quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: 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.
Having dark skin doesn't mean they looked like any other dark skinned population. WHG were dark skinned and yet still looked pretty much european, dravidians are dark skinned yet they don't look like nigerians or papuans, same could be said for amerindians, etc
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: 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.
I don't think any person in the UK would consider north africans, arabs or indians as black so where did you get that from ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: 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.
Having dark skin doesn't mean they looked like any other dark skinned population. WHG were dark skinned and yet still looked pretty much european, dravidians are dark skinned yet they don't look like nigerians or papuans, same could be said for amerindians, etc
We get it, you guys are so invested in anti-Blackness that you’ll force any rift between what you see as “Black people” and anyone else you want to lay claim to/have a higher opinion of. You might want to take a moment to ask yourself why you feel that way.
I mean, sure, dark-skinned peoples are diverse and don’t all look the same. Everyone here knows that. But people who make as big a deal about this fact as you do clearly have an investment in denying certain populations would be admissible as “Black” in any sense of the world. The implications behind that should be fucking obvious by now.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: 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.
Having dark skin doesn't mean they looked like any other dark skinned population. WHG were dark skinned and yet still looked pretty much european, dravidians are dark skinned yet they don't look like nigerians or papuans, same could be said for amerindians, etc
Can you be anymore transparent?
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
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.
A very devilish game being played for sure.
Posts: 45 | From: U.S | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: 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.
There should be a distinct "transitional" population of NEAfrican 20kya. But what evidence do you have that the earliest AA speakers had that extinct NA-SWA profile? Do you beleive Omotic is an Afro-Asiatic language? If so, do you believe that Omotic was adopted by East African Foragers without any NA introgression? and if not do you beleive that East Africans branched from a NAfrican's somehow?
Debating the terminology of "blackness" is unnecessary to be honest. I think we all know in 2021 the nuances behind the usage of describing someone as black. However if someone questions blackness of a population or says a population is black, then they carry a definition of term (whether or not it's universally agreeable.) If @Sudanese for example was to say Nubians aren't black, then I'll know what he means when he questions the blackness of Aegyptians for example. Also look at Brandon's response to Antalas. It's not worth debating the credibility of the terminology once you know what the intentions behind the usages are.
But fun fact, nonetheless it doesn't matter. Because if it turns out that Aegyptians for example were predominantly Africans (via ANA) who carried ancestral alleles for genes determining light pigmentation as everyone did prior to 14kya (and like 7kya in Africa). Then the terminology will begin to define or contradict itself to someone who believes black means predominantly putative SSA.
I'm focused on the logic not the definition.
Nonetheless, all of this is off topic.
Djehuti, what do you think of the Late Pleistocene Al-Khiday samples being akin to East African foragers and most distant from the local Nubians (Gebel Sahaba, Tushka, etc.) than later Nubian who'd have later absorbed pre-Nilotic ancestry in variable frequencies?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: We get it, you guys are so invested in anti-Blackness that you’ll force any rift between what you see as “Black people” and anyone else you want to lay claim to/have a higher opinion of. You might want to take a moment to ask yourself why you feel that way.
I mean, sure, dark-skinned peoples are diverse and don’t all look the same. Everyone here knows that. But people who make as big a deal about this fact as you do clearly have an investment in denying certain populations would be admissible as “Black” in any sense of the world. The implications behind that should be fucking obvious by now. [/QB]
What does that have to do with "anti-blackness" ?? So now acknowledging the fact that not all dark skinned population are related to each other or look the same means I'm anti-black ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys, Antalas whether unwittingly or not is distracting from the relevant bio-anthropological data we are discussing which he has yet to address, and instead tries to degenerate this thread into another 'were they black?', 'who is black?,' 'what is black?'.
I will have none of it! For now I'll just ignore him.
Elmaestro, bro!! You raised some excellent points in the previous page which I was going to address and I will soon! I just got to pull up a couple of sources to for me to cite but you are definitely on to something and I think I'm on to it too!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| 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.
Yes, I understand that. In fact such was suggested in the material culture of A-Group as pointed out back in the 70s from Trigger and Nielson. Also, the A-Group males were discovered to overwhelmingly carry A3b2-M13 which is presently associated with Nilotic people despite their cranial morphology linking them with Egyptians. Interestingly Egyptians were predominantly E-M78 which is found as far as the Levant but is also shared with Nilotic people. These results show long term residence in the Nile Valley going back further than the Holocene. Such absorption or admixture may also explain the presence of so-called ‘Egyptian-negro’ skulls present among predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians albeit in low numbers.
quote:
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.
I remember reading a couple of papers years ago from native Sudanese bio-anthropologists who described Neolithic Sudanese cultures like Abkan as most resembling modern non-‘negroid’ East Africans. Also, speaking of East Africa, Big O brought up an excellent point that in many of the studies we discuss that compare and contrast North Africa from Sub-Sahara, East Africans from the Horn are excluded. Well I remembered one paper I read years ago that I had in my personal archives which is perfect for this thread! It is none other than the 2012 PhD thesis of Dr. Scott Haddow, Dental Morphological Analysis of Roman Era Burials from the Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt. Haddow whose study focused on non-metric traits included samples from Ethiopia (including Eritrea) and found this: 4.5.3.2 Hierarchical cluster analysis of MMD values Hierarchical cluster analysis is used to compare MMD values for the Kellis assemblage and comparative groups. Ward’s linkage (Ward 1963) is the cluster method employed for this analysis. Figure 4.17 presents the dendrogram and it is immediately evident that there is a clear divide between the Sub-Saharan Africans and the Egyptian, Nubian and other North African groups. The Kellis assemblage clusters with the latter grouping. The exceptions to this geographic split are the Final Neolithic Upper Egyptian Gebel Ramlah group which clusters with the Sub-Saharan African groups, and the Ethiopian sample which clusters with several of the Nubian groups. While Irish (1993) includes the Chad group in the North African sample, Chadian peoples are typically classified as a Sub-Saharan population, so it is unsurprising that this group clusters with the other Sub-Saharan African comparative groups.
There’s a lot of excellent data in that paper for you guys to digest. It also includes an MMD matrix and in my search for a copy of that matrix to post here, the only one I could find was that used by our Hamiticist troll Parahu in his Land of Punt website. What’s funny is his commentary on the data:
Dental non-metric analysis of ancient and modern African populations. The Ethiopia sample has closest biodistance values with the North African samples, particularly the Carthaginian (0.000), Badarian Egyptian (0.001), Pharaonic Nubian (0.002), Kabyle Berber (0.003), and A-Group Nubian (0.005) samples. Other Horn of Africa and North Africa samples in non-metric analyses have instead shown Sub-Saharan ties, which reflects the spurious nature of non-metric analysis as compared to the consistent and genetically-controlled metric analysis (Haddow 2012).
As usual Parahu’s claims are comically erroneous since all studies have conclusively indicated that non-metric traits have significantly greater correspondence to population genetics than metric traits as is shown in this latest paper from Irish et al.: Do dental nonmetric traits actually work as proxies for neutral genomic data? Some answers from continental- and global-level analyses The answer in short from the paper is YES, and in this case Irish uses as his East African samples the Cushitic Somalis and the Bantu Kikuyus and note the results of the three-dimensional MDS plot of the 25-trait MMD distances among the 12 African dental samples.
^ Somalis are intermediate between the South African samples and the North African ones while the Kikuyu are intermediate between the South African samples and the West African samples. Senegambians as a West African sample is intermediate to North African samples and other West African samples which confirm Irish’s past analyses. I recall past studies showing that in contrast to Ethiopians, Somalis do not cluster with North Africans but with Sub-Saharans albeit on a marginal proximity approaching North Africans, yet their intermediate position to South Africans makes me think of a genetic study showing how many Somalis carry a substratum of hunter-gatherer ancestry associated with click-speaking groups like the Hadza! This brings me back to your point Elmaestro about East African foragers.
quote:
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.
You are correct, though I wouldn’t go so far as calling such ancient ancestry “non-African”. Even the label of ‘Eurasian’ I find to be indefinite but at least somewhat more valid which goes back to what Swenet has been postulating for quite a while now, which is that since Eurasians originated as a branch of Africans not necessarily Sub-Saharan but maybe North African, then a remnant of this proto-Eurasian ancestry still remained in Late Pleistocene Northeast Africa. This explains the presence of so-called ‘Basal Eurasian’ in the Gulf Coastal areas of Eastern Arabia and Iran whose skeletal remains show distinctly African features. And it’s not just them. Recall the paper on the Moroccan Neolithic that included data on Taforalt. That same paper seems to indicate a presence of Hadza-like ancestry present as far afield as Anatolia and the Caucasus which is why I understand why Swenet also considers the ancestral Dzudzuana hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus to be African admixed as well. This may explain why the Ohalo II skull particularly in its mandibular features bears a resemblance to Late Pleistocene North Africans (except Nazlet Khater). And of course there are the Epipaleolithic Natufians of the Levant who represent a more recent African emigration as represented by their Ancient North African ancestry mixed in with the more native Basal Eurasian and Dzudzuana WHG ancestry. Other than their uniparental markers like paternal E-M78 and maternal L2b, it took a while for geneticists to differentiate their ANA ancestry from the other ancestries labeled as “Eurasian”, which again brings us back to the point of just how African such Eurasian ancestry may really be. This is like identifying certain Northeast Asian ancestries as ‘Amerindian’ just because back-migrations from America took place even though Amerindians are themselves Asian derived.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| 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.
Did the paper not also posit that the admixture event took place around 6000 years ago? What would they look like (genetically) without the 40% Dinka-like admixture and 20% Mota related ancestry?
Are Somalis not 40% Eurasian? Did their paternal ancestors not originate in Egypt-North Sudan? Without admixing with the Dinka-like Nilotes, is it not reasonable to infer that they would have been more Eurasian?
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.
Did the paper not also posit that the admixture event took place around 6000 years ago? What would they look like (genetically) without the 40% Dinka-like admixture and 20% Mota related ancestry?
Are Somalis not 40% Eurasian? Did their paternal ancestors not originate in Egypt-North Sudan? Without admixing with the Dinka-like Nilotes, is it not reasonable to infer that they would have been more Eurasian?
I'm essentially playing devils advocate here.
Eurasian like ancestry would have been more dominant in Egypt/Lower Nubia than Mota or Dinka, I don't think many people on this forum will disagree with this.
BrandonP and many others are simply saying that some of their Eurasian like ancestry is native to north Africa, I don't believe he is arguing that they will be mostly Dinka/Mota.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| 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.
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.
Naa lol, Im East African and have been told I'm not Black quite a few times, a lot of Somalis heard it aswell and some of them were pretty darkskin, no one here considers Indians or Arabs to be Black.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Some Horn Africans identify the label of "black" with West Afican/Bantu types but in America 'black' is a label for very dark skin color in general but usually reserved for Africans of such complexions. Again, I suggest you argue that here.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudanese: Did the paper not also posit that the admixture event took place around 6000 years ago? What would they look like (genetically) without the 40% Dinka-like admixture and 20% Mota related ancestry?
What I like about these autosomal studies is that it gives more resolution to the genetic mosaics that make up populations, the downside is trying to identify and disentangle one ancestry from another. I agree with Brandon that a lot of the so-called 'Eurasian' ancestry could more accurately be called Eurasian-like. Even ANA was recently identified and was previously mistaken for Eurasian. All this is reflected in discrete dental traits as well, with North African teeth metrically having affinities with Eurasians but non-metrically having affinities with Sub-Saharans.
quote:Are Somalis not 40% Eurasian? Did their paternal ancestors not originate in Egypt-North Sudan? Without admixing with the Dinka-like Nilotes, is it not reasonable to infer that they would have been more Eurasian?
The Somalis also have a significant Hadza-like hunter-gatherer ancestry and the recent Irish paper I just cited shows that in discrete dental traits they are intermediate between North Africa and Southeast African hunter-gatherers, but what's interesting is that according to the Haddow 2012 paper, nearby Ethiopians' discrete dental traits group them entirely with North Africans!
quote:I'm essentially playing devils advocate here.
Please do. Part of science is having falsifiable data, that is having the potential for being proven wrong.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they have affinities with East African hunter gatherers than these al Khiday people are likely the descendents of the people who introduced Mota/Hadza ancestry into Taforalt and much of Eurasia as most Middle Easterners can be modelled as part Mota, alongside Egyptian/Basal Eurasian.
AFAIK modern Sudanese ppl don't have any Mota ancestry, neither did the Christian period remains, so I'm guessing these people are not the direct ancestors of Lower Nubians who's SSA will be mostly Nilotic.
Could this mean there will be a population in Egypt/Sudan strongly North African like with little to no ties to foragers representing the North African/Eurasian like component of Nubia which would go on to mix with Nilotes?
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| 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.
Did the paper not also posit that the admixture event took place around 6000 years ago? What would they look like (genetically) without the 40% Dinka-like admixture and 20% Mota related ancestry?
Are Somalis not 40% Eurasian? Did their paternal ancestors not originate in Egypt-North Sudan? Without admixing with the Dinka-like Nilotes, is it not reasonable to infer that they would have been more Eurasian?
I'm essentially playing devils advocate here.
What is Eurasian about ancestry from N. Sudan? The belief in Eurasian ancestry is based on the idea of Neolithic expansion from the S. Levant into their paternal ancestors.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| 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.
Did the paper not also posit that the admixture event took place around 6000 years ago? What would they look like (genetically) without the 40% Dinka-like admixture and 20% Mota related ancestry?
Are Somalis not 40% Eurasian? Did their paternal ancestors not originate in Egypt-North Sudan? Without admixing with the Dinka-like Nilotes, is it not reasonable to infer that they would have been more Eurasian?
I'm essentially playing devils advocate here.
What is Eurasian about ancestry from N. Sudan? The belief in Eurasian ancestry is based on the idea of Neolithic expansion from the S. Levant into their paternal ancestors.
Pastoral Neolithic remains carried K1a and HV1b1, thats indicative of real Eurasian ancestry.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The idea of 'Eurasian' ancestry was originally based on early 19th-20th century physical anthropology based on certain features of the facial aspect of North and East Africans, hence "caucasoid" classification. Then genetics came along showing a continuity with sub-Saharans based on HLA and paternal lineages like E-M215 (E1b1b), but then autosomal profiles came along showing continuity with West Eurasia but resolution of said autosomal signals is again showing contiuity with Africa. Thus Brandon is correct that it's not Eurasian but Eurasian-like as North Africans actually represent an offshoot of the ancestral OOA peoples.
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: If they have affinities with East African hunter gatherers than these al Khiday people are likely the descendents of the people who introduced Mota/Hadza ancestry into Taforalt and much of Eurasia as most Middle Easterners can be modelled as part Mota, alongside Egyptian/Basal Eurasian.
We can't know all that without DNA analysis. Irish's dental assessment alone shows that their profile groups them with Holocene North Africans i.e. predynastic and dynastic Nubians and Egyptians.
quote:AFAIK modern Sudanese ppl don't have any Mota ancestry, neither did the Christian period remains, so I'm guessing these people are not the direct ancestors of Lower Nubians who's SSA will be mostly Nilotic.
Again, going by Irish's findings the Al-Khiday are 'North African'. This thread is about discrete dental traits not autosomal signals.
quote:Could this mean there will be a population in Egypt/Sudan strongly North African like with little to no ties to foragers representing the North African/Eurasian like component of Nubia which would go on to mix with Nilotes?
It's possible.
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant...--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
Also, if we are to go by the Egyptain ancient murals, depictions of Nubians go back to early dynastic times and Nubians have always looked similar to the Egyptians in terms of facial features and only until the Middle Kingdom and especially New Kingdom do you see "negroid" very Nilotic-looking types portrayed among the prisoners brought back from Ta-Nehesa (Nubia). Dr. Keita and other experts have noted that even the Kerman Kushites of Middle Kingdom Khartoum are morphologically most similar to predynastic Naqada Egyptians. But again as far as autosomal data, unless you can cite DNA from these peoples we can only go by their bones including teeth. Irish says they all belong to the North African cluster and not Sub-Saharan.
Now that you mention it, I am curious as to where exactly the Nilotes fit in Irish's MMD chart.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This paper reexamines some of the methods and craniometric findings in the classic volume The Ancient Inhabitants of Jebel Moya (Sudan) (1955) by Mukherjee, Rao & Trevor, in light of recent archaeological data and relative to a new dental morphological study. Archaeological evidence characterises these inhabitants as having been heavily influenced by outside sources; yet they managed to establish and maintain their own distinctive culture as seen in the site features and surviving artefact collections. The dental study, modelled after the original craniometric-based investigation and using the same or similar comparative samples, detected complementary indications of outside biological influence. In the study, up to 36 dental traits were recorded in a total of 19 African samples. The most influential traits in driving inter-sample variation were then identified, and phenetic affinities were calculated using the Mahalanobis D2 statistic for non-metric traits. If phenetic similarity provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, these affinities, like the original craniometric findings, suggest that the Jebel Moyans exhibited a mosaic of features that are reminiscent of, yet distinct from, both sub-Saharan and North African peoples. Together, these different lines of evidence correspond to portray the Jebel Moya populace as a uniform, although distinct, biocultural amalgam.
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? Ehret's classification:
Ehret (2011), History and the Testimony of Language, p. 212.
Careful about tying language too closely to biological population. While it's true proto-languages were originally spoken by specific populations, the spread of these languages is not necessarily tied to the spread of the people themselves. For example Indo-European being spoken among very dark skinned (black) Sri-Lankans or in the case of Africa, Afro-asiatic Hausa spoken by northern Nigerians who genetically aren't much different from other Nigerians. That said, the Eurasian-like genetic profile predates Afroasiatic adn is simply tied to Northeast Africans sharing common ancestry with the original proto-Eurasians who left Africa. Note that Semitic speakers of Southwest Asia carry African lineages like E-M215 (E1b1b) and even maternal L2b.
quote: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.
But the ancestors of proto-Semitic were not Asiatic but Africans who migrated into Asia.
But to piggyback on Elmaestro's point, the Afroasiatic speakers in the Nile Valley also absorbed/assimilated some Nilo-Saharan words (if not speakers) in the region as well judging by the Egyptian language itself.
More from Ehret: Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture: But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)
Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.
From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I want to add that there appears to be some disagreement among linguists as to how the different Afroasiatic families relate to one another. For example, Edward Lipinksi has argued that Semitic is more closely related to Berber and then Cushitic than to Egyptic.
This diagram below is supposed to show how various other linguists sort relationships between the Afroasiatic families.
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.
Did the paper not also posit that the admixture event took place around 6000 years ago? What would they look like (genetically) without the 40% Dinka-like admixture and 20% Mota related ancestry?
Are Somalis not 40% Eurasian? Did their paternal ancestors not originate in Egypt-North Sudan? Without admixing with the Dinka-like Nilotes, is it not reasonable to infer that they would have been more Eurasian?
I'm essentially playing devils advocate here.
What is Eurasian about ancestry from N. Sudan? The belief in Eurasian ancestry is based on the idea of Neolithic expansion from the S. Levant into their paternal ancestors.
Pastoral Neolithic remains carried K1a and HV1b1, thats indicative of real Eurasian ancestry.
You think 2 out of more than 30 samples or so having K1a can help explain 40% "Eurasian-like" ancestry?
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? Ehret's classification:
Ehret (2011), History and the Testimony of Language, p. 212.
Careful about tying language too closely to biological population. While it's true proto-languages were originally spoken by specific populations, the spread of these languages is not necessarily tied to the spread of the people themselves. For example Indo-European being spoken among very dark skinned (black) Sri-Lankans or in the case of Africa, Afro-asiatic Hausa spoken by northern Nigerians who genetically aren't much different from other Nigerians. That said, the Eurasian-like genetic profile predates Afroasiatic adn is simply tied to Northeast Africans sharing common ancestry with the original proto-Eurasians who left Africa. Note that Semitic speakers of Southwest Asia carry African lineages like E-M215 (E1b1b) and even maternal L2b.
quote: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.
But the ancestors of proto-Semitic were not Asiatic but Africans who migrated into Asia.
But to piggyback on Elmaestro's point, the Afroasiatic speakers in the Nile Valley also absorbed/assimilated some Nilo-Saharan words (if not speakers) in the region as well judging by the Egyptian language itself.
More from Ehret: Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture: But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)
Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.
From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.
I remember old data showing how ancient Egyptian elites had more in common with Nubian elites morphologically than later Egyptians during the early dynastic period. I think Ehret in the essay you quoted suggested Egyptian civilization being born after Nilo-Saharan herders/semi-herders moved into the Nile Valley and assimilated with the Afro-Asiatic/Egyptian speakers there. So for sure, I think Nilo-Saharans had a big effect on AE ancestry.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: ^ I want to add that there appears to be some disagreement among linguists as to how the different Afroasiatic families relate to one another. For example, Edward Lipinksi has argued that Semitic is more closely related to Berber and then Cushitic than to Egyptic.
This diagram below is supposed to show how various other linguists sort relationships between the Afroasiatic families.
Yeah, I saw the Semitic-Chado-Berber connection on Anthrogenica days after making this post here. Very cool graph by the way. Whoever made it is mad talented.
Posts: 288 | From: Asia | Registered: Mar 2016
| 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.
Did the paper not also posit that the admixture event took place around 6000 years ago? What would they look like (genetically) without the 40% Dinka-like admixture and 20% Mota related ancestry?
Are Somalis not 40% Eurasian? Did their paternal ancestors not originate in Egypt-North Sudan? Without admixing with the Dinka-like Nilotes, is it not reasonable to infer that they would have been more Eurasian?
I'm essentially playing devils advocate here.
What is Eurasian about ancestry from N. Sudan? The belief in Eurasian ancestry is based on the idea of Neolithic expansion from the S. Levant into their paternal ancestors.
Pastoral Neolithic remains carried K1a and HV1b1, thats indicative of real Eurasian ancestry.
You think 2 out of more than 30 samples or so having K1a can help explain 40% "Eurasian-like" ancestry?
No, but they will have Eurasian ancestry, their Eurasian like DNA will not be completely Basal Eurasian.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody should be denying the presence of Eurasian lineages in neolithic African remains. That said, admixture works both ways as there is African admixture in Eurasian remains going back to the epipaleolithic if not earlier.
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)
So with all that, the topic here is about the predominant genetic profile of populations as a whole as can be inferred from the dental discrete (non-metric) traits.
As already explained earlier North African dental features are metrically akin to West Eurasians specifically in crown size and dimensions being 'microdont' in size whereas Sub-Saharans are of the larger 'megadont' class similar to Australian Aborigines and Papuo-Melanesians. Yet when it comes to non-metric traits North Africans possess many Sub-Saharan traits:
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.
Irish even shows examples of intrusive Eurasian populations in Egypt:
Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples where it says this about the Greco-Roman period: Did Egyptians of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods differ significantly from their dynastic antecedents? Again, more post dynastic samples would prove useful in answering this broad question. Moreover, any foreign genetic influence on the indigenous populace likely diminished relative to the distance upriver. However, as it stands, the lone Greek Egyptian (GEG) sample from Lower Egypt significantly differs from all but the small Roman-period Kharga sample (Table 4). In fact, it was shown to be a major outlier that is divergent from all others (Figs. 2, 3, 5). The Greek Egyptians exhibit the lowest frequencies of UM1 cusp 5, three-rooted UM2, five-cusped LM2, and two-rooted LM2, along with a high incidence of UM3 absence, among others (Table 2). This trait combination is reminiscent of that in Europeans and western Asians (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990;Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Thus, if the present heterogeneous sample is at all representative of peoples during Ptolemaic times, it may suggest some measure of foreign admixture, at least in Lower Egypt near Saqqara and Manfalut. Another possibility is that the sample consists of actual Greeks. Although their total number was probably low (Peacock, 2000), Greek administrators and others were present in Lower Egypt. Future comparisons to actual Greek specimens will help verify this possibility. Lastly, the Roman-period specimens are much more closely akin to the seven dynastic samples. Kharga and especially Hawara are most similar, based on their trait concordance (Table 2), low and insignificant MMDs (Table4), and positions within or near the cluster of 11 or so samples (Fig. 2). El Hesa is more divergent (Figs. 2, 3, 5); this divergence was shown to be driven by several extreme trait frequencies, including very high UI2 interruption groove and UM3 absence, and very low UM1 Carabelli’s trait. As above, the first two traits are common in Europeans and western Asians; the latter is rare in these areas, as well as greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1997).Like the Greeks, the Romans did not migrate to Lower and especially Upper Egypt in large numbers (Peacock,2000). As such, the distinctive trait frequencies of El Hesa were probably not due to Roman gene flow. There is no evidence that Kharga and Hawara received such influence. Thus the results, at least for these samples, do not support significant biological differentiation in the Egyptians of this time relative to their dynastic predecessors.
So the dental non-metric traits show that during Greco-Roman times the Egyptians were still largely continuous with their dynastic predecessors and thus indigenous. So this leaves the Medieval Period and the Islamic Conquests.
And according to Haddow 2012 paper, Ethiopians (including Eritreans) fit into the North African cluster as well, whereas Somalis according to the Irish 2020 paper are intermediate between North Africa and South African hunter-gatherers.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Big O: [qb] What is a "Eurasian affinity" in terms of physical appearance relative to modern populations?
quote: 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.
My issue with that notion of West Eurasian being a population standard is that it has been noted that the Near East has received African geneflow over the last 10,000 years. If they have known African ancestry than that would essentially make them a mixed raced group with shared affinities with African groups.
African origins of Basal Eurasian is coupled with a known African skeletal morphology.
F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005) , in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."
Sickle cell being found in the Levant makes African geneflow into the region.
quote: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.
That's something that I have some disagreement with. Not only Irish but Holiday have been consistent in their conclusion that these specimens in Jebel Sahaba are not distinct from recent Sub Saharan African specimens, and in fact group with them over similarly dated ancient Northern African specimens, and recent inhabitants in Northeast Africa (Nilotes and Afro-Asiatic speakers).
The fact that primary lineage of modern West Africans which is E-M2 is shown to have at sometimes been in the ancient Sudan region has not been brought up. The morphologies of West Africans/SSA's are the most distinct in the World for the most part. The fact these Jebel Sahaba specimens have closest affinity towards this distinct modern group is clearly an indication of shared ancestry at the least. Dr. Winters has made the argument via a linguistic source about ancient Egyptians dogs that it was in the Upper Nile that the Niger-Congo speaker originated, not Western Africa. A northward and Western migration from this region would make sense given these facts wouldn't you say?
quote:Originally posted by Big O: My issue with that notion of West Eurasian being a population standard is that it has been noted that the Near East has received African geneflow over the last 10,000 years. If they have known African ancestry than that would essentially make them a mixed raced group with shared affinities with African groups.
The problem with your conjecture is that this admixture happened during the Holocene and these populations were then subsumed by further Eurasian admixture, that is to say they were bred out by other Eurasians. This is the reason why the 2005 Brace et al. study was called The Questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European Craniofacial Form. Brace's findings were that these African-mixed Neolithic folks from different parts of the Mediterranean resembled each other than they did later peoples from the same Mediteranean regions.
This is why Irish's analysis also show North Africans to differ from Western Eurasians with the latter lacking the African features that the former has! Perhaps the only trace left of North African admixture would be the Carabelli's trait.
Irish--North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans.
quote:Sickle cell being found in the Levant makes African geneflow into the region.
Yes and not just the Levant but southern Europe as well.
But that's besides the point because the peoples of these regions today for the most part don't look African admixed even if they have such ancestry.
quote:That's something that I have some disagreement with. Not only Irish but Holiday have been consistent in their conclusion that these specimens in Jebel Sahaba are not distinct from recent Sub Saharan African specimens, and in fact group with them over similarly dated ancient Northern African specimens, and recent inhabitants in Northeast Africa (Nilotes and Afro-Asiatic speakers).
Again the discussion is on dental non-metric traits. In this regard the Jebel Sahabans are grouped with Sub-Saharans however if you look at Irish's chart they are an outlier due to many archaic features that other Sub-Saharans do not have this is their only distinction. They cannot be grouped with North Africans because not only do they lack the North African traits but even metrically they are akin to Australian Aborigines and even exceed them in metric dimentions! Holiday, I think measured their post-cranial that is skeletal body measurments. In that regards they share much in common with North Africans but not with body shape or their cranial and dental features.
quote:The fact that primary lineage of modern West Africans which is E-M2 is shown to have at sometimes been in the ancient Sudan region has not been brought up. The morphologies of West Africans/SSA's are the most distinct in the World for the most part. The fact these Jebel Sahaba specimens have closest affinity towards this distinct modern group is clearly an indication of shared ancestry at the least. Dr. Winters has made the argument via a linguistic source about ancient Egyptians dogs that it was in the Upper Nile that the Niger-Congo speaker originated, not Western Africa. A northward and Western migration from this region would make sense given these facts wouldn't you say?
First of all, we don't even know what lineages the Sahabans carried. For all we know, they could have had E-M329 or even ancestral E-V38. Again, while the Sahabans did share many traits in common with modern Sub-Saharans especially West Africans, they also possessed many archaic features that made them distinct. There is no way to know what languages they spoke or if they even spoke Niger-Congo. And personally I find Dr. Winters to be a quack and pseudo-scholar and have never taken him seriously. Even Dr. Chiekh Anta Diop, despite his errors had claims that were way more valid and substantial than any Clyde Winters has made in this forum. It's to the point that I even hear that Winters is being exploited by the Eurocentrics to discredit African scholarship.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa: 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.
I don't think any person in the UK would consider north africans, arabs or indians as black so where did you get that from ?
I do think some North African and Arabs will be considered "Black". Logical when a person "looks Black" no distinction is made.
Half of North Africans look like the following:
It goes back to this previous argument:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Having dark skin doesn't mean they looked like any other dark skinned population.
WHG were dark skinned and yet still looked pretty much european, dravidians are dark skinned yet they don't look like nigerians or papuans, same could be said for amerindians, etc.
Of which Nigerians do you speak? And why did you select Nigerians as an example (sample) demographic?
Are the dravidians, papuans or amerindians outliers to their surrounding?
But indeed, Africans are most diverse.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: We get it, you guys are so invested in anti-Blackness that you’ll force any rift between what you see as “Black people” and anyone else you want to lay claim to/have a higher opinion of. You might want to take a moment to ask yourself why you feel that way.
I mean, sure, dark-skinned peoples are diverse and don’t all look the same. Everyone here knows that. But people who make as big a deal about this fact as you do clearly have an investment in denying certain populations would be admissible as “Black” in any sense of the world. The implications behind that should be fucking obvious by now.
What does that have to do with "anti-blackness" ?? So now acknowledging the fact that not all dark skinned population are related to each other or look the same means I'm anti-black ?
This is true for a great part, however the people in Africa do have relatedness. That's the thing.
quote: "For the Taforalt individuals to be considered as being Basal Eurasians, we expect that their genomes do not share significantly more alleles with the Neanderthal genome than that sub- Saharan Africans do."
(Marieke van de Loosdrecht, Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations)
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter,1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. ---Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State
This makes me wonder how the Badarians relate to the Al Khiday people as well as where in northeast Africa the Badarians originate exactly.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic