No doubt these Afroloons will come back denying their posts, but here's log from May 2015-
quote:You do remember that the average non-African ancestry of the 100 was 80%, don't you?
- Tropicals Redacted (aka Carlos Coke)
quote:The DNA shows that many MODERN Egyptians with their Arabized background, are not heavily related to the ancients.
quote:And the DNA is backed by cranial data as well showing that late period samples are not typically Egyptian (Zakrewski)
- zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Even the Djehuti loon-
quote:it is quite clear from the SNP findings that modern Egyptians are by and large NOT of African ancestry which only affirms Zakrewski's cranial findings
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Young man! Cass. I am starting to sound like a broken record but this is not too difficult to understand. Just put aside your racialist beliefs for a minute. Based upon the CURRENT genetic evidence ALL modern Humans originated in Africa. The regional Theory is Dead. There were essentially TWO major migration events. First, the initial OOA and second the Neolithic Migration. The time period of the initial OOA can be contested. I speculate it is about 40-50000years ago. Some say 100,000ya. The second migratory evident was about 6-10000years ago. I also believe between the Bronze and medieval age there was tremendous political upheaval and NOT migratory events which led to the dominance of R1b-M269. There was NO migration from the Steppes of Asia. R1b-M269 is indigenous to Western Africa and Western Europe. The question is why the sudden dominance. Within 500years. If you know genetics you know that not even the Vikings carried typical European DNA.....At least the few that were tested.
But who argues for a Neolithic migration from Africa? Agriculture spread into Europe/North Africa from south-west Asia. What I though argue is this did not involve large-scale mixture/population movement, it was more a spread of the farming ideas or technology i.e. a cultural diffusion model. The latter does not deny small-scale gene flow, but I would estimate it no higher than 20% (Sykes, 2001). Ancient DNA is now showing EEF admixture at 0% in the Baltic.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
SMH. You don't understand what you are posting. Citing a 2001 study is NOT a good idea. In addition understand the context of the EEF in Baltic . Basal Eurasian or EEF was borne in Africa . First you need to understand that. And also understand Modern Europeans are as much as 80% Basal Eurasian or EEF. Also understand as stated in my other thread. ANE and Basal Eurasian split occured "IN" Africa not in Asia. Making ANE also African. The multi-regional theory is dead. Sorry.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I haven't seen the full Study but according to Davidski when I challenged him on this he stated that the authors based the LABEL "Near East" on SNP and NOT mtDNA Haplogroups. I have to see full report to confirm. The reason Davidski backed-off using haplogroups because these"leaked" mtDNA Haplgroups are African(primarily of the Great lakes). So as I said. These haplgroups are exactly where they should be. M1, T, etc are all African. No "European" haplogroup was found. Nein! You do know how haplogoroups are transmitted?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
7. As the recently leaked symposium screen shots show there is virtually "no" Maghrebian and European influence in AEian Egypt Middle Kingdom population. The mtDNA make-up is exactly where it should be. Great Lake Africans Like Kenyans and Sudanese with some Somalians mixed in.
But xyyman, this says Near East not Great Lakes
So when you said that leaked shots the symposium show Great Lake Africans Like Kenyans and Sudanese with some Somalians mixed in, you were lying.
So when you said "San has a large proportion of "Mongoloid" ancestry .... DNA charts have shown, like DNATribes, the closest African population to Asians are. you guessed it...San" you were lying
When we look at the actual DNA Tribes digest you referred to we Khosian are not close to Asians, not at all, their percentage is under 1% and is lower than, West Africans, Nilotic, Omotic-Ari Ethiopia, Banstu and Horn, ( Omotic being the highest, 3.5% (and that being low)
This is why you don't show the data because you grossly misrepresent it all the time
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking about the TWO migratory events and the time line. Maybe brothas in the know can give some insight on this. Offer an reasonable explanation on why L3-N subclades like mtDNA-X is found in Native Americans while at the same time Native Americans are the most distant from Africans. Is this a pattern of TWO or ONE migratory event? Why would mtDNA-X be found in Native Americans unless recent Africans travelled to the Americas as Dr Winters have speculated . And After the initial OOA.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
But what the pie shows is what we have been talking about on Egyptsearch. Indigenous Africans with admixture. And the more to the South the lesser.
Except the 68% is calculated for the whole of Egypt since they're using samples from all over the country. Presumably Lower Egyptians would be somewhat lower (60%), and Upper Egyptians somewhat higher (75%). Afrocentrists were never arguing for as high as 60% genetic continuity in Lower Egypt. Just go read Zaharan, Amun Ra's etc posts. They were spamming a study at one point arguing modern Egyptians are only 20% North African (based on a limited sample) and they made dozens of posts on "cosmopolitan Lower Egypt" arguing for virtually no to minimal continuity there, but a massive influx of foreigners, population-replacement or large-scale mixing.
The reason Afrocentrists are/were (since they've now been falsified) saying modern Egyptians, mostly Lower Egyptians are non-native, is because many Lower Egyptians don't look "black" - these lighter skinned predominant "Caucasoid"-looking peoples pose a problem to their political "Black Egypt" theory, hence they tried to exclude them.
Middle/Lower Egyptian Copts -
[/QB]
I can't speak for others, but I can tell hat most posters have predicated what is out now. Copts are most mixed of all. This is historically a fact. But I am not surprised by your arbitrary nitpicking.
I never really agreed with AMRTU. But Sarahan was on point.
"Lower Egyptians don't look "black"
Have you been to Egypt? lol Can you answer this simple question?
This is what Egyptian women look like on average in Cairo, DESPITE THE ADMIXTURE being so prevalent, 27% non-African.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Presumably Lower Egyptians would be somewhat lower (60%), and Upper Egyptians somewhat higher (75%)
You don't realize yet that you are destroying your own argument. The fact that Southern Egyptians carry more of the indigenous component destroys your arbitrary narrative.
So, show us the SNP's. lol
Members of Egyptsearch were right after all and euroloons not. LOL
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@lioness. That was not the chart I was referring too. It was a pie chart but this one illustrate my point. Native American ancestry is highest in Khoi-San. Native American are related to East Asians. Native Americans did not back-migrate to the Kalahari. West Africans carry the least amount of Native American Ancestry. Notice also the OLDER African populations(like Ari) carry MORE Native-American Ancestry. I am not sure what is "South China" and who they represent. We know through Tree-Mix Cambodians seem to have a migratory event from recent Africans. In this chart Native Americans may be better a representative of "mongoloids". The chart I was referring to has a better illustration.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: SMH. You don't understand what you are posting. Citing a 2001 study is NOT a good idea. In addition understand the context of the EEF in Baltic . Basal Eurasian or EEF was borne in Africa . First you need to understand that. And also understand Modern Europeans are as much as 80% Basal Eurasian or EEF. Also understand as stated in my other thread. ANE and Basal Eurasian split occured "IN" Africa not in Asia. Making ANE also African. The multi-regional theory is dead. Sorry.
Archaeology? There's no evidence farming/domestication originated in Africa, it spread there from south-west Asia, like it did into Europe:
The question is whether farming/domestication into Europe & Africa from south-west Asia was demic (large scale genetic mixture) or cultural (small scale genetic mixture) diffusionism. Those are competing models in the literature since the 1980s, if not earlier.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: SMH. You don't understand what you are posting. Citing a 2001 study is NOT a good idea. In addition understand the context of the EEF in Baltic . Basal Eurasian or EEF was borne in Africa . First you need to understand that. And also understand Modern Europeans are as much as 80% Basal Eurasian or EEF. Also understand as stated in my other thread. ANE and Basal Eurasian split occured "IN" Africa not in Asia. Making ANE also African. The multi-regional theory is dead. Sorry.
Archaeology? There's no evidence farming/domestication originated in Africa, it spread there from south-west Asia, like it did into Europe:
The question is whether farming/domestication into Europe & Africa from south-west Asia was demic (large scale genetic mixture) or cultural (small scale genetic mixture) diffusionism. Those are competing models in the literature since the 1980s, if not earlier.
2012 thread.
Ancient watercourses and biogeography of the Sahara explain the peopling of the ...
quote: vidence found at desert sites in Egypt suggests that rudimentary agriculture began there some 18,000 years ago. Some archeologists remain skeptical.
—Sam Iker
1982 (Volume 13, No. 4) Agriculture's Origins: The Seeds of Agriculture
quote:From various kinds of evidence it can now be argued that agriculture in Ethiopia and the Horn was quite ancient, originating as much as 7,000 or more years ago, and that its development owed nothing to South Arabian inspiration. Moreover, the inventions of grain cultivation in particular, both in Ethiopia and separately in the Near East, seem rooted in a single, still earlier subsistence invention of North-east Africa, the intensive utilization of wild grains, beginning probably by or before 13,000 b.c. The correlation of linguistic evidence with archaeology suggests that this food-collecting innovation may have been the work of early Afroasiatic-speaking communities and may have constituted the particular economic advantage which gave impetus to the first stages of Afroasiatic expansion into Ethiopia and the Horn, the Sahara and North Africa, and parts of the Near East.
posted
Ish, along with Zaharan, Tropicals Redacted, Amun-Ra, dejuti and even Nodarb - you were arguing for biological discontinuity between early and late dynastic Egypt, hence you lot were spamming a craniometric study suggesting Howells E series (late dynastic) is significantly different to earlier samples and also spamming a study from Pagani et al suggesting modern Egyptians are 80% Arab.
Now DNA comes back falsifying you, you're lying about your former position. lol
Zaharan only last year who was spamming Pagani et al...
quote:Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on 2016-05-07 04:25 AM:
Todays' "Caucasian" Egyptians almost the same as the ancients- DEBUNKED. They are heavily admixed with Arabs, and others, which is why moderns cannot be considered identical to ancients. Shown by not just DNA, BUT ALSO skeletal and cranial data from credible scholars.
Moderns are heavily admixed and cannot be considered the same as the ancient population- a fact borne out not only by DNA, but skeletal and cranial evidence as well. Here is "updated" data from 2015, showing the recent admixture. In short, much non-African ancestry in Egyptians traced to Islamic invasions and expansions
Take your meds. You're now saying this is a "Eurocentric" positon when it is/was an Afronut one.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't realize yet that you are destroying your own argument. The fact that Southern Egyptians carry more of the indigenous component destroys your arbitrary narrative.
It doesn't at all. Lower Egyptians are closer geographically to south-west Asia than Upper Egyptians, so one would expect there to be a north-south gradient in the percentage of south-west Asian DNA. The admixture however is small: if the whole of Egypt is almost 70% autochthonous genetically (North African, see below), modern Lower Egyptians are still going to show high genetic continuity to ancients, far more than the 10-20% Afrocentrists were at one stage spamming from Pagani et al.
Also note since these studies group native Egyptian ancestry together with north Sudanese and Berbers into a "North African" group, this doesn't distinguish between north Sudanese and Egyptians. Upper Egyptians based on their geographical closeness to Nubia, will have more Nubian/north Sudanese mixture than Lower Egyptians. Once you take that into account: Lower Egyptians are no less indigenous (native Egyptian) than Upper Egyptians.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't realize yet that you are destroying your own argument. The fact that Southern Egyptians carry more of the indigenous component destroys your arbitrary narrative.
It doesn't at all. Lower Egyptians are closer geographically to south-west Asia than Upper Egyptians, so one would expect there to be a north-south gradient in the percentage of south-west Asian DNA. The admixture however is small: if the whole of Egypt is almost 70% autochthonous genetically (North African, see below), modern Lower Egyptians are still going to show high genetic continuity to ancients, far more than the 10-20% Afrocentrists were at one stage spamming from Pagani et al.
Also note since these studies group native Egyptian ancestry together with north Sudanese and Berbers into a "North African" group, this doesn't distinguish between north Sudanese and Egyptians. Upper Egyptians based on their geographical closeness to Nubia, will have more Nubian/north Sudanese mixture than Lower Egyptians. Once you take that into account: Lower Egyptians are no less indigenous (native Egyptian) than Upper Egyptians.
You're being absurd. Lower Egyptians undoubtedly have more non-indigenous ancestry than Upper Egyptians based on their geographic position and the fact that the series of "Eurasian" conquests and subsequent settlements were concentrated in the North.
..And considering that Upper Egyptians and "Nubians" stem from a common origin in the Nile valley, any "admixture" that took place transpired between very closely related populations that developed almost concurrently within Egypt and the Nile Valley and were indistinguishable in the predynastic period.
Lower Egyptians received admixture from non related populations from outside the Nile Valley, whereas Upper Egyptians mingled with closely related populations from within Egypt itself and the Nile Valley. It's not the same thing.
Upper Egyptians were the overwhelming demographic majority for the bulk of the predynastic and dynastic period until the Ptolemaic dynasty. Their phenotyphic profile was the norm.
This was the ancient norm:
Ammianus Marcellinus: "the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look."
It was the significantly more sophisticated, wealthier South that conquered the North [Narmer] and united the two lands - creating Dynastic Egypt; it was the South that determined the political and cultural norms; it was the South that created the written language; the powerful priestly class was centred in Waset ("Thebes"); the population of ancient Egypt was concentrated in the South; invaders were almost invariably expelled by Southern leaders; the swampy Delta was nothing but a sparsely populated, fragmented backwater until the Southerners conquered it and built magnificent structures that have stood the test of time.
The famous Narmer palette shows him on one side wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt, and the other shows him wearing the red crown of Lower Egypt. It also shows the hawk emblem of Horus, the Upper Egyptian god of Nekhem, dominating the Lower Egypt personified papyrus marsh. From this, Narmer is believed to have unified Egypt."
posted
Assuming that this study is correct and that Lower Egyptians really do have as much as 60% African ancestry -- that would make them biracial people that are a little more than half African, and considering what happens when Northeast Africans mix with non-Africans... the predominant phenotype in Lower Egypt is not all that surprising.
These people below are biracial Western celebrities:
Slash
Jennifer Beals
Soledad O'Brien:
Rashida Jones:
Maya Rudolph:
And Hoda Kotb - Egyptian host on NBC:
Let's be honest here, Europeans emphasise cosmopolitan modern Lower Egyptians for no reason other than the fact that their "Eurasian" appearance provides them with a great deal of comfort in its relation to their image of ancient Egypt.
You people act as though Lower Egyptians were the majority in Dynastic Egypt and that they are the best representatives of the Pharaohs when in fact Upper Egyptians are far better representatives of the Pharaohs -- but they look like other Northeast Africans and so there is no comfort to be derived, is there?
quote:Afrocentric critic Froment also notes: "Black populations" of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)
quote:The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food."
(Christopher Ehret (1996) "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture." In Egypt in Africa Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press
Ancient North Africa is not the same as modern. This is evident by the fact that even the rulers that did not have SSA exclusive alleles were still predominantly SSA or a SSA/Mediterranean hybrid.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Interesting whole-genome data on African admixtures in Chiang et al (2016) Sardine preprint.
Chiang's a little out the loop but well vetted. None of the biggies in population genetics are on his team. So the text is straight up, at least until referees get ahold of it.
I sorted Table S4 for split and then by regions * southwest to east to north to west, for Africans * south to north to west to south to east, for Afroasians and Europeans then by admix date within population regions.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not trying to say Nat Geo's findings are impossible, but what study did they reference or conduct that produced these results. How do they define "North African" genetically?
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
No study per se. They're just commenting on the paying donor's self-id ethnicity samples they gathered. Whoever did the NatlGeo/IBM website write up doesn't as much know Yoruba is not Bantu.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Ish, along with Zaharan, Tropicals Redacted, Amun-Ra, dejuti and even Nodarb - you were arguing for biological discontinuity between early and late dynastic Egypt, hence you lot were spamming a craniometric study suggesting Howells E series (late dynastic) is significantly different to earlier samples and also spamming a study from Pagani et al suggesting modern Egyptians are 80% Arab.
Now DNA comes back falsifying you, you're lying about your former position. lol
Zaharan only last year who was spamming Pagani et al...
quote:Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on 2016-05-07 04:25 AM:
Todays' "Caucasian" Egyptians almost the same as the ancients- DEBUNKED. They are heavily admixed with Arabs, and others, which is why moderns cannot be considered identical to ancients. Shown by not just DNA, BUT ALSO skeletal and cranial data from credible scholars.
Moderns are heavily admixed and cannot be considered the same as the ancient population- a fact borne out not only by DNA, but skeletal and cranial evidence as well. Here is "updated" data from 2015, showing the recent admixture. In short, much non-African ancestry in Egyptians traced to Islamic invasions and expansions
Take your meds. You're now saying this is a "Eurocentric" positon when it is/was an Afronut one.
You keep making this euroloon claim on how you're right, and everyone was wrong. But the human-genome 2.0 project by National Geographic explains what many posters have been telling here.
You will comprehend it within the upcoming years or so.
You now nitpick posts to create a new false narrative.
What you don't you understand is that both can be true. Pagani and NG. It depends on the population segment being sampled, because there are certainly people in Cairo who aren't native to Egypt.
The Ottoman rule along with the Mamluks is true. These are historical facts.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't realize yet that you are destroying your own argument. The fact that Southern Egyptians carry more of the indigenous component destroys your arbitrary narrative.
It doesn't at all. Lower Egyptians are closer geographically to south-west Asia than Upper Egyptians, so one would expect there to be a north-south gradient in the percentage of south-west Asian DNA. The admixture however is small: if the whole of Egypt is almost 70% autochthonous genetically (North African, see below), modern Lower Egyptians are still going to show high genetic continuity to ancients, far more than the 10-20% Afrocentrists were at one stage spamming from Pagani et al.
Also note since these studies group native Egyptian ancestry together with north Sudanese and Berbers into a "North African" group, this doesn't distinguish between north Sudanese and Egyptians. Upper Egyptians based on their geographical closeness to Nubia, will have more Nubian/north Sudanese mixture than Lower Egyptians. Once you take that into account: Lower Egyptians are no less indigenous (native Egyptian) than Upper Egyptians.
See how you jump from one conclusion to the next.lol
You yourself posted this:
quote:Originally posted by Cass/:
Presumably Lower Egyptians would be somewhat lower (60%), and Upper Egyptians somewhat higher (75%)
Fact is that 27% is non-African this correlates with the predictions made on Egyptsearch. You now trying to argue this, but it's a loosing game you are playing.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Ish, along with Zaharan, Tropicals Redacted, Amun-Ra, dejuti and even Nodarb - you were arguing for biological discontinuity between early and late dynastic Egypt, hence you lot were spamming a craniometric study suggesting Howells E series (late dynastic) is significantly different to earlier samples and also spamming a study from Pagani et al suggesting modern Egyptians are 80% Arab.
Now DNA comes back falsifying you, you're lying about your former position. lol
Zaharan only last year who was spamming Pagani et al...
quote:Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on 2016-05-07 04:25 AM:
Todays' "Caucasian" Egyptians almost the same as the ancients- DEBUNKED. They are heavily admixed with Arabs, and others, which is why moderns cannot be considered identical to ancients. Shown by not just DNA, BUT ALSO skeletal and cranial data from credible scholars.
Moderns are heavily admixed and cannot be considered the same as the ancient population- a fact borne out not only by DNA, but skeletal and cranial evidence as well. Here is "updated" data from 2015, showing the recent admixture. In short, much non-African ancestry in Egyptians traced to Islamic invasions and expansions
Take your meds. You're now saying this is a "Eurocentric" positon when it is/was an Afronut one.
Checkmate. Better find some new strategies and arguments. Pictures, crania nor limb studies counter anything he saying. Y'all better off just being quiet until the data drop. Every time he say something based on this abstract/results and you guys reply trying to hit back at him It looks like this. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ what he has been saying is the exact opposite from why he is showing here.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:You don't realize yet that you are destroying your own argument. The fact that Southern Egyptians carry more of the indigenous component destroys your arbitrary narrative.
It doesn't at all. Lower Egyptians are closer geographically to south-west Asia than Upper Egyptians, so one would expect there to be a north-south gradient in the percentage of south-west Asian DNA. The admixture however is small: if the whole of Egypt is almost 70% autochthonous genetically (North African, see below), modern Lower Egyptians are still going to show high genetic continuity to ancients, far more than the 10-20% Afrocentrists were at one stage spamming from Pagani et al.
Also note since these studies group native Egyptian ancestry together with north Sudanese and Berbers into a "North African" group, this doesn't distinguish between north Sudanese and Egyptians. Upper Egyptians based on their geographical closeness to Nubia, will have more Nubian/north Sudanese mixture than Lower Egyptians. Once you take that into account: Lower Egyptians are no less indigenous (native Egyptian) than Upper Egyptians.
Hmmm, Nubians are Southern Egyptians/ North Sudanese. (I can tell, you certainly haven't been to Egypt) smh
Ps the part you skipped was:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: MODERN EGYPTIANS on an average for the whole country are mostly (51% +) of FOREIGN ANCESTRY ??? prove it with genetics
What makes it partially difficult is that Northeast Africa obviously had outgoing populations. So SNP's found in the region can be due to outgoing as it expanded outside of Africa.
Therefore are being claimed as "so called" Eurasian.
Amongst a few other posts...
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: posted 17 April, 2017 17:18
quote:There is no genetic evidence of modern Europeans/Greeks occupying ancient Egypt
Finally we agree on something, but I would say their genetic impact was miminal, rather than absolutely nothing. As Brace et al. 1993 says, the ancient Egyptians "absorbed its various Assyrian, Persian, and Greek rulers with barely detectable effects on its basically Egyptian identity."
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: No study per se. They're just commenting on the paying donor's self-id ethnicity samples they gathered. Whoever did the NatlGeo/IBM website write up doesn't as much know Yoruba is not Bantu.
It was probably done so, due to migrations to the South by west Africans. It's a weird accumulation, but that is how they see things.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
You mistakenly think what you call "Eurocentrism" argues for biological discontinuity between early Dynastic and late Dynastic Egypt. This is an Afrocentrist position that argues there was mass influx and mixture of Hyksos, Persians and Greeks (and later post-Dynastic Romans, Byzantines and Arabs) into Lower/Middle Egypt. This has never been my position. If we go back to 2011, what I wrote is this (on one of those links you posted):
quote:The bulk or mass egyptian population [...] who descended from the Mouillian and Capsians through [to] the Badarian and Naqada cultures.
Sounds like long-term North African regional continuity to me. And I discussed things through to the Old Kingdom, and beyond. I would no longer though try to cluster northern Maghreb people with eastern Saharans like Egyptians/Nubians; Irish (2000) tries to show some affinity based on dental non-metrics. I wrote the above essay in 2011- 6 years is more than enough time to revise views and opinions. In contrast, Afrocentrist posters here have been spamming Pagani et al within the last year, if not recent months, to argue modern Egyptians are 80% Arab.
I cannot be bothered to dig up many of my older posts, but-
quote:Early Dynastic Egypt (c. 3100 BCE) was "not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts." While Egypt was invaded during later dynastic periods, these had small to minimal genetic impact; Brace et al. (1993) describe ancient Egypt as having "absorbed its various Assyrian, Persian, and Greek rulers with barely detectable effects on its basically Egyptian identity".
So I'm not sure why you're trying to say this hasn't been my position, when it has been for years. EgalitarianJay will remember me debating him in 2014/2015 on VNN and Nodarb will also remember me debating him in 2016 on political forum. Both EJ and Nodarb were using a Zakrzewski study to argue for biological discontinuity for late Dynastic Egyptians (Howell's "E series"):
quote:The "E series" c. 664–343 BCE predates Ptolemaic Egypt. Usefully, Froment has split the 26th dynasty from the 27th-30th. The 26th predates the Achaemenids, and look where it plots. The Afrocentric argument the "E series" represents mass foreign settlement doesn't really make any sense.
Suddenly now you're denying the Afrocentrist position in light of DNA. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: No study per se. They're just commenting on the paying donor's self-id ethnicity samples they gathered. Whoever did the NatlGeo/IBM website write up doesn't as much know Yoruba is not Bantu.
It was probably done so, due to migrations to the South by west Africans. It's a weird accumulation, but that is how they see things.
Yepper, you turned the key. "... how THEY see things". Regardless to linguistic fact, in this case. But anyway.
Ain't never seed no NatlGeo in notes, sources, or biblio of any molecular biology report or study.
Oh, I wonder wonder why?
NatlGeo/IBM got a good thing going on But that's just a regular 'newspaper' article harping on them. Find me a journal article on or using NatlGeo/ IBM's Human Genome Project database. Give em $149 and add your genome to their DB. Tell em you what ever ethny you want.
The Genographic Project is a consumer DNA testing thing more like DNAtribes and DNA consultants than 23&Me.
Hmm, anyone concerned about portability? That what works here, does it work elsewhere?
Just because NatlGeo has a oh wow big name that don't make em no kind of human population genetics authority. And I don't doubt for a nanosecond that per their database, their sample geographic bias, and their regional definitions, that their conclusions do indeed hold water. It just don't meet MY standards for potability.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Fact is that 27% is non-African this correlates with the predictions made on Egyptsearch. You now trying to argue this, but it's a loosing game you are playing. [/QB]
Its more than 27%. Their definition of North African is based on the North Africa that occurred after said, 'heavily admixing'.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: You keep making this euroloon claim on how you're right, and everyone was wrong. But the human-genome 2.0 project by National Geographic explains what many posters have been telling here.
quote:Fact is that 27% is non-African this correlates with the predictions made on Egyptsearch. You now trying to argue this, but it's a loosing game you are playing.
This nutcase is saying himself, Zarahan, Dejuti, Carlos Coke, Amun Ra etc, were arguing for only 27% non-native ancestry in modern Egyptians. No they weren't: they were arguing for 80% non-native ancestry hence they were spamming Pagani et al. 2015 (from the moment when that genetic study was published they spammed it, to as recent as only a few months ago). And prior to 2015, these same Afrocentrists were arguing for massive migrations, large-scale gene flow, near population replacement and biological discontinuity in late Dynastic Egypt, hence they were spamming a Zakrzewski study to argue Howell's skeletal E series (26th-30th Dynasties, 664–343 BCE) is "foreign" [something I denied on ES going back to 2013; I can easily dig up those posts]:
quote:You obviously missed the point that Howells used the Giza E series of skulls which were shown to be foreigners and not native
- Dejuti, only a month back, when I debated him on this in the "Because some fools don't know how to make their own thread about the race of kemet" thread (go take a look)
Now Ish Gebor wants to deny his and his Afrocentrists buddies posts for the past 3-4 years and posts recent as a month back.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: This is an Afrocentrist position that argues there was mass influx and mixture of Hyksos, Persians and Greeks (and later post-Dynastic Romans, Byzantines and Arabs) into Lower/Middle Egypt."
Euroloonism trikes again.
27% non-African.lol smh
quote:Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. *Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007).* Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
--Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009 Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Fact is that 27% is non-African this correlates with the predictions made on Egyptsearch. You now trying to argue this, but it's a loosing game you are playing.
Its more than 27%. Their definition of North African is based on the North Africa that occurred after said, 'heavily admixing'. [/QB]
You mean similar to people mixed with M269?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The bulk or mass egyptian population [...] who descended from the Mouillian and Capsians through [to] the Badarian and Naqada cultures.
Sounds like long-term North African regional continuity to me. And I discussed things through to the Old Kingdom, and beyond.
here have been spamming Pagani et al within the last year, if not recent months, to argue modern Egyptians are 80% [ ...] Suddenly now you're denying the Afrocentrist position in light of DNA.
Also what you wrote:
"negroes only appeared in egypt as late as c. 2000 BC when they were captured as SLAVES.
Here is how the ancient egyptians depicted blacks:
very bestial. the ancient egyptians hated blacks and portrayed their primitive facial features."
However:
quote:”As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups(Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).
These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007).
Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: This is an Afrocentrist position that argues there was mass influx and mixture of Hyksos, Persians and Greeks (and later post-Dynastic Romans, Byzantines and Arabs) into Lower/Middle Egypt."
Euroloonism trikes again.
27% non-African.lol smh
quote:Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. *Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007).* Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
--Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009 Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians
Cass, Ish Gebor never explains what his position is so you can't lump him in with posters who clearly state things. He likes to catch rides a lot but not commit to positions.
Contrary to what you are saying Ish Gebor usually argues for modern Egyptians being as being as African as possible and posts select photos of them to stress this. Same for anywhere in North Africa, He is not one of those posters who emphasizes that modern Egypt (or any country in Africa) having been heavily infiltrated by foreigners.
Now he thinks you are taking glory in modern Egyptians being 27% non African, he prefers that percentage lower not higher.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: This is an Afrocentrist position that argues there was mass influx and mixture of Hyksos, Persians and Greeks (and later post-Dynastic Romans, Byzantines and Arabs) into Lower/Middle Egypt."
Euroloonism trikes again.
27% non-African.lol smh
quote:Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. *Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007).* Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
--Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009 Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians
Cass, Ish Gebor never explains what his position is so you can't lump him in with posters who clearly state things. He likes to catch rides a lot but not commit to positions.
Contrary to what you are saying Ish Gebor usually argues for modern Egyptians being as being as African as possible and posts select photos of them to stress this. Same for anywhere in North Africa, He is not one of those posters who emphasizes that modern Egypt (or any country in Africa) having been heavily infiltrated by foreigners.
Now he thinks you are taking glory in modern Egyptians being 27% non African, he prefers that percentage lower not higher.
I have stated from the start that ancient Egyptians originated from the Sahara-Sahel. This always has been my position.
quote:
”Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
I have stated from the start that ancient Egyptians originated from the Sahara-Sahel.
you have comprehension issues.
where did I say you didn't say that?
I am reading and typing from my iPhone fast so I may have misinterpreted some parts.
Did you not write this?
"Cass, Ish Gebor never explains what his position is so you can't lump him in with posters who clearly state things. He likes to catch rides a lot but not commit to positions."
However:
quote:There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas
[...]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.
This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography”
--Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology) (1999, 2005, 2015)
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ There he is doing it again, quoting other people as if the words are his
Other posters don't do this. They write a statement themselves themselves below it use supporting quotes.
Often you can't tell the point that Ish Gebor is trying to make because sometimes the quotes he uses don't fit perfectly into the conversation, often they are way off on a tangent. I guess that is just his love of copy and pastes. Each quote he has he has posted at least 18,000 times
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: This indeed partially what I meant for many years.
^^classic Ish Gebore
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ There he is doing it again, quoting other people as if the words are his
Other posters don't do this. They write a statement themselves themselves below it use supporting quotes.
Often you can't tell the point that Ish Gebor is trying to make because sometimes the quotes he uses don't fit perfectly into the conversation, often they are way off on a tangent. I guess that is just his love of copy and pastes. Each quote he has he has posted at least 18,000 times
I am posting other people as if those are my words? 😩
Yeah, I have posted those quotes 18,000 times which confirm my position even more.
Deep in your heart you hate them for obvious reasons.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ There he is doing it again, quoting other people as if the words are his
Other posters don't do this. They write a statement themselves themselves below it use supporting quotes.
Often you can't tell the point that Ish Gebor is trying to make because sometimes the quotes he uses don't fit perfectly into the conversation, often they are way off on a tangent. I guess that is just his love of copy and pastes. Each quote he has he has posted at least 18,000 times
I am posting other people as if those are my words? 😩
yeah, now you've got it
you post quotes with no explanation as if the authors are your reps
but "indeed partially what I meant for many years."
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ There he is doing it again, quoting other people as if the words are his
Other posters don't do this. They write a statement themselves themselves below it use supporting quotes.
Often you can't tell the point that Ish Gebor is trying to make because sometimes the quotes he uses don't fit perfectly into the conversation, often they are way off on a tangent. I guess that is just his love of copy and pastes. Each quote he has he has posted at least 18,000 times
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: This indeed partially what I meant for many years.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^ There he is doing it again, quoting other people as if the words are his
Other posters don't do this. They write a statement themselves themselves below it use supporting quotes.
Often you can't tell the point that Ish Gebor is trying to make because sometimes the quotes he uses don't fit perfectly into the conversation, often they are way off on a tangent. I guess that is just his love of copy and pastes. Each quote he has he has posted at least 18,000 times
I am posting other people as if those are my words? 😩
yeah, now you've got it
you post quotes with no explanation as if the authors are your reps
but "indeed partially what I meant for many years."
I have posted them 18,000 times before. By now you should understand them. It is plain English after all.
quote: Cranial and dental evidence then tends to support a scenario of biological continuity in Egypt.
[...]
The main skeletal sample consisted of 492 males and 528 females, all adults from the Predynastic and Dynastic Periods, a time spanning c. 5500 BCE-600 CE.
Egyptian body dimensions were compared to Nubian groups, as well as to modern Egyptians and other higher and lower latitude populations.
The present study found a downward trend in ancient Egyptian stature for both sexes through time, as well as decreased sexual dimorphism in stature. The decreases may be associated with dietary and social stress with the intensification of agriculture and increased societal complexity.
Modern Egyptians in the study’s sample are generally taller and heavier than their predecessors; however, modern Egyptians exhibit relatively lower sexual dimorphism in stature.
Ancient Egyptians have more tropically adapted limbs in comparison to body breadths, which tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations.
These results may reflect the greater plasticity of limb lengths compared to body breadth.
The results might also suggest early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa.
-- Michelle H. Raxter (2011)
Egyptian Body Size: A Regional and Worldwide Comparison
What it says is that modern incoming populations from abroad may have influenced the body ratio. This so, especially in the North/ Lower Egypt. Since there was a trend of difference over time. Historically this is accurate.
27%. non-African.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on stop trying so hard to salvage a win. The terminology and the way some folks are trying so hard to fit it into an African context is bogus. I was never speaking of any specific charts or graphs because that is your typical tactic of trying to dodge rather than address the point.
And your absurd claim that markers are neither African or Eurasian is simply you trying to avoid using the term African in its proper context. [/qb]
Your habitual non sense was on display for everyone to see when you preferred the term early European farmer over EEF, even though they mean the same thing.
Let's face it. You were, and still are, salty because I said AE can be reconstructed genetically and cranio-facially by using this as a base and adding African ancestry:
You have used every pretext in the book to hide your saltiness with my original statement, from geography, to terminology. The moment you started talking about subsistence strategies 22ky to trump biological affinities, I knew you're truly inside your own little world.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on stop trying so hard to salvage a win. The terminology and the way some folks are trying so hard to fit it into an African context is bogus. I was never speaking of any specific charts or graphs because that is your typical tactic of trying to dodge rather than address the point.
And your absurd claim that markers are neither African or Eurasian is simply you trying to avoid using the term African in its proper context.
Your habitual non sense was on display for everyone to see when you preferred the term early European farmer over EEF, even though they mean the same thing.
Let's face it. You were, and still are, salty because I said AE can be reconstructed genetically and cranio-facially by using this as a base and adding African ancestry:
You have used every pretext in the book to hide your saltiness with my original statement, from geography, to terminology. The moment you started talking about subsistence strategies 22ky to trump biological affinities, I knew you're truly inside your own little world. [/QB]
So EFF would be used as a base instead of the other way round? I thought that that this EFF component was smaller than the African portion.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Below are the affinities of Naqada Bronze and modern Egypt in Brace's analysis. According to Doug, the change from 'Naqada Bronze' to 'Egypt' represents a shift from Wadi Kubbaniya-type people 22ky ago to modern Egyptians.
How profoundly confused can you be? Confused people like Doug can only thrive on Afrocentric and conspiracy theory message boards. Everywhere else they would have been laughed out the room years ago.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: So EFF would be used as a base instead of the other way round? I thought that that this EFF component was smaller than the African portion.
I never said anything about relative proportions. And did you read my comments in that thread for context?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[/QB]
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic