quote:Some researchers posit population continuity between Late Palaeolithic hunter–gatherers of the late Pleistocene and Holocene agriculturalists from Lower (northern) Nubia, in northeast Africa. Substantial craniodental differences in these time-successive groups are suggested to result from in situ evolution. Specifically, these populations are considered a model example for subsistence-related selection worldwide in the transition to agriculture. Others question continuity, with findings indicating that the largely homogeneous Holocene populations differ significantly from late Pleistocene Lower Nubians. If the latter are representative of the local populace, post-Pleistocene discontinuity is implied. So who was ancestral to the Holocene agriculturalists? Dental morphological analyses of 18 samples (1075 individuals), including one dated to the 12th millennium BCE from Al Khiday, near the Upper Nubian border, may provide an answer. It is the first Late Palaeolithic sample (n = 55) recovered within the region in approximately 50 years. Using the Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System to record traits and multivariate statistics to estimate biological affinities, Al Khiday is comparable to several Holocene samples, yet also highly divergent from contemporaneous Lower Nubians. Thus, population continuity is indicated after all, but with late Pleistocene Upper—rather than Lower Nubians as originally suggested—assuming dental traits are adequate proxies for ancient DNA.
The paper seems to have been published in June this year, yet these results (namely the pre-Mesolithic population of al-Khiday having a more "North African" dental affinity than other Middle Nile populations at the time) seem to be something Irish has described earlier? I guess this would be the official publication of that research, then.
I believe that link is to an abstract presented at a meeting, not a whole paper. I guess what I linked to in my OP is the full paper that 2012 abstract was announcing.
posted
Results from the paper: The new distance matrix (Supplementary Table S5) and MDS (Fig. 2) place Gebel Sahaba (GSA) even farther from the rest (MMD=0.14- 0.44); affinities among the latter changed minimally, including the new Neolithic samples (AKN, GHB, R12). Al Khiday Late Palaeolithic (AKH) is close to Hierakonpolis C-Group (MMD=0.04), Al Khiday Neolithic (0.01), Neolithic Ghaba (0.06), Kerma Ancien/Moyen (0.02), Kerma Classique (0.01), and Napatan Tombos (0.04); these distances do not differ significantly (Supplementary Table S6). Of all samples, Late Palaeolithic Al Khiday is farthest from Final Neolithic Gebel Ramlah (MMD=0.19), Meroitic (0.17), and Gebel Sahaba (0.17). An improvement in MMD performance is supported by the MDS. Beyond Gebel Sahaba being farther from the remaining, more homogeneous samples, the latter reveal a Lower/Upper Nubian division indicative of a north-to-south cline in ASUDAS frequencies
Discussion on Al-Khiday: What is new, however, is the 12th millennium Al Khiday sample. None of the crania have been reconstructed but they appear robust (Supplementary Figs. S5-S6), perhaps not unlike contemporaneous Lower Nubians, Northwest African Iberomaurusians [29], or Central African Ishango [64]. Odontometrics have also not been recorded, but all teeth appear much larger than more recent samples, again not unlike the above material [27]. Yet, compared to Gebel Sahaba, Al Khiday teeth are simpler like in Holocene Nubians (Supplementary Table S5; Fig. 2). In particular, distances with the Hierakonpolis C-Group and five Upper Nubian 10 samples do not differ significantly. However, Al Khiday also expresses traits indicative of sub-Saharan origin [57,65-66 (Supplementary Note S3)], but like geographically proximate East Africans, and one Central African sample (Supplementary Note S3, Table S7, Fig. 3). Site location is a likely factor, as during humid periods it would literally have been in ‘sub’- Saharan Africa. Of course, regardless of climate, the Nile and tributaries acted as north-south migration routes during the whole of prehistory. Evidence of exchange is seen by an increase in sub-Saharan-like traits between Lower and Upper Nubian Holocene samples (Fig. 2,
Hopefully Zarahan or someone can upload the graphs and post them here since I don't have the time to do it myself.
Though I am curious as to where al-Khiday would fit in Irish's greater MMD graph of Africans.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Al Khiday is a very important site in Central Sudan near the 6th cataract because of the presence of multiple cemetery sites from the late mesolithic, to Neolithic and Meroitic periods. Oddly enough a lot of the papers on these remains involve understanding dietary behaviors during these time periods. It is located South of Khartoum and right to the West of modern day Eritrea.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Al Khiday is a very important site in Central Sudan near the 6th cataract because of the presence of multiple cemetery sites from the late mesolithic, to Neolithic and Meroitic periods. Oddly enough a lot of the papers on these remains involve understanding dietary behaviors during these time periods. It is located South of Khartoum and right to the West of modern day Eritrea.
Al-Khiday is located just 20 km (12.43 mi) southwest of Khartoum.
Yet the contemporary Lower Nile Valley both Nubia and Egypt was allegedly dominated by populations exhibiting typical Sub-Saharan morphology both cranially and dentally. So where do the immediate ancestors of the Holocene Egypto-Nubians come from?? Perhaps a strong possibility would be the Eastern Desert region.
As for the ancestors of the Epipaleolithic Egypto-Nubians, Irish says the below:
Discussion Assuming phenetic affinities reflect genetic relatedness, Gebel Sahaba appears too divergent to be ancestral to succeeding Nubians—differing significantly based on 36 and 21 traits. Such findings were reported previously [22-30,33-34]. These same studies indicate the Gebel Sahaba/Tushka/Wadi Halfa population was not indigenous to Nubia or the region, instead showing affinities to sub-Saharan Africans, notably West Africa. This too is not new, and two earlier studies reported cranial similarities with sub-Saharan samples: West African Ashanti [41], and late Palaeolithic Ishango, Democratic Republic of the Congo [40, also see 64]. This is expediently illustrated in a 2D plot of 36-trait distances (Fig. 3) among Gebel Sahaba, Al Khiday, pooled Lower (LNU) and Upper (UNU) Holocene Nubian samples (from Table 1), and 12 early Holocene through historic samples from West, Central, and East subSaharan Africa ([23-24,55,57], Supplementary Note S3, Table S7). Of interest, the Ashanti crania from [41] comprise the Ghana (GHA) sample near Gebel Sahaba. The latter’s location shows it most akin to West Africans and three Central African samples, sharing traits common among subcontinental populations [57,65-66]. None of these distances differ significantly (Supplementary Table S7). Except Gebel Sahaba, inter-sample distances parallel geographic locations [also 23,55-56], where Dimension 1 approximates west-to-east, and Dimension 2, north-south,.
A sub-Saharan population in late Pleistocene Nubia should not be unexpected, given northward expansions of Sahelian vegetation and sub-Saharan fauna during Saharan ‘green’ periods; the most recent initiated 15,000 BP [67], before its maximum around 9000 BP [67- 69]. It may seem surprising that these apparent migrants originated so far away, but many well-watered migration routes were available then [22,26,68]. In any event, information on biological distinctiveness and non-local derivation is not novel, as mentioned. Nevertheless, diachronic change in a continuous, geographically stable Lower Nubian population from the late Pleistocene onward is still proposed as a viable explanation [3].
Irish makes the assumption that the Jebel Sahabans were foreigners to the Nile Valley originating from "Sub-Sahara", but this assumption is only based on their affinities to modern Sub-Saharans, specifically Ghanian Ashanti which again is shown in his older MDS-MMD graph.
I'm not saying that Irish is wrong, but I personally am just more cautious and not as presumptuous as he is. According to his graph above not only are Senegamibians closest to the centroid value but they are closer in distance to Capsians than the Jebel Sahabans are to Ghanians yet Senegambians are still grouped with Sub-Saharans and not North Africans. In fact, the Sahabans are literal outliers falling outside of the chart! I am automatically reminded of the Upper Paleolithic Nazlet Khater of Egypt whose cranial features resemble those of modern Sub-Saharans than modern North Africans or Eurasians yet his contemporary all the way in South Africa Hofmeyer shows Eurasian affinities!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet the contemporary Lower Nile Valley both Nubia and Egypt was allegedly dominated by populations exhibiting typical Sub-Saharan morphology both cranially and dentally. So where do the immediate ancestors of the Holocene Egypto-Nubians come from?? Perhaps a strong possibility would be the Eastern Desert region.
I agree. I believe the pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday population would be descended from a movement originating in the Eastern Desert/Red Sea Hills region that made its way southwestward into central Sudan. Probably they would be early Afroasiatic speakers whereas the "sub-Saharan"-like Lower Nubians would be Nilo-Saharans or related.
posted
^ That they came from the northeast is the common presumption just like the presumption that Jebel Sahabans came from the west. Though there's no way to know what language the al-Khiday people spoke. Again, I don't like to jump to conclusions without further evidence.
But note the proximity of al-Khiday to modern Nilo-Saharan speaking peoples.
This makes you wonder about the "Nilotic" genome discussed here.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting stuff. I don't have the supplementary tables at present. Where did he get his "pharaonic" samples?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: Interesting stuff. I don't have the supplementary tables at present. Where did he get his "pharaonic" samples?
IIRC, they were from somewhere in Nubia, dated to the period of Egyptian occupation.
posted
Thanks I'll have to look at the full charts. Good info.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seeing as these remains show close affinities to groups like Kerma, C group and some other Lower Nubians who would be rich in MENA ancestry, would these guys be the candidate for the native non-SSA ancestors of early Egypt/Lower Nubia?
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 'MENA' is a modern geographic concept encompassing both 'Middle East' and North Africa. Such concepts often can't be applied to population genetic structure especially those from ancient even prehistoric times. But from what we know there was ANA (Ancestral North African) structure different from Sub-Saharans as well as various Eurasian ones such as early Levant populations such as the Natufians which show some admixture from ANA and even a little SSA as well. That said when it comes to dental morphology there is a difference between North African morphology and Sub-Saharan with the former being intermediate between the latter and Eurasians and this is also reflected in cranial morphology among other things.
This is why some Afrocentrics are wrong to assume North Africans/Egypto-Nubians are synonymous with Sub-Saharans but Eurocentrics are also wrong to say they are synonymous with Eurasians. They are in fact intermediate to both groups not because of admixture between the two but that they represent an intermediate population branch between Eurasia and Sub-Sahara. This is the case for at least Nile Valley inhabitants of Holocene to historical times but the pre-Holocene inhabitants however show Sub-Saharan affinities indicating population replacement.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: Interesting stuff. I don't have the supplementary tables at present. Where did he get his "pharaonic" samples?
He got the sample from Soleb Nubia during New Kingdom occupation. I don't have time to pull up the paper, but I could send it to you later.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh? Sub Saharan Africa is suppose to be a geographic location and not be used to mean negro or whatever code talk Euros like to use.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Correct. Sub-Sahara is simply a geographic region and precisely a sub-region of the African continent the same as North Africa. Unfortunately due to centuries of Eurocentric biased scholarship the African continent was racialized and split into North vs. Sub-Sahara with the former identified as "caucasoid" and the latter "negroid". However, when one looks at all the bio-anthropological data as a whole it's more complicated than that.
In regards to this topic of dental morphology which was discussed before here, the author of the study in discussion, Dr. Joel Irish, has years ago identified a “Sub-Saharan African Dental Complex” he calls "Afridonty" for short, yet he groups North African dental morphology with that of Western Eurasians (Europeans and Southwest Asians). The problem with this is that Irish admits that the primary difference between Sub-Saharans and North Africans is largely a difference in crown sizes with the former having large 'megadont' teeth similar to Australian Aborigines and Papua-Melanesians while the latter has small 'microdont' teeth similar to Western Eurasians.
And yet Irish states this about the North African dental complex: "Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which parallels that of Europeans, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans."
^ All the traits in bold are those that characterize his "Sub-Saharan dental complex" or "Afridonty"! But again he does not class North Africans as "Afridonty" despite not only being on the same continent but sharing most of the same dental traits due to difference in crown size?!
As for the dental traits themselves, statistical analysis show that various populations score in one or more of the traits in higher or lower frequencies depending on the population. The same holds true for the dental traits of North Africans which again differ largely in crown size as well as higher frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3 and the highest frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait.
Thus he came up with the following MMD chart.
quote:Even looking at the Sub-Saharan grouping alone BrandonP correctly noticed: I was going to say that the SSA cluster in that chart seems to cover a much broader, more dispersed territory than the North African one. I swear, the Tanzanians and Chadians seem to be positioned closer to the North African cluster than they are to the Khoisan peoples of southernmost Africa. It's almost as if SSA itself is not really a singular race.
Also, while the Mesolithic Nubians (Jebel Sahabans) are in the Sub-Saharan grouping they are clear outliers literally off the chart due to their archaic features that separate them from the West Africans Irish presumes them to be closely related to. Which makes me think Irish at times just presumes too much.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Good question.
Al-Khiday is located just 20 km (12.43 mi) southwest of Khartoum.
Yet the contemporary Lower Nile Valley both Nubia and Egypt was allegedly dominated by populations exhibiting typical Sub-Saharan morphology both cranially and dentally. So where do the immediate ancestors of the Holocene Egypto-Nubians come from?? Perhaps a strong possibility would be the Eastern Desert region.
As for the ancestors of the Epipaleolithic Egypto-Nubians, Irish says the below:
Discussion Assuming phenetic affinities reflect genetic relatedness, Gebel Sahaba appears too divergent to be ancestral to succeeding Nubians—differing significantly based on 36 and 21 traits. Such findings were reported previously [22-30,33-34]. These same studies indicate the Gebel Sahaba/Tushka/Wadi Halfa population was not indigenous to Nubia or the region, instead showing affinities to sub-Saharan Africans, notably West Africa. This too is not new, and two earlier studies reported cranial similarities with sub-Saharan samples: West African Ashanti [41], and late Palaeolithic Ishango, Democratic Republic of the Congo [40, also see 64]. This is expediently illustrated in a 2D plot of 36-trait distances (Fig. 3) among Gebel Sahaba, Al Khiday, pooled Lower (LNU) and Upper (UNU) Holocene Nubian samples (from Table 1), and 12 early Holocene through historic samples from West, Central, and East subSaharan Africa ([23-24,55,57], Supplementary Note S3, Table S7). Of interest, the Ashanti crania from [41] comprise the Ghana (GHA) sample near Gebel Sahaba. The latter’s location shows it most akin to West Africans and three Central African samples, sharing traits common among subcontinental populations [57,65-66]. None of these distances differ significantly (Supplementary Table S7). Except Gebel Sahaba, inter-sample distances parallel geographic locations [also 23,55-56], where Dimension 1 approximates west-to-east, and Dimension 2, north-south,.
A sub-Saharan population in late Pleistocene Nubia should not be unexpected, given northward expansions of Sahelian vegetation and sub-Saharan fauna during Saharan ‘green’ periods; the most recent initiated 15,000 BP [67], before its maximum around 9000 BP [67- 69]. It may seem surprising that these apparent migrants originated so far away, but many well-watered migration routes were available then [22,26,68]. In any event, information on biological distinctiveness and non-local derivation is not novel, as mentioned. Nevertheless, diachronic change in a continuous, geographically stable Lower Nubian population from the late Pleistocene onward is still proposed as a viable explanation [3].
Irish makes the assumption that the Jebel Sahabans were foreigners to the Nile Valley originating from "Sub-Sahara", but this assumption is only based on their affinities to modern Sub-Saharans, specifically Ghanian Ashanti which again is shown in his older MDS-MMD graph.
I'm not saying that Irish is wrong, but I personally am just more cautious and not as presumptuous as he is. According to his graph above not only are Senegamibians closest to the centroid value but they are closer in distance to Capsians than the Jebel Sahabans are to Ghanians yet Senegambians are still grouped with Sub-Saharans and not North Africans. In fact, the Sahabans are literal outliers falling outside of the chart! I am automatically reminded of the Upper Paleolithic Nazlet Khater of Egypt whose cranial features resemble those of modern Sub-Saharans than modern North Africans or [QUOTE]Eurasians yet his contemporary all the way in South Africa Hofmeyer shows Eurasian affinities!
What is a "Eurasian affinity" in terms of physical apperance relative to modern populations?
ALso the finding of Pleistocene Nubians having very close affinity to recent West African populations is indicative of what exactly? Where were the Somali/Ethiopic or modern Sudanese peoples during this time, and why is there no affinity towards them?
posted
Yeah,Eurasian/a too is suppose to be a geographic location,as the Australo-Melanisian overlap with Africans and the latter are suppose to be Eurasians.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ 'MENA' is a modern geographic concept encompassing both 'Middle East' and North Africa. Such concepts often can't be applied to population genetic structure especially those from ancient even prehistoric times. But from what we know there was ANA (Ancestral North African) structure different from Sub-Saharans as well as various Eurasian ones such as early Levant populations such as the Natufians which show some admixture from ANA and even a little SSA as well. That said when it comes to dental morphology there is a difference between North African morphology and Sub-Saharan with the former being intermediate between the latter and Eurasians and this is also reflected in cranial morphology among other things.
This is why some Afrocentrics are wrong to assume North Africans/Egypto-Nubians are synonymous with Sub-Saharans but Eurocentrics are also wrong to say they are synonymous with Eurasians. They are in fact intermediate to both groups not because of admixture between the two but that they represent an intermediate population branch between Eurasia and Sub-Sahara. This is the case for at least Nile Valley inhabitants of Holocene to historical times but the pre-Holocene inhabitants however show Sub-Saharan affinities indicating population replacement.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: Interesting stuff. I don't have the supplementary tables at present. Where did he get his "pharaonic" samples?
He got the sample from Soleb Nubia during New Kingdom occupation. I don't have time to pull up the paper, but I could send it to you later.
Yh you're right those kinda terms are inaccurate when looking at these groups and are largely modern terms, but i meant the ancestry of Egypt/Nubia thats typically represented as Natufian/Levantine, most users here including myself believe there is a native North East African side to Natufians thats wrongly said to be Eurasian in origin, I was asking if this Al Khiday population could be a candidate for this kind of population that could have introduced North East African ancestry into the Natufians, and are partly responsible for the presence of "Natufian" like ancestry in ancient Egypt/Nubia
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: What is a "Eurasian affinity" in terms of physical appearance relative to modern populations?
That depends on what specific suite of traits one is using since Eurasians vary in terms of features. In this instance we are discussing non-metric dental that is odontic traits. Even here Eurasians vary. I suggest you take a look at my thread on odontology as indicator of genetics.
Since Eurasians vary in odontological traits depending on the region as well as population, Irish is specifically referring to Western Eurasians as comprising Europeans and Southwest Asians who are the neighboring Eurasian populations to Africa of course.
quote:Also the finding of Pleistocene Nubians having very close affinity to recent West African populations is indicative of what exactly? Where were the Somali/Ethiopic or modern Sudanese peoples during this time, and why is there no affinity towards them?
To the first question, the Pleistocene Nubians' affinity to West Africans is actually not that close at all since they are outliers due to possessing many archaic traits that West Africans do not have. This is why I question Irish's claim of West African origin for these Nubians. To your second question, Irish actually does not do a good job of including East Africans even other Sudanese in his studies. In fact I barely recall one study where he includes Horn Africans, I think Somalis. I'll have to look that up. So that's another problem. The guy seems to pretty much adhere to the paradigm of Sub-Saharan= "Negroid" and North African= "Caucasoid" without pretty much saying it.
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Yeah, Eurasian too is suppose to be a geographic location, as the Australo-Melanesian overlap with Africans and the latter are suppose to be Eurasians.
Correction, Australo-Melanesians overlap with many Sub-Saharan Africans but not all in certain metric features but not others. In the case of non-metric dental traits, which this thread is about, the ONLY thing Ausralo-Melanesians have in common with many Sub-Saharans is tooth size with both groups having large 'megadont' teeth. But as for other non-metric traits there is NOTHING in common. Again I suggest you read up on this thread here to get a better understanding of what I'm saying. Australo-Melanesians have their own dental trait complex called 'Australodonty' which has more in common with the derived/descendant Sundadonty complex held by Southeast Asians like myself and Pacific Islanders like Polynesians and Micronesians as well as indigenous Taiwanese, Ryukyuan, and aboriginal Japanese. Then you have the more derived Sinodonty of Northeast Asians, Siberians, and Indigenous Americans. You also have Indodonty which is the complex of peoples indigenous to the Indian subcontinent whose affinities lie intermediate between Sundadonty and West-Eurasiodonty of Southwest Asians and Europeans. Eastern Eurasians both Australo-Melanesians and East Asians have more complex dental traits while West Eurasians and Africans have more simple ones while Indians are intermediate to both.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Yeah you're right those kinda terms are inaccurate when looking at these groups and are largely modern terms, but I meant the ancestry of Egypt/Nubia that's typically represented as Natufian/Levantine, most users here including myself believe there is a native North East African side to Natufians that's wrongly said to be Eurasian in origin, I was asking if this Al Khiday population could be a candidate for this kind of population that could have introduced North East African ancestry into the Natufians, and are partly responsible for the presence of "Natufian" like ancestry in ancient Egypt/Nubia
It's hard to say. I haven't heard of any dental trait studies done on Natufians. But according to this new Irish paper, not only does Al-Khiday show dental traits in common with Holocene Egypto-Nubians but that their cranial morphology also shows some ties albeit with more robust archaic traits. The Natufians are somewhat of an odd group. In terms of their affinities with Nile Valley peoples their cranial shape is most similar to predynastic Delta folk like Merimde and Upper Egyptian Tasians except somewhat smaller but their nasal features and prognathism makes them intermediate between Nubians and West African groups. Genetically they seem to be intermediate between an early North African group (with some admixture from a Hadza-like Sub-Saharan East Africans) and a group called 'Basal Eurasians'.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: [qb] What is a "Eurasian affinity" in terms of physical appearance relative to modern populations?
That depends on what specific suite of traits one is using since Eurasians vary in terms of features. In this instance we are discussing non-metric dental that is odontic traits. Even here Eurasians vary. I suggest you take a look at my thread on odontology as indicator of genetics.
But that to me this is where Western racial hypocrisy sets in. When it comes to Africa rarely are East African variants used as the reference population for Africa, and instead these African variants are treated often as non African despite being indigenous. When it comes Eurasia, with their vast completely arbitrary collective why are their biological templates never pigeon holed like Africa? How can Western Eurasians be a biological template when we KNOW that they have received MASSIVE amounts of African geneflow over the last 5,000 years. What discretion is used by researchers to imply that these Western Eurasians themselves have biological variants due to recent African geneflow? With that being said how on Earth can they be described as anything other than mulattoes of their respective region?
quote:Also the finding of Pleistocene Nubians having very close affinity to recent West African populations is indicative of what exactly? Where were the Somali/Ethiopic or modern Sudanese peoples during this time, and why is there no affinity towards them?
quote:To your question, the Pleistocene Nubians' affinity to West Africans is actually not that close at all since they are outliers due to possessing many archaic traits that West Africans do not have. This is why I question Irish's claim of West African origin for these Nubians.
He reinforced that claim in the earlier study with the graphic that you posted back in 2013 though;'
"In contrast, Irish and Turner (1990) and Irish (2000, 2005) noted that Pleistocene Nubians (in particular those of Jebel Sahaba skeletons) were as a group quite different from recent Nubians for dental discreet traits yet shared great phenetic affinity with recent West African populations ." -- T.W. Holiday 2013 ("Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample")
So he's been making this claim of West African affinity in pre-historic Nubia for quite a while now. I wouldn't imagine that it was a fluke when the researchers evidence keeps supporting this. Further
quote: To your second question, Irish actually does not do a good job of including East Africans even other Sudanese in his studies.
But as you can see in the quote from his 2013 study however, that there was apparently a head to head comparison between recent Afro-Asiatic and Nilotic speakers and modern West African groups. He finds that these modern groups in the East African region do not share close affinity with the Pleistocene inhabitants. Are we talking about a ghost population?
And if so, did this ghost population share a common ancestor with modern day West Africans? Did they die off? Where are they TODAY?
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Yeah you're right those kinda terms are inaccurate when looking at these groups and are largely modern terms, but I meant the ancestry of Egypt/Nubia that's typically represented as Natufian/Levantine, most users here including myself believe there is a native North East African side to Natufians that's wrongly said to be Eurasian in origin, I was asking if this Al Khiday population could be a candidate for this kind of population that could have introduced North East African ancestry into the Natufians, and are partly responsible for the presence of "Natufian" like ancestry in ancient Egypt/Nubia
It's hard to say. I haven't heard of any dental trait studies done on Natufians. But according to this new Irish paper, not only does Al-Khiday show dental traits in common with Holocene Egypto-Nubians but that their cranial morphology also shows some ties albeit with more robust archaic traits. The Natufians are somewhat of an odd group. In terms of their affinities with Nile Valley peoples their cranial shape is most similar to predynastic Delta folk like Merimde and Upper Egyptian Tasians except somewhat smaller but their nasal features and prognathism makes them intermediate between Nubians and West African groups. Genetically they seem to be intermediate between an early North African group (with some admixture from a Hadza-like Sub-Saharan East Africans) and a group called 'Basal Eurasians'.
I was thinking they could be the Levantine-like ancestors of Egypt and Nubia because they seem to have an affinity with lower Nubians who are known to have significant "Levantine" like ancestry, they are robust so it gives leeway for morphological change where they become more gracile as they change to a soft diet possibly strengthening their affinity with lower Nubia/upper Egypt making them an even better fit for a Levantine-related population native to Egypt. They also practised avulsion, which was practised by Natufians, Taforalt and recently by Beja tribe nomads, I could see THIS Egyptian Al Khiday population spreading into the Maghreb and the Levant, introducing Egyptian ancestry as we see with certain E and M lineages whilst introducing these cultural practises.
Thanks for that description of the natufians btw, I appreciate it.
When you say early North African group with Hadza like ancestry I assume you mean Taforalt? I would have thought Natufians were more Eurasian shifted than Basal Eurasian seeing as they carry Basal Eurasian whilst carrying Hunter Gatherer ancestry which would surely shift them even more to the Eurasian side on the PCA, don't you think this would mean Basal Eurasian would sit somewhere in between the pre-historic Levantines/Iranians and Taforalt in this PCA?: https://imgur.com/a/zWk4W4LPosts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: But that to me this is where Western racial hypocrisy sets in. When it comes to Africa rarely are East African variants used as the reference population for Africa, and instead these African variants are treated often as non African despite being indigenous. When it comes Eurasia, with their vast completely arbitrary collective why are their biological templates never pigeon holed like Africa?..
You're right, and notice it is always North Africans who get segregated from the rest of Africans and grouped with Eurasians. However, Eurasians are NOT arbitrarily grouped into one collective particularly as it pertains to odontic traits. As I explained to Thereal, Eurasian populations are divided into a number of dental complexes. The only one Irish uses in his studies of Africans is the West Eurasian complex all the other Eurasian complexes being irrelevant.
But again noting the hypocrisy you speak of, Irish's former colleague and leading expert in the use of non-metric dental characteristics in bio-anthropology was the late Dr. Christy G. Turner II of Arizona State University whose odontological data at ASU is still widely used by experts like Irish himself. It was Turner who recognized that East Asian peoples were divided into two main dental complexes-- a more generalized simpler Sundadonty and more derived and complex Sinodonty.
^ Yet nobody denies that both complexes are related as are the peoples they belong to. Yet when it comes to Africa, Irish separates North Africans completely from 'Afridonty' and groups them with Western Eurasians despite the obvious affinities which I already listed prior. I believe even Dr. Turner himself pointed out the discrepancy in this!
quote:How can Western Eurasians be a biological template when we KNOW that they have received MASSIVE amounts of African geneflow over the last 5,000 years. What discretion is used by researchers to imply that these Western Eurasians themselves have biological variants due to recent African geneflow? With that being said how on Earth can they be described as anything other than mulattoes of their respective region?
Well I don't know about "massive" amounts. But they obviously received some as Irish admits that the 1st upper molar Carabelli's trait has its highest frequency in North Africans and suggests that its presence in Eurasians means that its due to North African admixture. Much of the African admixture in Eurasians was more evident in ancient especially Neolithic times but was subsumed by further Eurasian demic expansions.
quote:He reinforced that claim in the earlier study with the graphic that you posted back in 2013 though;'
"In contrast, Irish and Turner (1990) and Irish (2000, 2005) noted that Pleistocene Nubians (in particular those of Jebel Sahaba skeletons) were as a group quite different from recent Nubians for dental discreet traits yet shared great phenetic affinity with recent West African populations ." -- T.W. Holiday 2013 ("Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample")
So he's been making this claim of West African affinity in pre-historic Nubia for quite a while now. I wouldn't imagine that it was a fluke when the researchers evidence keeps supporting this.
Irish is correct that Mesolithic Nubians share great phenetic affinity with modern West Africans, But to what degree is the issue! Again, the reason why the Mesolithic Nubians are an outlier is due to their archaic traits which modern West Africans lack. So the relation exists but it's just not as close or as recent as Irish seems to make it sound.
quote:But as you can see in the quote from his 2013 study however, that there was apparently a head to head comparison between recent Afro-Asiatic and Nilotic speakers and modern West African groups. He finds that these modern groups in the East African region do not share close affinity with the Pleistocene inhabitants. Are we talking about a ghost population?
And if so, did this ghost population share a common ancestor with modern day West Africans? Did they die off? Where are they TODAY?
We can't really say without DNA evidence directly tied to the remains. I will say, that autosomal evidence (I forgot which study) shows a common ancestral link between modern Nilo-Saharan speaking southern Sudanese like Dinka and Afroasiatic speaking Horn Africans like Somali. Could this be related to Late Pleistocene Nile Valley folk? Who knows?
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excerpt on upcoming study on 4, 000 year old Egyptian mummies:
Human mitochondrial hapologroups and ancient DNA preservation across Egyptian history Urban Christian (1), Neukamm Judith (1), Eppenberger Patrick (1), Brändle Martin (2), Rühli Frank (1), Schuenemann Verena (1) 1 - Institute of Evolutionary Medicine (University of Zurich Switzerland), 2 - Faculty of Biology, Philipps-Universität Marburg (Germany) Egypt represents an ideal location for genetic studies on population migration and admixture due to its geographic location and rich history. However, there are only a few reliable genetic studies on ancient Egyptian samples. In a previous study, we assessed the genetic history of a single site: Abusir el-Meleq from 1388 BCE to 426 CE. We now focus on widening the geographic scope to give a general overview of the population genetic background, focusing on mitochondrial haplogroups present among the whole Egyptian Nile River Valley.We collected 81 tooth, hair, bone, and soft tissue samples from 14 mummies and 17 skeletal remains. The samples span approximately 4000 years of Egyptian history and originate from six different excavation sites covering the whole length of the Egyptian Nile River Valley. NGS 127 based ancient DNA 8 were applied to reconstruct 18 high-quality mitochondrial genomes from 10 different individuals. The determined mitochondrial haplogroups match the results from our Abusir el-Meleq study Our results indicate very low rates of modern DNA contamination independent of the tissue type. Although authentic ancient DNA was recovered from different tissues, a reliable recovery was best achieved using teeth or petrous bone material. Moreover, the rate for successful ancient DNA retrieval between Egyptian mummies and skeletal remains did not differ significantly. Our study provides preliminary insights into population history across different regions and compares tissue-specific DNA preservation for mummies and skeletal remains from the Egyptian Nile River Valley.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I was thinking they could be the Levantine-like ancestors of Egypt and Nubia because they seem to have an affinity with lower Nubians who are known to have significant "Levantine" like ancestry, they are robust so it gives leeway for morphological change where they become more gracile as they change to a soft diet possibly strengthening their affinity with lower Nubia/upper Egypt making them an even better fit for a Levantine-related population native to Egypt. They also practiced avulsion, which was practiced by Natufians, Taforalt and recently by Beja tribe nomads, I could see THIS Egyptian Al Khiday population spreading into the Maghreb and the Levant, introducing Egyptian ancestry as we see with certain E and M lineages whilst introducing these cultural practices.
There's no way to know without DNA samples from Al-Khiday remains. But judging from the skeletal descriptions they are more likely to be directly ancestral to some Egypto-Nubians than they are to the Natufians who were far more gracile and pedomorphic in form. Again, I'm not denying a relation but that such relation for now seems more tenuous. It's like Irish's claim of Mesolithic Nubians' direct ties to modern West Africans. As for Lower Nubians having Levantine-like genetic ancestry, I take it you are referring to the Christian-era Kulubnarti remains, such may very well be the result of Eurasian back-migrations that took place during dynastic times. As for tooth-avulsion, such ritual practice was also found in the Central Sahara and also continues today among Nilotic tribes in the Kordofan region of Sudan.
quote:Thanks for that description of the natufians btw, I appreciate it.
No problem.
quote: When you say early North African group with Hadza like ancestry I assume you mean Taforalt? I would have thought Natufians were more Eurasian shifted than Basal Eurasian seeing as they carry Basal Eurasian whilst carrying Hunter Gatherer ancestry which would surely shift them even more to the Eurasian side on the PCA, don't you think this would mean Basal Eurasian would sit somewhere in between the pre-historic Levantines/Iranians and Taforalt in this PCA?:
A more recent study from either Lazaridis or Reich shows that Taforalt did not derive their Basal Eurasian from Natufians but the other way around or rather some intermediate population (Egypt?) but yes the Natufians are more Western hunter-gatherer shifted.
^ Note not only the brown Hadza-ancestry but the silver ancestry associated with Iran but also possessed by Mota. Also note that a single 'Sub-Saharan' label fails to account for difference between Khoisan southern African types, West African/Yoruba-Ibadan types, and Hadza East African types.
There are so many questions than answers, which is why I don't like to make assumptions without hard evidence.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I was thinking they could be the Levantine-like ancestors of Egypt and Nubia because they seem to have an affinity with lower Nubians who are known to have significant "Levantine" like ancestry, they are robust so it gives leeway for morphological change where they become more gracile as they change to a soft diet possibly strengthening their affinity with lower Nubia/upper Egypt making them an even better fit for a Levantine-related population native to Egypt. They also practiced avulsion, which was practiced by Natufians, Taforalt and recently by Beja tribe nomads, I could see THIS Egyptian Al Khiday population spreading into the Maghreb and the Levant, introducing Egyptian ancestry as we see with certain E and M lineages whilst introducing these cultural practices.
There's no way to know without DNA samples from Al-Khiday remains. But judging from the skeletal descriptions they are more likely to be directly ancestral to some Egypto-Nubians than they are to the Natufians who were far more gracile and pedomorphic in form. Again, I'm not denying a relation but that such relation for now seems more tenuous. It's like Irish's claim of Mesolithic Nubians' direct ties to modern West Africans. As for Lower Nubians having Levantine-like genetic ancestry, I take it you are referring to the Christian-era Kulubnarti remains, such may very well be the result of Eurasian back-migrations that took place during dynastic times. As for tooth-avulsion, such ritual practice was also found in the Central Sahara and also continues today among Nilotic tribes in the Kordofan region of Sudan.
quote:Thanks for that description of the natufians btw, I appreciate it.
No problem.
quote: When you say early North African group with Hadza like ancestry I assume you mean Taforalt? I would have thought Natufians were more Eurasian shifted than Basal Eurasian seeing as they carry Basal Eurasian whilst carrying Hunter Gatherer ancestry which would surely shift them even more to the Eurasian side on the PCA, don't you think this would mean Basal Eurasian would sit somewhere in between the pre-historic Levantines/Iranians and Taforalt in this PCA?:
A more recent study from either Lazaridis or Reich shows that Taforalt did not derive their Basal Eurasian from Natufians but the other way around or rather some intermediate population (Egypt?) but yes the Natufians are more Western hunter-gatherer shifted.
^ Note not only the brown Hadza-ancestry but the silver ancestry associated with Iran but also possessed by Mota. Also note that a single 'Sub-Saharan' label fails to account for difference between Khoisan southern African types, West African/Yoruba-Ibadan types, and Hadza East African types.
There are so many questions than answers, which is why I don't like to make assumptions without hard evidence.
Yh i may be jumping the gun here by trying to make a close link with the natufians, I guess we'll just have to wait for aDNA to come along and clear all of this up.
Yh I definitenly think some of the Levantine like ancestry in Kulubnarti nubia was due to back migration but I was actually referring to Kerma and any contemporary lower Nubian cultures who I think would have got most of their Levantine related ancestry well before the unification from a similar source as the Horn Africans/Pastoral Neolithic got it from.
I had no clue that tooth avulsion was practised by central Saharans and modern Nilotes, thanks for the info.
Thanks again, your replies have been really helpful.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
Will you concede once the 4, 000 year old study comes out and aligns with the Abusir paper? The results from the Kenyan pastoral paper was essentially a death-knell to notions of a 'black' Egypt.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Will you concede once the 4, 000 year old study comes out and aligns with the Abusir paper? The results from the Kenyan pastoral paper was essentially a death-knell to notions of a 'black' Egypt.
Define black Egypt? Black is very vague and subjective.
Also didn't the abstract say mitochondrial haplogroups? so no autosomal data...
there are ethiopians that are HV1b and J1, whilst some carry A3b2 and L0b... in reality they could carry the exact same ancestries in the exact same proportions, so I wouldn't put so much weight on haplogroups in this situation.
And how was the kenya pastoral paper a "death knell"?
Either way, I think most would agree that ancient Egyptians will be strongly Levantine like, the question is what causes this affinity, real Eurasian ancestry or common north African ancestry, its probably both but to varying degrees, depending on time period, region etc...
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
Will you concede once the 4, 000 year old study comes out and aligns with the Abusir paper? The results from the Kenyan pastoral paper was essentially a death-knell to notions of a 'black' Egypt.
Define black Egypt? Black is very vague and subjective.
Also didn't the abstract say mitochondrial haplogroups? so no autosomal data...
there are ethiopians that are HV1b and J1, whilst some carry A3b2 and L0b... in reality they could carry the exact same ancestries in the exact same proportions, so I wouldn't put so much weight on haplogroups in this situation.
And how was the kenya pastoral paper a "death knell"?
Either way, I think most would agree that ancient Egyptians will be strongly Levantine like, the question is what causes this affinity, real Eurasian ancestry or common north African ancestry, its probably both but to varying degrees, depending on time period, region etc...
I'm defining black in relation to a predominance of non-Eurasian ancestry; even ANA and the intermediate Taforalt population would do, but we haven't seen anything of the sort just yet.
If Neolithic Kenyans were that Eurasian shifted, how and why would you think that Egyptians that didn't absorb and acquire significant Nilotic and hunter-gatherer genes could be black?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudanese: If Neolithic Kenyans were that Eurasian shifted, how and why would you think that Egyptians that didn't absorb and acquire significant Nilotic and hunter-gatherer genes could be black?
I doubt all their "Eurasian-like" ancestry was actually Eurasian. Some of it may be, but a good chunk of it is probably North African from proto-Afroasiatic speakers. I'm looking at the text of the paper right now, and out of 41 samples, only five have mtDNA haplogroups of unequivocally Eurasian origin (since you seem to be fixated on mTDNA). The rest are either L or M1 (the latter an originally stay-at-home African lineage IMO). Sorry, but this probably isn't the "death knell" you're thinking of.
quote:Originally posted by sudanese: essentially a death-knell to notions of a 'black' Egypt.
What a foolish notion, their study isn't going to prove anything just like it didn't the first time. Though it did show the depth with which these researchers will go in order and use sensualistic titles for their headlines in regards to the racial makeup of AE. And now their back for more.
Hopefully, this time they don't use Roman era enslavement. The truth is there will never be a death-knell for "black" ancient Egypt. The people of that continent and their ancestors have been on this earth for close to 200,000 to 100,000 years. So, until OOA is disproven, the origins of the AE being native to the land and apart of the greater African population, will remain true.
Still, these studies are cute exercises, but I highly doubt they did 4,000 years of research that in anyway proves that all or even a quarter of the AE population can be represented by the mummies buried in the remote area of Abusir el-Meleq. It's the height of being nonsensical, especially if the basis of their conclusion for them not being "black" comes down to the premise of "Eurasian" mtDNA.
Without even attempting to involve ancient East African components into the study. As a clue to the so called "Eurasian" element. ......
"The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of “Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers reamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose " In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. by John Benjamins.(2008)
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by sudanese: If Neolithic Kenyans were that Eurasian shifted, how and why would you think that Egyptians that didn't absorb and acquire significant Nilotic and hunter-gatherer genes could be black?
I doubt all their "Eurasian-like" ancestry was actually Eurasian. Some of it may be, but a good chunk of it is probably North African from proto-Afroasiatic speakers. I'm looking at the text of the paper right now, and out of 41 samples, only five have mtDNA haplogroups of unequivocally Eurasian origin (since you seem to be fixated on mTDNA). The rest are either L or M1 (the latter an originally stay-at-home African lineage IMO). Sorry, but this probably isn't the "death knell" you're thinking of.
These ppl are always looking for that "death knell" to the blackness of AE and it continues to blow up in their faces.
Posts: 45 | From: U.S | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Will you concede once the 4, 000 year old study comes out and aligns with the Abusir paper?
The conclusions of the Abusir paper are flawed as explained in this thread here.
quote:The results from the Kenyan pastoral paper was essentially a death-knell to notions of a 'black' Egypt.
Do you care to explain how so? What's funny is that the people closest related to ancient Egyptians were the ancient Nubians, so if Egypt was not black neither was Nubia despite Eurocentric claims to the contrary. As for the Kenyan Pastoral, what? They weren't black either? So what exactly do you constitute as 'black' then??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Define black Egypt? Black is very vague and subjective.
Actually 'black' strictly speaking is a description of skin color. Hence, you have Australian Aborigines, Melanesians, and peoples from India who are 'black' but skin color alone doesn't say much about genetic relation.
What's funny is that Classical authors from Greece and Rome blatantly described the Egyptians as 'black' with terms like the Greek melanchro or Latin maure, and even Hebrew texts from early Judaeans called the Egyptians 'kushi' having the same meaning. So I find the very argument denying a black Egypt to be utterly absurd.
This is why Eurocentrics nowadays or at least the smart ones no longer argue against the 'black' label but instead argue on definitions of genetic populations, thus black not necessarily being 'sub-Saharan' synonymous with "negroid". This is actually nothing more than a resurrection of the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' that is "black-skinned Caucasoids" [sic]! In fact, back in the hey-day of Egyptomania from the late 19th-20th centuries, with the French and British inventing the discipline of 'Egyptology', the early physical anthropologists of those days openly admitted that the Egyptian 'racial type' is "Abyssinian" i.e. Ethiopian but that such a type was considered to be part of the "Caucasian" or "White race" as opposed to the "Negroid" or Black race. So despite the obvious heavy melanin content, they made the ridiculous assertion of 'blackened whites'. LOL
This is why I no longer engage in unscientific arguments of racial typology but would rather discuss scientific arguments based on biological affinities.
And this is why you have a troll with the moniker of "Sudanese" who doesn't bother addressing the topic of this thread which is odontic traits but instead claims that not only Egyptians but ancient Kenyans were not black either and I take it, neither were ancient Sudanese! LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Will you concede once the 4, 000 year old study comes out and aligns with the Abusir paper? The results from the Kenyan pastoral paper was essentially a death-knell to notions of a 'black' Egypt.
Define black Egypt? Black is very vague and subjective.
Also didn't the abstract say mitochondrial haplogroups? so no autosomal data...
there are ethiopians that are HV1b and J1, whilst some carry A3b2 and L0b... in reality they could carry the exact same ancestries in the exact same proportions, so I wouldn't put so much weight on haplogroups in this situation.
And how was the kenya pastoral paper a "death knell"?
Either way, I think most would agree that ancient Egyptians will be strongly Levantine like, the question is what causes this affinity, real Eurasian ancestry or common north African ancestry, its probably both but to varying degrees, depending on time period, region etc...
I'm defining black in relation to a predominance of non-Eurasian ancestry; even ANA and the intermediate Taforalt population would do, but we haven't seen anything of the sort just yet.
If Neolithic Kenyans were that Eurasian shifted, how and why would you think that Egyptians that didn't absorb and acquire significant Nilotic and hunter-gatherer genes could be black?
The level of cognitive dissonance it takes to acknowledge Nubians as being closest to Ancient Egyptians while boasting that Ancient Egypt is non-African is unreal.
Considering the fact that we have no evidence of SW Asian presence in the pre-neolithic Nile Valley beyond Merimde, in the Delta Region of the Nile Valley, Eurasian-like ancestry in The Nile Valley or as far away as Neolithic Kenya is most likely native NE African ancestry that is shared with SW Asia from documented archaeology or linguistics, such as the African influence in the Natufians as suggested by their N. African haplogroups and SSA morphological features and the spread of Afroasiatic languages (i.e., Semitic in the Middle East) from NE Africa into SW Asia.
Can you give us your account of how you imagine Levant-like ancestry reached Kenya during the Neolithic? What are the African cultures or archaeology associated with the massive presence of Neolithic migrants who contributed to the majority of ancestry in Nubians and the ancestors of Horners?
I would love to see it.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Define black Egypt? Black is very vague and subjective.
Actually 'black' strictly speaking is a description of skin color. Hence, you have Australian Aborigines, Melanesians, and peoples from India who are 'black' but skin color alone doesn't say much about genetic relation.
What's funny is that Classical authors from Greece and Rome blatantly described the Egyptians as 'black' with terms like the Greek melanchro or Latin maure, and even Hebrew texts from early Judaeans called the Egyptians 'kushi' having the same meaning. So I find the very argument denying a black Egypt to be utterly absurd.
This is why Eurocentrics nowadays or at least the smart ones no longer argue against the 'black' label but instead argue on definitions of genetic populations, thus black not necessarily meaning 'sub-Saharan' meaning "negroid". This is actually nothing more than a resurrection of the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' that is "black-skinned Caucasoids" [sic]! In fact, back in the hey-day of Egyptomania from the late 19th-20th centuries, with the French and British inventing the discipline of 'Egyptology', the early physical anthropologists of those days openly admitted that the Egyptian 'racial type' is "Abyssinian" i.e. Ethiopian but that such a type was considered to be part of the "Caucasian" or "White race" as opposed to the "Negroid" or Black race. So despite the obvious heavy melanin content, they made the ridiculous assertion of 'blackened whites'. LOL
This is why I no longer engage in unscientific arguments of racial typology but would rather discuss scientific arguments based on biological affinities.
And this is why you have a troll with the moniker of "Sudanese" who doesn't bother addressing the topic of this thread which is odontic traits but instead claims that not only Egyptians but ancient Kenyans were not black either and I take it, neither were ancient Sudanese! LOL
The continued denial is nothing but generational delusion. It's to the point where all the bogus theories and racism to the contrary has been thoroughly called out, like I wish there was a time machine tour of the Nile valley, that went from 10,000 to 4,000 years ago, or some kind of photo device that could peer back in time, so we can end this charade. But as you stated they'll just switch back to the tried and true "dark skinned Caucasian" bs, a seed planted for later usage long ago in the name of vile stubbornness, trying to convince themselves, with the tiniest of vague margins to keep fighting against the truth.
quote: “We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where 'black' begins.”
or their calling
Diodorus of Sicily a liar...it's always curious when so called scholar disagree with ancient people of their day. From their modern, biased jaded positions, when the topic of "black" Egypt is concerned.
quote:They say also that the Egyptians are colonists sent out by the Ethiopians, Osiris having been the leader of the colony. 2 For, speaking generally, what is now Egypt, they maintain, was not land but sea when in the beginning the universe was being formed; afterwards, however, as the Nile during the times of its inundation carried down the mud from Ethiopia, land was gradually built up from the deposit. Also the statement that all the land of the Egyptians is alluvial silt deposited by the river receives the clearest proof, in their opinion, from what takes place at the outlets of the Nile; 3 for as each year new mud is continually gathered together at the mouths of the river, the sea is observed being thrust back by the deposited silt and the land receiving the increase. And the larger part of the customs of the Egyptians are, they hold, Ethiopian, the p95 colonists still preserving their ancient manners. 4 For instance, the belief that their kings are gods, the very special attention which they pay to their burials, and many other matters of a similar nature are Ethiopian practices, while the shapes of their statues and the forms of their letters are Ethiopian; 5
or
quote: "Lycinus (describing an Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin... his hair worn in a plait shows that he is not a freeman.' Timolaus: 'but that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood...' - Lucian (Lycinus) of Samosata
I mean, it begs the question, are we to believe that all these equally ancient people were just making stuff up? Did they not see these people traveling on boats or on land in armies from the Nile Valley or Ancient Egypt? it's truly mind-bogglingly, that Eurocentrics will go as far as to deny the ancient etymology of the word "black" across multiple cultures and civilizations. When it's in reference to Ancient Egyptians and how the people of the time came upon them. And the notion that those people didn't comprehend differences in color among other groups, compared to their own - to be the height of absurdity.
Posts: 45 | From: U.S | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And this is why you have a troll with the moniker of "Sudanese" who doesn't bother addressing the topic of this thread which is odontic traits but instead claims that not only Egyptians but ancient Kenyans were not black either and I take it, neither were ancient Sudanese! LOL
I don't think "sudanese" is a troll. Having looked into their posting history, I believe they may be the same person as "sudaniya" who for the most part was on our side. Their latest posts in this thread do seem to be out of character though.
quote:Originally posted by sudanese: I'm defining black in relation to a predominance of non-Eurasian ancestry; even ANA and the intermediate Taforalt population would do, but we haven't seen anything of the sort just yet.
If Neolithic Kenyans were that Eurasian shifted, how and why would you think that Egyptians that didn't absorb and acquire significant Nilotic and hunter-gatherer genes could be black?
2. There were multiple Out-of-African migrations into Southwest Asia subsequent to the initial one and these intermixed with whatever "Eurasian" i.e. formerly-African peoples were there.
quote:As TubuYal23 cited:
"The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of “Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers reamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose " In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. by John Benjamins.(2008)
This is the only plausible explanation for Lazaridis's Basal Eurasian ancestry associated with the Gulf area of eastern Arabia and southwest Iran and why its associated skeletal remains show African features.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudanese: I'm defining black in relation to a predominance of non-Eurasian ancestry; even ANA and the intermediate Taforalt population would do, but we haven't seen anything of the sort just yet.
If Neolithic Kenyans were that Eurasian shifted, how and why would you think that Egyptians that didn't absorb and acquire significant Nilotic and hunter-gatherer genes could be black?
2. There were multiple Out-of-African migrations into Southwest Asia subsequent to the initial one and these intermixed with whatever "Eurasian" i.e. formerly-African peoples were there.
quote:As TubuYal23 cited:
"The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of “Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers reamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose " In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory ed. by John Benjamins.(2008)
This is the only plausible explanation for Lazaridis's Basal Eurasian ancestry associated with the Gulf area of eastern Arabia and southwest Iran and why its associated skeletal remains show African features.
Do you think those remains and others would line up in any way, with the Nubian complex that can be found in Southern Arabia? I see that you made a thread about it back in 2012.
The Nubian Complex of Dhofar, Oman: An African Middle Stone Age Industry in Southern Arabia
quote:Despite the numerous studies proposing early human population expansions from Africa into Arabia during the Late Pleistocene, no archaeological sites have yet been discovered in Arabia that resemble a specific African industry, which would indicate demographic exchange across the Red Sea. Here we report the discovery of a buried site and more than 100 new surface scatters in the Dhofar region of Oman belonging to a regionally-specific African lithic industry - the late Nubian Complex - known previously only from the northeast and Horn of Africa during Marine Isotope Stage 5, ∼128,000 to 74,000 years ago. Two optically stimulated luminescence age estimates from the open-air site of Aybut Al Auwal in Oman place the Arabian Nubian Complex at ∼106,000 years ago, providing archaeological evidence for the presence of a distinct northeast African Middle Stone Age technocomplex in southern Arabia sometime in the first half of Marine Isotope Stage 5.
I think it's past time researchers stop messing around and go to the actual source of "eurasians". And end the charade of East Africans being a largely admixed population. When they are most likely the key to all this, since to me any serious notions of so called "Eurasian" backflow to be theoretically impossible, unless there were waves of migration, which to my knowledge can't be proven.
Posts: 45 | From: U.S | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I don't think "sudanese" is a troll. Having looked into their posting history, I believe they may be the same person as "sudaniya" who for the most part was on our side. Their latest posts in this thread do seem to be out of character though.
I called him/her a troll for just popping up and instead of addressing the topic, bringing up the "race" issue based on the Abusir Mummy study, which was addressed in multiple other threads. It doesn't sound like Sudaniya whose writing lexicon and approach is different.
posted
Sudanese actually posed some very good questions.
quote:I'm defining black in relation to a predominance of non-Eurasian ancestry; even ANA and the intermediate Taforalt population would do, but we haven't seen anything of the sort just yet.
If Neolithic Kenyans were that Eurasian shifted, how and why would you think that Egyptians that didn't absorb and acquire significant Nilotic and hunter-gatherer genes could be black?
The following questions are posited towards Sudanese but is open for discussion. I would like to see where everyone is at in regards to this topic.
Would you consider contemporary & even Christian Nubians black? They're way more Eurasian shifted especially when you consider the uniparental (Mitochondrial specifically) Haplogroup diversity.
Secondly do you believe that level of variation (mitochondrial) persisted in Egypt and Sudan for 4,000 years?
Third, how certain are you that certain North east African groups actually absorbed Nilotic (as represented by the SouthSudanese) ancestry? Furthermore are you open to the very realistic possibility that the South Sudanese Nilotic populations absorbed North African Ancestry? Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
The third question is highly relevant. Irish is lowkey proposing genetic continuity since the Holocene (which isn't particularly novel):
quote:In sum, the most parsimonious explanation is ancestors of Holocene agriculturalists were in Nubia—just not at Wadi Halfa, Gebel Sahaba, and Tushka. Though cultural diffusion with incorporation of non-local resources occurred [70-71], with perhaps some immigration, it is unnecessary to hypothesize a significant post-Pleistocene influx of agriculturalists. The results suggest most future Nubian agriculturalists were in residence the entire time, though previously in the guise of Neolithic agro-pastoralists and intensive collectors.
See also Galland 2016
quote:The MANOVA results consistently found significant distinction between the Mesolithic and the other four cultural groups, and between early farmers and late farmers in the case of the mandible. However our results do not suggest any strong morphological differentiation occurring through time from the A-group to Meroitic cultural horizons, which is in agreement with previous studies that report no drastic change in skeletal series spanning from the A-group to the Christian period 6,9,10,19.
10.1038/srep31040
The parallel I alluded to earlier was with with Becker 2011. To where samples or people more akin to the Mesolithic Nubians or the Saharo-sudanese Complex (preLeiterband and Leiterband) didn't directly spawn the Neolithic Nubian samples and in turn any Predynastic Sample. However, Later North Africans Absorbed local Nilo-Saharan Pastoralists & Agriculturalists.
quote:Substantial gene flow and migrations from the north entered the Northern Sudanese Nile Valley after its original Saharo-Nilotic inhabitants had adopted Neolithic subsistence strategies. The incomers partly replaced and interbred with the Saharo-Nilotes of the region. The people of the A-Group and the inhabitants of sites like Kadruka were representatives of the resulting non- Saharo-Nilotic population. Conversely, the Saharo-Nilotic groups further south, both in the Nile Valley and in the adjacent areas of the Sahara, remained largely unaffected by the northern influence.
Becker 2011
While Becker essentially jumped from the Pleistocene to the A group. It seems like there might have been continuity since the late Pleistocene judging by the Al-Khiday samples. Irish basically Attributes the earliest samples of al-Khiday to being somewhat a mixture of East African Foragers and probably biological North Africans. This is something that we're beginning to see genetically as well. Furthermore These samples are most distant from some of the Mesolithic or "Pre-Leiterband" predecessors of these Nilotic groups.
From OP's study:
quote:The Al Khiday Late Palaeolithic sample also expresses trait frequencies indicative of Afridonty, with the exception of a comparatively low frequency for 24 Groove Pattern LM2. It additionally expresses relatively high frequencies of 2 Labial Curvature UI1 and 20 Midline Diastema UI1. It does not, however, evidence the additional complex traits to the same degree as Gebel Sahaba (Supplementary Table S1). Instead, Al Khiday is most akin to the neighbouring East African samples (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table S7) that, given the site’s geographic location, is not unexpected. Both pooled Holocene samples, particularly Upper Nubia, also show phenetic similarities to the East Africans. This association is indicative of a north-south cline in trait frequencies, as discussed in the main text. Thus, Al Khiday is patently indigenous to greater northeast Africa, as are its Holocene successors in Nubia. The population of Gebel Sahaba/Tushka (and Wadi Halfa) apparently originated farther afield, and given the significant phenetic distances from subsequent Nubian samples, would have contributed little or nothing to them genetically.
If you take a multidisciplinary approach you can easily estimate that nubians will most likely hold that intermediate position between Nilo-Saharans and non Africans Genetically possibly going back as far as the late Pleistocene. In a similar way to how north Africans did with the exception of the late Neolithic Khef el Baroud samples. Though local Saharo-Nilotic admixture was absorbed in the region, I don't believe it'd fully characterize the Sub-Saharan affinity in earlier North East Africans.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder how much an understanding of the spread of Afroasiatic languages helps explain West Eurasian-like ancestry in Africans. C. Ehret describes Semitic as a small Asiatic offshoot of a fundamentally African language group. Can the same be said about Ancient SW Asian ancestry commonly shared between SW Asians and Africans? Ehret's classification:
Ehret (2011), History and the Testimony of Language, p. 212.
Ancient Egyptian falls under the same clade as Semitic (Boreoafroasiatic). So at one point in time, Ancient Egyptian ancestors would have been closer to Semite Asiatic ancestors than most or all other Africans. But that would be before the dynastic era, before the mixing with Nilo-Saharans and other Afroasitic groups such as Cushitic speakers.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: I wonder how much an understanding of the spread of Afroasiatic languages helps explain West Eurasian-like ancestry in Africans. C. Ehret describes Semitic as a small Asiatic offshoot of a fundamentally African language group. Can the same be said about Ancient SW Asian ancestry commonly shared between SW Asians and Africans?
The west Eurasian-Like ancestry in Africa should predate Afroasiatic no matter which circumstance. It just so happens that the majority of AA expanded with North Africans and West Asians later on.
I hold the hypothesis that the earliest offshoots of AA accompanied east African related ancestry due to the earliest probable speakers sharing East African Forager related ancestry. and then again we have the outlying constraint which is omotic, who shows no evidence of West Eurasian admixture.
...but this is off-topic.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: I wonder how much an understanding of the spread of Afroasiatic languages helps explain West Eurasian-like ancestry in Africans. C. Ehret describes Semitic as a small Asiatic offshoot of a fundamentally African language group. Can the same be said about Ancient SW Asian ancestry commonly shared between SW Asians and Africans?
The west Eurasian-Like ancestry in Africa should predate Afroasiatic no matter which circumstance. It just so happens that the majority of AA expanded with North Africans and West Asians later on.
I hold the hypothesis that the earliest offshoots of AA accompanied east African related ancestry due to the earliest probable speakers sharing East African Forager related ancestry. and then again we have the outlying constraint which is omotic, who shows no evidence of West Eurasian admixture.
...but this is off-topic.
Considering the distance in time between the initial OOA movement from NE Africa and later Afroasiatic expansions, aren’t we talking about very distinct SW Eurasian/NEA ancestries. I would imagine Afrasian ancestry or certain branches of it would form it’s own specific cluster.
On your question about Christian Nubians being Black, this type of questioning will get us nowhere. Black has no scientific meaning and means different things in different political contexts. All Africans, Arabs, and Indians are Black in Great Britain for instance.
We would benefit from using new scientific terminology, such as N. East African or even Afrasian ancestry. The White genetic bloggers, with their Horner and N. African nationalist sidekicks, are defining ancient African ancestry to mean ancestry directly related to modern day SSAs. Anything found outside of Africa or found to be distantly related to modern SSA is labeled as Eurasian or at least NonAfrican.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, I doubt most Paleolithic backmigrants into North Africa would look that much different from the natives anyway. Iberomaurisians and IAM still had exclusively ancestral (that is, dark) skin color alleles despite all the mtDNA U6 they carried. It’s probably a combination of EEF, steppe, and maybe Iranian Neolithic ancestry that is the ultimate source for the lighter skin tones of many modern North Africans. Those would have come in well after the Paleolithic.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic