quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And BTW, Keita—one of the most cited academics here—doesn't support translating pan-African ideas to genetics. Those who are doing this are on their own and putting their ignorance on display. No reputable and capable geneticist supports this. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see names.
Why is it "Pan Africanism" to say that genetic lineages that arose in Africa are logically called "African"? So is that it? Using the term "African" is a political agenda and evil huh? Really? But good old Eurasia can be used everywhere right? Thats cool huh?
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers
Iosif Lazaridis, 2016
quote:
We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia.
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 (Extended Data Table 1).
(We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.
Amazing how you skipped this part:
—Lazaridis et al. (2016)
quote: Second, we observed that all three Natufian individuals that could be assigned to a specific haplogroup belonged to haplogroup E1b1. This is thought to have an East African origin, and a 4,500-year old individual from the Ethiopian highlands 13 belonged to it.
[...]
"Previously, the West Eurasian population known to be the best proxy for this ancestry was present-day Sardinians, who resemble Neolithic Europeans genetically.
However, our analysis shows that East African ancestry is significantly better modelled by Levantine early farmers than by Anatolian or early European farmers, implying that the spread of this ancestry to East Africa was not from the same group that spread Near Eastern ancestry into Europe (Extended 283 Data Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, section 8)" [p. 9].
--Lazaridis et al.,
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers, bioRxiv preprint, posted June 16, 2016, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/059311
Dude how does this sentence make any logical sense:
quote:We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other.
Think. If there were no other humans other than Africans before migrating to the Near East, then how could there be some "other" population for them to derive their genes from? They then reinforce that there were no other major DNA pools other than African descended DNA pools right in the same sentence. What they are saying is that half of these populations had African DNA lineages with little Neanderthal ancestry. Again, following the logic that Africans and Non Africans can be distinguished by "neanderthal" mixture, then any EARLY populations with no Neanderthal mixture in the Near East must have been African by all logical common sense. This inane hand waving and semantic posturing to justify negating the logical fact that all these DNA lineages were African at that early point in time is ridiculous.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: This is what I mean with the albinos. Linguist have noticed the ties to Niger Congo, Sumarian and Indo-European languages yet the Greenberg school argues that Niger Congo is much younger than the bulk OoA migrations. If Niger Congo is old enough to have a stronger genetic relationship with Afro-Asiatic languages then how relevant are oide 'sciences' and phenotypes? What difference would anthropology make?
Anyone that tells you that linguistics can not tell a person's heritage is a liar. Anthropology and linguistics can provide keen insight into Afro-American origins. Even though we speak American English our language, Ebonics betrays our African heritage. DNA can tells us much about family relations and the baby's daddy and mama, but using it to determine populations is problematic, because African people carry, just about every gene carried by Native Americans and Eurasians. The only differences between these genes may include some mutations, but the clades, are the same but given different names, e.g., R1 among Europeans is called V88 among Africans , and haplogroup M1 among Africans is called D4 among East Asians.
The research indicates that many Afro- Americans speak Ebonics. Ebonic speakers use an African morphology and syntax analogous to that found among Niger-Congo speaking people in West Africa, and an English vocabulary.
As a result these Afro-Americans have a different orthography, phonetic system and deep grammatical structure from Standard American English (SAE). This causes manifold Ebonic speakers to have difficulty grasping the correct SAE phonemes represented by its symbols and reading in general. This failure to match Ebonics and SAE interfers with the development of reading fluency among some speakers of SAE.
The psychological literature makes it clear that our ability to use language will determine our success in school. It is therefore language that allows us to determine strategies for problem solving, word meanings, factual knowledge and procedures for doing things.
There is an innate mechanism for learning language. Language in humans is an instinct that results from interaction between a child and his environment, culture and ethnic origin. This process provides the child with the necessary phonemic elements to create words to name objects.
During the slave trade African slaves were brought to America from West Africa. In this area people speak the Niger-Congo languages.
During much of the slavery period African slaves were usually isolated from white Americans. But it is believed that the English spoken in the south and west counties of Britain may have been the model of English acquired by the slaves in Virginia.
Years of social separation of African Americans and whites, first during slavery, and later due to segregation led to a continuity of Niger-Congo linguistic features among many African Americans. Traditionally Ebonics is seen as a form of SAE with a transformed phonology or surface structure pursuant to the transformational theory of linguistics developed by Chomsky.
This view of Ebonics is false. Ebonic speakers use an African 1) morphology and syntax, and 2) a vocabulary that is English.
Ebonics has evidence of Niger-Congo influence in grammatical features, vocabulary survivals, consonant clustering avoidance and absent phonics. In Ebonics the word dig, is used to mean understand. This corresponds to the Wolof word "dega" 'to understand'. For example, lets compare sentences:
SAE: Do you understand English?
Ebonics: D'ya dig black talk?
Wolof: Dega nga olof?
In African languages, to acknowledge that everything is all right you would say "waw" along with the emphatic particle "kay", this would be pronounced "Wow Kay". This corresponds to the American use of the phrase "OK", to signify "all right, certainly".
Because of dialect differences Ebonics has many features unique to Afro-Americans, that point to their African origins.
Given the reality of English dialects you can now recognize that Ebonics is just another dialect among many. The major difference is that Ebonics is based on a Niger-Congo superstratum, and use an English vocabulary to provide mutual intelligibility.
This clearly indicates that Ebonics and SAE are mutually intelligible, but like German and Norwegian (which belong to the same family of languages as English) they are mutually distinct because of our African origin.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And BTW, Keita—one of the most cited academics here—doesn't support translating pan-African ideas to genetics. Those who are doing this are on their own and putting their ignorance on display. No reputable and capable geneticist supports this. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see names.
Why is it "Pan Africanism" to say that genetic lineages that arose in Africa are logically called "African"? So is that it? Using the term "African" is a political agenda and evil huh? Really? But good old Eurasia can be used everywhere right? Thats cool huh?
I already clarified what I meant. You try to conjure up some sort of objection every time you're confronted with data that shows deep divisions in African ancestry. You keep denying it but it's obvious. This is why you refuse to apply common conventions when its inconvenient.
For instance, when it comes to Europe, you insist that farmer colonists aren't European simply because they moved there. But when SSA groups move into the Sahara some time before EEF enter Europe, you want to pretend they're Saharan and not Sub-Saharan in ancestry and origin. Somehow, moving around the Sahara should discourage people from treating groups according to their origin. You also have a strange aversion to others describing these groups as Sub-Saharan in ancestry, even trying to get others to abandon the term. But, of course, you will keep Europe, South Asia, etc. as valid subregions within Eurasia. And of course, you'll just deny all of the above and keep asking the same questions that have nothing to do with what I said:
"Whu you mean? I can't say African?" and, "is African a dirty word now?"
Dude how does this sentence make any logical sense:
quote:
We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other.
Again, following the logic that Africans and Non Africans can be distinguished by "neanderthal" mixture, then any EARLY populations with no Neanderthal mixture in the Near East must have been African by all logical common sense. This inane hand waving and semantic posturing to justify negating the logical fact that all these DNA lineages were African at that early point in time is ridiculous. [/QB]
Scientists never defined "non-African" as "any human being with Neanderthal admixture". Your logic on that one is flawed and if it wasn't that is what they would be saying in the literature but they are not saying that is what separates the African form the non-African.
"Non-African" was defined in anthropology and supported by genetic information on haplogroups which evolved outside of Africa BEFORE they even discovered the small amounts Neanderthal ancestry in humans.
What happened was according to OOA theory Africans left Africa. They were African for a while but in some period of years living outside Africa, perhaps 10,000 or more they evolved into new climactic conditions and became "Non-African", drift and bottlenecking also playing a role. These were the Basal Eurasians. They were to mix with neanderthals later.
The "Near East" is quite a large region which extends beyond the Basal Eurasian locale.
The Near East includes:
quote:
Ancient Near East
Mesopotamia (modern Iraq, southeast Turkey, southwest Iran, northeastern Syria and Kuwait), ancient Egypt, ancient Iran (Elam, Media, Parthia and Persia), Anatolia/Asia Minor and Armenian Highlands (Turkey's Eastern Anatolia Region, Armenia, northwestern Iran, southern Georgia, and western Azerbaijan),the Levant (modern Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, and Jordan), Cyprus and the Arabian Peninsula. The ancient Near East is studied in the fields of Near Eastern archaeology and ancient history.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Greenberg on the other hand said - “Afroasiatic languages are spoken both by Caucasian and Negro peoples. The Cushites and EthiopianSemites are often classed as Caucasoids. The Egyptians, Berbers, and remaining Semitic people are indisputably Caucasian while Chad speakers are Negroid.”
This leads me to believe that he was trying to fit linguistics with dated dishonest psuedo-oide sciences.
Greenberg may have had outdated ideas about what the AE and other Northeast African populations (assuming by "Egyptians" he was referring to the native AE). But that very quote goes to show you that he's not trying to correlate linguistic categories with "race". If anything, the message that I take away from that quote is that he's cautioning against a simplistic equation of language with biological affinity. How can you interpret a statement like "Afrasan is spoken by both 'Negro' and 'Caucasian' people" as correlating Afrasan with either of those old racial constructs.
Swenet is in a better position than I to explain why the Afrasan model fits all the data better than this proposed pan-African lingustic phylum. But what I want to ask again is why it should matter. The proto-Afrasan cradle is still located within Africa, most probably in Northeast Africa immediately south of Egypt (e.g. the northern Sudan). Even if you take pre-OOA into account, that doesn't make it any more "Caucasian" than it is, say, "Papuan".
Come to think of it, when you consider both the geographic and chronological proximity proto-Afrasan has to AE, I think it's reasonable to suppose most AE didn't look very different from the people occupying that area at that time. If any place in Africa is an ideal candidate for the predominant AE origin spot, this sliver of the Sudanese/Ethiopian coast is it.
(Though admittedly I am assuming that the biological affinity of a given Afrasan population to the original proto-Afrasan population would increase once you got closer to the linguistic origin point, and that this pattern of affinity would fade out once you moved further away from that point. But I am open to correction on that point.)
That map contradicts African history and what linguist are demonstrating. My point about pre-OOA is that linguist connect Indo-Euro and Sumerian to Niger-Congo. They did this before Greenberg. This tells me that Niger-Congo is much older than the Greenberg model which means that phenotype does not factor.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Fourty2Tribes. Ask yourself this question. Do you think the physical measurements that were used to describe "Caucasoid" and or "Negroid" exist in human populations?
Thats like the one about a tree falling in the woods . It depends on who is defining it. After the two brothers were said to be Negroid and Caucasoid I gave up on oid science. Then you have the 'Mechtoids'.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mboli's work is not supported by comparative linguistic methods.
Why? Let him tell it, he used a newer improved model.
quote: Diop's, Parente genetique de LEgyptien Pharaonique et des Langues Negro-Africaines, is the most exhuastive study of Negro-Egyptian, and no matter what you say it does prove Niger-Congo exist because it demonstrates connections between Egyptian and Niger-Congo languages.
Can you give me an example of one connection that is true with Niger-Congo languages but not generally true with other languages?
quote: I have not read Mboli’s entire book. But I have read summaries of his book
If you can read French the pages at Google books gives a good understanding of what Mboli is doing in his work/book.
I have some understanding. He did a six hour lecture on his methods. The best thing I could take from it was that he started from scratch and let the results shape his model.
quote: Diop's theory of linguistic constancy recognizes the social role language plays in African language change. Language being a variable phenomena has as much to do with a speaker's society as with the language itself. Thus social organization can influence the rate of change within languages. Meillet (1926, 17) wrote that:
“Since language is a social institution it follows that linguistics is a social science, and the only variable element to which one may appeal in order to account for a linguistic change is social change, of which language variations are but the consequences.”
The theory of linguistic continuity for African languages nullifies Mboli’s argument for stages in Negro-Egyptian. In the article above I show the changes that took place within English over a period of 900 years. There was marked differences between Ebglish 900 years ago and present day English. I also illustrated that Mandekan terms collected by the Medieval Arabs over 500 years ago have full agreement with modern Mandekan terms. Indicating the continuity between old and modern Mandekan. If you noticed carefully, I can support my claim of African linguistic continuity based on modern lexica and Mandekan material 500 plus years old. Mboli makes bold claims about the existence of periods when Negro-Egyptian was spoken but he has no text to support his claims for these periods accept Middle Egyptian, since he does not accept Coptic as an Egyptian language. This makes his theory invalidate and unreliable.
Sounds more like he sees Coptic as an Egyptian language, just not a continuation of the most common Egyptian language ie a Delta tongue.
quote: Mboli is trying to make it appear that African proto-terms are identical to PIE.
It is sad to me that Mboli represents proto-Negro-Egyptian as almost identical to PIE, eventhough proto-African terms due to linguistic continuity have not changed that much in 4-5,000 years and therefore the description provide by Mboli does not reflect African linguistic reality.
Well Clyde you answered your own inquiry. That is how he gets his dates. This is consistent with the linguist that were saying IE came out of Niger-Congo.
quote: Much of the work in recent years that have Europeans practicing a agro-patoral civilization that included mining in addition to farming is hogwash. Proto-Europeans were nomads, nothing more.
The new PIE terms relating to anything but a nomadic existence are going to be African in origin because Africans introduced and maintained civilization in Europe until after 1000BC when I-E people invaded Europe. Asar, like most African and Afro-American researchers you have been so brainwashed that you can't believe that Europe was only recently occupied by Europeans. But Europeans have always known tha civilization in Europe originated with Africans. Dr N. Lahovary, in Dravidian Origins and the West (only recently translated from French into English) provides numerous research on the Africans in Europe.
Thats a reach. IE being a branch of Negro Egyptian has nothing to do with where that branch went.
quote: Because Mboli's work makes Proto-Negro-Egyptian and African proto-terms generally identical to PIE makes his work appear satisfactory since it recognizes the superiority of Eurocentric views of African languages and linguistics. Eurocentrics already believe that Egypt was founded by "whites" so Mboli's findings only confirms their theories, that a group of "whites" spread civilization across Africa. That's why they ignore his claims about Negro-Egyptian being the parent of PIE.
Secondly, you can not determine stages in a language simply by looking at morphemes.
The periods Mboli claims for Negro-Egyptian grammars are myth and never existed.
quote:
VI.14 Évolution grammaticale du négro-égyptien…………………… 361 VI.14.1 Grammaire du négro-égyptien archaďque ………………….. 362 VI.14.2 Grammaire du négro-égyptien pré-classique………………. 365 VI.14.3 Grammaire du négro-égyptien classique…………………… 367 VI.14.4 Grammaire du négro-égyptien post-classique........................ 370 Chapitre VII. Correspondances lexicologiques…………………… 373
After reading the book Mboli claims he arrived at the divisions of Negro-Egyptian grammar by looking at the morphologies of NE "base" words(See pp.361-362).
Google books gives numerous segments of the Mboli book:
This is impossible you can only determine periods in a language by looking at written text. Just looking at the base vocabulary can only allow you to find cognate terms. The only consecutive written text relate to the various stages in Egyptian.
You can accept what ever you wish.But you will remain ignorant of comparative linguistics until you acquire the knowledge base to determine what is junk and what is comparative linguistics.
Why do you say that Mboli only discusses PIE in the last chapter. Throughout his discussion of PNE terms under the title of Correspondances lexicologiques he compares the PNE words to PIE.
You hope to hide this reality, because most people on the forum don't read French. This can be remedied if the reader can copy the text and place it in Google translation program.
Mboli wants to make it appear that PNE was the originator of PIE, that is why he has attempted to make his PNE terms conform to PIE forms.
Eurocentrists know this. They are just waiting until African and Afro-American africologist use Mboli's text to support their work and then show how what Mboli has written, for the most part, is nonsense.
The good thing is that most Africologists never present their work to expertsat National and International Conferences where Graduate students and professors will hear their presentations, so they can pretend what ever is written by a popular Africologist is the "truth". I publish my work in journals with editors who have experts to peer review my work, and if it does not meet the standards of comparative and historical linguistics it will not be published.
The major problem is that linguists who are Afro-American Africalogist and French speaking African researchers have done considerable work detailing the morphology and lexical analogy of Egyptian to Wolof, Egyptian to Bantu and etc., but they have not reconstructed proto-terms for Bantu, Wolof and Negro-Egyptian so they don't know how to evaluate Mboli's work. [/QB]
I think you are assume-reaching but at least you are making sound challenges. Are you up for a debate? At least come on my channel and chop it up.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE]We're speaking a language that did not originate in Africa. It's impossible to reconstruct our population affinity by studying the language we speak. This is why we need genetics and physical anthropology. These two disciplines can supply the right information when linguistics puts us on a completely wrong course (linguistically we're English speakers).
If we only study linguistics, we cannot tell if we're on the right track when it comes to reconstructing an unknown population's history. And if ancient Egyptians spoke a Niger Congo language, in a way it would be just like us speaking English or Mbuti speaking Bantu or Nilo-Saharan. In all these cases we have people who speak a language that is incongruent with their ancestry. This incongruence cannot be solved with linguistics. Linguistics only tells us what language someone speaks and whether/how it relates to other languages.
This is why it's easy for linguists to drift off into theories that are completely detached from reality.
Scholars dont argue that they spoke a Niger Congo language. Some would say they spoke a Bantu language but that really doesnt say much. You just said ancestry doesnt matter. We arent English and 1st Dynastic Egyptians were not proto-Negro Egyptians. Besides every study to date... 12 dyn, Amarna, Hassan and Beyoku's 42 supports a larger more inclusive language family. I'm about to serve you a softball Swenet and you better knock it out. Later though. Time to bed gf and crash.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mboli's work is not supported by comparative linguistic methods.
Why? Let him tell it, he used a newer improved model.
quote: Diop's, Parente genetique de LEgyptien Pharaonique et des Langues Negro-Africaines, is the most exhuastive study of Negro-Egyptian, and no matter what you say it does prove Niger-Congo exist because it demonstrates connections between Egyptian and Niger-Congo languages.
Can you give me an example of one connection that is true with Niger-Congo languages but not generally true with other languages?
quote: I have not read Mboli’s entire book. But I have read summaries of his book
If you can read French the pages at Google books gives a good understanding of what Mboli is doing in his work/book.
I have some understanding. He did a six hour lecture on his methods. The best thing I could take from it was that he started from scratch and let the results shape his model.
quote: Diop's theory of linguistic constancy recognizes the social role language plays in African language change. Language being a variable phenomena has as much to do with a speaker's society as with the language itself. Thus social organization can influence the rate of change within languages. Meillet (1926, 17) wrote that:
“Since language is a social institution it follows that linguistics is a social science, and the only variable element to which one may appeal in order to account for a linguistic change is social change, of which language variations are but the consequences.”
The theory of linguistic continuity for African languages nullifies Mboli’s argument for stages in Negro-Egyptian. In the article above I show the changes that took place within English over a period of 900 years. There was marked differences between Ebglish 900 years ago and present day English. I also illustrated that Mandekan terms collected by the Medieval Arabs over 500 years ago have full agreement with modern Mandekan terms. Indicating the continuity between old and modern Mandekan. If you noticed carefully, I can support my claim of African linguistic continuity based on modern lexica and Mandekan material 500 plus years old. Mboli makes bold claims about the existence of periods when Negro-Egyptian was spoken but he has no text to support his claims for these periods accept Middle Egyptian, since he does not accept Coptic as an Egyptian language. This makes his theory invalidate and unreliable.
Sounds more like he sees Coptic as an Egyptian language, just not a continuation of the most common Egyptian language ie a Delta tongue.
quote: Mboli is trying to make it appear that African proto-terms are identical to PIE.
It is sad to me that Mboli represents proto-Negro-Egyptian as almost identical to PIE, eventhough proto-African terms due to linguistic continuity have not changed that much in 4-5,000 years and therefore the description provide by Mboli does not reflect African linguistic reality.
Well Clyde you answered your own inquiry. That is how he gets his dates. This is consistent with the linguist that were saying IE came out of Niger-Congo.
quote: Much of the work in recent years that have Europeans practicing a agro-patoral civilization that included mining in addition to farming is hogwash. Proto-Europeans were nomads, nothing more.
The new PIE terms relating to anything but a nomadic existence are going to be African in origin because Africans introduced and maintained civilization in Europe until after 1000BC when I-E people invaded Europe. Asar, like most African and Afro-American researchers you have been so brainwashed that you can't believe that Europe was only recently occupied by Europeans. But Europeans have always known tha civilization in Europe originated with Africans. Dr N. Lahovary, in Dravidian Origins and the West (only recently translated from French into English) provides numerous research on the Africans in Europe.
Thats a reach. IE being a branch of Negro Egyptian has nothing to do with where that branch went.
quote: Because Mboli's work makes Proto-Negro-Egyptian and African proto-terms generally identical to PIE makes his work appear satisfactory since it recognizes the superiority of Eurocentric views of African languages and linguistics. Eurocentrics already believe that Egypt was founded by "whites" so Mboli's findings only confirms their theories, that a group of "whites" spread civilization across Africa. That's why they ignore his claims about Negro-Egyptian being the parent of PIE.
Secondly, you can not determine stages in a language simply by looking at morphemes.
The periods Mboli claims for Negro-Egyptian grammars are myth and never existed.
quote:
VI.14 Évolution grammaticale du négro-égyptien…………………… 361 VI.14.1 Grammaire du négro-égyptien archaďque ………………….. 362 VI.14.2 Grammaire du négro-égyptien pré-classique………………. 365 VI.14.3 Grammaire du négro-égyptien classique…………………… 367 VI.14.4 Grammaire du négro-égyptien post-classique........................ 370 Chapitre VII. Correspondances lexicologiques…………………… 373
After reading the book Mboli claims he arrived at the divisions of Negro-Egyptian grammar by looking at the morphologies of NE "base" words(See pp.361-362).
Google books gives numerous segments of the Mboli book:
This is impossible you can only determine periods in a language by looking at written text. Just looking at the base vocabulary can only allow you to find cognate terms. The only consecutive written text relate to the various stages in Egyptian.
You can accept what ever you wish.But you will remain ignorant of comparative linguistics until you acquire the knowledge base to determine what is junk and what is comparative linguistics.
Why do you say that Mboli only discusses PIE in the last chapter. Throughout his discussion of PNE terms under the title of Correspondances lexicologiques he compares the PNE words to PIE.
You hope to hide this reality, because most people on the forum don't read French. This can be remedied if the reader can copy the text and place it in Google translation program. Mboli wants to make it appear that PNE was the originator of PIE, that is why he has attempted to make his PNE terms conform to PIE forms.
Eurocentrists know this. They are just waiting until African and Afro-American africologist use Mboli's text to support their work and then show how what Mboli has written, for the most part, is nonsense.
The good thing is that most Africologists never present their work to expertsat National and International Conferences where Graduate students and professors will hear their presentations, so they can pretend what ever is written by a popular Africologist is the "truth". I publish my work in journals with editors who have experts to peer review my work, and if it does not meet the standards of comparative and historical linguistics it will not be published.
The major problem is that linguists who are Afro-American Africalogist and French speaking African researchers have done considerable work detailing the morphology and lexical analogy of Egyptian to Wolof, Egyptian to Bantu and etc., but they have not reconstructed proto-terms for Bantu, Wolof and Negro-Egyptian so they don't know how to evaluate Mboli's work.
I think you are assume-reaching but at least you are making sound challenges. Are you up for a debate? At least come on my channel and chop it up. [/QB]
There is no such thing as an improved model of comparative linguistics. There is only one method in comparative and historical linguistics and that method is not present in Mboli's work.
Comparative and historical linguistics is not based on the comparison of isolated words. This method of research determines relationships based on the number of lexical items and linguistic features shared by two or more languages.
Linguistic research is based on the classification or taxonomy of languages. Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which comparative and historical linguistic methods are based. Linguistic taxonomy serves a number of purposes . First, it is necessary for the identification of language families. Secondly, linguistic taxonomy gives us the material to reconstruct the Proto-language of a people and discover its regular sound correspondences.
There are three major kinds of language classifications: genealogical, topological, and areal. A genealogical classification groups languages together into language families based on the shared features retained by languages since divergence from the common ancestor or Proto-language. An areal classification groups languages into linguistic areas based on shared features acquired by a process of convergence arising from spatial proximity. A topological classification groups languages together into language types by the similarity in the appearance of the structure of languages without consideration of their historical origin and present, or past geographical distribution.
COMPARATIVE METHOD
The comparative method is used by linguists to determine the relatedness of languages, and to reconstruct earlier language states. The comparative linguist has two major goals (1) trace the history of language families and reconstruct the mother language of each family, and (2) determine the forces which affect language. In general, comparative linguists are interested in determining phonetic laws, analogy/ correspondence and loan words.
The comparative method is useful in the reconstruction of Proto-languages. To reconstruct a Proto-language the linguist must look for patterns of correspondences. Patterns of correspondence is the examination of terms which show uniformity. This uniformity leads to the inference that languages are related since conformity of terms in two or more languages indicate they came from a common ancestor.
ENGLISH DRAVIDIAN SENEGALESE MANDING MOTHER AMMA AMA,MEEN MA FATHER APPAN,ABBA AMPA,BAABA BA PREGNANCY BASARU BIIR BARA SKIN URI NGURU,GURI GURU BLOOD NETTARU DERET DYERI KING MANNAN MAANSA,OMAAD MANSA GRAND BIIRA BUUR BA SALIVA TUPPAL TUUDDE TU CULTIVATE BEY ,MBEY BE BOAT KULAM GAAL KULU FEATHER SOOGE SIIGE SI, SIGI MOUNTAIN KUNRU TUUD KURU ROCK KALLU XEER KULU STREAM KOLLI KAL KOLI
A basic objective of the comparative linguist is to isolate words with common or similar meanings that have systematic consonantal agreement with little regards for the location and/or type of vowels. Consonantal agreement is the regular appearance of consonants at certain places in words having similar meanings and representing similar speech sounds.
I.Consonantal Correspondence
English Tamil Manding
s=/=s
woman asa musa
t=/=t
fire ti ta
l=/=l
house lon lu 'family habitation
d=/=t
law di tili camp dagha otagh forest kaadu tuu
m=/=m
mother amma ma land man ma 'surface,area'
k=/=k
kill kal ki
man uku moko
b=/=p
great pal ba
x=/=s sheep xar 'ram' sara
c=/=s penis col sol-ma
abundant cal,sal s'ya
II. Full Correspondence of terms from Basic Vocabulary
English Dravidian Manding life zi 'abundance clay banko-mannu banko blacksmith inumu numu lie kalla kalon cultivation bey be lord,chief gasa kana,gana to recite sid, sed siti great bal ba to do cey ke rock kal kulu road sila if,what eni ni to cut teg tege exalted ma
Linguist determine relationships by comparing terms from the basic vocabulary. The basic vocabulary of a language include lexical items of ‘universal human experience’, that exist among all humans that relate to a speakers culture, e.g., body parts, numerals, personal pronouns, the demonstratives and etc. MBoli does not use regular correspondence to determine the relationship between languages. Look at the paradigm below
quote: M-E : nTr nw « c'est (un) dieu » (littéralement « dieu c'est ») [is (a) god > "god is"] Sango : nzo ní « c'est bon » (littéralement « bon c'est ») > « le bon » [what is good > "it is good"] Zandé : ndike nyeki « la loi est dure » (littéralement « loi dure ») [the law is hard > "harsh law"] Hausa : nagŕri nē « c'est bon » (littéralement « bon c'est ») > nagarin « le bon ». [what is good > "it is good"; Nagarin > "the good"]
1.M-E : nTr nw ‘this god’ 2.Sango : nzo ní ‘this is good’ 3.Zandé : ndike nyeki ‘the law is hard’ 4. Hausa : nagŕri nē ‘this good’
The first thing that strikes you looking at these terms is that they lack agreement in meaning. The term ‘god’, does not agree with the idea of ‘this is good’ or ‘hard law’. Secondly the consonantal patterns are different:1. N-t-r n-; 2. N-z n-; 3. N-d-k- ny-k; and 4. N-g-r n-. As you can see based on comparative linguistic methods this paradigm does not show a genetic relationship. It is further proof of the lack of reliability or validity of Mboli’s reconstructions of N-E.
I would not mind a debate if it was based on linguistic grounds. I have already pointed out the defects in Mboli's method so debating the issue is a waste of my valuable time. I debated this issue years ago with Asar. See Author Topic: Origine des langues africaines: essai d'application de la méthode, by Jean-Claud, http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=008973
Up to now Mboli has presented no linguistic evidence that his results have any validity.
I do not see a relationship between the so called Proto-Indo-European and Niger-Congo languages. I don't believe that Indo-European languages ever existed as a family of languages.The Indo-European family of languages never existed. See: http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/40_Language/MarcantonioA2009IELanguageFamilyEn.htm Because I-E languages never existed Mboli's reconstruction of Proto-Negro African terms that correspond to I-E Proto-terms is ludicrous. It is invalid because MBoli does not use regular correspondence to determine the relationship between I-E and African languages as demonstrated above.
There is a Niger-Congo substratum in European languages because Europe was already occupied by the Kushites ( who spoke Niger-Congo languages) when the Europeans entered Europe.
Most researchers base the antiquity of the I-E languages based on the relationship between the Greek and Sanskrit language.There was no Indo-European ancient Empire. The relationship between European languages and Sanskrit, is the result of Greeks living in Pakistan when Panini wrote his grammar of Sanskrit; and both the Romans and Greeks used the Greek language as the Administratve language and lingua franca in their empires. See: https://www.academia.edu/1898458/Greek_influence_on_Sanskrit
The first Caucasian Europeans were a nomadic people lacking any culture so they adopted the terms used by the African people they conquered. As a result, Proto-Negro African languages would not look like Proto-Indo-European lexical items because Proto-European was never spoken by any human population.Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] And BTW, Keita—one of the most cited academics here—doesn't support translating pan-African ideas to genetics. Those who are doing this are on their own and putting their ignorance on display. No reputable and capable geneticist supports this. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see names.
Why is it "Pan Africanism" to say that genetic lineages that arose in Africa are logically called "African"?
The problem I imagine at least, could perhaps be in assuming that a haplogroup that came from Africa means the population itself was African. For example, is it impossible for an African American to carry R1b1b2? If he does, does this mean he's a European? Are modern Italians that have E haplogroups African? This is very important with respect to Italy, Egypt, and the Levant, because they've over the years harbored a lot of inflow from different groups of people. I believe I showed that certain areas in ancient Syria had a lot of L haplogroups, but a lot of the haplogroups in Syria were also from other groups. Some L haplogroups accounted for around 1/3rd of the samples. This doesn't mean Mesopotamia was especially "African" or had "African" minority groups. It's possible these people saw themselves as the same ethnicity (IIRC they were buried in the same place). The people were probably a mixture of the many different ethnic groups reported in the study. So my question is: Is it possible for a person to be haplogroup L but otherwise be indistinguishable from people of their own ethnic group (and in the same vicinity) who're mostly J?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: [qb] @Fourty2Tribes. Ask yourself this question. Do you think the physical measurements that were used to describe "Caucasoid" and or "Negroid" exist in human populations?
Thats like the one about a tree falling in the woods . It depends on who is defining it. After the two brothers were said to be Negroid and Caucasoid I gave up on oid science. Then you have the 'Mechtoids'.
Not quite. If the falling tree is defined on whether it is still standing then its pretty clear what happened. It really doesn't matter who is defining it if it is NOT an abstract and based on some clear MEASUREMENTS.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Deleted the thread on ancient connection between Nigerian dogs and Scandanavian dogs. I had about 15 post in that thread about the ancestral nature of West african dogs since many paper stated that Scandanavian dogs are north indigenous to Northern Europe. Sources cited.
Now he is deleting all my post once it does not fall in line to his belief.
Funny I did not know the connection between the dogs until the paper was posted. To my shocking surprise West African dogs carry all ancestral clades found in Asia and Europe. In addtion to their own. Even the dogs came from Africa.
Also surprising I found out that Villabruna man, 14000year old Italian was ancestral for black skin and had tropical body proportion. he also carried R1b!!! Baaaam!
I did not know this. Can you post some references?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE]We're speaking a language that did not originate in Africa. It's impossible to reconstruct our population affinity by studying the language we speak. This is why we need genetics and physical anthropology. These two disciplines can supply the right information when linguistics puts us on a completely wrong course (linguistically we're English speakers).
If we only study linguistics, we cannot tell if we're on the right track when it comes to reconstructing an unknown population's history. And if ancient Egyptians spoke a Niger Congo language, in a way it would be just like us speaking English or Mbuti speaking Bantu or Nilo-Saharan. In all these cases we have people who speak a language that is incongruent with their ancestry. This incongruence cannot be solved with linguistics. Linguistics only tells us what language someone speaks and whether/how it relates to other languages.
This is why it's easy for linguists to drift off into theories that are completely detached from reality.
Scholars dont argue that they spoke a Niger Congo language. Some would say they spoke a Bantu language but that really doesnt say much. You just said ancestry doesnt matter. We arent English and 1st Dynastic Egyptians were not proto-Negro Egyptians. Besides every study to date... 12 dyn, Amarna, Hassan and Beyoku's 42 supports a larger more inclusive language family. I'm about to serve you a softball Swenet and you better knock it out. Later though. Time to bed gf and crash.
If that's your takeaway from what I said then you already have your mind made up and it proves that debating Mboli and people who agree with him is throwing your energy and time into a bottomless pit.
aDNA and analysis of skeletal remains gradually close the gap of what we know. According to you, only linguistics matters. Looks like you just don't want that chapter to be closed because you know the outcome isn't going to be pretty for a lot of people.
You say studies on dynastic Egyptians support inclusivity. Maybe in some ways but the main trend indicates the opposite. According to Keita's classification results only 2% of the phenotypes in the 1st dynasty royal tombs are consistent with such a wide region 'Pan African' inclusivity. And that's seemingly only in the best case scenario (worst case scenario is 0%). Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I see your point and many others being made using the same sources however I'm not sure or noone has made a clear cut connection for how it all makes sense in the first place. The east african genetic landscape will continue to be attributed to none African geneflow unless a model which challenges Lazaridis' surfaces. The reason for that is his interperation of the shared flow between some non African populations.
quote:Since we have in Mota an un-admixed African population, we can look for the origin of the West Eurasian backflow by modelling contemporary Ari as a mixture of Mota and possible source populations.
M. Llorente 2015
Mota is confirmed E-V329, Down stream clades are found on the Arabian peninsula, from the North.
10.1126/science.aad2879
^^The first principle component can be looked at as an Eurasian admixture coefficient by the way.^^
Multiple methods date "Near-Eastern" gene flow into East Africa within the last 5ky. which coincides well with the geographic landscape and influences from the desert. Where is the signal that'll suggest "Basal-Eurasian-like" geneflow of any sort was evident in East Africa Mid Holocene or late LGM?
There is a possibility that a Near eastern Neolithic related group could be responsible for the OOA signals in east africa, I believe Lazaridis even looked for it too, a ghost population that I brought up earlier. But given the circumstance that there's no Basal-Eurasian pre-backmigration levels of drift in east Africa, It'd mean that this "Ghost" population would have to be AT-Least in majority be related to the Mota, or Non-OOA east African.
Whatever be the case for the origin Basal Eurasian, it's development was undoubtedly precedent in isolate of east Africa. Otherwise Basal Eurasian as a population DOES NOT EXISTS. AND also... -Natufians are a genetic Isolate, related to an ancestral east African population. -Iran and Levant Neolithics received geneflow directly from east africa [which explains shared drift and higher SSA affinity] -The aforementioned East African pop[s]^ Carried Natufian or Natufian-like ancestry & the Aari recieved flow very recently. -Other early pre-Neolithic group[s] in isolate from East Africa [possibly from north Africa, who dafuq knows] was integrated into the later Near eastern Neolithics -^A related group of the same origin wasn't integrated into the Levantine genome, but contributed to European Neolithic expansions. -Xyyman was right all along. lol
- This is where Occam's razor shows up, for the biased or the rational.... But an explanation needs to be given.
The problem I am having with the Mota specimen is that the extraction is based Neanderthal-DNA, this is how they came to "their conclusions". However, it is evidenced that the Neanderthal lived in Africa prior the homo sapiens sapiens leaving Africa via North Africa. This is found in tool industries. I have cited sources for this.
Lastly it could have been that Mota E-V329 was more in Southern parts of the Arabian Peninsula, that region would have been hard to access. (from what I read).
Neanderthal is being used as means to separate Africa from non-Africa. This was the intend for the very beginning.
quote:
Within E-M35, there are striking parallels between two haplogroups, E-V68 and E-V257. Both contain a lineage which has been frequently observed in Africa (E-M78 and E-M81, respectively) [6], [8], [10], [13]–[16] and a group of undifferentiated chromosomes that are mostly found in southern Europe (Table S2). An expansion of E-M35 carriers, possibly from the Middle East as proposed by other Authors [14], and split into two branches separated by the geographic barrier of the Mediterranean Sea, would explain this geographic pattern. However, the absence of E-V68* and E-V257* in the Middle East (Table S2) makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. A detailed analysis of the Y chromosomal microsatellite variation associated with E-V68 and E-V257 could help in gaining a better understanding of the likely timing and place of origin of these two haplogroups.
--Beniamino Trombetta, Fulvio Cruciani et al. (2011)
A New Topology of the Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup E1b1 (E-P2) Revealed through the Use of Newly Characterized Binary Polymorphisms
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
When I searched for - eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/03/north-european-and-west-african-dogs.html
I get
“Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.”
Papers are : A cryptic mitochondrial DNA link between North European and West African dogs - Adeniyi C . . Barking up the wrong tree: Modern northern European dogs fail to explain their origin - Helena Malmström*
Someone sent me the complete studies.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
When I searched for - eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/03/north-european-and-west-african-dogs.html
I get
“Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.”
Papers are : A cryptic mitochondrial DNA link between North European and West African dogs - Adeniyi C . . Barking up the wrong tree: Modern northern European dogs fail to explain their origin - Helena Malmström*
A cryptic mitochondrial DNA link between North European and West African dogs
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do have one question while we're on the subject of SSA versus pre-OOA.
Would it be possible for an African population to have a pre-OOA genetic affinity but still have certain "broad" features stereotypically associated with SSA?
Because not only do you have actual extant OOA populations with broader "Negroid" features (Papuans, Aboriginal Australians, and Negritos to name a few), but I have seen reconstructions of prehistoric OOA individuals that could be confused by laypeople with SSAs or at least Afro-Diasporans.
Most of you probably remember this reconstruction of an early European colonist from the Upper Paleolithic of course:
But there's also this guy from Neolithic Jericho who was recently reconstructed.
Any African ancestry the second guy has is probably "Basal Eurasian" rather than SSA. And perhaps a careful non-metric analysis of his cranium might indicate that. But I can totally see laypeople who aren't trained physical anthropologists confusing his features for those of an African-American if they saw him walking around.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Dude how does this sentence make any logical sense:
quote:We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other.
Think. If there were no other humans other than Africans before migrating to the Near East, then how could there be some "other" population for them to derive their genes from? They then reinforce that there were no other major DNA pools other than African descended DNA pools right in the same sentence. What they are saying is that half of these populations had African DNA lineages with little Neanderthal ancestry. Again, following the logic that Africans and Non Africans can be distinguished by "neanderthal" mixture, then any EARLY populations with no Neanderthal mixture in the Near East must have been African by all logical common sense. This inane hand waving and semantic posturing to justify negating the logical fact that all these DNA lineages were African at that early point in time is ridiculous.
I am not sure what you mean, since I did not cite that part. It was lioness. I responded to that post.
Don't the Dinka for example have "stereotypical" Sub Saharan African features and yet they cluster CLOSET to OOA groups than West African Yoruba people?
Also the Natufians were ALSO said to have strong stereotypical "Sub Saharan African" features. Which is why before that Farmers study people assumed the Natufians came from SSA.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
The first reconstructed individual is known as Oase I and his genome has been published. You can look up his ancestry components.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The first reconstructed individual is known as Oase I and his genome has been published. You can look up his ancestry components.
I did. I'm not seeing any SSA elements in there. A small bit of Neanderthal (6-9%) percent and maybe some greater affinity with modern East Asians than Europeans, but I don't see how that affects him being an OOA individual with broad facial features that might superficially resemble those of a "Negroid" person.
Posts: 7072 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
The first reconstructed individual is known as Oase I and his genome has been published. You can look up his ancestry components.
I did. I'm not seeing any SSA elements in there. A small bit of Neanderthal (6-9%) percent and maybe some greater affinity with modern East Asians than Europeans, but I don't see how that affects him being an OOA individual with broad facial features that might superficially resemble those of a "Negroid" person.
TBH, I don't see a discrepancy between having little to no SSA ancestry and having broad features. After all, they are what you said they are: OOA/preOOA. A subset of early OOA groups has been described as resembling Australian Aboriginals. Seems like that variation is just built-in, along with certain other craniofacial trends.
If this continues well into the early Holocene... now that may be suspicious for a region like Europe. And it also should be restricted to a subset or else it will be suspicious as well. Also, there is just broad/generalized and then there is broad, looking distinctly like having recent African ancestry. Sometimes it's very easy to tell. Oase I is the former. Some Natufians are the latter.
Also, PPN have mtDNA L2 so it seems unlikely that Jericho man in the reconstruction has no SSA ancestry at all.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I assumed you were talking about later periods because it seems quite established that Egypt had SSA influences during subpluvial. There are SSA lineages in early Syrian aDNA so this is not debatable. See Oshun's thread on Fernandez 2005.
posted
I know some of you are caught up in sensationalism. Just so you know. Going from 80% SSA ancestry to 75% SSA is also considered LESS SSA. Wait until the paper comes out...if it does. I see on some website fools are twisting the head line like you Swenet saying there was 'no" SSA in Natufians when the author clearly stated "no more SSA than"....
Since the Amarnas were undoubtedly SSA based on STR, and since STRs are made up of SNP/alleles it is impossible for other AEians to be anything but SSA. The Turks entered Africa and the Near East only about 1300-1600AD . As Is said the paper is not what it is made out to be. I remember when the news came out about King Tut being R1b-M269 and the Afrocentrics started shyting bricks. I said...IMPOSSIBLE!!! Tut could never ever be R1b-M269! Well, time proved me correct as it turned out. Same here. These OP Aeians cannot be anyhting but SSA like SSA who lives in Southern Africa like the Great Lakes Africans etc . Modern West Africans like YRI will be a distant 3rd. Also keep in mind based upon STRs Maghrebians are SSA . Sources cited.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I know some of you are caught up in sensationalism. Just so you know. Going from 80% SSA ancestry to 75% SSA is also considered LESS SSA. Wait until the paper comes out...if it does. I see on some website fools are twisting the head line like you Swenet saying there was 'no" SSA in Natufians when the author clearly stated "no more SSA than"....
Too True. What data do you think is the best representation of SSA ancestry in Egypt based on Autosomal SNP Data?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
" What data do you think is the best representation of SSA ancestry in Egypt based on Autosomal SNP Data?". ???
I am not sure I understand your question? The few "Wholistic' data I have seen of SNP in modern Egyptians put them at 20% "foreign" . 80% Saharo-Arabian. The other 20% being West Asian ie Levantine Turks since Saharo-Arabian are indigenous to Africa and the Arabian deserts. Eg Bedouins and Yemenis. I have never seen data parsing out specific(tribal) SSA SNP ancestry. I have seen data on lineage. The SSA lineage of modern Egyptians are clearly related to Masaai. Henn et al. IIRC
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: twisting the head line like you Swenet saying there was 'no" SSA in Natufians when the author clearly stated "no more SSA than"
This is the post xyyman is talking about. I never said Natufians have no SSA ancestry. I simply quoted Lazaridis saying Natufians and Eurasians are roughly equidistant to SSA groups. Which is true.
This is why you get banned everywhere. If ES were moderated you would be banned here too. Your random outburst of butthurtness are too much. And when people embarrass you to the point of running from discussions, you start holding a grudge and keep repeating lies. Hence, DJ is a "hindoo" now for all those times he ethered you back in the day. Davidski is "crazy". Swenet is a "fraud".
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You don't even understand what you posted. SMH.
Understand the context. More =in this instance means the share the SAME amount of SSA ancestry and no more.
In other words Natufians ***DO** have SSA ancestry.
They could not test modern Berbers...yeah right> Why? because it will screw they premise because the Natufians are Amazigh.
You are so dense ...sometimes.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [Q] Early Nile Valley-influenced ancient DNA speaks for itself:
quote:[P]resent-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share**** MORE*** alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians. We ****could not test**** for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia.
quote:[P]resent-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share MORE alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians. We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: " What data do you think is the best representation of SSA ancestry in Egypt based on Autosomal SNP Data?". ???
I am not sure I understand your question? The few "Wholistic' data I have seen of SNP in modern Egyptians put them at 20% "foreign" . 80% Saharo-Arabian. The other 20% being West Asian ie Levantine Turks since Saharo-Arabian are indigenous to Africa and the Arabian deserts. Eg Bedouins and Yemenis. I have never seen data parsing out specific(tribal) SSA SNP ancestry. I have seen data on lineage. The SSA lineage of modern Egyptians are clearly related to Masaai. Henn et al. IIRC
Really man? You are confused by a ONE SENTENCE question? SMH. You mention Saharan-Arabia and it's connection to Maasai. That doesn't really answer the question if you don't state If massai are of Saharan extraction or if Saharan-Arabians are of Kenyan (SSA) extraction.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Hahah Swenet well if predynastic and Old Kingdom aDna shows zero links to SSA I will personally do a reenactment of that gif for every one here, I don't know what others fixations on the Natufians are I'm mostly focused on AE atm. Hoping aDna in that directon materializes by the end of the year Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
You really think you are "all dat"? huH!? You know you are a child to me. What type of question is that? Do you even know what you are asking.? I will start ignoring your stupidity if ask more "setup questions" or you can't contextualize you question.
Furthermore I can tell you did not understand my answer. You are such a dope? gawd! lol! trying to get back at me for calling you are pussy. You keeping asking questions like that just make others more convinced that you are indeed one.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: " What data do you think is the best representation of SSA ancestry in Egypt based on Autosomal SNP Data?". ???
I am not sure I understand your question? The few "Wholistic' data I have seen of SNP in modern Egyptians put them at 20% "foreign" . 80% Saharo-Arabian. The other 20% being West Asian ie Levantine Turks since Saharo-Arabian are indigenous to Africa and the Arabian deserts. Eg Bedouins and Yemenis. I have never seen data parsing out specific(tribal) SSA SNP ancestry. I have seen data on lineage. The SSA lineage of modern Egyptians are clearly related to Masaai. Henn et al. IIRC
Really man? You are confused by a ONE SENTENCE question? SMH. You mention Saharan-Arabia and it's connection to Maasai. That doesn't really answer the question if you don't state If massai are of Saharan extraction or if Saharan-Arabians are of Kenyan (SSA) extraction.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
All the samples seem to be from a site called "Abusir" (near Fayyum), and date from 1388 BC (that part surprised me) to 426 AD. Not really a lot of mtDNA L in any of these samples. There is a big Natufian-like ancestral component as well as some Anatolian and Iranian Neolithic affinity.
Rather surprised that these sampled mummies seem to be actually Eurasian in affinity rather than simply pre-OOA. This truly was the worst-case scenario Swenet suggested earlier. Make of it what you will...
Posts: 7072 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
May I ask but why is this surprising? Didn't Fayyum have Eurasian migrants? And Absuir is in the DELTA region which is right next door to the Levant. So again how is this the worst case ? if I may ask? Its not like its Upper Egypt or anything.
Not trying to brag(since many if you CONTRIBUTED WAY MORE than me), but I kinda theorized that the samples would be somewhere near Lower Egypt. Also I think I even remember saying that the third intermediate was the period after the Hyskos invaded.
Correct me if I am reading you correctly because I just got off from work and still sleepy.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Nodnard
May I ask but why is this surprising? Didn't Fayyum have Eurasian migrants? And Absuir is in the DELTA region which is right next door to the Levant. So again how is this the worst case ? if I may ask? Its not like its Upper Egypt or anything.
Not trying to brag(since many if you CONTRIBUTED WAY MORE than me), but I kinda theorized that the samples would be somewhere near Lower Egypt. Also I think I even remember saying that the third intermediate was the period after the Hyskos invaded.
Correct me if I am reading you correctly because I just got off from work and still sleepy.
I believe it is the Second Intermediate Period when the Hyksos invaded. The New Kingdom came after that.
Fayum did have Eurasian migrants during the Greek and Roman periods. And maybe some during the Third Intermediate Period. But the oldest of these mummies seem to be from the New Kingdom period (no mention how many of these were in the sample though, AFAIK). Still, it would be surprising if almost everyone living in this part of Egypt during the time range covered had the predominant Eurasian affinity we're seeing. You'd think there would still be some native Egyptians intermingling with them.
Posts: 7072 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Matter fact I take back would I said. It would be surprising if all the people of Lower Egypt were predominaly Eurasian in affinity. However still the delta region is right next door to the Levant.
Yeah, one would assume that that there would be native Egyptians intermingling with them.
All I can say is the Afrocentrics(and not the moderate ones) can MAYBE breath a little easier...
When they mean SSA increase do they mean this in terms of Modern Egyptians from the Delta where the majority of the population now lives and not modern Egyptians in general?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Nodnard
Matter fact I take back would I said. It would be surprising if all the people of Lower Egypt were predominaly Eurasian in affinity. However still the delta region is right next door to the Levant.
Yeah, one would assume that that there would be native Egyptians intermingling with them.
All I can say is the Afrocentrics(and not the moderate ones) can MAYBE breath a little easier...
When they mean SSA increase do they mean this in terms of Modern Egyptians from the Delta where the majority of the population now lives and not modern Egyptians in general?
I assumed modern Egyptians in general.
I know Swenet said earlier that if these sampled mummies turned out to have actual Near Eastern ancestry in place of modern Egyptians' Ethio-Somali/Basal Eurasian/etc. ancestry, they could hardly be ethnically native Egyptian. I don't know if he would still maintain this view in light of what we've just been presented...
Posts: 7072 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yeah I do remember Swenet saying that now. Interested to hear his opinion now. My PERSONAL theory is that they maybe only mean modern Delta Egyptians like in the capital of Cairo. But again just a theory.
Because iirc the Siwa Berbers have SOME ancestral SSA lineage.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: .... I believe that the sample in this upcoming paper has near eastern ancestry.
.... I'm getting the impression that not every here does.
..... I'm addressing the unlikelihood of them stating that the samples are near Eastern when they aren't.
.... I have the same views as I did when I posted my very first comment on this page.
[...]There's no debate to be even had at the moment.
You will not find any PreOOA Near eastern-like anything, because it simply wont be detectable.. especially under Lazaridis' model... But I'll just sit im my corner and stare at the wall.
@Ish Gebor I hear you, but there are some benefits to Mota being the appointed as the Quintessential Non-Eurasian P-N2 Population. From a genetic standpoint at least, it puts recent prehistoric African development in perspective. All general statements whether biased or negligent must answer to him. Possibilities are whittled down to a pair of scenarios; "does Basal Eurasian exist... or not?"
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And BTW, Keita—one of the most cited academics here—doesn't support translating pan-African ideas to genetics. Those who are doing this are on their own and putting their ignorance on display. No reputable and capable geneticist supports this. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see names.
Why is it "Pan Africanism" to say that genetic lineages that arose in Africa are logically called "African"? So is that it? Using the term "African" is a political agenda and evil huh? Really? But good old Eurasia can be used everywhere right? Thats cool huh?
I already clarified what I meant. You try to conjure up some sort of objection every time you're confronted with data that shows deep divisions in African ancestry.
Deep divisions in AFRICAN DNA. You said it yourself and made my point for me. I don't even see what you are debating.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You keep denying it but it's obvious. This is why you refuse to apply common conventions when its inconvenient.
For instance, when it comes to Europe, you insist that farmer colonists aren't European simply because they moved there.
Again putting words in my mouth when it suits you. I never said that. I said that labels should be used in a way that is consistent. A population of Africans migrating out of Africa don't become "Non African" one generation after leaving with no other humans in the region they settle. There needs to be a consistent way for making such distinctions.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: But when SSA groups move into the Sahara some time before EEF enter Europe, you want to pretend they're Saharan and not Sub-Saharan in ancestry and origin. Somehow, moving around the Sahara should discourage people from treating groups according to their origin. You also have a strange aversion to others describing these groups as Sub-Saharan in ancestry, even trying to get others to abandon the term. But, of course, you will keep Europe, South Asia, etc. as valid subregions within Eurasia. And of course, you'll just deny all of the above and keep asking the same questions that have nothing to do with what I said:
"Whu you mean? I can't say African?" and, "is African a dirty word now?"
Swenet stop trying to make up straw men by pretending to speak for me. I can speak for myself. This is simply absurdity for no logical reason. What on earth does Saharan vs Sub Saharan have to do with EEF? Why is it even relevant? Why is that some "special" distinction you keep bringing up? Why is "African" not enough when you are comparing DNA from WITHIN Africa to DNA OUTSIDE of Africa? You keep saying this over and over again and no matter how much you say it, it still doesn't make sense. EEF had some African DNA lineages as part of their ancestry. Does it MATTER what part of Africa those DNA lineages came from? Is the statement not true somehow if those lineages came from a certain part of Africa? Of course not. You are simply beating a dead horse.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] And BTW, Keita—one of the most cited academics here—doesn't support translating pan-African ideas to genetics. Those who are doing this are on their own and putting their ignorance on display. No reputable and capable geneticist supports this. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see names.
Why is it "Pan Africanism" to say that genetic lineages that arose in Africa are logically called "African"?
The problem I imagine at least, could perhaps be in assuming that a haplogroup that came from Africa means the population itself was African. For example, is it impossible for an African American to carry R1b1b2? If he does, does this mean he's a European? Are modern Italians that have E haplogroups African? This is very important with respect to Italy, Egypt, and the Levant, because they've over the years harbored a lot of inflow from different groups of people. I believe I showed that certain areas in ancient Syria had a lot of L haplogroups, but a lot of the haplogroups in Syria were also from other groups. Some L haplogroups accounted for around 1/3rd of the samples. This doesn't mean Mesopotamia was especially "African" or had "African" minority groups. It's possible these people saw themselves as the same ethnicity (IIRC they were buried in the same place). The people were probably a mixture of the many different ethnic groups reported in the study. So my question is: Is it possible for a person to be haplogroup L but otherwise be indistinguishable from people of their own ethnic group (and in the same vicinity) who're mostly J?
The problem here is we are talking about two distinct threads of understanding. First, the question is how to label the earliest DNA lineages of populations leaving Africa before settling the rest of the planet and before any substantial Neanderthal mixture. Second is what if any African DNA was present in populations of Early European Farmers and does that African ancestry represent migration of Africans carrying a survival toolkit that laid the basis for farming. Two different populations and two different time periods. The first issue surrounds the way geneticists are labeling the DNA family tree and calling early branches of DNA that theoretically first emerged from Africa as Non African, which logically makes no sense. Second, there is the issue of trying to make up a tree of Eurasian DNA ancestry based on theoretical models working BACKWARDS from the DNA of the Early European Farmers. In so doing you get a whole bunch of confusion that is being sown here about how to identify AFRICAN DNA in all these scenarios and distinguish it from DNA that arose outside of Africa at some point in time between OOA and the EEF. Literally it is turning into a plate of spaghetti. Then to add to the mix folks keep speaking of "SSA" within all of this as if that distinction has any relevance to the discussion and if it does, not making it clear what the relevance is.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
Its not saying what they think its saying...
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
As noted previously NON African is distinguished by Neanderthal Ancestry(3%):
quote:As a starting point for our model, we used the set of populations (minus Dai) from an admixture graph formulated in Mallick et al. (2016): Chimpanzee, Altai Neanderthal (Prüfer et al. 2014), Denisova (Meyer et al. 2012), Dinka, Kostenki 14 (K14, a ∼37 kya Upper Paleolithic individual from Russia belonging to the western Eurasian clade) (Seguin-Orlando et al. 2014), New Guinea, Australia, Onge (an indigenous population from the Andaman Islands), and Ami (aboriginal Taiwanese, representing East Asians). The elements of the model in Mallick et al. (2016) were mostly relatively straightforward, with no admixture events aside from those involving archaic humans. The primary finding of interest was that the Australasians (plus Onge) fit best as a clade with East Asians; incorporating a deeper “southern route” ancestry component did not improve the fit.
quote:Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
Its not saying what they think its saying...
They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
Its not saying what they think its saying...
They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Actually it's more like 1388 BC to 426 AD. I am curious how many of the "pre-Ptolemaic" mummies were from the New Kingdom versus later periods (i.e. Third Intermediate to Late Period). I presume the paper will answer that question when it comes out.
Posts: 7072 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ancient Egyptians samples aren't closest to Neolithic Levant on the PCA (most Neolithic Levant samples visibly plot well-underneath the Egyptian samples, with only a few closer outliers). I cannot see the Bronze Levant clearly enough, but the closest to the Egyptian samples is a modern population, looks orange/reddish but cannot identify the population because of blurry image. Is this orange/reddish population Copts? If so, excellent. The MtDNA shows "substantial continuity" as I predicted anyway.
Update: Several posters on Forumbiodiversity also think the closest PCA match is with Copts, although still waiting for a more clear image.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Because all the modern Egyptian samples seem to be represented by diamonds to the upper right of the ancient sample. The orange and yellow dots seem to be modern Levantine/Arabian populations like Palestinians and Jordanians.
posted
Cass and the other Klannites can rejoice if similar results appear for the Predynasyic/Old Kingdom aDna. I don't see any reason to be *shook* by this or believe it to be a "worst case scenario". Especially considering this period also correlates with the onset of massive Eurasian backflow.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. It depends on who is defining it. After the two brothers were said to be Negroid and Caucasoid I gave up on oid science. Then you have the 'Mechtoids'.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The MtDNA shows "substantial continuity" as I predicted anyway.
Printer-friendly view of this topic