quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The question is to what extent were the Egyptians indigenous Africans. That should settle everything.
When you say this they will simply accuse you of "revised Hamiticism". Look at what has been said about me recently. You're mistaken if you think these people can be reasoned with and will settle on "indigenous African".
They might pay you lip service but the second they think the coast is clear they will try to play both sides of the fence.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
To what extent should all of ancient Egypt be represented by samples exclusively sourced from the North? This is the equivalent of claiming that New Jersey is the center of American financial and economic power instead of New York and California.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This guy is clearly putting words in my mouth. I never said they were genetically SSA. Clustering craniometrically is another thing, funny you dug hard for something then created a strawman.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
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........... 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.
Stop lying. You are one of the biggest culprits on the forum! Furthermore we are not debating with the likes of Mary Lefkowitz. This is a prime example of when I talked or ES folks being collectively left in the Dust as far as bio/anthro and how it relates to human populations. You still posting images of Mary......she is no longer the antagonist. You bringing her up is like Trump planning up strategy to destroy imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
Back to you being the culprit. Nearly every one of your soft core image spams talks about the relation of AE to SSA groups via recent South North migration. Not to North Africans......not to them being distinct in their own right. Not too much on substructure. No it equates AE culture/linguistics/bio history with populations below the Sahara. There is nothing WRONG with this......but don't fake like this ain't your whole modus operati. It's on RECORD.
DNA tribes spam was about you and nearly everyone else tying AE to SSA groups. The 2 counter theories were from Swenet.....saying the data is not literal and Egyptians and horners contain a lot of these alleles.....about North African affinities in SSA due to pastoralism. And myself which argued the affinity is old and Saharan....then I argued the STR affinity was essentially extinct and the results mean very little. ES et al went batshiit.
Did ES argue that those alleles or autosomal components (Great Lakes, Southern African) were North African? Not really. Did ES argue that E1b1a in Ramses III was a North African variant of E-M2.....or that E-M2 itself was North African. Not really. The narrative what strongly in the opposite. Even when I brought up the idea that it could be V-22 folks were going bat shiit crazy.
At this point I dont recall any ES member making statements that Dynastic Egyptians.......REGARDLESS of dynasty/region would be LESS SSA and moderns.......folks want to sit back now and be like "that's what I always thought". Man y'all take a polygraph test that shiit would probably explode.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
So then what was your point for bringing up the Toubou and falsely pass them off as 1) a climate-adapted SSA population and 2) an example of a SSA population that clusters with AE? Why did you do that? You mean to say that it was your point all along to say that Toubou are genetically not closely related to AE? Let me guess: your point all along was to argue that Brace et al 1993 were right for not using them as an example of a representative SSA population?
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
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........... 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.
Stop lying. You are one of the biggest culprits on the forum! Furthermore we are not debating with the likes of Mary Lefkowitz. This is a prime example of when I talked or ES folks being collectively left in the Dust as far as bio/anthro and how it relates to human populations. You still posting images of Mary......she is no longer the antagonist. You bringing her up is like Trump planning up strategy to destroy imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
Back to you being the culprit. Nearly every one of your soft core image spams talks about the relation of AE to SSA groups via recent South North migration. Not to North Africans......not to them being distinct in their own right. Not too much on substructure. No it equates AE culture/linguistics/bio history with populations below the Sahara. There is nothing WRONG with this......but don't fake like this ain't your whole modus operati. It's on RECORD.
DNA tribes spam was about you and nearly everyone else tying AE to SSA groups. The 2 counter theories were from Swenet.....saying the data is not literal and Egyptians and horners contain a lot of these alleles.....about North African affinities in SSA due to pastoralism. And myself which argued the affinity is old and Saharan....then I argued the STR affinity was essentially extinct and the results mean very little. ES et al went batshiit.
Did ES argue that those alleles or autosomal components (Great Lakes, Southern African) were North African? Not really. Did ES argue that E1b1a in Ramses III was a North African variant of E-M2.....or that E-M2 itself was North African. Not really. The narrative what strongly in the opposite. Even when I brought up the idea that it could be V-22 folks were going bat shiit crazy.
At this point I dont recall any ES member making statements that Dynastic Egyptians.......REGARDLESS of dynasty/region would be LESS SSA and moderns.......folks want to sit back now and be like "that's what I always thought". Man y'all take a polygraph test that shiit would probably explode.
I never understood why people so desperately tried to associate the ancient Egyptians with populations beyond Central Sudan. I still assert that Southern Egyptians and specific "Nubians" (Lower "Nubia") were ethnically very close and stem from a common origin in the predynastic period.
The North may be a different kettle of fish altogether, but I'll wait for the release of this study and for the release of the paternal profiles of these mummies and their identities before concluding what the North was in dynastic times.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
So then what was your point for bringing up the Toubou and falsely pass them off as 1) a climate-adapted SSA population and 2) an example of a SSA population that clusters with AE? Why did you do that? You mean to say that it was your point all along to say that Toubou are genetically not closely related to AE? Let me guess: your point all along was to argue that Brace et al 1993 were right for not using them as an example of a representative SSA population?
Thats not what I ever said in the genetic sense, so don't put words in my mouth. Find ONE DAMN post where I said Ancient Egyptians were genetically SSA from the beginning and always. I never said that. The peoples of the Sahara are black people, and craniometrically do cluster with people further south, despite whatever genetics they and they are still African, so don't put any damn words in my mouth where I said anything about AEs being geneticallly pure or fully SSA. I've always taken Keita's position and not even he says AEs were fully SSA.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyways like I said and will repeat again, this is ALL MOOT; BECAUSE THE STUDY IN QUESTION COMPARES Middle Egyptian samples from the LATE Dynastic period to MODERN sub-Saharan groups, not SSA groups from that time period from the proposed locations they're believed to have come from(Upper Nile and the Sahara.) Nobody has ever made the claim they were like modern groups like West Africans like Yoruba which is one of the main SSA groups they use for comparison, hence my criticism of some of you who have morphed into Dienekes like bloggers. It was always maintained that they were like Upper Nile people and Saharans with some influence from a Horner-like people as well. I don't have the full text, so I don't know who the people are in question.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
You have always said that AE were "elongated Africans" and that the microadaptation for this occurred in SSA. You can deny it all you want. I could easily post quotes. But that's not necessary as I'm not out to "expose" anyone or to to play "gotcha" games. I was simply pointing out your science fiction when you were talking about "undetectable SSA ancestry" in the Abusir mummies.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
That is an interesting question.
"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
That is an interesting question.
"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
Interesting view.
quote:Europeans carry a motley mix of genes from at least three ancient sources: indigenous hunter-gatherers within Europe, people from the Middle East, and northwest Asians from near the Great Steppe of eastern Europe and central Asia. One high-profile recent study suggested that each genetic component entered Europe by way of a separate migration and that they only came together in most Europeans in the past 5000 years. Now ancient DNA from the fossilized skeleton of a short, dark-skinned, dark-eyed man who lived at least 36,000 years ago along the Middle Don River in Russia presents a different view: This young man had DNA from all three of those migratory groups and so was already “pure European,” says evolutionary biologist Eske Willerslev of the Natural History Museum of Denmark at the University of Copenhagen, who led the analysis.
quote:She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait.
—M. Gallego-Llorente, R. Pinhasi et al.
The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: 31. The essential elements that gave to Protestant Ascendancy after 1689 in Ireland and white supremacy in continental Anglo-America the character of racial oppression were those that first destroyed the original forms of social identity among the subject population, and then excluded the members of that population from admittance into the forms of social identity normal to the colonizing power. The codifications of this basic organizing principle in the Penal Laws of the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland and the slave codes of white supremacy in continental Anglo-America present four common defining characteristics of those two regimes: 1) declassing legislation, directed at property-holding members of the oppressed group; 2) the deprivation of civil rights; 3) the illegalization of literacy; and 4) displacement of family rights and authorities.46
John H. Van Evrie, 1868 edition of White Supremacy and Negro Subordination.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
That is an interesting question.
"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
Interesting view.
quote:Europeans carry a motley mix of genes from at least three ancient sources: indigenous hunter-gatherers within Europe, people from the Middle East, and northwest Asians from near the Great Steppe of eastern Europe and central Asia. One high-profile recent study suggested that each genetic component entered Europe by way of a separate migration and that they only came together in most Europeans in the past 5000 years. Now ancient DNA from the fossilized skeleton of a short, dark-skinned, dark-eyed man who lived at least 36,000 years ago along the Middle Don River in Russia presents a different view: This young man had DNA from all three of those migratory groups and so was already “pure European,” says evolutionary biologist Eske Willerslev of the Natural History Museum of Denmark at the University of Copenhagen, who led the analysis.
quote:She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait.
—M. Gallego-Llorente, R. Pinhasi et al.
The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran
You're referencing a period that far back in time? I thought it pertained to relatively modern populations and that's why I pointed to the Andaman Islands.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
That is an interesting question.
"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
Interesting view.
quote:Europeans carry a motley mix of genes from at least three ancient sources: indigenous hunter-gatherers within Europe, people from the Middle East, and northwest Asians from near the Great Steppe of eastern Europe and central Asia. One high-profile recent study suggested that each genetic component entered Europe by way of a separate migration and that they only came together in most Europeans in the past 5000 years. Now ancient DNA from the fossilized skeleton of a short, dark-skinned, dark-eyed man who lived at least 36,000 years ago along the Middle Don River in Russia presents a different view: This young man had DNA from all three of those migratory groups and so was already “pure European,” says evolutionary biologist Eske Willerslev of the Natural History Museum of Denmark at the University of Copenhagen, who led the analysis.
quote:She lacked the derived variant (rs16891982) of the SLC45A2 gene associated with light skin pigmentation but had at least one copy of the derived SLC24A5 allele (rs1426654) associated with the same trait.
—M. Gallego-Llorente, R. Pinhasi et al.
The genetics of an early Neolithic pastoralist from the Zagros, Iran
You're referencing a period that far back in time? I thought it pertained to relatively modern populations and that's why I pointed to the Andaman Islands.
The initial statement was "Even full European DNA and be "Black".
And on that note:
See particularly from the 37:00 minute onwards the question on DNA and historical narratives, it's very interesting.
J. .P Mallory speaks on Indo-European Dispersals and the Eurasian Steppe at the Silk Road Symposium held at the Penn Museum held in March 2011.
Contacts between Europe and China that bridged the Eurasian steppelands are part of a larger story of the dispersal of the Indo-European languages that were carried to Ireland (Celtic) in the west and the western frontiers of China (Tokharian, Iranian) in the east. Reviewing some of the problems of these expansions 15 years ago, the author suggested that it was convenient to discuss the expansions in terms of several fault lines -- the Dnieper, the Ural and Central Asia. The Dnieper is critical for resolving issues concerning the different models of Indo-European origins and more recent research forces us to reconsider the nature of the Dnieper as a cultural border. Recent research has also suggested that we need to reconsider the eastern periphery of the Indo-European world and how it relates to its western neighbors.
J.P. Mallory is Professor of Prehistoric Archaeology at Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The mtDNA leaks are what they are. They must be taken seriously and analyzed for revelation of deep ancestry. We'd prefer autosomes or whole genome data. Everybody need realize researchers can't always get every kind of data due to things like cost or practical impediments recovering usable material to test.
Honest researchers will ask what possible African donor population is as devoid of L haplogroups as is the sample set and similar questions and will not flinch from predicted, observed/tested results whether confirming or refuting previous conclusions.
All others will mar facts and fall to fluff posts defaming posters' personal character, ranting about Afrolunacy, feeding pet Euro peeves, and in general just poo pooing all cirque against their agenda driven 'hypotheses'.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: You're referencing a period that far back in time? I thought it pertained to relatively modern populations and that's why I pointed to the Andaman Islands.
I guess you refer to this?
KOS14
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nearly the whole forum (excluding me and Swenet and only one or two others) at one point was opposing a North African [Saharan i.e. autochthonous Egyptian] origin/affinity of ancient Egyptians. I was here 2013-2015 and on another forum (2016) and remember those debates well. People here are outright lying about their post histories.
Myself and others got called a "racist" by EgalitarianJay for simply arguing ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians, so-called "Egyptcentrism":
quote:Originally posted by EgalitarianJay: I've seen very racist posters on Egyptsearch who promote the Egyptocentric position.
Also, people here (the usual suspects) have deceptively used "tropical adapted" as a back-door for pan-Africanism. For example, since Lower/Upper Nubia (northern Sudan) is in the tropics (but the Sahara, not SSA), Afrocentrists then use "tropical adapted" to try to insert SSA's. Zaharan has been doing this for years, so did EgalitarianJay when I debated him on this.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Nearly the whole forum (excluding me and Swenet and only one or two others) at one point was opposing a North African [Saharan i.e. autochthonous Egyptian] origin/affinity of ancient Egyptians. I was here 2013-2015 and on another forum (2016) and remember those debates well. People here are outright lying about their post histories.
Myself and others got called a "racist" by EgalitarianJay for simply arguing ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians, so-called "Egyptcentrism":
quote:Originally posted by EgalitarianJay: I've seen very racist posters on Egyptsearch who promote the Egyptocentric position.
Also, people here (the usual suspects) have deceptively used "tropical adapted" as a back-door for pan-Africanism. For example, since Lower/Upper Nubia (northern Sudan) is in the tropics (but the Sahara, not SSA), Afrocentrists then use "tropical adapted" to try to insert SSA's. Zaharan has been doing this for years, so did EgalitarianJay when I debated him on this.
"Tropical adaption" is certainly not a fallible argument. Euroloons have fought this for many years, and it still got you nowhere.
Al Khiday 2 is in Central Sudan.
quote:Recently, a multiphase cemetery was discovered at the site of Al Khiday 2, on the west bank of the White Nile, which was also used by a small group that is thought to be closely related to the Meroitic.
quote:
Excavation of one of 90 pre-Mesolithic graves at Al Khiday 2. The graves are over 9,000 years old, and all the skeletons are buried elongated and face down, which is unique worldwide. (Photograph: Donatella Usai, Centro Studi Sudanesi e Sub-Sahariani)
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Nearly the whole forum (excluding me and Swenet and only one or two others) at one point was opposing a North African [Saharan i.e. autochthonous Egyptian] origin/affinity of ancient Egyptians. I was here 2013-2015 and on another forum (2016) and remember those debates well. People here are outright lying about their post histories.
Myself and others got called a "racist" by EgalitarianJay for simply arguing ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians, so-called "Egyptcentrism":
quote:Originally posted by EgalitarianJay: I've seen very racist posters on Egyptsearch who promote the Egyptocentric position.
Also, people here (the usual suspects) have deceptively used "tropical adapted" as a back-door for pan-Africanism. For example, since Lower/Upper Nubia (northern Sudan) is in the tropics (but the Sahara, not SSA), Afrocentrists then use "tropical adapted" to try to insert SSA's. Zaharan has been doing this for years, so did EgalitarianJay when I debated him on this.
Blacks are indigenous to the Sahara and are there to this very day, so this "Sub-Saharan" nonsense doesn't help you in the slightest.
There is essentially nothing wrong with saying that ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptian provided that you don't push the absolute fantasy that the black Southern Egyptians don't exist today. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: To what extent should all of ancient Egypt be represented by samples exclusively sourced from the North? This is the equivalent of claiming that New Jersey is the center of American financial and economic power instead of New York and California.
The geno-hamiticists already answered. Yes, it does because it favors their self proclaimed mythbusting the afrocentrics agenda. No other criteria even considered.
But could there be a bigger myth than Nea Nikomedeia engendered prehistoric Egypt? And if not a myth OK why run and hide when asked to clarify, expand, and precision that proposition ?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Nearly the whole forum (excluding me and Swenet and only one or two others) at one point was opposing a North African [Saharan i.e. autochthonous Egyptian] origin/affinity of ancient Egyptians. I was here 2013-2015 and on another forum (2016) and remember those debates well. People here are outright lying about their post histories.
Myself and others got called a "racist" by EgalitarianJay for simply arguing ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians, so-called "Egyptcentrism":
quote:Originally posted by EgalitarianJay: I've seen very racist posters on Egyptsearch who promote the Egyptocentric position.
Also, people here (the usual suspects) have deceptively used "tropical adapted" as a back-door for pan-Africanism. For example, since Lower/Upper Nubia (northern Sudan) is in the tropics (but the Sahara, not SSA), Afrocentrists then use "tropical adapted" to try to insert SSA's. Zaharan has been doing this for years, so did EgalitarianJay when I debated him on this.
Blacks are indigenous to the Sahara and are there to this very day, so this "Sub-Saharan" nonsense doesn't help you in the slightest.
There is essentially nothing wrong with saying that ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptian provided that you don't push the absolute fantasy that the black Southern Egyptians don't exist today. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.
Cosigned.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
That is an interesting question.
"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
Really man. Really? You haven't seen the biological affinity of ancient Europeans matched with their skin color? Do you visit any other sites than ES?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
That is an interesting question.
"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
Per the @ss backwards rule of hypodescent (concocted by Eurolunacy btw) you can. Hence you get the sheer stupidity of people who look like this being considered black/negroid and subject to all the discrimination/prejudice as people with less European admixture:
Funny how hypodescent and the *taint* of negro blood stops working when it comes to the Aegyptians and ancient Magrebhians but of course afroloons are the only source of dishonesty/stupidity.
Edit yet on the same side of the coin you have people like this:
Being called "negrito" or black, yet they are genetically worlds apart from SSA populations . Yet its Afroloons(Cass' synonym for black people) who are pulling shenanigans???? Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ One can have full Eurasian DNA. Even full European DNA and be "Black".
That is an interesting question.
"Eurasia" covers a large swathe of the earth's landmass; "Eurasians" in the Adaman islands are at least as dark (if not darker) than the Monjang (Dinka), Rami mi raan ("Nuer") and the Chollo (Shilluk).
But you can't be predominantly European (genetically) and be black.
Really man. Really? You haven't seen the biological affinity of ancient Europeans matched with their skin color? Do you visit any other sites than ES?
Did you bother to read my post following that? I clarified my position. I thought Ish was referring to relatively recent populations - not to early Europeans that could very easily be described as black.
I readily concede that I should have asked for clarification prior to putting my foot in my mouth..
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
*North East African* is what I meant... And Ethnographically, it's already evident what these people are and probably were in the North East, but how does it match up in totality. Once again, a non/pre-Backmigration North East African non SSA genetic complex theory is on life support. We'd have an easier time arguing The AEgyptian were Bantu.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
Lower Egyptians are/were not tropically adapted. Take a look at Raxter (2011); the northern ancient Egyptian sample(s) are closer in mean crural index (pooled sexes) to southern Europeans, than Upper Egyptians & Nubians. In fact the difference is only 0.2 between Southern Europeans and Lower Egyptians... they're almost identical.
If you're talking about 'tropical adapted' Egyptians, you have to restrict this to Upper Egyptians, but this doesn't show for all post-crania metrics like body-breath, only limb metrics. Raxter (2011) found as a whole, Egyptians "tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations" in body-breadth.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
Lower Egyptians are/were not tropically adapted. Take a look at Raxter (2011); the northern ancient Egyptian sample(s) are closer in mean crural index (pooled sexes) to southern Europeans, than Upper Egyptians & Nubians. In fact the difference is only 0.2 between Southern Europeans and Lower Egyptians... they're almost identical.
If you're talking about 'tropical adapted' Egyptians, you have to restrict this to Upper Egyptians, but this doesn't show for all post-crania metrics like body-breath, only limb metrics. Raxter (2011) found as a whole, Egyptians "tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations" in body-breadth.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
Lower Egyptians are/were not tropically adapted. Take a look at Raxter (2011); the northern ancient Egyptian sample(s) are closer in mean crural index (pooled sexes) to southern Europeans, than Upper Egyptians & Nubians. In fact the difference is only 0.2 between Southern Europeans and Lower Egyptians... they're almost identical.
If you're talking about 'tropical adapted' Egyptians, you have to restrict this to Upper Egyptians, but this doesn't show for all post-crania metrics like body-breath, only limb metrics. Raxter (2011) found as a whole, Egyptians "tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations" in body-breadth.
I think I'm fine with "restricting" it to the most important region of ancient Egypt; the area where the civilization sprang from; the area in which the population was virtually identical to Lower "Nubians"; the politically dominant region; the region that conquered the other part of Egypt - starting the dynastic period; the geographically largest; the demographically dominant region; the richer, more sophisticated and more advanced region.
These "restrictions" sure are vexing. Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Blacks are indigenous to the Sahara and are there to this very day, so this "Sub-Saharan" nonsense doesn't help you in the slightest.
There is essentially nothing wrong with saying that ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptian provided that you don't push the absolute fantasy that the black Southern Egyptians don't exist today. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.
These ancient DNA results are a blow to the Saharan/North African hypothesis. I gave the latter up. It now looks like sometime right at the end of the Pleistocene or early Holocene (say between 13,000 and 9,000 BP) there was a large scale demic movement into Egypt from south Levant/Arabia. It is tempting to link this to the spread of Afro-Asiatic into North Africa, and this is still being done by expert linguists despite Afrocentrics faking a scholarly consensus PAA originated inside Africa:
quote:This chapter examines the linguistic history of the Afroasiatic language family that spans much of the Near East and North Africa. It extends further the discussions of North African population history in chapters 12 and 14, and favors an Asian rather than African ultimate source for the whole Afroasiatic family.
- "Levant and North Africa: Afroasiatic linguistic history", Václav Blažek (2013)
This recent study (book chapter) is on google books.
posted
^^^^ Cass,Swenet, Beyoku et al how does this prove Afroasiatic came from the Levant? People on FBD are claiming this as well
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
Lower Egyptians are/were not tropically adapted. Take a look at Raxter (2011); the northern ancient Egyptian sample(s) are closer in mean crural index (pooled sexes) to southern Europeans, than Upper Egyptians & Nubians. In fact the difference is only 0.2 between Southern Europeans and Lower Egyptians... they're almost identical.
If you're talking about 'tropical adapted' Egyptians, you have to restrict this to Upper Egyptians, but this doesn't show for all post-crania metrics like body-breath, only limb metrics. Raxter (2011) found as a whole, Egyptians "tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations" in body-breadth.
Hey idiot, try checked out the tropical limbs of predynastic Northern Egyptians. The sample size is small, but given the time frame:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Blacks are indigenous to the Sahara and are there to this very day, so this "Sub-Saharan" nonsense doesn't help you in the slightest.
There is essentially nothing wrong with saying that ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptian provided that you don't push the absolute fantasy that the black Southern Egyptians don't exist today. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.
These ancient DNA results are a blow to the Saharan/North African hypothesis. I gave the latter up. It now looks like sometime right at the end of the Pleistocene or early Holocene (say between 13,000 and 9,000 BP) there was a large scale demic movement into Egypt from south Levant/Arabia. It is tempting to link this to the spread of Afro-Asiatic into North Africa, and this is still being done by expert linguists despite Afrocentrics faking a scholarly consensus PAA originated inside Africa:
quote:This chapter examines the linguistic history of the Afroasiatic language family that spans much of the Near East and North Africa. It extends further the discussions of North African population history in chapters 12 and 14, and favors an Asian rather than African ultimate source for the whole Afroasiatic family.
- "Levant and North Africa: Afroasiatic linguistic history", Václav Blažek (2013)
This recent study (book chapter) is on google books.
No such evidence for this. You're desperate and reaching. Late period genetic samples are not going to establish facts on events that transpired significantly earlier. I don't think that linguists or historians will conclude from these late period Northern Egyptian samples that Afro-Asiatic entered Africa through the Levant.
Most linguists support an African origin for this phylum. This pathological desire to insert "Eurasians" into African history is pathetic and laughable. You're a real loon.
PS: The author of the cited book is merely exploring arguments that favour a non-African origin for Afro-Asiatic in the pertinent chapter. It is not recent, ground-breaking study.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
"Strawmen or distortions".
Please.
You falsely portrayed Toubou as 1) a climate-adapted SSA group and 2) an example of a SSA group that clusters with AE. Now all of a sudden you were only talking about cranio-facial similarity and not genetic similarity. Perfect example of people trying to play both sides of the fence.
Charlie Bass in 2014:
"AE cluster with groups from SSA like the Toubou"
Charlie Bass in 2017:
"I never said AE were largely SSA. STOP POSTING STRAWMEN. I NEVER SAID THAT. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH"
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Swenet, STOP putting words in my mouth chewing on strawmen, I stated with supporting evidence from Keita, that SAEs are craniometrically similar to Upper Nile people, Saharan groups and Horners, if you have a problem with my position go see Keita and tell him the same BS that this so called new study refutes his craniometric studies. Enough of the tapdancing Swenet, address what I say and am stating or get the helll off my post setting up strawmen. You haven't addressed anything in my OP and I know why for good reason.
Middle Egyptians from the Late Dynastic period are in no way fully indicative of the entire population and its been well noted that they trend more towards Near Easterners that predynastic and Early Dynastic samples. Since this study does NOT have predynasic and early dynastic samples DNA wise no one can say they were tropically adapted Near Eastern people who got blacker.
Now I will not address any more strawmen or distortions of my position Swenet, in essence stop being a coward hiding behind an abstract from a study and man up and address my points
"Strawmen or distortions".
Please.
You falsely portrayed Toubou as 1) a climate-adapted SSA group and 2) an example of a SSA group that clusters with AE. Now all of a sudden you were only talking about cranio-facial similarity and not genetic similarity. Perfect example of people trying to play both sides of the fence.
Charlie Bass in 2014:
"AE cluster with groups from SSA like the Toubou"
Charlie Bass in 2017:
"I never said AE were largely SSA. STOP POSTING STRAWMEN. I NEVER SAID THAT. STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH"
Strawmen, I never said AEs GENETICALLY cluster that way, moron. I have a ton of posts on here stating my position going back to 2003.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if your craniofacial point was never about genetics, AE don't cluster with the Toubou in a cranial sense, either. You're still dead wrong and trying to insert false relationships, trying to be slick with your language.
You are on record using groups with substantial non-SSA ancestry, as fully SSA in ancestry. Then you want to get mad at Brace et al for not using your "climate-adapted" Toubou as representative of SSA groups. Talk about being intellectually dishonest.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Toubou are Saharans and Ancient Egyptians do cluster with some Saharans, so i'm not incorrect. There are no fully SSA anywhere in Africa,, its a rarity, and as I said what you call lSSA geneticaly today may not be the same as it was back then so its dumb using today's SSAs and proxies for people that long preceded them.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brace was intellectually dishonest from setting up strawmen and refuting them in his clines and clusters because he misquoted Diop and I have talked with Brace via personal communication and he does believe in climatically adapted people. In fact here is his response and my email to him in 2005:
Dear (name witheld),
It was Charles G. Seligman who proposed that 'wandering Caucasoid' interpretation, and it is just as flawed as Diop's assertion that Egyptians were sub-Saharan Africans. The people of the Horn of Africa, such As the Somali, do not have much of sub-Saharan Africa in them, but there are East Africans that do. The Niger-Congo speaking Haya from Tanzania cluster very closely with the Congo from Gabon and the Dahomey from Benin. This supports the linguists suggestion that the Niger-Congo languages spread from West Africa towards the east. The Wadi Halfa Mesolithic people on the Nile just south of the Egyptian/Sudanese border at the end of the Pleistocene also tie with the Niger-Congo cluster, and there is a hint of that tie in the Egyptian Bronze Age (Naqada) but not in recent Egyptians. Nubians and Nubian Bronze show just a hint of a tie with the Niger-Congo cluster, but it is very faint. As I see it, the appearances of the Upper Nile Valley and Horn people has little if anything to do with admixtures and much the result of in situ circumstances. The elongation of the nose is clearly a climate-induced phenomenon and takes a long time to manifest itself. The same thing is true for the reduction in tooth size which markedly distinguishes those people form the Niger-Congo people. One has to suggest that Vavilov's identification of that as one of the early areas of crop domestication would have meant that food preparation techniques reducing the pressures for mastication had been operating there for a long time, and tooth size reduction in situ would be one of the expected consequences.
Hope this helps,
C. L. Brace
--On Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:58 AM -0700 <cr_rigaud@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hello Dr. Brace, my name is Charles and I'm an anthropology > student. I have a question about the biological affinities of East > African populations, modern and prehistoric. I would like to know exactly > how do you classify these populations? I read some of your work in Ashley > Montagu's "The Concept of Race" in a chapter titled "A Nonracial Approach > Towards the Understanding of Human Diversity." In it you stated: > > > p.135-136 > > "A quick glance at Figures 4a and 4b will show that the relatively > shortest noses occurs only in the tropics, and observation confirms the > fact that the nasal bridges of the peoples in question are low as well as > being short. At first it seems as though no consistent sense could be > made from such an observation since such people as the inhabitants of > East Africa right on the equator have appreciably longer, narrower, and > higher noses than people in the Congo at the same latitude. A former > generation of anthropologists used to explain this paradox by invoking an > invasion by an itinerant "white" population from the Mediterranean area, > although this solution raised more problems than it solved since the East > Africans in question include some of the blackest people in the world > with characteristically wooly hair and a body build unique among the > world's populations for its extreme linearity and height." > > And > > p.138 > > "The relatively long noses of East Africa become explicable then when one > realizes that much of the area is extremely dry for parts of the year." > > > > > > Dr Brace, I would like to know if this is still your position regarding > East African populations. By East African, I mean Horn of Africans, > Nilotes and populations of the Upper Nile Valley. Do you see these > populations as the product of a peculiar type of evolution to climate or > as a result of mixture with Caucasoids? You guidance is appreciated. > Thanks in advance. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Charles Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bass, you're not going to win a craniofacial argument with me. Quoting Brace et al to salvage a point will lead nowhere.
I don't mean to interrupt your thread. Carry on. Like I said, I just wanted to react to a both-sides-of-the-fence point you made in the OP.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if I were you I'd edit out your government name and other personal information from that email exchange while you still can edit that post. Unless you're fine with having that information on ES.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Bass, you're not going to win a craniofacial argument with me. Quoting Brace et al to salvage a point will lead nowhere.
I don't mean to interrupt your thread. Carry on. Like I said, I just wanted to react to a both-sides-of-the-fence point you made in the OP.
You brought up Brace and I called your bluff. AEs were NE Africans. NE African do NOT fall lout of the range of SSAs craniometricaly. I have yet another emaill reply from Colin P Groves, another anthropologist on this matter:
> -----Original Message----- > From: Charles [mailto:cr_rigaud@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2005 6:29 AM > To: Colin Groves > Subject: Prehistoric East Africans > Both Rightmire and Hiernaux > concluded that prehistoric East Africans are ancestral > to the above stated modern living East African > populations.
I think you're right about this. The Howells huge dataset does have some holes in it, and the Nilotic and other North East African populations constitute one of them. Rightmire, in particular, has shown that these do not really fall outside the subsaharan sphere of morphology. It would be good if Phil Rightmire would add his measurements, where compatible, to the Howells dataset (which is available for free on the web, by the way), so that we could see where these fit.
Further complicating the issue in > Howells' book, on pg 19 he states that Nubians are > "Egyptian/European in connections". My question is > what does all of this mean? Howells' conclusions seems > to be at odds with other studies that bear out the > African morphology of Nubians and pre-historic East > Africans. I would like your words on this as well as > your guidance in explaining all of this.
I agree; it may be so for recent Nubians but I'd like to see good evidence on this. I attach a paper written with a colleague on prehistoric North African samples, which include the famous prehistoric Nubian sample excavated by Fred Wendorf. You will see that the prehistoric Nubians do have a sub-Saharan morphology, overlain by the robusticity which characterises many populations.
You're a funny character. I'm just going soft on you and you mistake that for a weakness or retreating. Brace says in his own work that some of his variables are climate controlled. So what is the use of posting "inside information" saying the exact same thing?
But if you insist on further embarrassment, post actual data (not opinions from academics) showing that AE "do NOT fall lout of the range of SSAs craniometricaly". The only examples you'll post is groups like the Toubou who have substantial non-SSA ancestry.
And if by the end of the discussion it has become obvious that you can't prove me wrong, you'll just do the next best thing: try to get back at me and say I'm a Hamiticist in a passive aggressive fit.
One simply can't win trying to argue people like you.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: "I called your bluff".
"Made light work of this chump"
You're a funny character. I'm just going soft on you and you mistake that for a weakness or retreating. Brace says in his own work that some of his variables are climate controlled. So what is the use of posting "inside information" saying the exact same thing?
But if you insist on further embarrassment, post actual data (not opinions from academics) showing that AE "do NOT fall lout of the range of SSAs craniometricaly". The only examples you'll post is groups like the Toubou who have substantial non-SSA ancestry.
And if by the end of the discussion it has become obvious that you can't prove me wrong, you'll just do the next best thing: try to get back at me and say I'm a Hamiticist in a passive aggressive fit.
One simply can't win trying to argue people like you.
Why don't you post data? As for the Third Intermediate Period the time from of these mummy samples, I would have to see why they studied because this period had a lot of kings of Libyan origin. Just read for yourself.
quote: Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Why don't you post data?
Stop deflecting. I already posted data. That's what led you to post the false claim that AE cluster with "SSA groups like Toubou" in the first place back in 2014. You were trying to take up for Amun Ra and the other trolls you now try to distance yourself from when you say "I have never come across anyone who said AE=SSA".
Will you fess up to your intellectual dishonesty and admit that the Toubou have 20-30% non-SSA ancestry and therefore are not an example of a "climate-adapted SSA population that clusters with AE"?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Why don't you post data?
Stop deflecting. I already posted data. That's what led you to post the false claim that AE cluster with "SSA groups like Toubou" in the first place back in 2014. You were trying to take up for Amun Ra and the other trolls you now try to distance yourself from when you say "I have never come across anyone who said AE=SSA".
Will you fess up to your intellectual dishonesty and admit that the Toubou have 20-30% non-SSA ancestry and therefore are not an example of a "SSA population that clusters with AE"?
You didn't post data, you distorted my position. Man you're just all talk.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: These ancient DNA results are a blow to the Saharan/North African hypothesis. I gave the latter up. It now looks like sometime right at the end of the Pleistocene or early Holocene (say between 13,000 and 9,000 BP) there was a large scale demic movement into Egypt from south Levant/Arabia.
Hilarious lying euroloons keep switching to adapt and claim African history.
Now so called immigrants migrated all the way to Central Sudan to become tropical adapted, only to move up the Nile to lower Egypt.
The DNA shows a location (Abu-Sir) that was mixed with different ancestry. A place that is way younger than Al Khiday.
Even funnier, ancient Egyptians themselves stated that they originated from the South.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:This chapter examines the linguistic history of the Afroasiatic language family that spans much of the Near East and North Africa. It extends further the discussions of North African population history in chapters 12 and 14, and favors an Asian rather than African ultimate source for the whole Afroasiatic family.
- "Levant and North Africa: Afroasiatic linguistic history", Václav Blažek (2013)
This recent study (book chapter) is on google books.
Stop posting garbage. Branches of Afroasiatic are being spoken in West Africa as well and logically East Africa. The substratum of Afrasan is known as Semitic like: Arabic and Hebrew and these are relatively young languages, coming out of Aramaic.
Desperate euronut.
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.
[...]
The network analysis on the chromosomes carrying E haplogroupswas 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 speakerssuggesting that linguistic divergence is either a subsequent event topopulation divergence, language replacement or that the two linguisticfamilies may have shared a common origin.
[…]
--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 |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic