posted
I know its been awhile since I've posted since I post sporadically, but I do watch and observe what goes on so I'll critique these things here since I cannot post in Forumbiodiversity because I'm locked out.
First, I want to say I'm less than pleased FBF and its obsession with genetics where people change their positions almost daily based on the next new paper they see. DNA DOES TELL the entire story. We here from the old ES school always used a multidisciplinary approach when studying Africa the same way Diop and Keita did. Those at FBF for whatever reason are totally obsessed with genetics to the point of intellectual absurdity. If genetics conflict with archaeology, anthropology and the known history of a region, maybe the geneticists and what they interpret as "SSA, Eurasian" and whatever they arbitrarily decide to label in these studies need to be called into question. The kind of foolery I saw in that topic about Egyptian DNA demonstrates this which will lead into my next point.
Since we have no ancient DNA of the what SSAs across the continent were like back then, its not shocking to see samples of ancient Egyptians score less SSA when compared to SSAs today. In fact I wouldn't be shocked if ancient and modern SSAs were significantly different, but just like the idiots who advanced the idea of the true Negro theory people at FBF presume that the ancients and moderns in SSA must have been the same and unchanged, ditto for ancient and modern so called "Eurasians." But all of the DNA studies I've seen contradict the idea of unchanged, uninterrupted, continuity between ancients and moderns.
In short, you guys at FBF have to quit playing these games with all these genetic calculators and all of this labeling. We've all seen how people tried to use genetics(Cavalli-Sforza) to explain languages in Africa, but watch it back fire, so why are you repeating the same logic with genetics? This is why those uniparental markers play a huge role, but the ilk over at FBF downplay uniparentals over these autosomal results when they directly conflict.
As far as Egyptian DNA from Middle Egypt, well, I will say it could be a case of regional variation in a sample, but without any access to the full text and do not know the sample size, nor do I have any clue who these people they tested truly are, so drawing conclusions for all of AE based on this one study is fruitless and knee jerk at best. This is a late dynastic sample anyways....so
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keita always urged folk to use a multidisciplinary approach. And DNA studies are subject to all the same biases that marks other types of studies such as selective sampling and use of the stereotypical the "true negro" approach. Labeling games have also been long going on- "Mediterranean", "Eurasian", "Oriental" etc., which Keita himself complains about in various places. And numerous of the denizens of the "biodiversity" forum have a vested interest in telling as distorted a picture of African peoples as they can. Admins are quick to "ban" when you challenge their favored golden boys.
But your complaint is difficult to pin down- rather vague. Give some examples with links to the various threads.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Thread: Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes – 68 days old
56 pages so far, 558 posts, feelings projected to be hurt when full article comes out in two weeks
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
My critique is separate,, because I think those at FBF are intellectually dishonest and hiding behind studies to appear like they're not bias and call anyone who questions results of studies as whiners, hateful of results, and allergic to truth, when in reality the studies themselves leave a lot to be desired.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Researchers use genetics to maintain the idea of the "true Negro". Although, history makes it clear that Africans and Eurasians have been mixing for 1000's of years, but, Admixture and Structure programs are based on the assumption that the Eurasians and Africans only came in contact during the Atlantic Slave Trade. And as a result, they theorize that the genes carried by Eurasians today are unique to Eurasians populations.
But, what happened is that as they researched African genomes and found that Africans carried the same genes. For example, the highest frequency of haplogroup DE was found in Nigeria, I believe, but as more and more Eurasians were found to carry the haplogroup (hg) the Europeans declared it was European, and that the 9-bp deletion was characteristic of only Asians..
Europeans claimed that L3(M,N) were unique to Eurasians. Then it was discovered that hg M1, was of African origin--yet, they still maintained that it could only appear in Africa as the result of a back migration. Next, they found out that Eurasians carried the exact same M1 as Africans, so they began to call the Eurasian M Macrohaplogroup: hg D, and African M1 in Eurasia hg D4.
Next the geneticists discovered hg R1-M173 in Africa. They knew African R1-M173 was the pristine form of the genome, but they claimed it was the result of a back migration.
In 2010, R-V88 was originally named R1b1a and ; R-V8, was named R1b1a2. Today R-V88 is named R1b1a2, and R1b1a is renamed R-L754. Africans also , carried R1b1 so the status quo changed the name to R-L278.
After, geneticist were able to recover ancient DNA, they found that ancient Eurasians carried R1b1a, R-L754, R-V88, R-M269 and R-L278, the exact same genes as Africans, they began to claim these genomes were no longer found in Africa, and that Africans only carried R-V88. They did this to try and maintain that Eurasians are a unique population, instead of the reality they are carrying African genes and as a result, Africans truely are their Daddy and Mother.
The presence of genomes carried by Africans, in the prehistoric Europeans populations should not be a surprised, because the skeletons show the ancient Europeans were Africans, or Negroes. Moreover, the archaeology indicated that the Aurignacian Solutrean , Bell Beaker/Corded Ware cultures appeared first in Africa and was carried into Europe by Africans practicing these cultures. And as a result, genetics are only supporting the history and archaeology of numerous migrations of Africans into Eurasia.
The ancient Europeans and Africans share R-L278. The earliest carrier of R-L278 in Europe was Villabruna man in Italy. Villabruna man lived 12kya. This would place Africans carrying R-L278 in Europe long before the origination of the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya cultures.
Given the wide distribution of M269, V88 and R-L278 in Africa and ancient Europe, the carriers of these haplogroup were probably also Africans since the Bell Beaker people/culture originated in Morocco.Eurasian scholars know this, but they try not to admit it because they feel it denies their existence as a unique population.
Many people refuse to acknowledge God in the creation process.if humans would think they would know that God did not create just one colored bird, He made birds in numerous colors.
Eurasian ( i.e., Arabs, East Asians and Europeans) supremacists desire to make themselves appear superior to the African, who they maintain were always their slaves. They know Blacks appeared first on Earth in Africa. Thusly they had to admit there was an Out of Africa event that encouraged man to migrate out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas.
Archaeology and craniometrics proved Africans /Blacks created the first civilizations. Geneticists was hoping that they could use this science to once and for all prove the superiority whites over the Blacks, no matter what history, craniometrics and archeology illustrated.
But as in the case of history, craniometrics and archaeology, overtime, genetics also showed the important role Africans/Negroes played in World History.
Given the need for most whites to support the idea of "white supremacy", the members of FBF and the numerous 'Eurogenetics' blogs, have to practice a form of selective amnesia in relation to genetic evidence, to maintain their self-esteem , and the myth of African/Negro inferiority. .
.
Do ever believe that Europeans don't know you are RIGHT. They know what they are telling and supporting is a Big Lie, but they maintain it because they want too.
Mike and I are hated because he has found the iconographic evidence of the role of Blacks in World history. I am hated because I have began to show the real phylogeography of African people, that blow up the status quo phylogeography of African people.
You are wasting your time trying to teach the posters at FBF the actual Phylogeography of world populations, they don't want to hear it, and they are tired of you telling them what they already know.
posted
Indeed, that's the mentality of the "biodiversity" crowd, and as Tukler indicated years ago, its interesting how some folk will build up the content and advertising of racist forums while not doing anything remotely similar for Africana forums. As for the supposed "exciting" new study on Ancient Egyptian Geonomes it seems less than advertised right off the bat.
"Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. "
Basically they have mostly late period sampling- that excludes key populations like the Badarians, the same game Brace 1993 played. And its supposed to be "news" that SOME late period samples have more "Near Eastern" influence? Hell, folk here on ES have been saying that for the last decade. This is supposed to be an "earth-shattering" revelation that will cause "hurt" feelings? Puhleeze..
Clyde says: You are wasting your time trying to teach the posters at FBF the actual Phylogeography of world populations, they don't want to hear it, and they are tired of you telling them what they already know.
Why then CLyde do some folk spend all their time on such forums building up their content, but contribute so little to Africana forums? Bass has spent time on these racist sites but has also contributed mightily on the other end to ES, including cross-posting some of his debates and data.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Clyde says: You are wasting your time trying to teach the posters at FBF the actual Phylogeography of world populations, they don't want to hear it, and they are tired of you telling them what they already know.
Why then CLyde do some folk spend all their time on such forums building up their content, but contribute so little to Africana forums? Bass has spent time on these racist sites but has also contributed mightily on the other end to ES, including cross-posting some of his debates and data.
They spend time on these sites because they want to be heard. These posters believe that given the genomic evidence the other posters will accept their interpretation of the data.
Instead they are called racist, or "Afrocentrist", when in reality they have simply stated the obvious , given the research they have read.
I used to post at these sites to get my theories reviewed. At these sites I could have my ideas evaluated by people who were in the know. They rarely could falsify my interpretations of the data so I was temporarily banned so the forum leaders could claim they falsified my research and as a result I was unable to post counter arguments. In reality, they banned me so I could not make a response.
After, reading their comments I would know the arguments the status quo would make in relation to my hypotheses and then write an article, which would defeat their arguments.As a result, when I sent the paper to a journal I could get the paper published.
I have nothing against arguing contentious propositions on Forums--but you should not become frustrated because your ideas are not accepted.
The good thing about ES is that your ideas are not just removed and you are able to argue as long as you want. It hurts when you are banned when all you are doing is telling the truth.
Egyptsearch Forums are welcome because on the Egyptology Forum most topics are germane.
At the Ancient Egypt forum we propose new insights into long established Afrocentric theorems that;s why our research their has led to many publications using photos and ideas first discussed here.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with FBF folks is that they see the results from DNA and recreate history after every study, it doesn't work like that, and some of these studies can be questioned. It doesn't make one a whining Afrocentrist to question any such study. Untill there is a useful database of Ancient sub-Saharan DNA across the continent or at least from the region being studied I can't take the FBF crew seriously. They forget that these ancient remains are very few in number.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: The problem with FBF folks is that they see the results from DNA and recreate history after every study, it doesn't work like that, and some of these studies can be questioned. It doesn't make one a whining Afrocentrist to question any such study. Untill there is a useful database of Ancient sub-Saharan DNA across the continent or at least from the region being studied I can't take the FBF crew seriously. They forget that these ancient remains are very few in number.
I studied Anthropology and History at the University of Illinois. I don't think much has changed since the !970's. In the department offices they had numerous unpublished data on anthropology that students and researchers could study.
I am telling you this to help you understand that just because data is not published doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I am sure that if you were studying phylogeography at a major University you would find hundreds of files in the Department Offices on African genetics that are not known by the average independent researcher. LOL. Do you think it was a coincidence that that changed the nomenclature of African R1b1a into V88 and R1b1a was renamed R-L754. Africans carried R1b1 so they act like this genome has disappeared from Africa, status quo changed the name for R1b1 to R-L278.
And a few years later they claim the ancient Europeans were carrying R1b1a now L-754 and R1b1 now R-L278. This shows that researchers had known for years that the ancient Europeans were carrying African genes R-L248 and R-L754, but they were not going to publish the research until they changed the names of R1b1 and R1b1a to white out the African heritage of the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya culture beakers to make them into "Indo-Europeans".
Now that Kivisld has confirmed the presence of V88 in ancient Europe it is just a matter of time they claim V88 in Africa is the result of a back migration.
The status quo don't want us to know our true ancient heritage. They like Afro-Americans like Keita, because he is a good boy, he never threatens the status quo and he stays strictly in the confines of the status quo. Thusly Keita writes about Afro-Asiatics which he knows do not exist. But when you threaten the status quo you will be banned at genetics Forums.
The biggest myth is that researchers can not recover ancient DNA from African teeth and bones. This is mythical, because recently researchers claimed you can recover ancient DNA from the dirt in cave sites. If they can recover DNA from dirt, do you really believe they have not recovered ancient DNA from ancient African teeth and bones?
It's probably not in their best interest to publish this DNA, because it would show that the so-called Eurasian genomes were already present among ancient Africans before they arrived in Eurasia. This data would overturn much of the phylogeographic literature, and make the Admixture and Structure programs obsolete.Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
In their discussions they have smothered out all other conclusions from other scientific disciplines with genetic babble that is tainted with Caucasoid supremacy. It makes no sense why an "Afrocentric" or pro melaninated individual (as many put on the appearance to be) would do such a thing, especially when the information from those other disciplines (anthropology, blood grouping, linguistics, cultural analysis etc) is conclusively in support of the Afrocentric train of thought (pushed by Diop, Van Sertima, Dr. Ben etc).
Something that should also be noted is that those particular individuals who prompt up genetics are consistent in their passive dismissal of the reinforced findings of Diop and Sertima in the same unexplained manner that Caucasian supremacist do. That is a form of thinking that is centered around what is essentially a black inferiority complex, which is ironically in complete compliance with the Caucasoid supremacy that FBD participants tend to nurture.
posted
From looking at that link,, I have to laugh. I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA. It was always maintained that the civilization and its people were of African origin, period, it makes no sense to use the results of that Middle Egypt, Late Dynastic sample as a means to beat on strawman arguments.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The biggest myth is that researchers can not recover ancient DNA from African teeth and bones. This is mythical, because recently researchers claimed you can recover ancient DNA from the dirt in cave sites. If they can recover DNA from dirt, do you really believe they have not recovered ancient DNA from ancient African teeth and bones?
Well considering that they have recovered and published ancient DNA from African remains for years, it would be pretty weird if anyone believed that.
Maybe in the bizarre parallel universe you inhabit this has not yet occurred?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The biggest myth is that researchers can not recover ancient DNA from African teeth and bones. This is mythical, because recently researchers claimed you can recover ancient DNA from the dirt in cave sites. If they can recover DNA from dirt, do you really believe they have not recovered ancient DNA from ancient African teeth and bones?
Well considering that they have recovered and published ancient DNA from African remains for years, it would be pretty weird if anyone believed that.
Maybe in the bizarre parallel universe you inhabit this has not yet occurred?
Stupid Euroloon they published only one paper on the ancient African DNA of a 4.5kya Ethiopian i.e., Mota, which was found in error because they claimed that as much as 6–7% of the ancestry of West and Central African groups came from the Eurasian migrants.
The "error" was discovered by David Reich and Pontus Skoglund of Harvard. This was not really an error. What really happened was that David Reich and Pontus Skoglund understood what the Mota man finding really implicated. It did not indicate ancient European and African admixture, what it said was that Europeans are carrying African DNA. This is what the research really indicated--because there is no evidence of contemporary Europeans migrating into Africa 2500 BC., the research findings indicated that prior to 4.5kya Africans were in Europe.
David Reich and Pontus Skoglund was trying to make sure that they protected the myth that Indo-Europeans were in Western Eurasia 4500 years ago and that the Beaker/Corded ware and Yamnaya represented these Indo-European people.
Publication of the Mota man article and the suggestion that 6–7% of the ancestry of West and Central African groups represented Eurasian genomes meant that there was a widespread presence of Central and West Africans were in Western Eurasia 4.5kya. This view was supported by geneticist they were able to recover ancient DNA, they found that ancient Eurasians carried R1b1a, R-L754, R-V88, R-M269 and R-L278, the exact same genes as Africans.
The Mota man article would have made it impossible to publish all the new articles on the Beaker/Corded Ware and Yamnaya claiming they were Indo-Europeans when the archaeology indicated that these people came from Africa, before they entered Iberia and the Steppes.
The Kushites belonged to the C-Group. They spoke Niger-Congo languages, and migrated into West Africa after the fall of Egypt and the Meroitic Empire.Many Kushites carried the R1, haplogroup into Eurasia. The Kushites were the first people to settle Eurasia after the fall of the Anu civilizations as a result of the Great Flood.
Reich knew a determined researcher would notice one day that the genomes of the Yamnaya and Bell Beaker people were the same as West and Central Africa populations that carry R1, so he wanted the Mota man article corrected and helped the researchers of the Mota article write a program to white out the evidence of 6-7% Eurasian ancestry in West and Central Africans.
It is interesting to note that all the recently published papers at bioRiv on Bell Beaker and Yamnaya DNA have David Reich as the last author on each paper.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you ever think about writing alternate history novels, Clyde? You've spent so many years building up your vast edifice of nonsense, it'd be a shame to think all that effort was for nothing.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: From looking at that link,, I have to laugh. I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA. It was always maintained that the civilization and its people were of African origin, period, it makes no sense to use the results of that Middle Egypt, Late Dynastic sample as a means to beat on strawman arguments.
Exactly. The denizens therein are running the same old game of creating extreme strawmen, set up to "refute."
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: From looking at that link,, I have to laugh. I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA. It was always maintained that the civilization and its people were of African origin, period, it makes no sense to use the results of that Middle Egypt, Late Dynastic sample as a means to beat on strawman arguments.
Exactly. The denizens therein are running the same old game of creating extreme strawmen, set up to "refute."
Indeed, but I would like to get their take on what they consider to be "sub-Saharan." What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then. If they believe that in essence they're assuming African populations don't change. Since the earliest "Eurasian" migrated OOA, no doubt they still carried residual African ancestry which means that what is "Eurasian" back then is not the same as "Eurasian" today.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Since the earliest "Eurasian" migrated OOA, no doubt they still carried residual African ancestry which means that what is "Eurasian" back then is not the same as "Eurasian" today.
No 'residual' about it, that's not a useful way to think of it. Original Eurasians were 95℅ a branch of some African population. Question is what was the position of that branch in African population structure then (and how has that structure contributed to now).
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Indeed, but I would like to get their take on what they consider to be "sub-Saharan." What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then. If they believe that in essence they're assuming African populations don't change. Since the earliest "Eurasian" migrated OOA, no doubt they still carried residual African ancestry which means that what is "Eurasian" back then is not the same as "Eurasian" today.
Lol. Folks keep descending deeper and deeper in their own lunacy. You probably think you said something real deep. You're doing all these gymnastics because you have a deep insatiable desire to see more SSA ancestry in the Abusir mummies than they have.
Yet, you want to pretend at the same time that you're unfazed by the results because "no one claimed they were SSA in the first place". So which is it? Do the Abusir mummies have lots of "undetected" SSA ancestry, or was it never your intention to claim they have more SSA ancestry than they have? Make up your mind.
quote:What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then.
So why was this caveat not included when the Amarna family was deemed "Great Lakes" and "South African"? Why did no one say "what was North African then may not be North Africa today, so there is no reason to assume these alleles aren't (predominantly) North African"? Answer: DNA Tribes MLI score table was what people wanted to revel in and such a caveat, though self-evident, would only complicate the precious faith-based narrative.
Folks simply "decide" when the throw in caveats and when to leave highly misleading data as devoid of context as possible.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Folks keep descending deeper and deeper in their own lunacy. You probably think you said something real deep. You're doing all these gymnastics because you have a deep insatiable desire to see more SSA ancestry in the Abusir mummies than they have.
Insults is all you have? For the record,,, my position has been that AEs were Africans, I never said they were SSA in neither the ancient nor the modern sense. Don't attempt to set up strawmen to knock down, thats not a wise position to try on me.
quote:Yet, you want to pretend at the same time that you're unfazed by the results because "no one claimed they were SSA in the first place". So which is it? Do the Abusir mummies have lots of "undetected" SSA ancestry, or was it never your intention to claim they have more SSA ancestry than they have? Make up your mind.
I'm not fazed by the results at al, the same way I wasn't fazed by that other genetic study that supposedly found "Eurasian" ancestry in Yoruba from a so called "massive Eurasian" farmer migration into Africa that was never reached deep into SSA. Its funny how you talk about Dienekes and the Euroclown bloggers when you're so much just like him. I have not seen the full text and don't know who these remains represent, neither have you but it hasn't stopped you from making all of these rants against so called "Afrocentric loons.
quote:So why was this caveat not included when the Amarna family was deemed "Great Lakes" and "South African"? Why did no one say "what was North African then may not be North Africa today, so there is no reason to assume these alleles aren't (predominantly) North African"? Answer: DNA Tribes MLI score table was what people wanted to revel in and such a caveat, though self-evident, would only complicate the precious faith-based narrative.
Folks simply "decide" when the throw in caveats and when to leave highly misleading data as devoid of context as possible.
Try addressing claims and statements I make instead of trying to build up strawmen to knock down. You have not addressed my statement on whether the sub-Saharans of that time period are the same as the sub-Saharans today, yet by implication you are making the claim that they are. I don't care about Tel-Amarna DNA tribes, I saw it as nothing more than a crude approximation indicating some relatedness and ties to SSA, but it would be dumb for me to say they are SSA in the same sense as today's SSA since the later came after AE's smdh.
Keep on side stepping, shucking and jiving with your responses and ducking my points raised.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: From looking at that link,, I have to laugh. I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA. It was always maintained that the civilization and its people were of African origin, period, it makes no sense to use the results of that Middle Egypt, Late Dynastic sample as a means to beat on strawman arguments.
Exactly. The denizens therein are running the same old game of creating extreme strawmen, set up to "refute."
Indeed, but I would like to get their take on what they consider to be "sub-Saharan." What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then. If they believe that in essence they're assuming African populations don't change. Since the earliest "Eurasian" migrated OOA, no doubt they still carried residual African ancestry which means that what is "Eurasian" back then is not the same as "Eurasian" today.
What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then.
Bass I take it you have a typo here and mean "What was sub-Saharan then, might not be the same 'sub-Saharan' NOW."
Are you saying that "sub-Saharan" is a malleable term that assorted claimants want to fix in a static, stereotypical position, so they can then contrast all else against the stereotypical setup? A geographic version of the standard "true negro" bio stereotype? This would be standard Eurocentric distortion, noted even in the literature by Keita et al.
The exact nature of what is called "sub-Saharan" can be tricky at times. Recalling Vogel 1997- "Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, (1997), pp. 465-472 )
Given the shifting movement of the desert for centuries- fluctuating back and forth but with an overall southern trend in some eras, what was once "below" the Sahara becomes "above" it. and African peoples are not static entities, huddling behind some climatic "apartheid" barrier. People moving north for example have made themselves "non Sub-Saharan." How often have we seen games played- where the nearby Sudan or Horn is ignored in studies and allegedly "representative" samples from the distant Congo or Guinea someplace are supposed to stand in for "black Africans" or "sub-Saharan" Africans- as of no such people are located close to Egypt, or are anomalies or are not are worthy of study.
Fixing a moving target like "sub-Saharan" into a static "apartheid" barrier of sorts, against which a assortment of things can be "contrasted", fulfills a number of ideological agendas meant to distort a truer or more balanced picture of African cultures and peoples. How often have we seen such agendas played out both in the academic literature and among assorted pundits and claimants.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: From looking at that link,, I have to laugh. I've been on ES since 2003 and on FBF and I can say that it was never the position of any so called "Afrocentrist" that Ancient Egyptians were always or even fully SSA. It was always maintained that the civilization and its people were of African origin, period, it makes no sense to use the results of that Middle Egypt, Late Dynastic sample as a means to beat on strawman arguments.
Exactly. The denizens therein are running the same old game of creating extreme strawmen, set up to "refute."
Indeed, but I would like to get their take on what they consider to be "sub-Saharan." What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then. If they believe that in essence they're assuming African populations don't change. Since the earliest "Eurasian" migrated OOA, no doubt they still carried residual African ancestry which means that what is "Eurasian" back then is not the same as "Eurasian" today.
What was sub-Saharan then might not be the same "sub-Saharan" then.
Bass I take it you have a typo here and mean "What was sub-Saharan then, might not be the same 'sub-Saharan' NOW."
Are you saying that "sub-Saharan" is a malleable term that assorted claimants want to fix in a static, stereotypical position, so they can then contrast all else against the stereotypical setup? A geographic version of the standard "true negro" bio stereotype? This would be standard Eurocentric distortion, noted even in the literature by Keita et al.
The exact nature of what is called "sub-Saharan" can be tricky at times. Recalling Vogel 1997- "Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, (1997), pp. 465-472 )
Given the shifting movement of the desert for centuries- fluctuating back and forth but with an overall southern trend in some eras, what was once "below" the Sahara becomes "above" it. and African peoples are not static entities, huddling behind some climatic "apartheid" barrier. People moving north for example have made themselves "non Sub-Saharan." How often have we seen games played- where the nearby Sudan or Horn is ignored in studies and allegedly "representative" samples from the distant Congo or Guinea someplace are supposed to stand in for "black Africans" or "sub-Saharan" Africans- as of no such people are located close to Egypt, or are anomalies or are not are worthy of study.
Fixing a moving target like "sub-Saharan" into a static "apartheid" barrier of sorts, against which a assortment of things can be "contrasted", fulfills a number of ideological agendas meant to distort a truer or more balanced picture of African cultures and peoples. How often have we seen such agendas played out both in the academic literature and among assorted pundits and claimants.
What I'm saying is that geneticallly we don't know what "sub-Saharans" were back then, so moderns and ancients...while certainly related and having some continuity with each other may be genetically different.....but still "sub-saharan." Since genetically we have no proof the modern and ancient sub-Saharans were identical its illogical to to expect ancient Egyptians to have "sub-Saharan" ancestry akin to modern select sub-Saharan populations, especially from areas not even close by
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bass, I'm familiar with your post history at Anthroscape, so its not going to work you claiming you don't argue AE = SSA. At Anthroscape you were posting AE's cluster with Horn Africans, who are SSA's.
Afroloons are getting hammered by these new ancient DNA results, and suddenly they're denying their post histories. Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
This dude sounds like Crimson Fraud. I never said AE=SSA. The study doesn't refuted that AEs are Africans and or black Africans.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Don't get mad at me because you are not smart enough to know what I wrote in the post. It's going to take more than an ounce of intellect, more than you have to give. Talking shyt but half the images you spam are coming from my Photobucket profile.
You are coming years late to the party confused. Others have been on the scene for more than 10 years and know EXACTLY what I am talking about with a very clear example of double standards and or simple cognitive dissonance.
Fools: -want their cake and eat it to. -think everything is a piece of cake. -are unaware people choke on cake and die.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm speaking for myself and I never make those claims that AE=all or mostly SSA. One can have supra-Saharan ancestry and still be black. The results of this study still don't refute or rule out an African Egypt.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black". Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: What I'm saying is that geneticallly we don't know what "sub-Saharans" were back then, so moderns and ancients...while certainly related and having some continuity with each other may be genetically different.....but still "sub-saharan." Since genetically we have no proof the modern and ancient sub-Saharans were identical its illogical to to expect ancient Egyptians to have "sub-Saharan" ancestry akin to modern select sub-Saharan populations, especially from areas not even close by
A move north by ancient people living in the Sudan, depending on where the shifting line of the Sahara was at that time would mean a move of "sub-Saharan" people, who instantly become "non Sub-Saharan" after some miles distance. But they are still "sub-Saharan." Likewise a shift of the desert south again makes people once "sub-Saharan" change their "classification" - depending on the time range and fluctuation of the desert boundaries. Sampling say, distant Nigeria for "true" "representatives" of "sub-Saharan" people makes little sense when its regions closest to Egypt that donated the African populations. But such sampling does fulfill a number of ideological agendas, as it did for Mary Lefkowitz and co, via Brace 93 for example. New versions of the old game are being run but they will also fail.
But aside from all this, any hopes of deAfricanizing Kemet will also fall flat on the Nubian "problem." The Nubian territory in various eras, actually included part of today's Egypt, and the Nubians are the closest people ethnically to the ancient Egyptians, as several studies show. Various whitewashing games will fail as they are exposed via this dimension. Notions about how this "new" information is supposedly "shaking up" the 'Afrocentrists" remain laughable. The only shaking is laughter.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ C-Bass. I don't know if you have been lurking on the scene for the past few years but ancient DNA basically drew a line in the sand that many didn't cross. ES members were on both sides of that line. A good thread that showed some ideas were just a house of cards is here. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009335;p=1
These results are just like a strong wind against that house of cards and have one side feeling butthurt.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ C-Bass. I don't know if you have been lurking on the scene for the past few years but ancient DNA basically drew a line in the sand that many didn't cross. ES members were on both sides of that line. A good thread that showed some ideas were just a house of cards is here. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009335;p=1
These results are just like a strong wind against that house of cards and have one side feeling butthurt.
I can agree here that some people clearly hurt themselves there.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Zarahan. This is not 2007. This is 2017. What samples are you suggesting they use that would paint a better picture? The only thing we really need are ANCIENT samples. Those old arguments that you are spitting out are just that.....OLD ARGUMENTS. You are saying something we said 7 years ago when the sampling that we have today didn't exist. We have OMOTICS, we have tons of cushitics, we even got full Autosomal data from populations in Egypt Sudan and CHAD.
IMO - These old vague echo chamber comments are just preaching to the choir and don't have any real substance.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@C-Bass you should just start naming names and posting quotes. I really don't understand what you are talking about and you have been absent for years......nobody here knows how up to speed you are regarding the latest scientific discoveries in humans genomics.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't really count these people here as making any real claims, but those who did argue for a pure black Egypt did hurts themselves and I saw in that link that a handful here did here. I lurk here and there but I'l be more active since I'm now fully retired from the military.
I think a lot of you over in HBF are too focused on the results of the DNA itself and not everything combined. If anyone goes to Gedmatch and runs their results against a number methods listed there they will get different admixture proportions based on the samples used. Whats problematic to be is that people take hard stances on results compared to MODERN day populations which are not good proxies for the ancients,, so while they do tell something those type results are crude, ijs
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I'm speaking for myself and I never make those claims that AE=all or mostly SSA. One can have supra-Saharan ancestry and still be black. The results of this study still don't refute or rule out an African Egypt.
Sure and no one credible claims that AEs were mostly SSA at all times, in all places. Who goes about "denying" migration at various levels from the Levant into AE for example? Such is yet another strawman. As for blackness, "Black" is a social construct in European and American society, just like "white." Based on the history and application of that construct, AE's would be considered "black" as Mary Lefkowitz herself freely acknowledges, and even Egyptologists like Tyson-Smith 2001, consider the use of the label "black" as reasonable.
Manipulating genetic data to "validate" the same social constructs, or not, depending on the ideological agenda in play, is clearly part of the game at hand. People see through the double standards and hypocrisy of those running the game.
At one time in America, dark-skinned Southern Italians, with plenty of "Eurasian" DNA, were considered to be "black" in parts of the Jim Crow South, and were treated accordingly, being denied voting rights and forced to attend segregated schools for "non-whites." So is it possible to have mostly "Eurasian" DNA and still be "black? Absolutely. America has been running that game for decades. As late as the 1980s some of its courts were upholding the "one drop" rule.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question is to what extent were the Egyptians indigenous Africans. That should settle everything.
If that question is resolved and then someone wants to interpret that as "black" "white""negroid" or "caucasoid" that is all irrelevant. Those are all obsolete terms to anthropology in 2017.
to what extent were the Egyptians indigenous Africans? That should settle everything. If you try to say it doesn't whatever you bring up will be obsolete, part of the old racial paradigm
"White" and "black" are racial terms "Dark skinned" is not. Were the Egyptians dark skinned? It takes about 2 seconds to resolve this, look at some the art. The vast majority and virtually all the pharaohs are depicted as dark skinned.
Those are not scientific terms and never will be. "Whites " are not even white and the vast majority of "blacks" are not black.
"white" and " black" are simply political camps for Americans. That is nothing but a political game.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The question is to what extent were the Egyptians indigenous Africans. That should settle everything.
If that question is resolved and then someone wants to interpret that as "black" "white""negroid" or "caucasoid" that is all irrelevant. Those are all obsolete terms to anthropology in 2017.
to what extent were the Egyptians indigenous Africans? That should settle everything. If you try to say it doesn't whatever you bring up will be obsolete, part of the old racial paradigm
"White" and "black" are racial terms "Dark skinned" is not. Were the Egyptians dark skinned? It takes about 2 seconds to resolve this, look at some the art. The vast majority and virtually all the pharaohs are depicted as dark skinned.
Those are not scientific terms and never will be. "Whites " are not even white and the vast majority of "blacks" are not black.
"white" and " black" are simply political camps for Americans. That is nothing but a political game.
yes Egyptians were mostly indigenous African they weren't Eurasian
Posts: 54 | From: va | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I wouldn't really count these people here as making any real claims, but those who did argue for a pure black Egypt did hurts themselves and I saw in that link that a handful here did here. I lurk here and there but I'l be more active since I'm now fully retired from the military.
I think a lot of you over in HBF are too focused on the results of the DNA itself and not everything combined. If anyone goes to Gedmatch and runs their results against a number methods listed there they will get different admixture proportions based on the samples used. Whats problematic to be is that people take hard stances on results compared to MODERN day populations which are not good proxies for the ancients,, so while they do tell something those type results are crude, ijs
Hello I'm rather new here, not sure if you read my posts or whatever.
I'll like to explain that while I agree with this said statement and said it already somewhere in the Abusir mummies thread. "I think a lot of you over in HBF are too focused on the results of the DNA itself and not everything combined"
I would suggest a more cut throat approach, state how we feel without regressing. A 100% west African Egypt was never plausible, we didn't need and aDNA to prove that. but how much of an alternative explanation are we going to provide for these circumstances. Why not tread closer to what we actually believe is true using evidence gathered and discussed here in the past. It contributes nothing to complain about methods, and Idealisms when we have the capability of sourcing this population with only the leaked mtDNA lineages AND the vault of Ancient Agyptian Data ES is sitting on. Including data presented, accepted AND neglected here in the past.
they could have plucked out all the SSAfrican specimen in Abusir for all I know and or care, as long as these mummies were found there is good news. It brings us closer to a cohesive story; actual African history. I criticize Biodiversity for their collectively fickle nature and ignorance when it comes to calling back archaeological history and cultural analysis.... but at the same time, a lot of ESers are being insubordinate. We need to contribute to the bigger picture.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The question is to what extent were the Egyptians indigenous Africans. That should settle everything.
If that question is resolved and then someone wants to interpret that as "black" "white""negroid" or "caucasoid" that is all irrelevant. Those are all obsolete terms to anthropology in 2017.
to what extent were the Egyptians indigenous Africans? That should settle everything. If you try to say it doesn't whatever you bring up will be obsolete, part of the old racial paradigm
"White" and "black" are racial terms "Dark skinned" is not. Were the Egyptians dark skinned? It takes about 2 seconds to resolve this, look at some the art. The vast majority and virtually all the pharaohs are depicted as dark skinned.
Those are not scientific terms and never will be. "Whites " are not even white and the vast majority of "blacks" are not black.
"white" and " black" are simply political camps for Americans. That is nothing but a political game.
UH OH, don't tell Lioness might be the person who finally cracks open what this all could mean. -Abusir sample.
-but see if we were to look at these MtDNA profiles and not know where the specimen were dug up from... do you believe they'll be accurately represented by their paintings, figurines, reliefs and sculptures?
..do a certain so called African population who share genetic similarities with other non-Afican populations (including the mtDNA) fit the Earlier/Earliest artistic depictions as well?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: But the mtdna still is what it is. Your thoughts on it?
The mtDNA is pure maternal. It could indicate that these people had foreign wives depending on the dates.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: But the mtdna still is what it is. Your thoughts on it?
The mtDNA is pure maternal. It could indicate that these people had foreign wives depending on the dates.
I do believe this particular community that's being sampled is of mixed ancestry, rather than representing the whole indigenous AE population over time. As others have mentioned in the other thread, it would have been preferable if they had gotten some Y-DNA haplogroups along with the mtDNA and nuclear DNA data. Beyoku has told me that certain PN2 lineages appear to be native to the northeastern corner of Africa and therefore would have been abundant in AE. If a later study ends up finding a paucity of these lineages in this Abusir el-Meleq sample, it would lend credence to them representing a foreign or at least heavily admixed community.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
So if you guys like Zaharan and Bass were arguing AE = Saharans [North Africans], not Sub-Saharan Africans, why the **** was I debating you on this for years?
In 2014 I called ancient Egyptians "Saharanoids" and simply pointed out Egyptians showed different climatic adaptation(s) to other populations below the Sahara.
Look at the nonsense and resistance I got by Zaharan who complained about this 'splittism'-
quote:There is no "Saharan climatic race" and there is no intermediate eco-cline between "Caucasoids" and "Negroids", as long shown here on ES. The people in question are all indigenous Africans. Africa has no "eco-apartheid" barrier that makes for "climatic races".
My response:
quote:'splittism'... yet i'm not the one clinging to an "African" genetic/morphological cluster (which doesn't exist). ??? You're splitting humans into continental groups which is basically the old Linnean concept of race. Are you not?
By "Saharan climatic race" I merely meant people who show biological adaptation to the Saharan region. I can split up Africa based on its different eco-zones.
Swenet's response who picked up on this:
quote:^POW!!
The irony.. the irony people.. You know this forum has gone to sh!t when these ES "vets" are caught red-handed violating the tenets of their own anti- race ideology (which they clearly only support conditionally). Notice that by arguing against substructure in the Sahara he (Zaharan) is also undermining his purported support for OOA (OOA predicts populations will be structured according to isolation by distance). Just where do these flip-floppers stand?
Now we have these same people who for years were opposing a Saharan origin of AE, saying they don't oppose this- a denial of their post histories for the past decade. Take your medication?!
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I wouldn't really count these people here as making any real claims, but those who did argue for a pure black Egypt did hurts themselves and I saw in that link that a handful here did here. I lurk here and there but I'l be more active since I'm now fully retired from the military.
I think a lot of you over in HBF are too focused on the results of the DNA itself and not everything combined. If anyone goes to Gedmatch and runs their results against a number methods listed there they will get different admixture proportions based on the samples used. Whats problematic to be is that people take hard stances on results compared to MODERN day populations which are not good proxies for the ancients,, so while they do tell something those type results are crude, ijs
Hello I'm rather new here, not sure if you read my posts or whatever.
I'll like to explain that while I agree with this said statement and said it already somewhere in the Abusir mummies thread. "I think a lot of you over in HBF are too focused on the results of the DNA itself and not everything combined"
I would suggest a more cut throat approach, state how we feel without regressing. A 100% west African Egypt was never plausible, we didn't need and aDNA to prove that. but how much of an alternative explanation are we going to provide for these circumstances. Why not tread closer to what we actually believe is true using evidence gathered and discussed here in the past. It contributes nothing to complain about methods, and Idealisms when we have the capability of sourcing this population with only the leaked mtDNA lineages AND the vault of Ancient Agyptian Data ES is sitting on. Including data presented, accepted AND neglected here in the past.
they could have plucked out all the SSAfrican specimen in Abusir for all I know and or care, as long as these mummies were found there is good news. It brings us closer to a cohesive story; actual African history. I criticize Biodiversity for their collectively fickle nature and ignorance when it comes to calling back archaeological history and cultural analysis.... but at the same time, a lot of ESers are being insubordinate. We need to contribute to the bigger picture.
Forumbiodiversity is run by a negrophobic racist Arab/MiddleEasterner. Selfrespecting Blacks should stay away from it, in my humble opinion.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why the sudden retractions? The ancient Egyptians were very closely intimated with related cultures as far South as the Khartoum Mesolithic and Jebel Moya -> areas that are actually in "Sub-Saharan" Africa.
The people in Lower "Nubia" were virtually identical to the ancient Egyptians in Southern Egypt, and there is no "Eurasian" population anywhere that is genetically closer.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Folks keep descending deeper and deeper in their own lunacy. You probably think you said something real deep. You're doing all these gymnastics because you have a deep insatiable desire to see more SSA ancestry in the Abusir mummies than they have.
Insults is all you have? For the record,,, my position has been that AEs were Africans, I never said they were SSA in neither the ancient nor the modern sense. Don't attempt to set up strawmen to knock down, thats not a wise position to try on me.
quote:Yet, you want to pretend at the same time that you're unfazed by the results because "no one claimed they were SSA in the first place". So which is it? Do the Abusir mummies have lots of "undetected" SSA ancestry, or was it never your intention to claim they have more SSA ancestry than they have? Make up your mind.
I'm not fazed by the results at al, the same way I wasn't fazed by that other genetic study that supposedly found "Eurasian" ancestry in Yoruba from a so called "massive Eurasian" farmer migration into Africa that was never reached deep into SSA. Its funny how you talk about Dienekes and the Euroclown bloggers when you're so much just like him. I have not seen the full text and don't know who these remains represent, neither have you but it hasn't stopped you from making all of these rants against so called "Afrocentric loons.
quote:So why was this caveat not included when the Amarna family was deemed "Great Lakes" and "South African"? Why did no one say "what was North African then may not be North Africa today, so there is no reason to assume these alleles aren't (predominantly) North African"? Answer: DNA Tribes MLI score table was what people wanted to revel in and such a caveat, though self-evident, would only complicate the precious faith-based narrative.
Folks simply "decide" when the throw in caveats and when to leave highly misleading data as devoid of context as possible.
Try addressing claims and statements I make instead of trying to build up strawmen to knock down. You have not addressed my statement on whether the sub-Saharans of that time period are the same as the sub-Saharans today, yet by implication you are making the claim that they are. I don't care about Tel-Amarna DNA tribes, I saw it as nothing more than a crude approximation indicating some relatedness and ties to SSA, but it would be dumb for me to say they are SSA in the same sense as today's SSA since the later came after AE's smdh.
Keep on side stepping, shucking and jiving with your responses and ducking my points raised.
If you barge in out of nowhere and accuse people of "intellectual dishonesty" you should have no problem with my tone. Also, my patience for wishful thinking and duplicitousness from people like you is completely up, so that also explains my tone. I'm well aware of what you position was. Your position was taking up for people like Amun Ra and then trying to play both sides of the fence when called out. Now all of a sudden you can't remember people who said AE=SSA, even though you went to great lengths to defend these people here. No Charlie, my patience with your duplicitousness is completely up.
These are the kinds of things you said, trying to pick an argument with me on several occasions:
quote:Originally posted by Charlie Bass: The Teda and Fulani are NOT native sub-Saharans? Man come on with that, you're losing credibility, bioanthropology is NOT a nasal science, those things are mostly influenced by climate, not geographic specific ancestry. If Brace says that groups like Fulani, Teda and Kanuri plot in between "Niger Congo" speakers and people's of the Mediteranean Coast you know full well AEs plot in the same position. Keita's study on Northeast Africa craniofacial Variation confirmed it, so the notion tht AEs don't overlap with SSAs is bogus and it makes no sense to cite a study thats loaded with geographically distant populations like Teita, Haya, Gabonese, etc proves there is no overlap.
Your position is that AE are climate adapted SSA groups. You were trying to argue that not being cranio-facially close to SSA groups doesn't mean you can't be genetically close to these groups. After all, they are just "climate adapted" transplants from SSA. You have been proven completely wrong where that is concerned. And another claim you made that can be dispelled today is that the Toubou belong to this "cluster" of climate-adapted SSA groups. In 2016 this was proven to be completely false; The Toubou have a substantial chunk of non-SSA ancestry (Haber et al 2016) that explains their semi-intermediate position. But when I said it back then you said I was "losing credibility fast".
Note that none of this mattered to begin with, as the Toubou don't even cluster with AE. So that's why I'm not responding to your points. Your track record of being validated by (a)DNA is non-existent (as far as your past complaints against me). Your arguments are also nonsensical and extremely weak (e.g. "SSA groups changed so that is why they fail to cluster with the Abusir mummies").
You're simply complaining and inventing arbitrary scenarios where you could still be right. Well, the last time you did this you weren't subsequently vindicated by new DNA. Neither were your attempts before this validated by any subsequent studies. So how many times do you want to come back here and repeat your routine of denial only to get debunked by new (a)DNA?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: But the mtdna still is what it is. Your thoughts on it?
The mtDNA is pure maternal. It could indicate that these people had foreign wives depending on the dates.
I do believe this particular community that's being sampled is of mixed ancestry, rather than representing the whole indigenous AE population over time. As others have mentioned in the other thread, it would have been preferable if they had gotten some Y-DNA haplogroups along with the mtDNA and nuclear DNA data. Beyoku has told me that certain PN2 lineages appear to be native to the northeastern corner of Africa and therefore would have been abundant in AE. If a later study ends up finding a paucity of these lineages in this Abusir el-Meleq sample, it would lend credence to them representing a foreign or at least heavily admixed community.
Precisely.
The time in question was a period in which Egypt was completely under foreign rule, and so these could very well be the mummies of foreigners or a heavily admixed population.
I will not budge until complete genetic samples are taken from the South - especially from earlier periods and it must reveal the paternal and maternal profiles.
The Badarians were undoubtedly African and were representative of the dynastic Egyptians and since there is absolutely no evidence of population replacement... I will not be swayed by Northern samples sourced from a period in which foreigners ruled Egypt and actively adopted the mummificatiom practices of the ancient Egyptians.
They should provide a background of who these people were, so that it may be conclusively determined if these people were actually ethnic Egyptians representative of the general population.
The paternal genetic profile of these mummies is of tremendous importance; even if we assume that these are actually Egyptians, they could be derivatives of foreign mothers. Even Amenhotep II is said to have had many Asiatic concubines.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic