quote:From various kinds of evidence it can now be argued that agriculture in Ethiopia and the Horn was quite ancient, originating as much as 7,000 or more years ago, and that its development owed nothing to South Arabian inspiration. Moreover, the inventions of grain cultivation in particular, both in Ethiopia and separately in the Near East, seem rooted in a single, still earlier subsistence invention of North-east Africa, the intensive utilization of wild grains, beginning probably by or before 13,000 b.c. The correlation of linguistic evidence with archaeology suggests that this food-collecting innovation may have been the work of early Afroasiatic-speaking communities and may have constituted the particular economic advantage which gave impetus to the first stages of Afroasiatic expansion into Ethiopia and the Horn, the Sahara and North Africa, and parts of the Near East.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It doesn't show the full scope.
Let us know when you make an un-vague comment
Un-vague? LOL
Your post lacks the full scope. As I evidently posted for you. You either have a reading disability or are simply ignorant. The metrical data you posted, never-the-less was interesting.
Now go cry yourself to sleep again, ignoramus.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Thread wrecking banter aside (can't control it, but will ignore it)
Continuing with the OP
Aegean and E Med when like Egyptians are hi-lited. Compare trends over time and locale in Egypt by noting E Med traits that are not h-ilited.
. . Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great find! As I said many years ago. Argument whether or not the ancient Egyptians were indigenous is over. The real argument should be who are modern Europeans. How “Negroid’ are the ancient Greeks(6000BC!!!) . And Why do modern Europeans “look” so different today?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: J.Lawrence Angel (1969) Biological relations of Egyptian and eastern Mediterranean populations during Pre-dynastic and Dynastic times☆ Division of Physical Anthropology Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
ES has posted bits and pieces and/or manipulations and distortions of this report before.
Now ES has a way to verify what any body posts in the name of Angel's 1969 symposium presentation later published in 1972.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
ES been eyeing Early Neolithic Farmers like a they some foreign invading pre-dynastic race.
Here is Angel, clear about two-way action * facial traits and genes from Africa to Greece * disease vector and genes from Greece to Africa and he says so right in the abstract.
Nothing to do with Angel but we know the Greek/Macedonian EEF resulted from the Anatolian&Cypriot Neolithic farmers who in turn partly coming from ancient Near- Eastern farmers who are a product of way way after OoA residual African Mota-like genomes that Laz used as proxy for Basal Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Great find! As I said many years ago. Argument whether or not the ancient Egyptians were indigenous is over. The real argument should be who are modern Europeans. How “Negroid’ are the ancient Greeks(6000BC!!!) . And Why do modern Europeans “look” so different today?
J.Lawrence Angel (1969) Biological relations of Egyptian and eastern Mediterranean populations during Pre-dynastic and Dynastic times☆ Division of Physical Anthropology Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Thread wrecking banter aside (can't control it, but will ignore it)
Continuing with the OP
You're right but I had to post it, to show the probably relation and or segregation of these early farmers.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Do you man.
Boring **** like this needs some spice and it ain't no use unless tL and TP are in the mix mixing it up.
Whatever draws people here it's the banter keeps many here.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what Angel is writing he is speculating and he does not have enough evidence to be definitive. Malaria and thus sickle cell is a tropical disease. Greece as far as I know is NOT tropical.
Variation is skull seems to be divided into TWO camp And this seems to start from Lower Egypt to Southern Europe. Greece, Malta etc.
But we know Europeans are made up essential of two population. The African Neolithic replacing the older mesolithic or at least admixing to form ONE population.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: ES been eyeing Early Neolithic Farmers like a they some foreign invading pre-dynastic race. ES been eyeing Early Neolithic Farmers like a they some foreign invading pre-dynastic race.
Here is Angel, clear about two-way action * facial traits and genes from Africa to Greece * disease vector and genes from Greece to Africa and he says so right in the abstract.
Nothing to do with Angel but we know the Greek/Macedonian EEF resulted from the Anatolian&Cypriot Neolithic farmers who in turn partly coming from ancient Near- Eastern farmers who are a product of way way after OoA residual African Mota-like genomes that Laz used as proxy for Basal Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Great find! As I said many years ago. Argument whether or not the ancient Egyptians were indigenous is over. The real argument should be who are modern Europeans. How “Negroid’ are the ancient Greeks(6000BC!!!) . And Why do modern Europeans “look” so different today?
J.Lawrence Angel (1969) Biological relations of Egyptian and eastern Mediterranean populations during Pre-dynastic and Dynastic times☆ Division of Physical Anthropology Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.
Guilty as charged. I am only newly part of ES, but I have been posting this one-sided stuff relating to African migrations carrying "negroid" traits to early Macedonian farmers on other sites for years now. I never knew it happened the other way also.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The problem with your theory is that there is no true African "negroid". There are many phenotypes that have evolved within Africa.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no way the Greek Neolithic nasal index is 56; I remember telling someone about this a while back. Look for a more recent source.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: From what Angel is writing he is speculating and he does not have enough evidence to be definitive. Malaria and thus sickle cell is a tropical disease. Greece as far as I know is NOT tropical.
Variation is skull seems to be divided into TWO camp And this seems to start from Lower Egypt to Southern Europe. Greece, Malta etc.
But we know Europeans are made up essential of two population. The African Neolithic replacing the older mesolithic or at least admixing to form ONE population.
Yep. You might have a point there. The study is old and may be outdated from since the time it was written, in that particular regard.
I browsed quickly through a literature review of the likely provenance of the mutant falciparum malaria which creates this porotic hyperostosis that Angel uses as evidence of Greek migration and gene flow into Egypt. It seems to appear that this strain of malaria originated in Africa and dates back to even before OOA, although there was a more recent rapid expansion within the past 10 000 years ago. Angel believes it originated in the Mediterranean. The recent 10 000 year expansion I suppose makes such a thing possible. However, Angel seems to admit that it's his persoanl belief:
" Porotic hyperostosis , formerly called osteoporosis symmetrica, is an overgrowth of the spongy marrow space of the skull....In Anatolia, Greece, and Cyprus from the seventh to second millennia B.C., porotic hyperostosis occurred frequently in early farmers who lived in marshy areas, but rarely in inhabitants of dry or rocky areas or in latest Paleolithic hunters. As shown by skeletal samples from Greece, the frequency of the disease decreased as farming methods improved. However, from Hellenistic to Romantic times it again increased together with increases in the incidence of malaria and in poorer farming. There are correlations between porotic hyperostosis and adult stature and fertility. The mutations producing falciparum malaria therefore must antedate seventh millenium B.C. and I think may have an Eastern Mediterranean origin."
A recent study suggests that "One controversial hypothesis claims that all currently existing P. falciparum populations are descended from a most recent common ancestor (MRCA) which lived only a few thousand years ago during the Neolithic period.7 Other scientists insist that P. falciparum has maintained a large effective population size with a high degree of genetic diversity for several hundred thousand years.8 Such divergent conclusions are possible because different scientists use different datasets and different methods for analysing the molecular data, which are in any case often difficult to date.
The most recent major study has synthesized these two polar views, concluding that the MRCA(Most recent common ancestor) of P. falciparum is approaching 100,000 years old, although it has undergone a major population expansion within the last 10,000 years." The Spread of Malaria to Southern Europe in AntiquityPosts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: There's no way the Greek Neolithic nasal index is 56; I remember telling someone about this a while back. Look for a more recent source.
That would make them "Afro-Caucasian" or straight up negroid and that I suppose terrifies you. .
But seriously, I don't see how you criticize so called Afro-loons by claiming morphology and skin color does not matter,and accusing them of focusing too much on morphology and skin color. But at the same time, you are obviously obsessed by it.
The fact the Angel is continually referenced in even the most recent scientific publications is evidence that he continues to be relevant and remains largely un-falsified. I think Brace (2006) with his findings of Sub-Saharan traces neolithic European populations verifies these early findings.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: There's no way the Greek Neolithic nasal index is 56; I remember telling someone about this a while back. Look for a more recent source.
Remarkable how you changed your tone all of sudden?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Brace does some wicked stuff 2006.
Fig 1 (not a phylogeny) has a limb with Palestinians the first outlier branch and Somalis, Naqada Bronze, Nubians, Nubia Bronze, and Tanzania Haya further 'outliers' until the sibling Dahomey and Congo tips.
Then for Fig 3 he collapses those last three into a single twig with a Natufian sibling even though N was on a twig with Taforalt/Afalou as its only fellow tip in Fig 1.
After pulling the Niger-Congos out, he collapses the remainder into a Pre- historic/Recent NE Afr twig.
He does this to other samples too.
I can't understand why if the 24 skull and face variables made a Mahalanobis D2 branch of Palestine-South of Sahara widely look a like Africans (+C Afroasian) it's permissible to arbitrarily rearrange the test findings to fit the experimenter's idea of who should or should not be in a group.
I guess he makes up for it by writing
quote: The Niger-Congo speakers (Congo, Dahomey, and Haya) cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample (both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians) and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic- speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from Sub-Saharan Africa
I'm not saying Brace is pulling wool. He seems like the prof we'd all want.
I just don't see why he felt the need to 'manually' combine samples that showed what they showed via D2 Was a materials and methods section in the game back in 2005 or did only 'hard science' use 'em then? Keita 1990 has 'em.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Like I said, Angel's Greek Neolithic nasal index is faulty, compare to the following Neolithic and Early Bronze Aegean samples=
Cass stop playing dumb. You know well enough what the process of demic diffusion entailed in the spread of the neolithic in Europe. It meant that farmers from the Middle East intermarried with European huntergatherers. The bi-product of that would be EEF--Early European farmers. Or these recent Middle Eastern migrants themselves would be part of the first EEF population. Eventually, by the late neolithic Agriculture in Europe would have been associated with cultural diffusion; so we would not expect late European farmers to be as admixed with whatever genetic elements responsible for giving EEF populations "sub-saharan" morphological affinities.
Whatever "Sub-Saharan" morphological affinity that these Middle Eastern farmers had carried into Europe would have been diluted by the "late neolithic" which is the time period your table shows.
Angel's table and Brace(2006) specifically talk about the "Sub-Saharan' affinities of the "earliest farmers" in Europe.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
People wanna see their black-only-equals-true- forest-negro agenda pushed no matter what. That concept was jettisoned from curricular African studies 40 years ago.
People who wanna learn ssomething try putting their ideas to the test seeing if every bit of new previously unknown data can falsify them and move on when it does.
They don't try and save face like subbing later Greeks from anywhere but Nea Nikomedea. In this study Angel has the precise Neolithics who spread farming from the Near East to SE Europe.
Nobody proved Angel's measurements wrong because nobody shows any 7th millennia Nea Nikomedeia nasal breadth-height contrary to Angel.
Features already common in early Neolithic farmers and the Badari & Predynastic are hi-lited in table 3.
. . Except for the frontal parietal, Middle Kingdom traits in table 4don't show trends that lean toward the Neolithic farmers of table 3.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^you should see how he refers to even the most extremist of eurocentrist beliefs(i.e. the Greeks being ruled by a pale skinned elite) by a proper name("Nordicist" not Euroloon/Idiot/etc as he does with black posters) yet even a tangential claim of the AE having ties to other southernly Africans is an Afroloon conspiracy.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
But like I said, something is still wrong here. How do you get from 59.4 to 55.9 to 53.2? Possibilities include using a significantly different number of skulls in the sample, or wrongly recording (NLB/NLH) measurements.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Thanks for the useful research, truly appreciate it.
Doesn't matter you can't figure it out.
It is what it is, deal with it.
You certainly have a right to suspect anything presented to you by anyone.
Yet and still, there comes a time when one realizes cherished notions are no longer factual.
At that point what does one do? Ignore the elephant or retool? Stagnate or grow?
Newtonian physics fails to explain the microverse. Does that mean Quantum physics is somehow amiss?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
But like I said, something is still wrong here. How do you get from 59.4 to 55.9 to 53.2? Possibilities include using a significantly different number of skulls in the sample, or wrongly recording (NLB/NLH) measurements.
The crux is in demic diffusion. Read into it.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can you simultaneously argue against the negro concept in other threads and here use the very same negro concept to support your position?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
ancient Egyptians can be partially modeled as Angel's Anatolian and Greek samples ...
Ancient Egyptians can be modeled as partly consisting of Angel's Nea Nikomedeian sample. ?
.
That's what you say but Angel said
quote:
J.Lawrence Angel (1969) Biological relations of Egyptian and eastern Mediterranean populations during Pre-dynastic and Dynastic times☆ Division of Physical Anthropology Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.
So would you care to clarify, precision, expand, and share the paradigm your studies revealed?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: How can you simultaneously argue against the negro concept in other threads and here use the very same negro concept to support your position?
lol. I've noticed this for years.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: How can you simultaneously argue against the negro concept in other threads and here use the very same negro concept to support your position?
lol. I've noticed this for years.
The crux is in demic diffusion, overlapping and intermediates. I know it's complex.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Geno-hamiticists say it's all about the genome yet post craniometric trees out of context. Their aim? Hoping the unwary take the dendrograms for biological phylogeny. I thought the argument was genetic not based on looks.
Trodding on down that path, who got the full context of
quote: Egypt includes
• an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region,
•as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians
J.L. Angel (1972) Journal of Human Evolution
Who can vet this or trash it?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic