quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Simply look at the Koppen climate map:
Speaking of climate.
quote: we suggest that there may have been a relationship, albeit a complex one, between climatic events and cave activity on the part of Iberomaurusian populations.
--A. Bouzouggar, et al.
Reevaluating the Age of the Iberomaurusian in Morocco
quote:
Our results demonstrate an ancient local evolution in Tunisia of some African haplogroups (L2a, L3*, and L3b).
[...]
Since the end of the extreme Saharan desiccation, lasting from before 25,000 years ago up to about 15,000 years ago, the Sahara has had post- and pre- Holocene cyclical climatic changes (Street and Grove 1976), and corresponding increases and decreases in population are probable. Wetter phases with better habitats perhaps allowed for increased colonization and gene and cultural exchange. Desiccation would have encouraged the emigration and segmentation of populations, with resultant genetic consequences secondary to drift producing more variation. During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries (Ehret 2002). About 13,000 years ago, large parts of the Sahara were as dry as the desert is now (White and Mattingly 2006). The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, especially from about 8500 to 6000 BC (Fezzan Project 2006). By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today, leading to the gradual desertification of the region (Kröpelin 2008). Thus the Sahara, through its cyclical environmental changes, might be seen as a microevolutionary “processor” and/or “pump” of African people that “ejected” groups to the circum-Saharan regions in times of increasing aridity.
--Frigi et al., 2010
Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations
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.
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’Antichità, 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: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: 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.
None of ancient Egypt was inside the tropics. You've confused ancient boundary with modern. Also the ancient Egyptians were not tropically adapted, that has been debunked, but Afrocentrists just repeat the same debunked material over and over.
Your ancient Egypt was inside tropics blunder comes from copying Zaharan's material:
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.
This completely ignores the boundary of ancient Egypt was at Aswan. The southernmost frontier only moved further south to fall inside the tropics in modern times. None of the ancient Egypt was inside the tropics, that's why its ridiculous to argue Egyptians were tropically adapted.
Also note the other blunder/stupidity of Zaharan's map:
What this map actually shows is most the Levant is the same "hot desert environment" as Egypt.
And if you want to actually look up biogeographical realms, mostly based on faunna, we find this-
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: None of ancient Egypt was inside the tropics. You've confused ancient boundary with modern.
Well well, more delusions from the euronut king.
quote: Large-scale climate change forms the backdrop to the beginnings of food production in northeastern Africa (Kröpelin et al. 2008).[ Hunter-gatherer communities deserted most of the northern interior of the continent during the arid glacial maximum and took refuge along the North African coast, the Nile Valley, and the southern fringes of the Sahara (Barich and Garcea 2008; Garcea 2006; Kuper and Kröpelin 2006). During the subsequent Early Holocene African humid phase, from the mid-eleventh to the early ninth millennium cal BP, ceramic-using hunter-gatherers took advantage of more favorable savanna conditions to resettle much of northeastern Africa (Holl 2005; Kuper and Kröpelin 2006). Evidence of domestic animals first appeared in sites in the Western Desert of Egypt, the Khartoum region of the Nile, northern Niger, the Acacus Mountains of Libya, and Wadi Howar (Garcea 2004, 2006; Pöllath and Peters 2007; fig. 1).
--Fiona Marshall and Lior Weissbrod
Domestication Processes and Morphological Change Through the Lens of the Donkey and African Pastoralism
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Also the ancient Egyptians were not tropically adapted, that has been debunked, but Afrocentrists just repeat the same debunked material over and over.
Nothing you claim has been correct. In fact everything you claimed has been debunked over and over. Even Raxter in her thesis admits that ancient Egyptians had tropical limbs etc…
quote: Cranial and dental evidence then tends to support a scenario of biological continuity in Egypt.
[...]
The main skeletal sample consisted of 492 males and 528 females, all adults from the Predynastic and Dynastic Periods, a time spanning c. 5500 BCE-600 CE.
Egyptian body dimensions were compared to Nubian groups, as well as to modern Egyptians and other higher and lower latitude populations.
The present study found a downward trend in ancient Egyptian stature for both sexes through time, as well as decreased sexual dimorphism in stature. The decreases may be associated with dietary and social stress with the intensification of agriculture and increased societal complexity.
Modern Egyptians in the study’s sample are generally taller and heavier than their predecessors; however, modern Egyptians exhibit relatively lower sexual dimorphism in stature.
Ancient Egyptians have more tropically adapted limbs in comparison to body breadths, which tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations.
These results may reflect the greater plasticity of limb lengths compared to body breadth.
The results might also suggest early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa.
--Michelle H. Raxter (2011)
Egyptian Body Size: A Regional and Worldwide Comparison
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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.
So you're simply just recognizing a distinct ecological zone without attempting to demographically extricate North Africa from the continent and annexing it to Western Asia? That's not your mission, as it were?
If you simply had said that Southern Egyptians, "Nubians", 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 are distinct from other Africans of different ecological zones... there wouldn't be a problem.
..But you're trying to present North Africa as a historically "Eurasian" zone, as if the Kabyle Berbers are the original Berbers and the aforementioned Berbers don't exist.
The light-skin Berbers of the Coast are only maternally "Eurasian" and paternally African and the fact that the Berber language originates in Northeast Africa is an irrefutable fact. The populations that took it to the Maghreb would have resembled the darker-skinned Berbers whose pictures I provided.
The mainstream position is that the Egyptian civilization sprang from Southern Egypt, but this doesn't work for you, does it? You wish to pretend that the civilization sprang from Northern Egypt, and was brought in by "Eurasians" from the Levant.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Of course this doesn't fit well with Afrocentric politics.
King of the euronuts! The more you type the funnier it gets. The Sahara is as large as entire Europe, if not larger.
quote:
The Sahara: Facts, Climate and Animals of the Desert
The Sahara is the world’s largest hot desert and one of the harshest environments on the planet. It is third largest desert overall after Antarctica and the Arctic, which are cold deserts.
At 3.6 million square miles (9.4 million square kilometers), the Sahara, which is Arabic for "The Great Desert," engulfs most of North Africa. The desert covers large sections of Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Western Sahara, Sudan and Tunisia.
The Sahara is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on the western edge, the Atlas Mountains and the Mediterranean Sea to the north, the Red Sea on the east, and the Sudan and the valley of the Niger River on the south. The Sahara is divided into western Sahara, the central Hoggar (Ahaggar) Mountains, the Tibesti Mountains, the Air Mountains, an area of desert mountains and high plateaus, Ténéré desert and the Libyan desert, which is the most arid region.
In the north, the Sahara reaches to the Mediterranean Sea in Egypt and portions of Libya. In Cyrenaica and the Maghreb, the Sahara experiences a more Mediterranean climate with a winter rainy season.
Major cities located in the Sahara include Cairo, Egypt; Tripoli, Libya; Nouakchott, the capital of Mauritania; Tamanrasset, Ouargla, Bechar, Hassi Messaoud, Ghardaia, and El Oued in Algeria; Timbuktu in Mali; Agadez in Niger; and Faya-Largeau in Chad.
posted
^ "Ancient Egyptians have more tropically adapted limbs in comparison to body breadths, which tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations.
These results may reflect the greater plasticity of limb lengths compared to body breadth.
The results might also suggest early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa."
When dealing with post-cranial data, Afrocentrists just ignore all indices/measurements that contradict them and only look at two limb indices.
Ancient Egyptians were "tropically adapted" in only two indices, but not any the others? Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: The results might also suggest early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa."
The results might also suggest? LOL SMH
This means it's a speculation, it is uncertain.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: ^ "Ancient Egyptians have more tropically adapted limbs in comparison to body breadths, which tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations.
These results may reflect the greater plasticity of limb lengths compared to body breadth.
The results might also suggest early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa."
When dealing with post-cranial data, Afrocentrists just ignore all indices/measurements that contradict them and only look at two limb indices.
Ancient Egyptians were "tropically adapted" in only two indices, but not any the others?
You really did not get what she was saying.
What it says is that modern incoming populations from abroad may have influenced the body ratio. This so, especially in the North/ Lower Egypt. Since there was a trend of difference over time. Historically this is accurate. 27% non-African, remember?
quote:"Ancient Egyptians have more tropically adapted limbs in comparison to body breadths, which tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations."[/i]
—Raxter
quote: [i]The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990) This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski
quote:"In fact, in terms of body shape, the European and the Inuit samples tend to be cold-adapted and tend to be separated in multivariate space from the more tropically adapted Africans, especially those groups from south of the Sahara."
--Holliday TW, Hilton CE. Body proportions of circumpolar peoples as evidenced from skeletal data: Ipiutak and Tigara (Point Hope) versus Kodiak Island Inuit.
And then we have this?
Melanin Dosage Tests: Ancient Egyptians
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
-- A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2 Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13 " Materials and Methods
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Simply look at the Koppen climate map:
King of euronuts, see.
quote: Sahel
The Sahel (/səˈhɛl/)[1] is the ecoclimatic and biogeographic zone of transition in Africa between the Sahara to the north and the Sudanian Savanna (historically known as the Sudan region) to the south. Having a semi-arid climate, it stretches across the south-central latitudes of Northern Africa between the Atlantic Ocean and the Red Sea.
They did an analysis of the mummy's skin. It was not a "Melanin Dosage Test". A Melanin Dosage test is a specific method invented by Cheikh Ante Diop
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: 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.
Where have you been last few years? Ancient DNA shows Early Neolithic Southern Europeans derived a large portion of their genes from Anatolians ("EEF"). I question or deny this for Early Neolithic Northern Europeans because they're about to publish Baltic ancient DNA, showing 0% EEF and I identified a possible Early German Neolithic sample- as low as 5% EEF. There seems to be a north-south cline of EEF ancestry in Europe, with it negligible to low in the north, but moderate to high in the south. So how is my supposed "Eurocentrism" when I acknowledge the strong Anatolian-Levant link to Early Neolithic southern Europeans? Unlike the Afrocentrists here I don't cling to silly pan/continental politics that denies genetics, physical anthropology etc.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
They did an analysis of the mummy's skin. It was not a "Melanin Dosage Test". A Melanin Dosage test is a specific method invented by Cheikh Ante Diop
LOL SMH SHUT THE **** UP.
—During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods.
—Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approxi- mately 1550Á/1080 BC). Three adjacent samples, approximately 0.5 cm3 , taken from each organ were placed in 100 ml of each rehydration fluid and left on
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
They did an analysis of the mummy's skin. It was not a "Melanin Dosage Test". A Melanin Dosage test is a specific method invented by Cheikh Ante Diop
LOL SMH SHUT THE **** UP!!!!
So now you know that staining methods done in 2005 are not "melanin Dosage" tests a methodology invented by Diop in the 70s.. You should be thanking me.
Thutmose IV
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: I question or deny this for Early Neolithic Northern Europeans because they're about to publish Baltic ancient DNA, showing 0% EEF and I identified a possible Early German Neolithic sample- as low as 5% EEF. There seems to be a north-south cline of EEF ancestry in Europe, with it low to negligible in the north, but moderate to high in the south.
The "possible Early Neolithic" sample was radiocarbon dated in a later paper. Guess what the result was?
Baltic samples have already been released and the papers are published or in preprint.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: 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.
Where have you been last few years? Ancient DNA shows Early Neolithic Southern Europeans derived a large portion of their genes from Anatolians ("EEF"). I question or deny this for Early Neolithic Northern Europeans because they're about to publish Baltic ancient DNA, showing 0% EEF and I identified a possible Early German Neolithic sample- as low as 5% EEF. There seems to be a north-south cline of EEF ancestry in Europe, with it low to negligible in the north, but moderate to high in the south. So how is my supposed "Eurocentrism" when I acknowledge the strong Anatolian-Levant link to Early Neolithic southern Europeans? Unlike the Afrocentrists here I don't cling to silly pan/continental politics that denies genetics, physical anthropology etc.
Are you claiming that the genetic profile of Southern Europeans is derived primarily from Near Eastern Farmers as you do for the ancient Egyptians? You're not merely saying that there was just *some* Levantine ancestry in Egypt but they actually came from the Levant. I don't deny admixture took place in African populations but I do reject the assertion that the ancient Egyptians came from "Eurasia" instead of being just products of the Nile valley with relations to other Northeast Africans in Upper Egypt and North Sudan.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So now you know that staining methods done in 2005 are not "melanin Dosage" tests a methodology invented by Diop in the 70s.. You should be thanking me. Thutmose IV
Great, but I respond to your bigotry over the years on this study.
You had me misguided.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
They did an analysis of the mummy's skin. It was not a "Melanin Dosage Test". A Melanin Dosage test is a specific method invented by Cheikh Ante Diop
LOL SMH SHUT THE **** UP!!!!
So now you know that staining methods done in 2005 are not "melanin Dosage" tests a methodology invented by Diop in the 70s.. You should be thanking me.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: I question or deny this for Early Neolithic Northern Europeans because they're about to publish Baltic ancient DNA, showing 0% EEF and I identified a possible Early German Neolithic sample- as low as 5% EEF. There seems to be a north-south cline of EEF ancestry in Europe, with it low to negligible in the north, but moderate to high in the south.
The "possible Early Neolithic" sample was radiocarbon dated in a later paper. Guess what the result was?
Baltic samples have already been released and the papers are published or in preprint.
Virtually no Anatolian mixture in Early Neolithic Baltic.
Jones, E. R., Zarina, G., Moiseyev, V., Lightfoot, E., Nigst, P. R., Manica, A., ... & Bradley, D. G. (2017). The neolithic transition in the baltic was not driven by admixture with early European farmers. Current Biology, 27(4), 576-582.
Secondly, you have the dilemma of explaining why WHG/SHG is higher in some Middle/Late Neolithic Germans/Swedish samples than Early Neolithic samples. This makes no sense. A more rational explanation I already posted was that they underestimated WHG/SHG and overestimated EEF based on too few samples. Even if we go along with those results, where did the WHG/SHG "resurgence" come from? That means the authors of this paper are actually conceding there were more parts of northern-Europe where EEF was absent to minimal. But the problem they have created is they cannot identify these areas.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
A bit out of date, but Haak 2015 is convenient:
ENF is about 90% Anatolian, Yamnaya is about 40% Caucasus-Iran.
So that makes Estonians about 30% Middle Eastern, English about 60%, Greeks about 66%, and Tuscans about 75%, according to this mainstream estimate. Which is certainly lumping later admixture into these components, but big picture.
Sorry to contribute to the derailing Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote: Secondly, you have the dilemma of explaining why WHG/SHG is higher in some Middle/Late Neolithic Germans/Swedish samples than Early Neolithic samples. This makes no sense. A more rational explanation I already posted was that they underestimated WHG/SHG and overestimated EEF based on too few samples. Even if we go along with those results, where did the WHG/SHG "resurgence" come from? That means the authors of this paper are actually conceding there were more parts of northern-Europe where EEF was absent to minimal. But the problem they have created is they cannot identify these areas.
I somewhat agree with you on this subject, but never really cared about prehistoric Europe. I will ask this though, do you not see which explanation you might be supporting by standing on the side of the fence you're standing on? Do you believe in Lazaridis' Basal Eurasian?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Egyptians were Early European Farmers /close thread
lmaooo b'bu'but to be EEF you have to come from Europe, how can that b'be?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote: Secondly, you have the dilemma of explaining why WHG/SHG is higher in some Middle/Late Neolithic Germans/Swedish samples than Early Neolithic samples. This makes no sense. A more rational explanation I already posted was that they underestimated WHG/SHG and overestimated EEF based on too few samples. Even if we go along with those results, where did the WHG/SHG "resurgence" come from? That means the authors of this paper are actually conceding there were more parts of northern-Europe where EEF was absent to minimal. But the problem they have created is they cannot identify these areas.
I somewhat agree with you on this subject, but never really cared about prehistoric Europe. I will ask this though, do you not see which explanation you might be supporting by standing on the side of the fence you're standing on? Do you believe in Lazaridis' Basal Eurasian?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Egyptians were Early European Farmers /close thread
lmaooo b'bu'but to be EEF you have to come from Europe, how can that b'be?
That is Lioness sarcasm. It wasn't meant seriously.
quote:"…sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
--Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation.( Routledge. p. 52-60)(2005)
Posts: 22235 | 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.
But not acknowledging the other eco zones in regular conversation like you do the Sahara is political. That's subtly trying to treat Africa as a monolith outside of the Sahara.
quote: Hence a few posts ago, you wouldn't say "Saharan ecological pressures", but "African ecological pressures" even though we were only discussing the Sahara.
Actually we weren't. Through the historical continuity of the cultural complex and dynastic period they went from a humid/tropical, Sahel-Savannah to Sahara desert complex. They showed biological adaptions to multiple ecological systems from different time periods in Africa. You called them "Levanites" but that wouldn't be an accurate geological term for where the ecosystems producing dynastic culture developed.
quote:
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.
You defend the use of "Sub Saharan" which provides the illusion of a singular eco-zone outside of the Sahara.
quote: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.
Later he says ...
quote: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.
The Koppen-climate map doesn't mean people are describing Africans by the different environments they live in. It doesn't mean the word "Sub Saharan" in language magically describes the different ecosystems on similar terms. Many people don't even know about that map but they know what SSA is. SSA is used as a political construct to suggest there is one people and one ecology in Africa south of the Sahara. If you don't have a problem with a place as large and diverse as SSA being described under one label, you have little claim to then demand it for the Sahara because you suddenly care about distances and diversity.
quote:
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.
Later he says...
quote: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.
Convenience!
Not acknowledging the MUCH larger distances and heterogeneity within "Sub Saharan Africa" is supposedly okay because it's "easier." It's fine to make excuses for clustering them together. But saying they're "African" is not ease but political. It cannot just be a way to refer to all areas within the continent on equal terms via geological description.
Acknowledging they live on the same continent and that all the ecosystems share that land mass is not saying they lack heterogeneity, and that distances/differences don't exist. Asians are not homogenous. Pakistanis and and Koreans aren't the same. They are also separated by large distances.
Despite the distance and diversity, it's not "political" to call them Asians and to acknowledge they share the same continent. The "diversity" and distance is arbitrarily decided not to be "too much." Your hyper sensitivity when people speak about Africans as people that share the same continent triggers you because you feel they could find enough commonality in that to do something politically and that appears to especially bother you.
quote:
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".
So you pretty much wasted a whole paragraph defending the singular use of aborigine but then say variations to morphology exist (though only acknowledged by old anthropologists).
quote:
quote:Otherwise all of Africa and it's people would be discussed in ecological terms.
As they already are. Read Hiernaux (1975).
SSA is not a term that ALLOWS for all of Africa to be discussed in ecological terms. Uh oh I said "Africa" again! Be strong!
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is Khartoum Neolithic pottery near Lake Turkana trollific, El Maestro? I'm missing something.
I think Cass is scared to discuss EEF somewhere it's on topic 'cause he knows he'll get reamed. Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
____________________This woman on the right. Where is he from?
Beja from Eastern Sudan
Just found this one.
I think you're going to like it.
Typological and Technological Examinations of Neolithic Pottery from Khartoum Province,Sudan
In book: The Fourth Cataract and Beyond, Edition: Brtish Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan1, Chapter: Typological and Technological Examinations of Neolithic Pottery from Khartoum Province,Sudan, Publisher: Peeters -Levven-Paris-Walpole, Editors: JulieR.Anderson and Derek Welsby, pp.279-284
quote: Secondly, you have the dilemma of explaining why WHG/SHG is higher in some Middle/Late Neolithic Germans/Swedish samples than Early Neolithic samples. This makes no sense. A more rational explanation I already posted was that they underestimated WHG/SHG and overestimated EEF based on too few samples. Even if we go along with those results, where did the WHG/SHG "resurgence" come from? That means the authors of this paper are actually conceding there were more parts of northern-Europe where EEF was absent to minimal. But the problem they have created is they cannot identify these areas.
I somewhat agree with you on this subject, but never really cared about prehistoric Europe. I will ask this though, do you not see which explanation you might be supporting by standing on the side of the fence you're standing on? Do you believe in Lazaridis' Basal Eurasian?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Egyptians were Early European Farmers /close thread
lmaooo b'bu'but to be EEF you have to come from Europe, how can that b'be?
Swenet says the European Farmers migrated to the Nile Valley
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
____________________This woman on the right. Where is he from?
Beja from Eastern Sudan
how much admixture do the Beja have with Arabs?
That is certainly an interesting question, but I don't think it had significant impact on physical attribution.
quote: Population comparisons
Based on FST values, the mitochondrial genetic diversity of Soqotra is statistically different (P \ 0.01) from the comparative populations. An MDS plot of FST values shows that the Soqotra sample is clearly distinct from all sub-Saharan, North African, Middle East, and Indian populations (see Fig. 2). High differentiation of the East African groups such as the Sandawe, Hadza, Turu, Datog, and Burunge is shown on the left side of the graph. However, there is a general similarity of the remaining sub-Saharan African populations, particularly those from the Sahel band and the Chad Basin (with the exception of the Fulani nomads). Subsequently, there is a transitional zone formed by the populations from Ethiopia and the Nile Valley but also by some Yemeni groups, particularly the ones from the eastern parts of the country (Hadramawt). Finally, the cluster on the right part of the graph is composed by the Indian populations on the top, the Near and Middle Eastern groups in the middle and the populations of the Arabian peninsula at the bottom; Yemeni Jews being slightly different. The only outlier within the region of southwestern Asia is the Kalash sample that is situated on the extreme right part of the graph (see also Quintana-Murci et al., 2004). There is a general cline among all populations in the MDS plot from the Soqotri population to a cluster of Middle East and North African populations that splits into sub-Saharan and Indian populations.
Population differentiation of Soqotra from African, Middle East and Indian populations based on NRY-SNP data manifests a similar picture although the compara- tive populations are different and fewer than in the mi- tochondrial DNA analysis (see Fig. 3). A comparison of FST values shows that the only population that is not significantly different from Soqotra is that from Yemen (P [ 0.01). Similarly to mtDNA MDS plot, we observe a cline from the Soqotri population to a cluster of Middle East and North African populations that splits into sub- Saharan and Indian populations.
Phylogenetic affiliations
Within the Soqotri samples, we identified haplotypes belonging to three of the main branches of the mtDNA phylogeny (macrohaplogroups L, N, and R); notably haplogroup M is absent (Table 2). There are only two sub- Saharan L haplotypes and they do not carry the 3594HpaI mutation so their classification is L3*; these haplotypes do not contain the specific mutations of L5b (23594HpaI) (Kivisild et al., 2004) and therefore they are possibly L3h2 as they both contain substitutions at 16111, 16184, and 16304 (see Behar et al., 2008). Macro-haplogroup N is represented by three different haplo-types of which only one can be unambiguously classified as N1a (it contains HVS-I motif 16147G-16172-16223-16248-16355). Two other N haplotypes have never been found outside Soqotra (see Table 2).
The most widespread mtDNA types in Soqotra belong to macrohaplogroup R (Table 2). The majority of R haplo-types can be classified as R0a [previously known as (preHV)1]. Three of the R haplotypes have not been previously reported. A network analysis of all Soqotri R0a haplotypes with additional sequences from Africa and Asia (see Fig. 4) shows a time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of 23,339 6 8,232 YBP for R0a. It is shown that the majority of Soqotri R0a haplotypes fall into clade R0a1 (defined by variant 16355) whose TMRCA is 11,418 6 4,198 YBP. Furthermore, within R0a1, the unique Soqotri haplotypes form a new clade that is defined by variant 16172 and that we have named R0a1a1. Abu-Amero et al. (2007) identified a hap- lotype defined by variant 16355 and named it (preHV)1a1, thus it corresponds to R0a1a using the newer nomenclature and the unique Soqotri haplotypes are derived from this lineage). This Soqotri-specific clade has a very young TMRCA (3,363 6 2,378 YBP) that suggests the R0a1a1 haplotypes evolved on Soqotra and have not dispersed elsewhere. Two other Soqotri R hap- lotypes are not classified further than R* and are quite common in neighboring populations. Five haplotypes within macrohaplogroup R carry the 4216N1aIII variant that places them in clade JT. Of the JT haplotypes, two are unique to Soqotra; J1b is represented by two individuals and T* is represented by one individual.
The majority of NRY haplotypes in Soqotra belong to haplogroup J (85.7%), with most (45 out of 54) unclassified as J*(xJ1,J2) and a few (the remaining 9 samples) classified as J1 (see Fig. 5). It is interesting to note that NRY haplotypes lacking both M172 and M267, as in our unclassified J*, have not been previously identified on the Arabian Peninsula (Cadenas et al., 2008). Haplogroup E is represented at a frequency of 9.5% and three other haplogroups, F*(xJ,K), K*(xO,P) and R*(xR1b), are present in one individual each. It is worth noting that none of the ancient African haplogroups (A and B) were observed in Soqotra.
—Viktor C ˇerny´ et al.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet says the European Farmers migrated to the Nile Valley
You are such a fvcking instigator lmaooooo
Anywho...
quote:Originally posted by capra: Why is Khartoum Neolithic pottery near Lake Turkana trollific, El Maestro? I'm missing something.
I think Cass is scared to discuss EEF somewhere it's on topic 'cause he knows he'll get reamed.
The source is valid, it's just that I know some people either get Triggered or a rock hard erection when seeing/hearing the term "Great Lakes" in the same sentence as Ancient Nile valley (Sudan-Egypt). ...& I much rather read a discussion on that than on Northern Europeans and picture spam.
"Tollific" is that an actual term? I like it...
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I will ask this though, do you not see which explanation you might be supporting by standing on the side of the fence you're standing on? Do you believe in Lazaridis' Basal Eurasian?
Looking at Lazaridis et al, late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans (hunter gatherers) have minimal "Basal Eurasian" e.g. the Swiss hunter-gatherers are less than 5%.
"highest estimates of Basal Eurasian ancestry are from the Near East" e.g. Natufians, 44%.
Whatever this is should only be interpreted in context of the Near East.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The source is valid, it's just that I know some people either get Triggered or a rock hard erection when seeing/hearing the term "Great Lakes" in the same sentence as Ancient Nile valley (Sudan-Egypt). ...& I much rather read a discussion on that than on Northern Europeans and picture spam.
lol, I see. And I second the motion.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet says the European Farmers migrated to the Nile Valley
It's not about what I say. It's what the Abusir aDNA, among many other data points, says. And it's also about what butthurt people refuse to admit. Why make it about me, like ENF backmigration is somehow contentious and debatable?
Do you quote a news source to say it's raining when you're standing in the rain or do you just say it's raining? No need to be redundant. You can talk directly about the actual facts if they're out there.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote: Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
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.
The problem is that the populations listed in your chart are not specifically listed in the EEF paper or any Basal Eurasian papers. You are "bridging gaps" of data by making up your own associations that don't exist in the papers defining said groups. That is the problem. Stuttgart is not listed on your chart. Neither are the icemen of Switzerland.
That is YOU making up stuff and trying to claim that it is valid when the original papers don't make such associations between Africa and EEF or Basal Eurasian...
Fundamentally missing the point that the way EEF and Basal Eurasian are defined is based on filtering out African DNA....
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.
The problem is that the populations listed in your chart are not specifically listed in the EEF paper or any Basal Eurasian papers. You are "bridging gaps" of data by making up your own associations that don't exist in the papers defining said groups. That is the problem. Stuttgart is not listed on your chart. Neither are the Tyrolean Icemen.
That is YOU making up stuff and trying to claim that it is valid when the original papers don't make such associations between Africa and EEF or Basal Eurasian...
Fundamentally missing the point that the way EEF and Basal Eurasian are defined is based on filtering out African DNA....
But anyway, nowhere is Africa listed in any of these papers defining EEF or Basal Eurasian as "closely linked" with either group.
But that won't stop you from trying to pretend that this is what they are saying when it isn't:
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).[/b] 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 Doug M: You are "bridging gaps" of data by making up your own associations that don't exist in the papers defining said groups. That is the problem. Stuttgart is not listed on your chart. Neither are the icemen of Switzerland.
How do you know I'm "bridging" anything? Because you're confused about the data that exists out there, it doesn't mean that I am. You're just groping in the dark as usual. I have posted data involving Stuttgart's population many times in the past. You're just playing wack-a-mole after being forced to retreat from all your initial points. Every time I post data you come back with some butthurt excuse.
Note that when I post data showing closeness of Stuttgart's population to North Africans, Doug will keep trolling and find some other excuse.
quote:The principal exception to this generalization is one of the two small samples of the German Neolithic, the Mühlhausen sample, which ties closer metrically to the living inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa.
—Brace et al 2005
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that when I posted data pertaining to Stuttgart's population before, Doug dismissed it using some trolling pretext. Now when I use other data to make the same point, he insists I specifically need data involving Stuttgart and that I'm drawing unwarranted conclusions.
^I already posted the affinities of Stuttgart's population to Africans earlier in this thread. Are you cognitively challenged, Doug?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: But not acknowledging the other eco zones in regular conversation like you do the Sahara is political. That's subtly trying to treat Africa as a monolith outside of the Sahara.
No it isn't, you're being ridiculous. lol. But let me point out the "Negroid" of modern forensic science (e.g. Skeletal Attribution of Race, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology) aka "Congoid" (Coon, 1962) aka "broad African" (Hiernaux, 1975) morphotype covers most of Sub-Saharan Africa anyway. The natural habitat or eco-zone of the "Negroid" covers west-central Sub-Saharan Africa (light blue on map) which is tropical savannah climate.
quote:Actually we weren't. Through the historical continuity of the cultural complex and dynastic period they went from a humid/tropical, Sahel-Savannah to Sahara desert complex. They showed biological adaptions to multiple ecological systems from different time periods in Africa.
You keep making this cyclic-climate argument, but don't point out whenever the Sahara became humid, lush, and savannah-like, it lasted not very long:
"At the end of the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was just as dry and uninviting as it is today. But sandwiched between two periods of extreme dryness were a few millennia of plentiful rainfall and lush vegetation." http://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html
quote:SSA is used as a political construct to suggest there is one people and one ecology in Africa south of the Sahara.
Pretty much every anthropology text written for the past 200 years disputes this, e.g. it was always recognised by scientists and lay-persons that "Negroids" are not similar to Bushmen; you only have to glimpse at photos to see this. No one has ever claimed SSA's are "one people", its just a silly straw man argument you invented.
quote: If you don't have a problem with a place as large and diverse as SSA being described under one label, you have little claim to then demand it for the Sahara because you suddenly care about distances and diversity.
You've keep ignoring the fact SSA is a convenient label relative to the Sahara, to separate them. In many global analyses, there is no SSA label. For example I've posted studies where analysts divide North Africans (Saharans) from West-Central Africans, from East Africans, from South Africans etc. In fact, divisions this large are not even the norm for population geneticists who study more local populations like ethnic groups and demes. No scientist proposes there's some sort of cluster grouping together all populations below the Sahara. Tishkoff et al. 2009 came back with two dozen regional clusters inside Africa. This obviously goes against the foolishness of pan-African politics.
quote: Not acknowledging the MUCH larger distances and heterogeneity within "Sub Saharan Africa" is supposedly okay because it's "easier." It's fine to make excuses for clustering them together.
No one is clustering them!? show me a scientist in the last 200 years who clusters Khoisans with "Negroids". Good luck. How do you explain Baker (1974)? Why are "Khoisanids", "Negrids" and "Aethiopids" different races?
quote: Acknowledging they live on the same continent and that all the ecosystems share that land mass is not saying they lack heterogeneity, and that distances/differences don't exist. Asians are not homogenous. Pakistanis and and Koreans aren't the same. They are also separated by large distances.
Yet hardly anyone groups Korean and Pakistanis together. "Asian" is as useless as "African" because the geographical areas are far too broad and include too heterogeneous peoples. What people use is terms like "North-East Asian" vs. "South Asian". How many people on this forum have referred to Levantines as "Asian"? Probably no one. I've called them "South-west Asians".
quote: Your hyper sensitivity when people speak about Africans as people that share the same continent triggers you because you feel they could find enough commonality in that to do something politically and that appears to especially bother you.
No, like with "Asian" I'm pointing out virtually no-one else in the world clings to this ridiculous pan/continental politics, only Afrocentrists. As another example, very few, if any, people in Europe identify as "European", e.g. English overwhelmingly identify with their ethnic group & culture not a "European" identity which is laughable. Furthermore, we're now witnessing the complete rejection of the European Union in politics. Wait for 7th May and if Le Pen wins, France will also be leaving like UK did. The mass of peoples across Europe are rejecting the EU project that tried to homogenize people through freedom of movement and political integration. What the majority of people want is to protect their own countries borders, culture, independence and sovereignty.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: No, like with "Asian" I'm pointing out virtually no-one else in the world clings to this ridiculous pan/continental politics, only Afrocentrists. As another example, very few, if any, people in Europe identify as "European", e.g. English overwhelmingly identify with their ethnic group & culture not a "European" identity which is laughable. Furthermore, we're now witnessing the complete rejection of the European Union in politics. Wait for 7th May and if Le Pen wins, France will also be leaving like UK did. The mass of peoples across Europe are rejecting the EU project that tried to homogenize people through freedom of movement and political integration. What the majority of people want is to protect their own countries borders, culture, independence and sovereignty.
The vast majority of people would see these people as black people
Even racist would which is why they invented a new group of people to call them ie Nubians. Your populace argument doesnt even fly with racist. They know how this looks.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll give another example. I was on a Facebook group where someone from the worthless We Wuz KangsnShit clique posted this .
Another example of the miseducation of the albino. This fool honestly thought that this was a primary image of black people cleaning white penis and was trolling the blacks in the group. Even when people explained that it was circumcision, a remake of a black and white image, an African tradition and provided quotes from Herodotus the miseducated albino was still reacting like it was all a conspiracy. I just started posting pics of African circumcisions. I might do a video about how ancient Egypt is all over Africa.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what Doug does when you corner him; he retreats and sets up a new goalpost elsewhere. I don't know who he thinks he's kidding.
I will simply ignore Doug as far as this subject is concerned.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: But not acknowledging the other eco zones in regular conversation like you do the Sahara is political. That's subtly trying to treat Africa as a monolith outside of the Sahara.
No it isn't, you're being ridiculous.
What ecosystem is "Sub Saharan Africa?" The Sahara refers to an ecosystem, so if we're discussing ecological constructs what singular ecosystem is "Sub Saharan Africa?" I'll wait.
quote: lol. But let me point out the "Negroid" of modern forensic science (e.g. Skeletal Attribution of Race, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology) aka "Congoid" (Coon, 1962) aka "broad African" (Hiernaux, 1975) morphotype covers most of Sub-Saharan Africa anyway.
But not all of it, nor should we be focused on "covering" Sub Saharan Africa, as a general goal anyway. This again tries to subtly and coyly create the "Sub Saharan" concept.
quote:
quote:Actually we weren't. Through the historical continuity of the cultural complex and dynastic period they went from a humid/tropical, Sahel-Savannah to Sahara desert complex. They showed biological adaptions to multiple ecological systems from different time periods in Africa.
You keep making this cyclic-climate argument, but don't point out whenever the Sahara became humid, lush, and savannah-like, it lasted not very long:
"At the end of the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was just as dry and uninviting as it is today. But sandwiched between two periods of extreme dryness were a few millennia of plentiful rainfall and lush vegetation."
Irrelevant. The question is did the people adapt to those environments in the span of those 4,000 years? Did they come into contact with people who did? Were they just Saharan adapted? Did they maintain adaptions to the other environments and if so for how long? Many Egyptians had tropical characteristics, not just features that would be characteristic of the northern Sahara.
quote:
quote:SSA is used as a political construct to suggest there is one people and one ecology in Africa south of the Sahara.
Pretty much every anthropology text written for the past 200 years disputes this, e.g. it was always recognised by scientists and lay-persons that "Negroids" are not similar to Bushmen; you only have to glimpse at photos to see this. No one has ever claimed SSA's are "one people", its just a silly straw man argument you invented.
I'll ignore the "true negro" problem to say that SSA is not the word "Negroid" or "Bushmen." It's a geopolitical term that describes all the people living underneath the Sahara as one unit. A practice you just defended because "it's easier."
quote:
quote: If you don't have a problem with a place as large and diverse as SSA being described under one label, you have little claim to then demand it for the Sahara because you suddenly care about distances and diversity.
You've keep ignoring the fact SSA is a convenient label relative to the Sahara, to separate them.
If you're discussing the people as Saharan, you're discussing them relative to an ecological construct. "Sub Saharan" doesn't tell us what ecosystems (and their people) exist besides the Sahara or where they are specifically located. It is convenient for people with a particular political agenda, but it's not convenient in highlighting diversity over great distances. Nor do those labels make people aware of the different ecosystems that exist.
quote:In many global analyses, there is no SSA label. For example I've posted studies where analysts divide North Africans (Saharans) from West-Central Africans, from East Africans, from South Africans etc.
Yes but when you're looking at the standard labels, the "sub Saharan"/"Saharan African" dichotomy is most frequently used, especially by lay people. The existence of alternative labeling systems doesn't change the illegitimacy of the term "Sub Saharan African" which you were defending because "it's easier."
quote: No scientist proposes there's some sort of cluster grouping together all populations below the Sahara. Tishkoff et al. 2009 came back with two dozen regional clusters inside Africa. This obviously goes against the foolishness of pan-African politics.
Uh-huh, saying that people in places deemed "SSA" should be referred to by their ecosystems if Saharan Africans are being referred to by theirs is "Pan-African politics" and not a refusal to subscribe to Eurocentric geopolitical interests to reduce Africa into two entities (one as an ecological construct being entirely monolithic and fictional).
quote:
quote: Not acknowledging the MUCH larger distances and heterogeneity within "Sub Saharan Africa" is supposedly okay because it's "easier." It's fine to make excuses for clustering them together.
No one is clustering them!?
You just defended labeling them in a way that places them together in one unit.
quote:
quote: Acknowledging they live on the same continent and that all the ecosystems share that land mass is not saying they lack heterogeneity, and that distances/differences don't exist. Asians are not homogenous. Pakistanis and and Koreans aren't the same. They are also separated by large distances.
Yet hardly anyone groups Korean and Pakistanis together. "Asian" is as useless as "African" because the geographical areas are far too broad and include too heterogeneous peoples.
Blah blah more rubbish. People don't think it's all that political whenever people just refer to people as Asians. You would be looked at like a nut trying to insist people who called a Korean and Pakistani "Asians" have to be political whenever they're uttering it. This is especially true for east Asians like Chinese who are most often not even called "east Asian." They're just called Asian. You have your own agenda and political issues that trigger you whenever people say "Africa" like people can say "Native Americans" or "Asians."
quote:What people use is terms like "North-East Asian" vs. "South Asian". How many people on this forum have referred to Levantines as "Asian"? Probably no one. I've called them "South-west Asians".
I've been calling them collectively "easterners" for some time now and there are many people (especially lay people) that from time to time just say "Asian." if it were uttered, it wouldn't automatically be "political" the way saying "Africa" or "African" apparently is.
quote:
quote: Your hyper sensitivity when people speak about Africans as people that share the same continent triggers you because you feel they could find enough commonality in that to do something politically and that appears to especially bother you.
No, like with "Asian" I'm pointing out virtually no-one else in the world clings to this ridiculous pan/continental politics, only Afrocentrists.
Uh huh and Europeans don't have institutions that support a Pan European construct. But to call someone "European" is not automatically participating in political discourse. Oh, and do NOT justify it by saying "Oh well distances and climate and diversity." Europeans are not homogenous. The idea that Europe is "just right" in size to where it can be described as "Europe" without it being "political" is Eurocentric, very underhandedly political, and subjective for European interests. Europe has more than one ecological system but calling a European a "European" or a "Euro" is not "political" I'm saying that using the term "African" "Asian" or "European" isn't always political. But only with Africa is it political. To say NO ONE uses Asian unless they intend to be political is a lie, just as it is with Africa.
quote:As another example, very few, if any, people in Europe identify as "European", e.g. English overwhelmingly identify with their ethnic group & culture not a "European" identity which is laughable.
But if a person of European descent were called a European, that the terminology is not debated like this to always be for political reasons. And even though they may not use the term "European" in everyday language (most Africans don't either), their societies are sustained by pan Euro concepts that they inject in schools, pop fiction/culture to political alliances. Some areas of Europe are less Pan European than others but pan European ideology is still very present. That does not mean every time it's uttered it has to mean there's a political issue.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
There is no point arguing with Cass over the ecological specifics, because that's not what it's about for him. The resident troll is just pretending that his arguments are actually predicated on recognising the many different ecological zones in Africa and the distinct physical characteristics it has produced.
Cass is merely using ecological zones as a cover for demographically extricating North Africa from the continent and assigning it to "Eurasia"... because he believes that all of North Africa was settled by "Eurasians" at some point and that "Sub-Saharan" Africans shouldn't attempt to connect with it.
There are plenty of Northeast African appearing tribes in the Sahara, but he would rather pretend that the Coastal Berbers are better representatives of North Africa despite the fact that the Berber language has its origins in Northeast Africa and that the Tuaregs of Libya most likely represent what the original Berbers of the Maghreb looked like.
I wouldn't have a problem with people recognising the variation in Africa just as long as they didn't attempt to align civilizations with "Eurasia".
Africans are merely trying valorize ancient Egypt and Kush the same way the West has being valorizing ancient Greece and Rome for centuries. The entire identity of the West is predicated on these two civilizations. In school we are taught about how great ancient Greece and Rome.
Do you remember when the DNA results on the Minoan civilization were released? I recall the researchers specifically referring to the Minoans as just Europeans. There was no regional qualification in the heading.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: You keep making this cyclic-climate argument, but don't point out whenever the Sahara became humid, lush, and savannah-like, it lasted not very long:
"At the end of the last Ice Age, the Sahara Desert was just as dry and uninviting as it is today. But sandwiched between two periods of extreme dryness were a few millennia of plentiful rainfall and lush vegetation." http://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html
Humans also frolicked in the rain pools, as depicted in rock art from Southwest Egypt.
In the more southern Sudanese Sahara, lush vegetation, hearty trees, and permanent freshwater lakes persisted over millennia. There were even large rivers, such as the Wadi Howar, once the largest tributary to the Nile from the Sahara.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: North Africans (Saharans)
Not all North Africans are Saharans. SMH
But I don't except you to know these things, Eurocentric babble box.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic