The DNA study coming out shows ancient Egyptians were autosomally close to Natufians and Neolithic Levantines. Also, the fact ancient Egyptians plot(probably) closer to modern Levantines than modern Egyptians in the principal-component-analysis, points to an old population affinity/structure like how 6-9th century AD English samples are closer to modern Norwegians and Scottish than modern English, despite the fact modern English are closest autosomally (i.e. in admixture and rare-allele analyses) to the 6-9th century AD English samples (as expected).
Reality is the DNA will show a Levantine origin of ancient Egyptians. However, since archaeology does not support any recent mass movement(s) or large-scale mixture, the Levantine migration has to be pushed back pre-Holocene to Epipaleolithic and this ties in with Afro-Asiatic entering Egypt.
And even if they did, it won't really settle things. Because the question would then be did were they there enough to respond to African ecological pressures to their physiology? Were they at any points within contact with people who had physiologically adapted? If yes, the debate continues. If not the DNA will probably end this conversation once southern Egyptian results are unveiled in larger numbers. Let's not pretend that for both sides, there's always been a return to this debate regardless of genetic data.
quote: That the formation of the Egyptian dynastic state c. 3100 BCE owes more to Upper Egypt, than Lower/Middle Egypt has really no relevance. Even if true, so what? Afrocentrists are only arguing for this to try to connect Egyptians to more southern populations in Africa; Nubia though isn't even Sub-Saharan Africa, its still the Sahara.
I'll humor this, if only long enough so that I can mention such a thing is a modern map. You are again being undone by internalized notions of an Africa that is incapable of change and especially monolithic below the Sahara. This was the "distance" from a Sahel climate when Egypt as a state first formed:
Much of the Nile region was still sahel-savannah. Nearly all of northern Sudan was also pretty much of this climate as well. Just few hundreds of years before this would've been looked even more different and much of the cultural complex that founded the civilization would've been developing in northern Sudan well before things began going arid.
But just for the sake of discussing modern Africans... Africa has several ecological constructs not two. why does specifically having physical adaptations to a desert mean someone has to be separated from the rest of Africa? Is the claim that the desert ecosystems in Africa are not unique to those in the Middle East? If so this will certainly be another point of debate. I ask because someone living in the modern Sahel or tropical Africa are considered just as African as each other despite the distinctiveness of their ecosystems. They both are considered just as African as someone living in south Africa. It's not a "political" thing to call all these people Africans, it just is. Why is the distance relevant for Egypt to the Sahel but not for the Sahel to the south African coast? Discussing the Sahara among modern people like this is arbitrarily picking and choosing which climates and ecosystems (Africa has several) are or cannot be "African." This does not consider whether or not people have simply adapted to African ecosystems.
quote:If you look at the cranial metric/non-metric & dental data, you will see there are no close ties of Sub-Saharan Africans to Nubians. This is the result of the size of Africa. Look at distance between Egyptians/Nubians and SSA's.
I'll ignore the use of "SSA" because of the fact that "SSA" includes different regions along large distances (hypocritical) with different ecosystems. Saharan vs. SSA reduces Africa's several ecosystems to 2 (which is stupid). I mean yea ppl put up with it, but where we're going in this particular segment of conversation not highlighting this once more would probably be a bit unwise. Both sides are going to continue debating and offering arguments to establish a hierarchy of what physiological data proves adaptation. Certain researchers (and amateurs) seemed especially ahead of the game by focusing on their discussions on "body plans." I don't claim to know much about this subject matter. What I'm doing is predicting the general direction I suspect this sh!t will all go eventually--as it has done before. I'm predicting the parameters from which both sides will have to prove in order to be "done" so to speak.
Predictions:
-investigations and continued debate on proving significant biological adaptation (among ancient southern Egyptians and northen Sudan) to Africa happened. This will likely occur regardless of potential admixture events and will stress that biological adaption to an ecosystem makes a group of people essential products of that environment even with admixture present in some part of their history. This will be versed against a model that stresses the Asiatic biological affinity and adaption. That or it will be versed in a model that stresses Asiatic genetic proximity (should southern Egypt be exactly the same as northern Egypt)
-investigations as to whether the African desert ecosystems are in any way unique/distinct from those in the Middle East
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's cool but, pretexts aside, let's not lose sight of the fact that this is why you're salty
What does that chart have to do with "Basal Eurasian" and "EEF"? Why did you even post that image? Thats what I mean by you constantly keep dodging and introducing irrelevant data points trying to salvage a "win" when in reality it just shows how far you go to avoid an "L".
If that image doesn't support that "EEF" and "Basal Eurasian" are defined explicitly in a Eurasian context, then just admit the term is problematic when used in Africa and stop running....
That was the only thing I was talking about.
Come on be consistent and stop trying so hard to sound "right" all the time. Because I don't see anything in the below related to the image you posted.
quote: An “Early European Farmer” (EEF) cluster includes Stuttgart, the ~5,300 year old Tyrolean Iceman1 and a ~5,000 year old Swedish farmer4.
Patterns observed in PCA may be affected by sample composition (SI10) and their interpretation in terms of admixture events is not straightforward, so we rely on formal analysis of f-statistics8 to document mixture of at least three source populations in the ancestry of present Europeans. We began by computing all possible statistics of the form f3(Test; Ref1, Ref2) (SI11), which if significantly negative show unambiguously8 that Test is admixed between populations anciently related to Ref1 and Ref2 (we choose Ref1 and Ref2 from 5 ancient and 192 present populations). The lowest f3-statistics for Europeans are negative (93% are >4 standard errors below 0), with most showing strong support for at least one ancient individual being one of the references (SI11). Europeans almost always have their lowest f3 with either (EEF, ANE) or (WHG, Near East) (SI11, Table 1, Extended Data Table 1), which would not be expected if there were just two ancient sources of ancestry (in which case the best references for all Europeans would be similar). The lowest f3-statistic for Near Easterners always takes Stuttgart as one of the reference populations, consistent with a Near Eastern origin for Stuttgart’s ancestors (Table 1). We also computed the statistic f4(Test, Stuttgart; MA1, Chimp), which measures whether MA1 shares more alleles with a Test population or with Stuttgart. This statistic is significantly positive (Extended Data Fig. 4, Extended Data Table 1) if Test is nearly any present-day West Eurasian population, showing that MA1-related ancestry has increased since the time of early farmers like Stuttgart (the analogous statistic using Native Americans instead of MA1 is correlated but smaller in magnitude (Extended Data Fig. 5), indicating that MA1 is a better surrogate than the Native Americans who were first used to document ANE ancestry in Europe7,8). The analogous statistic f4(Test, Stuttgart; Loschbour, Chimp) is nearly always positive in Europeans and negative in Near Easterners, indicating that Europeans have more ancestry from populations related to Loschbour than do Near Easterners (Extended Data Fig. 4, Extended Data Table 1). Extended Data Table 2 documents the robustness of key f4-statistics by recomputing them using transversion polymorphisms not affected by ancient DNA damage, and also using whole-genome sequencing data not affected by SNP ascertainment bias. Extended Data Fig. 6 shows the geographic gradients in the degree of allele sharing of present-day West Eurasians (as measured by f4-statistics) with Stuttgart (EEF), Loschbour (WHG) and MA1 (ANE).
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Can I please say that the engagements with Doug and Cass have both grown tedious as hell? What do people expect to get out of them? Doug is only goes to hide himself deeper into his shell of denial, and the closest thing Cass has to a consistent agenda is a pathological desire to get under everyone's skin. Surely there are better things we can talk about that don't involve those two.
BTW I e-mailed Krause some days ago over whether any Y-DNA from those mummies would come out in a later publication (since they only seem to have mtDNA and nuclear DNA so far). He still hasn't gotten back to me. Must be busy or something.
What am I denying? All human populations are ultimately related to another on some level biologically. The issue is what biological components are being measured and the labels being used to indicate that relationship.
Fundamentally people cannot discuss the peopling of Eurasia and not call out the fact that all these original populations were Africans. Originally they tried to claim mixture with Neanderthals was the reason for not calling them Africans but now they have gone full circle and done the opposite. "Basal Eurasian" is an proposed biological metapopulation close to Africa with little Neanderthal mixture, yet they refuse to identify it as being related to Africa at all.
Simply put it is hypocrisy to claim this is about Africans "rejecting" the idea of Eurasian mixture while Europeans constantly put out studies and reports that refuse to admit African mixture consistent with the data and facts.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
In this analysis, the Nile Valley populations are on a branch with EEF-derived groups (and with derivatives of groups that are closely related to EEF groups). This is to the exclusion of most of the other Africans. Yet Doug asks what it has to do with everything.
Sheer denial.
And note where Doug's precious Palaeolithic "farmers" are. They are on the most divergent branch ("Archaic African"). Yet, he still wants to talk about these groups as being the Africans who contributed their genes to migrations associated with the Neolithic Revolution.
I don't understand why people have this incessant urge to speak on population affinities when they are completely clueless. They just wake up one day and decide to start lecturing and pontificating. Just sit down. Never read a book relevant to the subject and never did any homework. They have no idea what they're talking about and it shows.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Swenet, I notice all these populations near Egypt, Northeast Africa came out of: Africa (Ethiopic), is that correct?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
May I ask if that paper is discussing genetic proximity or physiological? What's the name of it???
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Take into account the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland could be as old as 20,000 BP; Afro-Asiatic speakers could have migrated into Egypt from the Epipalaeolithic. Archaeologists and anthropologists have only falsified more recent large-scale movements into Egypt, none of them test Epipalaeolithic.
Not saying this is true.....but y'all really need to pay attention to points like this. IMO the idea is valid. Y'all can poo poo it all you want but what are you going to do when you are faced with that non African U6 ancestor pulled from ancient DNA?
So if Proto-Afrasan was from some hypothetical place outside of Africa, how come we see no further development there (mtDNA R )?
Why are root words found in East Africa?
Language aside I think you are missing the point when looking at the movement of PEOPLE and what he wrote. Leave Egyptians out of it for a second, how does what he wrote apply to north west Africans, their modern DNA and what has been pulled from their ancient DNA?
This question is specifically for those going back and forth with him.
I did not associate this with Egypt, rather with East Africa. And he clearly spoke of "Afro-Asiatic speakers". I also don't get who spoke of this Epipalaeolithic mass migration into Northeast Africa?
The Berber language is only max 7 Kya old and is substratum, as was presented by Chris Ehret.
CARTA: The Origin of Us — Christopher Ehret: Relationships of Ancient African Languages
Issues in the Historical Phonology Issues in the Historical Phonology of Chadic Languages of Chadic Languages H. Ekkehard Wolff Chair: African Languages & Linguistics Leipzig University
quote:The most enigmatic period in northern Africa is the transitional phase from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. Sites and well-defined assemblages from this period are extremely rare. Middle Palaeolithic industries seem to end around 30 ka. In this paper, the subsequent 10 ka are referred to provisionally as “Early Upper Palaeolithic”; however, the character of human occupation and the accompanying technology during this time remains ambiguous. Elucidation of this phase is a main research objective. This crude and basically still unknown Early Upper Palaeolithic ends with the appearance of the Iberomaurusian.
The “Iberomaurusian” represents the best defined Palaeolithic culture of north-western Africa. In agreement with other authors (e.g. Barton et al., 2007, p. 177) it is interpreted as the second phase of the Upper Palaeolithic. The inventories of this late Upper Palaeolithic are rich in microlithic tools, primarily backed bladelets. The same is true for late Pleistocene techno-complexes in the Near East, such as the Kebarian and the Natufian. Therefore, the Iberomaurusian has often been referred to as Epipalaeolithic (Aouraghe, 2006, p. 241; Olszewski et al., 2011).
--Jörg Linstädter Human occupation of Northwest Africa: A review of Middle Palaeolithic to Epipalaeolithic sites in Morocco
quote: We conducted a comparative analysis of segments between the PP5–6 samples, HP assemblages and more recent archaeological sites through-out Africa. SADBS segment dimensions (Supplementary Table 4) are within the 95% confidence intervals for segments at the MSA and LSA boundary in East Africa, the Tamar Hat Iberomaurusian in North Africa (,20–10kyr), and Holocene assemblages in South and East Africa (Fig. 1). More easily flaked obsidian (owing to its lack of crystalline structure) dominates the East African assemblages, so despite a tougher raw material (silcrete) the SADBS knappers produced comparable microliths. SADBS segments are shorter and thinner than HP segments with no overlap in confidence intervals for width; they are more similar to East African LSA assemblages than the HP (Fig. 1).
--Kyle S. Brown1,2 et al.
An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa
It's clear that the vast majority of Linguists assert an African origin for Afro-Asiatic in either the Sahel, Sudan or the Horn. The linguistic evidence for an African origin of Afro-Asiatic is stronger.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The dendrogram he posted is from Kemp. Its a decade old. What we now know (since 2012) is that the "Archaic African" [Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Nubian] sample -Wadi Halfa- is not representative of samples from roughly the same region -al Khiday- the Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Nubians actually plot with the ancient/medieval Nubians, near to Egyptians. I've shown this with dental data ( Irish, 2012; 2016). Sub-Saharan Africans though don't plot close, i.e. look at the great distance of "Negroid" to Egyptians/Nubians.
Someone might point out the relatively close morphometric distance of "Ethiopic" [Tigray Ethiopian or Somali) to Egyptians/Nubians in Kemp. However, these same sampl don't plot close in cranial non-metric (Hanihara et al) or dental, e.g. Somali have a different non-metric dental pattern to North Africans and larger teeth. As C. Loring Brace et al. 1993 points out, Somalis are not strictly speaking microdont: "the Somalis from the Horn of East Africa sit right on the dividing line between mesodont and microdont."
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: so your response is to deny a south north expansion in favor of a north to south. Can't wait to see the comments for this.
Ancient DNA supports north to south. Like I already said, your response to these DNA results because they conflict with your pan-African politics is to come up with some silly explanation for them. You posted an incredibly flawed population size argument. We've also had Afrocentrists claim the samples are not native Egyptians but foreigners (even albinos?!), accuse Krause et al of "racism" etc., Sudaniya is also proposing some sort of apartheid model where only northern Egyptians had Levantine ancestry. Afronuts are all over the place - which is why the two threads made on DNA (including this one)are being laughed at on other forums.
Isn't this just precious? You -of all people- are invoking the word apartheid in a negative context? I do not assert that Upper Egyptians could not possibly have had *some* Levantine admixture, however, I do assert that it would not have been remotely comparable to their indigenous Nile Valley genes. You're not just arguing that they had minor Levantine admixture but that they were predominantly Levantine derived - without so much as a smidgen of evidence.
The Badarians and Naqadans don't fit into your delusion, so you mention a time-frame before the Holocene in which this *mythical* "Eurasian" migration into Upper Egypt is supposed to have taken place. You so desperately want this to be true, but you just can't prove it with any material evidence. What you have is a re-assuring *opinion*, and what I require is material evidence. Provide the requested evidence or admit to bias. Pick one.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will they be releasing the Y-DNA profiles of these Abusir Mummies? It's essential that Y-DNA results be released so that we may comprehensively understand who these people were in Northern Egypt at the time. If they don't have African Y-DNA (E3b1a) then they were not indigenous.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: May I ask if that paper is discussing genetic proximity or physiological? What's the name of it???
.
I can yell ya this much, while definitely on the same limb as Nilers, Near East, Anatolia, and Cypress are not EEF nor EEF derived. In fact they're one genetic root of EEF (Greece). The moderns and pre-Spanish on that chart are really meaningless in a discuszion on Nile Valley roots.
Recapping the obvious: Branches on the same limb can indicate shared ancestry not a donor-source admixture. Same limb branches are closer related as compared to branches of other limbs of the phylogeny.
That chart implies a 4 way African substructure of 1.Lower Nile and 2.'Berber'. But somebody please school me on 3. Africa-Ethiopic and especially on 4. Africa-negroid.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^glad you pointed it out... I wasn't gonna say a damn thing, ...for "obvious" reasons. I was just hoping 1 or two readers would put two an two together. Not very noble from my part ...but w/e, I'm no politician.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I'm thinking of starting a thread on early Neolithic farmers without polemics, recourse to Euro or Afro eccentricities, agended hypotheses, ad hominem and ridicule (yeah right).
I done got a lot from ENF related papers showing frequencies and admiture dates and I'm loving the newer tools like f-stats, MALDER, GLOBETROTTER, fineSTRUCTURE, and so on. These papers and tools are revealing new things about African peoples migrations and interactions in Africa and western Eurasia.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^Swenet, I notice all these populations near Egypt, Northeast Africa came out of: Africa (Ethiopic), is that correct?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "came out of Africa (Ethiopic)" in relation to that dendrogram. Can you clarify?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I'm thinking of starting a thread on early Neolithic farmers without polemics, recourse to Euro or Afro eccentricities, agended hypotheses, ad hominem and ridicule (yeah right).
I done got a lot from ENF related papers showing frequencies and admiture dates and I'm loving the newer tools like f-stats, MALDER, GLOBETROTTER, fineSTRUCTURE, and so on. These papers and tools are revealing new things about African peoples migrations and interactions in Africa and western Eurasia.
I'll strongly advocate for such a thing lol... A topic about the revelation of supposed African ancient DNA is created and it only takes a 4-5 pages for it to erupt in Dante's inferno. Why do people treat information like it's harmful? <--> why do others wield it to harm others?
I have so much questions and discoveries that I want to share right now tbh, but am not compelled to.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: And even if they did, it won't really settle things. Because the question would then be did were they there enough to respond to African ecological pressures to their physiology? Were they at any points within contact with people who had physiologically adapted? If yes, the debate continues. If not the DNA will probably end this conversation once southern Egyptian results are unveiled in larger numbers. Let's not pretend that for both sides, there's always been a return to this debate regardless of genetic data.
Sure, someone can discuss Egyptian adaptation to the Saharan desert; I already did this years ago. Most phenotypic variation however, excluding skin pigmentation, is explained by 'neutral' evolution i.e. stochastic processes (genetic drift), not selection. A few variables of the skull do deviate from the neutral model, including cranial breadth and nasal height (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516480/) and its always been recognised nasal index or shape of the nose is correlated with temperature and humidity, while cranial index with temperature. But if you're discussing adaptation, there will be very limited cranial traits like these to discuss, with skin colour.
quote:I'll humor this, if only long enough so that I can mention such a thing is a modern map. You are again being undone by internalized notions of an Africa that is incapable of change and especially monolithic below the Sahara. This was the "distance" from a Sahel climate when Egypt as a state first formed.
The only person clinging to "monolithic" African is you, since you're trying to cluster Saharan populations with the rest of Africa - as part of your pan-African identity politics. Heck, above you describe Saharan ecology only as "African", you can't even bring yourself to use the word Saharan because that would mean distinguishing Saharan's to SSA's which conflicts with your politics.
And nice straw man, the fact I distinguish between Saharan and Sub-Saharan African populations, means I think the latter are a cluster. lol. I've always distinguished the different populations in SSA, even in recent posts. My only usage of SSA is relative to the Sahara, how else do you expect me to distinguish these regional populations? Do you expect me to list hundreds of ethnic groups below the Sahara individually? I just say SSA because its quicker. There is no SSA biological cluster. Its like you ignored all genetics and cline data for years since you've been posting here.
Also, while humidity would change with Saharan desertification cycles becoming more/less dry, temperature wouldn't much - the Sahara desert has more or less been at the same latitude and so very similar levels of solar radiation have been constant. You constantly ignore this because in terms of pigmentation, northern Saharans (e.g. Egyptians), above the tropics, are not 'black' in their pigmentation. All African populations for you have to be 'black' to fit your pan-African politics.
quote: why does specifically having physical adaptations to a desert mean someone has to be separated from the rest of Africa?
Pan-Africanism again. You're insane. Why do you oppose so much someone discussing Sahara in a local regional context, excluding the rest of Africa? No other people on earth are clinging to this loony pan/continental political ideology - only black Afrocentrist on the internet. If someone wanted to distinguish southern Europeans and northern Europeans - I wouldn't take offense to it and I've done it many times. Both are significantly different in frequency of pigmentation traits. Just look at an eye or hair colour map.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^OKay Okay, Because you feel differentiated from other europeans despite there being an obvious universal pan-European perspective and Ideology, we should all separate and disperse into our respective corners.
Despite AA's being mixed, Caribbean & S.American blacks even more mixed (with both OOA populations AND variable african populations, including saharan Africans) and yet still clumped together as singular monolithic racial group with people across ~14,000,000 square kilometers of land... A pan African Ideology makes no sense...
Iight we get it bro cool story.
Would you mind referring to the OP now? So what you're saying, the MtDna in Abusir mummies are reflective of the coptic populations right? ...right? Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The dendrogram he posted is from Kemp. Its a decade old. What we now know (since 2012) is that the "Archaic African" [Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Nubian] sample -Wadi Halfa- is not representative of samples from roughly the same region -al Khiday- the Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Nubians actually plot with the ancient/medieval Nubians, near to Egyptians. I've shown this with dental data ( Irish, 2012; 2016). Sub-Saharan Africans though don't plot close, i.e. look at the great distance of "Negroid" to Egyptians/Nubians.
Someone might point out the relatively close morphometric distance of "Ethiopic" [Tigray Ethiopian or Somali) to Egyptians/Nubians in Kemp. However, these same sampl don't plot close in cranial non-metric (Hanihara et al) or dental, e.g. Somali have a different non-metric dental pattern to North Africans and larger teeth. As C. Loring Brace et al. 1993 points out, Somalis are not strictly speaking microdont: "the Somalis from the Horn of East Africa sit right on the dividing line between mesodont and microdont."
What is the difference between the dendrograms by Kemp and Irish?
What Kemp shows is on the overall, between regional populations. And in that case regional Africans come closer with non-Africans. This has been shown plot after plot. Irish shows the distinction between these regional groups.
quote:Dating to at least 9,000+ BP, the new sample (n=40) may be the first of Late Paleolithic age recovered in >40 years; however, until additional fieldwork and dating are conducted, the excavators prefer the more conservative term of "pre-Mesolithic."
—J. Irish
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Sub-Saharan Africans though don't plot close,
Of which sub-Saharans do you speak? I want you to be very clear here.
quote: At El Barga cemetery, individuals were buried in a flexed position, mostly (43%) with the head in the NW quadrant. They are quite robust and show affinities with other populations we know of from the Nile valley, such as those of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa (Wendorf 1968; Croevecour 2012).
—Donatella Usai
A Picture of Prehistoric Sudan: The Mesolithic and Neolithic Periods
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.013.56
quote: Predynastic (pre-unification) adult teeth and found an incidence of caries of 2.3%. Grilletto26 found 6.14% of Predynastic teeth affected by caries, but only 4.65% of Dynastic teeth. This reduction, he suggested, was caused by improving environmental conditions in the Dynastic period, but equally so could have been due to settlement selection or methodology in sampling.
—R. J. Forshaw
Dental health and disease in ancient Egypt
British Dental Journal 206, 421 - 424 (2009) Published online: 25 April 2009 | doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.309
To put things in perspective for you:
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
STRUCTURE's still cool but I'm really digging on fineSTRUCTURE.
Thing I like about GLOBETROTTER and MALDER is how they beyond f-stats and can show if donors to an admixture are admixed themselves.
That allows us to see if here to now Eurasian known elements in African populations come from Eurasia, Afroasia, or Africa.
BTW Stora's the ****! Saved me. Stopped working on stuff Stora laid out just the way I wanted it.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^Swenet, I notice all these populations near Egypt, Northeast Africa came out of: Africa (Ethiopic), is that correct?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "came out of Africa (Ethiopic)" in relation to that dendrogram. Can you clarify?
It seems as if the Africa (Ethiopic) comes before the Northeast African groups in this tree, but maybe I am seeing it wrong. I don't know what the dendrogram is about, so I can't tell what the relation is.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: The only person clinging to "monolithic" African is you, since you're trying to cluster Saharan populations with the rest of Africa - as part of your pan-African identity politics. Heck, above you describe Saharan ecology only as "African", you can't even bring yourself to use the word Saharan because that would mean distinguishing Saharan's to SSA's which conflicts with your politics.
And nice straw man, the fact I distinguish between Saharan and Sub-Saharan African populations, means I think the latter are a cluster. lol. I've always distinguished the different populations in SSA, even in recent posts. My only usage of SSA is relative to the Sahara, how else do you expect me to distinguish these regional populations? Do you expect me to list hundreds of ethnic groups below the Sahara individually? I just say SSA because its quicker. There is no SSA biological cluster. Its like you ignored all genetics and cline data for years since you've been posting here.
Also, while humidity would change with Saharan desertification cycles becoming more/less dry, temperature wouldn't much - the Sahara desert has more or less been at the same latitude and so very similar levels of solar radiation have been constant. You constantly ignore this because in terms of pigmentation, northern Saharans (e.g. Egyptians), above the tropics, are not 'black' in their pigmentation. All African populations for you have to be 'black' to fit your pan-African politics.
You're not merely stating that in light of Africa's sheer size and its multiple ecological zones that there is an incomparable level of variation within the continent, are you? You're not saying that Africa's different ecological zones have produced the shortest people (Pygmies) and some of the tallest people (Nilotics) and people with light brown skin (San), those with mahogany-brown skin (ancient Egyptians) and the pitch-black skin (Dinka) as all just derivatives of adaptation to their environments in Africa. No, in-situ adaptation is not your position.
The neurotic thematic hinge of all your posts, is that "Eurasians" colonized Egypt at some point prior to State formation but the complete absence of evidence for this at any point in the Chalcolithic and the Neolithic has left you with no recourse but to hunt for hope in the Epipaleolithic. You wish to assert that North Africa populations are "Eurasian" derived and have thus historically been far more intimated with "Eurasians" than they are with all other Africans.
There is simply no ignoring the mahogany brown Southern Egyptians, Beja, the Zenata, Masmuda and the Sanhaja Berbers, the Tuareg Berbers of Libya, the Toubou, the Siwa Berbers of Egypt and other North African populations. The Coastal Berbers did not precede these dark-skin North Africans.
The Tuaregs have a common origin with the Beja of Sudan, and it's well established that the Berber language originates in Northeast Africa. The most predominant [E1b1b] sub-clade in the Maghreb (even on the Coast) is E-M81 -- a clade derived from the Northeast African E-M35. This clade has a frequency of 100% in certain regions of the Maghreb.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Using the Hirisplex prediction model (18), GD13a was predicted to have brown eyes (p-value = 0.993) and dark (p-value=0.997), black (p-value=0.899) hair. This was confirmed using imputed genotypes. The eye-colour HERC2 variant rs12913832 was assigned almost equal likelihoods of being homozygous for the ancestral allele (A; genotype probability = 0.501) and heterozygous (AG; genotype probability = 0.499). Given this result, and that the ancestral allele was observed (2-fold coverage) in the sample it is very likely that GD13a had at least one copy of the ancestral dominant allele associated with brown eyes. Using either state (homozygous ancestral or heterozygous) in the Hirisplex model and imposing a genotype probability cut-off of 0.9 for the other imputed genotypes, GD13a was predicted with the imputation approach to have dark (p-value ≥ 0.974), black (p-value ≥ 0.703) hair and brown eyes (p-value ≥ 0.952).
We did not observe the derived SLC45A2 variant (rs16891982) associated with light skin pigmentation in GD13a (also supported by the imputed genotype) but did observe the derived SLC24A5 variant (rs1426654) which is also associated with the same trait in modern populations. The imputed genotype for the latter suggests that this individual was heterozygous at this position (genotype probability > 0.999). Using either observed or imputed genotypes, GD13a did not show the most common variant of the LCT gene (rs4988235) associated with lactase persistence in Europeans (Table S5).
—M. Gallego-Llorente,
The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: (genetic drift), not selection. […]
It is most likely both.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: since you're trying to cluster Saharan populations with the rest of Africa.
Saharan populations have na old history and are widespread of Africa. Going from the East coast to the West coast.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Saharan's to SSA's
Fact is that Sahara copulation always had contact with those from the so called SSA.
See, this is where you lack knowledge on African ethnography. In other words you are talking out of your ass, right now.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
All Saharan Africans [North Africans] have a similar non-metric dental pattern as well as microdonty (small teeth) and plot close together.
This is what Afrocentrists are running away from:
"[The Egyptian] samples [of 996 mummies] exhibit morphologically simple, mass-reduced dentitions that are similar to those in populations from greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1998a–c, 2000) and, to a lesser extent, western Asia and Europe (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a)." (Irish, 2006)
Sub-Saharan Africans do not have the same non-metric dental pattern, nor microdonty ("mass-reduced dentitions"). There's pretty much no exception to this, e.g. even Horn Africans like Somalis don't have the same non-metric dental pattern as North Africans, nor microdonty (Brace et al. 1993).
The Sahel region, i.e. the transitional eco-region between Saharan Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, you find people with mosaic dental affinities, intermediate between Saharan African and Sub-Saharan Africans. This is covered by Irish & Konigsberg (2007). So for example Jebel Moya, i.e central Sudanese plot between Saharan Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans:
"If phenetic similarity provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, these affinities, like the original craniometric findings, suggest that the Jebel Moyans exhibited a mosaic of features that are reminiscent of, yet distinct from, both sub-Saharan and North African peoples. Together, these different lines of evidence correspond to portray the Jebel Moya populace as a uniform, although distinct, biocultural amalgam."
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
All Saharan Africans [North Africans] have a similar non-metric dental pattern as well as microdonty (small teeth) and plot close together.
This is what Afrocentrists are running away from:
"[The Egyptian] samples [of 996 mummies] exhibit morphologically simple, mass-reduced dentitions that are similar to those in populations from greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1998a–c, 2000) and, to a lesser extent, western Asia and Europe (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a)." (Irish, 2006)
Sub-Saharan Africans do not have the same non-metric dental pattern, nor microdonty ("mass-reduced dentitions"). There's pretty much no exception to this, e.g. even Horn Africans like Somalis don't have the same non-metric dental pattern as North Africans, nor microdonty (Brace et al. 1993).
The Sahel region, i.e. the transitional eco-region between Saharan Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, you find people with mosaic dental affinities, intermediate between Saharan African and Sub-Saharan Africans. This is covered by Irish & Konigsberg (2007). So for example Jebel Moya, i.e central Sudanese plot between Saharan Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans:
"If phenetic similarity provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, these affinities, like the original craniometric findings, suggest that the Jebel Moyans exhibited a mosaic of features that are reminiscent of, yet distinct from, both sub-Saharan and North African peoples. Together, these different lines of evidence correspond to portray the Jebel Moya populace as a uniform, although distinct, biocultural amalgam."
quote:"However, gene flow between sub-Saharan and northern African populations would also have been made possible earlier through the greening of the Sahara resulting from Early Holocene climatic improvement."
--Eliška Podgorná et al.
Annals of Human Genetics Volume 77, Issue 6, pages 513–523, November 2013
The Genetic Impact of the Lake Chad Basin Population in North Africa as Documented by Mitochondrial Diversity and Internal Variation of the L3e5 Haplogroup
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: All Saharan Africans [North Africans] have a similar non-metric dental pattern as well as microdonty (small teeth) and plot close together.
Saharans go from North Sahara to South Sahara. Thanks for debunking yourself once again.
quote: There is no significant dental difference between the Hierakonpolis C-Group and samples originating in Nubia proper …
--J.D. Irish, R. Friedman
Dental affinities of the C-group inhabitants of Hierakonpolis, Egypt: Nubian, Egyptian, or both?
All Saharan Africans [North Africans] have a similar non-metric dental pattern as well as microdonty (small teeth) and plot close together.
This is what Afrocentrists are running away from:
"[The Egyptian] samples [of 996 mummies] exhibit morphologically simple, mass-reduced dentitions that are similar to those in populations from greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1998a–c, 2000) and, to a lesser extent, western Asia and Europe (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a)." (Irish, 2006)
Sub-Saharan Africans do not have the same non-metric dental pattern, nor microdonty ("mass-reduced dentitions"). There's pretty much no exception to this, e.g. even Horn Africans like Somalis don't have the same non-metric dental pattern as North Africans, nor microdonty (Brace et al. 1993).
The Sahel region, i.e. the transitional eco-region between Saharan Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, you find people with mosaic dental affinities, intermediate between Saharan African and Sub-Saharan Africans. This is covered by Irish & Konigsberg (2007). So for example Jebel Moya, i.e central Sudanese plot between Saharan Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans:
"If phenetic similarity provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, these affinities, like the original craniometric findings, suggest that the Jebel Moyans exhibited a mosaic of features that are reminiscent of, yet distinct from, both sub-Saharan and North African peoples. Together, these different lines of evidence correspond to portray the Jebel Moya populace as a uniform, although distinct, biocultural amalgam."
I keep asking of which sub-Saharan Africans do you speak? Thus far still no answer. I wonder how come.
This is what euroclowns run away from.
quote: At El Barga cemetery, individuals were buried in a flexed position, mostly (43%) with the head in the NW quadrant. They are quite robust and show affinities with other populations we know of from the Nile valley, such as those of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa (Wendorf 1968; Croevecour 2012).
—Donatella Usai
A Picture of Prehistoric Sudan: The Mesolithic and Neolithic Periods
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.013.56
quote: Predynastic (pre-unification) adult teeth and found an incidence of caries of 2.3%. Grilletto26 found 6.14% of Predynastic teeth affected by caries, but only 4.65% of Dynastic teeth. This reduction, he suggested, was caused by improving environmental conditions in the Dynastic period, but equally so could have been due to settlement selection or methodology in sampling.
—R. J. Forshaw
Dental health and disease in ancient Egypt
British Dental Journal 206, 421 - 424 (2009) Published online: 25 April 2009 | doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.309
To put things in perspective for you:
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Hilarious Afronuts are arguing against local biological continuity in the Nubian region to try to insert Sub-Saharan Africans then turn around and criticize me. Afronuts don't even care about local continuity inside Africa, only as long as it is broadly "African" as part of their pan-African politics. This lunacy would be like someone arguing the Romans were actually Norsemen, who cares right as long as they're "European". Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
The nature of the populations at Jebel Moya during the time period represented by Assemblage 3 remains unresolved. Rachel Hutton MacDonald (1999) compared samples of teeth from Jebel Moya with those of ethnographically and archaeologically known hunter-gatherer, pastoralist and agriculturalist societies. Dental caries occur when the pH of the oral environment remains consistently below 5.5, causing the dental enamel to become demineralised. In total she examined 2411 teeth from Jebel Moya where the incidence of caries, expressed as a proportion of the total number of teeth examined, was 0.2% (MacDonald 1999: 161), which groups them together with known (modern) pastoral societies. By contrast, the value for samples from Meroitic Nubia (581 teeth) was 15.1% (MacDonald 1999: 161). Furthermore, the Jebel Moya caries occur most frequently on the third molar, whereas caries occurs most frequently on the second molar in the known (semi)-sedentary agricultural populations studied.
It is also worth noting that there are, in total, 55 occurrences of cattle bones among the burial assemblages, either as parts of the animal (e.g. foot) in association with a human burial or as a separate cattle inhumation. Several small clay cattle figurines were also found, though none were part of the burial assemblages. Furthermore, there are no artefacts at Jebel Moya such as sickles or hoes that might indicate harvesting and only one grindstone was found in the burial assemblages. Counterpoised against this information privileging a (specialised?) pastoral economy is the evidence from the contemporary occupation at Jebel et Tomat, where both domesticated sorghum and numerous grindstones occur (Clark 1973; Clark and Stemler 1975). As no botanical analysis was done at Jebel Moya, it is unknown whether domesticated or wild cultivated sorghum was present there, if at all. It may appear then that the southern Gezira Plain was occupied by societies both with a greater and lesser degree of mobility associated with pastoralism, which would mirror the situation in the neighbouring Butana region (Bradley 1992).
[…]
—Michael Brassa,* and Jean-Luc Schwennigerb
Jebel Moya (Sudan): new dates from a mortuary complex at the southern Meroitic frontier
Azania. 2013 Dec; 48(4): 455–472. Published online 2013 Oct 28. doi: 10.1080/0067270X.2013.843258
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Those two Nubian Epipalolithic-Mesolithic samples (Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa) have macrodont teeth, but the al-Khidsay sample (same age) from roughly same region does not, but microdonty. So there's biological continuity-
So what's you point? In time frame there is no oddity. Different populations from the South inhabited the region.
quote: Morphological variation of the skeletal remains of ancient Nubia has been traditionally explained as a product of multiple migrations into the Nile Valley. In contrast, various researchers have noted a continuity in craniofacial variation from Mesolithic through Neolithic times. This apparent continuity could be explained by in situ cultural evolution producing shifts in selective pressures which may act on teeth, the facial complex, and the cranial vault.
A series of 13 Mesolithic skulls from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, are compared to Nubian Neolithic remains by means of extended canonical analysis. Results support recent research which suggests consistent trends of facial reduction and cranial vault expansion from Mesolithic through Neolithic times.
--Meredith F. Small* The nubian mesolithic: A consideration of the Wadi Halfa remains
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Afronuts don't even care about local continuity inside Africa, only as long as it is broadly "African" as part of their pan-African politics.
You do realize that you are debunking yourself here?
Let this marinate:
quote: Predynastic (pre-unification) adult teeth and found an incidence of caries of 2.3%. Grilletto26 found 6.14% of Predynastic teeth affected by caries, but only 4.65% of Dynastic teeth. This reduction, he suggested, was caused by improving environmental conditions in the Dynastic period, but equally so could have been due to settlement selection or methodology in sampling.
—R. J. Forshaw
Dental health and disease in ancient Egypt
British Dental Journal 206, 421 - 424 (2009) Published online: 25 April 2009 | doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.309
LOL at Euronut logic.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The neurotic thematic hinge of all your posts, is that "Eurasians" colonized Egypt at some point prior to State formation but the complete absence of evidence for this at any point in the Chalcolithic and the Neolithic has left you with no recourse but to hunt for hope in the Epipaleolithic. You wish to assert that North Africa populations are "Eurasian" derived and have thus historically been far more intimated with "Eurasians" than they are with all other Africans.
You aren't familiar with anthro literature.
These DNA results will just revive Chamla's 1980s hypothesis that Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Capsians were "Proto-Mediterraneans" from Near-East. We lack Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic skulls from Egypt to find this "Caucasoid" morphotype, but we find it in the western Sahara. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture
What I wrote back in 2012...
quote:Caucasoids entered North Africa before the Neolithic. The earliest Caucasoid remains are associated with Type B Capsians (10th - 9th millenium BC) in Algeria: "Vault is shorter, forehead is high, the browridges vary in size, long and narrow face and nose, high orbits" (Briggs, 1955). They are also orthognathic.
Chamla (1978, 1980, 1986) distinguishes between two racial types: (a) the 'Mechta-Afalou' (robust, prognathic, wide nosed) to the (b) Proto-Mediterranean (Caucasoid) as described as Type B above. The Mechta-Afalou are associated with the earlier Mouillian culture in the same region (20,000 B. P).
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The neurotic thematic hinge of all your posts, is that "Eurasians" colonized Egypt at some point prior to State formation but the complete absence of evidence for this at any point in the Chalcolithic and the Neolithic has left you with no recourse but to hunt for hope in the Epipaleolithic. You wish to assert that North Africa populations are "Eurasian" derived and have thus historically been far more intimated with "Eurasians" than they are with all other Africans.
You aren't familiar with anthro literature.
These DNA results will just revive Chamla's 1980s hypothesis that Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Capsians were "Proto-Mediterraneans" from Near-East. We lack Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic skulls from Egypt to find this "Caucasoid" morphotype, but we find it in the western Sahara. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture
What I wrote back in 2012...
quote:Caucasoids entered North Africa before the Neolithic. The earliest Caucasoid remains are associated with Type B Capsians (10th - 9th millenium BC) in Algeria: "Vault is shorter, forehead is high, the browridges vary in size, long and narrow face and nose, high orbits" (Briggs, 1955). They are also orthognathic.
Chamla (1978, 1980, 1986) distinguishes between two racial types: (a) the 'Mechta-Afalou' (robust, prognathic, wide nosed) to the (b) Proto-Mediterranean (Caucasoid) as described as Type B above. The Mechta-Afalou are associated with the earlier Mouillian culture in the same region (20,000 B. P).
quote:
Kiffian
Forensic reconstruction Resin, University of Chicago and Project Exploration
Forensic reconstruction Resin, University of Chicago and Project Exploration
quote: Craniometric data from seven human groups (Tables 3, 4) were subjected to principal components analysis, which allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania [18], [26], [27] and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb
Figure 6. Principal components analysis of craniofacial dimensions among Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene populations from the Maghreb and southern Sahara.
Table 3. Nine human populations sampled for craniometric analysis ranging in age from the Late Pleistocene (ca. 80,000 BP, Aterian) to the mid-Holocene (ca. 4000 BP) and in geographic distribution across the Maghreb to the southern Sahara [18], [19], [26], [27], [54]. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002995.t003
quote:This site has been called Gobero, after the local Tuareg name for the area. About 10,000 years ago (7700–6200 B.C.E.), Gobero was a much less arid environment than it is now. In fact, it was actually a rather humid lake side hometown of sorts for a group of hunter-fisher-gatherers who not only lived their but also buried their dead there. How do we know they were fishing? Well, remains of large nile perch and harpoons were found dating to this time period.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The neurotic thematic hinge of all your posts, is that "Eurasians" colonized Egypt at some point prior to State formation but the complete absence of evidence for this at any point in the Chalcolithic and the Neolithic has left you with no recourse but to hunt for hope in the Epipaleolithic. You wish to assert that North Africa populations are "Eurasian" derived and have thus historically been far more intimated with "Eurasians" than they are with all other Africans.
You aren't familiar with anthro literature.
These DNA results will just revive Chamla's 1980s hypothesis that Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Capsians were "Proto-Mediterraneans" from Near-East. We lack Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic skulls from Egypt to find this "Caucasoid" morphotype, but we find it in the western Sahara. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture
What I wrote back in 2012...
quote:Caucasoids entered North Africa before the Neolithic. The earliest Caucasoid remains are associated with Type B Capsians (10th - 9th millenium BC) in Algeria: "Vault is shorter, forehead is high, the browridges vary in size, long and narrow face and nose, high orbits" (Briggs, 1955). They are also orthognathic.
Chamla (1978, 1980, 1986) distinguishes between two racial types: (a) the 'Mechta-Afalou' (robust, prognathic, wide nosed) to the (b) Proto-Mediterranean (Caucasoid) as described as Type B above. The Mechta-Afalou are associated with the earlier Mouillian culture in the same region (20,000 B. P).
You are for sure wacky in the head.
quote:The older occupants have craniofacial dimensions that demonstrate similarities with mid-Holocene occupants of the southern Sahara and Late Pleistocene to early Holocene inhabitants of the Maghreb.
quote:These early occupants abandon the area under arid conditions and, when humid conditions return ~4600 B.C.E., are replaced by a more gracile people with elaborated grave goods including animal bone and ivory ornaments.
quote: Principal components analysis of craniometric variables closely allies the early Holocene occupants at Gobero with a skeletally robust, trans-Saharan assemblage of Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene human populations from the Maghreb and southern Sahara.
quote:Figure 6. Principal components analysis of craniofacial dimensions among Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene populations from the Maghreb and southern Sahara.
Plot of first two principal components extracted from a mean matrix for 17 craniometric variables (Tables 4, 7) in 9 human populations (Table 3) from the Late Pleistocene through the mid-Holocene from the Maghreb and southern Sahara. Seven trans-Saharan populations cluster together, whereas Late Pleistocene Aterians (Ater) and the mid-Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-m) are striking outliers. Axes are scaled by the square root of the corresponding eigenvalue for the principal component. Abbreviations: Ater, Aterian; EMC, eastern Maghreb Capsian; EMI, eastern Maghreb Iberomaurusian; Gob-e, Gobero early Holocene; Gob-m, Gobero mid-Holocene; Mali, Hassi-el-Abiod, Mali; Maur, Mauritania; WMC, western Maghreb Capsian; WMI, western Maghreb Iberomaurusian.
--(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002995.g006)
The above encapsulated exactly with the Genetic mutation and occurrence of E-M81.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The neurotic thematic hinge of all your posts, is that "Eurasians" colonized Egypt at some point prior to State formation but the complete absence of evidence for this at any point in the Chalcolithic and the Neolithic has left you with no recourse but to hunt for hope in the Epipaleolithic. You wish to assert that North Africa populations are "Eurasian" derived and have thus historically been far more intimated with "Eurasians" than they are with all other Africans.
You aren't familiar with anthro literature.
These DNA results will just revive Chamla's 1980s hypothesis that Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Capsians were "Proto-Mediterraneans" from Near-East. We lack Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic skulls from Egypt to find this "Caucasoid" morphotype, but we find it in the western Sahara. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture
What I wrote back in 2012...
quote:Caucasoids entered North Africa before the Neolithic. The earliest Caucasoid remains are associated with Type B Capsians (10th - 9th millenium BC) in Algeria: "Vault is shorter, forehead is high, the browridges vary in size, long and narrow face and nose, high orbits" (Briggs, 1955). They are also orthognathic.
Chamla (1978, 1980, 1986) distinguishes between two racial types: (a) the 'Mechta-Afalou' (robust, prognathic, wide nosed) to the (b) Proto-Mediterranean (Caucasoid) as described as Type B above. The Mechta-Afalou are associated with the earlier Mouillian culture in the same region (20,000 B. P).
It's amusing how euronuts try to STEAL African history, like fucking thieves.
quote:
Southeast and south Asian populations are also often thought to be derived from the admixture of various combinations of western Eurasians (‘Caucasoids’), east Asians and Australasians. ...
These findings, coupled with the recently discovered presence of haplogroup U in Ethiopia [11], support a scenario in which a northeast African population dispersed out of Africa into India, presumably through the Arabian peninsula, before 50,000 years ago (Figure 2). Other migrations into India also occurred, but rarely from western Eurasian populations. ...
Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’— that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.
--Todd R. Disotell.
Human evolution: The southern route to Asia
Volume 9, Issue 24, 30 December 1999, Pages R925–R928
quote: Evidence from throughout the Sahara indicates that the region experienced a cool, dry and windy climate during the last glacial period, followed by a wetter climate with the onset of the current interglacial, with humid conditions being fully established by around 10,000 years BP, when we see the first evidence of a reoccupation of parts of the central Sahara by hunter gathers, most likely originating from sub-Saharan Africa (Cremaschi and Di Lernia, 1998; Goudie, 1992; Phillipson, 1993; Ritchie, 1994; Roberts, 1998).
[...]
Conical tumuli, platform burials and a V-type monument represent structures similar to those found in other Saharan regions and associated with human burials, appearing in sixth millennium BP onwards in northeast Niger and southwest Libya (Sivilli, 2002). In the latter area a shift in emphasis from faunal to human burials, complete by the early fifth millennium BP, has been interpreted by Di Lernia and Manzi (2002) as being associated with a changes in social organisation that occurred at a time of increasing aridity. While further research is required in order to place the funerary monuments of Western Sahara in their chronological context, we can postulate a similar process as a hypothesis to be tested, based on the high density of burial sites recorded in the 2002 survey. Fig. 2: Megaliths associated with tumulus burial (to right of frame), north of Tifariti (Fig. 1). A monument consisting of sixty five stelae was also of great interest; precise alignments north and east, a division of the area covered into separate units, and a deliberate scattering of quartzite inside the structure, are suggestive of an astronomical function associated with funerary rituals. Stelae are also associated with a number of burial sites, again suggesting dual funerary and astronomical functions (Figure 2). Further similarities with other Saharan regions are evident in the rock art recorded in the study area, although local stylistic developments are also apparent. Carvings of wild fauna at the site of Sluguilla resemble the Tazina style found in Algeria, Libya and Morocco (Pichler and Rodrigue, 2003), although examples of elephant and rhinoceros in a naturalistic style reminiscent of engravings from the central Sahara believed to date from the early Holocene are also present.
--Nick Brooks et al. (2004)
The prehistory of Western Sahara in a regional context: the archaeology of the "free zone"
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Saharan Studies Programme and School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Coauthors: Di Lernia, Savino ((Department of Scienze Storiche, Archeologiche, e Antropologiche dell’Antichitŕ, Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Via Palestro 63, 00185 – Rome, Italy) and Drake, Nick (Department of Geography, King’s College, Strand, London WC2R 2LS).
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Pan-Africanism again. You're insane. Why do you oppose so much someone discussing Sahara in a local regional context, excluding the rest of Africa? No other people on earth are clinging to this loony pan/continental political ideology - only black Afrocentrist on the internet. If someone wanted to distinguish southern Europeans and northern Europeans - I wouldn't take offense to it and I've done it many times. Both are significantly different in frequency of pigmentation traits. Just look at an eye or hair colour map.
Ah, I see, so you wouldn't have any problems with non-Europeans insisting that natural variation within Europe isn't responsible for any differences observed in European populations but that Southern Europeans are derived from Africans and that the Minoans, ancient Greeks, Etruscans and Romans and their civilizations were all African derived and not at all related to any European in Northwest, Central and Northeast Europe?
And the Europeans that had the gall to rebuff this absurd attempt at appropriating European history could be branded insane. Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why I have a hard time entertaining oide science. You go along with it knowing it's just a matter of time before some fool says 'and then a bunch of Caucasians came to Africa'... ok ok then next its ' and then the Caucasians set up shop right below Egypt'. That rationale is on time all the time. Its black people saying 'money aint everything'. You know its coming. Show me some Caucasian dogs, camels, goats, show me some Caucasian culture otherwise its the soft shoe dynastic race theory.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The neurotic thematic hinge of all your posts, is that "Eurasians" colonized Egypt at some point prior to State formation but the complete absence of evidence for this at any point in the Chalcolithic and the Neolithic has left you with no recourse but to hunt for hope in the Epipaleolithic. You wish to assert that North Africa populations are "Eurasian" derived and have thus historically been far more intimated with "Eurasians" than they are with all other Africans.
You aren't familiar with anthro literature.
These DNA results will just revive Chamla's 1980s hypothesis that Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Capsians were "Proto-Mediterraneans" from Near-East. We lack Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic skulls from Egypt to find this "Caucasoid" morphotype, but we find it in the western Sahara. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsian_culture
What I wrote back in 2012...
quote:Caucasoids entered North Africa before the Neolithic. The earliest Caucasoid remains are associated with Type B Capsians (10th - 9th millenium BC) in Algeria: "Vault is shorter, forehead is high, the browridges vary in size, long and narrow face and nose, high orbits" (Briggs, 1955). They are also orthognathic.
Chamla (1978, 1980, 1986) distinguishes between two racial types: (a) the 'Mechta-Afalou' (robust, prognathic, wide nosed) to the (b) Proto-Mediterranean (Caucasoid) as described as Type B above. The Mechta-Afalou are associated with the earlier Mouillian culture in the same region (20,000 B. P).
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The only person clinging to "monolithic" African is you, since you're trying to cluster Saharan populations with the rest of Africa - as part of your pan-African identity politics.
"Saharan" vs. "Non Saharan" is a political construct. When you evaluate Africa there are several ecological constructs, not two. Why would people from the other several ecosystems be characterized as one unit ("Sub Saharan") though their ecosystems are unique as well? The Saharan ecosystem is arbitrarily made the only ecosystem that cannot be included into this fictional ecosystem created for everyone else because it's the only one regarded as unique (erroneously). If there were a system that took note to describe African people by the several ecosystems they live in instead of making pairing the Sahara with a single (fictional) one, this would be more sound. If the people inhabiting these ecosystems decided to then create a political alliance, that would be up to them. But you're saying that not accepting the present labeling is political when it's just common sense. Politics created those divisions to begin with.
quote: Heck, above you describe Saharan ecology only as "African", you can't even bring yourself to use the word Saharan because that would mean distinguishing Saharan's to SSA's which conflicts with your politics.
It's "political" to discuss the Sahara and the people in it as Africans when they are in Africa? Is discussing Australian Aborigines as Australians political too? Or is it only not political unless I referred to them by specific ecological system (Tanami Australians)? The Sahara is one of several ecosystems. The Namib and Kalahari are also deserts in Africa. Distinguishing the Sahara from "the rest of Africa" is political. Otherwise all of Africa and it's people would be discussed in ecological terms. So if I don't distinguish the Sahara because other parts of Africa aren't consistently being distinguished (as ecological systems) in conversation-- it's "political."
quote: And nice straw man, the fact I distinguish between Saharan and Sub-Saharan African populations, means I think the latter are a cluster. lol. I've always distinguished the different populations in SSA, even in recent posts. My only usage of SSA is relative to the Sahara, how else do you expect me to distinguish these regional populations?
If you're going to discuss a group of people living in Africa in ecological terms (Saharan Africans), it'd make sense to distinguish the rest of Africa by ecological terms as well. Sub Saharan is not descriptive of an ecosystem, and caters to a political interest to treat the rest of Africa as a monolithic community.
quote: Do you expect me to list hundreds of ethnic groups below the Sahara individually? I just say SSA because its quicker.
If you can spare enough time to discuss Africa in ecological terms, Eurocentrics can learn about the ecosystems of Africa and to define the rest of Africa through similar ecological terminology
quote:Also, while humidity would change with Saharan desertification cycles becoming more/less dry, temperature wouldn't much - the Sahara desert has more or less been at the same latitude and so very similar levels of solar radiation have been constant. You constantly ignore this because in terms of pigmentation, northern Saharans (e.g. Egyptians), above the tropics, are not 'black' in their pigmentation. All African populations for you have to be 'black' to fit your pan-African politics.
"Black" is a political construct. You have Khoisan, African Americans, Ngwa Igbo all regarded very often by this sociological construct. They all have varying levels of pigmentation, some even lighter than the average ancient Egyptian. Ancient southern Egyptians were also not only in the tropical zone, but the Nubians from which the ancestral population and cultural complex formed that the Egyptians used later. The noted tropical body plans of many Egyptians demonstrates that many of them, regardless of climate changes still had tropical adaptations. This suggests a deeply rooted relationship to the Nubian regions (and people) of the Nile as well. I imagine this is especially true the further south we'd get with respect to Nubia and Egypt. And even if they'd fully adapted to the desert or a different latitude, that is an adaption to an African geological construct the same way Africans adapting to southern African deserts would be.
Anyways, some weigh-ins I'll try to read more about as I go:
quote: Southern Egypt, from which the genesis of Ancient Egypt civilization sprang, lies in the tropical zone, from the Tropics of Cancer to Capricorn with the Tropic of cancer bisecting Southern Egypt at 23°26'N 25°0'E. The rest of Egypt is very similar, and is placed by scholars in the immediately adjacent subtropical or arid tropic zone, NOT the cold-climate zones of Europe or Asia.
(Thompson and Perry, 1997; Griffiths, 1976, Troll and Pfaffen 1964, Koppen-Geiger classification 2006)
But if I may repeat once more: Africa doesn't have a monolithic ecology. Africans can live in many latitudes, climates or "zones." What I'm interested in is did they adapt to an African ecosystem? If so they're essentially adapted Africans. Many Egyptians show a deeply rooted connection to the Nubian area, possibly having endured selection there for a certain period because many of them harbored some tropical affinities. We can also argue that many Middle Easterners with "African" lineages were undergoing the same thing. With the respect to the Syrian people, you have nearly a third of some ancient Syrian ethnic groups with L lineages. This does not make them African adapted. More than likely it means they had a ancestor that was, but since adapted to the Syrian ecosystem and were just Syrians.
quote:
quote: why does specifically having physical adaptations to a desert mean someone has to be separated from the rest of Africa?
Pan-Africanism again. You're insane. Why do you oppose so much someone discussing Sahara in a local regional context, excluding the rest of Africa?
I noticed you wrung dry as much context for my comment as possible. I don't mind the Sahara discussed as a regional ecological system when it's only relevant to discuss that system. I'm talking about the Sahara being discussed in comparative terms with "Sub Saharan Africa." I do mind that it seems that the Sahara is the only ecological system referred to as an ecological system while none of the others normally are. This creates the illusion of a monolithic people that are in a nameless monolithic ecological system.
quote: No other people on earth are clinging to this loony pan/continental political ideology - only black Afrocentrist on the internet. If someone wanted to distinguish southern Europeans and northern Europeans - I wouldn't take offense to it and I've done it many times.
Yes but that's not analagous. "Northern and southern Europeans" describe directional constructs for both regions on equal terms. One is not referred to as an ecological construct while the other is just referred to in directional terms to that construct (which creates a regional centric model that masks in daily conversation ecological variability throughout Europe as a whole). It would be stupid to call people in Europe "Polar" or "Sub Polar" Europeans. That type of comparative description has little to no ecological value. All it emphasizes is what the rest of Europe is not. It's also centralizing one region and discussing all others in directional relationship. And yes, that is very political.In a similar situation, it would be stupid to call Australians "sub Tanami Australians" or Americans "Sub Canadian." Please don't try to normalize this lunacy. Most people do NOT discuss other places of the world like this. That is only valuable to people of a particular political mind. If you're going to discuss in comparative terms the regions of Africa, discuss the regions in ecological terms. If you want to discuss the Sahara and not the rest of Africa, just discuss the Sahara.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^Swenet, I notice all these populations near Egypt, Northeast Africa came out of: Africa (Ethiopic), is that correct?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "came out of Africa (Ethiopic)" in relation to that dendrogram. Can you clarify?
It seems as if the Africa (Ethiopic) comes before the Northeast African groups in this tree, but maybe I am seeing it wrong. I don't know what the dendrogram is about, so I can't tell what the relation is.
If you mean to ask whether the dendrogram suggests that "Africa (Ethiopic)" is ancestral to other samples on that branch, that's not how I personally read it...
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ^Swenet, I notice all these populations near Egypt, Northeast Africa came out of: Africa (Ethiopic), is that correct?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "came out of Africa (Ethiopic)" in relation to that dendrogram. Can you clarify?
It seems as if the Africa (Ethiopic) comes before the Northeast African groups in this tree, but maybe I am seeing it wrong. I don't know what the dendrogram is about, so I can't tell what the relation is.
If you mean to ask whether the dendrogram suggests that "Africa (Ethiopic)" is ancestral to other samples on that branch, that's not how I personally read it...
Yeah, that is what I meant. That is how I read it. As ancestral to the other groups.
I looked it up to be certain what Kemp talks about, but maybe I am missing or misinterpreting it here.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: With the respect to the Syrian people, you have nearly a third of some ancient Syrian ethnic groups with L lineages. This does not make them African adapted. More than likely it means they had a ancestor that was, but since adapted to the Syrian ecosystem and were just Syrians.
One could also argue that Syrians, especially ancient Syrians were an extend of Africa. Certainly by looking at the classic depictions.
posted
By your own logic Central Sudan is sub Sahara Africa, meaning Al Khidal is sub Saharan in origin.
So much for euroloon logic.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The dendrogram he posted is from Kemp. Its a decade old. What we now know (since 2012) is that the "Archaic African" [Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Nubian] sample -Wadi Halfa- is not representative of samples from roughly the same region -al Khiday- the Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Nubians actually plot with the ancient/medieval Nubians, near to Egyptians. I've shown this with dental data ( Irish, 2012; 2016). Sub-Saharan Africans though don't plot close, i.e. look at the great distance of "Negroid" to Egyptians/Nubians.
Someone might point out the relatively close morphometric distance of "Ethiopic" [Tigray Ethiopian or Somali) to Egyptians/Nubians in Kemp. However, these same sampl don't plot close in cranial non-metric (Hanihara et al) or dental, e.g. Somali have a different non-metric dental pattern to North Africans and larger teeth. As C. Loring Brace et al. 1993 points out, Somalis are not strictly speaking microdont: "the Somalis from the Horn of East Africa sit right on the dividing line between mesodont and microdont."
The bigger scope.
quote:"A preliminary comparison of dental nonmetric data in 15 late Pleistocene through early historic Nubian samples (n=795 individuals) with recently discovered remains from al Khiday in Upper Nubia may provide the answer. Dating to at least 9,000+ BP, the new sample (n=40) may be the first of Late Paleolithic age recovered in >40 years; however, until additional fieldwork and dating are conducted, the excavators prefer the more conservative term of "pre-Mesolithic."
Using the Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System to record traits and multivariate statistics to estimate pairwise affinities, it is evident that al Khiday is closely akin to most Holocene samples. It is widely divergent from Jebel Sahaba. As such, there does appear to be long-term biological continuity in the region after all.."
--Irish 2012. Population continuity after all? Potential late Pleistocene dental ancestors of Holocene Nubians have been found! AJPA Sup 54: 172-173
quote: Abstract
The first millennium BC in Sudan sees the birth of the Kushite (Napatan and then Meroitic) Kingdom. Royal cities, cemeteries and centres of religious power have attracted archaeologists and historians while peripheral areas have only rarely seen any systematic investigations. This lack of research provides difficulties in interpreting the limited evidence of the Napatan and Meroitic periods located on the White and Blue Niles and limits our comprehension of the role of this region within the political, economic and cultural framework of the kingdom. Recently, a multiphase cemetery was discovered at the site of Al Khiday 2, on the west bank of the White Nile, which was also used by a small group that is thought to be closely related to the Meroitic. The graves excavated have produced a bio-archaeological sample that is presented here with detailed descriptions of the funerary practices, including different types of grave structures, grave goods, burial position and orientation of the inhumations, as well as an overview of the anthropological analysis of this population. These findings are placed within the wider context of Meroitic studies by providing comparisons with contemporaneous sites, highlighting the possible elements of contiguity with that world, as well as providing some reflection on future research directions.
--D. Usai, S. Salvatori, T. Jakob & R. David
The Al Khiday Cemetery in Central Sudan and its “Classic/Late Meroitic” Period Graves
Journal of African Archaeology, Volume 12 (2), 2014, pages 183-204, DOI 10.3213/2191-5784-10254
quote:
Introduction
The population of the pre-Mesolithic cemetery at Al Khiday 2 (16-D-4, Figure 1) in central Sudan must have had a unique outlook on the afterlife. Archaeologists associate flexed inhumation burials common to prehistoric cemeteries worldwide with the foetal position, a formal expression of a 'new life'. However, what explanation can be suggested for burying the deceased in a prone and extended position as found at Al Khiday 2? Here we report on this unique cemetery with its unusual burial rite (Figure 2)
figure 1. map showing the location of the al khiday sites (16-d-5 and 16-d-4)
The cemetery is a multi-stratified site on a low fluvial bar, probably deposited by the Nile in the Upper Pleistocene (Williamson 2009), and is located 35km south of Omdurman, on the western bank of the White Nile. The site of Al Khiday 2 was discovered during an extensive survey covering c. 245km˛. Archaeological work took place in 2006-2008 excavating c. 475m˛. A total of 120 skeletons have so far been excavated and bioarchaeological studies, including demography, metric and non-metric analysis to establish population differences, as well as skeletal and dental pathology, were carried out. The site was excavated stratigraphically and organic material (charcoals, bones and shells) was collected for radiocarbon dating, performed at BETA Analytic Laboratory, USA (Table 1). Archaeological contexts were defined by pottery decoration, according to a classification proposed by Caneva (Caneva 1988), and supported by layer-feature specific radiometric dating. Calibration (2σ in the text) of conventional and AMS radiocarbon results used INTCAL04 under OxCal v.3.10; uncalibrated years are reported as bp while calibrated age is indicated as cal years BC/AD
So far, 50 individuals (males, females and children of all ages) have been excavated by the Is.I.A.O. (Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente) Archaeological Mission, all buried lying on their front. On the basis of radiocarbon dates (conventional and AMS) and stratigraphy the burials date to a pre-Mesolithic phase. During a well-defined Mesolithic phase (6580-6440 cal BC) the site was used as a settlement and later by a Neolithic population as a burial ground (4360-4250 cal BC). More recently, a Meroitic group selected it as their cemetery (20-140 cal AD). A total of 120 graves have been excavated and, on the basis of surface finds, nearly half of the cemetery has now been investigated. Ongoing bioarchaeological analyses indicate that the three populations differ in robusticity, occurrence of skeletal and dental diseases and tooth modification practices.
The Mesolithic features, consisting of pits of different function, allow the reconstruction of the anthropic and natural disturbances affecting the oldest graveyard phase (Figures 3 and 4). The pre-Mesolithic skeletons cannot be directly dated, being almost completely depleted of organic material (collagen), but they are placed in time through the stratigraphic evidence provided by some of these pits. Three radiocarbon dates on charcoal and shell from pits cutting through the skeletons imply a date for the human remains before 6600 cal BC (6660-6500 cal BC; 7050-6400 cal BC; 6590-6380 cal BC). These dates are supported by the pottery assemblage from the pits, which is also radiocarbon dated from a stratified layer at the nearby Al Khiday 1 settlement (Salvatori & Usai 2009), to about 6640-6450 cal BC. A radiocarbon date of 6650-6470 cal BC on organic matter in a marsh deposit formed during the Mesolithic occupation of the site, after the burial of the prone individuals, supports the attribution to a pre-Mesolithic phase.
--Donatella Usai, Sandro Salvatori, Paola Iacumin, Antonietta Di Matteo, Tina Jakob & Andrea Zerboni
Excavating a unique pre-Mesolithic cemetery in central Sudan
If you want to interpret that branch as "Africa (Ethiopic)" being ancestral, more power to you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Iberomaurusians do not cluster with Capsians in their dental metrics/non-metrics:
"However, there is no evidence for a close affinity between Afalou and Capsians, or with most other samples. Recent cranial analyses (Groves & Thorne, 1999) support these findings. Thus, conversely, several conclusions by Balout (1955), Chamla (1973, 1975, 1978), Camps (1974), and Hiernaux (1975) are sustained." (Irish, 2000)
The craniometric study you posted clustering Iberomaurusians with Capsians is pretty much contradicted by every other analysis, including Groves & Thorne (1999) and all of Chamla's studies (1973, 1975, 1978, 1980, 1986), e.g.
"The 'Proto-Mediterranean' class of physical remains is comprised of skeletons not displaying classic Mechtoid traits and exhibiting the broad physical characteristics of modern Mediterranean Caucasoid populations: no marked alveolar prognathism, round sagittal contour, narrow nasal aperture (Chamla, 1968). This physical type is first identified in Africa with the Capsian material culture (c. 9000-6000 BP)." (MacDonald, 1998)
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
This study showed population continuity within the Egyptian Dynastic period, a close relationship between Predynastic peoples of Egypt, and separation between the Predynastic peoples and the Dynastic peoples. While the Howells Egyptian group maintains a close relationship with later Egyptian groups, it has a special relationship with the Greek sample that the other Egyptian samples do not have. Therefore, we argue that Howells’ Egyptian group reflects greater Greek immigration and assimilation into the population of Egypt, a theory consistent with the historical data of the Late Period of Egypt.
—Sanders KE, Ousley SD, Rose J, Hanihara T. 2014
Craniometric analysis of the howells egyptian sample: the greek connection. Poster presented at the American Association of Physical Anthropologists 83rd Annual Meeting. April 8 12, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Iberomaurusians do not cluster with Capsians in their dental metrics/non-metrics:
"However, there is no evidence for a close affinity between Afalou and Capsians, or with most other samples. Recent cranial analyses (Groves & Thorne, 1999) support these findings. Thus, conversely, several conclusions by Balout (1955), Chamla (1973, 1975, 1978), Camps (1974), and Hiernaux (1975) are sustained." (Irish, 2000)
The craniometric study you posted clustering Iberomaurusians with Capsians is pretty much contradicted by every other analysis, including Groves & Thorne (1999) and all of Chamla's studies (1973, 1975, 1978, 1980, 1986), e.g.
"The 'Proto-Mediterranean' class of physical remains is comprised of skeletons not displaying classic Mechtoid traits and exhibiting the broad physical characteristics of modern Mediterranean Caucasoid populations: no marked alveolar prognathism, round sagittal contour, narrow nasal aperture (Chamla, 1968). This physical type is first identified in Africa with the Capsian material culture (c. 9000-6000 BP)." (MacDonald, 1998)
quote: WHAT BONES CAN TELL: BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE HUNTER-GATHERERS OF THE MAGHREB:
The extremely large skeletal samples that come from sites such as Taforalt (Fig. 8.13) and Afalou constitute an invaluable resource for understanding the makers of Iberomaurusian artifacts, and their number is unparalleled elsewhere in Africa for the early Holocene. Frequently termed Mechta-Afalou or Mechtoid, these were a skeletally robust people and definitely African in origin, though attempts, such as those of Ferembach (1985), to establish similarities with much older and rarer Aterian skeletal remains are tenuous given the immense temporal separation between the two (Close and Wendorf 1990). At the opposite end of the chronological spectrum, dental morphology does suggest connections with later Africans, including those responsible for the Capsian Industry (Irish 2000) and early mid-Holocene human remains from the western half of the Sahara (Dutour 1989), something that points to the Maghreb as one of the regions from which people recolonised the desert (MacDonald 1998).
Turning to what can be learned about cultural practices and disease, the individuals from Taforalt, the largest sample by far, display little evidence of trauma, though they do suggest a high incidence of infant mortality, with evidence for dental caries, arthritis, and rheumatism among other degenerative conditions. Interestingly, Taforalt also provides one of the oldest known instances of the practice of trepanation, the surgical removal of a portion of the cranium; the patient evidently survived for some time, as there are signs of bone regrowth in the affected area. Another form of body modification was much more widespread and, indeed, a distinctive feature of the Iberomaurusian skeletal sample as a whole. This was the practice of removing two or more of the upper incisors, usually around puberty and from both males and females, something that probably served as both a rite of passage and an ethnic marker (Close and Wendorf 1990), just as it does in parts of sub-Saharan Africa today (e.g., van Reenen 1987). Cranial and postcranial malformations are also apparent and may indicate pronounced endogamy at a much more localised level (Hadjouis 2002), perhaps supported by the degree of variability between different site samples noted by Irish (2000).
--Lawrence Barham The First Africans: African Archaeology from the Earliest Toolmakers to Most Recent Foragers (Cambridge World Archaeology)
quote:Mentions: Craniometric data from seven human groups (Tables 3, 4) were subjected to principal components analysis, which allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania [18], [26], [27] and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb (see cluster in Figure 6). The striking similarity between these seven human populations confirms previous suggestions regarding their affinity [18] and is particularly significant given their temporal range (Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene) and trans-Saharan geographic distribution (across the Maghreb to the southern Sahara
[…]
Trans-Saharan craniometry. Principal components analysis of craniometric variables closely allies the early Holocene occupants at Gobero, who were buried with Kiffian material culture, with Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene humans from the Maghreb and southern Sahara referred to as Iberomaurusians, Capsians and “Mechtoids.” Outliers to this cluster of populations include an older Aterian sample and the mid-Holocene occupants at Gobero associated with Tenerean material culture.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: "Saharan" vs. "Non Saharan" is a political construct.
Simply recognising the Saharan desert as a distinct climatic/eco-zone isn't politics. Are you mad? What is political is you trying to cluster all the diverse eco-zones in Africa together as part of your pan-African politics. Hence a few posts ago, you wouldn't say "Saharan ecological pressures", but "African ecological pressures" even though we were only discussing the Sahara.
quote: When you evaluate Africa there are several ecological constructs, not two. Why would people from the other several ecosystems be characterized as one unit ("Sub Saharan") though their ecosystems are unique as well?
Stop with the straw man arguments. I've never said there is a single Sub-Saharan African climatic/eco-zone, but the complete opposite. Simply look at the Koppen climate map: Sub-Saharan Africa has several (about half a dozen) different climatic regions/environments, none of these are the same. Hiernaux (1975) made a classification based on climatic adaptations, hence he came up with "broad" vs. "elongated" climatic morphotypes in Sub-Saharan Africa, the former more or less synonymous with "Negroid", while the latter "Aethiopid", then he also had "Pygmic", "Bushmen" and a few others. None of these regional morphotypes group together as some sort of race or meta-population. If the straw man you are proposing is true, why have I distinguished between SSA populations like Pygmies, Bushmen etc., for the past 7 years since posting here? hummm...
quote:The Saharan ecosystem is arbitrarily made the only ecosystem that cannot be included into this fictional ecosystem created for everyone else because it's the only one regarded as unique (erroneously). If there were a system that took note to describe African people by the several ecosystems they live in instead of making pairing the Sahara with a single (fictional) one, this would be more sound. If the people inhabiting these ecosystems decided to then create a political alliance, that would be up to them. But you're saying that not accepting the present labeling is political when it's just common sense. Politics created those divisions to begin with.
This is just the stupid straw man you made, I've covered it like 10 times... When we discuss Sub-Saharan Africa, no one is saying those different climatic/eco-zones cluster together; look at the Koppen climate map. My usage of Sub-Saharan Africa is only relative to the Sahara. And note when I discuss the Sahara I even distinguish between north and south Saharan populations like Egyptians and Nubians etc.
quote:It's "political" to discuss the Sahara and the people in it as Africans when they are in Africa?
The point is your political agenda is to cluster all Africans together hence you either ignore or downplay the great differences/heterogeneity between distant populations inside Africa. Hence you won't describe local Saharans, the latter in your view still have to be called "Africans". I don't suffer from this mental political bias, so I can discuss populations in a local regional context e.g. Saharans or Egyptians (north Saharans) vs. Nubians (south Saharans), and don't get mad, upset or laughably accuse people of "racism" for this.
quote:Is discussing Australian Aborigines as Australians political too? Or is it only not political unless I referred to them by specific ecological system (Tanami Australians)?
You're completely ignoring the fact there is little genetic/phenotypic differences between Australian aborigine tribes. That's why people call them "Australian aborigines". Its also why only one morphotype, with few exceptions, was recognised by old anthropologists: "Australoid".
quote:The Sahara is one of several ecosystems. The Namib and Kalahari are also deserts in Africa. Distinguishing the Sahara from "the rest of Africa" is political.
Again, same straw man.
quote:Otherwise all of Africa and it's people would be discussed in ecological terms.
As they already are. Read Hiernaux (1975).
quote:If you're going to discuss a group of people living in Africa in ecological terms (Saharan Africans), it'd make sense to distinguish the rest of Africa by ecological terms as well. Sub Saharan is not descriptive of an ecosystem, and caters to a political interest to treat the rest of Africa as a monolithic community.
Ok..., so next time I distinguish between Saharans and other regional populations, I will have to list half-a-dozen (or more!) separate climatic-zones, instead of convenience just saying Sub-Saharan Africa. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Cass, Hamitic crania from sub Sahara Africa.
quote:comparing craniometric and neutral genetic affinity matrices have concluded that, on average, human cranial variation fits a model of neutral expectation. While human craniometric and genetic data fit a model of isolation by geographic distance, it is not yet clear whether this is due to geographically mediated gene flow or human dispersal events. Recently, human genetic data have been shown to fit an iterative founder effect model of dispersal with an African origin, in line with the out-of-Africa replacement model for modern human origins, and Manica et al. (Nature 448 (2007) 346-349) have demonstrated that human craniometric data also fit this model. However, in contrast with the neutral model of cranial evolution suggested by previous studies, Manica et al. (2007) made the a priori assumption that cranial form has been subject to climatically driven natural selection and therefore correct for climate prior to conducting their analyses. Here we employ a modified theoretical and methodological approach to test whether human cranial variability fits the iterative founder effect model. In contrast with Manica et al. (2007) we employ size-adjusted craniometric variables, since climatic factors such as temperature have been shown to correlate with aspects of cranial size.
Despite these differences, we obtain similar results to those of Manica et al. (2007), with up to 26% of global within-population craniometric variation being explained by geographic distance from sub-Saharan Africa. Comparative analyses using non-African origins do not yield significant results. The implications of these results are discussed in the light of the modern human origins debate.
--von Cramon-Taubadel N1, Lycett SJ.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008 May;136(1):108-13.
Brief communication: human cranial variation fits iterative founder effect model with African origin.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Ok..., so next time I distinguish between Saharans and other regional populations, I will have to list half-a-dozen (or more!) separate climatic-zones, instead of convenience just saying Sub-Saharan Africa. [Roll Eyes]"
Right. It's almost as if "Sub-Saharan Africa" isn't a monolithic place of identical people.
What a concept.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
Iberomaurusians do not cluster with Capsians in their dental metrics/non-metrics:
"However, there is no evidence for a close affinity between Afalou and Capsians, or with most other samples. Recent cranial analyses (Groves & Thorne, 1999) support these findings. Thus, conversely, several conclusions by Balout (1955), Chamla (1973, 1975, 1978), Camps (1974), and Hiernaux (1975) are sustained." (Irish, 2000)
The craniometric study you posted clustering Iberomaurusians with Capsians is pretty much contradicted by every other analysis, including Groves & Thorne (1999) and all of Chamla's studies (1973, 1975, 1978, 1980, 1986), e.g.
"The 'Proto-Mediterranean' class of physical remains is comprised of skeletons not displaying classic Mechtoid traits and exhibiting the broad physical characteristics of modern Mediterranean Caucasoid populations: no marked alveolar prognathism, round sagittal contour, narrow nasal aperture (Chamla, 1968). This physical type is first identified in Africa with the Capsian material culture (c. 9000-6000 BP)." (MacDonald, 1998)
Tell me what is considered Mediterranean?
quote: Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic