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?
I've just gone back to read your post on this. My bad.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: lol. Ish is lying through his teeth.
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.
It's funny you calling me a nutcase, when it is clear that you're the nutcase here.
I made clear that I can't defend others. But some of the posters position I do know and understand. Dejuti's position always was: the Sahara-Sahel origin. Zaharan's position is and was tropical limb ration like other African populations.
Ps you keep spamming Howell who has been debunked. Howell used skewed fragmented data. See my post on skittles. lol smh
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Why did Coon (1962) have "Caucasoids" in North Africa from Epipaleolithic times? The point I'm trying to make to you, is so-called Hamiticists argue for long-term biological continuity in North Africa, including Egypt, from the Epipaleolithic (if not earlier), through to Mesolithic, Neolithic, Ancient and Modern.
Here's a typical Hamiticist, Honea (1958):
"The Paleo-Hamites entered Africa in successive waves by manner of traversing a land-bridge formerly connecting Southwest Arabia with Northeast Africa in early Gamblian times (Upper Paleolithic)." - A Contribution to the History of the Hamitic Peoples of Africa
Ultimately, Hamiticists do assert Paleo-Hamites originated in south Levant or Arabia, but they argue Hamites moved into North Africa from the Epipaleolithic-or earlier Upper Palaeolithic, Hamiticism is a "native" model in a sense because it argues Hamites settled in North Africa so far back in time. Instead you seem to think Hamiticists are saying "Caucasoids" moved into Egypt within the last few thousands years. No.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Why did Coon (1962) have "Caucasoids" in North Africa from Epipaleolithic times? The point I'm trying to make to you, is so-called Hamiticists argue for long-term biological continuity in North Africa, including Egypt, from the Epipaleolithic (if not earlier), through to Mesolithic, Neolithic, Ancient and Modern.
Here's a typical Hamiticist, Honea (1958):
"The Paleo-Hamites entered Africa in successive waves by manner of traversing a land-bridge formerly connecting Southwest Arabia with Northeast Africa in early Gamblian times (Upper Paleolithic)." - A Contribution to the History of the Hamitic Peoples of Africa
Ultimately, Hamiticists do assert Paleo-Hamites originated in south Levant or Arabia, but they argue Hamites moved into North Africa from the Epipaleolithic-or earlier Upper Palaeolithic, Hamiticism is a "native" model in a sense because it argues Hamites settled in North Africa so far back in time. Instead you seem to think Hamiticists are saying "Caucasoids" moved into Egypt within the last few thousands years. No.
lol here comes the Eurocentric nutjob again posting prejudice eugenicist Coon who, used skewed fragmented data. See my post on skittles. lol
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
That absurd "Hamiticism" position is not even remotely tenable, even though Europeans desperately want it to be so. There is no evidence of it.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| 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?
I've just gone back to read your post on this. My bad.
That purple component. What do you think it is, in your view?
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]
NO I am not salty. You can keep playing your games of changing from one point to another in order to avoid getting to a point. I was never debating the make up of ancient Egypt. The point was that using terminologies that are implicitly designed to promote an understanding of Eurasian ancestry in the context of African biological history is invalid. You are just spinning as usual just like you always do.
What on earth does this picture have to do with EEF and Basal Eurasian not being relevant to African biological history because of their European centered defining methodologies?
That is what you were defending earlier but now you pretend that was never the issue.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:[qb] Anyone with three brain cells can deduce from this that you can model AE genomes using varying proportions of EEF + different types of African ancestry. [qb]
In other words, you are taking the concept of EEF and Basal Eurasian as defined by other scholars in a ridgidly NON AFRICAN context and trying to put it into an African context. The ONLY way for these terms to be put into an African context would be to admit that these metapopulations included African ancestry to begin with and hence it is misleading to say the least to imply they represent "pure" Eurasian ancestry. Not only that, there are a wide range of populations that are labeled as part of Basal Eurasians and "EEF". So are you saying that ALL these groups are found in Egypt? Maybe you are and maybe you aren't but this is what is implied when using those terms as THAT IS HOW THEY ARE DEFINED.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn, you're right. Don't know how I missed the memo so long. The term EEF is the work of the devil, but the unabbreviated version of the term not coined by Lazaridis et al (early European farmer) is fine.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Damn, you're right. Don't know how I missed the memo so long. The term EEF is the work of the devil, but the unabbreviated version of the term not coined by Lazaridis et al (early European farmer) is fine.
No it is defined quite simply below:
quote: An “Early European Farmer” (EEF) cluster includes Stuttgart, the ~5,300 year old Tyrolean Iceman1 and a ~5,000 year old Swedish farmer4.
Patterns observed in PCA may be affected by sample composition (SI10) and their interpretation in terms of admixture events is not straightforward, so we rely on formal analysis of f-statistics8 to document mixture of at least three source populations in the ancestry of present Europeans. We began by computing all possible statistics of the form f3(Test; Ref1, Ref2) (SI11), which if significantly negative show unambiguously8 that Test is admixed between populations anciently related to Ref1 and Ref2 (we choose Ref1 and Ref2 from 5 ancient and 192 present populations). The lowest f3-statistics for Europeans are negative (93% are >4 standard errors below 0), with most showing strong support for at least one ancient individual being one of the references (SI11). Europeans almost always have their lowest f3 with either (EEF, ANE) or (WHG, Near East) (SI11, Table 1, Extended Data Table 1), which would not be expected if there were just two ancient sources of ancestry (in which case the best references for all Europeans would be similar). The lowest f3-statistic for Near Easterners always takes Stuttgart as one of the reference populations, consistent with a Near Eastern origin for Stuttgart’s ancestors (Table 1). We also computed the statistic f4(Test, Stuttgart; MA1, Chimp), which measures whether MA1 shares more alleles with a Test population or with Stuttgart. This statistic is significantly positive (Extended Data Fig. 4, Extended Data Table 1) if Test is nearly any present-day West Eurasian population, showing that MA1-related ancestry has increased since the time of early farmers like Stuttgart (the analogous statistic using Native Americans instead of MA1 is correlated but smaller in magnitude (Extended Data Fig. 5), indicating that MA1 is a better surrogate than the Native Americans who were first used to document ANE ancestry in Europe7,8). The analogous statistic f4(Test, Stuttgart; Loschbour, Chimp) is nearly always positive in Europeans and negative in Near Easterners, indicating that Europeans have more ancestry from populations related to Loschbour than do Near Easterners (Extended Data Fig. 4, Extended Data Table 1). Extended Data Table 2 documents the robustness of key f4-statistics by recomputing them using transversion polymorphisms not affected by ancient DNA damage, and also using whole-genome sequencing data not affected by SNP ascertainment bias. Extended Data Fig. 6 shows the geographic gradients in the degree of allele sharing of present-day West Eurasians (as measured by f4-statistics) with Stuttgart (EEF), Loschbour (WHG) and MA1 (ANE).
That is what you are referring to when you use the term.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| 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?
I've just gone back to read your post on this. My bad.
That purple component. What do you think it is, in your view?
I've looked up Basal Eurasian and EFF and my understanding is the latter is largely derived from the former and that the purple component has some "Near Eastern" and African affinities.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Say I'm casting for a movie. Can you give us what you believe are honest recreations or modern populations that would look like the people from the 42 burroughs during the time of Narmer. I did a compilation of recreations and they do sorta look like a cross between the recreations of Neolitic Europeans and you pickem SSAs.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
So? What is so earth shattering about that description, Captain Obvious?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: That absurd "Hamiticism" position is not even remotely tenable, even though Europeans desperately want it to be so. There is no evidence of it.
I'm trying to understand why you're so hostile to it, when Hamiticism argues for North African biological continuity since the Epipalaeolithic. I only thought it would be a problem for Afrocentrists if it argued there was a mass migration from the Levant much more recently. It doesn't. The so-called "Dynastic Race Theory" which proposes a migration from Levant into Egypt during the late Neolithic/pre-Dynastic never argued for large-scale gene flow; the "dynastic race" as elites were thought to be a minuscule number of the total population:
"Though gradual infiltration by an alien people might well profoundly modify the culture of Egypt, it could hardly produce that terrific wave of national energy which followed close on the advent of the Dynastic Race. Such a result might however well follow the invasion and conquest by a race superior in fighting strength, though perhaps far inferior numerically to the old Egyptian stock."
"It is also very suggestive of the presence of a dominant race, perhaps relatively few in numbers but greatly exceeding the original inhabitants in intelligence; a race which brought into Egypt the knowledge of building in stone, of sculpture, painting, reliefs, and above all writing; hence the enormous jump from the primitive Predynastic Egyptian to the advanced civilization of the Old Empire." - Derry DE. 1956. The dynastic race in Egypt. J Egypt Archaeol 42:80–85
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: That absurd "Hamiticism" position is not even remotely tenable, even though Europeans desperately want it to be so. There is no evidence of it.
I'm trying to understand why you're so hostile to it, when Hamiticism argues for North African biological continuity since the Epipalaeolithic. I only thought it would be a problem for Afrocentrists if it argued there was a mass migration from the Levant much more recently. It doesn't. The so-called "Dynastic Race Theory" which proposes a migration from Levant into Egypt during the Neolithic/pre-Dynastic never argued for large-scale gene flow; the "dynastic race" as elites were thought to be a minuscule number of the total population:
"Though gradual infiltration by an alien people might well profoundly modify the culture of Egypt, it could hardly produce that terrific wave of national energy which followed close on the advent of the Dynastic Race. Such a result might however well follow the invasion and conquest by a race superior in fighting strength, though perhaps far inferior numerically to the old Egyptian stock."
"It is also very suggestive of the presence of a dominant race, perhaps relatively few in numbers but greatly exceeding the original inhabitants in intelligence; a race which brought into Egypt the knowledge of building in stone, of sculpture, painting, reliefs, and above all writing; hence the enormous jump from the primitive Predynastic Egyptian to the advanced civilization of the Old Empire." - Derry DE. 1956. The dynastic race in Egypt. J Egypt Archaeol 42:80–85
quote: Edmund Leach’s review of my book The Living Races of Man in your February 3 number is inaccurate and silly. He says, for example: “It is to Professor Coon’s discredit that he should seek to support his purportedly scientific classification with 128 photographs in which the Caucasians are posed in shirt-sleeves and ‘civilized’ hair-cuts whereas most of his other categories appear as bare-arsed savages.”
The photographic supplement contains 183 photographs, not 128. None of the persons depicted have haircuts that could not be found on allegedly civilized individuals in London today. If we add conservative to civilized, we find only 15 unusual coiffures, nine of which are on Caucasoid heads and not one on a non-Caucasoid African. As for shirt-sleeves, the upper body is clothed in all but 35 pictures, and in most of these only the face, neck, and portions of the upper chest are showing. Bare female breasts appear in seven, mostly inhabitants of warm regions. Only four are bare-arsed: one Negrito baby whose mother is fully clothed; two pictures of Andamanese; and one of a Hottentot.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: That absurd "Hamiticism" position is not even remotely tenable, even though Europeans desperately want it to be so. There is no evidence of it.
I'm trying to understand why you're so hostile to it, when Hamiticism argues for North African biological continuity since the Epipalaeolithic. I only thought it would be a problem for Afrocentrists if it argued there was a mass migration from the Levant much more recently. It doesn't. The so-called "Dynastic Race Theory" which proposes a migration from Levant into Egypt during the late Neolithic/pre-Dynastic never argued for large-scale gene flow; the "dynastic race" as elites were thought to be a minuscule number of the total population:
"Though gradual infiltration by an alien people might well profoundly modify the culture of Egypt, it could hardly produce that terrific wave of national energy which followed close on the advent of the Dynastic Race. Such a result might however well follow the invasion and conquest by a race superior in fighting strength, though perhaps far inferior numerically to the old Egyptian stock."
"It is also very suggestive of the presence of a dominant race, perhaps relatively few in numbers but greatly exceeding the original inhabitants in intelligence; a race which brought into Egypt the knowledge of building in stone, of sculpture, painting, reliefs, and above all writing; hence the enormous jump from the primitive Predynastic Egyptian to the advanced civilization of the Old Empire." - Derry DE. 1956. The dynastic race in Egypt. J Egypt Archaeol 42:80–85
Why would I not be hostile to it? Your ilk claimed that Northeast Africans are just "dark whites" ("Hamites") from Mesopotamia or the Arabian Peninsula and that this is why they were able to build civilizations like Egypt and Kush. It's all part of this terrible and ahistorical campaign to assert that "Eurasians" are the only people capable of civilization.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: That absurd "Hamiticism" position is not even remotely tenable, even though Europeans desperately want it to be so. There is no evidence of it.
I'm trying to understand why you're so hostile to it, when Hamiticism argues for North African biological continuity since the Epipalaeolithic. I only thought it would be a problem for Afrocentrists if it argued there was a mass migration from the Levant much more recently. It doesn't. The so-called "Dynastic Race Theory" which proposes a migration from Levant into Egypt during the late Neolithic/pre-Dynastic never argued for large-scale gene flow; the "dynastic race" as elites were thought to be a minuscule number of the total population:
"Though gradual infiltration by an alien people might well profoundly modify the culture of Egypt, it could hardly produce that terrific wave of national energy which followed close on the advent of the Dynastic Race. Such a result might however well follow the invasion and conquest by a race superior in fighting strength, though perhaps far inferior numerically to the old Egyptian stock."
"It is also very suggestive of the presence of a dominant race, perhaps relatively few in numbers but greatly exceeding the original inhabitants in intelligence; a race which brought into Egypt the knowledge of building in stone, of sculpture, painting, reliefs, and above all writing; hence the enormous jump from the primitive Predynastic Egyptian to the advanced civilization of the Old Empire." - Derry DE. 1956. The dynastic race in Egypt. J Egypt Archaeol 42:80–85
quote: THE HAMITIC HYPOTHESIS; ITS ORIGIN AND FUNCTIONS IN TIME PERSPECTIVE
BY EDITH R. SANDERS
THE Hamitic hypothesis is well-known to students of Africa. It states that everything of value ever found in Africa was brought there by the Hamites, allegedly a branch of the Caucasian race. Seligman formulates it as follows:
Apart from relatively late Semitic influence… the civilizations of Africa are the civilizations of the Hamites, its history the record of these peoples and of their interaction with the two other African stocks, the Negro and the Bushman, whether this influence was exerted by highly civilized Egyptians or by such wider pastoralists as are represented at the present day by the Beja and Somali …The incoming Hamites were pastoral 'Europeans'-arriving wave after wave-better armed as well as quicker witted than the dark agricultural Negroes.
On closer examinationof the history of the idea, there emerges a pre- vious elaborateHamitic theory, in which the Hamites are believed to be Negroes. It becomes clear then that the hypothesis is symptomatic of the nature of race relations, that it has changed its content if not its nomen-clature through time, and that it has become a problem of epistemology.
In the beginningthere was the Bible. The word 'Ham' appears there for the first time in Genesis,chapter five. Noah cursed Ham, his youngest son, and said:
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.
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. [/QB]
Doesn't EFF itself include Saharan African ancestry? At least that is what I thought.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| 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.
"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." —Cass/
Since you emphasized on Berbers in Egypt. Besides Siwa Berbers:
quote:"The Berber-Abidiya region is situated just south of the fifth Nile cataract in Sudan. This project, a joint mission with the Sudanese National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums (NCAM), is focussed on the late Kushite city of Dangeil (third century BC – fourth century AD) and associated cemeteries."
Say I'm casting for a movie. Can you give us what you believe are honest recreations or modern populations that would look like the people from the 42 burroughs during the time of Narmer. I did a compilation of recreations
and they do sorta look like a cross between the recreations of Neolitic Europeans and you pickem SSAs.
See Keita's analysis of skeletal remains from Narmer's family (1st dynasty royal tombs). Based on that I'd say that similar-looking phenotypes were represented in his family. Although we don't know the skin pigmentation levels.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why would I not be hostile to it? Your ilk claimed that Northeast Africans are just "dark whites" ("Hamites") from Mesopotamia or the Arabian Peninsula and that this is why they were able to build civilizations like Egypt and Kush. It's all part of this terrible and ahistorical campaign to assert that "Eurasians" are the only people capable of civilization.
You do realise Hamiticists are/were saying the same for Europe, even British Isles right? That Paleo-Hamites moved into Europe, as they did Africa. So if Hamiticism is offensive to Africans, it is just as much to Europeans...
"Two eminent Celtic scholars, John Morris-Jones and Julius Pokorny, argued vigorously (Jones 1900; Pokorny 1926–30) that Welsh and Irish respectively have many syntactical features that are not generally characteristic of the Indo-European languages but which do have striking parallels in the Hamitic languages of North Africa, and in particular in ancient Egyptian and its descendant, Coptic, and in Berber. They point out that anthropological evidence is consistent with the view that some pre-Celtic stratum in the population could have migrated to Britain from North Africa via Spain and France and are therefore led to the view that the features in question are derived from a pre-Celtic and probably Hamitic substratum." (Price, 2000)
Difference is, white folks aren't running around screaming "waycism!" like blacks do about all this. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why would I not be hostile to it? Your ilk claimed that Northeast Africans are just "dark whites" ("Hamites") from Mesopotamia or the Arabian Peninsula and that this is why they were able to build civilizations like Egypt and Kush. It's all part of this terrible and ahistorical campaign to assert that "Eurasians" are the only people capable of civilization.
You do realise Hamiticists are/were saying the same for Europe, even British Isles right? That Paleo-Hamites moved into Europe, as they did Africa. So if Hamiticism is offensive to Africans, it is just as much to Europeans...
"Two eminent Celtic scholars, John Morris-Jones and Julius Pokorny, argued vigorously (Jones 1900; Pokorny 1926–30) that Welsh and Irish respectively have many syntactical features that are not generally characteristic of the Indo-European languages but which do have striking parallels in the Hamitic languages of North Africa, and in particular in ancient Egyptian and its descendant, Coptic, and in Berber. They point out that anthropological evidence is consistent with the view that some pre-Celtic stratum in the population could have migrated to Britain from North Africa via Spain and France and are therefore led to the view that the features in question are derived from a pre-Celtic and probably Hamitic substratum." (Price, 2000)
Difference is, white folks aren't running around screaming "waycism!" like blacks do about all this.
No offense, Cass but your Irish population in Britain are not responsible for the first civilization of Europe like ancient Egypt is for Africa. The Aegean is where Europe's first civilzations sprang up. The Hamitic theory is complete nonsense. Northeast African Afrasian and Nilo-Saharan populations are responsible for their own civilizations. The insistence that "Eurasians" must be included is actually pretty PC.
PS: Were European "scholars" asserting that there is simply no way Europeans could have established civilizations without an alien population to push the inferior, child-like race to develop? Stop with the false equivalence.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Why would I not be hostile to it? Your ilk claimed that Northeast Africans are just "dark whites" ("Hamites") from Mesopotamia or the Arabian Peninsula and that this is why they were able to build civilizations like Egypt and Kush. It's all part of this terrible and ahistorical campaign to assert that "Eurasians" are the only people capable of civilization.
You do realise Hamiticists are/were saying the same for Europe, even British Isles right? That Paleo-Hamites moved into Europe, as they did Africa. So if Hamiticism is offensive to Africans, it is just as much to Europeans...
"Two eminent Celtic scholars, John Morris-Jones and Julius Pokorny, argued vigorously (Jones 1900; Pokorny 1926–30) that Welsh and Irish respectively have many syntactical features that are not generally characteristic of the Indo-European languages but which do have striking parallels in the Hamitic languages of North Africa, and in particular in ancient Egyptian and its descendant, Coptic, and in Berber. They point out that anthropological evidence is consistent with the view that some pre-Celtic stratum in the population could have migrated to Britain from North Africa via Spain and France and are therefore led to the view that the features in question are derived from a pre-Celtic and probably Hamitic substratum." (Price, 2000)
Difference is, white folks aren't running around screaming "waycism!" like blacks do about all this.
quote: The incoming Hamites were pastoral 'Europeans'-arriving wave after wave-better armed as well as quicker […]
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?
I've just gone back to read your post on this. My bad.
That purple component. What do you think it is, in your view?
I've looked up Basal Eurasian and EFF and my understanding is the latter is largely derived from the former and that the purple component has some "Near Eastern" and African affinities.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Cass/:
Archaeology? There's no evidence farming/domestication originated in Africa, it spread there from south-west Asia, like it did into Europe:
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.
Look at dashed line. Inside it West African domesticated millet, yam, palm, etc. There's teff in Ethiopia. These crops and the methods to plant, grow, and harvest them are obviously local.
And you can see a blue line from that outlined West Africa to sahelian Chad & Sudan and on into Ethiopia region, to Congo where spreads further to Angola south, east to the Lakes, and from there into TaNzania and Moçambique south.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
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.
In the 40 years since Ehret wrote that, has any evidence turned up to substantiate his view? Serious question.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
According to this Nat-Geo 'study' Persians are mostly Arab. Are we really suppose to believe that Persians are 56% Arab? More Arab than Lebanese?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tukuler That type of inference fell apart at K= 16 where with the * "Masai-maximized East African component", * "a component maximized in the East African Hadza", and * "an African farmer component maximized in the Yoruba" there's no room for anybody else in Dinka ancestry.
Laz's f3-stats about Dinka show his * Syrians, * Saudis, and * Polish Jews are admixed with Dinka.
Cases of outside bloodlines in Africans remain showing through to the max K, like the bars for the Black Americans and the Ethiopian Jews for instance.
Did you ever get around to reading Stora? I forgot to warn you that its not much of a remarkable study in relation to what we're speaking about, but if you compare ADMIXTURE results with Lazaridis (2014)involving ancient specimens & African populations you see a trend. And as you wisely pointed out after I made the mistake of calling the Dinka "Western-Sahelian & Admixed, The Dinka aren't OOA admixed, which makes them the best proxy (so far) for an East African Admixture coefficient, next to MOTA.
Was gonna PM you, but might as well post this for public disclosure
To your credit as you stated in this thread, Admixed Africans Maintain their signal @ K=20. Because I mentioned Mandinka having Sahelian components (which entails OOA Admixture, Yadda yadda), I Kept them as the west African example of what you pointed out. Their admixture signals along with African Americans remain consistent & proportional through K20. The same can not be said about East Africans though.
Lazaridis Estimated a ~44% Basal Eurasian score for EEF, meaning about 44% of their genome is a result from shared drift from a population who most likely had little to no Neanderthal admixture. @ K=9 in his study (2014) and K=12 in Stora/Kılınç, (2016) referenced above (pink @ K-12), A near eastern and European HG-like cluster develops and in the Ancient European samples (EEF in particular) About 40-50% of EEF contains shared drift with Near eastern populations (exemplified by the Bedouin clusters). This as I stated earlier is probably the best look we can get of the proposed "Basal Eurasian"
But look at what happens to the East African populations as admixture is calibrated as a result of an East African cluster. I'm sure you're already onto this but even more importantly Look at what happens to the Near East component in EEF when the Bedouins form their own cluster @ K=20. Matterfact It becomes even more glaring if you look at Lazaridis 2014. At K20 Light blue = European shared drift with CHG (side note, This cluster seems to follow Jewish populations) Green = Sardinian/ Southern European, cluster.
...Btw, Any good discussions on the population history of the Sandawe?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: No offense, Cass but your Irish population in Britain are not responsible for the first civilization of Europe like ancient Egypt is for Africa. The Aegean is where Europe's first civilzations sprang up. The Hamitic theory is complete nonsense. Northeast African Afrasian and Nilo-Saharan populations are responsible for their own civilizations. The insistence that "Eurasians" must be included is actually pretty PC.
PS: Were European "scholars" asserting that there is simply no way Europeans could have established civilizations without an alien population to push the inferior, child-like race to develop? Stop with the false equivalence. [/QB]
I'm saying Hamiticism was never really racist in the sense you're implying. I've made this point before... if a bunch of white supremacist late 19th/early 20th century scholars invented the Hamitic theory, why did they argue brown-skinned black-haired Hamites from the south Levant/Arabia were the racial substratum of Europeans, even as far north as the British Isles? What the hell is this? I mean its not going to go down well at Stormfront for sure.
I do not see Hamiticism as fatal to Afrocentrism for the reasons I outlined. Firstly, the Hamitic migration into North Africa is pushed back to Epipaleolithic times; secondly, the paleo-Hamitic homeland (identified as the Proto-Afroasiatic urheimat) is placed by Hamiticists in the south Levant or Arabia. Both are geographical neighbours to Egypt.
You argue Lower Egyptians were significantly mixed with southwest Asians, but not Upper Egyptians. Actually, I would argue the Copts (who are concentrated in Lower Egypt) retain more native Egyptian ancestry because of their stricter endogamy:
"The Copts, who have lived endogamously ever since the advent of Islam, must be even better representatives of the early Egyptian type" - Coon, 1939
Afrocentrists try to distance Copts from being native Egypt because their lighter phenotype does not fit their politicalized "Black Egypt" theory; the average Copt doesn't look black. Hence why Afrocentrists needs them to be foreigners.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Elmaestro: this is the same guy trying to credit all of Africa's civilizations to Levantines (that's not simply Hamiticism, that's delusion at its best). He seriously tried to claim Mansa Musa was an Arab! FFS if that alone doesn't discredit giving him any serious response I don't know what would.
--------------------
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: @Elmaestro: this is the same guy trying to credit all of Africa's civilizations to Levantines (that's not simply Hamiticism, that's delusion at its best). He seriously tried to claim Mansa Musa was an Arab! FFS if that alone doesn't discredit giving him any serious response I don't know what would.
Hilarious, since I've been arguing against large-scale gene flow from Levant into North Africa. Its you Afronuts arguing modern Egyptians are up to 80% Arab.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: No offense, Cass but your Irish population in Britain are not responsible for the first civilization of Europe like ancient Egypt is for Africa. The Aegean is where Europe's first civilzations sprang up. The Hamitic theory is complete nonsense. Northeast African Afrasian and Nilo-Saharan populations are responsible for their own civilizations. The insistence that "Eurasians" must be included is actually pretty PC.
PS: Were European "scholars" asserting that there is simply no way Europeans could have established civilizations without an alien population to push the inferior, child-like race to develop? Stop with the false equivalence.
I'm saying Hamiticism was never really racist in the sense you're implying. I've made this point before... if a bunch of white supremacist late 19th/early 20th century scholars invented the Hamitic theory, why did they argue brown-skinned black-haired Hamites from the south Levant/Arabia were the racial substratum of Europeans, even as far north as the British Isles? What the hell is this? I mean its not going to go down well at Stormfront for sure.
I do not see Hamiticism as fatal to Afrocentrism for the reasons I outlined. Firstly, the Hamitic migration into North Africa is pushed back to Epipaleolithic times; secondly, the paleo-Hamitic homeland (identified as the Proto-Afroasiatic urheimat) is placed by Hamiticists in the south Levant or Arabia. Both are geographical neighbours to Egypt.
You argue Lower Egyptians were significantly mixed with southwest Asians, but not Upper Egyptians. Actually, I would argue the Copts (who are concentrated in Lower Egypt) retain more native Egyptian ancestry because of their stricter endogamy:
"The Copts, who have lived endogamously ever since the advent of Islam, must be even better representatives of the early Egyptian type" - Coon, 1939
Afrocentrists try to distance Copts from being native Egypt because their lighter phenotype does not fit their politicalized "Black Egypt" theory; the average Copt doesn't look black. Hence why Afrocentrists needs them to be foreigners. [/QB]
Provide evidence that Northwest Europeans attributed every notable achievement in ancient Greece and Italy to dark-skinned "Hamites" - as was systematically done in every case in Africa.
Do you really think that Northeast Africans are going to accept a thoroughly debunked, ahistorical theory ("Hamiticism") asserting that the only reason they developed is because some "Eurasians" from outside our homeland came in and gifted us with civilization?
Saidi and Baladi Upper Egyptians are far better representative of the ancients than any other group in modern Northern Egypt -> Bahary (Lower) Egyptians. The assertion that any population in the North has better preserved the phenotyphic profile of the ancients than the Saidi and Baladi is laughably delusional. The only people in the South that identify as Arab are the Horobot of the Gurna villages.
Most people South of Middle Egypt are not greatly admixed. There are very few "Eurasian" derived populations in Southern Egypt; Copts in Alexandria and Cairo will have more Greek, Syrian, Armenian, Circassian and Turkish admixture than the Saidi and Baladi.
In either case, the Hamitic hypothesis is completely false and has no foundation, so forget it.
Ps: At leat 60% of the Copts live in Upper Egypt, but even they are not better representatives than the Saidi and Baladi of Luxor, Esna, Kom Ombo, Edfu and Aswan.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
To add, the presence of Africans from thousands of years ago in the Iberian peninsula, Levant, etc doesn't mean those civilizations are considered multiracial. Interesting.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: @Elmaestro: this is the same guy trying to credit all of Africa's civilizations to Levantines (that's not simply Hamiticism, that's delusion at its best). He seriously tried to claim Mansa Musa was an Arab! FFS if that alone doesn't discredit giving him any serious response I don't know what would.
Hilarious, since I've been arguing against large-scale gene flow from Levant into North Africa. Its you Afronuts arguing modern Egyptians are up to 80% Arab.
"Up to" and where they sample could potentially have an interesting impact on results. In the end it depends on what a researcher thinks is "representative" of Egypt. African Americans can have "up to" similar amounts of non-African ancestry and identify as African American. I imagine it's at least possible that in certain areas of Egypt mixture can be that high.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: @Elmaestro: this is the same guy trying to credit all of Africa's civilizations to Levantines (that's not simply Hamiticism, that's delusion at its best). He seriously tried to claim Mansa Musa was an Arab! FFS if that alone doesn't discredit giving him any serious response I don't know what would.
Hilarious, since I've been arguing against large-scale gene flow from Levant into North Africa. Its you Afronuts arguing modern Egyptians are up to 80% Arab.
Cass/, this one is still funny. Admit it.
posted 21 April, 2012 15:02
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
This is Sanee Ismail, who's ancestry is partially ARABIC. Look at even her surname.
Stop the self-hate.
[...]
posted 21 April, 2012 15:15
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist:
quote:They sometimes "look mixed" (to uneducated people such as yourself)
They are heavily admixed with Caucasoids.
Pure-blooded Negroids you despise, you will only post heavily Caucasoid admixed individuals out of self-hatred. You are now posting heavily Arabic admixed models, trying to pass them off as ''black''... lol. Your definition of 'black' is shifted to heavily Caucasoid admixed peoples, you show no interest in the true Negroid phenotype from West Africa. I wonder why?
Dumb ass I gave you studies as references. Genetic and physical anthropological. Showing continuity. The people are indigenous like this because of the climate and region in which they've lived there thousand up on thousands of years, which provided these traits.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: According to this Nat-Geo 'study' Persians are mostly Arab. Are we really suppose to believe that Persians are 56% Arab? More Arab than Lebanese?
How can that be?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: No offense, Cass but your Irish population in Britain are not responsible for the first civilization of Europe like ancient Egypt is for Africa. The Aegean is where Europe's first civilzations sprang up. The Hamitic theory is complete nonsense. Northeast African Afrasian and Nilo-Saharan populations are responsible for their own civilizations. The insistence that "Eurasians" must be included is actually pretty PC.
PS: Were European "scholars" asserting that there is simply no way Europeans could have established civilizations without an alien population to push the inferior, child-like race to develop? Stop with the false equivalence.
I'm saying Hamiticism was never really racist in the sense you're implying. I've made this point before... if a bunch of white supremacist late 19th/early 20th century scholars invented the Hamitic theory, why did they argue brown-skinned black-haired Hamites from the south Levant/Arabia were the racial substratum of Europeans, even as far north as the British Isles? What the hell is this? I mean its not going to go down well at Stormfront for sure.
I do not see Hamiticism as fatal to Afrocentrism for the reasons I outlined. Firstly, the Hamitic migration into North Africa is pushed back to Epipaleolithic times; secondly, the paleo-Hamitic homeland (identified as the Proto-Afroasiatic urheimat) is placed by Hamiticists in the south Levant or Arabia. Both are geographical neighbours to Egypt.
You argue Lower Egyptians were significantly mixed with southwest Asians, but not Upper Egyptians. Actually, I would argue the Copts (who are concentrated in Lower Egypt) retain more native Egyptian ancestry because of their stricter endogamy:
"The Copts, who have lived endogamously ever since the advent of Islam, must be even better representatives of the early Egyptian type" - Coon, 1939
Afrocentrists try to distance Copts from being native Egypt because their lighter phenotype does not fit their politicalized "Black Egypt" theory; the average Copt doesn't look black. Hence why Afrocentrists needs them to be foreigners. [/QB]
The Copts are a religious group, not an ethnic group. Copts due to religious affiliation have intermarried with Greeks etc., this is a historical fact. And you will find Copts with dark complexion.
There are countless of testimonies on Coptic inter-religious marriage.
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Often in various debates on this forum or others people contend that Coptic Christians are the pristine represenatives of the ancient Egyptians but ignore the Syrian, Armenian and Greek admixture they have contracted through the years because of close contact with these groups. The other argument that Egyptians never intermingled with local Ptolemic Greeks does not hold water for I have an excerpt which diminishes this theory. Here is my evidence for the intermingling of Greek and Egyptian population in Alexandria during Ptolemaic times:
Monimos is, as far as I know , the first alexandrian [or desendant of an Alexandrian] of whom we know that he married an Egyptian woman. Fraser's suggestion that Alexandrian immigrants in the chora '' are unlikely to have contracted marriages with Egyptian women''[because this would endanger the civil status of their offspring[Fraser 1972,pp.71-72] is here for the first time disproved. And I doubt if Alexandrians living in the chora really behaved differently from other Greeks at all.
Monimos was certainly not the only Greek in the village or town to marry an Egyptian girl, the same census document substantially auguments the number of mixed families known for the third century B.C.; Stephanos, son of 3my3.t,Protarchos and Diodoros are moreover married to Egyptian women themselves. Perhaps the scarcity of mixed marriages in our third century documentation is for a large part due to the types of documents on which modern surveyance is based[in the Zenon archive for instance ''irregular'' filiation are totally absent from the 1700 Greek documents, but two are found in the twenty-odd Demotic texts].
One last point should be stressed in this text; though he belongs to an Alexandrian family, Monimos has to pay the poll tax[salt tax] at the rate of one drachma just like other Greeks. Egyptians have to pay an extra obol[ the one obol tax] as is clear both from Demotic Papyrus Lille III 101 and from CPR XII 1 and 2, recently published by Harrauer[1987]. This is an important new element , as we have here for the first time clear proof of offical discrimination against the Egyptian part of the population. Such a discrimination , even if the payment involved was very small,necessitated seperate offical registers of Greeks and Egyptians. Thus being a Greek or an Egyptian was not just a matter of personal and community feeling[''ethnicity''], but also offical policy; being Greek involved some privileges that an Egyptian could not claim[pace Goudriaan 1988].
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I do believe the ancestors of the Bantu, and other Niger-Congo-speaking Africans, would have intermingled with those of ancient Egyptians and Nubians in the Green Sahara. And this probably would have resulted in admixture and cultural exchanges between all these populations.
If you look at this graph Swenet posted in the other thread, there is a Yoruba-like ancestry present in Egypt and the adjacent Fertile Crescent. Some of this might be attributable to the slave trade, but who's to say the Green Sahara couldn't have been a factor as well? It would have to postdate the Neolithic though since it's not present in the "ancient" (prehistoric?) Anatolian or Greek samples indicated here.
At the same time, I would take some of the oral traditions with a grain of salt since Egypt is a very prestigious civilization and many Bantu people today probably want to claim it as part of "their" heritage.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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.
Swenet stop swimming in your own nonsense. You just go round and round in circles trying to justify anything but never actually sticking to a point. We started this in a whole different thread and then it comes up here and the whole discussion was about terminologies and yet after all that you try to pretend this is actually about some specific data set you added in order to spin you way out of admitting you are just an amateur trying to fit EEF and Basal Eurasian into an African context where they don't belong. All human populations are related to each other on some level biologically. The point here is that those terms you are claiming are "REQUIRED" to explain African biological history are not REQUIRED to explain anything in Africa. But that is fine. If you want to do that then so be it. I don't agree with it for the reasons stated. When almost ALL of the authors who discuss EEF and Basal Eurasian in their papers leave out Africa then it sounds odd for folks to be so desperate to put these terms into an African context. None of their papers include populations from Africa in any relationship to Basal Eurasian and EEF for a reason, including populations in the Nile Valley. The fact is that we know the populations who introduced farming in the Levant had some African mixture. And we also know ancient OOA Eurasians also were Africans. So any study that purports to explain this biological history WITHOUT including Africa is the problem. But some folks have no issue with that and have no problem with following that backwards logic to try and explain African biological history, without excluding Eurasian DNA as obviously the African side is far older. If the relationship between EEF and the Nile Valley was so OBVIOUS then why didn't the authors of the papers discussing it INCLUDE the Nile Valley? But at this point, the issue has been beat to death and I am not going to keep saying the same thing over and over again.
So drop it. You aren't getting anywhere with your antics. My point hasn't changed and whatever data points you try and add as a diversion aren't fooling anybody because I am not talking about specific data sets. They don't make your point in trying to use Basal Eurasian or EEF any more valid. In fact, you should be asking why Lazirdis and others didn't include those data sets in THEIR papers. But then again, this whole context of using Basal Eurasian and EEF is only on the net and in forums with a bunch of amateurs running around trying to sound like they know more than the people who actually created the terms themselves...... Leave me out of that mess. I don't agree with the terms and hence with those that created them in the first place.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're confused. You keep repeating that EEF and Basal Eurasian have no place in Africa and at the same time refuse to address the purple component in North Africa as well as the shared drift between Abusir and farmer groups.
posted
Doug said the term early European farmer is okay, just as long as you don't say EEF. But these terms mean the same thing.
Imagine how salty and confused someone has to be to resort to these contortions and backflip gymnastics.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Many of the "Miss Egypt"/"Miss Egypt Universe" winners are not ethnically (native) Egyptian. Take for example Sara EL Kouly who is half-Croatian and grew up in Dubai, only moving to Egypt in her later life- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_El-Khouly
"Miss Egypt"/"Miss Egypt Universe" contestants don't have to be of Egyptian descent, but of Egyptian nationality (a mere passport). This is like the English national football team, few who are ethnically English.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Provide evidence that Northwest Europeans attributed every notable achievement in ancient Greece and Italy to dark-skinned "Hamites" - as was systematically done in every case in Africa.
Do you really think that Northeast Africans are going to accept a thoroughly debunked, ahistorical theory ("Hamiticism") asserting that the only reason they developed is because some "Eurasians" from outside our homeland came in and gifted us with civilization?
Saidi and Baladi Upper Egyptians are far better representative of the ancients than any other group in modern Northern Egypt -> Bahary (Lower) Egyptians. The assertion that any population in the North has better preserved the phenotyphic profile of the ancients than the Saidi and Baladi is laughably delusional. The only people in the South that identify as Arab are the Horobot of the Gurna villages.
Most people South of Middle Egypt are not greatly admixed. There are very few "Eurasian" derived populations in Southern Egypt; Copts in Alexandria and Cairo will have more Greek, Syrian, Armenian, Circassian and Turkish admixture than the Saidi and Baladi.
In either case, the Hamitic hypothesis is completely false and has no foundation, so forget it.
Ps: At leat 60% of the Copts live in Upper Egypt, but even they are not better representatives than the Saidi and Baladi of Luxor, Esna, Kom Ombo, Edfu and Aswan.
There's not much difference between Hamiticism and your beliefs though. Hamiticism puts the proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland in south Levant/Arabia, then has Hamites move into Egypt in Epipalaeolithic times (proto-Afro-Asiatic according to linguists is as old as 20,000 BP). Afrocentrists argue the proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland was on the southern fringe of the east Sahara (i.e. Sahel); central Sudan, or Eritrea.
Whatever the case, both these models are arguing for a large-scale number of migrants moving into Egypt during the Epipalaeolithic. In fact, both these proto-Afro-Asiatic homelands (south Levant vs. central Sudan) are roughly equidistant to Egypt, so the same geographical distance. So why is the Hamitic model "racist"? Shouldn't the Afrocentric model also be since its proposing Epipalaeolithic settlement into Egypt came from the south? This is not a native Egyptian model either.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Many of the "Miss Egypt"/"Miss Egypt Universe" winners are not ethnically (native) Egyptian. Take for example Sara EL Kouly who is half-Croatian and grew up in Dubai, only moving to Egypt in her later life- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_El-Khouly
"Miss Egypt"/"Miss Egypt Universe" contestants don't have to be of Egyptian descent, but of Egyptian nationality (a mere passport). This is like the English national football team, few who are ethnically English.
^ Exactly! lol
Anyway,
Repost:
"...I gave you studies as references. Genetic and physical anthropological. Showing continuity. The people are indigenous like this because of the climate and region in which they've lived there thousand up on thousands of years, which provided these traits."Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Provide evidence that Northwest Europeans attributed every notable achievement in ancient Greece and Italy to dark-skinned "Hamites" - as was systematically done in every case in Africa.
Do you really think that Northeast Africans are going to accept a thoroughly debunked, ahistorical theory ("Hamiticism") asserting that the only reason they developed is because some "Eurasians" from outside our homeland came in and gifted us with civilization?
Saidi and Baladi Upper Egyptians are far better representative of the ancients than any other group in modern Northern Egypt -> Bahary (Lower) Egyptians. The assertion that any population in the North has better preserved the phenotyphic profile of the ancients than the Saidi and Baladi is laughably delusional. The only people in the South that identify as Arab are the Horobot of the Gurna villages.
Most people South of Middle Egypt are not greatly admixed. There are very few "Eurasian" derived populations in Southern Egypt; Copts in Alexandria and Cairo will have more Greek, Syrian, Armenian, Circassian and Turkish admixture than the Saidi and Baladi.
In either case, the Hamitic hypothesis is completely false and has no foundation, so forget it.
Ps: At leat 60% of the Copts live in Upper Egypt, but even they are not better representatives than the Saidi and Baladi of Luxor, Esna, Kom Ombo, Edfu and Aswan.
There's not much difference between Hamiticism and your beliefs though. Hamiticism puts the proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland in south Levant/Arabia, then has Hamites move into Egypt in Epipalaeolithic times (proto-Afro-Asiatic according to linguists is as old as 20,000 BP). Afrocentrists argue the proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland was on the southern fringe of the east Sahara (i.e. Sahel); central Sudan, or Eritrea.
Whatever the case, both these models are arguing for a large-scale number of migrants moving into Egypt during the Epipalaeolithic. In fact, both these proto-Afro-Asiatic homelands (south Levant vs. central Sudan) are roughly equidistant to Egypt, so the same geographical distance. So why is the Hamitic model "racist"? Shouldn't the Afrocentric model also be since its proposing Epipalaeolithic settlement into Egypt came from the south? This is not a native Egyptian model either.
There is a world of difference between "Hamiticism" and my position on this -- a position actually informed by the material evidence from a range of disciplines. You really should stop with this campaign of false equivalence, my friend.
Let's examine the essential differences, shall we:
I maintain that the ancient Egyptians are derived from Afrasian population (s) from within Northeast Africa itself and that what we can identify as 'Egyptian' shortly before the Dynastic period developed almost concurrently with ethnically and culturally indistinguishable predynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and North Sudan.
I maintain the obvious position that out of these closely related predynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and North Sudan.. those that later formed an integral part of the Egyptian State eventually became the most successful, the most innovative, the most ingenius, sophisticated and materially advanced cultures at the heels of the Dynastic period.
The wholly patronizing and self-serving "Hamitic" myth pushed forward the idea that a small group of unrelated and undoubtedly superior "Eurasians" found a primitive African population in Egypt and enobled them by providing all the essential ingredients of civilization when they established themselves as the elite of an inferior underclass mass of indigenous Africans - thereby founding the splendour that was Dynastic Egypt.
Drop the pretense that they are essentially the same.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Miss Egypt" is not representative of the actual demographics of Egypt. Female models are mostly the lightest skinned. Past winners include Antigone Costanda, Greek, and Yolanda Gigliotti, Italian. This is the simple point I made to you 5 years ago. But because the models are mostly of foreign ancestry, does not mean the ordinary/mass Egyptian population is.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: "Miss Egypt" is not representative of the actual demographics of Egypt. Female models are mostly the lightest skinned. Past winners include Antigone Costanda, Greek, and Yolanda Gigliotti, Italian. This is the simple point I made to you 5 years ago. But because the models are mostly of foreign ancestry, does not mean the ordinary/mass Egyptian population is.
Exactly.
Btw,
The Ottoman Conquest of Egypt (1517) and the Beginning of the Sixteenth-Century World War
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Provide evidence that Northwest Europeans attributed every notable achievement in ancient Greece and Italy to dark-skinned "Hamites" - as was systematically done in every case in Africa.
Do you really think that Northeast Africans are going to accept a thoroughly debunked, ahistorical theory ("Hamiticism") asserting that the only reason they developed is because some "Eurasians" from outside our homeland came in and gifted us with civilization?
Saidi and Baladi Upper Egyptians are far better representative of the ancients than any other group in modern Northern Egypt -> Bahary (Lower) Egyptians. The assertion that any population in the North has better preserved the phenotyphic profile of the ancients than the Saidi and Baladi is laughably delusional. The only people in the South that identify as Arab are the Horobot of the Gurna villages.
Most people South of Middle Egypt are not greatly admixed. There are very few "Eurasian" derived populations in Southern Egypt; Copts in Alexandria and Cairo will have more Greek, Syrian, Armenian, Circassian and Turkish admixture than the Saidi and Baladi.
In either case, the Hamitic hypothesis is completely false and has no foundation, so forget it.
Ps: At leat 60% of the Copts live in Upper Egypt, but even they are not better representatives than the Saidi and Baladi of Luxor, Esna, Kom Ombo, Edfu and Aswan.
There's not much difference between Hamiticism and your beliefs though. Hamiticism puts the proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland in south Levant/Arabia, then has Hamites move into Egypt in Epipalaeolithic times (proto-Afro-Asiatic according to linguists is as old as 20,000 BP). Afrocentrists argue the proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland was on the southern fringe of the east Sahara (i.e. Sahel); central Sudan, or Eritrea.
Whatever the case, both these models are arguing for a large-scale number of migrants moving into Egypt during the Epipalaeolithic. In fact, both these proto-Afro-Asiatic homelands (south Levant vs. central Sudan) are roughly equidistant to Egypt, so the same geographical distance. So why is the Hamitic model "racist"? Shouldn't the Afrocentric model also be since its proposing Epipalaeolithic settlement into Egypt came from the south? This is not a native Egyptian model either.
It's funny when you impose something upon others. This is euroloonism at its finest.
Afrasan has origin at lake Nuba.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: There is a world of difference between "Hamiticism" and my position on this -- a position actually informed by the material evidence from a range of disciplines. You really should stop with this campaign of false equivalence, my friend.
Let's examine the essential differences, shall we:
I maintain that the ancient Egyptians are derived from Afrasian population (s) from within Northeast Africa itself and that what we can identify as 'Egyptian' shortly before the Dynastic period developed almost concurrently with ethnically and culturally indistinguishable predynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and North Sudan.
I maintain the obvious position that out of these closely related predynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and North Sudan.. those that later formed an integral part of the Egyptian State eventually became the most successful, the most innovative, the most ingenius, sophisticated and materially advanced cultures at the heels of the Dynastic period.
The wholly patronizing and self-serving "Hamitic" myth pushed forward the idea that a small group of unrelated and undoubtedly superior "Eurasians" found a primitive African population in Egypt and enobled them by providing all the essential ingredients of civilization when they established themselves as the elite of an inferior underclass mass of indigenous Africans - thereby founding the splendour that was Dynastic Egypt.
Drop the pretense that they are essentially the same. [/QB]
What you outlined is not inconsistent with Hamiticism at all. You posted a Neolithic/pre-Dynastic time-line arguing for Upper Egypt and Nubian (north Sudan) biological ties. This is still consistent with a Hamiticist arguing for an Epipaleolithic migration into North Africa from the south Levant/Arabia. Where do you think Stone Age North Africans (Saharans) came from?
Most the Hamitic proponents I used to know 5-6 years back on Hamitic-Union were Egyptians, Nubians, Somalis, Beja and Sudanese Arabs; the admin of this forum I knew is a Somali.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
and they do sorta look like a cross between the recreations of Neolitic Europeans and you pickem SSAs.
Printer-friendly view of this topic