posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

Sorry I haven't really been responding much to any threads I made. I had an inkling the site selected in the 2017 DNA study of "the Egyptians" took from a location (Abusir el-Meleq that sounded fairly Lower Egyptian. So I'd been trying to do some reading where I could and it'd appear that Abusir el Meleq was referred to as the Abydos of lower Egypt. If this is true, it'd explain how these group of mummies had Asiatic ancestry that extended into prehistoric times (even though they technically lived in Upper Egypt): Culturally these people were Lower Egyptians, and Lower Egyptians had more genetic influence from the Near East, even during the predynastic.

---

And how do you know Asiatic influence in the Delta goes back to predynastic times? Do you have genetic studies of predynastic Lower Egyptians?? It was already explained in the original thread as well as other threads, that the Abusir el-Meleq samples tested date to Late New Kingdom to the Roman Period, this is hardly representative of 'purely' indigenous Egyptians.

And this is shown from the morphology of predynastic Lower Egyptians both cranially and post-cranially compared to samples from late periods such as those selected in the recent Nature paper.

Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity.--Smith 2002

sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.--Kemp 2005

Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed. The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples. The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample **cannot be considered** to be a typical Egyptian series.-- Zakrzewski (2001)

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
because the Uniparentals are so Diverse and we only have 3 Good Autosomal samples, way to little to test time of admixture via LD, we won't be able to know when these mummies "mixed." A wise thing to do is use admixture Data from modern the Coptic Sudanese, since their autosomal profiles are so similar...
You can Start here.

Take it or leave it.... Blue text highlights the strongest signals for the first Admixture event.
Assuming a generation of 30 years we have 2.4kya +/-600 years

---

Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
So, is this saying that the ancestry of modern Copts can be modeled as an admixture event taking place between a Neolithic Greek-like population and a Luxmanda-like one ~2,400 years ago? Or am I reading the chart wrong?

---

Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
because the Uniparentals are so Diverse and we only have 3 Good Autosomal samples, way to little to test time of admixture via LD, we won't be able to know when these mummies "mixed." A wise thing to do is use admixture Data from modern the Coptic Sudanese, since their autosomal profiles are so similar...
You can Start here.

Take it or leave it.... Blue text highlights the strongest signals for the first Admixture event.
Assuming a generation of 30 years we have 2.4kya +/-600 years

---

So, is this saying that the ancestry of modern Copts can be modeled as an admixture event taking place between a Neolithic Greek-like population and a Luxmanda-like one ~2,400 years ago? Or am I reading the chart wrong?

---

Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
And how do you know Asiatic influence in the Delta goes back to predynastic times?[/QB]

---

quote:

---

sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.--Kemp 2005

---

Being more mixed with non Africans doesn't mean Lower Egyptians weren't collectively distinct from Levanites, or do for example Beyonce or Rihanna pass as Europeans because they have European influences? Some Lower Egyptians would pass as Levanites, but many probably didn't. So imagine a population that would more frequently have people who looked like Solange, Prince, or Aaliyah. Then imagine heavy Levanite immigration for hundreds of years. When a Meghan Markle looking North African has her first child in that setting, how is it headlining news when these are likely what her descendants would've looked like?

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinkum:
Copts have been in place in Egypt for 30 000 years. They have the LEAST mixed DNA and just like their ancient ancestors, are overwhelmingly MIDDLE EASTERN in origin.

Ancient Egyptians closest relatives are the COPTS:

---

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
^^^ Maadi, Faiyum and Merimde were Lower Egyptian. Yes they were mixed with Near Eastern but they didn't create dynastic culture (and neither did the Tasians, if memory serves).

---

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
We are guessing at how much "admixture" there was in Lower Egypt. By that argument then every population in the Mediterranean was also "mixed". Levantines were Mixed with Africans coming out of Africa. Greeks and Romans were "mixed" as well. Yes we can try and claim that this as some 'objective truth' but we know that this isn't being "objective" as far as many historical revisionists go. Lower Egypt was no more mixed than Rome was. And nobody claims Rome was non European even though there was plenty of non Romans and non Europeans in Rome.

---

quote:

---

Lets not forget the monuments of Beni Hasan which are right next to places like Fayum:

---

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinkum:
Like I said before, ancient Minoans also portrayed themselves exactly like the ancient Egyptians in colour. Does this mean they were black? Not according to DNA, they were INDIGENOUS Europeans. Do does this mean ancient Egyptians were black? NO!


There is absolutely NO proof ancient Egyptians didn't start their own civilization.

Even 13 000 years ago, Egyptians were living throughout Egypt:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/saharan-remains-may-be-evidence-of-first-race-war-13000-years-ago-9603632.html

---

quote:

---

"I suspect there was no outside enemy, these were tribes mounting regular and ferocious raids amongst themselves for scarce resources," curator Renee Friedman said. "Nobody was spared: there were many women and children among the dead, a very unusual composition for any cemetery, and almost half bore the marks of violent death. Many more may have died of flesh wounds which left no marks."

---

quote:

---

When did war begin? Does war have deep roots, or is it a modern invention? A new analysis of ancient human remains by anthropologists Jonathan Haas and Matthew Piscitelli of Chicago's Field Museum provides strong evidence for the latter view. [*See also next post, "Survey of Earliest Human Settlements Undermines Claims That War Has Deep Evolutionary Roots."]


But before I get to the work of Haas and Piscitelli, I'd like to return briefly to my last post, which describes a study of modern-day foragers (also called hunter gatherers), whose behavior is assumed to be similar to that of our Stone Age ancestors. The study found that modern foragers have engaged in little or no warfare, defined as a lethal attack by two or more people in one group against another group. This finding contradicts the claim that war emerged hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago.

Defenders of the Deep Roots Theory have leveled various criticisms at the forager study. [*See Clarification below.] They complain that foragers examined in the studyand modern foragers in general--have been pacified by nearby states. Or the foragers are "isolated," living in remote regions where they rarely come into contact with other groups. In other words, these foraging societies are atypical.

But you could argue that all modern tribal societies are atypical, including those cited by Deep Rooters as evidence for their position. Take, for example, the infamous Yanomamo, an Amazonian society that is extremely warlike, according to anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon, who began observing them in the 1960s.

The Yanomamo practice horticulture, which makes them a poor proxy for nomadic Stone Age hunter gatherers. Atypical. Moreover, even Chagnon acknowledges that some Yanomamo are much violent than others. Of course, Deep Rooters assert that these relatively peaceful Yanomamo are atypical.

When Deep Rooters complain that a society is atypical, they really mean that the society is not as violent as predicted by the Deep Roots theory. They are guilty of egregious confirmation bias, and circular reasoning.

Deep Rooters display this same trait when it comes to Pan troglodytes, our closest genetic relative. Since the mid-1970s, researchers have observed chimpanzees from one troop killing members of another troop--proving, Deep Rooters claim, that the roots of intergroup violence are even older than the Homo genus.

Deep Rooters conveniently overlook the fact some Pan troglodytes communities have been observed for years without carrying out a lethal raid. Moreover, researchers have never observed a deadly attack by the chimpanzee species Pan paniscus, also known as Bonobos. Deep Rooters insist that only the most violent chimps are representative of our primordial ancestry, even though Pan paniscus is just as genetically related to us as Pan troglodytes.

To be fair, proponents of the view that war is a recent cultural inventionI'll call them Inventors--also play this game. They find reasons to discount extremely violent behavior--by either chimps or humansas atypical. For example, both chimp raids and Yanomamo warfare may be responses to recent encroachment on their habitat by outside societies.

But Inventors can also point to a far more persuasive source of data supporting their position: the archaeological record. The most ancient clear-cut evidence of deadly group violence is a mass grave, estimated to be 13,000 years old, found in the Jebel Sahaba region of the Sudan, near the Nile River. Of the 59 skeletons in the grave, 24 bear marks of violence, such as hack marks and embedded stone points.

Even this site is an outlier. The vast majority of archaeological evidence for warfarewhich consists of skeletons marked by violence, art depicting battles, defensive fortifications, and weapons clearly designed for war rather than huntingis less than 10,000 years old.

Deep Rooters try to dismiss these facts by resorting to the old argument that absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. They allege, in other words, that there is not significant evidence of any human activity prior to 10,000 years ago.

To rebut this charge, Haas and Piscitelli recently carried out an exhaustive survey of human remains more than 10,000 years old described in the scientific literature. They counted more than 2,900 skeletons from over 400 different sites. Not counting the Jebel Sahaba skeletons, Haas and Piscitelli found four separate skeletons bearing signs of violence, consistent with homicide, not warfare.

This "dearth of evidence," Haas continued, "is in contrast with later periods when warfare clearly appears in this historical record of specific societies and is marked by skeletal markers of violence, weapons of war, defensive sites and architecture, etc."

Haas and Piscitelli present their data in "The Prehistory of Warfare: Misled by Ethnography," a chapter in War, Peace, and Human Nature, a collection of essays published this year by Oxford University Press. The book was edited by anthropologist Douglas Fry, co-author of the forager study I described in my last post.

"Declaring that warfare is rampant amongst almost all hunters and gatherers (as well as those cunning and aggressive chimpanzees) fits well with a common public perception of the deep historical and biological roots of warfare," Haas and Piscitelli write. "The presumed universality of warfare in human history and ancestry may be satisfying to popular sentiment; however, such universality lacks empirical support."

Many people think that war, if ancient and innate, must also be inevitable. President Barack Obama seemed to be expressing this notion in 2009 when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, just nine days after he announced a major escalation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

"War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man," Obama said. He added, "We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes."

When will Deep Rooters acknowledge that they are wrong?

Clarification: Some readers might conclude based on my criticism of Deep Rooters that they are all hawks, warmongers, who think that war, because it is innate, is inevitable and perhaps even beneficial in some sense. Such views were once quite common, especially in the era of social Darwinism. President Teddy Roosevelt once said, for example, "All the great masterful races have been fighting races. No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war." None of the Deep Rooters I have cited subscribe to such odious balderdash. All fervently hope that humanity can eradicate or at least greatly reduce the frequency of war. Deep Rooters believe that we will be better equipped to solve the problem of war if we accept the Deep Roots theory. Of course, I disagree with them on this point. As indicated by the above comments of President Barack Obamaas well as comments on my blog--the Deep Roots Theory leads many people to be pessimistic about the prospects for ending war, a view that can be self-fulfilling. I would nonetheless accept the Deep Roots theory if the evidence supported it, but the evidence points in the other direction. That is my main source of disagreement with Deep Rooters. In the interests of constructive dialogue, however, I'm providing a link, sent to me by anthropologist and prominent Deep Rooter Richard Wrangham, to a column supporting his position. In the column, political scientist and self-described "conservative Darwinian" Larry Arnhart asserts that "explaining the evolutionary propensity to war in human nature is not to affirm this as a necessity that cannot be changed. In fact, understanding war as a natural propensity can be a precondition for understanding how best to promote peace." Okay, so we all want peace. We just disagree on how to get there. More to come.



13,000 year old skeletons in mass grave near Nile are oldest evidence of group violence.


Photo of Jebel Sahaba grave by Fred Wendorf, http://www.chaz.org.

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinkum:
Copts are closely related to other North Africans who originated from the Middle East 30 000 - 20 000 years ago and 6000 years ago with the Middle Farmers.

Thats why all these peoples look alike.

These are the Copts that once lived in Upper Egypt, but have left because of persecution [img] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27idi_people#/media/File:Upper_Egyptians-Sa%27idis.jpg [/img]

---

quote:

---

The study on the partial calvarium discovered at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel (dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr BP, Hershkovitz et al. 2015), revealed close morphological affinity with recent African skulls as well as with early Upper Paleolithic European skulls, but less so with earlier anatomically modern humans from the Levant (e.g., Skhul). The ongoing fieldwork at the Manot Cave has resulted in the discovery of several new hominin teeth. These include a lower incisor (I1), a right lower first deciduous molar (dm1), a left upper first deciduous molar (dm1) and an upper second molar (M2) all from area C (>32 kyr) and a right upper second molar (M2) from area E (>36 kyr). The current study presents metric and morphological data on the new Manot Cave teeth. These new data combined with our already existing knowledge on the Manot skull may provide an important insight on the Upper Paleolithic population of the Levant, its origin and dietary habits.

---

—Author(s): Rachel Sarig ; Ofer Marder ; Omry Barzilai ; Bruce Latimer ; Israel Hershkovitz

The Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Manot Cave: the dental perspective (Year: 2017)

http://core.tdar.org/document/431657/the-upper-paleolithic-inhabitants-of-manot-cave-the-dental-perspective



Head of a Syrian
KhM 3896a
TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN

1186–1155 BC

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4906




Head of a Beduin from Syria
KhM 3896b
TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN


1186–1155 BC

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4907




Head of a Beduin from Syria
KhM 3896c
TILE; NEW KINGDOM


c. 1550 BC – c. 1077 BC

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4908




Above ancient Syrian

A Syrian mercenary drinking beer in the company of his Egyptian wife and child, c. 1350 BC. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis


http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2010/oct/27/old-ale-beer-history




Above ancient Philistine

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
Ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant

---

Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
Ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant

---

Do you mean the ancient Egyptian civilization with it's large monuments temples and sphinx was a Sudanese transplant or do you mean that before the Egyptian civilization started the people who went from Sudan and after they got there built large monuments and temples and so on ?

---

Where did the first cataract start? Yup,

Aegyptus - The First Cataract

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe2yQEGDcrI

I wonder what garbage you will come up with now.

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinkum:
The First Egyptians looked like this and were living in ancient Egypt 30 000 years ago and the whole of North Africa carrying MTDNA U6 which the Copts still carry:



The race war in Egypt is dated 13 000 years and was fought between Caucasians and Sudanese. (YES CHEDDAR MAN AND HIS RELATIVES WERE CAUCASIANS) It doesn't seem that these earlier Egyptians would have allowed people to come and live on their land.

About 6000 years ago the white Middle Eastern Farmers came into ALL OF EGYPT replacing the brown Caucasians (Cro-Magnon) They started civilization in Southern Egypt.

They resembled the Copts.

---

Please stop making the same comments ad naseum without responding to anyone. Answer the following (since you haven't yet):

When did light skin become spread extensively though "Eurasia?" Because from what I've got the earliest was 12 BC and the latest was perhaps 6000kya. The southern Egyptians moving into Egypt from Sudan incorporated the techniques of the north with pre existing strategies. Nor did they begin to speak Semetic languages, which we would expect if they came from the Levant. Knowing you, you will talk about proto Afro Asiatic, but before you even go there please answer the question of when light skin started forming. It is unlikely the Near Eastern farmers heavily penetrated Sudan, because Near Eastern farming techniques cannot be as easily replicated in Sudan the way they can in the Levant. If they settled in Sudan it would've been well before their reliance on farming (which is hypothesized to be the event that spread lighter skin tones we see in modern Europeans).

Oh and why do so many of the Socotra look like this:



They do not have much African ancestry and have been isolated from other Near Easterners after they arrived there around 6kya. It is unlikely the modern "Copt" look was as widespread by then. Near Easterners came in all shades, which is why it doesn't work to insist they had to be light as modern Europeans based on their haplogroup alone.

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
Ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant

---

Do you mean the ancient Egyptian civilization with it's large monuments temples and sphinx was a Sudanese transplant or do you mean that before the Egyptian civilization started the people who went from Sudan and after they got there built large monuments and temples and so on ?

---

Where did the first cataract start? Yup,

.


Aegyptus - The First Cataract

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe2yQEGDcrI

I wonder what garbage you will come up with now.

---

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Since people like to claim that the higher West/Central African-like ancestry in the study's modern Egyptian samples relative to the mummies is a result of the Islamic slave trade, I want to bring up the fact that the Egyptians themselves weren't above taking in enslaved captives during their military campaigns. What are the odds that at least some of the Eurasian mtDNAs in these late dynastic mummies might have something to do with all the Middle Eastern captives the Egyptians would have brought home during the New Kingdom?

---

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinkum:
The First Egyptians looked like this and were living in ancient Egypt 30 000 years ago and the whole of North Africa carrying MTDNA U6 which the Copts still carry:



The race war in Egypt is dated 13 000 years and was fought between Caucasians and Sudanese. (YES CHEDDAR MAN AND HIS RELATIVES WERE CAUCASIANS) It doesn't seem that these earlier Egyptians would have allowed people to come and live on their land.

About 6000 years ago the white Middle Eastern Farmers came into ALL OF EGYPT replacing the brown Caucasians (Cro-Magnon) They started civilization in Southern Egypt.

They resembled the Copts.

---

quote:

---

"Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt—such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)—show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic–early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations."

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Forty two cases of malignant melanomas in Egyptian patients are presented and a review was made of 165 cases previously reported in the literature. The mean age was 48 years and males slightly predominated. Of the entire series studied, 67% of melanomas were cutaneous, 22% extracutaneous and 11% of unknown primary site. Lentigo maligna and superficial spreading melanomas are exceedingly rare. The foot was the most common site (43%) of cutaneous melanomas, followed by the head and neck region (26%). The frequency of foot involvement is higher than that reported on other fair skinned caucasians, but it is much lower than that observed in negroid races. The factors possibly responsible for this regional variation of melanomas among different races are discussed.

---

Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

Oh and why do so many of the Socotra look like this:



They do not have much African ancestry and have been isolated from other Near Easterners after they arrived there around 6kya. It is unlikely the modern "Copt" look was as widespread by then. Near Easterners came in all shades, which is why it doesn't work to insist they had to be light as modern Europeans based on their haplogroup alone.

---

You are a moron. That is not an ethnic Socotri, but a slave imported from Tanzania.

There are black slaves all over the Arab world.

Native Socotris have straight or wavy hair and thin noses. They don't look like Bantus like that man.

They are dark for sure, but certainly not Negroid or Sub-Saharan whatsoever.

Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
The Soqotri have been isolated and did not benefit from the Arab slave trade. Their DNA is not significantly affected by Africans that have migrated to the island in recent years. Doing some reading, it seems as though "bantu" types have migrated to the island in recent history and that image may have been an oversight of that. However most of the features of that boy can be found on Africans.

---

Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Perahu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

Oh and why do so many of the Socotra look like this:



They do not have much African ancestry and have been isolated from other Near Easterners after they arrived there around 6kya. It is unlikely the modern "Copt" look was as widespread by then. Near Easterners came in all shades, which is why it doesn't work to insist they had to be light as modern Europeans based on their haplogroup alone.

---

You are a moron. That is not an ethnic Socotri, but a slave imported from Tanzania.

There are black slaves all over the Arab world.

Native Socotris have straight or wavy hair and thin noses. They don't look like Bantus like that man.

They are dark for sure, but certainly not Negroid or Sub-Saharan whatsoever.

---

Posts: 47 | From: Brazil | Registered: Aug 2017  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Perahu:
These girls have curly hair and wide noses. http://www.socotra.cz/custom/img/page-tonej/lide-9-velke.jpg

They are not pure Socotri.

Pure Socotris DO NOT have curly hair nor do they look like Africans.

As for you spamming Somalians. They are UNRELATED to Socotris. Socotris are based on haplogroup J on the male side and R0a on the female side.

Socotris are ARABIANS, not Africans.

---

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged |