posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted Genetic studies related to Egypt thread :


G. Lucotte and G. Mercier. 2003.
“Brief Communication:Y-chromosome Haplotypes in Egypt,”
Am. J. Physical Anthropology 121:63-66.

We analyzed Y-chromosome haplotypes in the Nile River Valley in Egypt in 274 unrelated males, using the p-49a,fTaqI polymorphism. These individuals were born in three regions along the river: in Alexandria (the Delta and Lower Egypt), in Upper Egypt, and in Lower Nubia. Fifteen different p49a,fTaqI haplotypes are present in Egypt, the three most common being haplotypes V (39.4%), haplotypes XI (18.9%), and haplotypes IV (13.9%). Haplotype V is a characteristic Arab haplotypes, with a northern geographic distribution in Egypt in the Nile River Valley. Haplotype IV, characteristic of sub-Saharan populations, shows a southern geographical distribution in Egypt.

p. 65 As for mtDNA (Krings et al. 1999), the present study on the Y-chromosome haplotypes shows that there are northern and southern Y-haplotypes in Egypt. The main Y-haplotype V is a northern haplotypes, with a significantly different frequency in the north compared to the south of the country: frequencies of haplotypes V are 51.9% in the Delta (location A), 24.2% in Upper Egypt (location B), and 17.4% in Lower Nubia (location C). On the other hand, haplotypes IV is a typical southern haplotype, being almost absent in A (1.2%), and preponderant in B (27.3%) and C (39.1%). Haplotype XI [with a 70% occurence in Ethiopia] also shows a preponderance in the south (in C, 30.4%; B, 28.8%) compared to the north (11.7% in A) of the country. In mtDNA, sequences of the first hypervariable HpaI site at position 3592 allowed Krings, et al. (1999) to designate each mtDNA as being of northern or southern affiliation, and proportions of northern and southern mtDNA differed significantly between Egypt, Nubia, and the southern Sudan.

It is interesting to relate this peculiar north/south differentiation, a pattern of genetic variation deriving from the two uniparentally inherited genetic systems (mtDNA and Y chromosome), to specific historic events.

Concerning less frequent Y-haplotypes in Egypt, haplotype VIII is characteristic of Semitic populations, originating in the Near East (Lucotte et al., [1993]). For example (Lucotte et al., [1996]), the frequency of haplotype VIII is 26.2% among North African Jews (where it represents the majority haplotype) and 77.5% among Jews from the island of Djerba (Tunisia), reaching 85.1% among Oriental (from Iraq, Iran, and Syria) Jews. Similarly, haplotype VII had a general geographical distribution fairly identical to that of haplotype VIII (which it often accompanies as a secondary haplotype); haplotype VII distinguishes itself by increased preponderance north of the Mediterranean and in Eastern Europe (Lucotte et al., [1996]). Haplotype XV is the most widespread Y-haplotype in Western Europe (Lucotte and Hazout, [1996]), where its frequency decreases from west to east (Semino et al., [1996]; Lucotte and Loirat, [1999]). Haplotypes VIII, VII, and XV are less common haplotypes in Egypt (7.3%, 6.6%, and 5.5%, respectively), and tend to be located in the north of the country, near the Mediterranean coast. Possibly haplotypes VIII, VII, and XV represent, respectively, Near East, Greek, and Roman influences.



Table 1. My tabularization of the percentages in the abstract

Haplotype & Ethnicity__U. Egypt & L. Nubia__Middle Egypt__L. Egypt & Delta__Natl Avg

IV Inner African_______39.1_______________27.3__________01.2__________13.9

XI Egyptian Ethiopian__30.4_______________28.8__________11.7__________18.9

V Arabian Semite______17.4_______________24.2__________51.9__________39.4

VIII Near East Semites_________________________________mostly coastal__07.3

VII N. Med E. Europe (Greek?)___________________________mostly coastal__06.6

XV W. Europe (Roman?)________________________________mostly coastal__05.5




Notice the national averages only total to 91.6% leaving 8.4% of the
population split between the 9 remaining haplotypes not detailed in
the abstract. Does anyone have the full report?



[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 19 December 2004).]

---

BTW 42Tribes

I can compare your alleles to PopSTR database
like I did for the Amarna and Ramses if you'd
like and report your Africa, Levant, Old World,
affinities. Can also check you against any
royals of your choice.

And I won't have to fudge a single input variable.

Years ago, I proved faking input to PopAffilator yields fake output.

---

Please do. That would be interesting. Even full input yields questionable 5 region results. It has a strong North African bias.

They Berberized me.

North Africa 49.8%
Sub-Saharan Africa 27.6%
Eurasia 17.6%
Asia 4.5%
Near East 0.5%

Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Everything is a subclade of something African, that's irrelevant. E-V13 has been in Europe since the Neolithic (known from ancient DNA), its sister branch is in Europe, it's far most common in Europe, it's quite rare in North Africa, which was historically settled by Greeks. So there's no good reason it shouldn't be Greek.

---

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB] Quit playing

https://books.google.com/books?id=dftPHu1o2s8C&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=Elmenteita+crania&source=bl&ots=mR0G7yKLCy&sig=996mSc1MVts2sdFawbV0P1IMqJU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJz7vK9_nTAhVF KCYKHVlWBEIQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Elmenteita%20crania&f=false

And I ain't replying to you anymore because as
all ESers point out anybody conversant with the
disciplines can sit your ass down.

---

Simpleton, read the source: "It is appropriate, therefore, to group the Elmenteitan people with the pastoralists discussed in the next section rather than with other Late Stone Age hunter/gatherers." Rightmire (1984) dates the Elmenteitan crania 2500-2000 BP; this can clearly be seen on the table ("approximate dates from radiocarbon determinations") on page 194.

"Caucasoid" traits like narrow nasal aperture and orthognathism are totally absent from the East African fossil record until very recent (well within recorded-history) about 2500 years ago.

The simple fact is these features didn't originate there, these traits/variables first appear in the European fossil record as early as Cro-Magnon 1.

---

Gamble's Cave also re-dated to 2500 BP by Ambrose (1980, 1982) [Rightmire also questions Protsch's 8000 BP dating]:

"Gamble's Cave Layer 12 is undated but lies almost four meters above layers dated to between 8500 and 8000 BP (Ambrose, 1980). On the basis of regional evidence for the age of the overlying Elementeitan occurrence in Layer 6 (table 10), layer 12 should date to between roughly 3000 and 2,500 BP." (Ambrose, 1982)

"The same reservations apply to Protsch's date of 8020 BP for the cairn burials overlying the Eburran 5A horizon at Gamble's Cave, as this date is inconsistent with conventional charcoal dates ranging from 8500 to 8000 BP on Phase 3 in this site from 4 meters below this horizon." (Rightmire, 1984)

Gamble's Cave and Elmenteita skulls therefore date 2500 BP (c. 500 BCE). Afrocentrists don't use the correct dating, instead they quote Leakey (1935) or Protsch (1975, 1978), whose work was discredited by Ambrose and Rightmire in the 1980s. A tenet of pseudo-science is quoting outdated source, that's typically Afrocentrism for you.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:

eg ....id:YF03303ZAF [ZA-NC] from yFull. Is this a Khoi-San?

---

Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet:




Gamble's Cave crania: 3000-2500 BP.
Elmenteitan crania: 2500-2000 BP.

That leaves Willey's Kopje II.

Guess what? Its been re-dated from Neolithic to Iron Age. Cole (1963) already corrected the erroneous Neolithic date by Leakey (1935):

"One fragmentary skeleton was recovered from the surface at Willey's Kopje and excacation under cairns of stones yielded two more complete skeletons. Unfortunately these were not associated with artefacts, although stone tools and potsherds were found on the surface. A corroded iron ring was found near the foot of one of the skeletons, suggesting that the burials must date from the Iron Age." - The Prehistory of East Africa [2nd edition] p. 308

lol.

Afrocentric bozos are still though trying to pass off all these remains as stone age.

---

Egypt's first mummies




Burial 85

Burial 85 belonged to a young woman (16-20 years) who we nick-named Paddy. She was discovered intact, still fully covered by a double layer of matting. Beneath the matting, her hands and lower arms had been padded with thick bundles of linen and then wrapped. Bundles of linen were also used to pad the area around the base of the skull, the neck and jaw. Yet the major part of the face, the eyes, nose, and mouth were not covered. Her burial contained no grave goods in the usual sense. Only a couple of rounded sherds and a flint flake were found in the crook of her knees.


http://www.hierakonpolis-online.org/index.php/explore-the-predynastic-cemeteries/hk43-workers-cemetery/egypt-s-first-mummies





http://interactive.archaeology.org/hierakonpolis/nubians.html

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
@Akachi. Here is your problem to solve. Egyptian Nubians show DISCONTINUITY with Sudanese Nubians in regards to E-M2.

Sudanese by and large in nearly all contemporary studies show discontinuity with Egyptians as far as E-M2, A3b2, B2a, E-V32, V-65, M128,

You can go ahead and play the Euroclown role and say Egyptian Nubians are recent migrants from Sudan if you want but we know that the area where hey live has always been differentiated. They are not new migrants to the region.

You are arguing these populations come from Sudan based on a lineage that is not at all found in Sudan!

---

That's interesting.

When you say discontinued, do you mean in gradient level?

---

Data shows that Egyptians have SOME...and Sudanese have NONE. You should be fimiliar with these studies by now.
They have none probably for the same reasons why the have little to no E-M81 which exists in Egypt.

Akachi is falling back an old Eurocentric talking point to prove a point : This is arguing that Nubians in Egypt are "New" migrants from Sudan. Euroclowns do this to argue that Nubians (Black People) are new to Egypt and all Black people you see in the southern region are Nubian newcomers or admixed with them. Next week he will be on Topix.com arguing the opposite, that Nubians are Native to Egypt and always been there. He flip flops like that. He the type to criticize a member for posting Metallica lyrics meanwhile be on Facebook talking about how Black folks invented Rock and Metal. Be shouting 'We was Kings' a la DNA Tribes while at the time talking about we was Hebrews and wasnt African at all. SMH.

---

quote:

---

Firstly, haplogroup E-M2 (former E1b1a)

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

---

Uncanny, simply uncanny.

Who's those ladies?




Just like Ish recollected before I prepped the table.
The power of these 8 STRs accuracy is amazing .

theLioness question a few posts below has
some kinda answer if scrutinising the table.

Only thing I'll say is Thuya's only specific alleles are
• D18 = 8 ain't African nor Afroasian
• D21 = 26 is Mbuti
.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB] Quit playing

https://books.google.com/books?id=dftPHu1o2s8C&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=Elmenteita+crania&source=bl&ots=mR0G7yKLCy&sig=996mSc1MVts2sdFawbV0P1IMqJU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJz7vK9_nTAhVF KCYKHVlWBEIQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Elmenteita%20crania&f=false

And I ain't replying to you anymore because as
all ESers point out anybody conversant with the
disciplines can sit your ass down.

---

Simpleton, read the source: "It is appropriate, therefore, to group the Elmenteitan people with the pastoralists discussed in the next section rather than with other Late Stone Age hunter/gatherers." Rightmire (1984) dates the Elmenteitan crania 2500-2000 BP; this can clearly be seen on the table ("approximate dates from radiocarbon determinations") on page 194.

"Caucasoid" traits like narrow nasal aperture and orthognathism are totally absent from the East African fossil record until very recent (well within recorded-history) about 2500 years ago.

The simple fact is these features didn't originate there, these traits/variables first appear in the European fossil record as early as Cro-Magnon 1.

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

---

Uncanny, simply uncanny.

Who's those ladies?

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

The well-preserved cranium
(Fig. 6) is long and has an ovoid vertical shape.
The glabella and superciliary arch are moderately
developed. The nasal bones are prominent.
The nasal shape is distinctively wide
(NH:51 ?, NB: 30). Moreover, the skull has a
distinct alveolar prognathism.

---

quote:

---

The frontal bone is distinctly receding (frontal subtense: 21 mm); the glabella and superciliary arch are moderately developed. The interorbital breadth measures a substantial 28 mm, and the angle formed between the nasal bones is wide.

---

quote:

---

Only the nasal measurements could be
determined with relative certainty (NH: 51?,
NB: 29?), resulting in a wide nasal shape. The skull, moreover, is long, with an ovoid vertical shape. The glabella and superciliary region are developed only moderately.

---

quote:

---

The two individuals IV and VI are on the whole well preserved; skeleton IV ( d ,5Z61 years) has an extremely large and robust cranium, which may be an extreme variant among the population. He, too, has dominating Negroid features, a marked alveolar prognathism and a very wide nasal shape, a distinctly receding frontal bone (frontal subtense: 25 mm), and an extreme interorbital breadth (30 mm). The calvaria, moreover, is long and ovoid.

---

quote:

---

The nasal bones are very flat, and the interorbital breadth of 27 mm is considerable... has a very wide nasal aperture and a strong alveolar prognathism.

---

- Skull 6

In terms of a anthroposcopic analyse the Mumba skulls are "Negroid" and they're closest in craniometric analysis to Teita, Zulu and "South African Blacks" (see Brauer, 1980 Fig. 4 and 5), however in terms of some individual metric variables lean somewhat in a "Nilotid" direction, hence Masai are not a great distance from the Mumba sample(s) in Fig. 4. In Baker (1974), the "Nilotid" is a "Negroid" who has undergone some minor micro-evolutionary differentiation. So I'm not sure why Baker gets labelled a "racist 10 times worse than Coon" here when he argued the "Nilotid" morphotype involved no Hamitic admixture: he categorized it as a "Negroid" subtype.

Anyway, I just find it bizarre that Afrocentrists are not arguing prehistoric East Africans were "Negroid", but somehow "Caucasoid". Weird stuff. But they're basically arguing the latter to try to claim "Caucasoid" features as their own. What's next blonde blue eyed Negroes... o wait Xyman is already doing that.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Physical anthropology does not classify human remains by “race,” and there are no good criteria, observable or genetic, that can be used to separate all individuals of one “race” from another. Labeling the ancient Egyptians as “white” (Caucasoid) or “black” (Negroid) is therefore not useful. In Egyptian texts from later periods foreigners from countries and regions outside of Egypt are named, and in art they are depicted with different styles of dress, hair, beards, etc. Thus, it is perhaps best to consider who the Dynastic Egyptians were from their own perspective, which was cultural: peoples of the lower Nile Valley under the political authority of the pharaonic state who probably spoke a single language. The ancient Egyptians were adapted, both culturally and physically, for life in this unique environment, with its great agricultural potential. The longevity of pharaonic culture is testament to its successful adaptation there – as well as its ability to adapt to changing conditions through time.

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ reasonable

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

How much Levantine admixture does she have?

---

quote:

---

"Morphological variation of the skeletal remains of ancient Nubia has been traditionally explained as a product of multiple migrations into the Nile Valley. In contrast, various researchers have noted a continuity in craniofacial variation from Mesolithic through Neolithic times. This apparent continuity could be explained by in situ cultural evolution producing shifts in selective pressures which may act on teeth, the facial complex, and the cranial vault.

A series of 13 Mesolithic skulls from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, are compared to Nubian Neolithic remains by means of extended canonical analysis. Results support recent research which suggests consistent trends of facial reduction and cranial vault expansion from Mesolithic through Neolithic times .”

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Anyone interested in what prehistoric East Africans looked like, should Google the Mumba Cave crania (Northern Tanzania). One of the crania is at least 5700 BP (Brauer, 1980), while two radiocarbon dates of burials from the same layer (III) are 4890 ± 70 / 4860 ± 100 (Mehlman, 1989). So despite continuous occupation, at least some of the Mumba skulls can be dated 3000-4000 BCE, opposed to the considerably more recent Iron Age Elmenteita, Willey's Kopje and Gamble's Cave crania (500 BCE).

Brauer (1980) includes a useful description of the Mumba skulls. They're all platyyrhine (wide nasal aperture) with strong alveolar prognathism-

quote:

---

The well-preserved cranium
(Fig. 6) is long and has an ovoid vertical shape.
The glabella and superciliary arch are moderately
developed. The nasal bones are prominent.
The nasal shape is distinctively wide
(NH:51 ?, NB: 30). Moreover, the skull has a
distinct alveolar prognathism.

---

- Skull 10

quote:

---

The frontal bone is distinctly receding (frontal subtense: 21 mm); the glabella and superciliary arch are moderately developed. The interorbital breadth measures a substantial 28 mm, and the angle formed between the nasal bones is wide.

---

- Skull 7

quote:

---

Only the nasal measurements could be
determined with relative certainty (NH: 51?,
NB: 29?), resulting in a wide nasal shape. The skull, moreover, is long, with an ovoid vertical shape. The glabella and superciliary region are developed only moderately.

---

- Skull 8

quote:

---

The two individuals IV and VI are on the whole well preserved; skeleton IV ( d ,5Z61 years) has an extremely large and robust cranium, which may be an extreme variant among the population. He, too, has dominating Negroid features, a marked alveolar prognathism and a very wide nasal shape, a distinctly receding frontal bone (frontal subtense: 25 mm), and an extreme interorbital breadth (30 mm). The calvaria, moreover, is long and ovoid.

---

- Skull 4

quote:

---

The nasal bones are very flat, and the interorbital breadth of 27 mm is considerable... has a very wide nasal aperture and a strong alveolar prognathism.

---

- Skull 6

In terms of a anthroposcopic analyse the Mumba skulls are "Negroid" and they're closest in craniometric analysis to Teita, Zulu and "South African Blacks" (see Brauer, 1980 Fig. 4 and 5), however in terms of some individual metric variables lean somewhat in a "Nilotid" direction, hence Masai are not a great distance from the Mumba sample(s) in Fig. 4. In Baker (1974), the "Nilotid" is a "Negroid" who has undergone some minor micro-evolutionary differentiation. So I'm not sure why Baker gets labelled a "racist 10 times worse than Coon" here when he argued the "Nilotid" morphotype involved no Hamitic admixture: he categorized it as a "Negroid" subtype.

Anyway, I just find it bizarre that Afrocentrists are not arguing prehistoric East Africans were "Negroid", but somehow "Caucasoid". Weird stuff. But they're basically arguing the latter to try to claim "Caucasoid" features as their own. What's next blonde blue eyed Negroes… o wait Xyman is already doing that.

---

East Africa was a place where variety evolved, so your post is senseless.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb] ^ reasonable

---

Who are you to dispute?

---

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb] ^ reasonable

---

Who are you to dispute?

---

were you aware that when someone says something and than another person says " reasonable" it is the opposite of dispute?

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ reasonable

---

Who are you to dispute?

---

You know you blew it with Ish when you co-sign and he thinks you're up to something.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You know you blew it with Ish when you co-sign and he thinks you're up to something.

---

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You know you blew it with Ish when you co-sign and he thinks you're up to something.

---

that's a knee jerk reaction, it happens automatically.

If I said Marcus Garvey was black ish would start wondering because I said it

If I want him to jump over a cliff all I need to do is say "don't jump over the cliff"

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ reasonable

---

Who are you to dispute?

---

You know you blew it with Ish when you co-sign and he thinks you're up to something.

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
East Africa was a place where variety evolved, so your post is senseless.

---

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


BTW 42Tribes

I can compare your alleles to PopSTR database
like I did for the Amarna and Ramses if you'd
like and report your Africa, Levant, Old World,
affinities. Can also check you against any
royals of your choice.

And I won't have to fudge a single input variable.

Years ago, I proved faking input to PopAffilator yields fake output.

---

Please do. That would be interesting. Even full input yields questionable 5 region results. It has a strong North African bias.

They Berberized me.

North Africa 49.8%
Sub-Saharan Africa 27.6%
Eurasia 17.6%
Asia 4.5%
Near East 0.5%

---

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
The problem for Afrocentrics arguing narrow noses evolved in situ in Kenya, Uganda, (northern) Tanzania and Ethiopia: is the vast majority of these regions are climatically hot-humid, not arid. Climatic selection in these places favours wide, not narrow noses. The exception is small pockets of northeast Kenya and eastern Ethiopia (Ethiopian Somali) bordering Somalia, but none of the aforementioned crania are from these areas.

---

But regions in the dessert get exceedingly cold at night, while the climate is dry. So there is the explanation.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
East Africa was a place where variety evolved, so your post is senseless.

---

There are no narrow-nasal bone orthognathic East African crania until c. 500 BCE (Iron Age). This time-frame fits modern genetic studies about Arabian gene flow into East Africa almost spot on-

"A similar signal of west Eurasian ancestry is present throughout eastern Africa. In particular, we also find evidence for two admixture events in the history of Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ethiopian populations, the earlier of which involved populations related to west Eurasians and which we date to ∼2,700–3,300 y ago."

"First, a large-scale movement of people from west Eurasia into Ethiopia around 3,000 y ago (perhaps from southern Arabia and associated with the D’mt kingdom and the arrival of Ethiosemitic languages) resulted in the dispersal of west Eurasian ancestry throughout eastern Africa."
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/7/2632.full

Furthermore, we have a reliable dating of the Lothagam Kenyan crania (8000-6000 BP), see Rightmire (1984) for a description:

"Nasal root below is generally wide and flattened. Teeth are large, and there is a good deal of alveolar prognathism or forward projection of the lower face and jaws. In both males and females, the mandibles are often heavy."

The prehistoric crania from northern Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia are "Negroid" with alveolar prognathism, large teeth and wide nasal bones. Only in the Iron Age do crania with narrow nasal aperture, small teeth and orthognathic jaws appear, as a result of gene flow with Arabian peoples (3000 BP) who probably introduced the South Semitic languages to Ethiopia, see Kitchen et al. (2009). "Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East".

---

So based on these few specimen you draw conclusions?

I remember you posted something (a few years back) about Caucasians in Central Africa somewhere, about 15Kya. This reminded me of the Tutsis. Euronuts called the Tutsi a Hamitic people. lol @ all this flip flopping.


The colonial scholars who found complex societies in sub-Saharan Africa developed the Hamitic hypothesis, namely that “black Europeans” had migrated into the African interior, conquering the primitive peoples they found there and introducing civilization. The Hamitic hypothesis continues to echo into the current day, both inside and outside of academic circles. As scholars developed a migration hypothesis for the origin of the Tutsi that rejected the Hamitic thesis, the notion that the Tutsi were civilizing alien conquerors was also put in question.
-Wikipedia

The orthognathic exceeds the given data, by far. And colder climates reduce the nasal width.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by cass:
The supposed [Mesolithic]/Neolithic Kenyan skulls with 'narrow' features (e.g. Elmenteita A) from Bromhead's site, have been re-dated. They are only 2k years old. The 7000 BP date is from Leakey (1935) and Protsch (1978). Rightmire (1984) shows it is erroneous:





Bromshead [Elmenteitan] is only 2500 - 2000 BP.

---

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

In 1973 Professor Reiner Protsch “von Zieten” proposed that modern humans arose in sub-Saharan Africa, presenting a series of false datings (Terberger & Street, 2003; Schulz, 2004) of presumed “modern” fossil specimens from Europe over the following years (Protsch, 1973, 1975; Protsch & Glowatzki, 1974; Protsch & Semmel, 1978; Henke & Pro- tsch, 1978). In 2003 it was shown that all of his datings had been concocted and he was dismissed by the University of Frankfurt.

---

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Well, you probably got some Amazigh up in you.
So stuff your allele values in that popSTR PM I sent ya and let's see.

Popaffiliator 5 region is only 65% accurate.

---

Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Ish Gebor

I posted prehistoric East African crania were not "Caucasoid" in 2014 (see below). In 2013 I used Leakey's (1935) erroneous dates. In 2014 I found a more recent source (Rightmire, 1984) to discover the Elmenteitan crania are Iron Age (2500 BP, not 7000 BP), later I found the same for Gamble's Cave (Ambrose, 1982). Unlike Afrocentrics I correct my mistakes. Tukuler though is still using the false dates, and as far as I am aware -so is Swenet, which is odd since he claims to have integrity when it comes to science. Of course, the fact no prehistoric East African crania have narrow nasal bones is a blow to their delusional "Caucasoids-r-us" fantasy.

August, 2014:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cass:
The supposed [Mesolithic]/Neolithic Kenyan skulls with 'narrow' features (e.g. Elmenteita A) from Bromhead's site, have been re-dated. They are only 2k years old. The 7000 BP date is from Leakey (1935) and Protsch (1978). Rightmire (1984) shows it is erroneous:





Bromshead [Elmenteitan] is only 2500 - 2000 BP.

---

The 8000 BP estimate for Gamble's Cave is also questioned by Rightmire (hence the "?" on the table) and falsified by Ambrose (1982) who shows a carbon-dated layer 4 meters below the Gamble's Cave layer 12 provided the same age (!?), so obviously the date for the skulls is a lot more recent than the deeper layer; no older than 3000 BP as estimated by Ambrose.

---

Euroloon, I am talking about something specific, you posted years ago on Central Africa. Yet, you keep babbling about East Africa and Elmenteita. Beside that Elmenteita show great similarities with the HK43 Burial, which belongs to the first mummies.














A cave with a few specimen isn't that well defined, I hope you can agree on this. So what I am saying essentially its that the Elmenteita are not and can't be representative for an overall in that region.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by cass:
The supposed [Mesolithic]/Neolithic Kenyan skulls with 'narrow' features (e.g. Elmenteita A) from Bromhead's site, have been re-dated. They are only 2k years old. The 7000 BP date is from Leakey (1935) and Protsch (1978). Rightmire (1984) shows it is erroneous:

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Well, you probably got some Amazigh up in you.
So stuff your allele values in that popSTR PM I sent ya and let's see.

Popaffiliator 5 region is only 65% accurate.

---

http://cracs.fc.up.pt/~nf/popaffiliator/str_db.html

Bias database. One country in Europe has more samples than all of Africa. Nationalgeographic does the same to a lesser extent. Popaffiliator would probably do the same with most Americans.

Thats why I said Dnatribes MLI score FTW. It predicted that I was an American from West Africa. Popaffiliator thinks I'm a Moor. Hmmm, Mike might appreciate that.

---

Some West African ethnic groups related to the Moors, especially those from south of the Sahara and Sahel. And in fact more Kel live at the South than the North.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Well, you probably got some Amazigh up in you.
So stuff your allele values in that popSTR PM I sent ya and let's see.

Popaffiliator 5 region is only 65% accurate.

---

http://cracs.fc.up.pt/~nf/popaffiliator/str_db.html

Bias database. One country in Europe has more samples than all of Africa. Nationalgeographic does the same to a lesser extent. Popaffiliator would probably do the same with most Americans.

Thats why I said Dnatribes MLI score FTW. It predicted that I was an American from West Africa. Popaffiliator thinks I'm a Moor. Hmmm, Mike might appreciate that.

---

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged |