Why garbage ? Their faces match their genetic profiles and they actually look like modern egyptians again no surprises
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
This should be done on modern people and compared with what they actually look like, of course the researchers shouldn't see the subjects face beforehand and only create a model based on their DNA, this could be a good way to see how valid this is
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
Why garbage ? Their faces match their genetic profiles and they actually look like modern egyptians again no surprises
i wouldn't call this garbage, but craniofacial development is strongly influenced by environment, things like width of the alars, perceived length of the nasal bridge, lip eversion and width etc... these are all influenced by maxillary and mandibular development, also im pretty sure scientists can't accurately predict skin color, only a range.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
Why garbage ? Their faces match their genetic profiles and they actually look like modern egyptians again no surprises
i wouldn't call this garbage, but craniofacial development is strongly influenced by environment, things like width of the alars, perceived length of the nasal bridge, lip eversion and width etc... these are all influenced by maxillary and mandibular development, also im pretty sure scientists can't accurately predict skin color, only a range.
it's one factor among the others and even if you want them to be extremely pale or dark they'll still look very egyptian especially the two from the left and right
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
Parabon NanoLabs, Inc. (Parabon) is a vertically integrated DNA technology company that develops next-generation therapeutic and forensic products by leveraging the enormous power of DNA. Staffed by a uniquely qualified team of scientists and technologists whose expertise ranges from bioinformatics and immunology to chemistry and computer science. Our team is bringing to market revolutionary new products and services made possible by recent advances in DNA sequencing, analysis, and manufacturing technologies.
Organized in the State of Delaware, Parabon is a for-profit, C-Corporation with headquarters in Reston, Virginia and a nanotechnology laboratory in Huntington, WV. Although we work heavily on technologies for the medical industry, the company is most widely known for revolutionizing the field of DNA forensics with our Snapshot® Advanced DNA Analysis Platform. In 2017, Parabon received the Tibbetts Award, presented by the Small Business Administration (SBA), which honors small businesses that exhibit excellence in technology innovation. Winners are considered "the best of the best" from the thousands of firms that participate in the Federal SBIR program. The company was also named one of the "Top 5 Most Innovative Companies of 2018" by Inc. Magazine.
Placing ancient DNA sequences into reference phylogenies Rui Martiniano, 2020
E1b1b1a1-M78, which has a broad geographical range which encompasses North and East Africa, Europe and Western Asia [32]. All Morocco Iberomaurusian were positioned in this clade [25] as well as a Jordan Pre-pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) individual (Figure 5A). A single East African Pastoral Neolithic sample was placed in the E1b1b1a1a1b-V32 clade, together with a Luo, a Luhya and an Iranian individual. The Egypt Ptolemaic sample, a Late Stone Age and a Pastoral Neolithic individual were placed in the E1b1b1a1b2-L677 clade, which can be found in the present day in the Horn of Africa and Egypt [32]. In our data, this clade is represented by Palestinians, one Bedouin, two Balochi and one Iranian.
This subclade of E-M78 is "relatively common"[2] in the Middle East, Horn of Africa and Egypt, with higher microsatellite variance (0.35 vs. 0.46, respectively) in Egypt. In the article announcing this first information, Cruciani et al. (2007) described it as uncommon in Western Asia and they proposed Northeast Africa and/or East Africa as this subclade's likely place of origin.
The highest frequency of E-V22 has thus far been observed among the Samaritan Levites at 100% frequency,[15] followed by Cushitic-speaking Saho population of central Eritrea at a rate of 88%.[9] The Saho are known to be organized in strict patrilineal and patrilocal clans. It has been hypothesized that this kind of social structure can explain patterns of variability characterized by low Y-chromosome diversity within groups and large difference between groups.[44]
Hassan et al. (2008) also reported a significant presence in neighboring Sudan, making up about 30% of the diverse range of the country's E-M78 lineages in their study, including 8 out of 26 Fulani (about 31%), a widely-dispersed pastoral people.[Note 8] E-V22 was also present in much smaller frequencies amongst the Shilluk (2 of 15 samples, 13%) and Dinka (3 of 26, 11.5%) Nilotes of Southern Sudan. Hassan et al. suggest that E-V22, like E-V12, might have entered Sudan from North Africa "after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000–8,000 years ago". They add that the gene flow to Sudan "is not only recent (Holocene onward) but also largely of focal nature", and that "most speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages, the major linguistic family spoken in the country, show very little evidence of gene flow and demonstrate low migration rate, with exception of the Nubians, who appear to have sustained considerable gene flow from Asia and Europe together with the Beja."
Other frequencies reported by Cruciani et al. (2007) include Asturians (4.44% out of 90 people), Sicilians (4.58% out of 153 people), Moroccan Arabs (7.27%, 55 people), Moroccan Jews (8%, 50 people), Istanbul Turkish (5.71% out of 35 people), and Palestinians (6.9% out of 29 people). Cadenas et al. (2007) found a 6.7% presence in the UAE.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
These are younger Egyptian samples and from Abusir el Meleq.
To recap:
-Abusir is Lower Egypt (whose predynastic 'Mediterranean' looking peoples were assimilated to Egyptian culture). They did not make Egypt, so they could be from Mars and it'd be just as relevant.
-The mummies date LONG after NE immigrants had been pouring in from their native lands to Egypt for centuries (AND got so influential they took part of it over). Their conquest extended well into Upper Egypt.
-Authors of the original Abusir study admit the site was sparsely populated until the late period. So no earlier (pre immigration) samples.
-Site was right next to an immigrant community of weavers.
-Even as many immigrants adopted Egyptian culture, some maintained their original traditions. Authors of the study also admitted foreign names were found in the tombs of Abusir.
All things considered, I'm not at all surprised by the results. What I dislike is their removal of the above context to create the impression that their samples would likely have the phenotype of the original Egyptians. These Egyptians would've lived in an Egypt filled with the descendants of NE immigrants and northerners who'd adopted the dominant southern culture. If they wanted a representative sample, they should at least try older southern samples. Northern ones of any era could be confounding because of the different peoples living in the northern lands that were conquered
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is garbage because it follows a pattern of Europeans intentionally and deliberately misrepresenting facts from the Nile Valley.
This is a company that is promoting their own propriety algorithm which is based on data science and large data sets. There is no data set on the phenotype of the ancient Nile Valley. So it is impossible for them to accurately predict or model what someone from the ancient Nile Valley looked like. In order for this to work best, you need large amounts of data for all relevant populations in any specific area to even begin to get an accurate prediction. Not to mention in the paper itself they say there wasn't enough SNP data preserved in the DNA so they had to compute SNP values statistically. And of course, that means they used modern DNA data sets and SNP values to compute these results which of course will skew the data towards modern populations. And this is the same issue seen with most DNA studies of ancient Africa. So it is literally promoting theoretical statistical calculations as somehow more relevant than the facts on the ground, such as Tut's face mask, artwork from the ancient Nile and so forth. And more importantly, this does not mean that genotype as in haplogroups equate with phenotype. https://snapshot.parabon-nanolabs.com/phenotyping
No other ancient culture is said to be defined by "foreign" mixture as much the Nile Valley. Because the whole point here is to say that while the Nile Valley is completely in Africa, the civilization of Kmt couldn't have been primarily made up of Africans. So you don't see ancient DNA samples from foreign cemeteries in ancient Rome to prove the ancient Romans were not Europeans. Even though Rome controlled more territory in Africa than the Italian peninsula proper.
This is just another example of scientists using selective data to promote a false historical narrative that will be used online and in other works claiming that "science" suggests the people of the ancient Nile Valley were not Africans.
The way the Abusir El-Meleq articles have been written reinforce this:
quote: The study, published on 30 May in Nature communications, includes data from 90 mummies buried between 1380 Bc, during Egypt's New KIngdom, and AD 425, in the Roman era. The findings show that the mummies' closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from Central Africans.
Note the half truths implied in the above statement which is typical of the double talk they will use to take limited data and try to provide 'plausible support' for nonsense claims. Central Africa isn't the basis of what defines being African. North East Africans are not Central Africans. Somalians, Ethiopians and most Especially Sudanese are not Central Africans. So why are the introducing something that is irrelevant to the fact that the Nile Valley is completely within Africa and does not flow through Central Africa?
Not only that the time period of the Abusir El-Meleq mummies covers the Late New Kingdom, Ramessid and 25th Dynasty. So are they seriously trying to claim that all of these people were descended from Levantines? Amenhotep III, Tiye ad Tut were not "closely related" to Levantines.
And there is nothing in the culture of the ancient Nile Valley that shows the people as claiming they saw the Levant as their place of origin. In fact the opposite is true, everything in the culture and history shows a connection to the Nile and Africa. So this is simply selective data in support of an invalid premise, which is that the people of the ancient Nile Valley primarily did NOT look like Africans.
Yet there are tombs from the New Kingdom through 25th dynasty that show mostly African people with some variation but none of them looking like Levantines.
And even more to the point, the time frame of the mummies used in this "reconstruction" falls within the 25th dynasty, when Sudanese ruled KMT. So you know these people are trolling if they want to claim no "blacks" in the Nile during that time.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I for one want them to keep doing this. Older data shows that the phenotype of the original southerners was Ethiopian-like. These reconstructions look nothing like the original people. So the more they keep attributing phenotype to these DNA studies, the more obvious it will be that northerners and immigrants are being represented as the face of AE over the original southern Egyptians. Hopefully people will begin asking why these people's features look so different from the original southern samples.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: I for one want them to keep doing this. Older data shows that the phenotype of the original southerners was Ethiopian-like. These reconstructions look nothing like the original people. So the more they keep attributing phenotype to these DNA studies, the more obvious it will be that northerners and immigrants are being represented as the face of AE over the original southern Egyptians. Hopefully people will begin asking why these people's features look so different from the original southern samples.
Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
quote:There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again).
nothing "ethiopian-like", ethiopians are craniometrically caucasoid and modern upper egyptians already cluster with lower nubians and ancient egyptians craniometrically.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
These are the individuals, MtDNA included of the Parabon reconstruction Two are Third Intermediate period and we see Meshwesh and Nubian rulership in that period The other mummy is late, Ptolemaic-Roman period
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
quote:There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again).
nothing "ethiopian-like", ethiopians are craniometrically caucasoid and modern upper egyptians already cluster with lower nubians and ancient egyptians craniometrically. [/QB]
he goes on to say:
quote:
p4, 1st century Nubian mercenary genome from Serbia (Roman Empire) Thread starterApollo Start dateSep 9, 2021
The old kingdom people are probably the so far closest we're gonna get to Horners' non-Yemeni MENA ancestors. Some sort of intermediate in Egypt between Iberomaurusians and Natufians with a little bit of proto-Nilotic. Though I wager our ancestors lacked that Iran-Chalcolithic (Seh_Gabi) stuff. Now, I would never rule out that some ancient Masris on the border with Nubia like in Luxor were more proto-Nilotic for sure but the majority probably were mostly MENA with the only really significant "SSA" in them being "Ancestral North-African" that has mostly survived haplogroup wise in the form of their dominant Y-DNA E-M35.
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
The old kingdom people are probably the so far closest we're gonna get to Horners' non-Yemeni MENA ancestors. Some sort of intermediate in Egypt between Iberomaurusians and Natufians with a little bit of proto-Nilotic. Though I wager our ancestors lacked that Iran-Chalcolithic (Seh_Gabi) stuff. Now, I would never rule out that some ancient Masris on the border with Nubia like in Luxor were more proto-Nilotic for sure but the majority probably were mostly MENA with the only really significant "SSA" in them being "Ancestral North-African" that has mostly survived haplogroup wise in the form of their dominant Y-DNA E-M35.
Yes he's talking about the nature of their west eurasian ancestry, he's not saying they would be close to modern day horners
reread it again :
"the so far closest we're gonna get to Horners' non-Yemeni MENA ancestors. Some sort of intermediate in Egypt between Iberomaurusians and Natufians with a little bit of proto-Nilotic."
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
quote:There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again).
Your source says nothing about where in Egypt these new samples come from. They could be more Lower Egyptian mummies for all we know (in fact, that seems likely to me since the quoted passage mentions a shift towards Near Eastern affinities during the Middle Kingdom, which correlates with the increased migration of Levantines into Lower Egypt leading up to the Hyksos takeover).
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
quote:There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again).
Your source says nothing about where in Egypt these new samples come from. They could be more Lower Egyptian mummies for all we know (in fact, that seems likely to me since the quoted passage mentions a shift towards Near Eastern affinities during the Middle Kingdom, which correlates with the increased migration of Levantines into Lower Egypt leading up to the Hyksos takeover).
Wait and see. I suppose when the results will come out you all will bring the excuse "not enough samples" as usual.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ase: I for one want them to keep doing this. Older data shows that the phenotype of the original southerners was Ethiopian-like. These reconstructions look nothing like the original people. So the more they keep attributing phenotype to these DNA studies, the more obvious it will be that northerners and immigrants are being represented as the face of AE over the original southern Egyptians. Hopefully people will begin asking why these people's features look so different from the original southern samples.
Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
quote:There is some upcoming data from Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt that I've seen, some of it has been discussed already on the forum. Basically the Old Kingdom samples look North African with a small amount of Seh_Gabi_C-type ancestry, and very little SSA, then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period. SSA ancestry also increases in time. Haplogroups so far are E-M35 and J1-P58 (wish there were more resolution, looks like we'll have to sift through the BAM files again).
quote:nothing "ethiopian-like", ethiopians are craniometrically caucasoid and modern upper egyptians already cluster with lower nubians and ancient egyptians craniometrically.
1. "Caucasoid" is not a race. This is an academic imagining of how race works, not how it does in real life. Blacks can have facial features you people call "Cacausoid."
And on that note race is also not a genetic grouping that can be defined as simply "Sub Saharan African." Blacks are native to Eurasia, Australia, etc. The most you're going to get is debating whether the founders of Egyptian civilization were more to SSA or Arabs. But "Ethiopians" are still Black and that was the original phenotype.
2. Near total replacement of the original southern phenotype (in Upper Egypt) was already being reported by older Egyptology studies in the New Kingdom. However this replacement was already starting in the Old Kingdom and accelerated further at around 2,000 BC when the Sahara started drying further. The poster you reference actually affirms this acceleration in a separate part of their post:
quote: ....then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period.
3. I also believe I said "southern." So where in Upper Egypt are you talking about? Your source mentions that yes SSA ancestry would probably be found in the south close to Nubia:
quote:Now, I would never rule out that some ancient Masris on the border with Nubia like in Luxor were more proto-Nilotic for sure but the majority probably were mostly MENA with the only really significant "SSA" in them being "Ancestral North-African" that has mostly survived haplogroup wise in the form of their dominant Y-DNA E-M35.
....Huh? So is he saying the OK samples don't include the deep south? Uh....that presents a big problem (for you) because Thebes, Nekhen, Abydos and Ta Seti were precisely where the dominant culture behind Egyptian civilization was developing. In the old Kingdom, population distribution was not spread equally throughout Egypt either to put it mildly. Personally, I imagine southerners began mixing with northern types fairly early into the unified state's history.However phenotypically the creators of Egypt were still a Black people. You guys are just scraping the barrel on genetics for whatever fools still hold race to be genetic in construct.
And before anyone goes there, just keep in mind that two SSA can have very large genetic distances. Some can even be more closely related to a spatially proximal group of non-Africans than a geographically distant group of Black Africans. However racially the two Black Africans would be expected to identify with one another over appearance.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
The old kingdom people are probably the so far closest we're gonna get to Horners' non-Yemeni MENA ancestors. Some sort of intermediate in Egypt between Iberomaurusians and Natufians with a little bit of proto-Nilotic. Though I wager our ancestors lacked that Iran-Chalcolithic (Seh_Gabi) stuff. Now, I would never rule out that some ancient Masris on the border with Nubia like in Luxor were more proto-Nilotic for sure but the majority probably were mostly MENA with the only really significant "SSA" in them being "Ancestral North-African" that has mostly survived haplogroup wise in the form of their dominant Y-DNA E-M35.
Yes he's talking about the nature of their west eurasian ancestry, he's not saying they would be close to modern day horners
reread it again :
[b]"the so far closest we're gonna get to Horners' non-Yemeni MENA ancestors. Some sort of intermediate in Egypt between Iberomaurusians and Natufians with a little bit of proto-Nilotic." [/QB]
lmao
We get this already with just MK samples!? nice It's quite problematic that we're brushing aside the fact that we now see a clear gradation towards the Coptic profile and Abusir mummies due to "Asiatic influence" as some (including I) had already predicted.
As for their phenotype (since this thread is about phenotype) I'm quite certain they'll be dark skinned.
They'll look north African with Anatolian (C_gebi) ancestry?? Quite interesting that one half of the equation is meaningless in a vacuum but we're going to side step it.. the mention of them resembling N.African doesn't say much in the context of the conversation. Which north Africans?? Kehf_El_Baroud? Guanches? or Ifri_N_Amr? If they're being compared to Modern north Africans and it isn't Douriet Berbers that'll lack resolution and I'd be quite upset.
Also ANA isn't a stand in for Non-African/Basal Eurasian.... ANA is shared by most "SSA's"
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: 1. "Caucasoid" is not a race. This is an academic imagining of how race works, not how it does in real life. Blacks can have facial features you people call "Cacausoid."
Depends how you define "race" but "Caucasoid" is a definitely valid category easily recognized by forensic anthropologists and many sub-saharan populations are described as such because they have consistent amount of west eurasian ancestry like people from the Horn of africa or fulanis.
"blacks" is a social construct, an ethiopian has nothing to do with a khoisan or igbo. You have to appreciate africa's diversity instead of projecting your american racial labels.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: And on that note race is also not a genetic grouping that can be defined as simply "Sub Saharan African." Blacks are native to Eurasia, Australia, etc. The most you're going to get is debating whether the founders of Egyptian civilization were more to SSA or Arabs. But "Ethiopians" are still Black and that was the original phenotype.
Like I said there is no such thing as "black" what does a negrito from south-east asia or a dravidian from india has to do with west african bantus like yourself ? Except similar level of melanins I don't see anything else. Ethiopians are not "black" nor similar to afro-americans, they have important amount of west eurasian ancestry :
quote:Originally posted by Ase: 2. Near total replacement of the original southern phenotype (in Upper Egypt) was already being reported by older Egyptology studies in the New Kingdom. However this replacement was already starting in the Old Kingdom and accelerated further at around 2,000 BC when the Sahara started drying further. The poster you reference actually affirms this acceleration in a separate part of their post:
....then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period.
there has been no replacement, people like badarians and old kingdom upper egyptians were described as intermediate between caucasoid and negroid and they all had straight hair something very similar to modern day fellahin from upper egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: ....Huh? So is he saying the OK samples don't include the deep south? Uh....that presents a big problem (for you) because Thebes, Nekhen, Abydos and Ta Seti were precisely where the dominant culture behind Egyptian civilization was developing. In the old Kingdom, population distribution was not spread equally throughout Egypt either to put it mildly. Personally, I imagine southerners began mixing with northern types fairly early into the unified state's history.However phenotypically the creators of Egypt were still a Black people. You guys are just scraping the barrel on genetics for whatever fools still hold race to be genetic in construct.
And before anyone goes there, just keep in mind that two SSA can have very large genetic distances. Some can even be more closely related to a spatially proximal group of non-Africans than a geographically distant group of Black Africans. However racially the two Black Africans would be expected to identify with one another over appearance. [/QB]
Phenotypically the founders of Egypt were absolutely not black, they probably looked like modern upper egyptians and lower nubians. You're not related to any of them nor were they "black africans". the recent migrations of sudanese tribes into egypt + the trans-saharan slave trade probably also affected partially the modern egyptian population.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QUOTE]Originally posted by HotepBoy: [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]Originally posted by HotepBoy: Sorry to break your dreams but a paper will come out soon about DNA of ancient upper egyptians ( old kingdom included) and this is what the author said :
We get this already with just MK samples!? nice It's quite problematic that we're brushing aside the fact that we now see a clear gradation towards the Coptic profile and Abusir mummies due to "Asiatic influence" as some (including I) had already predicted.
As for their phenotype (since this thread is about phenotype) I'm quite certain they'll be dark skinned.
They'll look north African with Anatolian (C_gebi) ancestry?? Quite interesting that one half of the equation is meaningless in a vacuum but we're going to side step it.. the mention of them resembling N.African doesn't say much in the context of the conversation. Which north Africans?? Kehf_El_Baroud? Guanches? or Ifri_N_Amr? If they're being compared to Modern north Africans and it isn't Douriet Berbers that'll lack resolution and I'd be quite upset.
Also ANA isn't a stand in for Non-African/Basal Eurasian.... ANA is shared by most "SSA's"
You seem to avoid the increase of SSA ancestry during the new kingdom too...and what does "dark skinned" even mean ? like modern egyptians ? in that case yes.
KEB, guanches and IAM all looked nothing like modern blacks nor were they genetically related to any black population so it doesn't matter which one at least we're sure these egyptians were west eurasian genetically.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: You seem to avoid the increase of SSA ancestry during the new kingdom too...and what does "dark skinned" even mean ? like modern egyptians ? in that case yes.
KEB, guanches and IAM all looked nothing like modern blacks nor were they genetically related to any black population so it doesn't matter which one at least we're sure these egyptians were west eurasian genetically.
It's more like you don't know the scope of what you're discussing. According to your source these A.Egyptians didn't even look like modern Egyptians genetically ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ...Why would I "compare" them to "modern black".
And I'm not avoiding the so called increase in SSA ancestry... You might be though. Contextualize what you're trying to convey. Do you perceive that the mummies from Abusir el melek have increased SSA admixture in comparison the OK samples? IF not then there's nothing to discuss especially if you are smart enough to think about the implications of these samples truly being an Iberomaurasian - Natufian intermediate.
We won't know this for sure or not after getting the OK samples but what we'll eventually see is that West Eurasians have North east African Ancestry (most likely A.Egyptian or pre A.Egyptian ancestry). Claiming they're West Eurasians (at this point at least) is malininformed.
And it does matter a lot which group of N.Africans they resemble. One ancient group represents resident outliers with Autochthonous admixture closely resembling North African admixed southern Europeans. Another group represents a group best modeled as punic or late calcholithic Southern Europeans mixed with the aforementioned Autochthonous component and best represent non Arab North-African ancestry, the third group is a population representing up to five millenia of continuity in the region with most of what could be a North African Autochthonous component.
You have to be a lil more intellectual here if this discussion is going to be worth having my friend.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Depends how you define "race" but "Caucasoid" is a definitely valid category easily recognized by forensic anthropologists and many sub-saharan populations are described as such because they have consistent amount of west eurasian ancestry like people from the Horn of africa or fulanis.
No, Caucasoid is not a term that means west eurasian ancestry It is a term referring to phenotype not genotype, not ancestry
Even if one assumes that Caucasoids originate in West Eurasia that is not what the term Caucasoid means.
If it meant that somebody could take a DNA tess and it would show if they were Caucasoid or not but that is not what a DNA tests is for
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy:
"blacks" is a social construct, an ethiopian has nothing to do with a khoisan or igbo. You have to appreciate africa's diversity instead of projecting your american racial labels.
"Black" is colloquial term. In America it means one of two things
1) a person of predominant deep indigenous African ancestry
OR when in reference to skin
2) a medium to dark skinned person
this is OR not "and" although it could be at the same time
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
It's more like you don't know the scope of what you're discussing. According to your source these A.Egyptians didn't even look like modern Egyptians genetically ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ...Why would I "compare" them to "modern black".
And I'm not avoiding the so called increase in SSA ancestry... You might be though. Contextualize what you're trying to convey. Do you perceive that the mummies from Abusir el melek have increased SSA admixture in comparison the OK samples? IF not then there's nothing to discuss especially if you are smart enough to think about the implications of these samples truly being an Iberomaurasian - Natufian intermediate.
We won't know this for sure or not after getting the OK samples but what we'll eventually see is that West Eurasians have North east African Ancestry (most likely A.Egyptian or pre A.Egyptian ancestry). Claiming they're West Eurasians (at this point at least) is malininformed.
And it does matter a lot which group of N.Africans they resemble. One ancient group represents resident outliers with Autochthonous admixture closely resembling North African admixed southern Europeans. Another group represents a group best modeled as punic or late calcholithic Southern Europeans mixed with the aforementioned Autochthonous component and best represent non Arab North-African ancestry, the third group is a population representing up to five millenia of continuity in the region with most of what could be a North African Autochthonous component.
You have to be a lil more intellectual here if this discussion is going to be worth having my friend. [/QB]
If we have to follow your logic, ancient egyptians were only "egyptian" before the new kingdom. For thousands of years, people there showed similar profiles to modern day egyptians but even these old kingdom samples seem to be well into the north african spectrum nothing more "black" about them.
As for the increase of SSA, Abusir samples were I presume more northern samples in comparison. I really don't understand how you process all of this since you're well aware of back-to-africa migrations going back to the paleolithic, you literally have horners being half west eurasian same for the kulubnarti samples but yet you want us to believe egyptians were somewhat similar to people like you ? Lmao
The level of dishonesty here is unbelievable smh :
KEB is simply the proof of late neolithic anatolian ancestry in NW Africa which explain why modern berbers are around 30-45% EEF, this was also confirmed by archeology (cardial artifacts).
Guanches can be modelled with punic samples simply because punics had north african admixture, they were not simply phoenician settlers. Guanches cluster with modern north africans despite all of your fancy theories about arabs, romans or white slaves but I suppose that's simply a coincidence huh ?
and again IAM were far from being "blacks" whether physically or genetically. We never see you discussing the impact of the trans-saharan slave trade which probably brought more foreigners to north africa than any other kind of conquest or slave trade ...
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
West Eurasian related =/= actual West Eurasian ancestry
That supposed leak isn't even suprising in the slightest, i don't think i've seen any one here arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were predominantly SSA, the question is how much of this West Eurasian related ancestry is really West Eurasian in origin or North African in origin.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
It's more like you don't know the scope of what you're discussing. According to your source these A.Egyptians didn't even look like modern Egyptians genetically ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ...Why would I "compare" them to "modern black".
And I'm not avoiding the so called increase in SSA ancestry... You might be though. Contextualize what you're trying to convey. Do you perceive that the mummies from Abusir el melek have increased SSA admixture in comparison the OK samples? IF not then there's nothing to discuss especially if you are smart enough to think about the implications of these samples truly being an Iberomaurasian - Natufian intermediate.
We won't know this for sure or not after getting the OK samples but what we'll eventually see is that West Eurasians have North east African Ancestry (most likely A.Egyptian or pre A.Egyptian ancestry). Claiming they're West Eurasians (at this point at least) is malininformed.
And it does matter a lot which group of N.Africans they resemble. One ancient group represents resident outliers with Autochthonous admixture closely resembling North African admixed southern Europeans. Another group represents a group best modeled as punic or late calcholithic Southern Europeans mixed with the aforementioned Autochthonous component and best represent non Arab North-African ancestry, the third group is a population representing up to five millenia of continuity in the region with most of what could be a North African Autochthonous component.
You have to be a lil more intellectual here if this discussion is going to be worth having my friend.
If we have to follow your logic, ancient egyptians were only "egyptian" before the new kingdom. For thousands of years, people there showed similar profiles to modern day egyptians but even these old kingdom samples seem to be well into the north african spectrum nothing more "black" about them.
As for the increase of SSA, Abusir samples were I presume more northern samples in comparison. I really don't understand how you process all of this since you're well aware of back-to-africa migrations going back to the paleolithic, you literally have horners being half west eurasian same for the kulubnarti samples but yet you want us to believe egyptians were somewhat similar to people like you ? Lmao
The level of dishonesty here is unbelievable smh :
KEB is simply the proof of late neolithic anatolian ancestry in NW Africa which explain why modern berbers are around 30-45% EEF, this was also confirmed by archeology (cardial artifacts).
Guanches can be modelled with punic samples simply because punics had north african admixture, they were not simply phoenician settlers. Guanches cluster with modern north africans despite all of your fancy theories about arabs, romans or white slaves but I suppose that's simply a coincidence huh ?
and again IAM were far from being "blacks" whether physically or genetically. We never see you discussing the impact of the trans-saharan slave trade which probably brought more foreigners to north africa than any other kind of conquest or slave trade ... [/QB]
Being "far from blacks" doesn't equal being non-African an indigenous north African population will have Eurasian affinities despite being devoid of Eurasian ancestry, why in your opinion do Dinkas pull towards Eurasians relative to West Africans, despite having less neanderthal DNA than West Africans do?
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Being "far from blacks" doesn't equal being non-African an indigenous north African population will have Eurasian affinities despite being devoid of Eurasian ancestry, why in your opinion do Dinkas pull towards Eurasians relative to West Africans, despite having less neanderthal DNA than West Africans do? [/QB]
That's mental gymnastic lol why do you pretend you don't know what are the motives behind some statements here ?
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Being "far from blacks" doesn't equal being non-African an indigenous north African population will have Eurasian affinities despite being devoid of Eurasian ancestry, why in your opinion do Dinkas pull towards Eurasians relative to West Africans, despite having less neanderthal DNA than West Africans do?
That's mental gymnastic lol why do you pretend you don't know what are the motives behind some statements here ? [/QB]
I don't know what your talking about, elaborate please. You didn't address what i said.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: Depends how you define "race" but "Caucasoid" is a definitely valid category easily recognized by forensic anthropologists
The term is not so common now in anthropology articles. It's more common in criminal forensics since America has particular demographics proportions
Looking at the company of the thread topic Parabon
here is the press release on this Egyptian analysis:
Caucasoid, Negroid or Mongoloid are not even mentioned on the poster or press releases about it
not here either, they do not use those "oid" terms even though their analysis is oriented towards criminal investigation
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: If we have to follow your logic, ancient egyptians were only "egyptian" before the new kingdom. For thousands of years, people there showed similar profiles to modern day egyptians but even these old kingdom samples seem to be well into the north african spectrum nothing more "black" about them.
As for the increase of SSA, Abusir samples were I presume more northern samples in comparison. I really don't understand how you process all of this since you're well aware of back-to-africa migrations going back to the paleolithic, you literally have horners being half west eurasian same for the kulubnarti samples but yet you want us to believe egyptians were somewhat similar to people like you ? Lmao
I don't know what you're trying to say here overall. I think i've mistaken you for someone who knows what their talking about. I'll just adress the north Africans and be outta here.
quote:KEB is simply the proof of late neolithic anatolian ancestry in NW Africa which explain why modern berbers are around 30-45% EEF, this was also confirmed by archeology (cardial artifacts).
KEB was a bell beaker site and like the material associated with the burials came to a dead end. Most models using them to model modern North Africans are poor fits for that reason.
quote:Guanches can be modelled with punic samples simply because punics had north african admixture, they were not simply phoenician settlers. Guanches cluster with modern north africans despite all of your fancy theories about arabs, romans or white slaves but I suppose that's simply a coincidence huh ?
I'm not sure what you're saying... but I also mention late calcholithic samples who don't have much N.African ancestry. granted I mispoke. I meant to shout out Late bronze age meds, as they would likely correspond to the spread of said ancestry around the dates which M183 coalesced. IAM Punic_2 Mende
quote:and again IAM were far from being "blacks" whether physically or genetically. We never see you discussing the impact of the trans-saharan slave trade which probably brought more foreigners to north africa than any other kind of conquest or slave trade ...
IAM had ancestral alleles for the genes primarily responsible for light pigmentation. Why would I address the slave trade when we're talking about populations upwards of 1500 years old? I can hardly follow you at this point.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
^^^^ ah the shih ES must put up with for activity sigh
I have to wonder why say the great Roman empire subjects of Italy are never examined or spoken of in the same spotlight as AE?
No talk of supra-Pyrenees /supra- Alps as a region or population. Nevr flame-on article titles like Imperial Roman Italians are Admixed with Fill-in-the-blank non-European peoples. Littoral African but more frequently phenotypes resembling southern Arabians appear in today's Italians.
Well when I look at a man and his name is Stripoli and he looks "Middle-Eastern" does he in fact derive from Tripoli far distant parentage?
KEB was a bell beaker site and like the material associated with the burials came to a dead end. Most models using them to model modern North Africans are poor fits for that reason.
Nope bell beaker stuff appeared later (and explain the steppe component among iron age and modern NAs) and the paper never concluded about a dead end that's why they ended up saying this :
quote:"By 3,000 BCE, a continuity in the Neolithic spread brought Mediterranean-like ancestry to the Maghreb, most likely from Iberia. Other archaeological remains, such as African elephant ivory and ostrich eggs found in Iberian sites, confirm the existence of contacts and exchange networks through both sides of the Gibraltar strait at this time. Our analyses strongly support that at least some of the European ancestry observed today in North Africa is related to prehistoric migrations, and local Berber populations were already admixed with Europeans before the Roman conquest. Furthermore, additional European/Iberian ancestry could have reached the Maghreb after KEB people; this scenario is supported by the presence of Iberian-like Bell-Beaker pottery in more recent stratigraphic layers of IAM and KEB caves. Future paleogenomic efforts in North Africa will further disentangle the complex history of migrations that forged the ancestry of the admixed populations we observe today."
I don't see why you don't consider KEB being part of the early phases of these migrations and then being gradually absorbed by the locals rich in IAM ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I'm not sure what you're saying... but I also mention late calcholithic samples who don't have much N.African ancestry. granted I mispoke. I meant to shout out Late bronze age meds, as they would likely correspond to the spread of said ancestry around the dates which M183 coalesced. IAM Punic_2 Mende
IAM had ancestral alleles for the genes primarily responsible for light pigmentation. Why would I address the slave trade when we're talking about populations upwards of 1500 years old? I can hardly follow you at this point. [/QB]
These late chalcolithic influences you mention are not a source for the "med" ancestry but like I said the source of the steppe ancestry guanches and north africans like me have that's why the two copper age north africans I posted below lack it but already had similar level of EEF ancestry as us :
Moreover I hope you're at least aware these punic samples were mixed with the local sardinians.
talking about chalcolithic (more copper age but whatever) , it seems you missed these ones :
quote:Our Copper Age dataset includes a newly reported male (I4246) from Camino de las Yeseras (14) in central Iberia, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 calibrated years BCE, who clusters with modern and ancient North Africans in the PCA (Fig. 1C and fig. S3) and, like ~3000 BCE Moroccans (8) , can be well modeled as having ancestry from both Late Pleistocene North Africans (15) and Early Neolithic Europeans (tables S9 and S10). His genome-wide ancestry and uniparental markers (tables S1 and S4) are unique among Copper Age Iberians, including individuals from sites with many analyzed individuals such as Sima del Ángel, and point to a North African origin.
quote:The most surprising is Sardinia_Chalcolithic15940 from the site of Anghelu Ruju, for whom we obtained a radiocarbon date of 2345– 2146 cal. bc from the same bone sample that we analysed for DNA. We modelled this individual as 22.7±2.4% Anatolia_Neolithic and 77.3±2.4% Morocco_EN (P=0.321). This individual is similar in ancestry composition to the approximately contemporary Iberian individual I4246 from the site of Camino de las Yeseras, radiocarbon dated to 2473–2030 cal. bc, who also had North-African related ancestry as well as the same mtDNA haplogroup M1a1b1 and Y-chromosome haplogroup E1b1b1, which are both typical of North Africans25 (Supplementary Table 14). The finding of African to-European gene flow in both individuals shows that such movement was widespread across the Mediterranean long before the classical period when such gene flow became intensive and the ancestries had a larger demographic impact.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I'm not sure what you're saying... but I also mention late calcholithic samples who don't have much N.African ancestry. granted I mispoke. I meant to shout out Late bronze age meds, as they would likely correspond to the spread of said ancestry around the dates which M183 coalesced. IAM Punic_2 Mende
posted
I don't see why you don't consider KEB being part of the early phases of these migrations and then being gradually absorbed by the locals rich in IAM ancestry.
I would naturally... but they have such bad fits when modeling N.Africans overall. Nonetheless it doesn't help to pretend like they're == to all other N.Africans as if there's a rigid continuum. Which speaks to my initial point which will be elaborated in the last sentence.
Though some of the Guanches show minor steppe like ancestry. samples with sizable steppe ancestry (medieval sards and so forth) are bad fits. If you're to claim that the detectable steppe ancestry in N.Africa is owed to a chalcolithic expansion, it'd have to come from Iberia not chl Sardinia. Steppe ancestry wasn't represented in any of my runs.
And I didn't miss anything. those samples were irrelevant to the conversation. They weren't included in my runs. ..and their SSA are elevated in comparison to the other ancient post-neolithic N.Africans.
It's a huge difference between saying OK egyptians resemble I15940 + Anatolian and Guanche + Anatolian. much less IAM + a small amount of Anatolian.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Ignoring HotepBoy for the time being...
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I'm not sure what you're saying... but I also mention late calcholithic samples who don't have much N.African ancestry. granted I mispoke. I meant to shout out Late bronze age meds, as they would likely correspond to the spread of said ancestry around the dates which M183 coalesced. IAM Punic_2 Mende
How should this statistical table be read and interpreted? What is it saying?
p value first the last three are admixture coefficients. The order is written above. So for instance in the first run Guanches were 43% IAM 53% Punic_2 and 4% Mende. the best fit was with late bronze age sardinians (p-value closest to 1).
Mende isn't the best fit for SSA related ancestry but i wanted to model as little SSA as possible and still get a decent fit.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: p value first the last three are admixture coefficients. The order is written above. So for instance in the first run Guanches were 43% IAM 53% Punic_2 and 4% Mende. the best fit was with late bronze age sardinians (p-value closest to 1).
Mende isn't the best fit for SSA related ancestry but i wanted to model as little SSA as possible and still get a decent fit.
I see. If West African Mende aren't the best fit for sub-Saharan ancestry in these populations, which sub-Saharan populations would you consider a better fit?
I would naturally... but they have such bad fits when modeling N.Africans overall. Nonetheless it doesn't help to pretend like they're == to all other N.Africans as if there's a rigid continuum. Which speaks to my initial point which will be elaborated in the last sentence.
Obviously we face bad fits since like I said KEB was representative of these first waves of Iberia_N making them to be more northern shifted than the later north africans. I never talked about a rigid continuum but what we see is that the current berber profile was already present back then around the bronze age/early iron age I'd say (even though copper age north africans don't differ much)
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Though some of the Guanches show minor steppe like ancestry. samples with sizable steppe ancestry (medieval sards and so forth) are bad fits. If you're to claim that the detectable steppe ancestry in N.Africa is owed to a chalcolithic expansion, it'd have to come from Iberia not chl Sardinia. Steppe ancestry wasn't represented in any of my runs.
I should have be more explicit. I'm actually well aware of sardinians being bad examples since they are mostly EEF+WHG and barely score steppe but actually we do have archeological evidence of iberian and italian bell beakers settlements in north africa (in the case of italy, it mostly came from Sicily) and that's why imo during the new kindgom era egyptians started to depict some berbers as blonde haired.
Bell beakers artifacts :
Italian megalithic sites in the eastern maghreb :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: And I didn't miss anything. those samples were irrelevant to the conversation. They weren't included in my runs. ..and their SSA are elevated in comparison to the other ancient post-neolithic N.Africans.
It's a huge difference between saying OK egyptians resemble I15940 + Anatolian and Guanche + Anatolian. much less IAM + a small amount of Anatolian. [/qb]
Their SSA is not elevated at all compared to modern NAs and guanches, it's their Middle eastern ancestry that is elevated (and this should tell you something about egypt) probably capsian admixture that got diluted later. And I'm not saying egyptians resemble this but it was already the profiles of the western neighbours of egyptians back then...
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:BrandonP I see. If West African Mende aren't the best fit for sub-Saharan ancestry in these populations, which sub-Saharan populations would you consider a better fit?
Overall the Dinka... but that'll open up a tub of worms I might be too tired to get into tonight.
@HotepBoy
quote:Their SSA is not elevated at all compared to modern NAs and guanches, it's their Middle eastern ancestry that is elevated (and this should tell you something about egypt) probably capsian admixture that got diluted later. And I'm not saying egyptians resemble this was already the profiles of the western neighbours of egyptians back then...
I feel like I should be the one telling you this... SSA ancestry can very well be used as a partial stand in for some of their Natufian-like ancestry chuck. That's because of the ANA-Natufian cline I alluded to earlier.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
I feel like I should be the one telling you this... SSA ancestry can very well be used as a partial stand in for some of their Natufian-like ancestry chuck. That's because of the ANA-Natufian cline I alluded to earlier. [/QB]
That's really going too far and very speculative...Capsians literally came from the near east and according to some brought the proto-berber culture to NA, it can't be a coincidence. Especially that they found many capsian types living along side IBM types on the same places.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Overall the Dinka... but that'll open up a tub of worms I might be too tired to get into tonight.
So if the figures for Mende-like ancestry represent the bare minimum of sub-Saharan ancestry in the Guanche samples you analyzed, what would the figures for Dinka-like ancestry in those samples look like?
Also, what about Mota? I recall them being related to modern Omotic-speakers in Ethiopia, and Omotic is a branch of Afroasiatic like Berber. It would make sense to me if a little Mota-like ancestry was present in proto-Afroasiatic speakers from the beginning and was then spread to the Maghreb by proto-Berbers.
archaeology anthropology pre-history interpreting population genetics w/o them at the base is a worthless exercise.
Most damaging? Individual discrete site data undergoing RANDOM CONFLATION of geography, eras/ages, and cultural technologies to arrive at a FrankenNorthAfrican, a stitchwork of personally approved skewed bits and pieces viewed as though a naturally occuring phenomenom, though in fact existing nowhere but in somebody's feverish imagination.
with no include/ignore criteria methodology other than whim
quote:Originally posted by Ase: 1. "Caucasoid" is not a race. This is an academic imagining of how race works, not how it does in real life. Blacks can have facial features you people call "Cacausoid."
Depends how you define "race"
I'm using it the way it is used within mainstream Euro dominated societies that were the ones that produced race as a social construct. Race as it is applied around the world involves the Horn. Nobody cares whether you apply the structure of their features to mixture or not. They're treated as a Black people.
quote:"Caucasoid" is a definitely valid category easily recognized by forensic anthropologists and many sub-saharan populations are described as such because they have consistent amount of west eurasian ancestry like people from the Horn of africa or fulanis.
Again Caucasoid isn't a race. If you can be Black and Caucasoid then Caucasoid is not describing race. "Caucasoid" is a descriptor of a set of facial features common to Whites, but it's not exclusive to them.
quote:"blacks" is a social construct, an ethiopian has nothing to do with a khoisan or igbo. You have to appreciate africa's diversity instead of projecting your american racial labels.
Hi the Aboriginals of Australia just rang in, asked to remind you that race is applied outside of America. Blacks are not the ones who set up entire global economies on stupidass judgements towards people's appearances.
So there's nothing wrong with reviewing such labels to debunk the idiotic ideas often attributed to them. A Khoisan, Ethiopian and Aboriginal Autralian are NOT going to have the same aptitude for intelligence because of a "Black gene." That is nonsensical.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: And on that note race is also not a genetic grouping that can be defined as simply "Sub Saharan African." Blacks are native to Eurasia, Australia, etc. The most you're going to get is debating whether the founders of Egyptian civilization were more to SSA or Arabs. But "Ethiopians" are still Black and that was the original phenotype.
Like I said there is no such thing as "black" what does a negrito from south-east asia or a dravidian from india has to do with west african bantus like yourself ?[/QB]
Black is a real social construct and experience that is based on appearance. I never argued it was a valid genetic construct, so I'm not understanding why I'm being asked this question. But a historicaland social experience of mistreatment rooted in stupidass psuedoscientific beliefs attributed to how people look deserves review. To admonish Black people who are so much as interested in investigating the scientific validity of such ideas is gaslighting to protect racist ideology while feigning as though one is not.
quote:Except similar level of melanins I don't see anything else. Ethiopians are not "black" nor similar to afro-americans, they have important amount of west eurasian ancestry
Ethiopians are generally regarded by most of the world as a Black people, so no one cares what you think. You have whole ass non Africans that are not only celebrating their own Black history month, they haven't had contact with Africans in thousands of years.
If they can be Black, so can North Africans and SSA with Eurasian mixture. It's not my job to make sense of racialist beliefs. If they do have a lot of Eurasian proximity but are still regarded by the world as a Black people you're only furthering my case for me. Thanks!
quote:
Eh...African Americans have on average more Eurasian ancestry than some of these groups and are still Black. Obama had more Eurasian ancestry than most groups here, was widely known to have a White mother and is still more often regarded as the U.S' first Black president. His own damn wiki page describes him as both the first African American president and the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. And there are many Blacks in America with higher than average Eurasian ancestry like Skip Gates that are treated as Black.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Ase: 2. Near total replacement of the original southern phenotype (in Upper Egypt) was already being reported by older Egyptology studies in the New Kingdom. However this replacement was already starting in the Old Kingdom and accelerated further at around 2,000 BC when the Sahara started drying further. The poster you reference actually affirms this acceleration in a separate part of their post:
....then during the Middle Kingdom there's a shift towards a SW Asian/Near Eastern profile which resembles that of the few ancient Egyptians we have and present-day Copts, [b]this corresponds with the large influx of "Asiatics" starting from the 1st intermediate period.
there has been no replacement, people like badarians and old kingdom upper egyptians were described as intermediate between caucasoid and negroid and they all had straight hair something very similar to modern day fellahin from upper egypt.
Racially speaking there was a replacement in terms of phenotype. The Ethiopian-like Black phenotypes were replaced with the more modern Mediterranean look. Looser hair and straighter features than is stereotypical for Blacks doesn't change that phenotypically the average southerner would've been Black. How the Upper Egyptians of the deeper south changed genetically however is anyone's guess. It doesn't seem as though your source's Old Kingdom data will likely provide the answer to that though.
quote:Phenotypically the founders of Egypt were absolutely not black, they probably looked like modern upper egyptians and lower nubians. You're not related to any of them nor were they "black africans".
I don't have to be related to someone to point out whether or not they're Black. Again, you keep clinging to this notion that race is of valid genetic construct only to jump back when when it's not convenient. If you know I'm aware it is not a valid genetic construct, why do you keep talking to me about my genetic relationship to other groups? Saying we're all Black doesn't mean we're all closely related. Even outside of the Horn SSA can have genetic distances so large to where one group of Blacks are more closely related to non Africans. And yet, to investigate the Black phenotyes of those Africans is never met with the whining of how closely related we are.
Cranial studies place the Ancient Upper Egyptians and Lower Nubians with modern Ethiopians. If memory serves me, some of the Ancient southern Egyptians may have even looked more like Ethiopians than they resembled Nubians. Ethiopians and Horners in general are broadly regarded as Black throughout out the world. Bark about your own isolated definitions if you'd like. But I really don't care.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: I'm using it the way it is used within mainstream Euro dominated societies that were the ones that produced race as a social construct. Race as it is applied around the world involves the Horn. Nobody cares whether you apply the structure of their features to mixture or not. They're treated as a Black people.
So you admit your worldview is eurocentric ? You simply follow what your ex-masters imposed on your ancestors ? Medieval arabs for example clearly made the distinction between habashi and zanj...see how it can vary ? Why don't you ask people from the Horn of Africa what they think of your black label ?
You're mentally enslaved it seems, sorry but no africans think this way.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again Caucasoid isn't a race. If you can be Black and Caucasoid then Caucasoid is not describing race. "Caucasoid" is a descriptor of a set of facial features common to Whites, but it's not exclusive to them.
You forget that just based on a skull we can determine if the person was mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid and most east africans fall into the caucasoid category that's it.
Even a child would recognize such obvious fact :
Haven't you met any somalian/ethiopian IRL or on the internet ? They clearly don't view themselves as similar to folks like you nobody cares about what europeans think.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Hi the Aboriginals of Australia just rang in, asked to remind you that race is applied outside of America. Blacks are not the ones who set up entire global economies on stupidass judgements towards people's appearances.
So there's nothing wrong with reviewing such labels to debunk the idiotic ideas often attributed to them. A Khoisan, Ethiopian and Aboriginal Autralian are NOT going to have the same aptitude for intelligence because of a "Black gene." That is nonsensical.
We're no more in 1890...
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Black is a real social construct and experience that is based on appearance. I never argued it was a valid genetic construct, so I'm not understanding why I'm being asked this question. But a historicaland social experience of mistreatment rooted in stupidass psuedoscientific beliefs attributed to how people look deserves review. To admonish Black people who are so much as interested in investigating the scientific validity of such ideas is gaslighting to protect racist ideology while feigning as though one is not.
Therefore what's the point of spending years here trying to figure if ancient egyptians were black ? It's a social construct after all and you admit being not related to them. As far as I know no north africans claim persian or turkish history because of muh appearance.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Ethiopians are generally regarded by most of the world as a Black people, so no one cares what you think. You have whole ass non Africans that are not only celebrating their own Black history month, they haven't had contact with Africans in thousands of years.
If they can be Black, so can North Africans and SSA with Eurasian mixture. It's not my job to make sense of racialist beliefs. If they do have a lot of Eurasian proximity but are still regarded by the world as a Black people you're only furthering my case for me. Thanks!
Again this is in america, here no one will ever put an ethiopian and a nigerian in the same bag.
hahahah now even north africans can be black ...smh with that logic everyone is black as long as we make the choice to identify as such. This again shows how ridiculous your "black" label is.
A black person is someone of mostly west african ancestry (this generally includes most bantu speakers in Africa) that's it stop with your mental gymnastic trying to lump together people who are vastly different.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Eh...African Americans have on average more Eurasian ancestry than some of these groups and are still Black. Obama had more Eurasian ancestry than most groups here, was widely known to have a White mother and is still more often regarded as the U.S' first Black president. His own damn wiki page describes him as both the first African American president and the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. And there are many Blacks in America with higher than average Eurasian ancestry like Skip Gates that are treated as Black.
not surprised in america myself could identify as black lmao
Obama is not black but mixed and that's how he's seen in most of the world.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Racially speaking there was a replacement in terms of phenotype. The Ethiopian-like Black phenotypes were replaced with the more modern Mediterranean look. Looser hair and straighter features than is stereotypical for Blacks doesn't change that phenotypically the average southerner would've been Black. How the Upper Egyptians of the deeper south changed genetically however is anyone's guess. It doesn't seem as though your source's Old Kingdom data will likely provide the answer to that though.
I don't have to be related to someone to point out whether or not they're Black. Again, you keep clinging to this notion that race is of valid genetic construct only to jump back when when it's not convenient. If you know I'm aware it is not a valid genetic construct, why do you keep talking to me about my genetic relationship to other groups? Saying we're all Black doesn't mean we're all closely related. Even outside of the Horn SSA can have genetic distances so large to where one group of Blacks are more closely related to non Africans. And yet, to investigate the Black phenotyes of those Africans is never met with the whining of how closely related we are.
Cranial studies place the Ancient Upper Egyptians and Lower Nubians with modern Ethiopians. If memory serves me, some of the Ancient southern Egyptians may have even looked more like Ethiopians than they resembled Nubians. Ethiopians and Horners in general are broadly regarded as Black throughout out the world. Bark about your own isolated definitions if you'd like. But I really don't care. [/QB]
There wasn't any replacement and they certainly didn't look like modern ethiopians :
quote:To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
quote:The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the Predynastic cemetery site HK43 (Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt, c.3500 BC) were cymotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard throughout dynastic times. (…) Although most of the hair found is the natural dark brown color, natural red hair was also discovered ... samples were examined microscopically
It's a big world out there and BLACK spans the white people defined science of physical anthropology forensics and its negro/negroids caucasian/caucasoids mongol/mongoloids nevermind Malays, AmerInds, etc.
The Indian Ocean environ is home to all the various black peoples. Africa, Asia, and Oceanea all house physical anthropology forensic negro/negroids.
NW Euros don't claim SE Euros the same as them nevertheless both are considered white people. No Euros claim Ethiopia's Semetic speakers as their own or even as fellow 'caucasians'. Fact is Semetic Abyssinians are noted as black peoples in all encounters with neighboring Arabians and their Persian Irani cohabitors, as well as the Portuguese and the Italians that invaded the place. Only certain books try to wash the ethiopian white.
BTW Abyssinia is south of the Sahara while Sudan is in the Sahara.
I've used the term physical anthropology forensics because there is autosomal STR forensics too. The twain don't always meet in individual blacks.
Autosomal STRs point geographic population origins inerrantly regardless a people's various phenotypes.
Ain't nobody nowhere going back to the old outdated physical anthropology concept all blx r negro/negroids. Never worked out here in the real world only in textbooks.
quote:You forget that just based on a skull we can determine if the person was mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid and most east africans fall into the caucasoid category that's it.
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: There wasn't any replacement and they certainly didn't look like modern ethiopians :
quote:To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
From that paper: Upper Egypt is right next to Ethiopia on this craniometric graph. That would appear to support Ase's argument that, at least on a craniometric level, ancient Upper Egyptians would have resembled modern Ethiopians.
quote:Originally posted by HotepBoy: There wasn't any replacement and they certainly didn't look like modern ethiopians :
quote:To summarize, the dental distance analysis suggests that the Gebel Ramlah inhabitants are biologically closer to Nubians than Egyptians, but the overall differences are comparatively minor. Instead, they may best be characterized as ‘intermediate’ to samples of various ages from the two regions. The craniometric distances, using pooled and other comparative samples from additional geographic regions, support the dental findings. In this case, Gebel Ramlah appears ‘intermediate’ between sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. On a regional level, they are most similar to, though ‘intermediate’ from post-Neolithic Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
From that paper: Upper Egypt is right next to Ethiopia on this craniometric graph. That would appear to support Ase's argument that, at least on a craniometric level, ancient Upper Egyptians would have resembled modern Ethiopians.
That simply supports what I said about ancient upper egyptians being similar to modern upper egyptians.
Posts: 58 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ase: I'm using it the way it is used within mainstream Euro dominated societies that were the ones that produced race as a social construct. Race as it is applied around the world involves the Horn. Nobody cares whether you apply the structure of their features to mixture or not. They're treated as a Black people.
So you admit your worldview is eurocentric ? You simply follow what your ex-masters imposed on your ancestors ? Medieval arabs for example clearly made the distinction between habashi and zanj...see how it can vary ? Why don't you ask people from the Horn of Africa what they think of your black label ?
You're mentally enslaved it seems, sorry but no africans think this way.
quote:Originally posted by Ase: Again Caucasoid isn't a race. If you can be Black and Caucasoid then Caucasoid is not describing race. "Caucasoid" is a descriptor of a set of facial features common to Whites, but it's not exclusive to them.
You forget that just based on a skull we can determine if the person was mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid and most east africans fall into the caucasoid category that's it.
Even a child would recognize such obvious fact :
Haven't you met any somalian/ethiopian IRL or on the internet ? They clearly don't view themselves as similar to folks like you nobody cares about what europeans think.
The point is both of those people have black skin. You are spouting nonsense in claiming that somehow ancient Upper Egyptians and Lower Sudanese were more similar in complexion to Europeans than Africans. This picture contradicts everything you are saying and supports what people here and elsewhere have been saying for years which is that skin color is not limited by craniofacial features and Africans don't all look the same. You are simply talking absurd nonsense. Ancient Upper Egyptians, Lower Sudanese and Ethiopians were Africans closer to each other than they were to Europeans. This is what Europeans are desperate to try and contradict by these bogus factoids. They don't use the diversity of African features and phenotypes when making these reconstructions and this is why they always come out looking similar to Europeans. Ancient Upper Egyptians and modern Upper Egyptians do not look like Europeans. And what this boils down to is Europe is not the birthplace of human feature diversity, Africa is. So the point of using caucasoid and other similar terminologies is to suggest that ancient African features originate in Europe when they don't. It is backwards.
Again, according to the company who made these reconstructions, they require massive data sets to generate these forensic models. What data are they using from Africa?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It's quite problematic that we're brushing aside the fact that we now see a clear gradation towards the Coptic profile and Abusir mummies due to "Asiatic influence" as some (including I) had already predicted.
Printer-friendly view of this topic