Gravettian human sample of Europe includes numerous associated skeletons (Table 2) (Zilhão & Trinkaus 2002). Most of these specimens are fully modern in their morphology, and there is a persistence in them of both linear (equatorial) limb proportions and more "African" nasal morphology (Trinkaus 1981, Holliday 1997, Franciscus 2003). However, one Iberian specimen (Lagar Velho 1) exhibits Neandertal limb segment proportions and a series of relatively archaic cranial and postcranial features (Trinkaus & Zilhão 2002). In addition, central incisor shoveling, ubiquitous among the Neandertals, absent in the Qafzeh-Skhul sample, and variably present in the earlier European sample, persists at modest frequencies. And scapular axillary border dorsal sulci, an apparently Neandertal feature also absent in the Qafzeh-Skhul sample, is present

--Trinkaus 2005


quote:
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some looked more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by OBJECTIVE anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China."

-- Am J Phys Anthropol. 1975 May;42(3):351-69,


quote:
In modern humans, this elongation is a pattern characteristic of warm-adapted populations, and this physique may be an early Cro-Magnon retention from African ancestors. Similar retentions may be observed in certain indices of facial shape [ ...]
—Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory: Second Edition by Eric Delson (2000)


quote:
At about 40,000 years ago, however, Homo sapiens, in the form of the Cro-Magnons, began trickling into Europe, probably from an initially African place of origin.

[...]

It was brought with them by the Cro-Magnons, whose new qualities had emerged elsewhere. Probably this was in Africa, for it is from this continent that we have not just the first suggestions of the emergence of modern anatomical structure, but of modern behaviors as well.

[...]

The most remarkable early evidence of symbolic activity in Africa comes in the form of the recent find of engraved ochre plaques, such as this one, from Blombos Cave on the southern coast of Africa (Fig. 10). This is an unequivocally symbolic object, even if we cannot directly discern the significance of the geometric design that the plaque bears; and it is dated to around 70,000 years ago, over 30,000 years before anything equivalent is found in Europe.

To evidence such as this can be added suggestions of a symbolic organization of space at the site of Klasies River Mouth (Fig. 11), also near the southern tip of Africa, at over 100,000 years ago. Pierced shells, with the strong implication of stringing for body ornamentation, are known from Porc-Epic Cave in Ethiopia at around 70,000 years ago. Bone tools of the kind introduced much later to Europe by the Cro-Magnons, are found at the Congolese site of Katanda, dated to perhaps 80,000 years ago. Blade tool industries, again formerly associated principally with the Cro-Magnons, are found at least sporadically at sites in Africa that date to as much as a quarter of a million years ago. Also in the economic/technological realm, such activities as flint-mining, pigment-processing and long-distance trade in useful materials are documented in Africa up to about 100,000 years ago. These and other early African innovations are reviewed by McBrearty and Brooks (2000).

http://www.metmuseum.org/en/exhibitions/listings/2002/~/media/Files/Exhibitions/2002/AfricaLectureTranscript.ashx
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
You and the other Eurocentrics created a regional identity of "Sub Saharan" blacks, but the cultures that made dynastic Egypt were NOT Saharan. For THOUSANDS of years they shared Africa with "Sub Saharans" and there was NO desert you could claim acted as a genetic barrier. The windowspan for the full return of the Sahara came a little before or a little after dynastic Egypt. When the Sahara did fully return AE then had nile which not only supported life but allowed them contact with SSA people. It's not "Pan African lunacy." You guys are the main ones dividing Africa by which side of the Sahara people lived. But foundations of AE civilization were from people who were not "Saharan." [Roll Eyes]

You're just making stuff up. Look at the map you posted in other thread-

 -

Zoom:

 -

Observe most settlement movement is Egyptians moving west (not that far in km) into the desert from the Nile valley and vice-versa back east in Egypt; there was not some sort of mass exodus into Sub-Saharan Africa and the fewer more distant settlements south of Egypt, such as northern Sudan are still in the Sahara if you check the latitude and desert boundary:

 -

The culture was based on and surrounding the Nile Valley for obvious reasons, to really understand this, you need to understand the climate and region. You are absolutely clueless on what you talk about.

Besides this, as others already have explained: the Sahara was once wed and luscious. A lot of the evidence is buried within the desert. The Napta Playa is evident for this:


 -


 -


As you can see on the map, the oases are located in places where the modern rainfall is clearly insufficient to provide adequate drinking water. So we must be talking about climate change. There was a time when the Sahara was immensely rainy, and now it is not. We care because the development of Egyptian civilization and settlement in the Nile Delta was driven by this climate change. We also care because this huge change in climate was not caused by human activity.


https://courseware.e-education.psu.edu/courses/earth105new/content/lesson07/04.html

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:

This man got manhandled on pg 1.
Dragged by lioness pg. 3
Died on pg. 5
Somehow resurrected by pg.7 only to get bopped again by pg.8.

You guys are in the ballroom with a corpse. There's no fundamental argument being made... For the last few pages, all people here have been engaged in semantics under the disguise of "interpretation of evidence."

What does JCM actually believe the AEgyptians were?

FYI The guy is a troll that first showed up in this forum a couple of years ago. He is British and apparently it came out last year that he suffers from mental illness and even apologized to one of forum members in a private message. But now he's back at it. It's obvious the guy is off his meds or perhaps he needs to update his prescription. LOL His attempts to hold up outdated historical doctrines (white Egypt, white North African in general etc. etc.) Since all the evidence we present here debunks his fantasies, he feels the compulsion to troll us. That said, I don't know why you guys even bother arguing with him especially for how many pages.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
This man got manhandled on pg 1.
Dragged by lioness pg. 3
Died on pg. 5
Somehow resurrected by pg.7 only to get bopped again by pg.8.

You guys are in the ballroom with a corpse. There's no fundamental argument being made... For the last few pages, all people here have been engaged in semantics under the disguise of "interpretation of evidence."

What does JCM actually believe the AEgyptians were?

and so again it begins


 -

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:

This man got manhandled on pg 1.
Dragged by lioness pg. 3
Died on pg. 5
Somehow resurrected by pg.7 only to get bopped again by pg.8.

You guys are in the ballroom with a corpse. There's no fundamental argument being made... For the last few pages, all people here have been engaged in semantics under the disguise of "interpretation of evidence."

What does JCM actually believe the AEgyptians were?

FYI The guy is a troll that first showed up in this forum a couple of years ago. He is British and apparently it came out last year that he suffers from mental illness and even apologized to one of forum members in a private message. But now he's back at it. It's obvious the guy is off his meds or perhaps he needs to update his prescription. LOL His attempts to hold up outdated historical doctrines (white Egypt, white North African in general etc. etc.) Since all the evidence we present here debunks his fantasies, he feels the compulsion to troll us. That said, I don't know why you guys even bother arguing with him especially for how many pages.
If that is truly the case, it is actually very sad. In mean this in a serious way.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

It is clear that non-African populations are different from Black and African people. They carry genes that are carried by Africans, but in reality ere given different names to make it appear as if there is a difference for example , haplogroup D, is nothing more than the African haplogroup M1; and haplogroup R among Africans is the same as the so-called Q haplogroup. This makes the haplogroups carried by non-African related to modern African haplogroups.

You start out saying that saying it is clear that non-African populations are different from Black and African people.
Then instead of supporting that premise with something to back it up you go on to say that the DNA is in actuality the same.

So then what is the fundamental difference between non-African populations and Black African people?

Color.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

How are you still stuck there. Even Cassi's leaving that!!! You kno d@mn well there are many light skinned black/African folks with tones that can overlap with whites and As...I nvm.

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

It is clear that non-African populations are different from Black and African people. They carry genes that are carried by Africans, but in reality ere given different names to make it appear as if there is a difference for example , haplogroup D, is nothing more than the African haplogroup M1; and haplogroup R among Africans is the same as the so-called Q haplogroup. This makes the haplogroups carried by non-African related to modern African haplogroups.

You start out saying that saying it is clear that non-African populations are different from Black and African people.
Then instead of supporting that premise with something to back it up you go on to say that the DNA is in actuality the same.

So then what is the fundamental difference between non-African populations and Black African people?

Color.
This is infantile and you should be ashamed. Skin color is damn near a hand full of genes. What separates populations on a global scale are million and millions of SNP differences.

See what happens to you when you get genetic material from Melanesians for your Bone Marrow transplant.

@Cass you still doing get it. As a matter of fact you are no different from Winters in attempting to group distant populations due to phenotype and or skin tone. The ancient American skulls STILL resemble African ones but show continuity with modern Natives. There are still TONS of plots that group genetically dissimilar Africans and Australian/Melanesian, like this:
 -
You should be smart enough to get this through your head.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3