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.
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. [/QB]
You're being daft.
Black Saharans like the Nafusa tribe are also distributed on the coast. The Nafusa live in Tripolitania (Libya) - in the Northern Sahara. The Masmuda also live on the Coast of Morocco.
How many times must you be told that there was no population or Nation called "Nubia"? There were no "Nubians". Lower "Nubians" inhabit the same zone as their Upper Egyptian kin and kith, adapted to the same environment, have a common origin and were portrayed as identical to the ancient Egyptians - meaning they both had mahogany-brown skin. I have had to affirm this over and over again.
The people of Punt (Northeast Sudan or the Horn) were also virtually identical to the ancient Egyptians.
The "Nubians" further South were distinct from the Lower "Nubians"-Upper Egyptians and it these people that you so conveniently wish to present as the diametric opposite of the ancient Egyptians instead of the Lower "Nubians" that were identical to Upper Egyptians.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Its clear that you are using the true Negro theory
You don't even know what the True Negro theory is, do you? True Negro has nothing to do with assigning populations to their respective clades. It has to do with saying one of the clades is "True" or "representative" above all others. This is why you are an Afrocentric loony toon. You people aren't even competent. You are just trying to parrot Keita and co-opt his papers while secretly having completely drifted from what he says.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| 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.
I have always said that SSA people are diverse and do not constitute ONE grouping of people and that like Keita said there is more than one way to be SSA. I never said they all genetically cluster the same way either, please do NOT put words in my mouth. Why are we severely limiting SSA to one anthropological or genetic type? That has never been my position.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Its clear that you are using the true Negro theory
You don't even know what the True Negro theory is, do you? True Negro has nothing to do with assigning populations to their respective clades. It has to do with saying one of the clades is "True" or "representative" above all others. This is why you are an Afrocentric loony toon. You people aren't even competent. You are just trying to parrot Keita and co-opt his papers while secretly having completely drifted from what he says.
What is sub-Saharan African to you? Define it. Stop chewing on straws because I have always supported Keita's view as well as Hiernaux's view as well. Don't ever put words in my mouth
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: A population can craniometrically SSA and dentally another thing, look at Jebel Moya, lol
False and false. You are a simpleton with no idea how this works. You uploaded a Hubbe et al 2010 to your website and called it "True Negro morphology" even though the morphology isn't even True Negro and even though you supposedly have a beef with the term. You are a complete simpleton old out of touch fart no one takes serious outside of Egyptsearch.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
More slight of hand duplicity like when you sub cranial dendrograms for genetic phylogenies knowing most readers will be snowed.
Not to mention refusing to fully cite chart sources or post their authors' captions or relevant text.
In his latest shenanigan Swenet posts a tooth chart when he's talking about crania. ???
This about cult of personality not about data and honesty.
Meanwhile statements like
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ancient Egyptians can be partially modeled as Angel's Anatolian and Greek samples
[white racist insult to DougM who disagrees as an ape having a fit deleted].
There, I said it. Ancient Egyptians can be modeled as partly consisting of Angel's Nea Nikomedeian sample.
go taken for granted needing absolutely no explanation less lone confirmation.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
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.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: A population can craniometrically SSA and dentally another thing, look at Jebel Moya, lol
False and false. You are a simpleton with no idea how this works. You uploaded a Hubbe et al 2010 to your website and called it "True Negro morphology" even though the morphology isn't even True Negro and even though you supposedly have a beef with the term. You are a complete simpleton old out of touch fart no one takes serious outside of Egyptsearch.
That's NOT false, Jebel Moya is craniometrically akin to West Africans in one study, and described as being like the Nuba people in another study, though their dental traits clustered them with "North Africans." Do your research or do I have to do it for you? You still have not defined what sub-Saharan is.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
The above is a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.
There was no kingdom or entity called "Nubia" in ancient times. There were no people (s) called "Nubians". These "Nubians" spoke different languages (belonging to different linguistic groups) and had markedly different physical appearances.
The ancient Egyptians specified the various kingdoms and people of the South and used terms like Kush, Setjau, Wawat, Medjay, Irem, Kaau and so on; some of these people exactly resembled the ancient Egyptians while others looked like the pitch-black Dinka or the Nuba of Kordofan.
Some of Egypt's Southern neighbours [those to the immediate South] very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians. Those further South did not.
"Nubia" is a corruption of the ancient Egyptian word Nubt -- a word for gold. There was a city in Upper Egypt called Nubti, which would have been the original Nubia.
Lower "Nubians" and Puntites from Northeast Sudan or Eritrea were identical to the ancient Egyptians and were both distinct from the "Nubians" much further afield. The "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and Northeast Sudan were ethnically the closest people to the ancient Egyptians in or outside Africa.
These are the people of Punt (modern day Northeast Sudan or the Horn) and they resemble the ancient Egyptians:
And these are ancient Egyptian soldiers and sailors
Upper Egypt has had shared affinities with specific people in 'Nubia' for tens of thousands of years, and this is why specialists understand that 'Nubians' were ethnically the closest people to the ancient Egyptians since the predynastic period.
Eurocentrics [ignorant, dishonest cretins] insist on creating an artificial dichotomy between the people of the South and the ancient Egyptians by presenting the pitch-black ancestors of the "Nuba" and the Dinka as the quintessential "Nubians" while ignoring people that so very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians.
Here's a picture of a black man from Swaziland standing next to a Hematite mine and his skin tone matches the red ochre that we see used to represent the ancient Egyptians. Contrast him to a Dinka, and what he's not black anymore?
There is no evidence that Lower "Nubians" were ever distinguished from Upper Egyptians.
Diodorus Siculus: "The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent."
Which is in line with this:
"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. "(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
Pseudo Aristotle: "Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two." [/QB] [/QB]
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Lower "Nubians" as portrayed by ancient Egyptians:
Kushites portraying themselves
The ancient Egyptians stem from a common origin with the people of the immediate South - people in Upper Egypt and North Sudan. [/QB]
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: A population can craniometrically SSA and dentally another thing, look at Jebel Moya, lol
False and false. You are a simpleton with no idea how this works. You uploaded a Hubbe et al 2010 to your website and called it "True Negro morphology" even though the morphology isn't even True Negro and even though you supposedly have a beef with the term. You are a complete simpleton old out of touch fart no one takes serious outside of Egyptsearch.
That's NOT false, Jebel Moya is craniometrically akin to West Africans in one study, and described as being like the Nuba people in another study, though their dental traits clustered them with "North Africans." Do your research or do I have to do it for you? You still have not defined what sub-Saharan is.
Completely incompetent. Jebel Moya has completely different pattern of relationships to other African groups showing it's morphologically in a class of its own:
Why don't you elaborate to the people here how you labeled the Hubbe et al 2010 paper "True Negro morphology" like a confused turd. Then you want to come in here and pretend to have a beef with the term. You don't even know why Keita is against True Negro. You just co-opt his work to score your Afrocentric points.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
The southern parts of most North African countries fall within the tropics...including southern Upper Egypt. . The Badarians, the people who built Nabta Playa, etc all had ancestral ties to tropical Egypt and other populations of the surrounding area. Nice try.
quote: But the Nubians contrasted their skin colour to the Egyptians; we've been over this like 100 times.
Ramses 2 and his sons in combat against the "Nubians"
Half the Nubians are the same skin color as Ramses 2 and his sons. , some Egyptians have also been portrayed as pitch black (though in many cases this is symbolic) and some Nubians have been portrayed as lighter brown than Ramses and these Nubians. No different from the brown and yellow Libyans.
quote: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.
An embarrassment of riches that you talk about afroloons not distinguishing yet you throw all africans in the tropical zone as black despite there being light brown skinned African groups in the tropical zone. Its like at first you called all SSA black, then groups like the Khoisan get thrown at you and now its tropical Africa only, and when pointed out that part of Egypt is tropical you move the goalposts again. We Afroloons/black people can't win for losing. Stick to Europe, Nazi. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| 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.
Yawn,
quote: According to the archaeologists, the current East African hunter-gatherer populations once practiced related Holocene stone tool traditions collectively called Kenya Capsian [108, 127, 128], the most famous among them being the Eburran tradition, which was found in the central Rift valley [108]. Eburran is considered among the earliest refined stone tool tradition in East Africa [108, 113]; the earliest phase of this tradition is thought to have originated between 6 – 12 kya [108, 128]. The Eburran tradition had a recent phase from ~1.3 - 3.3 kya and coexisted in the same geographical range with two advanced Late Stone Age cultural traditions that are associated with pastoralism in East Africa, collectively called the Late Stone Age Neolithics or „Pastoral Neolithic‟ [109, 127, 129-133]. The earliest of these pastoralist traditions has been called Savanna Pastoral Neolithic (SPN) [127, 130-132] and the more recent one is called Elmenteitan Pastoral Neolithic [108, 109, 127, 129]. These traditions were separated both in space and time but in some cases overlapped in one or both. The spatial area inhabited by the makers of Savannah and Elmenteitan Pastoral Neolithic cultures overlap but do not co-occur [110] suggesting a separation in time. Some historians have speculated that these traditions represented peoples with different origins and cultures [108-111]. The 18 SPN existed 5.0 - 1.3 kya in Kenya and northern Tanzania, and is thought to have been practiced by southern Cushitic speakers who originated in Ethiopia [108-111]. Elmenteitan Neolithic existed 3 - 2 kya and was found in western Kenya and the central Rift Valley and is thought to have been practiced by southern Nilotic speakers [108-111]. The Turkwel Neolithic tradition [132] is more recent and was practiced in Northwestern Kenya by eastern Cushitic speakers who also originated in Ethiopia [108-111]. According to Ambrose [110] there was consistent interaction between Eburran hunter gatherers and SPN which led to some Eburran hunter-gatherers taking up a pastoral lifestyle. By contrast, the Elmenteitan Pastoralist groups may have competitively replaced the Eburran hunter-gatherers [110]. The pastoral Neolithic was distributed as far south as Zimbabwe and other parts of southern Africa [63].
[…]
Ambrose [374] considers the Datog to be the southernmost survivors of expansion of Elmenteitan Neolithic populations; he posits that they should have absorbed pre-existing southern Cushitic populations, consistent with my observations based on genetic data. The proto-Datog were cut off from the rest of the southern Nilotic groups by a Maasai expansion that probably began about 1.2 kya [374].
[…]
Based on the distribution of livestock terms in Africa, Bender [78] concluded that pastoralism spread from the putative center of domestication in Egypt to the horn of Africa after the initial divergence of Afroasiatic populations, around the time of the Cushitic-Omotic split (8 - 10 kya), and later spread into East Africa (about 3 kya) by Nilotic speakers from the putative center of proto-Nilotic expansion in Sudan [78]. These assertions are consistent with archaeological evidence indicating that pastoralism might have been initially introduced into East Africa by people classified as Pastoral Neolithic (5.0 - 1.3 kya), associated with southern Cushitic speakers, who made Late Stone Age (LSA) tools and pottery and herded domestic cattle, sheep and goats [479]. The Elmenteitan (3 - 2 kya), another pastoral tradition associated with southern Nilotic speakers is thought to be a reflection of the second wave of pastoralist movement within East Africa [108, 109]. Based on archeological evidence of the existence of possible 155 proto-Nilotic speakers in northern Kenya [87] and possibly southern Sudan, Robbins [480] argues that pastoralism spread into East Africa by socio-cultural mechanisms such as trading, bride-wealth exchange and raiding.
[…]
There were two separate migrations associated with Nilo-Saharan speakers from Sudan, possibly via southwestern Ethiopia into Kenya and Tanzania: the first 3 kya consisted of pastoralist southern Nilotic speakers associated with Elmenteitan pastoral Neolithic culture [108, 109, 127, 129] and the second consisted of eastern Nilotic speakers beginning 1.2 kya that has been associated with Lanet and Sirikwa traditions [110, 140]. The most recent migration of Nilo-Saharan speakers into Kenya involved the western Nilotic speaking Luo population from southern Sudan through Uganda [88, 89]. Lastly, the migration of Bantu speaking populations into East Africa has been associated with several pottery traditions: Urewe, Lelesu, Kwale and Maore that are dated from 2.5 – 0.6 kya [110, 134-139]. Therefore, the frequency pattern of mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages in East Africa is a reflection of these historical human population movements.
—Jibril B. Hirbo, Sarah A. Tishkoff (2011)
COMPLEX GENETIC HISTORY OF EAST AFRICAN HUMAN POPULATIONS
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: [QB] @ Bass
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!?
Cass is dodging yall lies like: Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: A population can craniometrically SSA and dentally another thing, look at Jebel Moya, lol
False and false. You are a simpleton with no idea how this works. You uploaded a Hubbe et al 2010 to your website and called it "True Negro morphology" even though the morphology isn't even True Negro and even though you supposedly have a beef with the term. You are a complete simpleton old out of touch fart no one takes serious outside of Egyptsearch.
That's NOT false, Jebel Moya is craniometrically akin to West Africans in one study, and described as being like the Nuba people in another study, though their dental traits clustered them with "North Africans." Do your research or do I have to do it for you? You still have not defined what sub-Saharan is.
Completely incompetent. Jebel Moya has completely different pattern of relationships to other African groups showing it's morphologically in a class of its own:
Why don't you elaborate to the people here how you labeled the Hubbe et al 2010 paper "True Negro morphology" like a confused turd. Then you want to come in here and pretend to have a beef with the term. You don't even know why Keita is against True Negro. You just co-opt his work to score your Afrocentric points.
Jebel Moya's craniofacial results, showing the sample has no special relationship to the SSA groups (nor to the groups further north); its metric position is roughly similar to its non-metric results:
Irish and Koningsberg repeated the analysis and got the same results (only the erroneous position of the Badarian sample was fixed):
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: [QB] @ Bass
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!?
posted
I always heard you guys speaking about Engilsh et al. This is my first peak. So....he also believed there is a cline.
--- Characteristic High- and Low-Frequency Dental Traits in Sub-Saharan African Populations - JOEL D. IRISH
dental similarity between sub-Saharan Africa and Australia, and other workers (Giblett, 1969; Nurse et al., 1985;Howells, 1989; Brace and Tracer, 1990) found seeming skeletal and genetic links between the two regions and Melanesia. Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1993) even suggested that after 60,000–55,000 BP, Africans may have developed seagoing skills which allowed them to eventually contact Australia
Thus, these relationships may identify an expansive dental morphological cline that stretches from Sub-Saharan Africa through North Africa into Europe, Southeast Asia, and Northeast Asia and the New World
This finding, based on morphological data, supports a similar conclusion by Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1993) and others using gene frequencies.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| 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.
quote: When comparing pre- and post-4500 BP metric variation within each population, the same results are observed. Interestingly, the metric variation shared between Khoesan post-2000 BP (excluding Region A specimens for reasons discussed above) and post-4500 BP Kenyan samples relates to Khoesan herders and Elmenteitan pastoralists (Bromhead’s site). Interpretation of these results should be cautious as sample sizes are very small (N=4) due to the scarcity of identified Khoesan herder individuals. The archaeology demonstrates very little material likeness between the two groups barring their mutual subsistence strategy. The Elmenteita populations do not share cultural, stone tool technology and raw material procurement, pottery traditions or settlement patterns (although there is evidence of the use of rock shelters) (Robertshaw 1988) with known herder or hunter-gatherer sites in South Africa during the LSA.
[…]
The bulk of the Kenyan dental sample ( N=52 ) is Late Holocene (Table 4.2 for details). According to Rightmire (1984), pecimens from Bromhead’s site ( N=34 ) are associated with artefacts and pottery (Bower and Nelson 1978) from the Elmenteitan, a food-producing culture first identified by L.S.B. Leakey (1931), possibly dating to no older than ca. 2500 B.P. Other skeletons from Hyrax Hill, Makalia and Wiley’s Kopje, Naishi Rock Shelter and Molo ( N=18 ) are fragmentary but well preserved. The remaining Kenyan material is early-mid Holocene, with 19 specimens dated to between 10000 – 4000 B.P. These samples are from Lothagam and Koobi Fora, near Lake Turkana in the North. The dental preservation of this material is quite good, even though the teeth are heavily worn. This material is often collectively referred to as the ‘Galana boi specimens’ from the Galana boi Holocene formation, part of a series of raised Holocene sediments that surround modern Lake Turkana, principally deposited between 12 ka – 7 ka BP (F.H. Brown and Feibel 1986; Owen and Renaut 1986). Dental material dated to > 8000 B.P. is found in southern Kenya ( N=8 ) at some of the best-known and oldest of the Kenya Holocene sites. Gamble’s Cave II has remarkably well preserved (albeit incomplete) dental remains, while a single complete cranium with full maxillary dentition from the Naivasha Railway site, first described by Leakey (1942), adds to this early collection. For statistical analyses, these data were divided into temporal two groups; those specimens that are dated to (>) 4500 BP ( N=54 ) and specimens that fit into a 4-10ka timeframe ( N=27 ).
The PCA of upper molar diagonal cervical measurements (4 variables) from Kenyan and Khoesan datasets illustrating pre- and post-4500 BP temporal separations for both populations is shown in Fig. 5.55. Large individuals from Kenya such as KNM- LT 13702 and KNM-LT 27710 from Lothagam are situated towards the left, while the smaller Khoesan individuals (i.e. SAM-AP 4813) are on the right, suggesting PC1 is related to size. Again, a closer relationship between Kenyan pre-4500 BP and Khoesan pre-4500 BP samples is observed, while more recent Kenyan material are comparable to recent Khoesan size/shape. There is little overlap between Khoesan post-4500 BP and earlier Kenyan (pre-4500 BP) samples. Component loadings are illustrated in Fig. 5.56. Loadings for both PC1 and PC2 are all positive but vary substantially. RM2 MLDBCD PC2 loadings are weighted the highest (0.542), while RM1 MLDBCD PC2 (0.058), the lowest.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
R u saying Cass is right and "y'all"is wrong? About what?
So u ain't got no critique for no thing Cass posits?
Yeah, a line has definitely been drawn.
Y r u playing personalities when u oughtta be teaching us what u have come up with.
Y damn people for what they don't know, then mock them instead of upping their knowledge base?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oula Seitsonen, University of Helsinki, Finland: Change and continuity in the lithics use in Nyanza Province, Kenya The lithic assemblages excavated from single and multi-period Holocene sites in Nyanza Province, Kenya, show some interesting long-term trends of techno-typological change and continuity. These are evident for example in the raw material choices, used reduction methods and manufactured end products, and presumably mirror developments e.g. in the associated socio-economical networks and settlement patterns. Of interest is that no direct correlation exists between the changes in lithic technology and the changes of ceramic traditions or subsistence economy. This might suggest for the most part of the Holocene a gradual, autochthonous culture-historical sequence with few abrupt changes. Most important and sudden changes in the lithics use are connected to the appearance of Elmenteitan ware in South Nyanza.
“Cultural Diversity of Africa’s Past”
Society of Africanist Archaeologists (SAfA) 2008 Conference
quote:A mosaic of pastoral and hunter-gatherer groups coexisted in south- ern Kenya and parts of northern Tanzania from >4000 BP onwards. After 3500 BP, two distinct specialized pastoral cultures emerged: the Elmenteitan at sites like Ngamuriak, and the Savanna Pastoral Neolithic at Narosera and Crescent Island Main (Bower, 1991; Robertshaw, 1990). Both cultures relied on intensive use of livestock, and made little use of abundant wild ungu- lates (Gifford-Gonzalez, 2000; Marshall, 2000). At the site of Enkapune Ya Muto, contemporary Eburran 5 hunter-gatherers had lithic technology and microlith styles similar to those of earlier hunter-gatherers, and consumed large quantities of wild fauna and limited stock (Ambrose, 1984b). The few domestic animals are attributed to gifts from pastoral neighbors, raiding, or limited herding (Marean, 1992). Nderit ceramics similar to those found on pastoral sites also attest to interaction between Eburran hunter-gatherers and nearby herders (Ambrose, 1998).
—Suzan B. Aradeon
Al-Sahili : the historian's myth of architectural technology transfer from North Africa
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: A population can craniometrically SSA and dentally another thing, look at Jebel Moya, lol
False and false. You are a simpleton with no idea how this works. You uploaded a Hubbe et al 2010 to your website and called it "True Negro morphology" even though the morphology isn't even True Negro and even though you supposedly have a beef with the term. You are a complete simpleton old out of touch fart no one takes serious outside of Egyptsearch.
That's NOT false, Jebel Moya is craniometrically akin to West Africans in one study, and described as being like the Nuba people in another study, though their dental traits clustered them with "North Africans." Do your research or do I have to do it for you? You still have not defined what sub-Saharan is.
Completely incompetent. Jebel Moya has completely different pattern of relationships to other African groups showing it's morphologically in a class of its own:
Why don't you elaborate to the people here how you labeled the Hubbe et al 2010 paper "True Negro morphology" like a confused turd. Then you want to come in here and pretend to have a beef with the term. You don't even know why Keita is against True Negro. You just co-opt his work to score your Afrocentric points.
Jebel Moya's craniofacial results, showing the sample has no special relationship to the SSA groups (nor to the groups further north); its metric position is roughly similar to its non-metric results:
Irish and Koningsberg repeated the analysis and got the same results (only the erroneous position of the Badarian sample was fixed):
If we use your logic, Badarians show no special relationships to Naqada nor any of the other Egyptians. Jebel Moya is closest to Ibo
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been on Egyptsearch since 2003, what the hell is this Negro talking about. N o one can post one quote where I said ancient Egyptians were genetically SSA. At any rate, a Late Intermediate Period sample of people are not representative of all Egyptians so its not the abstract refutes anything. If they say Roman era Egyptians I'm 100% sure they are talking about Dahkla Oasis people which is an entirely different locality and in the south
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, you are a simpleton. That plot from Mukherjee showing the Badarians away from other Egyptians has never been reproduced. So why should anyone accept it?
It's not even supported by Mukherjee's own distance matrix; it was clearly an error.
And, at the end of the day, Jebel Moya has no special relationship to SSA samples, and the non metric and metric data show roughly the same results.
posted
Don’t' mean to interrupt you bone guys and your discussion. But this is interesting . In situ evolution ? ------- Quote: "In summary, this investigation provides some new insight into the phenetic relationships of African populations based on dental morphological data. Striking sub-Saharan and North African intraregion homogeneity contrasts with significant interregional differences. And from a global perspective, North Africans resemble Europeans to some degree, whereas sub-Saharan-affiliated Africans differ from all world groups, with only superficial similarity to Australian/Tasmanians and perhaps Melanesians. Sub-Saharan Africans are particularly distinctive in their expression of numerous, morphologically complex dental crown and root traits that are generally absent or found in low frequencies elsewhere. "Based on the avail-
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I've been on Egyptsearch since 2003, what the hell is this Negro talking about. N o one can post one quote where I said ancient Egyptians were genetically SSA.
Here is the turd who talks about himself in third person in 2010 saying "elongated Africans" underwent microevolution in SSA:
quote:The traits are not "Caucasoid" traits, they have nothing to do with so called "Caucasoids" nor are they adaptively trivial, he offers no proof they are, the traits are elongated East Africans traits, traits that evolved through microevolution is SSA, end of debate. Next time try reading the full text of what you read instead of cherry picking.
You obviously still believe this, otherwise you wouldn't talk about "climate-adapted" SSA groups that cluster with Egyptians. Why would climate adaptation matter if you're not ultimately trying to sneak in the lie that AE were originally SSA and later "morphed" into "elongated Africans". Isn't this faith-based narrative your whole point? That they were originally SSA, but later changed due to climate? Idiot.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I've been on Egyptsearch since 2003, what the hell is this Negro talking about. N o one can post one quote where I said ancient Egyptians were genetically SSA.
"The Bass" in 2010 saying "elongated Africans" having undergone microevolution in SSA:
quote:The traits are not "Caucasoid" traits, they have nothing to do with so called "Caucasoids" nor are they adaptively trivial, he offers no proof they are, the traits are elongated East Africans traits, traits that evolved through microevolution is SSA, end of debate. Next time try reading the full text of what you read instead of cherry picking.
You obviously still believe this, otherwise you wouldn't talk about "climate-adapted" SSA groups that cluster with Egyptians. Why would climate adaptation matter if you're not ultimately trying to sneak in the lie that AE were originally SSA and later "morphed" into "elongated Africans". Is this faith-based narrative your whole point?
Elongated traits are a process of micro-evolution, what can you refute about that? Are you saying that all SSAs fit one type? I'm not sneaking in anything, don't put words in my mouth because I quoted several anthropologists who stated the same thing.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Like I said, you are a simpleton. That plot from Mukherjee showing the Badarians away from other Egyptians has never been reproduced. So why should anyone accept it?
It's not even supported by Mukherjee's own distance matrix; it was clearly an error.
And, at the end of the day, Jebel Moya has no special relationship to SSA samples, and the non metric and metric data show roughly the same results.
You're dismissed.
I didn't say a special relationship, I said they resembled SSA more closely than to any other group. They have been said to resemble modern Nuba people, we know what Nubia people look like, lol
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| 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.
I have always said that SSA people are diverse and do not constitute ONE grouping of people and that like Keita said there is more than one way to be SSA. I never said they all genetically cluster the same way either, please do NOT put words in my mouth. Why are we severely limiting SSA to one anthropological or genetic type? That has never been my position.
The above statement would be accurate if you replaced "SSA" with simply "African". However, I can see from those quoted earlier posts of yours that you did in fact believe that "Elongated Africans" like the AE were (relatively recent) derivatives of SSA. And I will admit I would have thought the same ~7 years ago, but my beliefs have changed since those days. If your beliefs have also changed over the years, it's OK to admit that. Just don't deny what you thought all the years ago.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
The above is a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.
That map is hela dated. Yam is estimated to be in Northern Chad. Asar Imhotep makes a great case that Punt is among the great lakes. Temeh was either Lower Egypt and/or eastern Libya.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Post from me under my other name, Planet Asia, lol
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: The African Archaeological Review, 6 (1988), pp. 57 72
Who were the later Pleistocene eastern Africans?
L . A . SCHEPARTZ
Abstract
A later Pleistocene Khoisan peopling of eastern Africa has been suggested by most researchers. The evidence cited consists of a few isolated crania, archaeological occurrences described as 'Wilton', rock paintings and scattered populations of present-day huntergatherers speaking languages with clicks and viewed as bearing some physical resemblances to living Khoisan groups. When these different lines of evidence are evaluated, it is clear that there is no strong basis for retaining the concept of later Pleistocene Khoisan populations in eastern Africa. Instead, the available data suggest that the later Pleistocene and Holocene eastern Africans were tall, linear peoples.
CB writes: This is in response to Thought saying Pleistocene East Africans looked more like West Africans. They didn't, instead they more like the modern Afro-Asiatic and Nilo-Saharan speakers there.
Considering that last part, its apparent that I never thought all SSA were the same, nor did I ever say Ancient Egyptians were fully SSA, you all keep reaching and grasping straws.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stop lying. You got caught red-handed. You clearly said that AE are SSA populations in that quote about microevolution. This was secretly also the whole purpose why you invoked the Toubou as an example of a "climate adapted SSA population" in relation to AE in the first place.
If not, what was your point of picking a Sahelian population you insisted was SSA in ancestry, and relating them to AE? People who don't have an ulterior motive and who maintain AE originated in the Sahara have no reason to spam that line of reasoning. First you made sure to remind everyone Toubou are fully SSA in ancestry and then you related them to AE. Who do you think you're kidding?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: [QB] @ Bass
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!?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Stop lying. You got caught red-handed. You clearly said that AE are SSA populations. This was secretly also the whole purpose why you invoked the Toubou as an example of a "climate adapted SSA population" in relation to AE in the first place.
If not, what was your point of picking a Sahelian population you insisted was SSA in ancestry, and relating them to AE? People who don't have an ulterior motive and who maintain AE originated in the Sahara have no reason to spam that line of reasoning. So who do you think you're kidding?
No kid, YOU are grasping for straws once again, stop putting words in my mouth. Here is another post I made yet again in 2005, and its the same thing I said earlier in this topic:
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:
quote:Originally posted by Thought2:
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: The Egyptian population *ORIGINALLY* was composed of the former two with the latter[Levantine]group being recent, so this does in fact raise a red flag. I think Joel Irish draws sometimes too radical a conclusion based on dental traits.
Thought Writes:
This is a good point. In fact Irish contradicts himself as it relates to this proposed Levantine incursion when he states that the Nile Valley remains are varied in contrast to Western Asian dental traits.
Thought Posts:
"However, as it stands, the lone Greek Egyptian sample from Lower Egypt significantly differs from all but the small Roman-period Kharga sample. In fact, it was shown to be a major outlier that is divergent from all others.....This trait combination is reminiscent of that in Europeans and WESTERN ASIANS. Thus, if the present heterogenous sample is at all representative of peoples during the Ptolemaic times, it may suggest some measure of foreign admixture......As above, the first two traits are common in Europeans and western Asians; the latter is rare in these areas as well as greater North Africa."
True indeed. In fact, there is no proof and never has there any that Levantine groups and other non-Africans made up even a significant portion of pre-proto dynastic peoples of Egypt. So you are right, Irish does contradict himself, but one thing that still stands out is that the egyptians and other North African series do *NOT* cluster with Europeans based on dental traits, thus the notion that Ancient Egyptians were/are "Mediterranean Caucasoids" is again refuted.
The above is a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.
That map is hela dated. Yam is estimated to be in Northern Chad. Asar Imhotep makes a great case that Punt is among the great lakes. Temeh was either Lower Egypt and/or eastern Libya.
Yes, and the ancient Egyptians were Bantus. Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Me again in 2005, 12 years ago agreeing with Thought that Ancient Egyptians were composed of Saharans and Nilotics, lol, but this lame knee grow still talking about some ulterior motive, you sound worse than Trump
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness:
quote:Originally posted by Thought2:
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: From the full text:
"The source of any heterogeneity is thought to have stemmed from the makeup of the ‘‘proto-predynastic’’ (Keita, 1992, p. 251) founding population that may have comprised many biologically distinct peoples, including Saharan, Nilotic, and Levant groups...
Thought Writes:
This statement alone should raise some red flags to those of keen mind. We know that based upon genetics Saharans, Nilotic and Levantine groups are NOT biologically distinct from one another based upon the E3b lineage of the Y-Chromosome.
The Egyptian population *ORIGINALLY* was composed of the former two with the latter[Levantine]group being recent, so this does in fact raise a red flag. I think Joel Irish draws sometimes too radical a conclusion based on dental traits. This study needs further critiqing.
posted
An animated illustration of Charlie Bass coming to terms with his past mistaken beliefs (which many of us here used to have, until the past few years):
Clearly this man's willingness to admit he was wrong at one point in his life is exemplary.
posted
Your point? You and your fellow turds think everything is plastic. You thought, and still think, that dental traits are climate adaptations. You admitted AE were Saharans because you think Saharans are also climate-adapted SSA.
quote:The traits are not "Caucasoid" traits, they have nothing to do with so called "Caucasoids" nor are they adaptively trivial, he offers no proof they are, the traits are elongated East Africans traits, traits that evolved through microevolution is SSA, end of debate. Next time try reading the full text of what you read instead of cherry picking.
Don't try to back track now. You said people with these traits originated in SSA. Who cares if you said elsewhere that people with the same traits entered Egypt from the Sahara?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: An animated illustration of Charlie Bass coming to terms with his past mistaken beliefs (which many of us here used to have, until the past few years):
Clearly this man's willingness to admit he was wrong at one point in his life is exemplary.
??? Bull, don't put words in my mouth, since 2005 I have held the same position and never stated Ancient Egyptians were SSA genetically, so don't throw me into that group of people.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Your point? You and your fellow turds think everything is plastic. You thought, and still think, that dental traits are climate adaptations. You admitted AE were Saharans because you think Saharans are also climate-adapted SSA.
When did I say dental traits are climatic adaptations? I held the position they are adaptations to DIET, not climate, smh, man stop continually putting words in my mouth. The nasal index and body proportion are climatically influenced. I never said dental traits, especially nonmetric traits are climatic. Anyone studying anthropology would know this.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: When did I say dental traits are climatic adaptations? I held the position they are adaptations to DIET
That's just as profoundly stupid. I don't see how this is an improvement over thinking it's climate controlled. You think everything is plastic, which is what you use to console yourself whenever you don't like the outcome of an analysis.
See the OP. You didn't like the outcome of the Abusir mummies, so now modern SSA populations were plastic in the last 3000 years. All of a sudden we need ancient DNA from SSA to accept the Abusir results, because modern day SSA groups "changed". Everything is plastic according to you loony toons.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Amarnas were SS Africans...genetically per Hawass and the JAMA Report. Rameses III carried SSA lineage per BMJ. Middle Kingdom AEians were black skinned, Chapel et al
Don't be an apologist!!
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The Amarnas were SS Africans...genetically per Hawass and the JAMA Report. Rameses III carried SSA lineage per BMJ. Middle Kingdom AEians were black skinned, Chapel et al
Don't be an apologist!!
Don't be absurd. The ancient Egyptians were not "Sub-Saharan" Africans. The only areas in Sub-Saharan Africa that closely cluster with the ancient Egyptians are sites in Central Sudan like Jebel Moya and the Khartoum Mesolithic.
I argued that Horn Africans (Sub-Sahara) are a couple of paces down from the Saharans in their affinity to ancient Egyptians, but other Sub-Saharans are to be excluded.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: When did I say dental traits are climatic adaptations? I held the position they are adaptations to DIET
That's just as profoundly stupid. I don't see how this is an improvement over thinking it's climate controlled. You think everything is plastic, which is what you use to console yourself whenever you don't like the outcome of an analysis.
See the OP. You didn't like the outcome of the Abusir mummies, so now modern SSA populations were plastic in the last 3000 years. All of a sudden we need ancient DNA from SSA to accept the Abusir results, because modern day SSA groups "changed". Everything is plastic according to you loony toons.
The Abusir mummies are LATE INTERMEDIATE as I pointed out, and during this period many of the dynasties except for the 25 were of Libyan origin so lol, it helps to know some history about the period in question instead of blindly pounding your chest about so called angry Afrocentrists being mad.
I raised good points in my OP, mainly that its pointless to say compare AE DNA to the DNA of modern SSAs and then say AEs had very little SSA. Nobody ever said they were SSA like modern SSAs and or carried that type ancestry. I don't have the full study so I don't even know who those mummies are, and if the Roman era sample is from Dahkla Oasis well all of this nonsense you're spewing is pointless, lol.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bass is outright lying about his post history. Problem for him is i'm an old ex-Anthroscape poster (pre-2010) when he posted there, so I'm familiar with his views.
Bass was arguing things like following:
quote:They [ancient Egyptians] were *NOT* local "Caucasoids" and indeed showed similarities to peoples called "Negroids:"
quote:So much for [ancient Egyptians] being nothing like "Negroid" Africans.
quote:Ancient Egyptians were more related to Northeast Africans, Upper Nile Valley populations and Saharans than to Middle Easterners and Southern Europeans
quote:very close to Saharans, Nilotics and Elongated East Africans and were tropically adapted people
I cant be bothered to dig up more his posts, but its clear he was trying to cluster ancient Egyptians with SSA's such as Horn Africans, and other East Africans such as Nilotes, with the so-called "Nilotid" or "elongated African" morph. Also many of his posts like the first quote try to show Egyptians were not biologically distant to "Negroids".
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cass/: Bass is outright lying about his post history. Problem for him is i'm an old ex-Anthroscape poster (pre-2010) when he posted there, so I'm familiar with his views.
Bass was arguing things like following:
quote:They [ancient Egyptians] were *NOT* local "Caucasoids" and indeed showed similarities to peoples called "Negroids:"
quote:So much for [ancient Egyptians] being nothing like "Negroid" Africans.
quote:Ancient Egyptians were more related to Northeast Africans, Upper Nile Valley populations and Saharans than to Middle Easterners and Southern Europeans
quote:very close to Saharans, Nilotics and Elongated East Africans and were tropically adapted people
I cant be bothered to dig up more his posts, but its clear he was trying to cluster ancient Egyptians with SSA's such as Horn Africans, and other East Africans such as Nilotes, with the so-called "Nilotid" or "elongated African" morph. Also many of his posts like the first quote try to show Egyptians were not biologically distant to "Negroids".
Duh I said they had affinities with those peoples and?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
According to the plasticity crew, saying what this paper concluded (that climate adaptation doesn't fully explain differentiation in the Sahel) is subscribing to the True Negro fallacy.
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.
The AE don't directly say "we came from puntland". However, many of their inscriptions say that the God Amun comes from Punt and that Punt is a place of relaxation. Likewise, during the 18th dynasty the AE made Gebel Barkal in Sudan the sacred mountain of Amun because it looks like a Uraeus. And the priests in Karnak were known to orient their prayers and rituals towards that southern outcropping of rock. The reason being the Pharoahs of the 18th dynasty identified this as the ancestral land of Amun worship and Dynastic Kingship. It could be said that the rise of Amun was the result of Africans from the Southern regions becoming dominant after the time of fragmentation and turmoil. This is a time period when many Southern troops were used to help restore stability, similarly to how the same happened after the 2nd intermediate period and the rise of the 18th dynasty. (Note there was even a pharaoh named Nehesy in the 2nd intermediate period. Nehesy being the name for Southerners from what is now called Nubia.) Not to mention Ta Seti the first Nome of Egypt reflects the political and social integration of Early populations from Upper Egypt in what is called "Nubia". So we are talking about a continuous and ongoing relationship and renewal from the South throughout the dynastic era.
quote: The political disunity of First Intermediate Period Egypt is described traditionally as chaos, yet the changes occurring in the centre-province relationship and the social, economic and cultural patterns of the countryside may, with some exaggeration, also be described in the terms of a &t;social revolution&t;. The c. one hundred years of the First Intermediate Period witnessed prolonged struggles between the provincial magnates and the formation of two competing kingdoms with the capitals Herakleopolis and Thebes. The c. one century of the First Intermediate Period corresponds roughly with the earlier half of Phase Ib of the Nubian C-Group. In the advanced First Intermediate period there occurred conflicts between Thebes and the C-Group chiefdom. The acquisition of gold, hardstones and other materials from Lower Nubia and of exotic wares from the south became once more vitally important for a court that was to rule a vast centralized kingdom.
quote: The oldest surviving record of a journey to Punt comes from the Palermo stone, which dates to Egypt's 5th Dynasty. Later, during the 11th Dynasty, Henenu tells us of a journey to Punt ordered by Mentuhotep III with three thousand men who transported material for building ships through Wadi Hammamat to the cost of the Red Sea:
"I left Koptos on the road set by his majesty. The soldiers I had with me came from the south. All the king's officials, the men from the city and the village, marched behind me. The scouts opened up the road ahead repulsing the king's enemies. All the officials obeyed me. They were in constant touch with the runners... "
In order to transport the material to build their ships, donkeys were used, as camels were not available until after the invasion of the Persians much later:
To every man I gave his rations, a water-bottle, a staff, two jars of water, twenty loaves of bread. The donkeys carried the jars. When one of them tired, another was substituted. I excavated twelve holes in the wadi, two holes at Idahet, twenty cubits wide and thirty deep. One hole at Idahet ten cubits in every direction, at a place where water sprang.
Mentuhotep III was the first Middle Kingdom ruler we know of to send an expedition to Punt, though such expeditions became more frequent during the 12th Dynasty.
We do know many of the routes taken to reach Punt. It could certainly be reached by boat from the Red Sea. During the Old Kingdom this involved crossing the desert east of Memphis to the Gulf of Suez, or setting off from the Sinai. It was here that one well-known expedition intent on a voyage to Punt was ambushed and massacred while building boats for the expedition (during Egypt's 6th Dynasty). During the Middle Kingdom and afterwards, the Red Sea journey to Punt usually originated from Coptos by way of Sawu or via Wadi Hammamat and Quseir. Later, during Egypt's New Kingdom, they may have even traveled from a port at Berenike, known then as Head of Nekheb.
After a suspension of trade between Egypt and Punt during the Second Intermediate Period, the most famous expedition to Punt was actually proposed by an oracle of the God, Amun. The Oracle instructed Hatshepsut, the well known 18th Dynasty Queen, to organize the first large scale expedition to that land of the New Kingdom:
It is the sacred region of God's Land; it is my place of distraction; I have made it for myself in order to cleanse my spirit, along with my mother, Hathor...the lady of Punt."
quote: When the Egyptians conquered northern Sudan (Kush/”Upper Nubia”) in the early Eighteenth Dynasty (ca. 1504 BCE), they identified Jebel Barkal as the birthplace and chief southern residence of their state god Amun. As part of their program of conquest, they established the cult of Amun in many places in Nubia, but Jebel Barkal seems to have had a unique importance for them as a creation site and home of a primeval aspect of Amun who renewed life each year with the Nile inundation. Beneath the Jebel Barkal cliff the Egyptians constructed a major religious center and gave it the same name as Karnak (Ipet-Sut), Amun’s great sanctuary at Thebes, some 1250 km downriver (fig. 2). The Egyptians called the hill variously Dju-Wa’ab (“Pure Mountain”) and Nesut-Tawy (“Thrones of the Two Lands.”) (which in Dynasty 25 and the Napatan Period sometimes became Neset-Tawy [“Throne of the Two Lands”]). The settlement which grew up around it they called Napata, which became the southernmost town in their African empire.
posted
WTF are you talking about? Did you read and understand my post? I said GENETICALLY as posted by all current PUBLISHED Studies. I am not adept in "bones' to make an argument.
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The Amarnas were SS Africans...genetically per Hawass and the JAMA Report. Rameses III carried SSA lineage per BMJ. Middle Kingdom AEians were black skinned, Chapel et al
Don't be an apologist!!
Don't be absurd. The ancient Egyptians were not "Sub-Saharan" Africans. The only areas in Sub-Saharan Africa that closely cluster with the ancient Egyptians are sites in Central Sudan like Jebel Moya and the Khartoum Mesolithic.
I argued that Horn Africans (Sub-Sahara) are a couple of paces down from the Saharans in their affinity to ancient Egyptians, but other Sub-Saharans are to be excluded.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
The above is a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.
That map is hela dated. Yam is estimated to be in Northern Chad. Asar Imhotep makes a great case that Punt is among the great lakes. Temeh was either Lower Egypt and/or eastern Libya.
Yes, and the ancient Egyptians were Bantus.
Indeed the royals tested did have Bantu markers . The linguistic argument is beyond me but I will say that the people who make the case that ancient Egyptian is a Bantuish language have far more evidence than the people who dismiss it.
That said the map is dated. The trade rout to Yam was found heading west towards Chad. Punt doesnt move that far on your map to be in the great lakes regions. And I don't know who the hell thinks Tamehu is south of Egypt. That is news to me. That said I agree with your premise that the term Nubian has not ancient historic context.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: That chart got no indices in it.
Most of his measurements ARE nasal, man just check it.
Oh come on. I said there're no INDEXES (ratios) and there aren't.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. The Badarians, the people who built Nabta Playa, etc all had ancestral ties to tropical Egypt and other populations of the surrounding area. Nice try. 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. The linguistic argument is beyond me but I will say that the people who make the case that ancient Egyptian is a Bantuish language have far more evidence than the people who dismiss it. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic