posted
No one "ignored" your request. It's just that bs pretending to be "scientific" will get pointed out as such. That's my policy from now on with the few posts I will be making here once in a blue moon. I don't care if my post get deleted. Say something to me that reeks of crackpot drivel and you will either get ignored or you will get called out.
If you want to believe the Abusir mummies were Dinka, you deserve to get called out. Has nothing to do with "dragging names". It's just that you collectively want to believe in non sense so you're making rules now that allow non sense beliefs to flourish and forbid pointing non sense beliefs out.
And you can delete this, too. I'm done here.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No one "ignored" your request. It's just that bs pretending to be "scientific" will get pointed out as such. That's my policy from now on with the few posts I will be making here once in a blue moon. I don't care if my post get deleted. Say something to me that reeks of crackpot drivel and you will either get ignored or you will get called out.
If you want to believe the Abusir mummies were Dinka, you deserve to get called out. Has nothing to do with "dragging names". It's just that you collectively want to believe in non sense so you're making rules now that allow non sense beliefs to flourish and forbid pointing non sense beliefs out.
And you can delete this, too. I'm done here.
The "dragging name" was actually in response to you saying that Xyyman was going around distorting your position and trying to character assassinate you. The beef between you two have been spreading to different threads and it has been ruining the quality of them. Challenging posters post which you fill are pseudo-science are NOT against the rules. I specifically said going around and character assassinating posters was against the rules and yet you are trying to make it into something else.
I don't know HOW you feel guilty or feel my warning was ONLY directed at you. But whatever.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I mean who in the right mind would expect the prehistoric Nile Valley folk let alone Levantine folk to share close affinities to West/Central Africans in the first place??
That is an interesting statement.
And if you read the rest of my post where that statement comes from you would know exactly what I'm talking about.
By close affinities I mean a much more recent common ancestry like the claim that Ancient Egyptian speakers and Niger-Congo speakers share recent common ancestry. Of course we know this isn't the case and that Egyptians are about as closely related to West/Central Africans as Khoisan speakers are.
My point is that genetic relations are relative. Some populations are going to be closer related than others. The PCA shows this with Horn populations being closer to Nile Valley Africans than West Africans which makes sense geographically as well, though even then the PCA shows that there is some distance between the Horn populations and Nile Valley ones, and the Hassan et al. study I cited here shows that there is more genetic diversity in northeast Africa let alone the whole African continent than is previously thought.
Mod-
Ignore him.
[ 08. August 2017, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Elite Diasporan ]
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I think you're referring to the analysis undertaken by MacIver and Thomson. Note, though, that even of those "negroid" individuals, only a subset would cluster with most SSA groups. When you look at the criteria they used to identify negroid Egyptians, it covers not just Sub-Saharan Africans, but also northeast Africans and even Afalou and Taforalt (who we now know, have substantial Eurasian mtDNAs). One of the criteria they used was platyrrhiny. Look at the map below for an indication of how different populations relate in terms of this index: https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/saharan-populations-compared1.png
MacIver and Thompson started counting individuals as negroid already at 51%, while the Sub-Saharan population averages used here start at 57%. Most predynastic Egyptian populations average around 52%, while dynastic Egyptian populatons average lower, towards West Eurasians. Because of this, predynastic population averages are called negroid. But it's clear that most predynastic population averages are nowhere near the 57-60% range of the Sub-Saharan African population averages shown here. Lioness recently posted this table from a German study, where various measurements of Egyptian mummies are listed. As you can see, two of the four Egyptian mummies can be classified as negroid in terms of nasal index, but only one of these negroid individuals approaches the range of SSA population averages. The other three, one of which also has a 'negroid index', are far removed from SSA population averages:
Yeah, Thompson & MacIver's book The Ancient Races of the Thebaid was exactly what I meant, though I'm embarassed to say that I wasn't aware until years later in this forum when the poster Rasol informed me there was a difference between "negroid" and "[true] negro". Thus many old scholars like Petrie, Gardiner, Griffith, and Mackay noted "negroid" features were not uncommon in Egyptians and some even outright called Egyptians "negroid" in appearance but not actually "negro". Although ironically enough these same scholars did note a very select few of the skeletal remains especially in Upper Egypt were of truly "negro" and thus foreigners.
quote:I have not looked into the possible genetic affiliations of prehistoric Central Saharans much, but the pre-Neolithic Round Head rock art in the Central Sahara and certain skeletal remains in the region support a presence of SSA groups there. I have posted about these skeletal remains in the past, but it was a long time ago. I don't remember the source, unfortunately.
Well, like I said there were a number of cultures living in the central Sahara during the Holocene wet period, and the skeletal remains also display heterogeneity with some looking "negroid" (or negro) and others looking "Mediterranean" while others "Mechtoid". It varies from area to area.
quote:I have been working on the origins of those populations. I'm still gathering evidence to make sure I'm on point. I aint trying to go out like the Xyyman's "Niger Congo Natufians" that never materialized. Lol.
I personally think these populations displaying so-called "caucasoid" morphology predate Afro-asiatic and Nilo-Sahran in the Great Lakes region and clues to who they may be genetically can be seen in the Hassan et al. paper I cited here with regards to the Maasai perhaps.
By the way, I checked and realized it was Lioness who first posted the study in this forum 2 years ago here.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elite Diasporan: @Djehuti
What are your thoughts on the upcoming Tanzanian pastoralist paper thats coming out? The Euronut wannabe Razib Khan attended the conference iirc and spoke on it.
I asked because you been in a long hiatus.
Well knowing Razib, he'll no doubt (over) emphasize the EEF elements that may be present. That said, I think the Azanians will show close ties to modern Cushitic speaking peoples as well as perhaps Great Lakes inhabitants like the Turkana and Maasai. I'll have to wait and see.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- 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
BTW – I never once claimed the AEians or Natufians were Nigerians.(YRI is 3rd closest to Amarnas) I follow the data. AEians are indigenous Africans with Sub-Saharan roots in the Great Lakes and surprisingly southern Africa. This is what the data has shown. Modern Europeans, North Africans , Modern Levantines are NOT closely matched. This was borne out with the Amarnas and now the Abusir mummies. Autosomal SNP Suppl Fig 3 shows that modern Europeans are NOT closely matched and very distant from the Abusir mummies. And most Levantines/Near East are NOT closely matched either. Modern SSA Africans weren’t included in the chart. The closest matched based upon the released that in the study are Neolithic Levant(ie Natufians related-which is NOT closely related to modern Levantines), Southern Yemenis, Modern Egyptians, Bedoiuns(who are the African base population of the Levant) and Tunisians(who irregardless of their features are the LEAST admixed and purest North Africans withOUT modern Europeans admixture). The Druze are much further than the southern Yeminis.
But guess what, now have the tools. We have the genome of the Abusir mummies(I downloaded myself recently), I am sure we can download other groups from HAPMAP, HGDP etc and run our own analysis for comparison with Eastern SSA. We have TreeMix software etc to estimate migration edges. This is where DNATribes and Lucas Martin would of done his thing. But I am sure it is only a matter of time before someone (like DNAConsultants etc ) do the analysis. Now that I have re-read the study, come to think of it, STR may not be needed after all.
I am sure if the Great Lakes Africans were included who carry the labeled “Eurasian” ancestry (they)will be closest matched to Abusir. It is only a matter of time.
-------------------- 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 Elite Diasporan: @Djehuti
What are your thoughts on the upcoming Tanzanian pastoralist paper thats coming out? The Euronut wannabe Razib Khan attended the conference iirc and spoke on it.
I asked because you been in a long hiatus.
Well knowing Razib, he'll no doubt (over) emphasize the EEF elements that may be present. That said, I think the Azanians will show close ties to modern Cushitic speaking peoples as well as perhaps Great Lakes inhabitants like the Turkana and Maasai. I'll have to wait and see.
Glad you replied. Its just one remain of a pastoralist around 3000 BC. Around that date I TOO believe he would show close affinity to S.Cushites. Bantus would have arrived later in Azania bringing agriculture/iron, but prior to them S.Cushites would have probably predominate that region.
I cant wait for this because it we have MORE Ancient African DNA.
PS-I notice you are well versed Ancient Nile Valley culture/religion. I plan on sending you a PM because I have a question.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I mean who in the right mind would expect the prehistoric Nile Valley folk let alone Levantine folk to share close affinities to West/Central Africans in the first place??
That is an interesting statement.
And if you read the rest of my post where that statement comes from you would know exactly what I'm talking about.
By close affinities I mean a much more recent common ancestry like the claim that Ancient Egyptian speakers and Niger-Congo speakers share recent common ancestry. Of course we know this isn't the case and that Egyptians are about as closely related to West/Central Africans as Khoisan speakers are.
My point is that genetic relations are relative. Some populations are going to be closer related than others. The PCA shows this with Horn populations being closer to Nile Valley Africans than West Africans which makes sense geographically as well, though even then the PCA shows that there is some distance between the Horn populations and Nile Valley ones, and the Hassan et al. study I cited here shows that there is more genetic diversity in northeast Africa let alone the whole African continent than is previously thought.
Mod-
Ignore him.
The reason why it became inserting was because of the "multiple back migrations" into the "sub Sahara including Niger-Congo". Not that I "believe" in that narrative necessarily, but simply going by what is being said / claimed in some papers.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: AEians are indigenous Africans with Sub-Saharan roots in the Great Lakes and surprisingly southern Africa.
I have heard certain South Africans make these claim ever since the the 90's, so I was like let me look it up.
quote: Among these so-called Bantu were the Zulu ancestors - the Nguni people. Named after the charismatic figure who in a previous epoch had led a migration from Egypt to the Great Lakes via the Red Sea corridor and Ethiopia, this new home of the Nguni is the mystical Embo of Zulu storytellers to the present day.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The reason why it became inserting was because of the "multiple back migrations" into the "sub Sahara including Niger-Congo". Not that I "believe" in that narrative necessarily, but simply going by what is being said / claimed in some papers.
The key question is back migrations from where?? No doubt the papers you speak of say "Eurasia", but I personally think it is North Africa. The Pagani et al. 2015 paper you like to cite which was first cited here suggests OOAs left via Egypt and thus are a subset of North Africans makes it all the more easier for geneticists to confuse/obfuscate North African genetic elements for 'Eurasian' ones. This explains why for example in the Tishkoff et al. 2009 paper an alleged "Eurasian" component was found not only among the Mozabite and Beja but the Dogon people as well.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The reason why it became inserting was because of the "multiple back migrations" into the "sub Sahara including Niger-Congo". Not that I "believe" in that narrative necessarily, but simply going by what is being said / claimed in some papers.
The key question is back migrations from where?? No doubt the papers you speak of say "Eurasia", but I personally think it is North Africa. The Pagani et al. 2015 paper you like to cite which was first cited here suggests OOAs left via Egypt and thus are a subset of North Africans makes it all the more easier for geneticists to confuse/obfuscate North African genetic elements for 'Eurasian' ones. This explains why for example in the Tishkoff et al. 2009 paper an alleged "Eurasian" component was found not only among the Mozabite and Beja but the Dogon people as well.
I agree with the point on obfuscating data. I have noticed that often they chanced the narrative to the origin of a "HG". And the more I read the more I see contradictions in their narratives.
I have referenced to Tiskoff before in this thread, here. And here is the Pagani et al. 2015 paper, which was used by Verena J. Schuenemann et al., which made me wonder about many things since Pagani used filters in his study.
Many posters here who are in dispute with each other are actually say the same thing. But arrogance gets in the way to reason objectively, which is sad.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The reason why it became inserting was because of the "multiple back migrations" into the "sub Sahara including Niger-Congo". Not that I "believe" in that narrative necessarily, but simply going by what is being said / claimed in some papers.
The key question is back migrations from where?? No doubt the papers you speak of say "Eurasia", but I personally think it is North Africa. The Pagani et al. 2015 paper you like to cite which was first cited here suggests OOAs left via Egypt and thus are a subset of North Africans makes it all the more easier for geneticists to confuse/obfuscate North African genetic elements for 'Eurasian' ones. This explains why for example in the Tishkoff et al. 2009 paper an alleged "Eurasian" component was found not only among the Mozabite and Beja but the Dogon people as well.
Oh and how could I forget to mention the 2003 Hanihara et al. study using MMD based on non-metric traits, whose findings show that North Africans (including Nubians as well as Egyptians) cluster together with Eurasians.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I agree with the point on obfuscating data. I have noticed that often they chanced the narrative to the origin of a "HG". And the more I read the more I see contradictions in their narratives.
I have referenced to Tiskoff before in this thread, here. And here is the Pagani et al. 2015 paper, which was used by Verena J. Schuenemann et al., which made me wonder about many things since Pagani used filters in his study.
Many posters here who are in dispute with each other are actually say the same thing. But arrogance gets in the way to reason objectively, which is sad.
Indeed, as Zarahan has often pointed out where experts in the past would obfuscate by shuffling data in regards to cranial traits whether metric or non-metric, now geneticists are doing the same thing in regards to their data by not properly assessing the indigenous genetic diversity in Africa.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Good observation. I agree there will be a north-south cline of Iberian ancestry into the Maghreb and a south-north cline of African ancestry into Iberia.
The Neolithic Maghreb is the best period to find substantial West/Central African ancestry in ancient North Africa north of the 25th parallel. It's also the best region in general for this type of ancestry, at this point in time, north of the 25th parallel. So, odds for this ancestry in that time period and part of North Africa are far higher than for, say, the Egyptian Nile Valley.
But since the sample consists of food producers, we may see little or negligible amounts of West/Central African ancestry in this specific sample, especially if the sample is early Neolithic. In that case I expect equatorial East African ancestry as the primary type of SSA ancestry.
I expect the remaining, non-SSA, types of African ancestry to be related to what's found in the hybrid so-called "Levant Neolithic" and Maghrebi components.
Not so bad, if I do say so myself.
Ancient Maghrebi mtDNAs are inconsistent with an origin of "EEF neolithics" in the Maghreb. These aDNA samples have no prominent Maghrebi mtDNA H, nor do any of the samples have affinities with WHG, which they were supposed to have in gramps' "blue-eyed Maghrebi blacks" scenario. Another batch of setbacks for gramps. It's raining aDNA setbacks for you, isn't it? Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tell that to Kefi with her Paleoltihic mtDNA H. SMH
-------------------- 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 the lioness,: just look at where the greatest diversity of H is
At the diverted groups, because of genetic drifts. Set forth by a panmictic population, logically.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic