quote: Y-DNA E-M2 is essentially absent from Sudan = swenet
and what about the MTDNA's in the Sudan? In addition, do you mean that E-M2 is currently absent from the Sudan? if so does that mean it was NEVER there? What could the possible explanations be for it NOT being there now? I can think of many possible scenarios...
We're not supposed to assert something, and then look for the evidence to back it up. And when it's not there think of ways to explain its absence. The evidence is not there. Not only is it not there, but Saudis and other random populations in Asia have more E-M2 than Sudanese.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: @Swenet
quote: ignoring the fact that not a single Egyptian mummy looks like a Bantu. = swenet
Really?
such skulls are called dolichocephalic and are typical of Australian aborigines and native southern Africans. An index of 75 to 80 means that the skull is nearly oval; such skulls are called mesaticephalic and are typical of Europeans and the Chinese https://www.britannica.com/science/dolichocephaly THE G.O.A.T from Kenya Eliud Kipchoge
clearly dolichocephalic ^^^^^^
Tut's headshape is not dolichocephalic. KV55's head shape is also not dolichocephalic. How do I know? I used to think that for years, but over the years (beginning with Hawass 2010 which listed his head shape measurements) we've learned more. Ironically, it's Yuya's head shape that is dolichocephalic.
Also, when you plug Tut's head shape measurements into FORDISC, the results come back European. I'm not saying Tut was a European, but I'm saying Bantu samples were available. He did not cluster with the Bantu samples.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
This dude looks Beja.. but you ascribed him to Fayum/Mermide.. how do you know this...?
The Merimde/Fayum populations are not locally restricted populations. They are offshoots of a larger regional metapopulation (skeletal remains found from Maghreb to Palestine, and some other places according to Briggs) from which the Beja also drew ancestry.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
the fact that you deleted the quote from the
quote: Hawass 2010 which listed his head shape measurements)
You trust Hawass's measurements? Did you measure the skull yourself?
quote: And what do they show us, these photographs? The face of Tutankhamun? The race of Tutankhamun? Or something else? Carter didn’t explicitly discuss race when he described the mummy’s appearance: he didn’t have to, because there was already a code in language to distinguish more ‘Caucasian’ bodies from more ‘Negroid’ ones (to use the most common terms deployed in late 19th-/early 20th-century archaeology). " target="_blank">https://photographing-tutankhamun.com/2017/08/[/QUOTE]
quote:
The American race scientist knew he was a "negro" from the jump.. so they hid these images...
quote: (photo (c) National Geographic)
You can see the obvious resemblance in all three skulls. Now here's the kicker. The bottom-left mummy is King Tut. The one on the right comes from a scan in 2007 of another mummy found in 2007. That mummy was speculated to be the body of Tut's missing father Akhenaten -- based in large part on the observation that the skull looks roughly alike. From the National Geographic news report:
"The CT scan supports the idea that the mummy is Akhenaten by revealing it as a male between the ages of 25 and 40 who shares many physical similarities with Tut—assuming Akhenaten was Tut's father, as some experts believe. The mystery mummy's strange elongated, egg-shaped skull, called dolichocephalic, is strikingly similar to Tutankhamun's."
Unfortunately, that alone is poor evidence, and here's why. Tut lived 350 years before Neskhons, and yet the skull shape is shared: it was common among the Egyptian royals. Therefore, one cannot draw a meaningful conclusions that two mummies are likely to be father and son simply based on an argument that their skulls look alike!
Do tell what is a bantu sample? I am assuming you mean Sub Saharan/Negroid..( I don't believe in the true negroid phenotype) some West Africans head shapes are not fully dolichocephallic.. so does that make some of them Caucasians?
some of these modifications or adaptions are considered to be in situ according to the article you linked..
In addition, if you study skull adaptions of the white american population in the last 70 years you will find out how fast these changes can occur..
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: the fact that you deleted the quote from the
Haha. You're saying I deleted a quote? Why would I have to do something underhanded in a debate that you can't win? FORDISC said Tut does not resemble the Bantu samples (which includes Haya and Teita, IIRC). You don't understand how that closes your argument, so you think accusing me of something bogus makes sense at this point.
King Tut's headshape from top view, showing he's not dolichocranic:
We've been discussing this for years. You are not saying anything new.
quote:You trust Hawass's measurements? Did you measure the skull yourself?
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: the fact that you deleted the quote from the
Haha. You're saying I deleted a quote? Why would I have to do something underhanded in a debate that you can't win? FORDISC said Tut does not resemble the Bantu samples (which includes Haya and Teita, IIRC). You don't understand how that closes your argument, so you think accusing me of something bogus makes sense at this point.
King Tut's headshape from top view, showing he's not dolichocranic:
We've been discussing this for years. You are not saying anything new.
quote:You trust Hawass's measurements? Did you measure the skull yourself?
posted
Alexander Balogun, African history Ph.D. Answered February 4 King Tut’s head may appear flat to many who don't know the typical skull shape of Africans, especially Negorids.
Here is an x-ray vision of King Tut's Skull…
if his skull does not match other "nilotes"/ SSA's which caucasions do Tut match...
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Alexander Balogun, African history Ph.D. Answered February 4 King Tut’s head may appear flat to many who don't know the typical skull shape of Africans, especially Negorids.
Here is an x-ray vision of King Tut's Skull…
if his skull does not match other "nilotes"/ SSA's which caucasions do Tut match...
Ever occurred to you that King Tut's crania might appear longer in X-rays like those because the neck is shriveled up?
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Alexander Balogun, African history Ph.D. Answered February 4 King Tut’s head may appear flat to many who don't know the typical skull shape of Africans, especially Negorids.
Here is an x-ray vision of King Tut's Skull…
if his skull does not match other "nilotes"/ SSA's which caucasions do Tut match...
The point is that you use comparisons with local populations to determine affinity not broad vague categories like Dolicephalic versus Brachycephalic. This is the game being played here. Where are the skulls from Levant and other parts of the Nile Valley in the same time period to compare. The work by Wente did this and already showed clearly that the skulls from the tombs of the Nile Valley showed clear affinity with those further south.
The bottom line is the skulls from the Nile Valley should have the closest affinity to other populations along the Nile, both north and south, including the Sahara before having affinity to Levantine and European populations respectively. And anyone claiming that these skulls from the 18th dynasty show more affinity to populations outside the Nile Valley and Africa in general should provide evidence in terms of contemporary crania that supports it.
Picking one or two mummies in isolation and trying to make broad claims about affinity with no other data is simply nonsense pseudoscience no different than Morton's quack racial theories.
I don't even know why long term members of this forum are even engaging in such silly arguments.
And as shown from the 1800s use of craniometry, most of the papers on the topic in the Nile Valley are inconclusive and useless because the models and methods don't establish baseline populations for comparison to determine affinity.
Note the vague wording and statements in the following which could be taken to mean anything to anybody. This is exactly the kind of generic conclusions that folks rely on to make bogus statements about ancient populations in Africa:
quote: The craniometric research presented here indicates that there were distinct morphological groups within Egyptian predynastic population, but that these groups do exhibit morphological similarities with each other. The Badarians sample has been shown to be relatively homogenous, supporting previous studies, while the EDynastic sample has been shown to be more heterogenous, but characterized by broad faces. The mophological groups found, therefore, indicates that there wa snot the "total population continuity" postulated. The change observed from the Badarian period through the predynastic period thus probably reflects increased gene flow via exogamy or migration along the Nile Valley (as postulated by Hassan 1988) and mirror the results obtained by Keita(1996). The change between the LPD and the EDynastic, however, appears more fundamental and could reflect even greater migration of individuals along the Nile Valley. The analyses also indicate greater cranial diversity through time, which may be the result of the associated population increase.
The results however do indicate that Egyptian populations should not be considered as a homogeneous entity, but rather should be viewed as local groups with reasonably didstinct identities. This research has also indicated that the state formation process cannot simply be modelled as an entirely indigenous development, but rather that neighboring groups (both from elsewhere along the Egyptian Nile Valley and from nearby regions) appear to have also interbred and mixed with local populations.
Problems: 1) They don't identify any of the distinct groups of crania that they suggest existed as homogenous entities before state formation. 2) They call out Badarian crania as Homogenous but compared to what other groups from the same time period. Where are the skulls from other parts of the Nile? Are those also homogenenous as well? 3) The imply that all these groups were homogenous (relatively isolated) and that the heterogeneous results from after unification is unique to state formation. So where is the proof that other groups along other parts of the Nile stayed homogeneous over the same time span? How do we know that they were isolated and didn't move around and mix with other groups? 4) They never identify any main clusters or groupings in regional terms for these skulls which makes it impossible to identify any particular ethnic group or geographic origin for any specific cranial traits.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The work by Wente did this and already showed clearly that the skulls from the tombs of the Nile Valley showed clear affinity with those further south.
which skulls from the Nile Valley?
skull (thought to be Akhenaten) recovered from KV55
Amenhotep III
we can see not all Egyptian skulls look alike
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is that you use comparisons with local populations to determine affinity not broad vague categories like Dolicephalic versus Brachycephalic. This is the game being played here. Where are the skulls from Levant and other parts of the Nile Valley in the same time period to compare. The work by Wente did this and already showed clearly that the skulls from the tombs of the Nile Valley showed clear affinity with those further south.
The bottom line is the skulls from the Nile Valley should have the closest affinity to other populations along the Nile, both north and south, including the Sahara before having affinity to Levantine and European populations respectively. And anyone claiming that these skulls from the 18th dynasty show more affinity to populations outside the Nile Valley and Africa in general should provide evidence in terms of contemporary crania that supports it.
Picking one or two mummies in isolation and trying to make broad claims about affinity with no other data is simply nonsense pseudoscience no different than Morton's quack racial theories.
I don't even know why long term members of this forum are even engaging in such silly arguments.
Pretty sure it was Yatunde who claimed Tut was dolichocranic in order to link him to Bantu-speaking populations (none of which, incidentally, live along the Lower to Middle Nile IIRC). I don't think anyone else in this thread means to use Tut's braincase shape to make claims about his affinity to certain populations.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The point is that you use comparisons with local populations to determine affinity not broad vague categories like Dolicephalic versus Brachycephalic. This is the game being played here. Where are the skulls from Levant and other parts of the Nile Valley in the same time period to compare. The work by Wente did this and already showed clearly that the skulls from the tombs of the Nile Valley showed clear affinity with those further south.
The bottom line is the skulls from the Nile Valley should have the closest affinity to other populations along the Nile, both north and south, including the Sahara before having affinity to Levantine and European populations respectively. And anyone claiming that these skulls from the 18th dynasty show more affinity to populations outside the Nile Valley and Africa in general should provide evidence in terms of contemporary crania that supports it.
Picking one or two mummies in isolation and trying to make broad claims about affinity with no other data is simply nonsense pseudoscience no different than Morton's quack racial theories.
I don't even know why long term members of this forum are even engaging in such silly arguments.
Pretty sure it was Yatunde who claimed Tut was dolichocranic in order to link him to Bantu-speaking populations (none of which, incidentally, live along the Lower to Middle Nile IIRC). I don't think anyone else in this thread means to use Tut's braincase shape to make claims about his affinity to certain populations.
Ouch. As mentioned in my post though it is a side effect of the sloppy research on the crania from the Nile Valley which has been used and continues to be used to mean whatever folks want it to mean. Because most of it is very vague and generic at best in identifying and specifying particular affinities with any meaningful population clusters.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Ouch. As mentioned in my post though it is a side effect of the sloppy research on the crania from the Nile Valley which has been used and continues to be used to mean whatever folks want it to mean. Because most of it is very vague and generic at best in identifying and specifying particular affinities with any meaningful population clusters.
The main issue here was West Africa unpopulated (except by Twa pygmies) until after the fall of dynastic Egypt as is suggested by Diop and is that is evident in dynastic Egyptian cultural things showing up in West Africa, and even further the idea that most West Africans are descended form migrants from migrants from Egypt
This is the Bantu part of the discussion, Diop and Asar Imhotep (see lower part of page 7 of this thread for Diop quotes to this effect underlined in red I posted)
The other separate diffusion question is, does Egyptian language descend from Ethiopian language
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I don't even know why long term members of this forum are even engaging in such silly arguments.
.
What should we do just sit helpless while Egyptology forum devolves into garbage?
This younger generation doesn't come from where we did rejects past foundations starting from Square One thus moving behind the rest of humanity who build up from what was passed to them.
They push free speech w/o responsibility and that's why you me and everybody else are forced to tolerate profanity as if it's profound and hafta hear it in public places -- unless you live in a yte nabe -- cos it's "Urban". Lowlife is as high as the bar goes.
Moderation is hit or miss and totally personality driven.
Git popular or fade away!
Can't beat 'em? Join 'em?!?
=-=
Skull dimension is well nigh meaningless. African have no one typical skullcap dimension.
Anyway you must view skulls from the top to see what dimension they are by two lines vertical and horizontal.
Challenge: View your spouse and children's heads from above. Have spouse check yours out.
W/O being intrusive casually observe your siblings their spouse and their children's heads from above.
Surprise, surprise, eh?
As with AE skulls has deliberate head shaping by momma altered the natural shape of baby's head that, of course, remains as artificially shaped by momma throughout child's adulthood?
posted
Funny how Asar picks his battles. He calls out AncientGebts and others in threads he made for the purpose of calling them out. Then he poofs when his own source denies his premise of foolproof and universally applicable regular correspondences.
To think you’re going to use a technique that was established during the study of one language family, and apply it to languages that evolved under different circumstances, and that you don’t have to study those circumstances because the technique's output is superior to common sense ... to the point that you start to think you don’t have to come out of your linguistic comfort zone and verify your results independently with DNA and archaeology. There is nothing scientific about blind devotion to a technique you call 'science'. That’s just self-deception and naive deference to a technique.
Anyway, I think something else has to be corrected. The findings I alluded to, don’t say Tut clustered with a European sample. They say that:
-Tut does not closely resemble any available FORDISC sample, and that -the sample that was closest to Tut was a European sample.
So, a somewhat imprecise paraphrase on my part earlier. But the point still stands that the affinity doesn’t go with Bantu samples, and seemingly random samples (e.g. Asian) may show affinities in FORDISC before Bantu samples do. This could have been predicted already from the appearance of his mummy and almost all other Egyptian mummies.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Funny how Asar picks his battles. He calls out AncientGebts and others in threads he made for the purpose of calling them out. Then he poofs when his own source denies his premise of foolproof and universally applicable regular correspondences.
To think you’re going to use a technique that was established during the study of one language family, and apply it to languages that evolved under different circumstances, and that you don’t have to study those circumstances because the technique's output is superior to common sense ... to the point that you start to think you don’t have to come out of your linguistic comfort zone and verify your results independently with DNA and archaeology. There is nothing scientific about blind devotion to a technique you call 'science'. That’s just self-deception and naive deference to a technique.
Anyway, I think something else has to be corrected. The findings I alluded to, don’t say Tut clustered with a European sample. They say that:
-Tut does not closely resemble any available FORDISC sample, and that -the sample that was closest to Tut was a European sample.
So, a somewhat imprecise paraphrase on my part earlier. But the point still stands that the affinity doesn’t go with Bantu samples, and seemingly random samples (e.g. Asian) may show affinities in FORDISC before Bantu samples do. This could have been predicted already from the appearance of his mummy and almost all other Egyptian mummies.
What the Hell is an "Asian"? An Indian, Han Chinese, a Semitic/mulattocized population, Melanesians?
Secondly his skull was analyzed, and reported on over a decade ago (it caused quite a stir here). It was described as some form of "Caucasoid" (I believe "North African"). What we know about African cranial affinities is that outside of the "Niger-Congo"/Bantu generalized morphologies (called "Negroid") other African skulls had at one time been preclassified as some form of Caucasoid alluding to some theory of ancient albinos coming back into Africa and adjusting their prior Negroid affinities.
Case and point the Nilotic African is described as having "Caucasoid"/"European" skull shape. Bantu's who have significant admixture with them have distinctive skulls considered "Caucasoid" as well like the Tutsi (around 1/5 Nilotic paternally)
His skull looks like a mixture of Bantu and a Nilotic element. His cultural affinities show that he sported the noted collars sported by Bantu and Nilotic ethnic groups.
What "archaeology" or "linguistic" would you say correlates with cranial affinity with Asians?
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Funny how Asar picks his battles. He calls out AncientGebts and others in threads he made for the purpose of calling them out. Then he poofs when his own source denies his premise of foolproof and universally applicable regular correspondences.
To think you’re going to use a technique that was established during the study of one language family, and apply it to languages that evolved under different circumstances, and that you don’t have to study those circumstances because the technique's output is superior to common sense ... to the point that you start to think you don’t have to come out of your linguistic comfort zone and verify your results independently with DNA and archaeology.
First one has to establish a properly applied comparative method consisting of
Step 1, assemble potential cognate lists Step 2, establish correspondence sets Step 3, discover which sets are in complementary distribution Step 4, reconstruct proto-phonemes Step 5, examine the reconstructed system typologically
The thing I find unexplained here is what is the justification for putting proto-bantu in the Great Lakes region ?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The thing I find unexplained here is what is the justification for putting putting proto-bantu in the Great Lakes region ?
Asar? Go ahead. The stage is yours. Post the appropriate data ("Bantus say they come from Sudan" is not admissible data). Post the archaeology or we don't want to hear it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rain King: What the Hell is an "Asian"? An Indian, Han Chinese, a Semitic/mulattocized population, Melanesians?
Secondly his skull was analyzed, and reported on over a decade ago (it caused quite a stir here). It was described as some form of "Caucasoid" (I believe "North African"). What we know about African cranial affinities is that outside of the "Niger-Congo"/Bantu generalized morphologies (called "Negroid") other African skulls had at one time been preclassified as some form of Caucasoid alluding to some theory of ancient albinos coming back into Africa and adjusting their prior Negroid affinities.
Case and point the Nilotic African is described as having "Caucasoid"/"European" skull shape. Bantu's who have significant admixture with them have distinctive skulls considered "Caucasoid" as well like the Tutsi (around 1/5 Nilotic paternally)
His skull looks like a mixture of Bantu and a Nilotic element. His cultural affinities show that he sported the noted collars sported by Bantu and Nilotic ethnic groups.
What "archaeology" or "linguistic" would you say correlates with cranial affinity with Asians? [/QB]
Notice the bait and switch that Lioness has already pointed out above (using a Nilote to argue a Bantu phenotypes in Egypt). Low key an admission of not being able to deliver on the initial claim.
Just like Yatunde Lisa, Rain King doesn’t understand (the weight of) the data, so the defiance in his posts is out of touch with how damning the evidence is.
The affinity with random samples from Europe to Asia is not necessarily a conclusive result that cannot be improved with better North African sampling. It is (to some extent, at least) a function of the weak affinity with the available African (i.e. Bantu) samples. So, it makes no sense to ask beside-the-point questions about the identity of the European or Asian samples with generic/loose affinity to Egyptians. The point is that assorted Eurasian samples generally cover the phenotypical variation of Egyptian mummies better than Bantu samples do.
How are you still going to make a defiant post after that? Is America is the land of alternative facts?Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
Elliott & Collard reported flaws of FORDISC due to Howell's data sampling methodology have been examined on ES a while back where quoted Zakrzewski denounces Howell Egy data and Leathers et al dispute FORDISC accuracy.
posted
^^^^ thanks for the links.. very good reading..
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2701 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
But pre-5000BC ancient Egyptians (e.g. Nazlet) have no problem being assigned SSA affinity, either by visual sorting or FORDISC-like DFA. So, no. It's only the post-5000BC Egyptians that generally fail to cluster with 90% of all African populations, and only cluster with 10% of all African populations. Or maybe the ratio is 80/20 or 70/30. It doesn't matter. But it has nothing to do with FORDISC.
And, let me reiterate that no one thinks Egyptian mummies look like Bantus. Even members on this site avoid images of mummies. I know I've seen Yatunda Lisa try to deny Yuya's mummy is really Yuya because of what his mummy looks like. So what is FORDISC supposed to say? It's supposed to not match what people see in his face, and we're supposed to tweak and 'fix' FORDISC algorithm until it says what some want it to say?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
We don't have to take Asar's word for it any longer about ciLuba. We can see for ourselves how much or how little the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic language matches Tshiluba (pronounced chee-lu-ba).
Note: I believe that the Cilubŕ - French Dictionary may be Asar's source for his limited and selective Tshiluba words.
Posts: 22 | From: Lubaland | Registered: Dec 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ISeeLuba: Tshiluba (ciLuba)
We don't have to take Asar's word for it any longer about ciLuba. We can see for ourselves how much or how little the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic language matches Tshiluba (pronounced chee-lu-ba).
Can't AE be native Africans without being linguistically tied to Bantu? You don't see anyone trying to prove, say, the Native American heritage of the Maya by trying to link them linguistically to Lakota. You guys already know native Africans are genetically and culturally diverse. Why not linguistically diverse as well?
EDIT:
quote:Note: I believe that the Cilubŕ - French Dictionary may be Asar's source for his limited and selective Tshiluba words.
My bad, I thought you were affirming Asar's viewpoint on Luba as it relates to Egyptian rather than criticizing it.
quote:Originally posted by One Third African: You guys already know native Africans are genetically and culturally diverse. Why not linguistically diverse as well?
Because Asar tries to deny other African languages as being the possible language of the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rain King: What the Hell is an "Asian"? An Indian, Han Chinese, a Semitic/mulattocized population, Melanesians?
Secondly his skull was analyzed, and reported on over a decade ago (it caused quite a stir here). It was described as some form of "Caucasoid" (I believe "North African"). What we know about African cranial affinities is that outside of the "Niger-Congo"/Bantu generalized morphologies (called "Negroid") other African skulls had at one time been preclassified as some form of Caucasoid alluding to some theory of ancient albinos coming back into Africa and adjusting their prior Negroid affinities.
Case and point the Nilotic African is described as having "Caucasoid"/"European" skull shape. Bantu's who have significant admixture with them have distinctive skulls considered "Caucasoid" as well like the Tutsi (around 1/5 Nilotic paternally)
His skull looks like a mixture of Bantu and a Nilotic element. His cultural affinities show that he sported the noted collars sported by Bantu and Nilotic ethnic groups.
What "archaeology" or "linguistic" would you say correlates with cranial affinity with Asians?
quote:Notice the bait and switch that Lioness has already pointed out above (using a Nilote to argue a Bantu phenotypes in Egypt). Low key an admission of not being able to deliver on the initial claim.
The civilization has always been noted to have been a mixture of Bantu, Nilotic and some elements of Cushitic speaking Africans. You cannot find anywhere where I said that it was exclusively Bantu. In fact Nilotic Africans are depicted in many of the cultural comparisons. The Kalejin were even referenced by myself, so you must understand what the fuck you're talking about before trying to discredit my argument. Nilotes were essential to the foundation of Nile Valley civilization, which has been pointed out in early aDNA studies. Now what I do maintain is that Kemet in the scope of Nile Valley civilization was primarily a Bantu civilization. That does not negate the Nilotic presence, but by shear number even today we see that Bantu's vastly outnumber Nilotes.
quote: Just like Yatunde Lisa, Rain King doesn’t understand (the weight of) the data,
Shut the fuck up. I'm more educated than you.
quote: The affinity with random samples from Europe to Asia is not necessarily a conclusive result that cannot be improved with better North African sampling.
"Asia" and "Europe" are not people they are geographic locations. What "Asians" are you talking, and from what periods are these sampling supposed to overlap?
quote:It is (to some extent, at least) a function of the weak affinity with the available African (i.e. Bantu) samples.
Yeah if you put some Nilotes, or "mixed" Bantu's like the Teita that Keita uses then you'll like find a close affinity. Studies have shown that "Niger-Congo" and other "Negroid" groups cluster with pre-dynastic Kemites more than Europeans.
Just such a possibility was debunked by Keita (Early Nile Valley Farmers From El-badari, 2005, Journal of Black Studies, 36(2), 191-208). In head to head comparisons, the ancient Badarians of Egypt grouped much more with other Africans than Europeans, including ‘Nordic’ Berg and Norse. Quote: “ The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed .. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series. " (Keita 2005, “Early Nile Valley farmers..”)
quote: So, it makes no sense to ask beside-the-point questions about the identity of the European or Asian samples with generic/loose affinity to Egyptians.
No....What in the fuck is an "Asian" affinity? Indian, Han, Melanesian what? You put your heart and soul into that vague label.
quote: The point is that assorted Eurasian samples generally cover the phenotypical variation of Egyptian mummies better than Bantu samples do.
ASIANS!!!!
The study from Keita found that the opposite end of the biological phenotypic spectrum (Europeans) had lesser affinity to the Kemites than Niger-Congo/"Negroid" Africans. That leave "Asia". Western Asia is full of nothing but sickle cell carrying half breeds;
"All Semites (Arabs and Jews)…are mixed breeds of Blacks and Whites; the Arab race cannot be conceived as anything but a mixture of Blacks and Whites; the entire Arab people, including the Prophet, are mixed with Negro blood. - C.A. Diop"
You want to make litmus test with half breeds as a biological standard. You make no sense. Until you define what "Asian" populations to pinpoint an affinity towards then said claim is full of shit. You need to get specific about the people, not an arbitrarily defined landmass.
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
No.
I don't know that "we" should fix/tweak a broken fiddle.
Me? I'm going with the scientists who have shown via peer review that Howell data driven FORDISC is flawed.
Me? I do not accept any of FORDISC's results except for its limited court accepted usages. Nor find it hard to adopt updated factual evidence.
Once I saw proofs FORDISC is flawed I dropped it like a glowing coal. Only peer reviewed reports testing FORDISC with positive outcomes could ever make me accept it as a valid chronological assessment tool.
=-=
Coming up I had a lot of stock in Haddon, Sergi, and especially Dixon when it came to headshapes supposedly delineating geo-pops.
Honestly? I don't count craniology for much. Old studies (link) show children of immigrant parentage changed head shapes and stature within two generations of American residence.
Not denying heads have shapes nor families have looks that extend to tribes and maybe others nearby. But if you want to disregard peer review and find 17% Nordic/Hungarian Egyptians plausible less lone lone factual, that's your right of active agency and self- determination.
I found a Swedish/NW Spain indicative autosome in at least one of the 'Armarna mummies'. So what? The oddity does not define the specimen. It'll take the remaining other 15 alleles to do that.
=-=
Adding the peer reviewed reports on Howell/ FORDISC flaws serves to round out the takes on its usefulness. That has nothing to do with non-metric skull evaluation. One look at Tut's skull properly from above proves indisputably he's no Latin word for long headed by index despite erroneous conclusions drawn from looking at his profile. As head shapes vary within populations as well as between populations no head shape indicates certain placement in any particular people.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: But pre-5000BC ancient Egyptians (e.g. Nazlet) have no problem being assigned SSA affinity, either by visual sorting or FORDISC-like DFA. So, no. It's only the post-5000BC Egyptians that generally fail to cluster with 90% of all African populations, and only cluster with 10% of all African populations. Or maybe the ratio is 80/20 or 70/30. It doesn't matter. But it has nothing to do with FORDISC.
He says that the ancient Egyptians crania cluster with Northeast African cranial, and is in line with local diversity in that place IN THAT TIME!
Who does Keita say was in "Northeast Africa" in that place, and in that time?
The Distribution of E-M2 and it clades in Central and Southern Africa has usually been explained by the ‘‘Bantu migrations" (which occurred 3000-2500 B.C), in which agriculture and iron technologies spread from the Bantu's homeland located in the Benue complex i.e. Nigeria/Cameroon’’ But their presence in the Nile Valley and in other Non-Bantu speakers Can Not be explained in this way. E-M2 distribution is probably explained by their presence in the populations of the “Early Holocene Sahara”, Who went on to people the Nile Valley in The mid-Holocene era (12,000 B.P.) according to Hassan (1988). Keita and Boyce; Boyce, A. J. (Anthony J.) (2005). "Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation".
We have further evidence confirming the presence of the signature "Niger-Congo" E-M2 paternal lineage in "post 5,000 BC Egypt". In the formative period we find that one of the key groups of pre-dynastic Kemites cluster with "Niger-Congo" populations over "Europeans".
That eliminates that claim of a closer "Eurasian" phenotype, and that simply leaves Asia as the only primary affinity according to your claim. Can you cite a study that shows that the Kemites had a phenotype closer to selected Asian populations over the "Northeast Africans" of that time, and specifically Bantu or Nilotic?
I can cite a study that shows that the contemporary "MENA" phenotype do not have a closer affinity to the Kemites than southern "Negroid" populations.
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges.In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian. ---Pierre M. Vermeersch in Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt
quote:And, let me reiterate that no one thinks Egyptian mummies look like Bantus.
I'm not an eyeball anthropologist, but nothing here seems out of the ordinary in the wide range of our common facial-cranial phenotype.
The closest thing that we have to specifying the geographic populations affinity is DNAtribes, and the closest populations to Kemetic royalty show affinities BAR NONE with Bantu's.
You can cry all you want about this study, but the data is the data. The Bantu affinity was consistent for every mummy tested. We have oral traditions of Bantu ethnic groups claiming particular pharaohs as their own. The evidence on the first page of cultural continuity agrees with the data. The interesting thing about all the people who bitch about this fact being pointed out is that, THEY DON'T HAVE THE BALLS....to pinpoint another SPECIFIC geographic population to attribute primary Kemetic affinities to. This is called GASLIGHTING!
Even members on this site avoid images of mummies. I know I've seen Yatunda Lisa try to deny Yuya's mummy is really Yuya because of what his mummy looks like. So what is FORDISC supposed to say? It's supposed to not match what people see in his face, and we're supposed to tweak and 'fix' FORDISC algorithm until it says what some want it to say?
Posts: 160 | From: Ga | Registered: Jun 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
EDIT: I've been informed that "Rain King" is an alt account created by a troll who was banned here previously. I won't engage with him any further, and I feel nobody else should bother with him too.
posted
It's so interesting, Ethiopians are the earliest Africans, yet people say they don't look like Africans. lol
Posts: 22 | From: Lubaland | Registered: Dec 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] But pre-5000BC ancient Egyptians (e.g. Nazlet) have no problem being assigned SSA affinity, either by visual sorting or FORDISC-like DFA. So, no. It's only the post-5000BC Egyptians that generally fail to cluster with 90% of all African populations, and only cluster with 10% of all African populations. Or maybe the ratio is 80/20 or 70/30. It doesn't matter. But it has nothing to do with FORDISC.
He says that the ancient Egyptians crania cluster with Northeast African cranial, and is in line with local diversity in that place IN THAT TIME!
Who does Keita say was in "Northeast Africa" in that place, and in that time?
The Distribution of E-M2 and it clades in Central and Southern Africa has usually been explained by the ‘‘Bantu migrations" (which occurred 3000-2500 B.C), in which agriculture and iron technologies spread from the Bantu's homeland located in the Benue complex i.e. Nigeria/Cameroon’’ But their presence in the Nile Valley and in other Non-Bantu speakers Can Not be explained in this way. E-M2 distribution is probably explained by their presence in the populations of the “Early Holocene Sahara”, Who went on to people the Nile Valley in The mid-Holocene era
^^^I don't know who wrote this, it's not in the video and it's not in any S.O.Y. Keita article .
._____________________________________
quote:Originally posted by Rain King:
You can cry all you want about this study, but the data is the data. The Bantu affinity was consistent for every mummy tested.
the above chart is from this DNA Tribes article, a private testing company which uses their own proprietary matching methods which they call "MLI". Nowhere in the article do they mention Bantu
Last of the Amarna Pharaohs: King Tut and His Relatives Jan 2012
posted
So we have three Amarna kings, Amenhotep III, Akhenaten and Tutankhamen genetically tested and found to be of Y DNA group R1b and Thuya, Queen Tiye and the Younger Lady test result was mtDNA K. Both of these groups are also found in modern Egyptian Siwa
However in 2012 Rameses III and his son Pentawere were tested and found to be of the E1b1a group otherwise known as E-M2, also the most common paternal Haplogroup of West Africans and African Americans
Of course this is an aside to the the topic though since biological affinity could easily predate a particular cultural period
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The indications of exclusion, however, are much easier to interpret. For example, the likelihood that either the Giza or Naqada configuration could occur in West Africa, the Congo, or points south is vanishingly small-0.000 and 0.001. What- ever else one can or cannot say about the Egyptians, it is clear that their cranio- facial morphology has nothing whatsoever in common with sub-Saharan Africans.
As we can see in the quote above, any DFA with variables that have high discrimination power produce the same results as FORDISC.
A few generic complaints about FORDISC are posted, and we're supposed to believe all aspects of the analyses are now disqualified? How convenient to have a scapegoat to make all the undesired results go away. Except they don't go away because all DFA analyses say the same thing, whether FORDISC or non-FORDISC. This is clearly shown by Brace's DFA. But watch as a new excuse is invented to discredit Brace. "His variables focus on the nose". As if that matters in the context of people claiming AE were Bantu speakers.
This topic has come up a thousand times already, and most of the people who chimed in know full well that these results extend beyond fORDISC. Someone even made a thread about Lawrence Angel's negroid Badarians, to argue against my position, only to discover he was wrong and that Angel had Badarians as a more negroid variant of Type B. This is exactly what I said in my post to Djehuti: that the Badarians are a mixed variant of Type B. But now we have to go over this whole conversation again in the name of "I just have a question" and "just a caveat".
Since the person I was talking to (Djehuti) is absent, I have nothing to say about this anymore.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by One Third African: EDIT: I've been informed that "Rain King" is an alt account created by a troll who was banned here previously. I won't engage with him any further, and I feel nobody else should bother with him too.
I second this. He has been BANNED(again). Now there is no reason for why the topic should not be constrictive now.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet what about Rameses III and son carrying E1b1a?
There's no resolution on the early presence of E-M2 in Egypt. It doesn't say much on it's own in a vacuum. Imagine, for all we know that HG in egypt could've lacked what we come to know as "Bantu Affinities," Like how V88 lacks European Affinity (autosomally and culturally). This is also leads into what I've tried to get established through a line of question for folks in Asars camp, as I can't grasp an overall understanding of their models.
It hurts because there could be an actual connection between Bantu and A.egyptian. Supplementary or even other linguistic evidence may suggest a connection between PAA and NC and on the other hand we might just being what was suggested on this site; and Iron age expansion into egypt bringing NC Affinities and maybe lexical borrowing to the region during that time.
But I can't seem to get any outstanding resolution on ciLuba or any of Asar's models outside of his own work. -And just to note I've been foaming out the mouth to ditch greenburgs modelsPosts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Just an opinion
I thought all knew RainKing was an incarnation of Asante.
His style is unmistakable and even though I disagree with much he posts I do find very valuable overlooked tidbit gems of Africana there plus his delivery on current sociology was personally very helpful to me a few years back.
=-=
Gad does not overturn his earlier conclusion that Ramesses III highest probability is E-M2 per that Athey calculator that nobody knows who updates it or the last time they did.
Gad concludes Ramesses, in contrast to the Amarnas, is African.
Not that I take Gad to the bank. Gad avoids the autosomes. The autosome profile shows Ramesses having more non- African indicative alleles than Amenophis III who, unlike Thuya, has no moderns of his profile while the closest of those I've match checked are the Karamajong.
The autosomes, so far as 'matchable', agree with AE portraiture as far as who looks more inner Africa vs Levant connected in ancestry.
R1b predictions cannot make A III non-African anymore than K can make Thuya an 'Asiatic'. All the Hawass/Gad mummies are Africans whatever cosmopolitan elements they harbor.
Uniparentals are too narrow to reveal tribal/ethnic assignment. Biparental autosomes are able to narrow a subject's geo-pop.
=-=
From FORDISC to ancient 1993 Brace, with its nose over emphasis, yes's been covered quite satisfactorily on ES as well as peer reviewed professional scientist analysis fragging FORDISC/Howell for inaccurate results detailing their scientific reasons why.
For me, only peer reviewed reports can vindicate FORDISC's validity to accurately determine where a single 'unknown' skull fits in which populations. Something's wrong when a 'known' series of skulls fits populations 1000s of miles away better than any local regional peoples. Currently the Christian Nubia example proves FORDISC near worthless identifying that population as a certain percentage Polynesian, preposterous.
And no, for the narrow focus, no way would or should AE skulls show much affiliation with Gulf of Guinea, Atlantic, or Senegal to Niger to Benue rivers to L Chad West Africans. No, that is not the point at all. The point is valid tools and methodologies vs obviously biased ones.
Surely there are tools other than flawed per peer review FORDISC/Howell and askewed methodology Brace one could use for skull analysis without priors? I'm certain they'll show skull variety in all populations with less than 95% certainty that skulls can fit a one and only people. Physical anthropology posits more in group variety than between group variety.
=-=
Bantu affinities with AE.
AEL doesn't appear to be a Bantu lect in my unwashed opinion.
Alleles in Amarnas and RamsesIII&Son are found in today's southern and equator Bantu speakers in popSTR's database.
[*] Amenophis is used because the way Blacks deride Hotep.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet what about Rameses III and son carrying E1b1a?
What about it? In relation to what are you asking? Brace' DFA?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Swenet what about Rameses III and son carrying E1b1a?
What about it? In relation to what are you asking? Brace' DFA?
E-M2
E-M2 corresponds with Bantu speakers
Rameses III lived around 3,000 years ago So if he was accurately predicted E1b1a this could have been uncommon in the Nile Valley, his family may not have been typical for the region and other Egyptians
-or a different scenario, the E-M2 map looked different at the time and it was more common in the North East of Africa then
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Ramses III having E1b1a1-M2 is not important in a lot of conversations. It's mostly people like Rain King who keep spamming it. But to genetics enthusiasts, we just make a mental note and wait for clarifications and updates.
In the meantime, Ramses III is just Egyptian, not West/Central African in any meaningful way.
In the same way, it doesn't really matter that much that Tut has R1b. Tut is not European (or Chadic) in any meaningful way, just because he has R1b.
In my opinion, you attach too much value to haplogroups by not recognizing that individual haplogroups fall low in the order of genetic importance or relevance. To have concrete ties to Bantu speakers, Ramses III would have to have substantial elevated West/Central autosomal DNA (compared to other ancient Egyptians), in addition to his E-M2.
As far as Ramses III's autosomal DNA, look at his face. Ramses III does not look particularly shifted towards West/Central African people. Compare with Kemsit, for instance, who who does look like she is shifted towards West/Central Africane, compared to contemporary Egyptians.
But Ramses III fits with ordinary ancient Egyptians of that time.
This tells you, that Ramses carrying E1b1a1-M2 is not important to his overall autosomal ancestry (otherwise his face and hair would have reflected it, just like Kemsit's face and hair reflect it).
To give you another example, the Zenata Berbers below have:
-E-M2, but they also have -corresponding autosomal ancestry from West/Central Africa that matches their E-M2 (see the grey bars opposite of the red arrows)
In their case, they will look mixed with West/Central Africans, because they have E-M2 + matching autosomal ancestry. They might look something like this, while Zenata Berbers with E-M2 but with less corresponding grey ancestry will look more like this in phenotype. They will not stand out from other Saharan Berbers in the way they look.
Notice that the chart does not show such Zenata Berbers with E-M2 + dominant yellow autosomal ancestry. But you can be sure they exist.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nicolas PaulNovember 12, 2020 at 6:15 AM I've found an even closer fit (the closest I can find) - with R-L226 (a subclade of L21). STRs v modern L226 haplotype: Tut - 13 24 14 11 11 14 10 13 13 30 16 14 19 10 15 12 L226- 13 24 14 11 11 14 11 13 13 29 17 15 19 11 15 12 Estimated distance based on these STRs is 2,825 years, which is almost exactly the distance between Tutankhamun (4,362 ybp) and L226's MRCA (1,500 ybp, per yfull) = 2,862 years.
L226 is a very odd SNP. It is clearly Atlantic Bell Beaker in formation (by my calculation from STRs, quite a bit older than yfull's estimate of 1,900 BC), but disappears into an apparent bottleneck for thousands of years before flourishing only in the common era in Ireland. It makes one wonder whether it was developing elsewhere (perhaps in a poorly sampled part of the world?), and calls to mind possible associations with the old Gaelic legend of the Egyptian Scota.
@Swenet, Yatunde just posted this from the bellbeaker blogspot
Many of the commentators this Tut's DNA is most likely R-L21
R-L21 is also known as R-M529 and R-S145. Myres et al. report it is most common in Ireland, Scotland and Wales (25–50% of the whole male population). ______________________
Or it could be R-V88 perhaps, and this pertaining to Tutankhamun grandson of Amenhotep III but the new article is talking about R1b generally applied to these Amarna
but setting the DNA aside, if you look at the art on Amenhotep III, he often is depicted with broad features, could easily pass for bantu
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
In his depictions he just looks like a generic dark skinned man with ancestry from some source in the tropics (australasia or Africa). There is nothing particularly Bantu about the way he looks.
And I'm done with that conversation, so you're wasting your time if you think I'm going to go down that path again.
EDIT: I meant southern Asia, not australasia. Words mean the same thing, but australasia is used to refer to a much smaller region in the Pacific.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In his depictions he just looks like a generic dark skinned man with ancestry from some source in the tropics (australasia or Africa). There is nothing particularly Bantu about the way he looks.
Amenhotep III
Seti I (right)
not looking similar though, Amenhotep III compared to Seti I
In the painting of Amenhotep there is nothing "un-Bantu" looking about him, however we know some East Africans look like this also
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Funny how Asar picks his battles. He calls out AncientGebts and others in threads he made for the purpose of calling them out. Then he poofs when his own source denies his premise of foolproof and universally applicable regular correspondences.
could the same be said of Diop, Obenga and Mboli?
Posts: 42934 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic