...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » IAM population, Natufians, Proto-Semitic, North African Component

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: IAM population, Natufians, Proto-Semitic, North African Component
Elite Diasporan
Moderator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Decided to create this thread here because on that other site some of us always get trolled, our posts deleted and even the thread closed. Fellow poster Tyrannohotep tried making a thread discussing this but he and his thread got trolled.


First, I want to say that anything off topic will NOT be tolerated. I feel this is a serious topic where we should finally have peace of discussion on it.

Anyways if you guys been following the recent discussions on here and on Forumbiodiversity then you know of the huge craze the Natufians, Ancient Moroccan DNA, Proto-Semitic and finally the existence of an indignous North African component that is NOT "Sub Saharan African" nor "Eurasian."

The whole thing seemed to have started with the Natufians showing significant E lineages. But according to the author of that study the Natufians had little to no SSA admixture. Things then got even more crazy with the Abusir mummy study.

To summarize basically, people who are against African people and ancestry in MENA believe there is no such thing as a indignous North African component. They view "African" synonymous with "Sub Saharan African." When they see no Sub Saharan admixture in the Natufians they then conclude that the Natufians had no African ancestry(when they had significant E lineages).

Them not concluding that an indignous North African component exists hurts their arguments in the long run imo. But what is an indignous North African component? To me... The IAM population answers that. To me an North African component would be one indignous to North Africa(and intermediate between SSA and Eurasia). The Ancient Egyptians most likely had this type of ancestry.

However, people on the anti-African side can't grasp this. When that Moroccan study came out and showed the IAM population having an component specific to North Africa it seems those same people could not grasp it. A "North African" component can only either be back migration Eurasian or SSA. That Ancient Moroccan DNA study imo crucially hurt them. Because it in way confirmed that if such component DOES exist then the Natufians(or at least their ancestors) would have been largely of this type of component too! I mean the Natufians largely carry E lineages that are "North African like."

But another reason why there is so much kneejerk reactions among the anti-African crowd is because if the Natufians had this type of component then what does this mean for the area of the Levant? That area which they want to keep as purely "Eurasian" as possible. What does this mean for proto-Semitic speakers?


PS: Sorry if I went in circles a bit and the grammar. Typed this up on my phone.

Posts: 1135 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Moderator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And on another note. If genetics has all the answers then should multi-disciplinary be discarded or no?
Posts: 1135 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Moderator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Tyrannohotep @Swenet @beyoku @Elmaestro @Capra @Lioness @Punos_Rey yall thoughts?

Wish Djehuti hung around more often.

Posts: 1135 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians is of far more importance to the "anti-African side" than the implications for Pro-Semitic. I still don't even know what to make of the Abusir study. It seems to be in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence and is sourced from late dynastic Northern samples whose identities we have not been made aware of.

In the very unlikely event that DNA testing is done on Narmer, Thutmose II, Senusret I, Huni, Teti, Pepi II, Akhenaten, Amenhotep II, Mentuhotep II, Sahure, Djoser, Ahmose I, Queen Tiye and more, I don't expect them to resemble these Abusir mummies.

The Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.

Posts: 1387 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am just going to wait for the North African paper and genomes to come out. I hope they do turn out to have a nice, distinct, easily-analyzed North African component, but from the limited analysis they did so far it isn't clear to me what we'll end up finding.
Posts: 304 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I think the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians is of far more importance to the "anti-African side" than the implications for Pro-Semitic. I still don't even know what to make of the Abusir study. It seems to be in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence and is sourced from late dynastic Northern samples whose identities we have not been made aware of.

In the very unlikely event that DNA testing is done on Narmer, Thutmose II, Senusret I, Huni, Teti, Pepi II, Akhenaten, Amenhotep II, Mentuhotep II, Sahure, Djoser, Ahmose I, Queen Tiye and more, I don't expect them to resemble these Abusir mummies.

The Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.

 -
Posts: 32252 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I think the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians is of far more importance to the "anti-African side" than the implications for Pro-Semitic. I still don't even know what to make of the Abusir study. It seems to be in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence and is sourced from late dynastic Northern samples whose identities we have not been made aware of.

In the very unlikely event that DNA testing is done on Narmer, Thutmose II, Senusret I, Huni, Teti, Pepi II, Akhenaten, Amenhotep II, Mentuhotep II, Sahure, Djoser, Ahmose I, Queen Tiye and more, I don't expect them to resemble these Abusir mummies.

The Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.

 -
Yes, we know where Abusir is, so care to expound on this map?
Posts: 1387 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Moderator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I think the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians is of far more importance to the "anti-African side" than the implications for Pro-Semitic. I still don't even know what to make of the Abusir study. It seems to be in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence and is sourced from late dynastic Northern samples whose identities we have not been made aware of.

In the very unlikely event that DNA testing is done on Narmer, Thutmose II, Senusret I, Huni, Teti, Pepi II, Akhenaten, Amenhotep II, Mentuhotep II, Sahure, Djoser, Ahmose I, Queen Tiye and more, I don't expect them to resemble these Abusir mummies.

The Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.

Nah, proto-Semitic is just as important to them or more considering many of them are of Near Eastern descent.


Also, the bolded shows that the Abusir study is not in opposition to anthropological or archaeological evidence. The question just is what will Upper Egyptian results tell us, but more importantly how widespread was this North African component.


quote:
Originally posted by capra:
I am just going to wait for the North African paper and genomes to come out. I hope they do turn out to have a nice, distinct, easily-analyzed North African component, but from the limited analysis they did so far it isn't clear to me what we'll end up finding.

Yeah I been hearing about that paper. Do you have any details on what its going to be about? I.e which location in North Africa?
Posts: 1135 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Oshun
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Oshun     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What does it matter what they say? For one lets just be honest and give voice to the only real reason they care: race. Proving someone isn't black isn't the same as proving someone isn't African. Blacks have far more physical and genetic diversity. So the burden of proof is higher to prove they're not, if we're dealing with lowkey racist "Egyptologists." Other than that, if the time period is off it really doesn't matter. If the debate is what group was responsible for state formation then you'll need to be focusing on the people of Nekhen, Naqada and Abydos. The three proto states that were the main players in the process of Egyptian unification.

It's possible Ta Seti and Nekhen were very closely connected with one another, and I'd also like to see what people have to say about Naqada and Abydos, hence the thread I made. The question will likely boil down ultimately to these three proto Egyptian states.

Posts: 1617 | From: united states | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Moderator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
What does it matter what they say? For one lets just be honest and give voice to the only real reason they care: race. Proving someone isn't black isn't the same as proving someone isn't African. Blacks have far more physical and genetic diversity. So the burden of proof is higher to prove they're not, if we're dealing with lowkey racist "Egyptologists." Other than that, if the time period is off it really doesn't matter. If the debate is what group was responsible for state formation then you'll need to be focusing on the people of Nekhen, Naqada and Abydos. The three proto states that were the main players in the process of Egyptian unification.

It's possible Ta Seti and Nekhen were very closely connected with one another, and I'd also like to see what people have to say about Naqada and Abydos, hence the thread I made. The question will likely boil down ultimately to these three proto Egyptian states.

This thread isn't about BLACK or racist Egyptology. Stick to what the OP is saying. And I don't know why the Ancient Egyptians keep getting brought up when they aren't the main focus.
Posts: 1135 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I think the genetic affinities of the ancient Egyptians is of far more importance to the "anti-African side" than the implications for Pro-Semitic. I still don't even know what to make of the Abusir study. It seems to be in opposition to all the archaeological and anthropological evidence and is sourced from late dynastic Northern samples whose identities we have not been made aware of.

In the very unlikely event that DNA testing is done on Narmer, Thutmose II, Senusret I, Huni, Teti, Pepi II, Akhenaten, Amenhotep II, Mentuhotep II, Sahure, Djoser, Ahmose I, Queen Tiye and more, I don't expect them to resemble these Abusir mummies.

The Hyksos invaded Egypt around 1600 BC and the Canaanites and their settlements preceded them in the North and the Delta. Asiatic Semites apparently starting pouring into Northern Egypt when Egypt was in the throes of a debilitating and widespread famine and weak central governance around the time of the 12th dynasty [1800 BC] and their [Asiatic] rule was only completely overturned just before the 18th dynasty.

 -
Yes, we know where Abusir is, so care to expound on this map?
yes you know where Abusir is but do you know where
Abusir el Meleq is?

Posts: 32252 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudaniya
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudaniya     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, lioness, I'm well aware of its location. It was a Hyksos settlement. Samples from Periods of foreign domination, sourced from areas of foreign settlements don't mean much to me other than to say that ancient Egypt experienced gradual demographic change.

Only samples from predynastic and early dynastic ancient Egypt (from the South) will sway me.

--------------------
National sovereignty is sacrosanct

Posts: 1387 | From: Australia | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Moderator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why are we talking about the Ancient Egyptians? *sigh*
Posts: 1135 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elite Diasporan:
Why are we talking about the Ancient Egyptians? *sigh*

Because Egypt is in North Africa and because the Nile Valley has the oldest continuous evidence of settlement in North Africa. Outside the Nile Valley most ancient settlements are found very near the coasts of North Africa and hence most open to "migration". Areas in the interior of North Africa are far less often cited in DNA studies of "North Africa" primarily because it is now a desert and mostly sparsely populated. Most of the modern populations of North Africa are settled towards the coast of the Mediterranean, including in Egypt. This pattern of settlement is relatively recent (at least in Egypt) and does not represent the ancient settlement patterns going back tens of thousands of years.

Because of all of the above, many anthropologists have been more than willing to propose a model of North Africa as having been settled by a distinct population separate from Africans of the interior. This model of settlement has become the dominant model in anthropology even though alternate models are in play. The Nile Valley is one exception to this model as it provides a corridor of settlement to the interior of the continent. Thus this area has always been a focus on the determining the role of "Native" Africans in North Africa and "migrants" in the history of North Africa.

Obviously there is an "indigenous" DNA component in North Africa (or has been in history), but the problem is you aren't going to find that component easily in coastal sites. Africa has always been a relatively sparsely populated continent compared to other places. Even though you can fit Western Europe and China (along with India and the United States) into the boundaries of Africa, Africa has far less population density than any of these places. So DNA is easily erased or washed away by relatively small scale amounts of migration, especially in places like North Africa. The Sahara makes the population density even less, which means finding an example of a "pristine" ancient "indigenous" population settlement going back many thousands of years almost like finding a needle in a haystack. That said, there are sites that have been found but those sites aren't used in most DNA studies of North Africa. For example, uan muhuggiag hasn't been sampled yet.


So suffice today, the folks you see on other forums are only following the lead of the 'mainstream' scientists. Even though the mainstream is currently using more scientific data and facts to back their models, they havent really moved much from the "bad old days" of overt racism in science. For all intents and purposes we are still talking about the "hamitic race" or "brown race" theories when it comes to the settlement of North Africa.

Of course through int the concept of "Basal Eurasian" and "EEF" and you only get a more muddied picture.

Posts: 7195 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To reinforce my point above:

quote:

Saharan remains may be evidence of first race war, 13,000 years ago

Parallel research over recent years has also been shedding new light as to who, in ethnic and racial terms, these victims were.

Work carried out at Liverpool John Moores University, the University of Alaska and New Orleans’ Tulane University indicates that they were part of the general sub-Saharan originating population – the ancestors of modern Black Africans.

The identity of their killers is however less easy to determine. But it is conceivable that they were people from a totally different racial and ethnic group – part of a North African/ Levantine/European people who lived around much of the Mediterranean Basin.

The two groups – although both part of our species, Homo sapiens – would have looked quite different from each other and were also almost certainly different culturally and linguistically. The sub-Saharan originating group had long limbs, relatively short torsos and projecting upper and lower jaws along with rounded foreheads and broad noses, while the North African/Levantine/European originating group had shorter limbs, longer torsos and flatter faces. Both groups were very muscular and strongly built.

Certainly the northern Sudan area was a major ethnic interface between these two different groups at around this period. Indeed the remains of the North African/Levantine/European originating population group has even been found 200 miles south of Jebel Sahaba, thus suggesting that the arrow victims were slaughtered in an area where both populations operated.


What’s more, the period in which they perished so violently was one of huge competition for resources – for they appear to have been killed during a severe climatic downturn in which many water sources dried up, especially in summer time.

The climatic downturn – known as the Younger Dryas period – had been preceded by much lusher, wetter and warmer conditions which had allowed populations to expand. But when climatic conditions temporarily worsened during the Younger Dryas, water holes dried up, vegetation wilted and animals died or moved to the only major year-round source of water still available – the Nile.

Humans of all ethnic groups in the area were forced to follow suit – and migrated to the banks (especially the eastern bank) of the great river. Competing for finite resources, human groups would have inevitably clashed – and the current investigation is demonstrating the apparent scale of this earliest known substantial human conflict .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/saharan-remains-may-be-evidence-of-first-race-war-13000-years-ago-9603632.html
Posts: 7195 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
After taking a hiatus from Egyptsearch and having a presence in multiple forums over the years this is my diagnosis of what is going on in the anthroscene. I will list the main 3 issues tha come top mind and they are NOT unique among people of NOT of African descent.

1 - Its not what you are saying....its the fact that you (Black folks/White folks) have the audacity to say it. This revolves around labels of "Afrocentricty" "Eurocentricity" and pigeonholing certain types of thought and certain types of people into certain types of places. Summed up : They dont want to listen to or accept ideas/discussion from Black Scholars and amateurs. EXAMPLE: If you are Black and say E1b1b originates in Africa, especially sub Saharan Africa you will get attacked by Euroclowns...sometimes even seasoned posters that know better. Later on you will see non Black posters say the same thing...and its ok. Interestingly Afro-clowns, Euroclows and "regular" posters will all attack each other based on "Idea A" even if they all hold the same opinion regarding "Idea A". [Smile] To be Black in this space they want you to be a "Good Negro" be Anti-African and or relegate your posting discussion to areas South of the Sahara and West of Chad. Alternatively, Afro-loons with argue genetic afropurity with White folks all day, I chime in saying populations X Africans are "mixed" and its all good.

2 - The are coming to the realization....and quite begrudgingly that the concept "All humans are African" is not so much as an Abstract but rather a recent genetic reality. This is a big one and probably the most important issue but I will follow up with a third Geographic issue..
This is why ancient remains outside of the African continent that precede a 65 KYA OOA are so important to their psyche. Why non Human archiacs and them having such ancestry is so important. Its so important for these remains to show some continuity with later populations and not be dead ends. WHY? Because if the data keeps coming as its coming, probably Every modern Autosomal component picked up in "Admixture" is just going to be a "Different Type of African". Neanderthal is really all they have if these early sapien sapiens dont pan out. This of course is how we theorize it when looking at images of Population Bottlenecks but the ancient DNA From Africa hasn't quite (Yet) shown this to be a recent genetic reality. It HAS shown it for data coming from Eurasia : Example The conservative dates for the Colonization of the Americas are about 15kya. Ancient DNA from about 10 THOUSAND years Prior in North East Asia ALREADY carries that "Naive American" affinity. Next we have more samples in East Asia Going back some 40 THOUSAND YEARS....and Again they ALREADY carry an Affinity with what would become a "Native American" component. SO what we have here is the genetic reality of a Bering straits crossing concept showing the variants we view as "Native American" have been sitting in Asia some 30 thousand years before the Americas were even populated. It will be damaging to peoples fragile psyche to see Ancient African DNA - PRIOR to the standard OOA already carrying "Eurasian" components. XYYMAN gets the props for this early conclusion although his evidence sucked. This leads to anther point, the "The Eurasian Shell Game".

3 - Now combing points one and two...what Is to be done of Black people Arguing certain genetic components not too frequent in Modern Africans may still have an origin on the continent simply due to the nature of Human Migration and what we are getting from Ancient DNA? Well what you could do is play a game with the term "Eurasian". It helps them sleep better at night. From the Asian perspective: Amerindian folks that think their DNA simply "Came from the sky" may be quite upset to learn its has been sitting in Asia for 30 KYA. They could argue in a semantic way that its still "Native American" but we all know its just a different variant of East Asian. Moving to Africa, lets take a recent buzz term and popular concept such as "Basal Eurasian". Back to issue #1, they have issues that you said it originates in Africa but they probably believe that anyway. But on the flip side they will argue its a "Eurasian" component anyways. How do they use one geographical term (Eurasian) to override WHERE on earth something actually originates (Africa)...who the fvck knows. [Smile] Mental gymnastics. We already know computer algorithms give European and Asian autosomal divergence dates well before OOA....Mofos are bound to have a heart attack if this is realized in the literal "Flesh" via Ancient African DNA. It gets to the point where entire concepts are re-wired to fit the scenario and instead of using "Eurasian" as a geographic term they will argue its being used as a genetic one.....again meant to describe the GENETIC affinity of a human populations but again based on Geography....but if its geography why is it "Eurasian" again? Who the fvck knows? LOL Along with the Eurasian shell game is the attachment of Autosomal Components to Uni-parental markers but with an idea that such Eurasian autosomes are Never recombined. For Instance : ANY SUBCLADE of mitochondrial U, M or N or any M89 lineage ALWAYS indicates gene-flow of Eurasians when present in Africa. Of course there is a big double standard with A, B, E, L loosing its African affinity based on migration into or out of the Sahara, out of Africa, after certain time depth, based on phenotype or perhaps never having An African autosomal affinity at all. There are even interesting scenarios that Such autosomal African affinity are present in Population A ....then lost...only to appear again. Or perhaps they are present when received by populations that look a certain way or live in a certain location but not other folks that look different and live in different locations even if both populations received such genetic input simultaneously.

That is it for now. This is why Natufian cannot be partly African regardless of proximity to Africa and E1b1b. This is why ancient remains from North Africa IAM etc have no African ancestry despite U6,M1,E1b1b autosomal sharing with Yoruba.

Posts: 2097 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Member
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Look, being met with resistance because I'm a black researcher by "euro-clowns" or whatever is one thing, however it's the fucking subservient Africans (diasporans) who irritate me. It's only common that you'll have to deal with logical loopholes, and mental gymnastics from the former, I don't care if they chose to understand where I'm coming from or not. The signs are clear regarding certain things it's only the fine details that need to be ironed out.

The mighty question is what does anyone have to gain by denying the "Africanity" of certain protocultures?

It seems quite obvious for me that the ancient African Genetic landscape was very broad. The problem stemmed from sloppy partitioning of Subsaharan Africans in the first place. Look at the ancient Ballito Bay specimen for example and keep in the back of our minds the genetic Diversity of Africans.

-Ballito Bay A and Yoruba have a distance (FST) of ~0.150... YRI have ancestry from a population that diverged earlier than Balito bay did.
-Natufians actually have IAM(like) Admixture and have a distance of ~0.200 from them!!?!
-The Bantu expansion seen every corner of the African continent...that's shared ancestry dating to roughly 4kya max, yet the Luhya and Yoruba avg differences can clear a the distance of the entirety of Europe.
-And Natufians and Yoruba have an average distance of 0.168 (FST) - over 15% closer than a population with shared affinity to Natufians (IAM)

So all in all... WTF is a Eurasian and WTF is a SSA? I thought it would be wise to give Eurasian a definition, basically; Eurasian is a Geo-temporal place holder for the extreme levels of drift apparently separating modern non African and African populations. ("Subsaharan African" was is and will always be a misnomer.) The further we reach back for samples in Africa AND the Near East the more the previous boundaries get muddy so we find ourselves using modern genetic substructure to Identify Ancient populations... some people refuse to see the issue in doing so, This is just one example of why Genetics, especially of only a handful of ancient individuals, can NOT possibly be the end all answer to anything....cuz, for example, Yorubans and Natufians could share Ancient ancestry that parallels IAM and we wouldn't even know...

This is why conceding an indigenous North African component is unacceptable. Jebel ihroud, MtHap L3* and schlebusch's qpGraphs (and the ones that follow) is a nightmare to the "Anti-Afrocentric."

Posts: 685 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:


The mighty question is what does anyone have to gain by denying the "Africanity" of certain protocultures?


Because for the last 500 years Europeans have been hell bent on conquering the entire planet. And as part of this conquest they need to prove that they are the most ancient and most superior race and therefore the most RIGHTFUL rulers of the planet. This is their logic when it comes down to it. Even though they know it is false but to them power means being able to change history and even if the facts prove them wrong they still have the satisfaction of knowing they have the POWER to change it to suit their interests.
Posts: 7195 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Moderator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Holy shit! @beyoku now thats what I wanted to hear! I don't even know where to start because there is a lot to take in. But I will say part 3 had some of the VERY juicy stuff. Because I really liked the comparison with Amerindians vs East Asian when it comes to the Out of Africa.

quote:
3 - Now combing points one and two...what Is to be done of Black people Arguing certain genetic components not too frequent in Modern Africans may still have an origin on the continent simply due to the nature of Human Migration and what we are getting from Ancient DNA? Well what you could do is play a game with the term "Eurasian". It helps them sleep better at night. From the Asian perspective: Amerindian folks that think their DNA simply "Came from the sky" may be quite upset to learn its has been sitting in Asia for 30 KYA. They could argue in a semantic way that its still "Native American" but we all know its just a different variant of East Asian. Moving to Africa, lets take a recent buzz term and popular concept such as "Basal Eurasian". Back to issue #1, they have issues that you said it originates in Africa but they probably believe that anyway. But on the flip side they will argue its a "Eurasian" component anyways. How do they use one geographical term (Eurasian) to override WHERE on earth something actually originates (Africa)...who the fvck knows. [Smile] Mental gymnastics. We already know computer algorithms give European and Asian autosomal divergence dates well before OOA....Mofos are bound to have a heart attack if this is realized in the literal "Flesh" via Ancient African DNA. It gets to the point where entire concepts are re-wired to fit the scenario and instead of using "Eurasian" as a geographic term they will argue its being used as a genetic one.....again meant to describe the GENETIC affinity of a human populations but again based on Geography....but if its geography why is it "Eurasian" again? Who the fvck knows? LOL Along with the Eurasian shell game is the attachment of Autosomal Components to Uni-parental markers but with an idea that such Eurasian autosomes are Never recombined. For Instance : ANY SUBCLADE of mitochondrial U, M or N or any M89 lineage ALWAYS indicates gene-flow of Eurasians when present in Africa. Of course there is a big double standard with A, B, E, L loosing its African affinity based on migration into or out of the Sahara, out of Africa, after certain time depth, based on phenotype or perhaps never having An African autosomal affinity at all. There are even interesting scenarios that Such autosomal African affinity are present in Population A ....then lost...only to appear again. Or perhaps they are present when received by populations that look a certain way or live in a certain location but not other folks that look different and live in different locations even if both populations received such genetic input simultaneously.
^^^And I find the bolded especially true because they try to have it both ways. And the sad part is that some of us "Afrocentrics" fall for this game. The irony is that for example E lineages in Iberia or even the Near East are more RECENT than U6 or M1 in Africa!

And I agree with @Elmaestro when he says the further you go back the more blurry the lines of African vs Eurasian becomes. And this is what makes their stomach turn to be honest. I think S.O.Y. Keita was ahead of his time when he cautioned, "What is African and what is Eurasian."

Posts: 1135 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Rate Member
Icon 5 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
I am just going to wait for the North African paper and genomes to come out. I hope they do turn out to have a nice, distinct, easily-analyzed North African component, but from the limited analysis they did so far it isn't clear to me what we'll end up finding.

Are you talking about the recent pre-print being published eventually along with the genomes or an entirely new paper?
Posts: 7510 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Moderator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^That's what I'm wondering too.
Posts: 1135 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Judging by his last sentence it's probably either Fregel et al 2017 or those medieval troglodytes from Morocco.
Posts: 7510 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Moderator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Reading his post again I got that too.
Posts: 1135 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes I meant Fregel et al, I hope there will be more but I don't know of anything specifically.
Posts: 304 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Yes I meant Fregel et al, I hope there will be more but I don't know of anything specifically.

With a lot of African aDNA papers, we get very limited analysis. A lot of them have little "replay value" or observations you can come back to and compare in light of future findings. There is a big difference between aDNA teams when it comes to creativity and thoroughness with analyses, with some teams really leading and standing out. But we'll see if they'll fix certain things in the published paper. That weird 12.000 year old backmigration claim (which wasn't actually what their source, Henn et al, said), is one thing in a long list, that should be fixed. I'm also looking forward to an investigation into why IAM is pulled away from the closest Eurasian samples, and in what (African) direction. But I don't think that will be forthcoming. They seem very satisfied leaving it at "12ky backmigration".
Posts: 7510 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not surprising.
Posts: 7195 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
With a lot of African aDNA papers, we get very limited analysis. A lot of them have little "replay value" or observations you can come back to and compare in light of future findings. There is a big difference between aDNA teams when it comes to creativity and thoroughness with analyses, with some teams really leading and standing out. But we'll see if they'll fix certain things in the published paper. That weird 12.000 year old backmigration claim (which wasn't actually what their source, Henn et al, said), is one thing in a long list, that should be fixed. I'm also looking forward to an investigation into why IAM is pulled away from the closest Eurasian samples, and in what (African) direction. But I don't think that will be forthcoming. They seem very satisfied leaving it at "12ky backmigration".

Yeah, I was rather disappointed with what we got in the preprint. I suppose we can't expect all aDNA papers to come with a detailed hundred page supplement. [Smile] But even if they don't add to the published paper, the genomes will be out there.
Posts: 304 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh yeah. What looks to be a secondary pre Neolithic OOA will make their heads explode.
Posts: 2097 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
With a lot of African aDNA papers, we get very limited analysis. A lot of them have little "replay value" or observations you can come back to and compare in light of future findings. There is a big difference between aDNA teams when it comes to creativity and thoroughness with analyses, with some teams really leading and standing out. But we'll see if they'll fix certain things in the published paper. That weird 12.000 year old backmigration claim (which wasn't actually what their source, Henn et al, said), is one thing in a long list, that should be fixed. I'm also looking forward to an investigation into why IAM is pulled away from the closest Eurasian samples, and in what (African) direction. But I don't think that will be forthcoming. They seem very satisfied leaving it at "12ky backmigration".

Yeah, I was rather disappointed with what we got in the preprint. I suppose we can't expect all aDNA papers to come with a detailed hundred page supplement. [Smile] But even if they don't add to the published paper, the genomes will be out there. [/QB]
What were you most disappointed with?
Posts: 7510 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now that I check it the supplement *was* almost 100 pages. [Big Grin] It actually had a really nice analysis of uniparentals which are too often neglected these days. So I was too harsh.

what disappointed me was that they don't seem to have really tried to draw out a distinct ancient North African component; they seem to be trying to fit it in the LevantN-IranN-ANE-WHG box when it might make a new corner of its own. Also, there was only a small table of f4s with a rather inadequate selection of Sub-Saharan Africans, and not much else for SSA.

Posts: 304 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Member
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
? Their F4 problems sucked, why would they use that equation to model IAM, at MOST they can only determine which of the two (near eastern vs. SSA) have more IAM ancestry, if any. No qpAdm, no qpGrahs, poorly constructed datasets for Admixture considering the patterns they got via FST and pca. There wasn't an interest in establishing any true maghrebi component, which is why the KEB were the highlight of the paper... and their wasn't really any commentary on neither of the two's SSAn affinity, like no explanation or postulation as to why KEB are closer to YRI than IAM?

But they promise a public release of the seq data, so... hey.

Posts: 685 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
Now that I check it the supplement *was* almost 100 pages. [Big Grin] It actually had a really nice analysis of uniparentals which are too often neglected these days. So I was too harsh.

what disappointed me was that they don't seem to have really tried to draw out a distinct ancient North African component; they seem to be trying to fit it in the LevantN-IranN-ANE-WHG box when it might make a new corner of its own. Also, there was only a small table of f4s with a rather inadequate selection of Sub-Saharan Africans, and not much else for SSA.

Got it.

I think the gripes some folks here have with this paper, revolve around some of the points mentioned in the OP, and in all the ways this manifests in the paper. (e.g. the weird 12ky backmigration date they insisted on, the inconclusive Neanderthal results that were not taken seriously, the f3 admixture stats they posted for KEB, but omitted for IAM, etc). Your concerns seem more mainstream. Which is okay, too. At least you recognize room for improvement.

Posts: 7510 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
? Their F4 problems sucked, why would they use that equation to model IAM, at MOST they can only determine which of the two (near eastern vs. SSA) have more IAM ancestry, if any. No qpAdm, no qpGrahs, poorly constructed datasets for Admixture considering the patterns they got via FST and pca. There wasn't an interest in establishing any true maghrebi component, which is why the KEB were the highlight of the paper... and their wasn't really any commentary on neither of the two's SSAn affinity, like no explanation or postulation as to why KEB are closer to YRI than IAM?

But they promise a public release of the seq data, so... hey.

THIS LOL. Its almost as if they dont want to know what we REALLY want to know! And then sometimes its REALLY blatant with priori assumptions brought over from Lazaridis reg Natufian: "We *could not* test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia"

*did not* [Smile]

- which is some of the most priori assuming shit i have ever seen PARTICULARITY when your dealing with Ancient DNA....especially remains rich in African uni-parental. [Roll Eyes]

The latest studies on African DNA (IMO), ancient or modern keep having this theme of basically writing a Eurasian DNA study about Africans. I could give two shits about a date in which Eurasians interacted with Sudanese natives. We dont get any indepth analysis of Omotic or Cuhsitic or West African ancestry inside and out of Sudan? We dont even get in SSA resolution about IAM?

Posts: 2097 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Moderator
Member # 22000

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^That's why we need more people like Keita in this field but more up to date. Someone who is "Afrocentric" and is in love with African bio-anthropological history.
Posts: 1135 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capra
Member
Member # 22737

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for capra     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suggest you guys actually comment on the preprint (I did, and so did Maju). That's what preprints are for. Just make your criticism clear and concise. There is a lot of room for improvement, they may actually pay attention, who knows.
Posts: 304 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug M
Member
Member # 7650

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Doug M     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well honestly the failure is that people today have the internet and forums so they may think this is a substitute for actually writing papers and books. All the old scholars who actually put a dent in the system did old school research and wrote books and papers..... But that is all but dead today, even though most folks posting about "afrocentric" scholarship are riding the wave created by actual scholars of the past.... Unfortunately African studies programs have been co-opted and instead of producing true African scholars history and biology they produce social justice warriors, fronting for white dominated institutions and agendas. At the end of the day Biology and Anthropology are stem related fields and black folks are woefully underrepresented. Most folks will get a social studies degree and talk social issues before studying hard stem related topics and go out and do actual field work around the world.

Perfect example:
https://www.penn.museum/sites/pmclassroom/speakers/

On that list, only a few of the black folks on the list actually have degrees in biological anthropology. And those that do are talking about "social" issues not actual bioanthropology in the field or in Africa today. And only one of the students actually in an anthropology course currently are black and she is focusing on "social" issues.

And funny enough the Asian PHD is talking about "educational" achievement as if that is some function of "biology". (Meaning how can Asians, most of whom came here AFTER the civil rights era were blacks were the main "minority" population, sit here and act as if they went through what blacks went through. Most Asians only came here in the last 50 years and most of them came from the top levels of Asian societies. These aren't the bums and poor of Asia. But yeah they will still sit here and talk about it as if we don't know why this is happening. If black folks were treated the same way as Asians are being treated for 300 years in America, Black folks would be among the highest achieving groups as well....)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eON-J4v3R8U

Slightly off topic but anyway.

Posts: 7195 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^This is true. But bioanthropology research requires talent. Anyone can be a SJW. No credentials or talent needed. But being competent in this area requires investigative talent and intellectual honesty. Most aDNA research teams are only good at producing the data. They can't draw a coherent analysis from the data because their talent may lie in statistics or computer science. If a lot of these PhDs can't do it, I'm definitely not looking to blogs or message boards for leadership in this area.
Posts: 7510 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tyrannohotep
Member
Member # 3735

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tyrannohotep     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that more people of African descent should get into the STEM fields relevant to bioanthropology. We could always benefit from new perspectives in science. However, I'm not confident that the predominantly non-black STEM communities provide the most accommodating culture for black students, much less those with an "Afrocentric" point of view. Most professional anthropologists may identify as liberal and anti-racist, but there sure seems to be an awful lot of alt-right scum on most amateur anthro forums. It makes me worried on behalf of any black student of bioanthropology who states even the most mildly "Afrocentric" opinion in front of that community.
Posts: 4273 | From: California | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tyrannohotep
Member
Member # 3735

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tyrannohotep     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anyway, allow me to re-post this OP of mine from ForumBiodiversity...

When Did Proto-Semitic Enter the Middle East?

Although Semitic as a distinct linguistic group appears to have emerged in the Middle East, it is a branch of a larger linguistic phylum known as Afrasan (or Afroasiatic) which would have originated in Northeast Africa >14 kya.

 -
This, of course, leaves the question of when proto-Semitic entered the Middle East from Africa. I used to think that this migration would have taken place around the time of the Natufians, but now I think it may have been a more recent development that took place near 3800 BC.

My first line of evidence is the estimated date of proto-Semitic's emergence, which is around 5,750 years ago (or almost 3800 BC).

quote:
We estimate an Early Bronze Age origin for Semitic approximately 5750 years ago in the Levant, and further propose that contemporary Ethiosemitic languages of Africa reflect a single introduction of early Ethiosemitic from southern Arabia approximately 2800 years ago.
---Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East

This dating coincides nicely with my second line of evidence, namely the finding of sub-Saharan African introgression into Middle Eastern populations around 3800 BC.

quote:
We found signals of mixture from several African and Eurasian populations (Table 1, Figure 3). The most significantly negative f3 statistics are for mixture of populations related to Sardinians and Central Asians, followed by several mixtures of populations from the Caucasus, Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, Europe, and Africa. We sought to date these mixture events using exponential decay of admixture-induced linkage disequilibrium (LD). The oldest mixture events appear to be between populations related to sub-Saharan Africans and West Europeans occurring ~3,800 BCE, followed closely by mixture of Sardinian and Caucasus-related populations.
--- Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations

Of course, most early Afrasan ancestry would have been of Saharan (i.e. pre-OOA) rather than sub-Saharan affinity. But this finding does indicate that the Afrasans who migrated into the Middle East and gave rise to the proto-Semitic community would have carried at least a small amount of sub-Saharan ancestry with them. At any rate, the evidence of sub-Saharan ancestry entering the Middle East around the same time that Semitic languages emerged indicates yet another migration out of Africa into Eurasia that postdates the "Basal Eurasian" contribution to the Natufians etc. Which is to say, proto-Semitic is the product of Africans settling the Middle East sometime after 4000 BC.

Posts: 4273 | From: California | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmaestro
Member
Member # 22566

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elmaestro     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Have anyone as of lately approached these concepts using their understanding/findings or interpretation of linguistics? I remember seeing a poster (Asar Imhotep iirc) hypothesize that Semitic is a result of convergence in south west Asia of African languages and some I.E. precursor...

I liked that Idea in particular though I wasn't a fan of the Negro-Egyptian model... It brought to mind what Joseph Yahuda done, as well as his comments on the relationships between Afrasan(Semitic) and I.E.

Genetically speaking I find it odd how underrepresented certain OOA correspondences would be in Omotic samples including Mota... realistically, there isn't much space between Gumuz-Mota and other populations in the region, particularly pre-proto-Cushitic speakers after 15kya to develop OOA affinity before expansion... or maybe OOA elements simply back-migrated around that time period testament to M1 and later R1 only to be recombined in the levant 6-5kya?

regardless these explanations will have to get real exotic. It seems most (including myself sometimes) often settle for the parsimonious explanations, though human history can't be explained by one or two events.... However using A.Asiatic languages as an indicator for population history in this case feels real messy. Don't forget that even Keita (2015) suggested that the Aforementioned east African groups diverged well after OOA.

Posts: 685 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3