...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD (Page 9)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  23  24  25   
Author Topic: Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Just a quick note.

The Abusir we're talking about is
the one between el Lahun and
Meidum, where, Senwosret at
the former and Sneferu at the
latter, built their pyramids.

Not to be confused with either
the Abusir near Memphis nor
the one in the central Delta.

Abusir is the about the most
southern site north of Badari,
where loads of Levantine pottery
was found from the Naqada
pre-dynastic.


The Fayum proper, shows both late
Paleolithic and Neolithic settlement.
One of Holocene Egypt's earliest
cultures developed there. It owed
little to Sudan derived cultures that
had influence as far away as the
central Sahara or that moved back
and forth between Lower Nubia
and the nearby Egyptian Western
Desert (think Nabta Playa).

Considering Sudan and Sahara
(coastal + inland) peoples and
cultures, I find a village of 600
folk in Greece/Macedonia c.
6000 BCE to be an odd source
of Green Sahara or pre-dynastic
genomes, industries, language,
social culture, architecture, or
spirituality etc.

Thanks.

I posted on these places before. So my suspect was correct.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
If you don't support the terminology then how can you use it? That is the point.

The scientific literature comes with all sorts of terms no one person has any control over. Discussing science in public inevitably means using widely adopted jargon you may have caveats with, but which you can't communicate without if you want people to understand you and look up what you're talking about.

But we all know you have never had an interest in science. Your interest is infusing anthropology with your pan-African politics, hence, why you're so incompetent despite a decade of posting here. Your politics don't require competence. Just trolling, rhetoric, fallacies and opinionated butthurtness.

And luckily your run of propaganda will end soon. Enjoy your misinformation while it lasts. Good quality aDNA from ancient Egyptians will be published soon and all your pretexts and 22ky old farmer fabrications will be exposed for the dumpster juice that they are.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
You haven't taken into account the south Levant was also (more) sparsely populated; it wasn't like Mesopotamia. Population sizes were probably very similar in south Levant and north Egypt (google some data).

You're going to need to provide some evidence that would demonstrate the Levant in predynastic times was so sparsely populated it couldn't produce 2-4 over the course of an entire generation. Second, if the Badari were having contact with Syria and Uruk and Faiyum had settlements labeled "Near Eastern," it's not all that hard to extend perceptions of the Nile Valley's contacts with the East beyond the Levant toward Middle East and Mesopotamia. Some Faiyum A settlements have been attributed to the Middle East, though I'd have to vet wiki's sources on this.

So far, what I got was this:

Faiyum:

quote:
Settler colonists from the Near East would most likely have merged with the indigenous cultures resulting in a mixed economy with the agricultural aspect of the economy increasing in frequency through time, which is what the archaeological record more precisely indicates. Both pottery, lithics, and economy with Near Eastern characteristics, and lithics with African characteristics are present in the Fayum A culture.
Shirai, Noriyuki (2010). The Archaeology of the First Farmer-Herders in Egypt: New Insights into the Fayum Epipalaeolithic. Archaeological Studies Leiden University. Leiden University Press.


Maadi:
quote:
Copper was known, and some copper adzes have been found. The pottery is simple and undecorated and shows, in some forms, strong connections to Southern Israel. People lived in small huts, partly dug into the ground. The dead were buried in cemeteries, but with few burial goods. The Maadi culture was replaced by the Naqada III culture; whether this happened by conquest or infiltration is still an open question.
Merimede:

quote:


From about 5000 to 4200 BC the Merimde culture, so far only known from a big settlement site at the edge of the Western Delta, flourished in Lower Egypt. The culture has strong connections to the Faiyum A culture as well as the Levant.

I have no idea what "strong connection" is, and wiki has problems with giving you sources I can't read up on. Assuming this is correct though (I'm rather new at this and its more a preliminary assessment anyway), it isn't to say Upper Egypt had no contact or connection (especially through Lower Egypt where so far it appears Levanites and Middle Easterners were settling), but southern Egypt has had more of an an indistinguishable continuum of biological and cultural connection with Nubia and Northern Sudan.


quote:
But for your argument to work- south Levant would have to have had a much larger population, compared to north Egypt.
Why? Also when I wrote that I didn't know that migration and settlements that resemble those from Syria were being argued. So simply extend the scale and there you go. Also interesting is that Syria had a lot of L lineages. Some of these "SSA" lineages in Egypt could have been from these locations.

quote:

Also, going along with Butzer's (1976) estimates, already by c. 1800 BCE [Middle Kingdom], north Egypt wasn't greatly dissimilar to south Egypt: of a 2 million total, 1.2 million lived in south/0.8 million in north (60 vs. 40%). The great disparity in population size between north and south (80 vs. 20%) is only observed 4000 - 2500 BCE; it doesn't give you enough time to work with.

Yes if I concluded it was only 1% contribution per generation. At 1% per generation it would take several thousand years, but at 3-5% per generation diffusion would've tripled, or quintupled in speed. At a rate of 5% this would've taken 1.4 thousand years. At 3% it would've taken somewhere around 2.3 thousand years.

4,000-2,300 = 1,700 B.C. If my math's off on that, do say something.

But just 'cause, let's say I did argue 1%. After my post I had decided to try reading more about predynastic Egypt. I'm still looking for sources, but I'm getting dates for Faiyium A that range from 6-9k BCE. This gives minimal timeline of 6k BC to 2.5 B.C of flow and a maximum of 9k BC to 2.5 BC. At 6k BC, a rate close to 2% would've probably been sufficient. From 9k to 2.5k B.C about 1% would've been all that was needed.


Population disparities are irrelevant when the point is that the north was diffusing by the predynastic, nor will many of your opponents find that to be especially deterring since the South has been largely hailed as the dominant culture of Egypt in a similar vein to how Europe conquered lands to form the countries of Australia and the U.S in spite of other groups of people living there. But I digress.

As I mentioned earlier, the important aspect of this isn't who had the larger population. The important part is to demonstrate that the North had a low enough population size during the predynastic where it'd be imaginable to perceive a few thousand people as far as Syria (apparently) settling and affecting the population over the course of thousands of years.

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gene flow is bilateral. If you're arguing for a small amount of gene flow from south Levant into northern Egypt since the Neolithic, then there was gene flow the other direction. Even if asymmetrical, i.e. more gene flow one way than the other this makes little difference: "the genetic effects of asymmetry are not very different from those expected under a symmetric model" (Relethford, 1999). The only way south Levantine ancestry would accumulate in northern Egyptians over many generations with small-scale gene flow - is if the northern Egyptian population was continuously much smaller than the south Levant population: this is because over-time a population that is a lot larger in size will exert the greatest genetic impact; I showed this with migration matrices from Relethford (1999) in the thread I made on Multiregionalism.

I see no evidence that Neolithic-to-Bronze Age southern Levant was significantly larger in population size to northern Egypt. They were both rather sparsely population compared to the Fertile Crescent and Upper Egypt. And there's little archaeological evidence for Mesopotamian-Egyptian contact, e.g. most of the foreign pottery or goods in northern Egypt from the Neolithic and Early/Middle Bronze Age are from the south Levant, not Fertile Crescent.

You're trying to come up with 'clever' (although erroneous) ways to avoid the actual reality of these DNA results.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
You're running around in circles. You're trying to maintain two contradictory positions. Are Northern Egyptians Levantine derived or are they predominantly North African? Choose one of these propositions.

Let's assume that we're proceeding with the understanding that we can reconstruct the genetic profile of the ancient Egyptians based on the Nat-Geo 'study' on modern Egyptians...

..Well, that would mean that even Northern ancient Egyptians were not predominantly Levantine if the modern population in the North is genetically at least 65% North African, as you argued earlier. We can then safely assume that this North African component was higher than 65% in Dynastic Northern Egyptians. A figure in excess of 75% is not unreasonable.

The figures for the South would invariably also be higher. The largely mahogany-brown people of the South (whose pictures I've shown) are likely the best representatives of the ancient Egyptians, in light of their lower exposure to the Levant. The Copts further North than the Saidi in Luxor, Esna, Kom Ombo and Aswan are not going to beat them in this regard. Not going to happen.

You can either maintain the Levantine position or the North African position, but you can't simultaniously maintain both, unless you wish to get paradoxical and argue that the indigenous North African component increased over time - supplanting the non-indigenous Levantine ancestry.

Ancient Egypt was established by predynastic Upper Egyptian cultures; these Upper Egyptian and 'Nubian' predynastic cultures were nearly identical and were undeniably (Northeast) African - not "Eurasian". This is what you must come to terms with.

No running in circles. I'm saying I am changing my views if the PCA comes back showing Levantine affinity before modern Egyptian (including Copt), however right now I question this because the full data has not been published. Exactly why would south Levantines be closer to ancient Egyptians than Copts/modern Egyptians, who live in Egypt? Well, because on the blurry PCA- the modern Egyptians still are fairly near to the New Kingdom samples, this would therefore point to an old population structure. Note that principal-component-analysis of 6th-9th century Anglo-Saxon samples from England has them slightly closer to living Norwegians & Scots than English. Yet, as expected the modern English have more Anglo-Saxon ancestry than Norwegians & Scots.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408

If the PCA has the NK Egypt samples closest to south Levantines than modern Egyptians (including Copts) the same sort of thing is going on to the Anglo-Saxons. Some form of Hamiticism (clustering south Levantines & Egyptians in terms of 'deeper' ancestry like the 6th-9th century English show affinity to broader north-west European geographical samples) is inevitable.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Gene flow is bilateral. If you're arguing for a small amount of gene flow from south Levant into northern Egypt since the Neolithic, then there was gene flow the other direction. Even if asymmetrical, i.e. more gene flow one way than the other this makes little difference: "the genetic effects of asymmetry are not very different from those expected under a symmetric model" (Relethford, 1999). The only way south Levantine ancestry would accumulate in northern Egyptians over many generations with small-scale gene flow - is if the northern Egyptian population was continuously much smaller than the south Levant population: this is because over-time a population that is a lot larger in size will exert the greatest genetic impact; I showed this with migration matrices from Relethford (1999) in the thread I made on Multiregionalism.

quote:
Second, if the Badari were having contact with Syria and Uruk and Faiyum had settlements labeled "Near Eastern," it's not all that hard to extend perceptions of the Nile Valley's contacts with the East beyond the Levant toward Middle East and Mesopotamia. Some Faiyum A settlements have been attributed to the Middle East, though I'd have to vet wiki's sources on this.

So far, what I got was this:

Faiyum:

quote:
Settler colonists from the Near East would most likely have merged with the indigenous cultures resulting in a mixed economy with the agricultural aspect of the economy increasing in frequency through time, which is what the archaeological record more precisely indicates. Both pottery, lithics, and economy with Near Eastern characteristics, and lithics with African characteristics are present in the Fayum A culture.
Shirai, Noriyuki (2010). The Archaeology of the First Farmer-Herders in Egypt: New Insights into the Fayum Epipalaeolithic. Archaeological Studies Leiden University. Leiden University Press.

The only thing what you're saying potentially suggests is that this theory would require that settlement and contact extended beyond the Levant and into the Middle East. Apparently even the Badarians had contact with Syrians and "Near Easterners" are being said to have established settlements in Faiyum. Where these settlements specifically came from is something I'll have to look into more. But your comments don't make the theory impossible. Tho about the Levant, you haven't produced any data on the population density. I'm not googling it either.


quote:
I see no evidence that Neolithic-to-Bronze Age southern Levant was significantly larger in population size to northern Egypt. They were both rather sparsely population compared to the Fertile Crescent and Upper Egypt. And there's little archaeological evidence for Mesopotamian-Egyptian contact, e.g. most of the foreign pottery or goods in northern Egypt from the Neolithic and Early/Middle Bronze Age are from the south Levant, not Fertile Crescent.
-There is apparently evidence of contact (and even settlement of Near Eastern people or Levanites).

-"Little" is all that is required.

-It appears you're saying that Lower Egypt was sparsely populated. Tho the more sparsely populated, the fewer people would've needed to have settled there to reach the 3-5% threshold (and apparently there were settlements). Both regions could've reached needed thresholds with very few people navigating both ways. The theory isn't insisting on a mass invasion or immigration, but an event that happened over thousands of years by very low numbers over the course of many generations. Foreign influences are not typically denied in the predynastic, it's just prefaced with the idea that foreign influences did not constitute massive displacement. You're saying that it that over the course of an entire generation, Levanites and Middle Easterners couldn't possibly have contributed a couple thousand people to Lower Egyptian predynastic populations. Even as I'm tread that far, I'm assuming a hypothetical situation where populations in northern Egypt hadn't grown at all by 4000 BC. It's fairly possible that very sparsely populated peoples prior to that would've need less than 1,000 foreign contributors) to reach thresholds. That too would be impossible or unlikely?

 -

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 12 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
You're running around in circles. You're trying to maintain two contradictory positions. Are Northern Egyptians Levantine derived or are they predominantly North African? Choose one of these propositions.

Let's assume that we're proceeding with the understanding that we can reconstruct the genetic profile of the ancient Egyptians based on the Nat-Geo 'study' on modern Egyptians...

..Well, that would mean that even Northern ancient Egyptians were not predominantly Levantine if the modern population in the North is genetically at least 65% North African, as you argued earlier. We can then safely assume that this North African component was higher than 65% in Dynastic Northern Egyptians. A figure in excess of 75% is not unreasonable.

The figures for the South would invariably also be higher. The largely mahogany-brown people of the South (whose pictures I've shown) are likely the best representatives of the ancient Egyptians, in light of their lower exposure to the Levant. The Copts further North than the Saidi in Luxor, Esna, Kom Ombo and Aswan are not going to beat them in this regard. Not going to happen.

You can either maintain the Levantine position or the North African position, but you can't simultaniously maintain both, unless you wish to get paradoxical and argue that the indigenous North African component increased over time - supplanting the non-indigenous Levantine ancestry.

Ancient Egypt was established by predynastic Upper Egyptian cultures; these Upper Egyptian and 'Nubian' predynastic cultures were nearly identical and were undeniably (Northeast) African - not "Eurasian". This is what you must come to terms with.

No running in circles. I'm saying I am changing my views if the PCA comes back showing Levantine affinity before modern Egyptian (including Copt), however right now I question this because the full data has not been published. Exactly why would south Levantines be closer to ancient Egyptians than Copts/modern Egyptians, who live in Egypt? Well, because on the blurry PCA- the modern Egyptians still are fairly near to the New Kingdom samples, this would therefore point to an old population structure. Note that principal-component-analysis of 6th-9th century Anglo-Saxon samples from England has them slightly closer to living Norwegians & Scots than English. Yet, as expected the modern English have more Anglo-Saxon ancestry than Norwegians & Scots.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408

If the PCA has the NK Egypt samples closest to south Levantines than modern Egyptians (including Copts) the same sort of thing is going on to the Anglo-Saxons. Some form of Hamiticism (clustering south Levantines & Egyptians in terms of 'deeper' ancestry like the 6th-9th century English show affinity to broader north-west European geographical samples) is inevitable.

You really are delusional. The thoroughly debunked and discarded "Hamitic" *myth* will not be making a return in the absense of evidence incontrovertably demonstrating that the ancient Egyptian civilization started in the North and that 'Afro-Asiatic' developed in "Eurasia" instead of the general consensus that it developed in Northeast Africa. You have all your work cut out for you.

Your neurotic insistence on ignoring the salient biological affinities of predynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and the near irrelevance of the North is just adorable. [Big Grin]

Your only chance is to provide results proving that Southern Egyptians were "Eurasian". You must have so much grit-edged evidence demonstrating that Southern Egyptians were "Eurasian" at some point prior to the formation of the Egyptian State - in opposition to all the current mainstream evidence on the Badarians and Naqadans. It should be easy, right?

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
If you don't support the terminology then how can you use it? That is the point.

The scientific literature comes with all sorts of terms no one person has any control over. Discussing science in public inevitably means using widely adopted jargon you may have caveats with, but which you can't communicate without if you want people to understand you and look up what you're talking about.

But we all know you have never had an interest in science. Your interest is infusing anthropology with your pan-African politics, hence, why you're so incompetent despite a decade of posting here. Your politics don't require competence. Just trolling, rhetoric, fallacies and opinionated butthurtness.

And luckily your run of propaganda will end soon. Enjoy your misinformation while it lasts. Good quality aDNA from ancient Egyptians will be published soon and all your pretexts and 22ky old farmer fabrications will be exposed for the dumpster juice that they are.

Oh. So when you cite an article that had to be updated because of invalid data that is not good science? You taking terms out of context from the papers that defined them using fairly rigid methodologies does not make you "scientific". It means you are running around taking terms out of context and trying to pretend to know more than those who coined the terminology. And more than that you use this armchair science approach, which is fine in general, to try and lecture other folks about science. Come on man. Stop trying to lecture people on science and what words to use out of their mouth. Science is about debating the facts and the facts are that EEF and Basal Eurasian based on how the actual scientists have defined them, make no sense being used in an African context.

But sure, lets see if this new paper or ANY new paper suddenly puts Basal Eurasian and EEF into Africa during or after the Neolithic. My guess is they won't say it that way, but who knows.

Like I said, I doubt there will be any science showing a similar large scale genetic impact from the Neolithic in Africa as seen in Europe, primarily because of the already present African mixture in the Levant that gave rise to the Neolithic in the first place.

But somehow something tells me you hate that idea....

Not sure why.

Just like calling the earliest OOA populations in Eurasia isn't propaganda it is just the facts.

Not sure why you hate that either.

Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's cool but, pretexts aside,
let's not lose sight of the fact that this is why you're salty [Wink]

 -

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can I please say that the engagements with Doug and Cass have both grown tedious as hell? What do people expect to get out of them? Doug is only goes to hide himself deeper into his shell of denial, and the closest thing Cass has to a consistent agenda is a pathological desire to get under everyone's skin. Surely there are better things we can talk about that don't involve those two.

BTW I e-mailed Krause some days ago over whether any Y-DNA from those mummies would come out in a later publication (since they only seem to have mtDNA and nuclear DNA so far). He still hasn't gotten back to me. Must be busy or something.

--------------------
Brought to you by Brandon S. Pilcher

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7071 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're right. There are more productive ways for me to spend my time online than debating the obvious.

As Capra said in another thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Capra:
No weapon can pierce the armour of wilful stupidity.


Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
It appears you're saying that Lower Egypt was sparsely populated. Tho the more sparsely populated, the fewer people would've needed to have settled there to reach the 3-5% threshold (and apparently there were settlements). Both regions could've reached needed thresholds with very few people navigating both ways. The theory isn't insisting on a mass invasion or immigration, but an event that happened over thousands of years by very low numbers over the course of many generations.

How much percentage of south Levantine ancestry are you saying accumulated in north Egyptians?

For south Levantine ancestry to accumulate in north Egyptians to the extent it is as high as 80%: the south Levant population size would have to be a lot larger than north Egyptian. This is explained by migration matrixes; its technical population genetics. Its hard to explain to someone who hasn't looked at this. The only reason I know it is because I've used the same argument of accumulative ancestry over a long period of time (through small scale gene flow) as an alternative to the Out-of-Africa hypothesis. But when I use this argument: I can actually show population A is far larger than population B for it to work, yet you have not shown any evidence the south Levant was significantly larger in population size to north Egypt and I don't think it was.

If there is small recurrent gene flow between populations of relatively equal size - there is minimal to no accumulative ancestry, i.e. there will be a low equilibrium where no more than 10% of population A derives its ancestry/genes from population B, and vice-versa. High equilibrium is only reached if population A is a lot smaller/larger than population B. This is explained in detail by Relethford (1999).
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/ant6299/readings/Relethford-EA-8-7.pdf

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
You really are delusional. The thoroughly debunked and discarded "Hamitic" *myth* will not be making a return in the absense of evidence incontrovertably demonstrating that the ancient Egyptian civilization started in the North and that 'Afro-Asiatic' developed in "Eurasia" instead of the general consensus that it developed in Northeast Africa. You have all your work cut out for you.

Your neurotic insistence on ignoring the salient biological affinities of predynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and the near irrelevance of the North is just adorable. [Big Grin]

Your only chance is to provide results proving that Southern Egyptians were "Eurasian". You must have so much grit-edged evidence demonstrating that Southern Egyptians were "Eurasian" at some point prior to the formation of the Egyptian State - in opposition to all the current mainstream evidence on the Badarians and Naqadans. It should be easy, right?

There is no "general consensus" on the Proto-Afro-Asiatic (PAA) homeland. Keita made a ridiculous remark [like his blunder most Egyptians were the same as Nubians in pigmentation] spammed around by Afrocentrists that the Levant PAA theory is old and discredited. The funny thing is Keita made that statement in an article review of a scholar far more competent than him (Peter Bellwood) who argues for the Levant theory - so its far from dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bellwood

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
How much percentage of south Levantine ancestry are you saying accumulated in north Egyptians?

For south Levantine ancestry to accumulate in north Egyptians to the extent it is as high as 80%: the south Levant population size would have to be a lot larger than north Egyptian.

-But what was the Levanite population (north and south)?

- Egyptian contact with the east extended as far as Syria. We do not have to limit population inflow to the southern Levant.


How much ancestry to the East contributed to the North is not something I'm certain of at this time. Right now I'm merely trying to establish what data I need to review for this theory. Though I do not expect a complete replacement (which means 3-5% may indeed be too large a threshold), I anticipate there to still be North East African lineages. I also have concern for the labeling of "SSA" contributions to the North. Yes it could've came from Africa, but those genetic lineages were also in the Middle East. This could mean that the composition of the people didn't change much at all. How will the author distinguish the direction? Though I do not deny that it is possible "SSA" could've came from SSA influences could've likely came by way of southern Egypt. Regardless of your theory (indigenous SSA ancestry from native southern Egyptians or foreign SSA), it probably came from the direction of the south. Well... that is if Africans were the source of it.

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Keita made a ridiculous remark [like his blunder most Egyptians were the same as Nubians in pigmentation]
The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt,Thou settest every man in his place,Thou suppliest their necessities:Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.Their tongues are separate in speech,And their natures as well;Their skins are distinguished,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are we going to literally review Biblical phrases too now? Obviously it's not true that Egypt never reached shades people could find from both Syria and Nubia. Much of these "race" debates are because Egyptians had skin diversity that could overlap with what people could find in both areas. Skin color doesn't invalidate migrations or biological relationships and influences either.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Individuals overlap, yes, but AE plot average between their northern and southern neighbours in pigmentation. Afrocentrists are in denial of basic facts like these.

Anyway, on the subject of DNA since pigmentation is hardly relevant (I only mentioned it to show Keita has made errors, so when he says the Levant Proto-Afro-Asiatic theory is discredited, he's talking more nonsense), the only person I have discovered on a forum discussing the relevancy of Proto-Afro-Asiatic to these DNA results is the admin at Forumbiodiversity: EliasAlucard. Although I don't agree with him on everything, Elias is clever with linguistics. The PCA is the best evidence for old Egyptian-Levant population structure i.e. Proto-Afro-Asiatic. I'm sure when these results are published in full, there will be a lot more discussion on this.

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/47798-Ancient-Egyptian-Mummy-Genomes/page6

Question is how to reconcile this with the clinal/IBD data. I think that can be done, it will just be reversing Keita's theory of a southern Egyptian origin with micro-evolutionary differentiation ("Egyptians... micro-differentiation from a common African (tropically adapted) ancestral population" Keita, 1993) so it would be a northern origin for Egyptians (from Levant) with micro-evolutionary differentiation. Take into account the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland could be as old as 20,000 BP; Afro-Asiatic speakers could have migrated into Egypt from the Epipalaeolithic. Archaeologists and anthropologists have only falsified more recent large-scale movements into Egypt, none of them test Epipalaeolithic.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

so your response is to deny a south north expansion in favor of a north to south. Can't wait to see the comments for this.

 -

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The North to South has been debunked over and over. I have posted several sources in this thread.

Trying to bring this up again is absolutely ridiculous and foolish.


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)."


 -


http://egyptology.yale.edu/expeditions/past-and-joint-projects/theban-desert-road-survey-and-yale-toshka-desert-survey
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Keita made a ridiculous remark [like his blunder most Egyptians were the same as Nubians in pigmentation]
The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt,Thou settest every man in his place,Thou suppliest their necessities:Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.Their tongues are separate in speech,And their natures as well;Their skins are distinguished,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten

I don't understand. Why you keep posting stuff that has been debunked already?

This was in the old thread. And was debunked.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Individuals overlap, yes, but AE plot average between their northern and southern neighbours in pigmentation. Afrocentrists are in denial of basic facts like these.

Anyway, on the subject of DNA since pigmentation is hardly relevant (I only mentioned it to show Keita has made errors, so when he says the Levant Proto-Afro-Asiatic theory is discredited, he's talking more nonsense), the only person I have discovered on a forum discussing the relevancy of Proto-Afro-Asiatic to these DNA results is the admin at Forumbiodiversity: EliasAlucard. Although I don't agree with him on everything, Elias is clever with linguistics. The PCA is the best evidence for old Egyptian-Levant population structure i.e. Proto-Afro-Asiatic. I'm sure when these results are published in full, there will be a lot more discussion on this.

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/47798-Ancient-Egyptian-Mummy-Genomes/page6

Question is how to reconcile this with the clinal/IBD data. I think that can be done, it will just be reversing Keita's theory of a southern Egyptian origin with micro-evolutionary differentiation ("Egyptians... micro-differentiation from a common African (tropically adapted) ancestral population" Keita, 1993) so it would be a northern origin for Egyptians (from Levant) with micro-evolutionary differentiation. Take into account the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland could be as old as 20,000 BP; Afro-Asiatic speakers could have migrated into Egypt from the Epipalaeolithic. Archaeologists and anthropologists have only falsified more recent large-scale movements into Egypt, none of them test Epipalaeolithic.

Afrasan originated at Lake Nuba, the Proto at East Africa.

This article was posted a few times already.


quote:
Archeological and paleontological evidences point to East Africa as the likely area of early evolution of modern humans. Genetic studies also indicate that populations from the region often contain, but not exclusively, representatives of the more basal clades of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome phylogenies. Most Y-chromosome haplogroup diversity in Africa, however, is present within macrohaplogroup E that seem to have appeared 21 000–32 000 YBP somewhere between the Red Sea and Lake Chad. The combined analysis of 17 bi-allelic markers in 1214 Y chromosomes together with cultural background of 49 populations displayed in various metrics: network, multidimensional scaling, principal component analysis and neighbor-joining plots, indicate a major contribution of East African populations to the foundation of the macrohaplogroup, suggesting a diversification that predates the appearance of some cultural traits and the subsequent expansion that is more associated with the cultural and linguistic diversity witnessed today. The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently gave rise to the different major population groups including current speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralist populations.
--Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim*,1

European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 26 March 2014; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.41


Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 11 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Interestingly, this ancestral cluster includes populations like Fulani who has previously shown to display Eastern African ancestry, common history with the Hausa who are the furthest Afro-Asiatic speakers to the west in the Sahel, with a large effective size and complex genetic background.23 The Fulani who currently speak a language classified as Niger-Kordofanian may have lost their original tongue to associated sedentary group similar to other cattle herders in Africa a common tendency among pastoralists. Clearly cultural trends exemplified by populations, like Hausa or Massalit, the latter who have neither strong tradition in agriculture nor animal husbandry, were established subsequent to the initial differentiation of haplogroup E.
--Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim1,*

Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism


quote:
E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.
--Hisham Y. Hassan,1 Peter A. Underhill,2 Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza,2 and Muntaser E. Ibrahim1*

Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese:Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History


Massalit and Masalit are the same ethnic group, just different spelling.


[Roll Eyes]

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. Doug is beyond incompetent. I'm starting to think Doug is a troll.

This all started when Doug said I was trying to "shoehorn" EEF into Africa. I posted evidence on evidence demonstrating shared drift between early farmers and some Africans. Doug's response? He ran away from the issues at hand. Now all of a sudden Doug's only problem is with Lazaridis' terminology. I never said I supported their terminology (I simply used it in order to discuss the underlying concepts), so this is just more evidence that Doug is a cognitively challenged troll.

quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
Why are we trying to shoehorn EEF into Ancient African population history? EEF is not really even a distinct population. It is a composite population made up of various DNA lineages, THEORIZED by some anthropologists.

^Here is Doug's original pretext for having a problem with what I said. He was clearly talking about the genetic affinities of EEF and how this supposedly presents a problem for relating this population to Africa. Somewhere along the line he started lying about what the conversation is about and retreated to what he thought was a more defensible position. but he just ended up looking like a shape shifting turd.
If you don't support the terminology then how can you use it? That is the point. You didn't define the term but you keep pretending that somehow you can use it outside of its original context as if you are the original author of the term when you aren't.
I don't call myself a nigger or any varition of the term. I don't use the term to address my friends. When the KKK comes in a bar with a gun saying "All Niggers leave or die" should I stay seating drinking my beer assuming that term does not apply to me? LOLZ.
Which makes me wonder how they would treat a man like this:


 -

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Honestly, I'm not waiting around another 5 years or more before they finally give us something as big on upper Egypt and it seems other researchers aren't either. Some people seem to feel Northern Egypt gets the attention while opportunities to have more southern Egypt data is passed up or only partially provided. At the start of looking into Egypt I'd wondered why people were interested in craniometrics or skeletal review when we have genetics. After reading some of Keita's work, discussions on the importance of a multidisciplinary approach and the conversation about body plans/plasticity, the question of biological adaptation is something I've started to think more about. I want to make something clear though: I'm not declaring that they were indistinguishable from SSA stereotypes. My position is that Upper Egyptians would've likely have been adapted northeast Africans. Early dynastic southern Egyptians would've probably been more adapted to a combination of a sahel-like environment with some level of humid adaptations.


Idk if genetics is going to be the deciding factor both sides make it to be, and both Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics have been on both sides of this. Ironically, it wasn't the "Afrocentric" folks that made me ponder this, but how people responded to the Amarnas. People who didn't like or were intensely skeptical the results basically challenged the authoritativeness of the research on the basis ancient remains would be difficult to reproduce. Marchant was being brought up regularly to challenge the Amarna study by the Eurocentric crowd. Today, the shoe is a little bit more on the other foot. There's ppl that think that Egyptian politics would never give us a "true" or "honest" answer, or that they would restrict which mummy dna data could searched for (or be fully released). This would in theory skew results.

But for a moment I'll ignore that kind of skepticism. Even if (big ass if) the upper Egyptians had haplogroup data that wouldn't be associated with so much as northern Africa, it's likely they'd still essentially be "African." What upper Egyptians have more of is an archeological record that shows biological and cultural continuity with more southern areas. Linguistically they're not Semites. They have local adaptions to their African environment. They also have limb data (among other things) that shows African biological selection and pressure. Even if people who were mixed arrived to explain those kinds of (hypothetical) results, they'd still have been physiologically pressured by the land they lived in. if ecological pressure and selection were irrelevant in determining biological makeup (regardless of haplogroup data), every group with a high V88 population would not be biologically adapted to their African environments now and would probably still be heavily Eurasian adapted. Many V88 carriers (despite being the likely descendants of a back migrations into Africa) are essentially African adapted.

Northern Egyptians were probably facing environmental pressures too and lived in an area where for thousands of years there was no Sahara. I seriously doubt many of them were eastern carbon copies. But I do predict a cline. Whatever ecological pressures they might've been receiving (even before the desert came back) would've been met with less proximity required for eastern geneflow compared to the south. Their location would've also given them less access to African geneflow from nearby people (like Nubians). Even by the early dynastic era, southern Egypt and Northern Sudan hadn't become a desert and hadn't for 4,000 years. How would you separate a potential scenario of African adapted people that had at one point been subject to admixture, from a scenario like v88 carriers?

Though I'm willing to amend my position on this of course, especially as I learn more. it's just what my position is right now.

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
At the start of looking into Egypt I'd wondered why people were interested in craniometrics or skeletal review when we have genetics.

Interesting point you made there.

Genetics is obviously a relatively new science.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Take into account the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland could be as old as 20,000 BP; Afro-Asiatic speakers could have migrated into Egypt from the Epipalaeolithic. Archaeologists and anthropologists have only falsified more recent large-scale movements into Egypt, none of them test Epipalaeolithic.

Not saying this is true.....but y'all really need to pay attention to points like this. IMO the idea is valid. Y'all can poo poo it all you want but what are you going to do when you are faced with that non African U6 ancestor pulled from ancient DNA?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Some migration and admixture are not denied as a part of African biohistory in some regions, but most of the gene flow has been so long ago as to have been reworked by African selection pressures and circumstances, and constitute a part of an African genuine biological history (Hiernaux 1975). Overlap in a range of biological traits between biogeographical Africans and non-Africans should be expected based on evolutionary theory and the concept of serial founder effect.
http://www.cobbresearchlab.com/issue-1/2015/1/26/history-and-genetics-in-africa-a-need-for-better-cooperation-between-the-teams
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mansamusa
Member
Member # 22474

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mansamusa     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Can I please say that the engagements with Doug and Cass have both grown tedious as hell? What do people expect to get out of them? Doug is only goes to hide himself deeper into his shell of denial, and the closest thing Cass has to a consistent agenda is a pathological desire to get under everyone's skin. Surely there are better things we can talk about that don't involve those two. Can I please say that the engagements with Doug and Cass have both grown tedious as hell? What do people expect to get out of them? Doug is only goes to hide himself deeper into his shell of denial, and the closest thing Cass has to a consistent agenda is a pathological desire to get under everyone's skin. Surely there are better things we can talk about that don't involve those two.

BTW I e-mailed Krause some days ago over whether any Y-DNA from those mummies would come out in a later publication (since they only seem to have mtDNA and nuclear DNA so far). He still hasn't gotten back to me. Must be busy or something.

Seconded.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Take into account the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland could be as old as 20,000 BP; Afro-Asiatic speakers could have migrated into Egypt from the Epipalaeolithic. Archaeologists and anthropologists have only falsified more recent large-scale movements into Egypt, none of them test Epipalaeolithic.

Not saying this is true.....but y'all really need to pay attention to points like this. IMO the idea is valid. Y'all can poo poo it all you want but what are you going to do when you are faced with that non African U6 ancestor pulled from ancient DNA?
So if Proto-Afrasan was from some hypothetical place outside of Africa, how come we see no further development there (mtDNA R )?

Why are root words found in East Africa?

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Moderator
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Will we use genetics to validate Linguistics

While at the same time using linguistics to explain genetics.

Snake eats one end of the another snake eating the former.

Phylogentic placement of Afrasian OOA makes sense, just as much sense as placing it in Africa. The arguments on both sides are fine, but what needs to be refined is the phylum itself.

If you look at Berber and how it represents a distant branch in Afroasiatic simultaneously with how they genetically represent an early split from soon to be Neolithic populations, MtDNA U, etc. you'll see it makes perfect sense, and supports an early back-migration.

But once again, we act as if languages can't converge, as genomes can, when two populations meet and culturally exchange concepts... lets take it east and look at Omotic and Cushitic and the "Nilo-Saharan/Eastafrican" roots both linguistically and genetically... Is there no pattern? if there is lets revisit the nile and the Geographical history as well as the Demographic history and see which groups could have possible converged there, what would that say about AfroAsiatic, as it relates to the genetic under tone.

 -

I will get heat for this on here but I'll come straight out and say it. I personally feel like we can't put Semetic in east africa or the Sahara, or Africa at all. Afroasiatic as a phylum however is a work in progress, period.

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Take into account the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland could be as old as 20,000 BP; Afro-Asiatic speakers could have migrated into Egypt from the Epipalaeolithic. Archaeologists and anthropologists have only falsified more recent large-scale movements into Egypt, none of them test Epipalaeolithic.

Not saying this is true.....but y'all really need to pay attention to points like this. IMO the idea is valid. Y'all can poo poo it all you want but what are you going to do when you are faced with that non African U6 ancestor pulled from ancient DNA?
So if Proto-Afrasan was from some hypothetical place outside of Africa, how come we see no further development there (mtDNA R )?

Why are root words found in East Africa?

Language aside I think you are missing the point when looking at the movement of PEOPLE and what he wrote. Leave Egyptians out of it for a second, how does what he wrote apply to north west Africans, their modern DNA and what has been pulled from their ancient DNA?

This question is specifically for those going back and forth with him.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
so your response is to deny a south north expansion in favor of a north to south. Can't wait to see the comments for this.

Ancient DNA supports north to south. Like I already said, your response to these DNA results because they conflict with your pan-African politics is to come up with some silly explanation for them. You posted an incredibly flawed population size argument. We've also had Afrocentrists claim the samples are not native Egyptians but foreigners (even albinos?!), accuse Krause et al of "racism" etc., Sudaniya is also proposing some sort of apartheid model where only northern Egyptians had Levantine ancestry. Afronuts are all over the place - which is why the two threads made on DNA (including this one)are being laughed at on other forums.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Some migration and admixture are not denied as a part of African biohistory in some regions, but most of the gene flow has been so long ago as to have been reworked by African selection pressures and circumstances, and constitute a part of an African genuine biological history (Hiernaux 1975).
Funny thing about this is Hiernaux never argued what Keita is arguing, but the opposite:

"In this book the emphasis is on sub-Saharan Africa, the specifically African anthropological area. Because North Africa and Egypt belong much more to the Mediterranean and the area of Western Asia than to Africa in that which concerns physical anthropology, these regions will be touched on only briefly." (Hiernaux, 1975)

As someone mentioned at Hamiticunion:

quote:
Like the above, most of Hiernaux's work is actually quite logical and well-conceived. It's just been taken out-of-context and/or heavily distorted by Afrocentrists writing in secondary sources. Hiernaux was a colleague of Carleton Coon's, and they often referenced each other's work.

http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/thread/38
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Askia_The_Great
Administrator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Askia_The_Great     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Still annoyed that we most likely wont be getting Y-DNA results. Anyways, if their Y-DNA is NOT Eurasian then we can not state that they are non-African/native i.e "Eurasian."

You obviously need both mtDNA and Y-DNA to get the total admixture. Which is why I am disappointed.

Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No close morphological ties of the Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Natufians to the Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Moroccan or Algerian samples. http://www.human-evol.cam.ac.uk/desertpasts/pdf/n_african_human_evolution_diversity/lahr_arensburg_1995_paleorient.pdf

They've never (?) tested anything like this for Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Egyptians because of lack of skeletal samples from Egypt for that period. There are however quite a lot of Nubian skulls, has anyone compared Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic Nubians to Natufians? By this I mean an actual multivariate analysis, not just Angel (1972) commentating on prognathism.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Take into account the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland could be as old as 20,000 BP; Afro-Asiatic speakers could have migrated into Egypt from the Epipalaeolithic. Archaeologists and anthropologists have only falsified more recent large-scale movements into Egypt, none of them test Epipalaeolithic.

Not saying this is true.....but y'all really need to pay attention to points like this. IMO the idea is valid. Y'all can poo poo it all you want but what are you going to do when you are faced with that non African U6 ancestor pulled from ancient DNA?
That is such a wild goose chase scenario until we establish genetic language families. I don't know a language that is closer to Coptic than Kalenjin. The tribe traces their ancestry to Lower Egypt with all sorts of proofs and according to the Greenberg families they don't speak an Afro-Asiatic language.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Forty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Forty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:


Why are root words found in East Africa? [/QB]

In what languages? What do you think of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PfTpfj5PXQ?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Some migration and admixture are not denied as a part of African biohistory in some regions, but most of the gene flow has been so long ago as to have been reworked by African selection pressures and circumstances, and constitute a part of an African genuine biological history (Hiernaux 1975).
Funny thing about this is Hiernaux never argued what Keita is arguing, but the opposite:

"In this book the emphasis is on sub-Saharan Africa, the specifically African anthropological area. Because North Africa and Egypt belong much more to the Mediterranean and the area of Western Asia than to Africa in that which concerns physical anthropology, these regions will be touched on only briefly." (Hiernaux, 1975)

As someone mentioned at Hamiticunion:

quote:
Like the above, most of Hiernaux's work is actually quite logical and well-conceived. It's just been taken out-of-context and/or heavily distorted by Afrocentrists writing in secondary sources. Hiernaux was a colleague of Carleton Coon's, and they often referenced each other's work.

http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/thread/38

You pointed out the Nat Geo saying modern Egyptians are 68% native

Their former classification from the same source was 65% Mediterranean. Now they have narrowed that broader category to a more precise North African category.

You like to refer to ambiguous in many cases, craniometry the than the precision of genetics.

Many modern Egyptians, for instance, carry Y DNA E1b1b.

Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a near complete list of Upper Paleolithic remains from Levant. The Epipaleolithic would be those 20,000-13,000 BP: the Ohalo skull and fragments, Ein Gev 1 and Neve David. This list excludes the Natufian skulls 12,000-10,000 BP (transitional between Epipaleolithic and Mesolithic). As you can see there isn't much (and most is fragmentary).

 -

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Ancient DNA supports north to south.

How does this DNA support a south to north expansion. DNA cannot explain the direction state formation took. What ancient northern DNA combined with archeological sites show are influences from middle east (like settlements) that might support a northern to southern cline in eastern influence. This doesn't mean northern Egyptians hadn't similarly needed to adapt to African ecological pressures the same way other Africans had to, but this would've been a process that would've been affected to some level by years of eastern migrations. Whatever happened in northern Egypt, southern Egypt was the hegemonic cultural force behind state formation. What I see is continuity with Nubia, and there's really no debate that Nubia had adapted to it's environment. I do not as much continuity with the east as I note with some northern sites.

quote:
Like I already said, your response to these DNA results because they conflict with your pan-African politics is to come up with some silly explanation for them.
Uh huh. And Africans with high V88 in their paternal background are physiologically half Eurasian and not African adapted. They aren't essentially African because of migrations that took place not 20,000 years ago but 9-5.6 thousand years ago [Roll Eyes] . Cass that is a major a$$pull and you know it. But to think otherwise is being "Afrocentric." Pan Africanism is a political movement that calls for political unity of all people who're of African descent. Egyptians with admixture are and would still have been a people of (at least partial) African descent. How U.S blacks relate to pan Africanism despite varying levels of mixture, and how the general movement has sought to be inclusive of them when their ancestry is not fully African shows that the results really wouldn't need to deter that movement between Egyptians and other Africans politically. Especially not for African Americans.


quote:
You posted an incredibly flawed population size argument.
You based your accusations of flaws on:

-the southern Levant being too sparsely populated (which you've provided no evidence for)

-Trying to keep the conversation to the southern Levant as much as possible. I mentioned that the hypothesis could still work by expanding the source population from the southern Levant. I could extend the population source as far as Syria, etc because apparently there'd been contact that extended that far. But you tried to keep bringing the conversation back to the southern Levant


quote:
We've also had Afrocentrists claim the samples are not native Egyptians but foreigners (even albinos?!), accuse Krause et al of "racism" etc., Sudaniya is also proposing some sort of apartheid model where only northern Egyptians had Levantine ancestry.
Nobody was denying that they were native Egyptians. They were just noting that:

-Northerners while native to Egypt have always had more eastern influences. ES had not just started noticing clinal influences when the study came out. Minimizing risks of sampling bias with modern Egyptians had been a conversation here long before because northern Egypt has been known to carry more OOA influences. The timing and continuity of these influences to northern Egypt is probably a new issue for some posters though.

-People have been quoting the southern origins and affinities of the southern Egyptians for years. THAT is not a new argument either.

-ES has spent years making note of East African biological adaptations. Even when data on Ramses or the Amarnas (southern Egypt) was being passed around ES, groups still continued to post adaption related data and picture dumping to show adaptation. It gets a bit overwhelming in the middle of a discussion to picture spam because it can be a drain on discussion. But even as the shoe had been on the other foot, and Eurocentric dweebs were scrambling because of data from southern Egypt, there were still people interested in the subject of biological adaption on both sides.

None of these main points are at all new to ES. There are some posters here that will have to make serious revisions to what they've been saying, and I am prepared to revise how I respond to data as I move forward too. But even if genetically someone from Chad or Egypt had evidence of admixture at some point, the question then like Keita mentions is whether or not they hadn't since responded to biological pressures and selections that for all intents and purposes would make them African adapted people, regardless of genetic background.

People can have a particular genetic background but it's how they biologically are selected to conform to their surroundings that is what's important. THAT is what's going to potentially determine cognitive and related physical abilities. You can discuss forever your complaints about the source he selected while making this point, but he doesn't need to rely on it to make the point that humans and other lifeforms biologically adapt to their surroundings. Unless you are a creationist and completely discard evolutionary theory or even microadaption (denial of say antibiotic resistant bacteria), what he states would happen at some point on some level. So the question that follows is: even if I were to entertain a major eastern admixture event for southern Egypt (as I had for some Chadic speakers), did they biologically adapt to their African environment since they got there and when? If so, then the debate will continue. If not then there's potential that genetic results for southern Egypt will end things (if the haplogroup data is Eurasian).

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Some migration and admixture are not denied as a part of African biohistory in some regions, but most of the gene flow has been so long ago as to have been reworked by African selection pressures and circumstances, and constitute a part of an African genuine biological history (Hiernaux 1975).
Funny thing about this is Hiernaux never argued what Keita is arguing, but the opposite:

"In this book the emphasis is on sub-Saharan Africa, the specifically African anthropological area. Because North Africa and Egypt belong much more to the Mediterranean and the area of Western Asia than to Africa in that which concerns physical anthropology, these regions will be touched on only briefly." (Hiernaux, 1975)

As someone mentioned at Hamiticunion:

quote:
Like the above, most of Hiernaux's work is actually quite logical and well-conceived. It's just been taken out-of-context and/or heavily distorted by Afrocentrists writing in secondary sources. Hiernaux was a colleague of Carleton Coon's, and they often referenced each other's work.

http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/thread/38

You pointed out the Nat Geo saying modern Egyptians are 68% native

Their former classification from the same source was 65% Mediterranean. Now they have narrowed that broader category to a more precise North African category.

You like to refer to ambiguous in many cases, craniometry the than the precision of genetics.

Many modern Egyptians, for instance, carry Y DNA E1b1b.

I don't think there's any actual inconsistency in ancient Egyptians descending predominantly from Epipaleolithic Levantines and modern Egyptians being predominantly 'native' North Africans. This is because of the time-depth, i.e. there would be continuity in Egypt from the Epipaleolithic to modern times which is over 13,000 years and how far back does National Geographic treat "native"? Many of these admixture analyses only deal with the Holocene.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Take into account the Proto-Afro-Asiatic homeland could be as old as 20,000 BP; Afro-Asiatic speakers could have migrated into Egypt from the Epipalaeolithic. Archaeologists and anthropologists have only falsified more recent large-scale movements into Egypt, none of them test Epipalaeolithic.

Not saying this is true.....but y'all really need to pay attention to points like this. IMO the idea is valid. Y'all can poo poo it all you want but what are you going to do when you are faced with that non African U6 ancestor pulled from ancient DNA?
So if Proto-Afrasan was from some hypothetical place outside of Africa, how come we see no further development there (mtDNA R )?

Why are root words found in East Africa?

Language aside I think you are missing the point when looking at the movement of PEOPLE and what he wrote. Leave Egyptians out of it for a second, how does what he wrote apply to north west Africans, their modern DNA and what has been pulled from their ancient DNA?

This question is specifically for those going back and forth with him.

I did not associate this with Egypt, rather with East Africa. And he clearly spoke of "Afro-Asiatic speakers". I also don't get who spoke of this Epipalaeolithic mass migration into Northeast Africa?


The Berber language is only max 7 Kya old and is substratum, as was presented by Chris Ehret.


CARTA: The Origin of Us — Christopher Ehret: Relationships of Ancient African Languages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmr0AE1Qyws


As for now, Libyco-Chadic is older than Berber-Chadic. And Chadic itself is older than Berber.


Rogerblench,

http://rogerblench.info/Language/Afroasiatic/General/AALIST.pdf


Issues in the Historical Phonology Issues in the Historical Phonology of Chadic Languages of Chadic Languages H. Ekkehard Wolff Chair: African Languages & Linguistics Leipzig University

http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/conference/08_springschool/pdf/course_materials/Wolff_Historical_Phonology.pdf



From the Northwest African perspective.


quote:
The most enigmatic period in northern Africa is the transitional phase from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. Sites and well-defined assemblages from this period are extremely rare. Middle Palaeolithic industries seem to end around 30 ka. In this paper, the subsequent 10 ka are referred to provisionally as “Early Upper Palaeolithic”; however, the character of human occupation and the accompanying technology during this time remains ambiguous. Elucidation of this phase is a main research objective. This crude and basically still unknown Early Upper Palaeolithic ends with the appearance of the Iberomaurusian.


The “Iberomaurusian” represents the best defined Palaeolithic culture of north-western Africa. In agreement with other authors (e.g. Barton et al., 2007, p. 177) it is interpreted as the second phase of the Upper Palaeolithic. The inventories of this late Upper Palaeolithic are rich in microlithic tools, primarily backed bladelets. The same is true for late Pleistocene techno-complexes in the Near East, such as the Kebarian and the Natufian. Therefore, the Iberomaurusian has often been referred to as Epipalaeolithic (Aouraghe, 2006, p. 241; Olszewski et al., 2011).


--Jörg Linstädter
Human occupation of Northwest Africa: A review of Middle Palaeolithic to Epipalaeolithic sites in Morocco


quote:
We conducted a comparative analysis of segments between the PP5–6 samples, HP assemblages and more recent archaeological sites through-out Africa. SADBS segment dimensions (Supplementary Table 4) are within the 95% confidence intervals for segments at the MSA and LSA boundary in East Africa, the Tamar Hat Iberomaurusian in North Africa (,20–10kyr), and Holocene assemblages in South and East Africa (Fig. 1). More easily flaked obsidian (owing to its lack of crystalline structure) dominates the East African assemblages, so despite a tougher raw material (silcrete) the SADBS knappers produced comparable microliths. SADBS segments are shorter and thinner than HP segments with no overlap in confidence intervals for width; they are more similar to East African LSA assemblages than the HP (Fig. 1).

--Kyle S. Brown1,2 et al.

An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Oshun

The DNA study coming out shows ancient Egyptians were autosomally close to Natufians and Neolithic Levantines. Also, the fact ancient Egyptians plot(probably) closer to modern Levantines than modern Egyptians in the principal-component-analysis, points to an old population affinity/structure like how 6-9th century AD English samples are closer in PCA to modern Norwegians and Scottish than modern English, despite the fact modern English are closest autosomally (i.e. in admixture and rare-allele analyses) to the 6-9th century AD English samples (as expected).

Reality is the DNA will show a Levantine origin of ancient Egyptians. However, since archaeology does not support any recent mass movement(s) or large-scale mixture, the Levantine migration has to be pushed back pre-Holocene to Epipaleolithic and this ties in with Afro-Asiatic entering Egypt.

That the formation of the Egyptian dynastic state c. 3100 BCE owes more to Upper Egypt, than Lower/Middle Egypt has really no relevance. Even if true, so what? Afrocentrists are only arguing for this to try to connect Egyptians to more southern populations in Africa; Nubia though isn't even Sub-Saharan Africa, its still the Sahara. If you look at the cranial metric/non-metric & dental data, you will see there are no close ties of Sub-Saharan Africans to Nubians. This is the result of the size of Africa. Look at distance between Egyptians/Nubians and SSA's.

 -
http://www.petersmap.com/
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/18/africa/real-size-of-africa/

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Will we use genetics to validate Linguistics

While at the same time using linguistics to explain genetics.

Snake eats one end of the another snake eating the former.

Phylogentic placement of Afrasian OOA makes sense, just as much sense as placing it in Africa. The arguments on both sides are fine, but what needs to be refined is the phylum itself.

If you look at Berber and how it represents a distant branch in Afroasiatic simultaneously with how they genetically represent an early split from soon to be Neolithic populations, MtDNA U, etc. you'll see it makes perfect sense, and supports an early back-migration.

But once again, we act as if languages can't converge, as genomes can, when two populations meet and culturally exchange concepts... lets take it east and look at Omotic and Cushitic and the "Nilo-Saharan/Eastafrican" roots both linguistically and genetically... Is there no pattern? if there is lets revisit the nile and the Geographical history as well as the Demographic history and see which groups could have possible converged there, what would that say about AfroAsiatic, as it relates to the genetic under tone.

 -

I will get heat for this on here but I'll come straight out and say it. I personally feel like we can't put Semetic in east africa or the Sahara, or Africa at all. Afroasiatic as a phylum however is a work in progress, period.

Berber is only spoken within Africa (except for modern movements of course). It doesn't sound like Arabic, or Hebrew.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Oshun

The DNA study coming out shows ancient Egyptians were autosomally close to Natufians and Neolithic Levantines. Also, the fact ancient Egyptians plot(probably) closer to modern Levantines than modern Egyptians in the principal-component-analysis, points to an old population affinity/structure like how 6-9th century AD English samples are closer in PCA to modern Norwegians and Scottish than modern English, despite the fact modern English are closest autosomally (i.e. in admixture and rare-allele analyses) to the 6-9th century AD English samples (as expected).

Reality is the DNA will show a Levantine origin of ancient Egyptians. However, since archaeology does not support any recent mass movement(s) or large-scale mixture, the Levantine migration has to be pushed back pre-Holocene to Epipaleolithic and this ties in with Afro-Asiatic entering Egypt.

That the formation of the Egyptian dynastic state c. 3100 BCE owes more to Upper Egypt, than Lower/Middle Egypt has really no relevance. Even if true, so what? Afrocentrists are only arguing for this to try to connect Egyptians to more southern populations in Africa; Nubia though isn't even Sub-Saharan Africa, its still the Sahara. If you look at the cranial metric/non-metric & dental data, you will see there are no close ties of Sub-Saharan Africans to Nubians. This is the result of the size of Africa. Look at distance between Egyptians/Nubians and SSA's.

 -
http://www.petersmap.com/
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/18/africa/real-size-of-africa/

However, there is one problem here:


quote:
Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan.
--Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.


quote:
Christopher Ehret noted that the intensive use of plants among the Natufians was first found in Africa, as a precursor to the development of farming in the Fertile Crescent.
--Ehret (2002) The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia


http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.nl/2010/11/kushite-expansion-and-natufians.html

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:


Why are root words found in East Africa?

In what languages? What do you think of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PfTpfj5PXQ? [/QB]
Perhaps this will be helpful,

Links between Cushitic, Omotic, Chadic and the position of Kujarge.

—Roger Blench

https://www.academia.edu/4782153/Links_between_Cushitic_Omotic_Chadic_and_the_position_of_Kujarge

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
so your response is to deny a south north expansion in favor of a north to south. Can't wait to see the comments for this.

Ancient DNA supports north to south. Like I already said, your response to these DNA results because they conflict with your pan-African politics is to come up with some silly explanation for them. You posted an incredibly flawed population size argument. We've also had Afrocentrists claim the samples are not native Egyptians but foreigners (even albinos?!), accuse Krause et al of "racism" etc., Sudaniya is also proposing some sort of apartheid model where only northern Egyptians had Levantine ancestry. Afronuts are all over the place - which is why the two threads made on DNA (including this one)are being laughed at on other forums.
"Ancient DNA supports north to south." lol Nope, it doesn't.

Your eurocentric few is skewed, based on a few samples from Lower Egypt. [Big Grin]


quote:
"Over the last two decades, numerous contemporary (Khartoum Neolithic) sites and cemeteries have been excavated in the Central Sudan.. The most striking point to emerge is the overall similarity of early neolithic developments inhabitation, exchange, material culture and mortuary customs in the Khartoum region to those underway at the same time in the Egyptian Nile Valley, far to the north." (Wengrow, David (2003) "Landscapes of Knowledge, Idioms of Power: The African Foundations of Ancient Egyptian Civilization Reconsidered," in Ancient Egypt in Africa, David O'Connor and Andrew Reid, eds. Ancient Egypt in Africa. London: University College London Press, 2003, pp. 119-137)
--O'Connor, David B., Reid, Andrew

Ancient Egypt in Africa

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think genetics and Linguistics are way too different
for one to validate the other. but one may or may not
support the other, just like other disciplines.

The Mantel test can measure correlation between
genetics and languages among other things.

For me to know about a people, when trying to
figure them out in relation with other people, I
use genetics, 'linguistics', physical anthropology,
cultural anthropology, etc, in a multidisciplinary
approach.

If a genetics paper interpretation don't jibe with
at least a few from the above and/or historical
accounts, something's wrong, ergo Skoglund &
Reich and that original Gallego-Llorente (2015)
paper.

The peer review referees? Wheah dey azz wz @?

quote:

... these changes are reflected in the corrected Fig 2b,
fig S6, and table S5. Tables S6 and S7 have been removed
from the corrected Supplementary Material, because
there is no detectable Western Eurasian component
in Yoruba and Mbuti.
.

Now somebody tell Gurdasani (2015) that. He who sees
~8000 year old Mbukushu-Oroqen admix event in Yoruba.


quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Will we use genetics to validate Linguistics

While at the same time using linguistics to explain genetics.

Snake eats one end of the another snake eating the former.

Phylogentic placement of Afrasian OOA makes sense, just as much sense as placing it in Africa. The arguments on both sides are fine, but what needs to be refined is the phylum itself.

If you look at Berber and how it represents a distant branch in Afroasiatic simultaneously with how they genetically represent an early split from soon to be Neolithic populations, MtDNA U, etc. you'll see it makes perfect sense, and supports an early back-migration.

But once again, we act as if languages can't converge, as genomes can, when two populations meet and culturally exchange concepts... lets take it east and look at Omotic and Cushitic and the "Nilo-Saharan/Eastafrican" roots both linguistically and genetically... Is there no pattern? if there is lets revisit the nile and the Geographical history as well as the Demographic history and see which groups could have possible converged there, what would that say about AfroAsiatic, as it relates to the genetic under tone.

 -

I will get heat for this on here but I'll come straight out and say it. I personally feel like we can't put Semetic in east africa or the Sahara, or Africa at all. Afroasiatic as a phylum however is a work in progress, period.


Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:
Some migration and admixture are not denied as a part of African biohistory in some regions, but most of the gene flow has been so long ago as to have been reworked by African selection pressures and circumstances, and constitute a part of an African genuine biological history (Hiernaux 1975).
Funny thing about this is Hiernaux never argued what Keita is arguing, but the opposite:

"In this book the emphasis is on sub-Saharan Africa, the specifically African anthropological area. Because North Africa and Egypt belong much more to the Mediterranean and the area of Western Asia than to Africa in that which concerns physical anthropology, these regions will be touched on only briefly." (Hiernaux, 1975)

As someone mentioned at Hamiticunion:

quote:
Like the above, most of Hiernaux's work is actually quite logical and well-conceived. It's just been taken out-of-context and/or heavily distorted by Afrocentrists writing in secondary sources. Hiernaux was a colleague of Carleton Coon's, and they often referenced each other's work.

http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/thread/38

You pointed out the Nat Geo saying modern Egyptians are 68% native

Their former classification from the same source was 65% Mediterranean. Now they have narrowed that broader category to a more precise North African category.

You like to refer to ambiguous in many cases, craniometry the than the precision of genetics.

Many modern Egyptians, for instance, carry Y DNA E1b1b.

I don't think there's any actual inconsistency in ancient Egyptians descending predominantly from Epipaleolithic Levantines and modern Egyptians being predominantly 'native' North Africans. This is because of the time-depth, i.e. there would be continuity in Egypt from the Epipaleolithic to modern times which is over 13,000 years and how far back does National Geographic treat "native"? Many of these admixture analyses only deal with the Holocene.
Yawn,…


quote:

"Ancient Egypt belongs to a language
group known as 'Afroasiatic' (formerly
called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest
relatives are other north-east African
languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's
cultural features, both material and
ideological and particularly in the earliest
phases, show clear connections with that
same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt
was an African culture, developed by
African peoples, who had wide ranging
contacts in north Africa and western
Asia."

—Morkot, Robert (2005) The Egyptians: An Introduction. ( p. 10)

http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/morkot/

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Geber
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Geber     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Since we know and understand this, the path to the origin of Afrasan has be come much easier.

quote:

The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently gave rise to the different major population groups including current speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralist populations.


Intuitively, the high correlation between geographical distribution of some of the major E haplogroups and distribution of Afro-Asiatic languages, exemplary of established correlation between languages and genes as proposed by Cavalli-Sforza7, 8 prompted us to revisit such correlation in a multidisciplinary platform better suited to unravel hitherto untold chapters of human history. No better venue to put such approach into practice than the area of the Sahel and East Africa. The Sahel, which extends from the Atlantic to the Red Sea coast of Sudan and Eritrea and the Ethiopian highlands including fringes of the Sahara, has witnessed human population demographic events that were pivotal in prehistoric and historic periods of human history. Early occupation by Homo sapiens of the Red Sea coast of Eritrea,9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and evidences of traces of earlier urban settlements in much of Eritrea14, 15, 16 are some of the archaeological and paleontological evidences that suggest a major contribution of this area to prehistory and migration including the exodus of anatomically modern humans to Eurasia.


 -
NJ tree based on FST values generated from Arlequin 3.11. Population names are as given in Supplementary Table S1. Population life style: circle – agriculturalists; square – pastoralists; triangle – nomads; inverted triangle – nomadic pastoralists; diamond – agro-pastoralists. The populations are colored according to their language family: red – Afro-asiatic; blue – Nilo-Saharan; green – Niger-Kordofanian; yellow – Khoisan; black – Italic and Basque.




Phylogenetic analysis


The network analysis on the chromosomes carrying E haplogroups was robust enough with a main cluster near the root represented by Kunama (KUN) encompassing most of Eritreans and Sudanese populations, including Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic speakers suggesting that linguistic divergence is either a subsequent event to population divergence, language replacement or that the two linguistic families may have shared a common origin.


http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v22/n12/full/ejhg201441a.html
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  ...  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3