quote:Originally posted by Swenet: How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.
TBH, I don't know. All I can tell is that in the one passage I just quoted, they say there is a small SSA contribution in the Abusir sample. Dunno why it doesn't show up in the other graphs.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He seems to believe the hyksos were canaanites and is attributing the admixture date with foreigners somewhere around 2k point BC:
quote:This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.
He also doesn't rule out another possibility I'd considered: That this "Sub Saharan" DNA could be from Nubians and southern Egyptians.
quote:However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.
TBH, I don't know. All I can tell is that in the one passage I just quoted, they say there is a small SSA contribution in the Abusir sample. Dunno why it doesn't show up in the other graphs.
I already know what is going on.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats the interesting part, and what we have been speculating on. The Pan-Africans are breathing a sigh of relief but it is still interesting that Modern Egyptians are more SSA than these Ancient samples, that the 3 ancient Samples cluster together AND cluster closer to the modern Levantine/Middle East samples.
quote:We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples
and
quote:n contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 (Fig. 4b). In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples
Though the study does make it clear this is just ONE section of Egypt and that the Southern Egyptians should/could have more ancient and continuous SSA Gene Flow from Nubians/Nilo-Saharans.
I suspect Southern Egyptians will resemble Ramses III and the Armarna Samples tbh. This is an interesting find
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt.
both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.
For what, if I may ask?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
People the Roman era sample came from further South which is expected lol, the modern samples did not come from the same locality so their suggestion that Egyptians became more SSA as time wore on has not really been proven. To me the Abusir mummies, all three of them, are more representative of Northern Egypt, not all of Egypt, and a Northern Egypt that was influenced by foreign migration, why are people still obsessed with the Afrocentrists and Pan Africanists instead of looking at the relevance of the data given the time period?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note all these schizophrenic flip-floppers. lol.
Who remembers like 4-5 years ago, numerous threads were made on Herodotus' description of ancient Egyptian skin pigmentation. 90% (if not more) of the Afro-loons in those threads said Herodotus was an eyewitness of "black skinned" Egyptians (distorting the actual definition of μελάγχροος that as classicist Alan B. Lloyd notes does not strictly mean a dark brown pigmentation, but can be as light as a "bronze-complexion".)
We now know ancient Egyptians, from these 8th-1st century BCE samples, had light to intermediate brown skin, as opposed to dark brown ('black') since they carried derived SLC24A5. The latter accounts for 25-38% of the average skin colour variation between Europeans & Sub-Saharan Africans (Lamason et al. 2005).
Suddenly now these Afro-loons are saying these peoples were light[er] brown skinned and not black, directly contradicting all their postings on Herodotus.
Also note, Herodotus' main eyewitness testimony was Lower Egypt, so it was northern Egyptians he was describing-
"It will be observed that the number of sites visited in Lower Egypt is greater than in Upper Egypt in the proportion 8: 5 and that general reference to Lower Egypt, if we include the Western Desert, and also more numerous. This suggests a longer stay in the north than the south, an indication which tends to be confirmed by the fact that the centre of gravity of Egyptian culture and political life had by Herodotus' time long lain in the north." (Lloyd, A. B. 1976 "Herodotus' Travels in Egypt". In: Herodotus Book II, Commentary 1-98. Leiden.)
Now what? Afrocentrics denying their old posts again.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: People the Roman era sample came from further South which is expected lol, the modern samples did not come from the same locality so their suggestion that Egyptians became more SSA as time wore on has not really been proven. To me the Abusir mummies, all three of them, are more representative of Northern Egypt, not all of Egypt, and a Northern Egypt that was influenced by foreign migration, why are people still obsessed with the Afrocentrists and Pan Africanists instead of looking at the relevance of the data given the time period?
Because they spent months talking **** due to fact that they themselves had no idea how to interperate the leak. So all of this is padding basically. I'd give it a few days before ES actually attempt to break down this study with a multidisciplinary approach. Hopefully the site won't disappear before then.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
~ Watch these pathological liar Afrocentrists deny their posts again and now claim the argument Herodotus saw 'black' Egyptians is a straw man (Charlie Bass' favourite term), despite the fact its a text-book Afro-loon argument tracing back to Diop's The African Origin of Civilization; Diop repeatedly quoted from Herodotus to make the "black Egypt" argument as were 90% of the Afrocentrists here 4-5 years ago (including most in this thread).
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt.
both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.
For what, if I may ask?
You have to look at everything in context. We have more ancient Egyptian aDNA than these Abusir mummies. ES has 'lost' early farmers and Natufians. Once you lose these, and especially Natufians, it's over as far as AE=SSA. At best they can hope that predynastics have SSA ancestry ADDED to the African ancestry that is in these Abusir and Natufian samples. But the essential Egyptian ancestry is not SSA. Hence all modern samples from Egypt, the Maghreb and the Middle East showing red (see fig 4) but not the Natufians, early farmers and Abusir mummies. We know the latter all have distinctly African ancestry, but it's not red nor any other color associated with SSA groups in fig 4.
Egyptian mtDNA pools can have all M1 and U6, but no L (see Roman period Abusir). This is one of those undeniable red flags that you can't dismiss no matter how mixed these mummies are. Abusir mtDNA pools look nothing like strongly mixed populations that settled Eurasia or North Africa that originally had predominately SSA ancestry.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt.
both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: But I think we owe the people on the "Afrocentric side" a small apology. Just saying.
For what, if I may ask?
You have to look at everything in context. We have more ancient Egyptian aDNA than these Abusir mummies. ES has 'lost' early farmers and Natufians. Once you lose these, and especially Natufians, it's over as far as AE=SSA. At best they can hope that predynastics have SSA ancestry ADDED to the African ancestry that is in these Abusir and Natufian samples. But the essential Egyptian ancestry is not SSA. Hence all modern samples from Egypt, the Maghreb and the Middle East showing red (see fig 4) but not the Natufians, early farmers and Abusir mummies. We know the latter all have distinctly African ancestry, but it's not red nor any other color associated with SSA groups in fig 4.
Egyptian mtDNA pools can have all M1 and U6, but no L (see Roman period Abusir). This is one of those undeniable red flags that you can't dismiss no matter how mixed these mummies are. Abusir mtDNA pools look nothing like strongly mixed populations that settled Eurasia or North Africa that originally had predominately SSA ancestry.
mtDNA of Egyptian Coptic immmigrant sample from Sudan:
Not a geographically SSA sample in the world (not even Horners) that becomes 'Eurasianized' like this, with their African ancestry split between predominantly North African mtDNAs and little SSA lineages. The Abusir sample, this Coptic sample, and to a lesser extent, Canary Islanders, did become Eurasianized like this. So if people want to fool themselves and deflect to Upper Egypt and expect AE=SSA in future samples because Abusir is mixed, that's their prerogative. But that don't mean I have to play along. Lol.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Actually both sides were right. First off the study says, not Egyptsearch, but the Study makes it clear this is ONE sample and doesnt represent all of Egypt, but at the same time the Pan Africanists cant pretend like these results are all a bed of roses, this study says that the abusir Egyptians became more SSA After the Roman period, something no one on here has ever advocated, we always upheld that Egypt slowly became more Eurasian over the years, the study seems to imply the opposite at least for this particular area in Egypt.
both sides were right...though I personally claimed that this study doesnt represent all of Egypt, and I feel like Swenet/Beyoku advocated the same but I can only speak for myself..
Not true actually, upon seeing the initial headlines I did advocate a "flux" hypothesis where the AE started off as African (with the first inhabitants migrating down from SSA), became more Eurasian overtime, and received a post-Roman infusion of SSA ancestry from events such as the Saharan/Arab slave trade.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
By now, is it not obvious that the lack of Sub-Saharan ancestry in Ancient Egyptians and Natufians and other groups expected to be SSA is due to the extinction of the prehistoric groups that gave birth to these ancient people? These are prehistoric and ancient populations, who probably originated from the South of the Sahara, and made a home of the harsh desert. They were small, highly mobile and precarious populations. They probably died out and became dead-end populations. It would not be unique to Africa. In Europe, there is little no relationship between stone age Europeans and modern Europeans. What we need is more ancient DNA from historic and pre-historic African populations.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).
Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?
I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.
But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area. Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).
I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: How would you reconcile a reading of 6-15% SSA ancestry in Abusir mummies with figure 5c? The latter says that modern Egyptians differ from Abusir mummies in terms of their SSA ancestry.
TBH, I don't know. All I can tell is that in the one passage I just quoted, they say there is a small SSA contribution in the Abusir sample. Dunno why it doesn't show up in the other graphs.
I already know what is going on.
DAMN this conversation was useful. (Negan's voice Lol).
Sometimes a discussion forces you to look closer at the data. I thought I had stumbled on the answers yesterday in my last reply. But I'm getting more out of this paper every time I revisit this specific issue.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).
Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?
I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.
But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area. Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).
I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.
I still maintain that such a "clash" was heavily lopsided in favor of African contributions(Africa being the main source for the native population with influences from the Levant/Fertile Crescent). So yeah still waiting on Upper Egyptians and older aDna before reconsidering my opinion on that.
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
To the chagrin of geno-hamiticists the Natufians of the Levant 10000 yrs ago show us 'SSA' features can accompany non-'SSA' genomes. Black don't equal your 'SSA' code word for West African forest true negro.
Pan-African assessment of AE? Never seen any. Pan-Africanism is about politics and economics. I don't know what these kids here mean or their private definition of Pan-Africanism/Pan-Africanist.
If Diop and Ch Wms are Afrocentrics then the Afrocentric view is Egypt was created and inhabited by African blacks of the South. The north was different. North African Libyan red Africans and some Levantines were there. Foreigners entered at the north attracted to the world's only 1st World economy. Eventually the northern types trickled southward impacting the demographic.
These founding southerners were out of Western Desert Nubia and adjacent Lower Nile Sudan per archaeology and cultural anthropology. These people were Sudanese and offshoot Saharo-Sudanese.
Egypt was very cosmopolitan by the New Kingdom. We see foreigner welcome events like Akhenaten settling `Apiru as far south as n the cities of Kush.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).
Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?
I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.
But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area. Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).
I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.
I don't think it's self-delusion to wait for predynastic samples. I myself want to see such data. I think it's self-delusion to cross off Abusir from the list of [insert dark skinned population]=SSA and redirect that same fantasy to Upper Egypt. Abusir is not 6% to 15% African. It's much more than that since they're not counting Basal Eurasian. So you're much closer to something hybrid (i.e. 50-50%) than something barely African. So what is the leeway for Upper Egypt to come out AE=SSA in ancestry?
As far as AE being heterogeneous. I disagree with that (as you know from prior conversations). Let's just agree to disagree.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: reviewer 5"It is indeed questionable how accurate ancient admixture rates can be learned from either a single locus (mtDNA) or just three samples in a case in which admixture is so recent that ancestry blocks are necessarily large and the variation in admixture rates between individuals expected to be very high. However, the authors are aware and transparent about these shortcomings in their data.
According to the peer review response the author is arguing for E1b1b1 as non-African. GTFOH!
Anything from the Max Plank Institute and written by David Reich is suspect. These researchers are firmly interested in maintaining the status quo and the Hamitic myth.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).
Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?
I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.
But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area. Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).
I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.
I don't think it's self-delusion to wait for predynastic samples. I myself want to see such data. I think it's self-delusion to cross off Abusir from the list of [insert dark skinned population]=SSA and redirect that same fantasy to Upper Egypt. Abusir is not 6% to 15% African. It's much more than that since they're not counting Basal Eurasian. So you're much closer to something hybrid (i.e. 50-50%) than something barely African. So what is the leeway for Upper Egypt to come out AE=SSA in ancestry?
As far as AE being heterogeneous. I disagree with that (as you know from prior conversations). Let's just agree to disagree.
I think the leeway for those is arguing that AE being heterogeneous in ancestral influence and two major African ancestries accompanying one another(Indigenous Egyptian North African influence vs Sudanese/East African SSA influence). At least from what I'm seeing.
But agree-disagree for now as this study is still fresh. But anyways people should know by now that "black" is NOT exclusive to SSA especially with that Natufian Farmer study and that European one a while ago
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: @Swenet I have a question and you most likely can school me again(this is what discussions are for and how we learn?).
Wasn't Ancient Egypt heterogeneous? How does the African ancestry in the Natufians act as the prime ancestry for the Ancient Egyptians?
I ask because Egyptology 101 says the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians primarily came from South to North and West to East. I know this has been beaten to death but again many studies over the years have hammered on this.
But also we ALL know that Ancient Egypt was a clash of two major genetic/cultural contributions. Sahara or Northeast Africa Nile Valley vs the Fertile Cresent or Levant area. Valley/Eastern Sahara/NE Africa).
I personally do not think those who say "we wanna see Upper Egyptian predynastic remains" are "fooling" themselves.
I don't think it's self-delusion to wait for predynastic samples. I myself want to see such data. I think it's self-delusion to cross off Abusir from the list of [insert dark skinned population]=SSA and redirect that same fantasy to Upper Egypt. Abusir is not 6% to 15% African. It's much more than that since they're not counting Basal Eurasian. So you're much closer to something hybrid (i.e. 50-50%) than something barely African. So what is the leeway for Upper Egypt to come out AE=SSA in ancestry?
As far as AE being heterogeneous. I disagree with that (as you know from prior conversations). Let's just agree to disagree.
I think the leeway for those is arguing that AE being heterogeneous in ancestral influence and two major African ancestries accompanying one another(Indigenous Egyptian North African influence vs Sudanese/East African SSA influence). At least from what I'm seeing.
But agree-disagree for now as this study is still fresh. But anyways people should know by now that "black" is NOT exclusive to SSA especially with that Natufian Farmer study and that European one a while ago
That 'black' is not exclusive to to SSA is not a pill for me to swallow. You have people here alternating between "black is only skin pigmentation" to talking about "light skin, but with black features". These flip floppers trying to play both sides of the fence have to deal with their own cognitive dissonance. I stopped using the term a long time ago.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Why are eastbound Capsians indigenous but the eastbound Saharo-Sudanese not?
You guys and your untenable assumptions acting like they're proven facts. Lol.
posted
I haven't read the full paper or supps yet. Just a quick look over of the peer review pieces. But from the posts I am reading M1 linaeage is very high and others found in Kenyans of the Great Lakes. So was DNATribes right or what?
-------------------- 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 |
I said elaborate because you don't quote or @ who you are referring to.
Anyways what I mean by "Indigenous Egyptian North African influence" is ancestry in Egypt prior to the Green Sahara and migrations south to north on the Nile Valley. Basically "Natufian ancestry" which I believe Swenet has been referring.
It doesn't have to be non-African/black.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I have to say (to unbiased lurkers) is beware of unfounded accusations coming from people who can't read PCAs or even papers. We're talking about people who make threads about papers assuming some sort of pretentious teacher role, but can't even read them without help.
How can you make a whole thread about Angel 1972 and still throw a tantrum for weeks protesting backmigration when Angel is talking about farmer backmigration throughout the paper? Then they create some Dinka Egypt fake news and throw a tantrum about "hypocritical cock strutters".
quote:Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size (Table 2, 3) one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia (Anderson, 1969) via the unknown predecessors of Badarians (Morant, 1935) and Tasians, and travelling in the opposite direction sicklemia and thalassemia (porotic hyperostotis) (Angel, 1967a; Caffey, 1937; Moseley, 1965) and hence also falciparum malaria (Carcassi, Cepellini & Pitzus, 1957) from Greece (perhaps also Italy (Gatto, 1960) and Anatolia (Angel, 1966) to Mesopotamia, the Levant, Egypt, and Africa.
—Angel 1972
Clearly, there is a structural problem on this site with reporting information about Egypt accurately. Folks simply can't be trusted to do accurate reporting. Mind you, the recent thread about Angel was supposed to break with past misrepresentations of Angel on this site and represent Angel "the right way". The thread still managed to botch Angel. Lol.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You excluded the Sudanese founders of Egyptian civilization from indigenous .
Please reread some of your books on peopling of the Lower Nile Valley and the flow of culture down river and the formation of the ancient Egyptian nation state.
posted
Wasn't Angel assuming Sickle Cell and Thalsemia (sp) originate in Greece and North. Did he NOT realize this is a TROPICAL disease? So these diseases originated in Greece.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
I thought it was already well established that early farmers and the Natufians were "Eurasian", and so I don't know at what point it became essential to demonstrate their "SSA" credentials in order for Egypt to be African.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: You excluded the Sudanese founders of Egyptian civilization from indigenous .
Please reread some of your books on peopling of the Lower Nile Valley and the flow of culture down river and the formation of the ancient Egyptian nation state.
Again, I'm talking prior to the South-North migrations. Prior to the development of Egyptian culture that we know. Basel Eurasian? OOA migrants?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I thought it was already well established that early farmers and the Natufians were "Eurasian", and so I don't know at what point it became essential to demonstrate their "SSA" credentials in order for Egypt to be African.
Once again, louder, for the people in the back.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: You excluded the Sudanese founders of Egyptian civilization from indigenous .
Please reread some of your books on peopling of the Lower Nile Valley and the flow of culture down river and the formation of the ancient Egyptian nation state.
Again, I'm talking prior to the South-North migrations. Prior to the development of Egyptian culture that we know. Basel Eurasian? OOA migrants?
common sense says that this population you speak of would be either between Natufian and North African or closely shifted to one another. Both ofcourse whom probably spent some history developing OOA. Or in isolate away from SSA, as it was explained in the 2nd abusir mummy thread. A constant non SSA, or non conventional N.African settlement in the absence of detectable geneflow on the east before 4.5kya is at odds with probability.
...but who knows.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yes lurkers beware of whining bitch know it all strutting cock Grandstand Dan who'll stop at nothing to convert disciples to his faith based Ancient Egypt settled and created by the 600 population Nea Nikomedeia village in Greece not by downriver bound Africans.
The boy's such a whiny bitch always with the bitch clicking claptrap about so and so is a this and so and so is that just like my teenage girl relatives.
Cut the bitch whining out his post and you get what? Maybe two misleading on-topic sentences that aren't personal attacks or Don Quixote windmill tilting at imaginary bogeyman inka-Dinka-doo and other substaneless willothewhisps
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
?? sarcasm. I am little slow today. But I thought Natufians were Africans(North) according Lazardis et al. He also stated they were not ancestral to modern Europeans/EEF but to population in Eurasia to the East like Eastern Farmers. They also carried E1b1b*. Are we all reading from the same paper?
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: I thought it was already well established that early farmers and the Natufians were "Eurasian", and so I don't know at what point it became essential to demonstrate their "SSA" credentials in order for Egypt to be African.
It is amazing how these papers promise so much but deliver very little…anti-climatic. These writers are good at playing EuroCentrics against Afro-Centrics. Until we realize that there is no race and never any isolation so “Eurasian” ancestry is meaningless since “Eurasian(SNP)is found from the Cape to the Straits and Suez. And it will be found in the Malawi LSA African.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. Like calling this site Egyptturds.com indicates a desire for disciples.
Angel only described AE and AE/North African-mixed populations as more negroid versions of essentially non-SSA populations. Hence, he talks about a negroid early population in Egypt, but says they are "Mouillian" and "beyond A2". He says that Badarians are negroid but calls them B2. Inhabitants of his Jericho sample have Bushman-like features combined with a basically A4 foundation. So much for pretentious "I gotz the answers" reporting of Angel's work. Lol. Look at that pretentious title:
I let it slide all this time because it's entertaining to me how people can be so self-deluded and self-important about their fake news and absolutely convinced they have a point. Lol! He thought the Abusir mummies were Dinka and tried to accuse people of deliberately dodging him and this thread because of Dinka northern Egypt. Lol!
Wait, wait. Let that simmer for a moment, please. He actually thought we were avoiding him and his Dinka northern Egypt. Lol. Talk about self-importance.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: You excluded the Sudanese founders of Egyptian civilization from indigenous .
Please reread some of your books on peopling of the Lower Nile Valley and the flow of culture down river and the formation of the ancient Egyptian nation state.
Again, I'm talking prior to the South-North migrations. Prior to the development of Egyptian culture that we know. Basel Eurasian? OOA migrants?
I don't care when you talking about. We talking about the epipaleolithic to predynastic Egypt and the people who founded it.
You're saying Nabta transhumants and the like are not indigenous but the migrants into the Fayoum and the Delta were indigenous .
Listen, the civilization belongs to the indigenous northern Africans of the Lower Nile Valley, period.
What really sucker punched me was you trying to hide behind some but they wuz both blak issue that's got nothing to do with the direction the civ founders came from.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yeah, I'm not bothering with this... Swenet can but I wont. Totally misinterpreted everything I said.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^Yeah, I'm not bothering with this... Swenet can but I wont. Totally misinterpreted everything I said.
Ayo, speak up! What are you asking, what is your POV. Elaborate. What do YOU expect to be in north east Africa prior to south-North gene flow. Is it not a post bottleneck African population? To the east you have Natufians to the west Conventional North Africans and all the E3b lineages in between, no? Are you asking if this population is Basal Eurasian? I'll answer that for you right now, no. Do you wanna know how close to the aforementioned populations they are? Where are you right now, stop hiding, and show that you have a mind of your own.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Lol. Like calling this site Egyptturds.com indicates a desire for disciples.
Yes grandstanding to lurkers is just that.
quote: rolleyes
Like a bitch.
quote: Angel only described AE and AE/North African-mixed populations as more negroid versions of essentially non-SSA populations. Hence, he talks about a negroid early population in Egypt, but says they are "Mouillian" and "beyond A2". He says that Badarians are negroid but calls them B2. Inhabitants of his Jericho sample have Bushman-like features combined with a basically A4 foundation. So much for pretentious "I gotz the answers" reporting of Angel's work. Lol.
Misrepresentations of Angel were exposed in the What Angel really said thread. No need drag here what everybody read there.
quote: I let it slide all this time because it's entertaining to me how people can be so self-deluded and self-important about their fake news and absolutely convinced they have a point. Lol! He thought the Abusir mummies were Dinka and tried to accuse people of deliberately dodging him and this thread because of Dinka northern Egypt. Lol!
Wait, wait. Let that simmer for a moment, please. He actually thought we were avoiding him and his Dinka northern Egypt. Lol. Talk about self-importance.
Talk about self-importance? You reek it constantly.
What? More inka-Dinka-doo? Mistaking a grey circle for a black circle and then alerting the board of my bad is a full blown hypothesis? Don Quixote schizophrenia, mmm mmm mmm.
All that to dodge your big egg face Nea Nikomedeia ancient Egypt debacle.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok can someone tell me what the hell this "Nea Nikomedeia Ancient Egypt" mess is about???
Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I done asked him that over 10 times with no clarification expansion nor precision ever forthcoming to date.
Hold on. I'll link you to him pompously preposturing it
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There, I said it. Ancient Egyptians can be modeled as partly consisting of Angel's Nea Nikomedeian sample. Now what?
posted
Anybody with a brain will see this for what it is. Keep looking until you find the data that suits your agenda. How many mummies from across ALL of Egypt are there in various European museums? So why did they pick these particular mummies from this particular time period? What about the previous DNA tests done on other mummies?
This study was supposedly to test the ability to extract full DNA profiles from ancient specimens. But of course they just had to throw some "forest Negroes" in there for comparison and to be the REAL purpose of the study. Seems to me if these folks really were serious they would try to do tests on ALL the mummies available, in and outside Egypt. Therefore, the fact that they try and use modern Yoruba as proxies for all Africans (not just Sub Saharan Africans) tells you everything. No populations close to Egypt in Africa were sampled. There is no definition of "indigenous North African" DNA. So for all this talk of "Sub Saharan" Africans, what DNA represents indigenous Nile Valley Africans? Or are we supposed to think that the Nile Valley never had an indigenous population except for "near Easterners".
Amazing.
quote: We observe highly similar haplogroup profiles between the three ancient groups (Fig. 3a), supported by low FST values (<0.05) and P values >0.1 for the continuity test. Modern Egyptians share this profile but in addition show a marked increase of African mtDNA lineages L0–L4 up to 20% (consistent with nuclear estimates of 80% non-African ancestry reported in Pagani et al.17). Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx, while continuity with modern Ethiopians17, who carry >60% African L lineages, is not supported (Supplementary Data 5).
..... On the nuclear level we merged the SNP data of our three ancient individuals with 2,367 modern individuals34,35 and 294 ancient genomes36 and performed PCA on the joined data set. We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples (Fig. 4a, Supplementary Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 5). In contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 (Fig. 4b). In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples.
It also affirms what I said before, that "African" mtDNA lineages are limited to "L0-L4" lineages, while all other mtDNA lineages like M1 and U6 are considered non African. This means that the ONLY African lineages according to science are the mtDNA L lineages which just so happens to what folks call "sub saharan" Africa. Everything else, including the DNA in North Africa is supposedly "non African" as a result of ancient Eurasian back migration.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^More Evil European Conspiracy theories from Doug...As usual
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Misrepresentations of Angel were exposed in the What Angel really said thread. No need drag here what everybody read there.
I'll let unbiased lurkers make their mind up on their own. No need to waste time with the laughably incompetent self-styled "interpreter" of Angel's views on ancient Egypt. Here is the actual Angel quote:
quote:Egypt includes an almost Mouillian-negroid (beyond A2) early population (cf. Ferembach, 1962, Briggs, 1955), linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region (A2β) (Ewing, 1966; Anderson, 1968), as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend (B2β) in the gracile Badarians (Morant and Stoessiger quoted in Angel, 1951).
Angel, J. L. (1971). The people of Lerna. Washington: American School of Classical Studies and Smithsonian Institution Press. p101, 102
For the record, B stands for Mediterranean, while A stands for "Basic White" or what we'd today call early OOA:
quote:A Basic White A1 Atlanto-Mediterranran A2 Upper Palaeolithic A3 Basic, cf. Eurafrican A4 Basic, Eastern A5 Basic, Royal
Now look how Mr Egypt=Dinka deliberately botched the aforementioned quote, removed all references to Angel's phylogenetic information, but conveniently kept all references to negroid features:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Trodding on down that path, who got the full context of
quote:
Egypt includes
• an almost Mouillian-negroid early population, linear but with extraordinarily broad nose and heavy and deep mouth region,
•as well as the negroid small-faced and prognathous and broad-nosed trend in the gracile Badarians
J.L. Angel (1972) Journal of Human Evolution
And how do you make a pretentious "I gotz tha answers" thread about Angel's views on ancient Egypt and then call for help half way?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: who got the full context of [...] Who can vet this or trash it?
posted
Oh and I forgot to mention again that this time period of the 3rd intermediate period was also the era of the 25th dynasty which came from Kush. So are we to think that the Kushites are also covered by these DNA profiles.....