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: In this study we analyzed 295 unrelated Berber-speaking men from northern, central, and southern Morocco to characterize frequency of the E1b1b1b-M81 haplogroup and to refine the phylogeny of its subclades: E1b1b1b1-M107, E1b1b1b2-M183, and E1b1b1b2a-M165. For this purpose, we typed four biallelic polymorphisms: M81, M107, M183, and M165. A large majority of the Berber-speaking male lineages belonged to the Y-chromosomal E1b1b1b-M81 haplogroup. The frequency ranged from 79.1% to 98.5% in all localities sampled. E1b1b1b2-M183 was the most dominant subclade in our samples, ranging from 65.1% to 83.1%. In contrast, the E1b1b1b1-M107 and E1b1b1b2a-M165 subclades were not found in our samples. Our results suggest a predominance of the E1b1b1b-M81 haplogroup among Moroccan Berber-speaking males with a decreasing gradient from south to north. The most prevalent subclade in this haplogroup was E1b1b1b2-M183, for which diffferences among these three groups were statistically significant between central and southern groups.
--Reguig A1, Harich N2, Barakat A1, Rouba H1.
Hum Biol. 2014 Spring;86(2):105-12.
Phylogeography of E1b1b1b-M81 haplogroup and analysis of its subclades in Morocco.
quote: "In particular, the Tuareg have 50% to 80% of their paternal lineages E1b1b1b-M81 [34], [35]. The Tuareg are seminomadic pastoralist groups that are mostly spread between Libya, Algeria, Mali, and Niger. *They speak a Berber language and are believed to be the descendents of the Garamantes people of Fezzan, Libya* (500 BC - 700 CE) [34]."
--Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al.
Genome-Wide and Paternal Diversity Reveal a Recent Origin of Human Populations in North Africa (2013)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized
—Iosif Lazaridis Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
There is no single climatic zone below the Sahara, but about half a dozen if you look on the Koppen climate map. "Sub-Saharan" (note the prefix "sub" meaning below) is only a term used relative to the Sahara. Get it yet? Please re-read since you've ignored this now three times... I've also used the term "Sub-Egyptian", does that mean according to your straw man lunacy - I think every population or climatic region below Egypt is the same?!
Its not my agenda to group heterogeneous people and environments together, but yours. You're the pan-Africanist hence none of your posts since 2011 have been about Egypt in context of its local region (i.e. Sahara) because that doesn't fit well with your politics. Your mission from the start has always been to connect Egyptians to populations below the Sahara; this still shows in your recent posts. Your Pan-Africanism also shows with your usage of "black". For you, "black" has to apply to all African populations and you got offended when I pointed out ancient Egyptians were not "black" in pigmentation. If you're all of a sudden pro recognising population structure and diversity inside Africa, why not recognise the skin colour cline like I do?
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Late Minoan tombs points way to early European migration
Why wouldn't they use "European"? You do realise Europe is smaller than North Africa? My point about population geneticists is they don't use "African" or "Asian" because those regions are far too broad. What is used is "European", "West Asia", "North Africa", "East Africa" etc. This obviously conflicts with the Pan-African politics.
Africa is 3 or 4 times the size of Europe:
quote:Africa is so mind-numbingly immense, that it exceeds the common assumptions by just about anyone I ever met: it contains the entirety of the USA, all of China, India, as well as Japan and pretty much all of Europe as well - all combined !
quote:My point about population geneticists is they don't use "African" or "Asian" because those regions are far too broad.
"Although mapping continuous variation onto a small number of categories is often used for rough description (e.g., discrete categories to describe socioeconomic class or political orientation), information on the range of variation is lost in the process. For example, if we were to analyse allele frequencies using only geographic race as the unit of analysis, we would not see many of the underlying patterns of clinal change and nested variation. Although it is sometimes useful to take regional aggregates of local populations to illustrate some general patterns (e.g., Relethford, 1994), care must be taken not to confuse a statistical and geographic aggregate with a unit of evolutionary change. Application of much of population genetics works best when considering variation between local populations and not between aggregates. The fine detail of our species' evolutionary history and its impact on patterns of genetic variation are lost when trying to categorize and classify into races." - Relethford, J. H. (2017). "Biological Anthropology, Population Genetics, and Race" in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Race. Oxford University Press. p. 168
--- The focus of population genetics is local breeding populations (ethnic groups, or smaller tribes, castes, inbred religious sects, rural villagers etc.) not large aggregates/groups. However, as a crude analysis local populations are sometimes clustered into regions. These regional groupings like I said, include "North Africa", "East Africa", "South Asia" etc. "Asia" and "Africa" though are far too broad to even be used in a crude/rough analysis. Again, simple facts like these Afrocentrists are ignorant of. "Africa" is as useless as "Eurasia" in population genetics.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would not be a problem to mention North Africa and the Upper Nile region on their own as long as you loony Europeans didn't constantly ascribe the rise of ancient Egypt to "Eurasians". Ancient Egypt was an indigenous development of very closely related populations and cultures in "Nubia" and Upper Egypt. The people in Northern Egypt may have had extensive relations with the Levant but they were not responsible for the civilization - desperate attempts to the contrary notwithstanding.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"ts not my agenda to group heterogeneous people and environments together, but yours. You're the pan-Africanist hence none of your posts since 2011 have been about Egypt in context of its local region (i.e. Sahara) because that doesn't fit well with your politics."
Yet you do just that, "group heterogeneous people and environments together", into "Sub-Saharan Africa" under the guise of "convenience" in service of YOUR agenda. Yet you're the only objective poster with an unassailable position? Please you are anything BUT objective(and last time I checked being truly objective tended to be anything but "convenient").
Pot. Meet kettle.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one has ever discussed "Eurasians" in regards to ancient Egypt though. Another Afrocentric straw man.
This "Africa vs. Eurasia" thing is yet another loony pan-African Afrocentrist invention which shows their bizarre world view of pan/continental divisions in biology.
Who I've discussed in regards to ancient Egypt is (south) Levantines, i.e. their geographical neighbours. I don't then propose Nordic Icelanders (who also live in "Eurasia") are genetically close to Egyptians.
There's not some sort of Eurasia genetic cluster. Jesus Christ. You people are weird.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: No one has ever discussed "Eurasians" in regards to ancient Egypt though. Another Afrocentric straw man.
This "Africa vs. Eurasia" thing is yet another loony pan-African Afrocentrist invention which shows their bizarre world view of pan/continental divisions in biology.
Who I've discussed in regards to ancient Egypt is (south) Levantines, i.e. their geographical neighbours. I don't then propose Nordic Icelanders (who also live in "Eurasia") are genetically close to Egyptians.
There's not some sort of Eurasia genetic cluster. Jesus Christ. You people are weird.
Oh really? So you didn't assert that ancient Egypt was established by Northern Egyptians who in turn came from the Levant?
quote: so it would be a northern origin for Egyptians (from Levant) with micro-evolutionary differentiation. 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.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: "ts not my agenda to group heterogeneous people and environments together, but yours. You're the pan-Africanist hence none of your posts since 2011 have been about Egypt in context of its local region (i.e. Sahara) because that doesn't fit well with your politics."
Yet you do just that, "group heterogeneous people and environments together", into "Sub-Saharan Africa" under the guise of "convenience" in service of YOUR agenda. Yet you're the only objective poster with an unassailable position? Please you are anything BUT objective(and last time I checked being truly objective tended to be anything but "convenient").
Pot. Meet kettle.
Troll, show me a single instance where I've used Sub-Saharan Africa as a stand-alone label. I've never done it. My usage of it is relative to the Sahara; I've also used "Sub-Egyptian". These terms are convenient, just like "non-Egyptian" or "non-Saharan" and so on. These terms are relative - something Oshun has constantly ignored then set up the same straw man you have. Afrocentric IQ is like 10.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Oh really? So you didn't assert that ancient Egypt was established by Northern Egyptians who in turn came from the Levant?
What does this have to do with "Eurasians"? If ancient Egyptians had a Levantine origin (these DNA results will probably confirm that), this doesn't make ancient Egyptians genetically close to Swedes, French, Pakistanis and so on who also live in "Eurasia". The term "Eurasia" is useless in a genetic analysis because its far too broad, just like "Africa". There's not some Eurasian or African genetic cluster; the hilarious thing is most Afrocentrists here have incredibly outdated racialist ideas and no idea about human biological variation.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Troll, show me a single instance where I've used Sub-Saharan Africa as a stand-alone label. I've never done it. My usage of it is relative to the Sahara; I've also used "Sub-Egyptian". These terms are convenient, just like "non-Egyptian" or "non-Saharan" and so on. These terms are relative - something Oshun has constantly ignored then set up the same straw man you have. Afrocentric IQ is like 10. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Oh really? So you didn't assert that ancient Egypt was established by Northern Egyptians who in turn came from the Levant?
What does this have to do with "Eurasians"? If ancient Egyptians had a Levantine origin (these DNA results will probably confirm that), this doesn't make ancient Egyptians genetically close to Swedes, French, Pakistanis and so on who also live in "Eurasia". The term "Eurasia" is useless in a genetic analysis because its far too broad, just like "Africa". There's not some Eurasian or African genetic cluster; the hilarious thing is most Afrocentrists here have incredibly outdated racialist ideas and no idea about human biological variation.
Nobody said that "Eurasians" form a genetic cluster (straw man) but the fact that you assert that ancient Egypt sprang from the North via the Levant points to an attempt to represent ancient Egypt as a Levantine transplant when all the evidence is against this. The South is the source of ancient Egyptian civilization.
Late period DNA results from Northern Egypt will not change the narrative on the source of Egyptian civilization. It's a reach. We still need their Y-DNA to establish who these people were.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Troll, show me a single instance where I've used Sub-Saharan Africa as a stand-alone label. I've never done it. My usage of it is relative to the Sahara; I've also used "Sub-Egyptian". These terms are convenient, just like "non-Egyptian" or "non-Saharan" and so on. These terms are relative - something Oshun has constantly ignored then set up the same straw man you have. Afrocentric IQ is like 10.
Is this Nazi serious?
Ok guy. [/QB]
Are you sure you aren't Carlos Coke? All you seem to do is lie, misrepresent or post slander.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
There is no single climatic zone below the Sahara, but about half a dozen if you look on the Koppen climate map. "Sub-Saharan" (note the prefix "sub" meaning below) is only a term used relative to the Sahara. Get it yet? Please re-read since you've ignored this now three times... I've also used the term "Sub-Egyptian", does that mean according to your straw man lunacy - I think every population or climatic region below Egypt is the same?!
Its not my agenda to group heterogeneous people and environments together, but yours. You're the pan-Africanist hence none of your posts since 2011 have been about Egypt in context of its local region (i.e. Sahara) because that doesn't fit well with your politics. Your mission from the start has always been to connect Egyptians to populations below the Sahara; this still shows in your recent posts. Your Pan-Africanism also shows with your usage of "black". For you, "black" has to apply to all African populations and you got offended when I pointed out ancient Egyptians were not "black" in pigmentation. If you're all of a sudden pro recognising population structure and diversity inside Africa, why not recognise the skin colour cline like I do?
Sub to what?
Let's talk about Sahel populations for a minute?
See how that subjugates.
Your loony theory doesn't fit with reality.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Late Minoan tombs points way to early European migration
Why wouldn't they use "European"? You do realise Europe is smaller than North Africa? My point about population geneticists is they don't use "African" or "Asian" because those regions are far too broad. What is used is "European", "West Asia", "North Africa", "East Africa" etc. This obviously conflicts with the Pan-African politics.
Africa is 3 or 4 times the size of Europe:
quote:Africa is so mind-numbingly immense, that it exceeds the common assumptions by just about anyone I ever met: it contains the entirety of the USA, all of China, India, as well as Japan and pretty much all of Europe as well - all combined !
quote: However, the remaining 35% of L mtDNAs form European-specific subclades, revealing that there was gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa toward Europe as early as 11,000 yr ago.
--Mar ́ıa Cerezo
Reconstructing ancient mitochondrial DNA links between Africa and Europe
quote: The dates for subhaplogroups H1 and H3 (13,000 and 10,000 years, respectively) in Iberian and North African populations allow for this possibility. Kefi et al.’s (2005)
—Frigi et al.
quote: The Minoan mtDNA haplotypes resembled those of the European populations (Figs 2b, 3a and 4; Supplementary Figs S1–S3). The majority of Minoans were classified in haplogroups H (43.2%) , ... Given that the timing of the first Neolithic inhabitants to reach Crete 9,000 YBP coincides with the migration of Neolithic farmers out of Anatolia , it is highly probable that the same ancestral population that spread to Europe, also spread to Crete and contributed to the founding of the early Minoan civilization.
quote:Haplogroup H dominates present-day Western European mitochondrial DNA variability (>40%), yet was less common (~19%) among Early Neolithic farmers (~5450 BC) and virtually absent in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Here we investigate this major component of the maternal population history of modern Europeans and sequence 39 complete haplogroup H mitochondrial genomes from ancient human remains. We then compare this 'real-time' genetic data with cultural changes taking place between the Early Neolithic (~5450 BC) and Bronze Age (~2200 BC) in Central Europe. Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of haplogroup H were largely established by the Mid Neolithic (~4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (~2800 BC). Dated haplogroup H genomes allow us to reconstruct the recent evolutionary history of haplogroup H and reveal a mutation rate 45% higher than current estimates for human mitochondria.
--Brotherton P1, Haak W, Templeton J,
Nat Commun. 2013;4:1764. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2656.
Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans.
These Afrocentric clowns fail to distinguish between a stand-alone and relative label/description.
Sub-Saharan. Note the prefix. Sub-Egyptian. Note the prefix. Why is the prefix there, clowns? When I've used these terms - my only focus is Saharan desert and Egypt. I don't then propose everyone below these areas is the same, or part of the same region. The only usage of these relative terms is to exclude everyone below these focused areas, which is undeniably convenient.
Another example is if someone wanted to know the percentage of native vs. foreigners in a population. One would attach the prefix "non" to native. According though to these Afrocentric clowns, that means all non-natives (foreigners) must be 100% identical from the same place. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
These Afrocentric clowns fail to distinguish between a stand-alone and relative label/description.
Sub-Saharan. Note the prefix. Sub-Egyptian. Note the prefix. Why is the prefix there, clowns? When I've used these terms - my only focus is Saharan desert and Egypt. I don't then propose everyone below these areas is the same, or part of the same region. The only usage of these relative terms is to exclude everyone below these focused areas, which is undeniably convenient.
Another example is if someone wanted to know the percentage of native vs. foreigners in a population. One would attach the prefix "non" to native. According though to these Afrocentric clowns, that means all non-natives (foreigners) must be 100% identical from the same place.
LOL Euroloon.
Let's talk about the Sahel-zone. The transition-zone between the North and the South.
These are amazing skills, thanks for the creds and acknowledgments. Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Sub-Saharan. Note the prefix. Sub-Egyptian. Note the prefix. Why is the prefix there, clowns? When I've used these terms - my only focus is Saharan desert and Egypt. I don't then propose everyone below these areas is the same, or part of the same region. The only usage of these relative terms is to exclude everyone below these focused areas, which is undeniably convenient."
Convenient and undeniably arbitrary like any other division you could impose under the guise of objectivity.
And no I can assure you I'm not COC, just a guy who hates pompous Nazis as much as you hate black people(who you brush as "afrocentrists" in an attempt to shut them up; yet you cry about slander).
Get real.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: "Sub-Saharan. Note the prefix. Sub-Egyptian. Note the prefix. Why is the prefix there, clowns? When I've used these terms - my only focus is Saharan desert and Egypt. I don't then propose everyone below these areas is the same, or part of the same region. The only usage of these relative terms is to exclude everyone below these focused areas, which is undeniably convenient."
Convenient and undeniably arbitrary like any other division you could impose under the guise of objectivity.
And no I can assure you I'm not COC, just a guy who hates pompous Nazis as much as you hate black people(who you brush as "afrocentrists" in an attempt to shut them up; yet you cry about slander).
Get real.
One can only wonder why there is not sub-Europe. I mean it's segregated after all and it's below the North, separated by masses of water.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point about population geneticists is they don't use "African" or "Asian" because those regions are far too broad.
"Although mapping continuous variation onto a small number of categories is often used for rough description (e.g., discrete categories to describe socioeconomic class or political orientation), information on the range of variation is lost in the process. For example, if we were to analyse allele frequencies using only geographic race as the unit of analysis, we would not see many of the underlying patterns of clinal change and nested variation. Although it is sometimes useful to take regional aggregates of local populations to illustrate some general patterns (e.g., Relethford, 1994), care must be taken not to confuse a statistical and geographic aggregate with a unit of evolutionary change. Application of much of population genetics works best when considering variation between local populations and not between aggregates. The fine detail of our species' evolutionary history and its impact on patterns of genetic variation are lost when trying to categorize and classify into races." - Relethford, J. H. (2017). "Biological Anthropology, Population Genetics, and Race" in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Race. Oxford University Press. p. 168
--- The focus of population genetics is local breeding populations (ethnic groups, or smaller tribes, castes, inbred religious sects, rural villagers etc.) not large aggregates/groups. However, as a crude analysis local populations are sometimes clustered into regions. These regional groupings like I said, include "North Africa", "East Africa", "South Asia" etc. "Asia" and "Africa" though are far too broad to even be used in a crude/rough analysis. Again, simple facts like these Afrocentrists are ignorant of. "Africa" is as useless as "Eurasia" in population genetics.
There goes your multiply regional theory, down the drain into the sewer.
quote: Populations for which the ancient Caucasus genomes are best ancestral approximations include those of the Southern Caucasus and interestingly, South and Central Asia. Western Europe tends to be a mix of early farmers and western/eastern hunter-gatherers while Middle Eastern genomes are described as a mix of early farmers and Africans.
[…]
Caucasus hunter-gatherer contribution to subsequent populations. We next explored the extent to which Bichon and CHG contributed to contemporary populations using outgroup f3(African; modern, ancient) statistics, which measure the shared genetic history between an ancient genome and a modern population since they diverged from an African outgroup.
Discussion
Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier.
—Jones, E. R., G. Gonzalez-Fortes, S. Connell, V. Siska, A. Eriksson, R. Martiniano, R. L. McLaughlin, et al. 2015.
“Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians.” Nature Communications 6 (1): 8912. doi:10.1038/ncomms9912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9912.Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: "Sub-Saharan. Note the prefix. Sub-Egyptian. Note the prefix. Why is the prefix there, clowns? When I've used these terms - my only focus is Saharan desert and Egypt. I don't then propose everyone below these areas is the same, or part of the same region. The only usage of these relative terms is to exclude everyone below these focused areas, which is undeniably convenient."
Convenient and undeniably arbitrary like any other division you could impose under the guise of objectivity.
And no I can assure you I'm not COC, just a guy who hates pompous Nazis as much as you hate black people(who you brush as "afrocentrists" in an attempt to shut them up; yet you cry about slander).
Get real.
You're an Afrocentrist. I'm not a Nazi. I'm English, and my grandparents fought the Nazis; I'm also not an anti-Semite etc., and don't even like Germans. so the Nazi label is childish slander - anyone who disagrees with your Afrocentric crackpottery is a hitler-slauting neo-Nazi or KKK hillbilly etc. Grow up.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: "Sub-Saharan. Note the prefix. Sub-Egyptian. Note the prefix. Why is the prefix there, clowns? When I've used these terms - my only focus is Saharan desert and Egypt. I don't then propose everyone below these areas is the same, or part of the same region. The only usage of these relative terms is to exclude everyone below these focused areas, which is undeniably convenient."
Convenient and undeniably arbitrary like any other division you could impose under the guise of objectivity.
And no I can assure you I'm not COC, just a guy who hates pompous Nazis as much as you hate black people(who you brush as "afrocentrists" in an attempt to shut them up; yet you cry about slander).
Get real.
You're an Afrocentrist. I'm not a Nazi. I'm English, and my grandparents fought the Nazis; I'm also not an anti-Semite etc., and don't even like Germans. so the Nazi label is childish slander - anyone who disagrees with your Afrocentric crackpottery is a hitler-slauting neo-Nazi or KKK hillbilly etc. Grow up.
Before you use a term such as Afrocentrist as slander. You need to know the history of this.
Afrocentrist fought white supremacist, eugenicists etc.
After hundreds of years deliberately misrepresenting African history and the continent, African people have the right to restore African history.
And on that note I say goodnight.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
There is no single climatic zone below the Sahara, but about half a dozen if you look on the Koppen climate map. "Sub-Saharan" (note the prefix "sub" meaning below) is only a term used relative to the Sahara.
Stop talking about that map. That map doesn't legitimize the term. A map that acknowledges differing zones does NOT legitimize a term that creates a monolithic identity for everyone below the Sahara. The Sahel for example is already known to be below the Sahara. We don't need to call it "Sub Saharan." It's very unlikely we're going to need to describe in conversation every area South of the Sahara instead of likely relative ecosystems unless there is the intention to imply a monolithic biological, historical, cultural, etc identity. And ironically enough a lot of research assuming a singular grouping to be relevant doesn't actually provide data that covers all the people adapted to the different ecological systems. This is essentially true negro or "Pan Sub Saharan identity" which is what Eurocentrics want, hence if you dare say "African" they get shook and butthurt.
The political and social impact of the usage of SSA has engendered the idea of a monolithic African below the Sahara. The notion of a "true negro" HAS affected research and even YOU were making moves to try to establish labels with the goal of demonstrating a monolithic concept of Africans south of the Sahara. Pretend all you want, but you're not immune to this. You are not using that to simply discuss geological areas in relative location:
quote:
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.
Like I said when you tried comparing this to descriptors of southern and northern Europe, SSA is a Saharan-centric descriptor that discusses people relative to the Sahara and not as equals. Even when the Sahara is not relevant to the conversation, "Sub Saharan Africa" is a common descriptor. Why? Because it helps maintain the image of a monolithic African. Of all things, demanding the rest of Africa be understood as distinct though they share the same continent (truth) is automatically political, but to then push an agenda of a monolithic identity for everyone south of the Sahara is not.
There's no reason why people should be discussing people in one group related to their ecosystem inside the Sahara, and then regard everyone below it as one singular unit relative to that ecosystem. Very rarely (if ever) does simply telling us they live below the Sahara tell us who they really are. It doesn't tell us where they specifically live, the areas and climates they specifically adapted towards.
quote:Why wouldn't they use "European"? You do realise Europe is smaller than North Africa? My point about population geneticists is they don't use "African" or "Asian" because those regions are far too broad. What is used is "European", "West Asia", "North Africa", "East Africa" etc. This obviously conflicts with the Pan-African politics.
Lol earlier I said:
quote: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.
You very seldom if ever hear people discuss European populations as "sub Polar" or "Polar Europeans" despite the differing ecological systems that served as a fundamental concept for HOW Africa was divided.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Late period DNA results from Northern Egypt will not change the narrative on the source of Egyptian civilization. It's a reach. We still need their Y-DNA to establish who these people were.
Go read Swenet's and Beyoku's posts. They know earlier & Upper Egyptian samples will come back very similar.
I get flak and abuse by Afrocentrists because I'm white. Those two are black, but they're saying the same thing as me about the DNA. Go figure. Where I differ, is these two posters (or just Swenet) I think are arguing Basal Eurasian is North African., while I am arguing it is Arabian hunter-gatherer. Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Levantines are around 50% Basal Eurasian (e.g. Hotu 65%, Natufian, 44%); EEF's also had a significant percentage of this ancestry although estimates vary somewhat. Of course I could be wrong, I'm think this because its wahat I've read from posts being made, especially the Stuttgart sample's closeness to Egyptian in Brace et al. 2005.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Nope nothing sub-human sub-standard sub-ordinate about Europe
Hence no sub-North Sea Europe sub-Baltic Europe sub-Pyrenees Europe sub-Alpine Europe
There's a reason why the university discipline Afrocentricity, granting Africology degrees at various colleges, uses South of the Sahara not sub-Saharan Africa. The previous posters know why and laid it down straight.
Late period DNA results from Northern Egypt will not change the narrative on the source of Egyptian civilization. It's a reach. We still need their Y-DNA to establish who these people were.
Go read Swenet's and Beyoku's posts. They know earlier & Upper Egyptian samples will come back very similar.
I get flak and abuse by Afrocentrists because I'm white. Those two are black, but they're saying the same thing as me about the DNA. Go figure. Where I differ, is these two posters (or just Swenet) I think are arguing Basal Eurasian is North African., while I am arguing it is Arabian hunter-gatherer. Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Levantines are around 50% Basal Eurasian (e.g. Hotu 65%, Natufian, 44%); EEF's also had a significant percentage of this ancestry although estimates vary somewhat. Of course I could be wrong, I'm think this because its wahat I've read from posts being made, especially the Stuttgart sample's closeness to Egyptian in Brace et al. 2005.
Can you cite them specifically saying that early Southern Egyptian samples would be similar to these late period Abusir samples? The South has always been closely aligned with specific people in "Nubia" that they were virtually identical.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You're an Afrocentrist. I'm not a Nazi. I'm English, and my grandparents fought the Nazis; I'm also not an anti-Semite etc., and don't even like Germans"
What evidence do you have that I'm an afrocentrist other than my ethnicity? Contrary to your opinion I have actually spent more time arguing with *actual* afrocentrists and black supremacists than I have with Nazis like you. Having to argue against stupid "theories" like black Shang Chinese and Washitaw Muurs have given me plenty of practice for people like you.
Me arguing against your garbage such as Musa Keita I being an Arab or all of Africa's civilizations being the cause of Hamites does NOT make me an afrocentrist.
Nazi.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Before you use a term such as Afrocentrist as slander. You need to know the history of this.
lol? Its not slander because you people actually are "Afrocentrists". Just google that term. And as the Wikipedia article on Afrocentrism points out: "Afrocentrism is a Pan-African ideology in culture, philosophy, and history." Pan-African politics and Afrocentrism are synonymous. Quite obviously though I am not a "Nazi". You're making a false comparison; calling random people you disagree with on the internet as "Nazis" is slander. Its like debating someone, losing, then calling someone a rapist.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
People can argue whatever they want.
Lazaridis coined Basal Eurasian. He ain't proxy no Levantine/Arabian Peninsulars for BE. He ain't proxy no North African for his Basal Eurasian either.
C'mon now, who was Lazaridis' BE proxy? What made Laz et all go and do that?
I wish folk stop manipulating and distorting stuff to fit preconceived political agended notions ie anti-ES, anti-"white blogs", anti-Afrocentric, anti- Eurocentric, etc and take an observe analyze and update approach and leave knowing the facts sight unseen before any official public release unless they a cross between Nostradamus and Svengali some damn body.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: "You're an Afrocentrist. I'm not a Nazi. I'm English, and my grandparents fought the Nazis; I'm also not an anti-Semite etc., and don't even like Germans"
What evidence do you have that I'm an afrocentrist other than my ethnicity? Contrary to your opinion I have actually spent more time arguing with *actual* afrocentrists and black supremacists than I have with Nazis like you. Having to argue against stupid "theories" like black Shang Chinese and Washitaw Muurs have given me plenty of practice for people like you.
Me arguing against your garbage such as Musa Keita I being an Arab or all of Africa's civilizations being the cause of Hamites does NOT make me an afrocentrist.
Nazi.
You do realise people can just search your posts within last year or so right? You've posted you think Egyptians were "tropically adapted" (despite the fact ancient Egypt was not inside the tropics and this tropical Egyptian is argument is only used by Afrocentrists - its long been debunked). I also remember you calling ancient Egyptians "black". Your agenda doesn't seem to merely arguing Egyptians were natives, but trying to connect them to distant southern African populations (far beyond Nubians).So how are you any different to an Afrocentrist?
Like all other Afrocentrists you ignore the skin colour cline in the Nile Valley; the entire cline has to be "black" for you to because if Egyptians are not "black" (and lighter brown skin tones - which they were) that complicates your pan-Africanism. I've also never seen you describe the Egyptians in a local biologically context, they only have to be "African" which is actually meaningless because of the size of Africa and heterogeneity there between populations. I've never seen you call Egyptians "North Africans" or "Saharans".
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Southern Egypt and northern Nubia are in the tropics, and many Egyptians had physically demonstrated tropical adaptations. That's not surprising since they apparently came from the same cultural complex in Sudan. Lol you said Afrocentrism is "pan African" ideology, but not all of Africa is tropical. Whoops? Tropical is now not an ecological construct, but "Sub Saharan" is a valid ecological construct to describe Africans because "it's easier." That is not "political" at all.
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.
All these Near eastern and European Neolithic groups most likely received Admixture from a single group or related groups. Natufians are an estimate ~ 50% basal Eurasian. Where was this basal Eurasian before introgressing into the neolithic populations... Look at the cline your theory suggests in Europe, not only that but you also deny geneflow from the Steppes, And whats up with the E lineages attached to both the Near east N. and Europe? Even if we're saying EEF's Basal Eurasian input comes indirectly from the Near east (Which it doesn't seem like according to lazaridis, 2016) which route did it take to Europe? Not only that but, There's a chance that some of this shared ancestry is in non OOA admixed Sub Saharan Africans.
Don't forget that the cherry on top is that the Sahara was more navigable back then as well. From where you're standing in my opinion, a sole "near east context" is pretty much playing ignorant. But then again we don't truly know what context you speak from... so.
Also would you mind taking that already debunked "clinal development" reasoning to the color thread created by Oshun please. I get a headache every time I read it, I don't understand why you persistently push this, you have much better arguments for your political agenda, just let this one go.
and since you want to get back on track, do you mind sharing what you think of the diverse set of Mitochondrial Halplogroups of the OP? ...and how it suggests continuity?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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?
I know that is what you posted. And what I am saying is none of those papers on EEF or Basal Eurasian point out those same African relationships as DEFINING or BEING PART OF EITHER GROUP.
When you show me a paper that has EEF and Basal Eurasian having any relationship to populations in Africa I will certainly listen. But until then it is you making arbitrary correlations between different populations based on various biological data sets WHICH ARE NOT part of the Basal Eurasian and EEF Data Set.
I keep saying this but you happily ignore it to make up whatever linkages between Africans and EEF and Basal Eurasian you want. Like I said, my problem isnt with you it is with the fact that they have defined EEF and Basal Eurasian as WITHOUT AFRICAN MIXTURE hence trying to turn around and claim that other data sets prove EEF and Basal Eurasian are related to Africans is silly. The underlying metrics and methodologies used to define them are flawed. But you insist on ignoring that point.
NOTE: None of the articles I have looked at covering Basal Eurasian or EEF mention any relationship to Africa.... only amateurs on forums like this. (Not saying that there is no relationship, just that those terms are flawed for leaving Africa out in the first place.)
quote: However, their genes live on in modern Europeans, to a greater extent in the north-east than in the south.
The early farmer genome showed a completely different pattern, however. Her genetic profile was a good match for modern people in Sardinia, and was rather different from the indigenous hunters.
But, puzzlingly, while the early farmers share genetic similarities with Near Eastern people at a global level, they are significantly different in other ways. Prof Reich suggests that more recent migrations in the farmers' "homeland" may have diluted their genetic signal in that region today.
Prof Reich explained: "The only way we'll be able to prove this is by getting ancient DNA samples along the potential trail from the Near East to Europe... and seeing if they genetically match these predictions or if they're different.
"Maybe they're different - that would be extremely interesting.
Pigmentation genes carried by the hunters and farmers showed that, while the dark hair, brown eyes and pale skin of the early farmer would look familiar to us, the hunter-gatherers would stand out if we saw them on a street today.
"It really does look like the indigenous West European hunter gatherers had this striking combination of dark skin and blue eyes that doesn't exist any more," Prof Reich told BBC News.
Dr Carles Lalueza-Fox, from the Institute of Evolutionary Biology (CSIC - UPF) in Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved with the research, told BBC News: "If you look at all the reconstructions of Mesolithic people on the internet, they are always depicted as fair skinned. And the farmers are sometimes depicted as dark-skinned newcomers to Europe. This shows the opposite."
So where did fair pigmentation in present-day Europeans come from? The farmer seems to be on her way there, carrying a gene variant for light skin that's still around today.
"There's an evolutionary argument about this - that light skin in Europe is biologically advantageous for people who farm, because you need to make vitamin D," said David Reich.
"Hunters and gatherers get vitamin D through their food - because animals have a lot of it. But once you're farming, you don't get a lot of it, and once you switch to agriculture, there's strong natural selection to lighten your skin so that when it's hit by sunlight you can synthesise vitamin D."
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Am I hallucinating or does Laz right here in his 2016 Supplementary Info 4, Pervasive Basal Eurasian ancestry in the ancient Near East, say he used the qpAdm method to estimate proportion of BE ancestry based on how the test population formed a clade with Mota -- a ~4500 year old male from the Ethiopian highlands -- vs forming a clade with one of the Eurasian hunter gatherers (WHG EHG)?
quote:Originally posted on April 17 by Tukuler: Besides using Mota as the Basal Eurasian genome for qpAdm, Lazaridis gives the nrY haplogroup of each ancient Near East DNA sample. Some of their take on Natufian nrY
We all need to study and analyze these reports thoroughly before commenting and drawing conclusions based on a priora convictions and only reading what's found via a myopic self serving word search.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Late period DNA results from Northern Egypt will not change the narrative on the source of Egyptian civilization. It's a reach. We still need their Y-DNA to establish who these people were.
Go read Swenet's and Beyoku's posts. They know earlier & Upper Egyptian samples will come back very similar.
I get flak and abuse by Afrocentrists because I'm white. Those two are black, but they're saying the same thing as me about the DNA. Go figure. Where I differ, is these two posters (or just Swenet) I think are arguing Basal Eurasian is North African., while I am arguing it is Arabian hunter-gatherer. Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Levantines are around 50% Basal Eurasian (e.g. Hotu 65%, Natufian, 44%); EEF's also had a significant percentage of this ancestry although estimates vary somewhat. Of course I could be wrong, I'm think this because its wahat I've read from posts being made, especially the Stuttgart sample's closeness to Egyptian in Brace et al. 2005.
It is not because you're "white", it is because you lack understanding of the African continent and her complexity.
quote: The ‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized
—Iosif Lazaridis Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
quote: Populations for which the ancient Caucasus genomes are best ancestral approximations include those of the Southern Caucasus and interestingly, South and Central Asia. Western Europe tends to be a mix of early farmers and western/eastern hunter-gatherers while Middle Eastern genomes are described as a mix of early farmers and Africans.
[…]
Caucasus hunter-gatherer contribution to subsequent populations. We next explored the extent to which Bichon and CHG contributed to contemporary populations using outgroup f3(African; modern, ancient) statistics, which measure the shared genetic history between an ancient genome and a modern population since they diverged from an African outgroup.
Discussion
Given their geographic origin, it seems likely that CHG and EF are the descendants of early colonists from Africa who stopped south of the Caucasus, in an area stretching south to the Levant and possibly east towards Central and South Asia. WHG, on the other hand, are likely the descendants of a wave that expanded further into Europe. The separation of these populations is one that stretches back before the Holocene, as indicated by local continuity through the Late Palaeolithic/Mesolithic boundary and deep coalescence estimates, which date to around the LGM and earlier.
—Jones, E. R., G. Gonzalez-Fortes, S. Connell, V. Siska, A. Eriksson, R. Martiniano, R. L. McLaughlin, et al. 2015.
“Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians.” Nature Communications 6 (1): 8912. doi:10.1038/ncomms9912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9912.Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Before you use a term such as Afrocentrist as slander. You need to know the history of this.
lol? Its not slander because you people actually are "Afrocentrists". Just google that term. And as the Wikipedia article on Afrocentrism points out: "Afrocentrism is a Pan-African ideology in culture, philosophy, and history." Pan-African politics and Afrocentrism are synonymous. Quite obviously though I am not a "Nazi". You're making a false comparison; calling random people you disagree with on the internet as "Nazis" is slander. Its like debating someone, losing, then calling someone a rapist.
I didn't call you nazi, and Wikipedia is a source anyone can use and abuse. Afrocentrism is Africana. There is nothing wrong with it. Africana looks at the history of all of Africa.
European history is being connected by Eurocentrics as well, even though there is no relation.
UNBOXED: The World Beyond the West & the Problem of Eurocentrism
Ps: You keep running from the Sahel question, because it destroys your narratives.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ I had been looking for a quote like this having gone through the article but I don't recall if I read the whole supplement. I could mean Doug wins.
But I'm looking at this statement and I find it annoyingly ambiguous: (MY REMARKS IN CAPTAL LETTERS)
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers
Iosif Lazaridis, 2016
quote:
An association of E1b1 migrants from Africa with Basal Eurasian ancestry is possible (Basal Eurasians are so named because of their phylogenetic position basal to other Eurasians not for their geographical provenance;
SO BASAL EURASIANS CAN LIVE IN AFRICA BUT WE SHOULD CALL THEM EURASIANS?
African migrants that did not participate in the initial Out-ofAfrica expansion would occupy such a basal position to other Eurasians).
SO ON THESE AFRICAN MIGRANTS WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE INITIAL OOA... SO WHAT MAKES THEM MIGRANTS? THEY PARTICIPATED IN LATER MIGRATIONS OUT OF AFRICA? WHY NOT JUST SAY THAT? OR DOES OT NOT MEAN THAT?
However, such ancestry is not limited to the Levant, but also extends to the whole of Near East (where E1b1 chromosomes have not been detected).
OH SO YOU HAD US GOING THAT BASLA EURASIANS WERE E1B1
BUT NOW THEY DONT HAVE TO BE E1B1 ??
Thus, we think that both the late entry scenario of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East (associated with gene flow from Africa), or its earlier presence15 in anatomically modern-humans from the Levant and Arabia >100,000 years 16,17 are still plausible.
posted
^obviously we're all alike so he'll tar anyone as being an afrocentrist and insulting him to make his case even though I'm the only one who specifically called him a Nazi.
Edit: though I have to admit I'm tickled by how this Nazi thinks he "got" me with my previous posts when I make it a point not to delete my posting history on any forum or venue as I own *all* my posts. I would elaborate on his sticking points had I some measure of respect for him but whatever. Any one else want me to elaborate sure. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: "You're an Afrocentrist. I'm not a Nazi. I'm English, and my grandparents fought the Nazis; I'm also not an anti-Semite etc., and don't even like Germans"
What evidence do you have that I'm an afrocentrist other than my ethnicity? Contrary to your opinion I have actually spent more time arguing with *actual* afrocentrists and black supremacists than I have with Nazis like you. Having to argue against stupid "theories" like black Shang Chinese and Washitaw Muurs have given me plenty of practice for people like you.
Me arguing against your garbage such as Musa Keita I being an Arab or all of Africa's civilizations being the cause of Hamites does NOT make me an afrocentrist.
Nazi.
You do realise people can just search your posts within last year or so right? You've posted you think Egyptians were "tropically adapted" (despite the fact ancient Egypt was not inside the tropics and this tropical Egyptian is argument is only used by Afrocentrists - its long been debunked). I also remember you calling ancient Egyptians "black". Your agenda doesn't seem to merely arguing Egyptians were natives, but trying to connect them to distant southern African populations (far beyond Nubians).So how are you any different to an Afrocentrist?
Like all other Afrocentrists you ignore the skin colour cline in the Nile Valley; the entire cline has to be "black" for you to because if Egyptians are not "black" (and lighter brown skin tones - which they were) that complicates your pan-Africanism. I've also never seen you describe the Egyptians in a local biologically context, they only have to be "African" which is actually meaningless because of the size of Africa and heterogeneity there between populations. I've never seen you call Egyptians "North Africans" or "Saharans".
Euroloonis keep claiming that ancient Egyptians weren't tropical adapted, while all sources say there were. Euroloons always had a problem with it, from the get go and every source you used debunked you each time you used it. If any of what you claimed is true, these scholars would have rectified these sources on limbs and body portions.
Egyptians are Northeast Africans with origin further south going to Central Sudan. Is it Afrocentric to read up upon Central Sadanese history?
So I ask you again, is Central Sudan sub Sahara Africa?
Stop running from this question.
quote: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.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also love how he spews at the mouth anout his skin color cline when there are often variations WITHIN a group(hell within blood related families) as any second year anthropology student could tell you. Clines represent a general tendency yet are not iron clad color lines. He keeps ranting on about light brown light brown when there were numerous Egyptians with very dark skin whether in Lower or Upper Egypt. But of course those Egyptians are misrepresented or handpicked by Afroloons afraid of his agend- I mean objectivity.
I really should've stuck to my policy of ignoring this Nazi prick after the Mansa Musa debacle. Whatever
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Next you'll have euroloons claiming ancient (Central) Sudani history. **** is getting ridiculous.
quote:
Excavation of one of 90 pre-Mesolithic graves at Al Khiday 2. The graves are over 9,000 years old, and all the skeletons are buried elongated and face down, which is unique worldwide. (Photograph: Donatella Usai, Centro Studi Sudanesi e Sub-Sahariani)
Tooth plaque provides insights into diet of prehistoric ancestors
OMDURMAN, Sudan: An international team of researchers has found new evidence that prehistoric ancestors had a detailed understanding of plants long before the development of agriculture. By extracting chemical compounds and microfossils from dental calculus—calcified dental plaque—from ancient teeth, the researchers were able to provide an entirely new perspective on our ancestors’ diets. The research suggests that purple nut sedge, today regarded as a nuisance weed, formed an important part of the prehistoric diet and that prehistoric people living in Central Sudan may have understood both the nutritional and medicinal qualities of this and other plants.
The research, led by the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) and the University of York, was conducted at Al Khiday, a prehistoric site on the White Nile in Central Sudan. It demonstrates that for at least 7,000 years, starting before the development of agriculture and continuing after agricultural plants were also available, the people of Al Khiday ate the plant purple nut sedge. The plant is a good source of carbohydrates, and has many useful medicinal and aromatic qualities.
Lead author Dr Karen Hardy, a Catalan Institute for Research and Advanced Studies Research Professor at the UAB and an honorary research associate at the University of York, said: “Purple nut sedge is today considered to be a scourge in tropical and sub-tropical regions and has been called the world’s most expensive weed due to the difficulties and high costs of eradication from agricultural areas. By extracting material from samples of ancient dental calculus we have found that rather than being a nuisance in the past, its value as a food, and possibly its abundant medicinal qualities were known. More recently, it was also used by the ancient Egyptians as perfume and as medicine.”
“We also discovered that these people ate several other plants and we found traces of smoke, evidence for cooking, and for chewing plant fibres to prepare raw materials. These small biographical details add to the growing evidence that prehistoric people had a detailed understanding of plants long before the development of agriculture.”
Al Khiday is a complex of five archaeological sites that lie 25 km south of the city of Omdurman. One of the sites is predominantly a burial ground of the pre-Mesolithic, Neolithic and Late Meroitic periods. As a multiperiod cemetery, it gave the researchers a useful long-term perspective on the material recovered.
The researchers found ingestion of the purple nut sedge in both pre-agricultural and agricultural periods. They suggest that the plant’s ability to inhibit Streptococcus mutans, a bacterium that contributes to tooth decay, may have contributed to the unexpectedly low level of cavities found in the agricultural population.
“The development of studies on chemical compounds and microfossils extracted from dental calculus will help to counterbalance the dominant focus on meat and protein that has been a feature of pre-agricultural dietary interpretation, up until now,” Hardy stated. “The new access to plants ingested, which is provided by dental calculus analysis, will increase, if not revolutionise, the perception of ecological knowledge and use of plants among earlier prehistoric and pre-agrarian populations.”
The study, titled “Dental calculus reveals unique insights into food items, cooking and plant processing in prehistoric central Sudan”, was published online on 16 July in the PLOS ONE journal.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Tukuler I guess Laz is an Afroloon in disguise, or his paper is being misrepresented by deranged black people, or something.
One really has to do the digging to find the diamond in the rough.
quote:She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait.
—M. Gallego-Llorente, R. Pinhasi et al.
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 the Lioness,: I could mean Doug wins.
Lol. We saw the same comments of Doug "winning" in the 'black' thread. I guess Doug's wack-a-mole strategy of constantly retreating to a more defensible position really pays off.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic