posted
?? you know something we don't (insert sarcasm)?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So if the paper is saying less SSA and is using YRI instead of Great Lakes SSAfricans as the representive …then. That is the game these racialist play. Ignore the paper until the full study is presented.
You think they are going to be dumb enough to make THAT type of analysis? I think not. MAYBE they would classify Seemingly North African components now concentrated in Sub Saharan Africa (Ethio-Somali) as "Non Sub Saharan" but more generic Southern, Central and Eastern African equatorial ancestry? Hell no.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's accusing you of making assumptions about the what the author's said without proof. Until the study's released I don't know how much more can be said.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Who – I will look into who wrote the paper and their politics. But it should not mater. When – NA in this instance Where –YRI or LWK or Massai or South Africans for SSA? What – SSA entry into AE….as slaves
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: ?? you know something we don't (insert sarcasm)?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: So if the paper is saying less SSA and is using YRI instead of Great Lakes SSAfricans as the representive …then. That is the game these racialist play. Ignore the paper until the full study is presented.
You think they are going to be dumb enough to make THAT type of analysis? I think not. MAYBE they would classify Seemingly North African components now concentrated in Sub Saharan Africa (Ethio-Somali) as "Non Sub Saharan" but more generic Southern, Central and Eastern African equatorial ancestry? Hell no.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
(insert sarcasm). Inside scoop of unpublished data.......
@ AstenB - Johannes Krause - Max Planck Inst run by the racist fag Paabo. nuff said. Glad you asked me to look into it.
Paabo who first posited that SSA do NOT carry Neanderthal ancestry which was later debunked. BTW if you remember Paabo used ONE YRI to represent ALL SSA. tsk! Tsk!. man, these people. My prediction. The paper will NEVER be released because it will be quickly debunked.
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I think he's accusing you of making assumptions about the what the author's said without proof. Until the study's released I don't know how much more can be said.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
My main criticism is this. We all know there has to have been SSA ancestry. But at the same time there also has to be a limit. That is what the data says. A presence and a limit. When you look at the West Eurasian samples with the most affinity to the recently sampled Natufians, they have a bit of SSA, but they can't have too much or they will be distant to these Natufians.
For instance, Bedouin A and Bedouin B are basically two variants of the same population (see here). The main difference between both is that the latter has ~17% recent African ancestry (mostly SSA), in addition to their ancient North African ancestry, while the proportion in Bedouin A is different (they have a lower ratio of SSA to North African). When you look at which of these two is closer to the Natufians, it's Bedouin A (the one with limited SSA, and larger North African component). That is the common denominator in all these samples below (note that, even though they're primarily European today, Canary Islanders outscores most European and Middle Eastern samples, due to their higher percentage of whatever North African they still have):
Bedouin B is clearly pushed away from Natufians due to its larger SSA component, and doesn't necessarily score better than European samples in the 0,176-0,078 Fst range (see screenshot). The same is true about Yemenis and Yemeni Jews. The latter differ from the former due to a combination of limited SSA and substantial North African that results in closer affinity to Natufians. Unfortunately, the fst values of Yemenis aren't available (only those of Yemeni Jews), so I can't make a complete argument Fst wise. But other statistics show this. Below are some of the most telling values if you're interested. Note that the common theme here is that, in the case of the Levant and the Arabian peninsula [but not in Europe and the outer fringes of the Middle East] distant values Fst values to Natufians tends to be caused by more recent SSA:
Belarussian 0,097 Iranian 0,089 Armenian 0,085 Greek, Druze 0,084 Bedouin B 0,083 Bedouin A 0,073
I said that to say this: when thinking about dynastic AE population affinity, we should work from here. Dynastic AE ratio of SSA to North African may or may not be larger than what we see in the Natufians. However, if it's larger it will largely depend on post-Natufian SSA migration to the ancestors of ancient Egyptians. And it also has to be ongoing and substantial to continually counteract ongoing small Eurasian and Maghrebi influences during the dynastic era. I have seen no one here who has been able to provide evidence for this. In my view, those who take DNA Tribes literally, their priorities should lie here before using less certain data (i.e. data that is not based on ancient DNA).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Bedouin A (Kuwait 2, presumably) and Bedouin B (Kuwait 3). The large Yoruba-like component in Kuwait 3 doesn't help it score much better than Mediterranean European samples in terms of affinity to Natufians. Kuwait 2, on the other hand, with a lower SSA to North African ratio, scores among the best as far as the available samples. Although you can tell by the high Fst scores that there is a lot of room for improvement (a score of 0,073 is not at all close and implies distance). BTW, the bright green component here roughly corresponds to North African. Look how much North African there is in the Middle East today. So you can see why I'm not fazed by the finding of so called 'Near Eastern' in ancient Egyptian samples.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, if they aren't going to show the DNA for any Egyptians prior to the Third Intermediate Period, then the findings of this paper are less than useless on the origin and development of AE society. The third intermediate period was effectively the end of native Egyptian rule along the Nile, right up to the current "Arab" Egyptian state. Whatever inflows of genetics that happened during or after this point are irrelevant to the origin of the ancient culture. And obviously does nothing to answer the question of the overall affinity of the AE population from the Pre Dynastic thru 21st Dynasty.
Ironically enough the Third Intermediate Period is also the time frame of the Kushite Pharoahs of Egypt. So does that represent "Sub Saharan" DNA inflows into Egypt? That is a key question here.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE]I'll send you something later in regards to what you asked (gradual change in AE). I'm trying to stay away from this topic on ES.
Why? Doesn't this thread entail the very topic??
This community clearly can't move on without aDNA evidence forcing them to move on and even then they do it reluctantly or try to slip in some bs about "suspicious white man's science".
THIS..... I tried to warn them they are digging themselves into a hole but they were not trying to hear it. I can say truthfully I am ALMOST equally enthusiastic on seeing these results as I would if they said the exactly opposite. I post it here and cats down playing it like its not really a big deal . SURE Its not. They know ES would be having ORGASMS if the data said the opposite, the thread would be like 20 pages already.
ES dont even have a reasonable way to interpret the abstract based on 100's of ancient DNA findings around the globe. SMH. [/QB]
By the time they wake up the other multi-ethnic and 'white' fora and bloggers will be light years ahead of them and European bloggers will have more to teach on AE population affinity. How ironic that lurkers will be going to European sites for analysis of AE genomes.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ :rolleyes:
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Obviously, if they aren't going to show the DNA for any Egyptians prior to the Third Intermediate Period, then the findings of this paper are less than useless on the origin and development of AE society. The third intermediate period was effectively the end of native Egyptian rule along the Nile, right up to the current "Arab" Egyptian state. Whatever inflows of genetics that happened during or after this point are irrelevant to the origin of the ancient culture. And obviously does nothing to answer the question of the overall affinity of the AE population from the Pre Dynastic thru 21st Dynasty.
Ironically enough the Third Intermediate Period is also the time frame of the Kushite Pharoahs of Egypt. So does that represent "Sub Saharan" DNA inflows into Egypt? That is a key question here.
More woe is me, racism and 'but white people' bullshit. The data is NOT worse than useless. If the samples are sufficient it will tell is HOW CLOSER Modern Egyptians are to pre-Arab Egyptians! I will show the genetic differences during the transition between Modern, Roman, Greek, West Asian, Berber, Nubian and Late Native Egyptian dynasties. You are so stuck on denying the data you are not even able to see the benefits of what is actually being presented. SMH.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
making a claim that the Yorubans are not AEians will not settle anything. Because Yorubans are 3rd closest to AEians. They need to include LWK, Masai and "SHorty" for there to be meaning. The abstract as presented is useless.
I predict it will never be released.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep and its funny because the people who use black as a trojan horse to claim racial links to A. Egypt will use black with an authoritarian sense of pride, demanding that other people use "Black" they same way they use it, when in fact many cultures differ on the use of black. These same people will go into all sorts of paroxysms of rage when Eurocentrics use Negro/negroid again them the same way they used black....
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [qb] Yep, this is why I brought up this same issiue back in 2011, now I feel vindicated in my skepticism of the usage of black.
Kudos. You were already making adjustments as early as 2011. In fact, threads like these prove that most of the serious posters had already decided that, out of the many uses, the purely pigmentation-based use of 'black' is the only one that can be defended. Very few serious mainstream posters used the term 'black' as a synonym for some sort of 'African race'. Maybe some still slipped up every now and then, but there was a general agreement that, ideally, it should be about one's level of pigmentation. In that sense the AE would be 'black' obviously [meaning a range of brown that includes jetblack]. But the problem is that you will always have people slipping in some trojan horse and making it about 'race'.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sent a PM to Krause, Johannes (Max Planck Institute) at ResearchGate so he can clarify what "Near-Eastern" specifically means (+/- Egypt).
Also no doubt Carlos Coke is behind the scenes probably trying to blackmail/harass the Society for American Archaeology with accusations of "racism". Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why certain people are trying to deny the data. They are only making the "Afrocentric" side look bad. Just wait until we see more...
Also @Swenet @Djehuti @Beyoku
Going by the study could SSA Benin sickle cell gene also be recent in Egypt? Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
One reason why I'm interested in this data is because it will hopefully also give some insight in the reason why Egyptian authorities have withheld Egyptian aDNA for so long, supposedly because it represents a security threat.
As Muslims in an 'Arab' state, the last thing they want is an affinity to Jews/Levant to come out of these DNA tests. When you look at DNA Tribes' analysis of the Amarna data, the Levant scores just as good as most SSA regions in one measure, though scoring relatively poorly in the 'main result'.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: I don't know why certain people are trying to deny the data. They are only making the "Afrocentric" side look bad. Just wait until we see more...
Also @Swenet @Djehuti @Beyoku
Going by the study could SSA Benin sickle cell gene also be recent in Egypt?
I dont really think any of that matters. Just ask yourself a simple question. When you look at populations in the horn of Africa, where does it look like their external ancestry comes from?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good god man! the modern Jews in the Levant are Khazars/Turks. The indigenous population of the Levant are the Bedouins. Stop feeding the hysteria like a pussy.
It is quite possible the "near east" are the Bedouins. Not the Turks living there.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: One reason why I'm interested in this data is because it will hopefully also give some insight in the reason why Egyptian authorities have withheld Egyptian aDNA for so long, supposedly because it represents a security threat.
As Muslims in an 'Arab' state, the last thing they want is an affinity to Jews/Levant to come out of these DNA tests. When you look at DNA Tribes' analysis of the Amarna data, the Levant scores just as good as most SSA regions in one measure, though scoring relatively poorly in the 'main result'.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Strange. Don't modern Egyptians THEMSELVES already have affinity to Levantines? I remember seeing some studies on that.
Also, I see it more as a security threat to Sudan. As Sudan would probably want to lay claim to Egypt. I mean a good amount of Southern Egypt use to belong to "Sudan." lol.
@Beyoku
Good point.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Potential evidence of sicklemia as early as the Badarian. See here.
quote:Originally posted by Blessedbyhorus: Strange. Don't modern Egyptians THEMSELVES already have affinity to Levantines? I remember seeing some studies on that.
Look at the TribeScores of Ramses III and his son (unfortunately, no TribeScores are given for the Amarna mummies). IIRC, they're highest in the Horn of Africa region, then the Levant, then most SSA regions. Compare that to the post I just did on the bright green component in the Middle East. Broadly speaking, it's all consistent and saying the same thing.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Potential evidence of sicklemia as early as the Badarian. See here .
So its NOT recent. Will check out there. But I did some digging and I saw poster Punos_Rey post this on another thread.
quote:“We conducted a molecular investigation of the presence of sicklemia in six predynastic Egyptian mummies (about 3200 BC) from the Anthropological and Ethnographic Museum of Turin. Previous studies of these remains showed the presence of severe anemia, while histological preparations of mummified tissues revealed hemolytic disorders. DNA was extracted from dental samples with a silica-gel method specific for ancient DNA. A modification of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), called amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) was then applied. ARMS is based on specific priming of the PCR and it permits diagnosis of single nucleotide mutations. In this method, amplification can occur only in the presence of the specific mutation being studied. The amplified DNA was analyzed by electrophoresis. In samples of three individuals, there was a band at the level of the HbS mutated fragment, indicating that they were affected by sicklemia."
– Marin et. al. 1999, Use of the Amplification Refractory Mutation System (ARMS) in the Study of HbS in Predynastic Egyptian Remains.”
Now I am NOT trying to make a case that AE was predominately SSA. I'm just trying to come to terms whether there was some or zero SSA influence. Which is why I say we should just wait.
But I'm gonna check out that thread it looks interesting.
Edit: I thought Ramesse III and his son plotted more to Great Lake Africans on the TribeScores? Or am I missing something?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
In terms of Ramses III's TribeScores, the Levant outscores/rivals some SSA regions, though not all. In the case of his son, the Levant outscores only the Sahel. In both cases, the Levant is far above most remaining non-African regions, consistent with known African migration to that area. (See my previous post).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In terms of Ramses III's TribeScores, the Levant outscores/rivals some SSA regions, though not all. In the case of his son, the Levant outscores only the Sahel. In both cases, the Levant is far above the remaining non-African regions, consistent with known African migration to that area.
Okay, now I see what you are seeing. But I still see Great Lakes and Southern Africa outscoring. HOWEVER... Like we all agreed these results are not to be taken "literally." Since Great Lakes are seen as a better "proxy" for the African origins of Ramesse III I believe. Correct me if I am wrong.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, you're reading it right and it's a good thing you corrected me because I was talking from memory. In my upcoming short book you will see why I'm taking this stance and why I'm identifying the Levant as an important region. I will also explain other things about DNA Tribes' data.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yes, you're reading it right and it's a good thing you corrected me because I was talking from memory. In my upcoming short book you will see why I'm taking this stance and why I'm identifying the Levant as an important region. I will also explain other things about DNA Tribes' data.
I've also kinda seen the Levant as an important region. It basically has always been a "bridge" between two(or three even) main worlds!
Also, I've been thinking about PMing you something VERY important(you may disagree) since you and the other series posters been complaining about the rotting away of ES as a alpha African fora.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
And you will not give on that bs "tribes-score" nonsense even when it has been debunked.
carry on
-------------------- 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: Good god man! the modern African Americans in the USA are off-white Brits and Germans. The indigenous population of Slave decent in the USA are immigrant Nigerians and Senegalese. Stop feeding the hysteria like a pussy.
It is quite possible the "Black Americans" are the Nigerians/Senegalese. Not the "African Americans" living there.
quote:.
[/QB]
Fixed Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: More woe is me, racism and 'but white people' bullshit. The data is NOT worse than useless. If the samples are sufficient it will tell is HOW CLOSER Modern Egyptians are to pre-Arab Egyptians! I will show the genetic differences during the transition between Modern, Roman, Greek, West Asian, Berber, Nubian and Late Native Egyptian dynasties. You are so stuck on denying the data you are not even able to see the benefits of what is actually being presented. SMH.
Precisely.
I'ma just come out and say say what I believe might happen. Granted I only have a short-abstract to go off of, I feel like we'll see some elucidation on the Coptic cluster so often considered African. the Egyptian sample will cluster closely to their near eastern bank both Prehistoric and extant and possibly become more distinct later in history. They will also have other Eurasian components and a very very low if any SSA affinity. I don't think they'll shed much light on any other presumably North African correspondence.
I don't believe that they'll base their findings solely off of YRI DNA, I sure to god hope they don't but if they do and include other SSA populations like maybe the Maasalit, or even the Luhya we'll see this near eastern affinity pop up commensurately.
But regardless the interesting thing is the respective contemporaneous presence of SSA in Egypt, surely they don't think that any mixing is due to 19th century slavery, and I'm not familiar with any post intermediate period event involving SSA movement up the nile. SSA admixture in siwas dates to 750ya (Henn et al 2014 ), will we see somewhat of a gradient during or maybe after roman times?
XyyMan, don't the levantine jews consistently score high for Natufian?
EDIT: I sense a panic, I hope we all know that this abstract isn't dispelling the notion that Kemet was civilization Africans moving UP the Nile, Read the the Paragraph again guy's, there's a reason why the sample used in the study is restricted. (middle Egypt- ~1000BC-300CE).
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
you know you are a pussy. Don't get me started on you...but funny. Took a page from my book.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Good god man! the modern African Americans in the USA are off-white Brits and Germans. The indigenous population of Slave decent in the USA are immigrant Nigerians and Senegalese. Stop feeding the hysteria like a pussy.
It is quite possible the "Black Americans" are the Nigerians/Senegalese. Not the "African Americans" living there.
quote:.
Fixed :p [/QB]
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No! what study has that and the data? Bedouins probably not the Turkish Jews.
quote: "XyyMan, don't the levantine jews consistently score high for Natufian?"
no one is panicing because it cannot pissbly be true. wait until the data was presented. I sadi the same thing about Tut being R1b. While people were panicking I said from the get go. It was impossble.
Paabo probably used ONE YRI and not Great lakes Africans as representing SSA.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was reading an old paper that I downloaded as a PDF a few years back, and in it Keita was saying that Afro-Asiatic probably evolved in the Levant, he was criticizing Ehret so Im guessing if Keita is right then the Levant was important to the development of Ancient Egypt than most posters here would give credit, though I believe most academics put Egypt's founding population squarely in the Green Sahara and the Eastern Desert..I would be really interested in your finds on Egypt's relationship with the Levant.
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In terms of Ramses III's TribeScores, the Levant outscores/rivals some SSA regions, though not all. In the case of his son, the Levant outscores only the Sahel. In both cases, the Levant is far above the remaining non-African regions, consistent with known African migration to that area.
Okay, now I see what you are seeing. But I still see Great Lakes and Southern Africa outscoring. HOWEVER... Like we all agreed these results are not to be taken "literally." Since Great Lakes are seen as a better "proxy" for the African origins of Ramesse III I believe. Correct me if I am wrong.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I think the author may have been someone else. Keita has been debunking Nostraticists (or, at least, the version of Nostraticism that sees Afroasiatic as a branch within Nostratic) for a long time and has published work with Ehret doing the same:
quote:Originally posted by Jari: I would be really interested in your finds on Egypt's relationship with the Levant.
When I have a presentable draft I'll send it to you if you're interested.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would assume that Mr Ehret would be better equiped on linguistic matters than Keita. Mainstream linguistics seems to lean on an African origin for Afroasiatic. We really should wait until April for the details on this study of a few Mummies during the late period before associating the results of this study with the origins of ancient Egypt in the predynastic and early dynastic period.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
I don't think Keita has EVER argued that AA arose in the Levant. I personally do not dismiss a Levant origin for AA, however I feel a coastal red sea Egypt/Sudan origin for AA is stronger.
I do agree that Levant contributed to the development of Egypt especially with plants(iirc) and certain domesticated animals. But most development in my opinion came from the South or West from the Sahara.
I personally believe the Ancient Egyptians and early Levantine populations were almost the same. And I believe the bible(I know I am gonna get a lot of heat from this) kinda cosigns it.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lawaya: Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
I never said egyptyian weren't black and yes there were Pharaoh bodies that were west African that facts
Posts: 54 | From: va | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
That Keita article was published in a pseudo-journal. Same pseudoscience "black studies" journal that published Chinese civilization was founded by blacks.
Blacks in Ancient China, Part 1: The Founders of Xia and Shang CA Winters
quote:Originally posted by Lawaya: Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
I never said egyptyian weren't black and yes there were Pharaoh bodies that were west African that facts
Source?
- @Xyyman forget that I asked that, it was inappropriate and based on common GEDmatch & DNA testing results I previously came across.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lawaya: Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
I don't know why people insist on peddling the fantasy that the ancient Egyptians were West African or were closely related to them when the ancient Egyptians were clearly Northeast Africans. The relation was distant and very far in time. You have no idea just how much this irks me.
I never said they weren't north African but the facts is some of the pharaoh were of west African
Posts: 54 | From: va | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:Going by the study could SSA Benin sickle cell gene also be recent in Egypt?
The Benin (severe) sickle cell haplotype has been found in Kemet since the dawn during Pre-Dynastic times.
Use of the amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) in the study of HbS in predynastic Egyptian remains.
Abstract We conducted a molecular investigation of the presence of sicklemia in six predynastic Egyptian mummies (about 3200 BC) from the Anthropological and Ethnographic Museum of Turin. Previous studies of these remains showed the presence of severe anemia, while histological preparations of mummified tissues revealed hemolytic disorders.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: That Keita article was published in a pseudo-journal. Same pseudoscience "black studies" journal that published Chinese civilization was founded by blacks.
Blacks in Ancient China, Part 1: The Founders of Xia and Shang CA Winters
why keep name calling so if information is by afrocentrist its pseudo and if by white person its facts
Posts: 54 | From: va | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: That Keita article was published in a pseudo-journal. Same pseudoscience "black studies" journal that published Chinese civilization was founded by blacks.
Blacks in Ancient China, Part 1: The Founders of Xia and Shang CA Winters
Drinking, singing and dancing are expected to take place deep in the mountains of Miaoli and Hsinchu when the "Ritual of the Little Black People" (矮靈祭) is performed by the Saisiyat tribe once again this weekend.
For the past 100 years or so, the Saisiyat tribe (賽夏族) has performed the songs and rites of the festival to bring good harvests, ward off bad luck and keep alive the spirit of a race of people who are said to have preceded all others in Taiwan.
In fact, the short, black men the festival celebrates are one of the most ancient types of modern humans on this planet and their kin still survive in Asia today. They are said to be diminutive Africoids and are variously called Pygmies, Negritos and Aeta. They are found in the Philippines, northern Malaysia, Thailand, Sumatra in Indonesia and other places.
Chinese historians called them "black dwarfs" in the Three Kingdoms period (AD 220 to AD 280) and they were still to be found in China during the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1911). In Taiwan they were called the "Little Black People" and, apart from being diminutive, they were also said to be broad-nosed and dark-skinned with curly hair. After the Little Black People -- and well before waves of Han migrations after 1600 -- came the Aboriginal tribes, who are part of the Austronesian race. They are thought to have come from the Malay Archipelago 6,000 years ago at the earliest and around 1,000 years ago at the latest, though theories on Aborigine migration to Taiwan are still hotly debated. Gradually the Little Black People became scarcer, until a point about 100 years ago, when there was just a small group living near the Saisiyat tribe.
The story goes that the Little Black People taught the Saisiyat to farm by providing seeds and they used to party together. But one day, the Little Black People sexually harassed some Aboriginal women. So, the Saisiyat took revenge and killed them off by cutting a bridge over which they were all crossing. Just two Little Black People survived. Before departing eastward, they taught the Saisiyat about their culture and passed down some of their songs, saying if they did not remember their people they would be cursed and their crops would fail.
The Saisiyat kept their promise and have held the Ritual of the Little Black People every year, though they scaled down the ceremonies during the Japanese colonial period (1895 to 1945). Now the ritual is held every two years on the 10th full moon of the lunar calendar, with a big festival once every 10 years. At this time, the Saisiyat are not supposed to fight and they congregate in their ancestral areas of Miaoli and Hsinchu, in the mountains.
"I've seen it written of as a celebration, but to me it seemed quite a mournful affair, especially in the way the music came across, which was trancelike, a haunting kind of chant with a series of 10 to 15 songs," said long-term Taiwan resident Lynn Miles, who has been to the ritual three times and will be going again this year. "There's nothing else quite like it in its tone and in its mood. I've been to other festivals but this is non-stop."
Miles said the dances were not set pieces but usually involved holding hands and moving around in a circle, chanting, with those who know the songs doing most of the singing and a shaman figure keeping order.
A spokeswoman at the Council of Indigenous Peoples (under the Executive Yuan) said that those who have "unclean thoughts" have their souls snatched by the spirits of the Little Black People and will pass out until the shaman revives them.
Miles said the shaman seemed to serve a public-order function by chasing off those who were too drunk or out of order.
The ceremonies are held in two places. The ritual began yesterday in Nanchuang Township, Miaoli County, and will carry on there until Monday.
Rituals start today in Wufeng Township, Hsinchu County, and will last through tomorrow.
Getting there:
To Wufeng: Route 122 to Wufeng can be accessed off No. 1 Highway near Toufen. To Nanchuang:Take western No. 1 Highway. Near Toufen, take Route 124 toward Sanwan to Nanchuang. Shuttle buses will take visitors to the ritual site at Xiangtian Lake.
Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
The white supremacist journals like these and Mankind Quarterly are opposite side of same coin as the Afrocentrist journals like Journal of Black Studies and Journal of African Civilizations.
"Journal of African Civilizations...consistently promote a racialist and hegemonic view of the role allegedly played by 'black peoples' in the formation of civilizations throughout the world." (Haslip-Viera, G., de Montellano, B. O., Barbour, W. [1997]. "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs". Current Anthropology. 38(3): 419-441.)
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
My main criticism is this. We all know there has to have been SSA ancestry. But at the same time there also has to be a limit. That is what the data says. A presence and a limit. When you look at the West Eurasian samples with the most affinity to the recently sampled Natufians, they have a bit of SSA, but they can't have too much or they will be distant to these Natufians.
would what I suggested require "SSA" at levels reaching West or Central Africa???? From where I was positioned, I didn't think what I posted would have required or not required limits to exist (though please explain if it does). My reason for pointing to Ramses and the Amarnas was with labeling the "SSA" contribution in moderns "SSA" in the first place. SSA discusses populations of Africans that developed after the Sahara's return, and this will affect how the conclusions and data are reviewed. Before concluding the genetics of moderns could be local, some of the first reactions we got here was people suggesting 19th century slavery was the reason for why it is seen in higher levels. Even if there's to be a limit, the Amarnas and Ramses III suggest a local origin of this supposed "Sub Saharan" contribution to moderns. It may have been focused more in certain regions and over some time periods more than others, but it never needed slaves or wandering non-indigenous Africans to explain it.
quote:I said that to say this: when thinking about dynastic AE population affinity, we should work from here. Dynastic AE ratio of SSA to North African may or may not be larger than what we see in the Natufians. However, if it's larger it will largely depend on post-Natufian SSA migration to the ancestors of ancient Egyptians. And it also has to be ongoing and substantial to continually counteract ongoing small Eurasian and Maghrebi influences during the dynastic era. I have seen no one here who has been able to provide evidence for this. In my view, those who take DNA Tribes literally, their priorities should lie here before using less certain data (i.e. data that is not based on ancient DNA).
Wouldn't Hassan's work suggest this to some extent??
quote:Originally posted by Lawaya: Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
I never said egyptyian weren't black and yes there were Pharaoh bodies that were west African that facts
Source?
- @Xyyman forget that I asked that, it was inappropriate and based on common GEDmatch & DNA testing results I previously came across.
its already been posted in the thread
Posts: 54 | From: va | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you read that first quote correctly. What I said was that there is a limit on how much SSA ancestry can be in the early ancestors of later Egyptians as shown by Natufians and all later farmers. The ratio of SSA to North African is too low in all cases. This does not rhyme with your interpretation that a thorough removal of external influences would leave abundant SSA ancestry in the dynastic Egyptian Nile Valley.
But we don't have to debate this. That was just one critical note I had. It has not been proven that Pagani's Egyptian and Ethiopian masked genomes represent a "thorough removal" of external influences. This is because Egyptian outmigrations captured in Bronze Age and Neolithic DNA from the Mediterranean look different from Pagani et al's masked genomes. And people who take DNA Tribes literally so far have not accounted for these differences. http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886/F3.large.jpg
^These ancient genomes (large piecharts) contain plenty of ancient Egyptian ancestry, but seemingly not a lot of YRI (as shown by their seeming lack of blue contributions). Contrast this with the modern genomes from the same regions (small piecharts) which contain plenty of blue YRI. This supports what the abstract in the OP of this thread says. There were post-Roman increases in levels of SSA ancestry that weren't there before in the Bronze Age Egyptian population. Or at least, these increases of SSA ancestry might have been there, but weren't well-distributed enough to accompany Egyptians during migrations out of Africa.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Yes, you're reading it right and it's a good thing you corrected me because I was talking from memory. In my upcoming short book you will see why I'm taking this stance and why I'm identifying the Levant as an important region. I will also explain other things about DNA Tribes' data.
I've also kinda seen the Levant as an important region. It basically has always been a "bridge" between two(or three even) main worlds!
Also, I've been thinking about PMing you something VERY important(you may disagree) since you and the other series posters been complaining about the rotting away of ES as a alpha African fora.
Well hasn't it been known that the AE had multiple colonies in Canaan? I also found this Syrian fresco that was highly interesting, supposedly depicting a sacrifice by a man named "Conon", from 250 bce.
And heres what I believe is a reconstruction of it
That along with much earlier Canaanite artifacts reflecting Egyptian motifs go even further to establish that
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Obviously, if they aren't going to show the DNA for any Egyptians prior to the Third Intermediate Period, then the findings of this paper are less than useless on the origin and development of AE society. The third intermediate period was effectively the end of native Egyptian rule along the Nile, right up to the current "Arab" Egyptian state. Whatever inflows of genetics that happened during or after this point are irrelevant to the origin of the ancient culture. And obviously does nothing to answer the question of the overall affinity of the AE population from the Pre Dynastic thru 21st Dynasty.
Ironically enough the Third Intermediate Period is also the time frame of the Kushite Pharoahs of Egypt. So does that represent "Sub Saharan" DNA inflows into Egypt? That is a key question here.
More woe is me, racism and 'but white people' bullshit. The data is NOT worse than useless. If the samples are sufficient it will tell is HOW CLOSER Modern Egyptians are to pre-Arab Egyptians! I will show the genetic differences during the transition between Modern, Roman, Greek, West Asian, Berber, Nubian and Late Native Egyptian dynasties. You are so stuck on denying the data you are not even able to see the benefits of what is actually being presented. SMH.
OK. So what does that have to do with eras PRIOR to the late period? My point was if they have exclusive DNA fro the third intermediate period and claim there is a RISE in Near Eastern lineages, then don't they have to provide similar data from previous periods to compare against? Obviously you can't expect one or two mummies to be representative of much. If all they have is some DNA from a a few mummies in the third intermediate period it really doesn't say much about how MUCH change occurred unless they can provide similar data for previous periods.
Don't you think that would be required for ANY kind of study of ANY population with similar conclusions?
I doubt they have the data to really make such a conclusion and are mostly going on extrapolation and very little hard data from not only the third intermediate period but also previous eras. Because last I checked, they have had a hard time (according to them) gathering DNA from AE remains.
Some people are making more out of this based on little substantiated actual hard data at this point. Especially this idea that some folks should be 'quaking in their boots' for some reason. The standards for good research and evidence don't change and I think most people who care about AE or Anthropology in general are arguing from a position of fact based evidence not speculation hearsay.
For what its worth you would expect to see similar patterns in previous Eras such as the Hyksos period. Nothing really shocking in any of that. For goodness sake the Pyramids are a symbol for change as the basis of all creation in the universe(and origin of the Greek delta). Not sure why folks are running around acting like this is some sort of earth shattering data. The point is what would they consider as the DNA signature for AE during most of the Dynastic era when not under foreign influence or subjugation. That would be a key point really.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the response I received from Sarkoboros when I commented on his post:
quote:I find a lot to object to in Pagani et al.’s piece. Masking leaves me uneasy even when the target isn’t the vast majority of your samples’ ancestry (roughly 80%, of modern Egyptian ancestry, iirc more in Copts, seems to be Eurasian) and we have a more constrained sense of what the reference populations ought to be. See the discussion of the analogously mostly European Aleut samples in the SI for Reich et al. 2012.
Even had it worked perfectly, I’m not sure what point it makes. We know that the non-Eurasian ancestry in modern Egyptians is a palimpsest, and the admixture signal most readily retrieved by linkage disequilibrium methods (I would bet there are earlier events beyond easy resolution) looks like a pulse input of “Nilotic” ancestry just 25 generations ago. (I’m quite sure however that this isn’t the sole contribution and expect heterogeneity across Egypt in sources, proportions, and timing.) Not to acknowledge this — that’s a major problem.
I agree that “Middle Eastern” is ambiguous, and it’ll be important to parse this more carefully. How much of this is “Basal Eurasian” (which may have had a very long tenure in North Africa and perhaps even diverged from “African” lineages while still geographically within the continent) and how much is specifically West Eurasian? I doubt it’s entirely the former. Since even Natufian foragers ~12ka had substantial West European hunter-gatherer-related ancestry, I would not be surprised to find it in the earliest Dynastic Egyptians.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
DougM. , I understand that I don't have much rapor on here but if you consider both what Beyoku and I stated you can see the possible "benefit" of this study... It's equally wrong to downplay this as it is to treat it as the end all answer to everything we've questioned.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: DougM. , I understand that I don't have much rapor on here but if you consider both what Beyoku and I stated you can see the possible "benefit" of this study... It's equally wrong to downplay this as it is to treat it as the end all answer to everything we've questioned.
All scholarship has benefit but I don't understand why some folks are running around acting like this is something earth shattering.
It is just one piece of a bigger puzzle and one piece isn't the whole puzzle. That is all I am saying.
Again, the third intermediate period was a time of turmoil and during this period you also had the rise of the 25th dynasty, the Kushite dynasty. So depending on what mummies you are looking at and what time period you are bound to get different results. Given the fact of turmoil and the various upheavals and invasions that took place is is too simplistic to suggest one overarching narrative for this time period.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. SURE Its not. They know ES would be having ORGASMS if the data said the opposite, the thread would be like 20 pages already. 
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
From where I was positioned, I didn't think what I posted would have required or not required limits to exist (though please explain if it does). My reason for pointing to Ramses and the Amarnas was with labeling the "SSA" contribution in moderns "SSA" in the first place. SSA discusses populations of Africans that developed after the Sahara's return, and this will affect how the conclusions and data are reviewed. Before concluding the genetics of moderns could be local, some of the first reactions we got here was people suggesting 19th century slavery was the reason for why it is seen in higher levels. Even if there's to be a limit, the Amarnas and Ramses III suggest a local origin of this supposed "Sub Saharan" contribution to moderns. It may have been focused more in certain regions and over some time periods more than others, but it never needed slaves or wandering non-indigenous Africans to explain it. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic