quote:Listen Swenet, lol, let me explain this on finer terms since I actually had email contact with Brace years ago and why his methodology and using his study isn't helping your case. I inquired about Fulani and whee do they sit in his analyses and to my surprise he said he grouped them in a "Northeast African cluster," which to me is shocking since the sample he studied came from West Africa. The Somali sample he studied came from Somalia, now why does he group populations that are GEOGRAPHICALLY from sub-Saharan Africa and exclude them FROM Sub-Saharan Africa when they DO NOT fit the trend of what he thinks is "truly sub-Saharan African? In other words, in Brace's mind and watch what I say here, IF THEY DON'T LOOK what he considers sub-Saharan he systematically excludes them and puts them in a geographically distant area from where they are truly from and apart of, that's why when he says and I quote
You clearly thought your Sahelian samples are "climate-adapted" SSA groups. In other words, they were supposed to be transplants from SSA who are closer to North Africans purely because of climatic adaptation. This led to your circular reasoning that Brace shouldn't be picky and use these Sahelian samples as valid SSA alternatives to his other SSA samples, since they supposedly owe their differentiation purely to climate, not mixture.
Groups like Daza, Kanembou and Toubou have been sequenced recently and you're completely wrong. But, as usual, people like you can't be falsified. When they're proven to be wrong they just secretly dissemble their goalposts, set up shop elsewhere and hold a grudge.
^Charlie's Sahelian populations are clearly mixed with North African-like components. No wonder why he likes to spam them as valid biologically SSA alternatives. That way he can make it appear like AE cranial distance to most Niger-Congo speakers boils down to climate (although now he seems to have changed his position and admits there is also a genetic difference that can't be explained with climate).
When these so-called "SSA" samples with North African-like components are accounted for, there is nothing left for you to argue that AE "do NOT fall lout of the range of SSAs craniometricaly". This is why you deflected back to me and said I should post data instead. You have nothing other than continued trolling.
But, like I said, don't mind me. This is all off topic. Carry on your thread. I'm sure plenty of people here are anxious to hear more of your both-sides-of-the-fence arguments.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both Rightmire and Hiernaux > concluded that prehistoric East Africans are ancestral > to the above stated modern living East African > populations.
Rightmire (1984) retracted his previous claims about the East African crania. All those skeletal remains (Gamble's Cave, Elmenteita, Willey's Kopje etc.) were re-dated in the 1980s. None of them are prehistoric, but Iron Age (500 BCE).
Hiernaux (1975) is often misquoted by Afrocentrists. He never actually denied substantial "Caucasoid" mixture in the Sahel and Horn of Africa.
"The larger sample of northern Somali belonging to various groups, the best represented being the Warsingili, are much shorter (169 cm) and have a relatively narrower face and nose; apparently they are strongly Arabicized."
"We are on much firmer ground in the case of populations which exhibit values near to the 'Arab' end of the scale for a number of independent traits: the probability that factors other than genetic admixture might generate such systematic affinities with Arabs is very low. Such is clearly the case for the populations of central Ethiopia." Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Charlie Bass in 2014:
quote:Listen Swenet, lol, let me explain this on finer terms since I actually had email contact with Brace years ago and why his methodology and using his study isn't helping your case. I inquired about Fulani and whee do they sit in his analyses and to my surprise he said he grouped them in a "Northeast African cluster," which to me is shocking since the sample he studied came from West Africa. The Somali sample he studied came from Somalia, now why does he group populations that are GEOGRAPHICALLY from sub-Saharan Africa and exclude them FROM Sub-Saharan Africa when they DO NOT fit the trend of what he thinks is "truly sub-Saharan African? In other words, in Brace's mind and watch what I say here, IF THEY DON'T LOOK what he considers sub-Saharan he systematically excludes them and puts them in a geographically distant area from where they are truly from and apart of, that's why when he says and I quote
You clearly thought your Sahelian samples are "climate-adapted" SSA groups. In other words, they were supposed to be transplants from SSA who are closer to North Africans purely because of climatic adaptation. This led to your circular reasoning that Brace shouldn't be picky and use these Sahelian samples as valid SSA alternatives to his other SSA samples, since they supposedly owe their differentiation purely to climate, not mixture.
Groups like Daza, Kanembou and Toubou have been sequenced recently and you're completely wrong. But, as usual, people like you can't be falsified. When they're proven to be wrong they just secretly dissemble their goalposts, set up shop elsewhere and hold a grudge.
^Charlie's Sahelian populations are clearly mixed with a North African-like components. No wonder why he likes to spam them as valid biologically SSA alternatives.
When these so-called "SSA" samples with North African-like components are accounted for, there is nothing left for you to argue that AE "do NOT fall lout of the range of SSAs craniometricaly". This is why you deflected back to me and said I should post data instead. You have nothing other than continued trolling.
But, like I said, don't mind me. This is all off topic. Carry on your thread. I'm sure plenty of people here are anxious to hear more of your both-sides-of-the-fence arguments.
I was talking about craniometrics. Their DNA is stil lAfrican and since they are in teh Sahel why would wouldn't they have a somewhat Saharan/North African component?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: why would wouldn't they have a somewhat Saharan/North African component?
Lol. Charlie said "somewhat North African". Both the light grey and the light blue include North African-like ancestry. Charlie thought I was just talking about the relatively minor "Mozabite" light blue in these Sahelian populations.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: why would wouldn't they have a somewhat Saharan/North African component?
Lol. Charlie said "somewhat North African". Both the light grey and the light blue include North African-like ancestry. Charlie thought I was just talking about the relatively minor "Mozabite" light blue in these Sahelian populations.
"North African" like can just as well be Saharan. Both Sahelians and North Africans would share such a component since they have ancestors from the Sahara and migrated North and South when it dried up.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both Rightmire and Hiernaux > concluded that prehistoric East Africans are ancestral > to the above stated modern living East African > populations.
Rightmire (1984) retracted his previous claims about the East African crania. All those skeletal remains (Gamble's Cave, Elmenteita, Willey's Kopje etc.) were re-dated in the 1980s. None of them are prehistoric, but Iron Age (500 BCE).
Hiernaux (1975) is often misquoted by Afrocentrists. He never actually denied substantial "Caucasoid" mixture in the Sahel and Horn of Africa.
"The larger sample of northern Somali belonging to various groups, the best represented being the Warsingili, are much shorter (169 cm) and have a relatively narrower face and nose; apparently they are strongly Arabicized."
"We are on much firmer ground in the case of populations which exhibit values near to the 'Arab' end of the scale for a number of independent traits: the probability that factors other than genetic admixture might generate such systematic affinities with Arabs is very low. Such is clearly the case for the populations of central Ethiopia."
LOL @ this euroloon You flip flop from one thing to the other and it all contradicts each other, you desperate clown.
Modern sub Sahara African remains:
KNM-WT 71253, 15Kya.
What is the source for this?
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: "The larger sample of northern Somali belonging to various groups, the best represented being the Warsingili, are much shorter (169 cm) and have a relatively narrower face and nose; apparently they are strongly Arabicized."
"We are on much firmer ground in the case of populations which exhibit values near to the 'Arab' end of the scale for a number of independent traits: the probability that factors other than genetic admixture might generate such systematic affinities with Arabs is very low. Such is clearly the case for the populations of central Ethiopia."
Let me guess, you are now going back to the drawing-table to push your immigration theory further back into time.
quote: There is clear evidence of lithic technological variability in Middle Paleolithic (MP) assemblages along the Nile valley and in adjacent desert areas. One of the identified variants is the Khormusan, the type-site of which, Site 1017, is located north of the Nile's Second Cataract. The industry has two distinctive characteristics that set it apart from other MP industries within its vicinity. One is the use of a wide variety of raw materials; the second is an apparent correlation between raw material and technology used, suggesting a cultural aspect to raw material management. Stratigraphically, site 1017 is situated within the Dibeira-Jer formation which represents an aggradation stage of the Nile and contains sediments originating from the Ethiopian Highlands. While it has previously been suggested that the site dates to sometime before 42.5 ka, the Dibeira-Jer formation can plausibly be correlated with Nile alluvial sediments in northern Sudan recently dated to 83 ± 24 ka (MIS 5a). This stage coincides with the 81 ka age of sapropel S3, indicating higher Nile flow and stronger monsoon rainfall at these times.
Other sites which reflect similar raw material variability and technological traditions are the BNS and KHS sites in the Omo Kibish Formation (Ethiopia) dated to ∼100 ka and ∼190 ka respectively. Based on a lithic comparative study conducted, it is suggested that site 1017 can be seen as representing behavioral patterns which are indicative of East African Middle Stone Age (MSA) technology, adding support to the hypothesis that the Nile Valley was an important dispersal route used by modern humans prior to the long cooling and dry trend beginning with the onset of MIS 4. Techo-typological comparison of the assemblages from the Khormusan sites with other Middle Paleolithic sites from Nubia and East Africa is used to assess the possibility of tracing the dispersal of technological traits across the landscape and through time.
--Mae Goder-Goldberger
The Khormusan: Evidence for an MSA East African industry in Nubia
Quaternary International 25 June 2013, Vol.300:182–194, doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.11.031 The Middle Palaeolithic in the Desert
quote:Both Rightmire and Hiernaux > concluded that prehistoric East Africans are ancestral > to the above stated modern living East African > populations.
Rightmire (1984) retracted his previous claims about the East African crania. All those skeletal remains (Gamble's Cave, Elmenteita, Willey's Kopje etc.) were re-dated in the 1980s. None of them are prehistoric, but Iron Age (500 BCE).
Hiernaux (1975) is often misquoted by Afrocentrists. He never actually denied substantial "Caucasoid" mixture in the Sahel and Horn of Africa.
"The larger sample of northern Somali belonging to various groups, the best represented being the Warsingili, are much shorter (169 cm) and have a relatively narrower face and nose; apparently they are strongly Arabicized."
"We are on much firmer ground in the case of populations which exhibit values near to the 'Arab' end of the scale for a number of independent traits: the probability that factors other than genetic admixture might generate such systematic affinities with Arabs is very low. Such is clearly the case for the populations of central Ethiopia."
There are other remains and there were no "Arabs in Ethiopia in prehistoric times.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: why would wouldn't they have a somewhat Saharan/North African component?
Lol. Charlie said "somewhat North African". Both the light grey and the light blue include North African-like ancestry. Charlie thought I was just talking about the relatively minor "Mozabite" light blue in these Sahelian populations.
"North African" like can just as well be Saharan. Both Sahelians and North Africans would share such a component since they have ancestors from the Sahara and migrated North and South when it dried up.
Just admit that different ancestry components in North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa have completely different evolutionary histories. You don't have to mystify this by talking about bidirectional north south migrations and "sharing" of ancestry. What does "sharing" even mean? Granted, it's shared today, but it's still North African in origin. You insist on this type of mystifying language because you don't want to call it North African, but "bidirectional". I've already called you out on your dubious word game tactics in 2014.
quote: Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Where do you think the ancestors of modern West Africans come from? The Sahara, that is before it dried up.
You're now comparing populations who migrated to northern regions and returned to equatorial Africa mostly unaltered genetically, to populations whose language phylum originated in the Sahara and who actually had/have uniparental lineages and lithic industries that testify to their deeply intertwined histories with the Sahara and extinct Saharan populations (e.g. Teda, Fulani, Ancient Egyptians Lower Nubians)? What is your point exactly? I have no idea where you're going with this or how anything you're saying refutes what got your panties up in a bunch repeatedly, re: the strong SSA/Sahara divide with certain variables (e.g. Brace 1993, Irish, Hanihara), and a more mild, but still noticeable divide using other variables (e.g. Keita's variable set).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Charlie Bass in 2014:
quote:Listen Swenet, lol, let me explain this on finer terms since I actually had email contact with Brace years ago and why his methodology and using his study isn't helping your case. I inquired about Fulani and whee do they sit in his analyses and to my surprise he said he grouped them in a "Northeast African cluster," which to me is shocking since the sample he studied came from West Africa. The Somali sample he studied came from Somalia, now why does he group populations that are GEOGRAPHICALLY from sub-Saharan Africa and exclude them FROM Sub-Saharan Africa when they DO NOT fit the trend of what he thinks is "truly sub-Saharan African? In other words, in Brace's mind and watch what I say here, IF THEY DON'T LOOK what he considers sub-Saharan he systematically excludes them and puts them in a geographically distant area from where they are truly from and apart of, that's why when he says and I quote
You clearly thought your Sahelian samples are "climate-adapted" SSA groups. In other words, they were supposed to be transplants from SSA who are closer to North Africans purely because of climatic adaptation. This led to your circular reasoning that Brace shouldn't be picky and use these Sahelian samples as valid SSA alternatives to his other SSA samples, since they supposedly owe their differentiation purely to climate, not mixture.
Groups like Daza, Kanembou and Toubou have been sequenced recently and you're completely wrong. But, as usual, people like you can't be falsified. When they're proven to be wrong they just secretly dissemble their goalposts, set up shop elsewhere and hold a grudge.
^Charlie's Sahelian populations are clearly mixed with North African-like components. No wonder why he likes to spam them as valid biologically SSA alternatives. That way he can make it appear like AE cranial distance to most Niger-Congo speakers boils down to climate (although now he seems to have changed his position and admits there is also a genetic difference that can't be explained with climate).
When these so-called "SSA" samples with North African-like components are accounted for, there is nothing left for you to argue that AE "do NOT fall lout of the range of SSAs craniometricaly". This is why you deflected back to me and said I should post data instead. You have nothing other than continued trolling.
But, like I said, don't mind me. This is all off topic. Carry on your thread. I'm sure plenty of people here are anxious to hear more of your both-sides-of-the-fence arguments.
The Toubou and Kel (Tuareg) are closely related historically, so do the Daza and Kanembou to some extent. I don't see why this is odd?
The Mozabite are of the same branch as Kel, who make up the Zanata. (in modern sense they are consider black)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: … and extinct Saharan populations (e.g. Teda, Fulani, Ancient Egyptians Lower Nubians).
Am I ready this correct? Are you saying the Teda and Fulb are extinct?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree I could have worded it better. I meant to say that the Sahelian populations I mentioned were in contact with North African populations during the early holocene. Some of these pre-existing North Africans they were in contact with are now extinct.
But the way I worded it is misleading. I also didn't mean to say that Sahelian populations are Saharan populations in the same way that AE are. I was trying to say these Sahelian groups have evidence of extensive interaction with North African populations contrary to Bass' West Africans who he misleadingly claims "come from" the Sahara.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread has went off topic. It is time we return to the topic.
There is no evidence that Egyptian civilization came from the North. All the evidence points to the south and the Western Sahara. This argument about Sub-Saharan Africans is stupid. Everyone knows that this is just an euphemism for the term: Negro.
No modern European phenotypes appear in Egypt until after 1400 BC. These arguments have been muted since the work of Diop was published.
Stop pretending that the facial features of east Africans is of European origin. This is another stupid argument because Africans had these features thousands of years before modern Europeans.
Bass why are you letting some trolls waylay your thread?
Enough of this nonsense!
Let's get back on topic. .
. Genetics is used to perpetuate white supremacy.
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
Why are only the Warsangali Somalis, leptorrhine? Well, quite simply because as Hiernaux (1975) notes, they are a northern (coastal) Somali clan/tribe who are "heavily Arabized" by genetic admixture with Arabs hence their leptorrhiny (66.0) and leptoproscopy (94.1). Nearly all the other Somali population samples are mesorrhine and mesoproscopic, e.g: Rahanwayn Somali, NI: 72.8; FI: 88.5. Crania from Somaliland Graves (dating around 250 years ago), are also mesorrhine & mesoproscopic.
The microevolutionary in situ adaptation(s) that shaped the "elongated" East African or "Nilotid" morphotype never involved a narrow nose or narrow face. The Nilotes (Nuer, Dinka, Shilluk) in Hiernaux (1975) are also all mesoproscopic, with a greater tendency of platyrrhiny. None of these peoples have average leptorrhine or leptoproscopic indices.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stop the nonsense . The original Arabs, before the Ottoman conquest were Negroid.
The pre-1400BC Europeans were Negroes or Africans- not modern whites. We don't find mention of whites in Mesopotamia until around 2000 BC, when the Gutians are mentioned in Anatolia.
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. What is most interesting is that genetic research has found M1 in Iberia dating to 10,000 BC, along with L haplogroups.
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 renamed 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 that Bell Beaker and Yamnaya people 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.
Advocates that claim the hunter gatherer and Neolithic farmers were not Sub-Saharan Africans are myth makers spread nonsense and lies.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: why would wouldn't they have a somewhat Saharan/North African component?
Lol. Charlie said "somewhat North African". Both the light grey and the light blue include North African-like ancestry. Charlie thought I was just talking about the relatively minor "Mozabite" light blue in these Sahelian populations.
"North African" like can just as well be Saharan. Both Sahelians and North Africans would share such a component since they have ancestors from the Sahara and migrated North and South when it dried up.
Just admit that different ancestry components in North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa have completely different evolutionary histories. You don't have to mystify this by talking about bidirectional north south migrations and "sharing" of ancestry. What does "sharing" even mean? Granted, it's shared today, but it's still North African in origin. You insist on this type of mystifying language because you don't want to call it North African, but "bidirectional". I've already called you out on your dubious word game tactics in 2014.
quote: Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Where do you think the ancestors of modern West Africans come from? The Sahara, that is before it dried up.
You're now comparing populations who migrated to northern regions and returned to equatorial Africa mostly unaltered genetically, to populations whose language phylum originated in the Sahara and who actually had/have uniparental lineages and lithic industries that testify to their deeply intertwined histories with the Sahara and extinct Saharan populations (e.g. Teda, Fulani, Ancient Egyptians Lower Nubians)? What is your point exactly? I have no idea where you're going with this or how anything you're saying refutes what got your panties up in a bunch repeatedly, re: the strong SSA/Sahara divide with certain variables (e.g. Brace 1993, Irish, Hanihara), and a more mild, but still noticeable divide using other variables (e.g. Keita's variable set).
Ok explain this "North African-like" component. Where did it originate from?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you just ask me where ancestry that is North African comes from?
Instead of asking redundant questions that already hold the answer to your question, why not back up your claim that "AEs overlap and cluster with SSAs"?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^ Cass,Swenet, Beyoku et al how does this prove Afroasiatic came from the Levant? People on FBD are claiming this as well
The forthcoming principal-component-analysis has ancient Egyptians closer to modern Levant peoples than Egyptians, although not by a large distance. This suggests an old population structure and a similar thing happened with PCA of 6-9th century Anglo-Saxons from England: they appear closer to modern Scots and Norwegians than English, but as expected modern English have more Anglo-Saxon ancestry than Scots and Norwegians:
"Anglo-Saxon era samples are closer to modern Scottish and Norwegian samples. Overall, though, population genetic differences between these samples at common alleles are very slight... principal component analysis can reveal relatively old population structure."
"England samples are consistent with 38% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average, with a large spread from 25 to 50%, and the Welsh and Scottish samples are consistent with 30% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average, again with a large spread." https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408
-Modern English have more Anglo-Saxon ancestry (38%) on average than Scots (30%), but the latter appear closer to the Anglo-Saxon samples on the PCA. This points to an older population structure/in North-Western Europe; the same thing is apparent with modern Levant peoples plotting closer in principal-component-analysis to ancient Egyptians than modern Egyptians when the latter presumably will show to have more ancient Egyptian ancestry. The older population structure could be a number of different things, but PAA (Proto-Afro-Asiatic) seems plausible, especially since the forthcoming study shows a "important Natufian component" in the ancient Egyptian samples. https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/847912486196002816Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok but to be clear these samples that plot closer to Modern Levantine populations are from Abusier and are from a relatively late period in Egyptian history...?? Is it the Natufian the ancient component that you're basing this off of? I guess Im confused as to how AA as a language group is suddenly non African due to these late period mummies.
quote:Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^ Cass,Swenet, Beyoku et al how does this prove Afroasiatic came from the Levant? People on FBD are claiming this as well
The forthcoming principal-component-analysis has ancient Egyptians closer to modern Levant peoples than Egyptians, although not by a large distance. This suggests an old population structure and a similar thing happened with PCA of 6-9th century Anglo-Saxons from England: they appear closer to modern Scots and Norwegians than English, but as expected modern English have more Anglo-Saxon ancestry than Scots and Norwegians:
"Anglo-Saxon era samples are closer to modern Scottish and Norwegian samples. Overall, though, population genetic differences between these samples at common alleles are very slight... principal component analysis can reveal relatively old population structure."
"England samples are consistent with 38% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average, with a large spread from 25 to 50%, and the Welsh and Scottish samples are consistent with 30% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average, again with a large spread." https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10408
-Modern English have more Anglo-Saxon ancestry (38%) on average than Scots (30%), but the latter appear closer to the Anglo-Saxon samples on the PCA. This points to an older population structure/in North-Western Europe; the same thing is apparent with modern Levant peoples plotting closer in principal-component-analysis to ancient Egyptians than modern Egyptians when the latter presumably will show to have more ancient Egyptian ancestry. The older population structure could be a number of different things, but PAA (Proto-Afro-Asiatic) seems plausible, especially since the forthcoming study shows a "important Natufian component" in the ancient Egyptian samples. https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/847912486196002816
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^ Cass,Swenet, Beyoku et al how does this prove Afroasiatic came from the Levant? People on FBD are claiming this as well
I didn't even notice your question until now.
It doesn't say anything about the origin of Afroasiatic. Because it is closer in time to the first Afroasiatic speakers, the recently sampled Natufians are more relevant to the first Afroasiatic speakers than dynastic Egyptians are. These Natufians already had SSA and North African ancestry, so overlooking the Natufians and using a dynastic Egyptian sample >10k years removed from the first Afroasiatic speakers to say what was and wasn't in Egypt is putting the cart before the horse.
Once we have indirect aDNA evidence of the affinity of some of the ancestry that was in Egypt 10ky ago (i.e. Natufians), you can't selectively zoom into these Abusir mummies and say that what was present in Natufians somehow wasn't present in unmixed ancient Egyptians or the first Afro-Asiatic speakers.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| 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?!
You still here? Why ain't you off attending the latest BNP rally? And do you think anyone is fooled with your bullshiit? Neither Bass or myself or Djehuti, or Ish, etc ever argued AEs were all sub-Saharan Africans. This is just your (and others) BS strawman, so you can "position" yourselves as "refuting" said fake strawman. No one is being fooled by that laughable BS. Is this all you got?
Next you come up with your nonsensical "Saharanoids." This is just as idiotic as your previous "discoveries"- of "Somalids", "Ethiopids" etc etc. You are still running the same bullshiit you were debunked on years ago.
LOL, and where is this so called "substructure" in the Sahara, I am supposed to be "arguing" against? Your mystical "Saharanoids" substructa? Really?
And where is this equally mystical "opposition" to a Saharan origin of AE? LMAO.. For YEARS folk here have noted and cited data on such matters as the climatic pump or climate changes in the Sahara that drove people into the Nile Valley, or the movement of people from various areas of the Sudan which would include parts of the Sahara into the Egyptian Nile Valley. So where is this mysterious "opposition" to the Sahara, save as yet another BS strawman, setup to supposedly "refute"? Your little "strawman refute" modus operandi ain't fooling no one. Now run along back to that BNP rally and rail against "the negroes."
And learn to lie better. The "quotation" you post has nothing to do with any "substructure." It addressed your nonsensical claim that there were these neat races based on your artificial climatic "split". As I pointed out to you then, and do it again, your little climatic "splits" whereby you get nice little races, is bogus. That was the point at issue and even Amun-Ra called you on your "racial climate splittism" nonsense. You even cited a book in support of your "climatic split" theory as shown below. I called the book and your claim out for the nonsense it was/is. Let's see that again:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by cass: The Admin is the "sam" dude by email.
I no longer really do this 'race' stuff and don't plan to post here after now, but if you guys have Amazon accounts... Just buy Climatic Races and Descent Groups by Grover Krantz (1980).
He discusses a "Saharan climatic race":
"Saharan: Skin color was dark with a medium fringe on the northern edge. Dark eyes and hair were universal. Cranial hair was wavy or curly with tight spiraling only in the extreme south. Body and facial hair were probably scant."
He goes on to describe their noses as being narrow or narrowish: "There is no distinction here between the Caucasoid and Saharan climatic races" and also discusses their elongated limbs, which in post-crania puts them closer to "Negroid". He describes Saharan's as being an intermediate eco-cline between "Caucasoids" and "Negroids", but as the result of in situ climatic adaptation to the dry-heat of the Sahara, rather than some outdated admixture Hamitic model.
Krantz' "Saharan climatic race" is basically the northern reddish/lighter brown skinned variant of Hierneux' "Elongated African" that Keita referenced in his debate with Snowden. The ancient egyptians were predominantly this reddish northern "Elongated African" or "Saharan". [/b]
Laughably obsolete and the putative "Caucasoid" approach therein have been rejected years ago by a majority of ES. 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". As demonstrated to you 2 years ago narrow noses are nothing special in Africa- they are partly a function of arid dry air as in deserts, and are as indigenous to Africa as broad noses. Let me school you again: - QUOTE:
"The role of tall, linearly built populations in eastern Africa's prehistory has always been debated. Traditionally, they are viewed as late migrants into the area. But as there is better palaeoanthropological and linguistic documentation for the earlier presence of these populations than for any other group in eastern Africa, it is far more likely that they are indigenous eastern Africans. ... prehistoric linear populations show resemblances to both Upper Pleistocene eastern African fossils and present-day, non-Bantu-speaking groups in eastern Africa, with minor differences stemming from changes in overall robusticity of the dentition and skeleton. This suggests a longstanding tradition of linear populations in eastern Africa, contributing to the indigenous development of cultural and biological diversity from the Pleistocene up to the present." (L . A . SCHEPARTZ, "Who were the later Pleistocene eastern Africans?" The African Archaeological Review, 6 (1988), pp. 57- 72)
"..presents all tropical Africans with narrower noses and faces as being related to or descended from external, ultimately non-African peoples. However, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations have long been resident in Saharo-tropical Africa... and their origin need not be sought elsewhere. These traits are also indigenous. The variability in tropical Africa is expectedly naturally high. Given their longstanding presence, narrow noses and faces cannot be deemed `non-African." [/i] --(S.O.Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993), page 134 )
Perhaps you will pick up more support for your "splittism" approach. And what date is Krantz cite from that you post up above pray tell?
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: I think this is why Bass questioned what seems to be subtle "splittism.". But notice now how long-time racist poster Cassiteredes has suddenly joined in.
It's not subtle at all.
What do you make of Cass's "splittism" approach above that you exposed in earlier pages of this thread? [/QB]
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Why are only the Warsangali Somalis, leptorrhine? Well, quite simply because as Hiernaux (1975) notes, they are a northern (coastal) Somali clan/tribe who are "heavily Arabized" by genetic admixture with Arabs hence their leptorrhiny (66.0) and leptoproscopy (94.1). Nearly all the other Somali population samples are mesorrhine and mesoproscopic, e.g: Rahanwayn Somali, NI: 72.8; FI: 88.5. Crania from Somaliland Graves (dating around 250 years ago), are also mesorrhine & mesoproscopic.
The microevolutionary in situ adaptation(s) that shaped the "elongated" East African or "Nilotid" morphotype never involved a narrow nose or narrow face. The Nilotes (Nuer, Dinka, Shilluk) in Hiernaux (1975) are also all mesoproscopic, with a greater tendency of platyrrhiny. None of these peoples have average leptorrhine or leptoproscopic indices.
The "Arab people" they have interacted with are practically the same, (from an ethnographic point of view) on the other side of the Red Sea. So again you make no sense.
You appear desperate and hopeless every time you post.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^^^ No problem bro, you were caught up debating Charlie. See this is what I was thinking, thanks for clearing things up.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I agree I could have worded it better. I meant to say that the Sahelian populations I mentioned were in contact with North African populations during the early holocene. Some of these pre-existing North Africans they were in contact with are now extinct.
But the way I worded it is misleading. I also didn't mean to say that Sahelian populations are Saharan populations in the same way that AE are. I was trying to say these Sahelian groups have evidence of extensive interaction with North African populations contrary to Bass' West Africans who he misleadingly claims "come from" the Sahara.
Okay, I see. The question to West Africans is complicated. Considering the many ethnic groups and different histories these have.
quote: I applaud Staab studios, for these awesome reconstructions.
Kiffian
Forensic reconstruction Resin, University of Chicago and Project Exploration
-Ancient Egyptians cluster with "tropical Africans" who are well below the Sahara [so not just Nubians], but SSA's like Horn Africans (Ethiopians, Somalis) and Nilotes.
-Ancient Egyptians show close biological ties to African-Americans
-Deny population-structure inside Africa since you're a pan-Africanist. If someone simply points out North Africans (Saharans) don't cluster with SSA's you display a fit of rage because it conflicts with your pan-African political agenda.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
-Ancient Egyptians cluster with "tropical Africans" who are well below the Sahara [so not just Nubians], but SSA's like Horn Africans (Ethiopians, Somalis) and Nilotes.
-Ancient Egyptians show close biological ties to African-Americans
-Deny population-structure inside Africa since you're a pan-Africanist. If someone simply points out North Africans (Saharans) don't cluster with SSA's you display a fit of rage because it conflicts with your pan-African political agenda.
Africa is an incredibly large continent, is the birth-place of mankind and thus has the greatest variation. These factors are responsible for creating the plethora of distinct populations in Africa.
Blacks are indigenous to North Africa and are distributed all throughout the Sahara, so your attempt to extricate North Africa for "Eurasians" is laughable. The ancient Egyptians cluster with other black populations in the Sahara over any "Eurasian" population.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zarahan: Laughably obsolete and the putative "Caucasoid" approach therein have been rejected years ago by a majority of ES. 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". As demonstrated to you 2 years ago narrow noses are nothing special in Africa- they are partly a function of arid dry air as in deserts, and are as indigenous to Africa as broad noses.
There is a Saharan ecotype: populations adapted to the Saharan desert. That's all I said in that old post. Like I noted above, you refuse to accept population (sub)structure inside Africa. Instead you try to pool together all Africans into a pan-continental "tropical adapted" group. And yes, we know about nasal index and climatic selection. However, if you look at living populations in dry-heat areas below the Sahara, with very few exceptions [and these are strongly Arab-admixed] they don't have narrow noses, although some are mesorrhine. The reason for this I've detailed before, its the same reason why Neandertals didn't have narrow noses, despite living in cold weather. Nasal breadth and intercanine breadth are correlated, so unless teeth are small there are dentognathic constraints to nasal narrowing. As Brace et al. 1993 notes, Somalis on average are not microdont but mesodont. So they have medium-sized teeth opposed to small. Somali nasal indices are mesorrhine (see the Somaliland burials); Nilotes tend to have larger teeth which is why they are mostly platyyrhine, although large portions of Kenya, Uganda, northern Tanzania and south Sudan are not arid, but humid. I'm unfamiliar with the palaeo-ecology and if this climate was once different, but my point about dental constraints is still valid.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
It's fragmented data as usually. Some Arabic tribes moved to North Sudan, during the spread of Islam. Some intermingled with natives. It was a bidirectional process.
However, the people are ethnically the same. The same story goes for Somalis. SMH
Arabs origins is at Southern Arabia, Yemen.
quote: Population comparisons
Based on FST values, the mitochondrial genetic diversity of Soqotra is statistically different (P \ 0.01) from the comparative populations. An MDS plot of FST values shows that the Soqotra sample is clearly distinct from all sub-Saharan, North African, Middle East, and Indian populations (see Fig. 2). High differentiation of the East African groups such as the Sandawe, Hadza, Turu, Datog, and Burunge is shown on the left side of the graph. However, there is a general similarity of the remaining sub-Saharan African populations, particularly those from the Sahel band and the Chad Basin (with the exception of the Fulani nomads). Subsequently, there is a transitional zone formed by the populations from Ethiopia and the Nile Valley but also by some Yemeni groups, particularly the ones from the eastern parts of the country (Hadramawt).
[...]
Population differentiation of Soqotra from African, Middle East and Indian populations based on NRY-SNP data manifests a similar picture although the comparative populations are different and fewer than in the mitochondrial DNA analysis (see Fig. 3). A comparison of FST values shows that the only population that is not significantly different from Soqotra is that from Yemen (P [ 0.01). Similarly to mtDNA MDS plot, we observe a cline from the Soqotri population to a cluster of Middle East and North African populations that splits into sub- Saharan and Indian populations.
Phylogenetic affiliations
Within the Soqotri samples, we identified haplotypes belonging to three of the main branches of the mtDNA phylogeny (macrohaplogroups L, N, and R); notably haplogroup M is absent (Table 2). There are only two sub- Saharan L haplotypes and they do not carry the 3594HpaI mutation so their classification is L3*; these haplotypes do not contain the specific mutations of L5b (23594HpaI) (Kivisild et al., 2004) and therefore they are possibly L3h2 as they both contain substitutions at 16111, 16184, and 16304 (see Behar et al., 2008). Macro-haplogroup N is represented by three different haplotypes of which only one can be unambiguously classified as N1a (it contains HVS-I motif 16147G-16172-16223-16248-16355). Two other N haplotypes have never been found outside Soqotra (see Table 2).
The most widespread mtDNA types in Soqotra belong to macrohaplogroup R (Table 2). The majority of R haplotypes can be classified as R0a [previously known as (preHV)1]. Three of the R haplotypes have not been previously reported. A network analysis of all Soqotri R0a haplotypes with additional sequences from Africa and Asia (see Fig. 4) shows a time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of 23,339 6 8,232 YBP for R0a. It is shown that the majority of Soqotri R0a haplotypes fall into clade R0a1 (defined by variant 16355) whose TMRCA is 11,418 6 4,198 YBP. Furthermore, within R0a1, the unique Soqotri haplotypes form a new clade that is defined by variant 16172 and that we have named R0a1a1. Abu-Amero et al. (2007) identified a hap- lotype defined by variant 16355 and named it (preHV)1a1, thus it corresponds to R0a1a using the newer nomenclature and the unique Soqotri haplotypes are derived from this lineage). This Soqotri-specific clade has a very young TMRCA (3,363 6 2,378 YBP) that suggests the R0a1a1 haplotypes evolved on Soqotra and have not dispersed elsewhere. Two other Soqotri R haplotypes are not classified further than R* and are quite common in neighboring populations. Five haplotypes within macrohaplogroup R carry the 4216N1aIII variant that places them in clade JT. Of the JT haplotypes, two are unique to Soqotra; J1b is represented by two individuals and T* is represented by one individual.
The majority of NRY haplotypes in Soqotra belong to haplogroup J (85.7%), with most (45 out of 54) unclassified as J*(xJ1,J2) and a few (the remaining 9 samples) classified as J1 (see Fig. 5). It is interesting to note that NRY haplotypes lacking both M172 and M267, as in our unclassified J*, have not been previously identified on the Arabian Peninsula (Cadenas et al., 2008). Haplogroup E is represented at a frequency of 9.5% and three other haplogroups, F*(xJ,K), K*(xO,P) and R*(xR1b), are present in one individual each. It is worth noting that none of the ancient African haplogroups (A and B) were observed in Soqotra.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ the whole conversation about Northeast Africans and nasal indices...
Didn't Swenet share some data showing predynastic Egyptians had borderline platyrrhine nasal indices sometime back? I think he was quoting one of Keita's papers, but I'm still searching for what he posted.
BTW this is how modern Egyptians score on nasal index (I believe this population is modern because it's not marked black like the ancient samples):
posted
Please don't let Charlie's "nasal science" comment from 2014 distract you. Brace et al didn't use nasal indices.
It'll just entertain these people's faith-based notion that differentiation of North Africans is predicated on climate and that the North Africans in question are "climate-adapted SSA" groups.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| 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.
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.
Where is Punt at then? Because last I checked it was clearly in Sub Saharan Africa and the AE associated themselves with it (assuming ancient Punt is roughly associated with modern Puntland in Somalia). Sure it doesn't trump genetics but just saying.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| 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.
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.
Where is Punt at then? Because last I checked it was clearly in Sub Saharan Africa and the AE associated themselves with it (assuming ancient Punt is roughly associated with modern Puntland in Somalia). Sure it doesn't trump genetics but just saying.
Is there any actual evidence that the ancient Egyptians ever explicitely pointed to Punt as an ancestral land? To the ancient Egyptians, lands outside their borders were characterized as lands of chaos. Punt was apparently the god's land in the sense that it was a source of valuable myrrh, frankincense, leopard skins and other valuables.
There is a small mountain in Northern Sudan that the ancient Egyptians considered to be the birthplace of one of their gods.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Please don't let Charlie's "nasal science" comment from 2014 distract you. Brace et al didn't use nasal indices.
It'll just entertain these people's faith-based notion that differentiation of North Africans is predicated on climate and that the North Africans in question are "climate-adapted SSA" groups.
Brace DID USE Nasal indices, if you go the measurements he used himself the majority were are nasal indices, you don't read studies do you? Kanembu, Daza, and Fulani are ALL SSA in craniometrical morphology.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He may have used nasal breadth. But he did not use nasal height if IIRC. Either way, plugging in individual measurements has nothing to do with indices, even if those measurements can be displayed as ratios/indices.
No they are not SSA in cranial morphology. They are SSA + slight shifted towards North Africans. Which is a crucial point you left out, because it shows you duplicitousness when you claim they are valid stand ins for SSA samples with no North African ancestry. They aren't.
And BTW, I'm not going to debate you on this much longer. I don't want it to start looking like I enjoy making fun of Afrocentrics or that I like to be antagonistic just for no reason. I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well. My only issue is with people like you pretending that you were right all along in light of these Abusir mummies and your weak non sense like "Abusir mummies have undetected SSA ancestry because SSA groups have changed in the last 3000 years". You should just own up and admit you were wrong. Don't try to come back here and spin the narrative, calling others intellectually dishonest when NO (a)DNA has supported your objections since 2014 or even before that.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Please don't let Charlie's "nasal science" comment from 2014 distract you. Brace et al didn't use nasal indices.
It'll just entertain these people's faith-based notion that differentiation of North Africans is predicated on climate and that the North Africans in question are "climate-adapted SSA" groups.
I wasn't addressing Bass in particular. More the recent conversation I've seen here on ES on whether leptorrhine nasal indices are an indigenous development in Northeast Africa. But maybe I have my threads mixed up. Sorry.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't agree with everything he says, but glad to see he's knows the Gamble's Cave & Elmenteitan were re-dated to Iron Age:
quote:Ambrose further confirms the above when he observes that the chronological date proposed by R. Protsch for the cairn burials at Gamble’s Cave is grossly inaccurate. To this end, Ambrose notes that conventional charcoal dates for the older (and thus deeper) Phase 3 layer at the site range from 8,000 to 8,500 years before present. Protsch, however, had mistakenly suggested that the cairns — which were buried in a deposit above the Eburran’s final/most recent Phase 5A layer; Phase 5A was, in turn, situated around four meters above the Phase 3 layer — dated to a similar 8,020 ybp, give or take a few years. Thus, the cairns are in fact chronologically more recent than even the last Eburran cultural phase, and by extension, so are the skeletons within them.
Thanks to Perahu, he also found another source-
quote:Repeatedly in the literature the makers of the ‘Kenya Capsian’ are described as a ‘tall Caucasoid’ or ‘Afro-Mediterranean’ people, a deduction based on examination of burials which Leakey found while digging Gamble’s Cave. Whether this racial attribution is roughly correct or not is irrelevant here. For, as is plain in Leakey’s ‘diagrammatic section’ and notes of his excavation, these burials were placed in a layer well above that containing the true ‘Kenya Capsian’ materials with the fish-bones, harpoon and ‘dotted wavy-line’ potsherd. The skeletons probably belong to a different population several thousand years later. There is therefore no direct evidence of the physical type of the makers of the ‘Kenya Capsian’.
So as I said, there are no narrow-nasal aperture crania in East Africa until as recent as the Iron Age c. 500 BCE. Afrocentrists are using the earlier erroneous dates (Leakey, 1935) to try to argue these "Caucasoid" traits evolved in situ in the Kenya & Horn of Africa from the Mesolithic-Neolithic.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Please don't let Charlie's "nasal science" comment from 2014 distract you. Brace et al didn't use nasal indices.
It'll just entertain these people's faith-based notion that differentiation of North Africans is predicated on climate and that the North Africans in question are "climate-adapted SSA" groups.
I wasn't addressing Bass in particular. More the recent conversation I've seen here on ES on whether leptorrhine nasal indices are an indigenous development in Northeast Africa. But maybe I have my threads mixed up. Sorry.
My bad. If you weren't commenting on that exchange from 2014, I haven't said anything.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No [Sahelians] are not SSA in cranial morphology. They are SSA + slight shifted towards North Africans. Which is a crucial point you left out, because it shows you duplicitousness when you claim they are valid stand ins for SSA samples with no North African ancestry. They aren't.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Blacks are indigenous to North Africa and are distributed all throughout the Sahara, so your attempt to extricate North Africa for "Eurasians" is laughable. The ancient Egyptians cluster with other black populations in the Sahara over any "Eurasian" population. [/QB]
Of course since the tropics includes the southern Sahara; there are 'black' Saharans. The north of the Sahara however is above the tropics. You can simply look up a UV-index map to see the northern Sahara receives less annual (mean) sunlight than the south. What I said is northern Saharans were/are not black; I never disputed southern Saharans were/are, hence Nubians I've always described as black skinned. But the Nubians contrasted their skin colour to the Egyptians; we've been over this like 100 times.
Afrocentrists are politicalizing the term 'black' in a pan-African sense to cover the whole continent, so they won't differentiate between light-medium brown skinned northern Saharans and those who are dark brown ('black') skinned inside the tropics, despite independent observers from different cultures (Greeks, Romans, Arabs etc.) all distinguished Egyptians to Nubians in skin colour.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
FFS, man up and admit that the old scenario we used to believe in, wherein all native Africans cluster together into one exclusive pan-African clade, was wrong and actually contradicted the OOA theory of modern human origins. Think about it, if all OOA populations represent an offshoot of Northeast Africans, then of course indigenous Northeast Africans (including the eastern Saharan ancestors of AEs) are going to appear more closely related to OOAs than West or Central Africans. See this graph below for a visual illustration of that phenomenon:
Mind you, these ancestral Northeast African populations would have still had dark brown (or "black") skin, as lighter skin wouldn't develop until certain OOA populations started colonizing the northern regions of Eurasia (and even then, it wouldn't have been as widespread as it is today). So of course those people who stayed in Northeast Africa and eventually evolved into the proto-Egyptians would still have looked "black", or at least not pale or tan-skinned. But that doesn't mean you can pigeonhole them into one (exclusive) pan-African grouping with people way over in, say, the Congo. That's like trying to force them into a "true Negro" stereotype.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:
Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
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...........
I never understood why people so desperately tried to associate the ancient Egyptians with populations beyond Central Sudan.
.
See, sub-Saharan Africa is a way to keep the negro concept alive.
Africa South of the Sahara is the correct geographic wording.
Southernmost Sudan South Sudan Ethiopia Djibouti are all south of the Sahara as are Kenya and Somalia.
Armana royals and Ramses STRs show Somalis as no less than 3rd place and for Yuya Amenhotep Tut Somali miniFiler STRs rank 1st.
The negro misnomer and its SSA partner sees to it that 'Amhara' not 'Omo' get to be the Ethiopian default in the lion's share of genetic reports and even in the mind of your average reader.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No [Sahelians] are not SSA in cranial morphology. They are SSA + slight shifted towards North Africans. Which is a crucial point you left out, because it shows you duplicitousness when you claim they are valid stand ins for SSA samples with no North African ancestry. They aren't.
A population can craniometrically SSA and dentally another thing, look at Jebel Moya, lol
Its clear that you are using the true Negro theory
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: He may have used nasal breadth. But he did not use nasal height if IIRC. Either way, plugging in individual measurements has nothing to do with indices, even if those measurements can be displayed as ratios/indices.
No they are not SSA in cranial morphology. They are SSA + slight shifted towards North Africans. Which is a crucial point you left out, because it shows you duplicitousness when you claim they are valid stand ins for SSA samples with no North African ancestry. They aren't.
And BTW, I'm not going to debate you on this much longer. I don't want it to start looking like I enjoy making fun of Afrocentrics or that I like to be antagonistic just for no reason. I know how you Afrocentrist are when you feel humiliated; you start holding a grudge and start lying and eventually you will start lying about why you are being mocked as well. My only issue is with people like you pretending that you were right all along in light of these Abusir mummies and your weak non sense like "Abusir mummies have undetected SSA ancestry because SSA groups have changed in the last 3000 years". You should just own up and admit you were wrong. Don't try to come back here and spin the narrative, calling others intellectually dishonest when NO (a)DNA has supported your objections since 2014 or even before that.
Swenet STOP lying man, here are his measurements USED, do your research before you talk.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: [QB] @ Bass
FFS, man up and admit that the old scenario we used to believe in, wherein all native Africans cluster together into one exclusive pan-African clade, was wrong and actually contradicted the OOA theory of modern human origins. Think about it, if all OOA populations represent an offshoot of Northeast Africans, then of course indigenous Northeast Africans (including the eastern Saharan ancestors of AEs) are going to appear more closely related to OOAs than West or Central Africans. See this graph below for a visual illustration of that phenomenon.
Correct, even though I don't work with OOA.
- I am not exactly familiar with what Swenet's views were pre-2013, but from 2013-2015 virtually only me and him on this forum were arguing for the Saharan theory opposed to the pan-Africanists. In 2014 he talked to me about research notes/an essay I wrote on this, and he was working on his own. - Bizarrely all those pan-Africanists quarrelling with me & Swenet (2013-2015) including Zaharan, Bass and so on are now denying their post histories and saying they argued AE's were Saharans (not SSA's) the whole time!? - I no longer maintain the Saharan theory because of these ancient DNA results and am just re-adopting my pre-2013 Hamiticism.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yep it's closest to Middle-easterners.
Printer-friendly view of this topic