posted
We are basically dealing with someone that places craniometrics (methods used to show physical similarity) as being more important than Genetics (methods used to show biological affinity/lineal descent) I deal with a lot of these folks in Social Media.
Generally these people dont believe in Human Evolution, The African origin of the Human Species or the Out of Africa migration. Whole loads of these idiots argue they are aboriginal Americans who "Sprung up from the soil" in Multi-Regional fashion. Some of them dont believe in DNA at all. (White mans science). They dont understand the evidence or even KNOW the theory of human relationship to Apes. They dumb down ancint human fossils as "Monkeys" and generally don't know the difference between a monkey and an ape.
They don't understand the biological relationship (or lack thereof) between the dark skinned curly headed individuals in Africa, and the dark skinned curly haired populations in South East Asia descendant of Africans who left 70 Thousand years ago. They think they all the same and think they can shoehorn their identity into these people not knowing or understanding there are genetic tools to distinguish these groups due to their long isolation from each other. This is probably the SOLE reason why they are confused. Or they simply IGNORE the biological dissimilarity in favor of "We Wuz Everywhere"....knowing full well those folks way over there are not "We".
They generally dont have a good grasp of human history and biology so they flail around and use "white racism" as an excuse for everything they cant answer. Anything technical they don't understand they chalk it up to "White mans science", "white mans message board" "White peoples ....."(maybe i should talk about how all black people need to stick together,....that will get them on my side - Jamie Foxx) Dazed and confused, that's why they all over the place on one hand saying "Aboriginal Australians have little connection to Africa." - When only pages prior they are claiming African connections to people even further away from Africa than Australians....somehow overlooking that THOSE people TOO have "little connection" to Africa.
They confuse "Africans" with people who look like "Africans" Therefore Darkskinned curly haired folks in Asia are "Africans" but the lighter skinned folks who descend from them are not "Africans". Had one guy argue to the death that Melanesians were not "Eurasians" even though their geography, language, culture, and genetics says it is.
His whole argument of "Bantu Egyptians" balances on the idea of Mesolithic Nubians being the ancestors of West Africans ..... but ignores the fact that Dynastic and predynastic Egyptians have little Affinities to these Mesolithic Nubians. He then cops out and says the closest folks to Ancient Egyptians were Indians....who have no affinity to Mesolithic Nubians. He goes on and on about "Negroid" and "Sub Sharan" Affinities in Ancient Egypt not understanding they are speaking of the Neolithic and Post Neolithic Nubians and not Mesolithic Nubians.
This whole argument is make it up as you go and isn't really well thought out.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
My last post was a breakdown with considerable detail of what the scope of evidence (osteological, aDNA, linguistic, archaeology and culture) indicates about the population history of pre-dynastic-dynastic Kham, but as usual Beyoku ignored it to go onto a logically void emotionally laced irrelevant tirade. Everyone please take the time to read the NARATIVE (hence a SUMMARY of multi disciplinary scientific evidence) Beyoku is running from in my last post. Beyoku is here to tell other Black people to uphold the white sanctioned version of history, and this LAME attempts to shame all the other Black people on this forum for rejecting his COON nonsense. Beyoku got thrashed now he's mad lol.
Beyoku - Now I would just say to Hell with you since you ignored my points in my last post, but... How the fuk can there be continuity from the Mesolithic into the Bronze age in Nubia when all of Egypto-Nubia left the river between 10,000 BC-6,000BC??;
For one as you see they did NOT return to cluster along the modern POLITICAL border of Sudan and Egypt, but rather spread out more. Also you see it looks to me that after desertification significantly more settlements were along the river Nile since before the Holocene.
Why is this? Ehret explained this;
"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 E 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. astern 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. "
So here comes your "very Nilotic" A - Group Nubians creating state formation, which was eventually overwhelmed by the NC speakers/Bantu culture leading into that Negroid sickle cell carrying predynastic, Badarian population with closest biological affinities with more "southerly African groups".
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Indians clustering with ancient Egypt/Nubia and the Horn, is akin to Australian Aboriginals clustering with West/Central Africans...
How so? Aboriginal Australians have little connection to Africa. When it comes to Dravidians there is overwhelming linguistic, cultural and archaeological evidence implying a recent inhabitation in Africa. Australian aboriginals have been removed from Africa for 10's of thousands of years, which reflects in their culture.
quote:either way there are a lot of DNA studies on these groups, you could easily post something proving an actual affinity if you want to.
Why do I "NEED" genetic evidence to prove this when he have evidence in every category including biological (see above);
"If Dravidian migrated from Africa to India through the Middle East, it could have left traces in Egypt and countries under Egyptian influence as well, explaining the data which led earlier researchers to the thesis of a Dravidian ‘Indo-Mediterranean’ culture. (105) Sergent links Indian forms of phallus worship with Sahel-African, Ethiopian, Egyptian and Mediterranean varieties of the same. The Egyptian uraeus (‘cobra’), the snake symbol on the pharaonic regalia, has been linked in detail with Dravidian forms of snake worship, including a priest’s possession by the snake’s spirit. Dravidian cremation rituals for dead snakes recall the ceremonial burial of snakes in parts of Africa."
And you know that I can go on for days and days about these connections. You won't have anything to say except that white Western researchers omit these facts when analyzes their faux historical narratives or cry like Beyoku "bu bu but white people don't approve".
quote: Also, you posted the Brace 1993 dendogram as if it doesn't show Egyptians clustering with Europeans before Wadi Halfa, Dahomey Gabon and other SSAs lol
The point was to demonstrate that there is in fact biological evidence (osteological) that shows some primary affinity between Indians and pre-dynastic Egyptians. There is what I see as some valuable data in a study with a notably junk conclusion. Yet you interesting seem to do the same thing that Brace did that Keita criticized which is ignore this noted relationship;
"However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate "sub-Saharan African " (S.O.Y. Keita. "Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data". Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)
So what happened to Nile Valley continuity that you guys have been harping about? These Mesolithic "Egyptian/Nubian" sample cluster with the modern NC speakers,
" Assuming phenetic affinities reflect genetic relatedness, Gebel Sahaba appears too divergent to be ancestral to succeeding Nubians—differing significantly based on 36 and 21 traits. Such findings were reported previously [22-30,33-34]. These same studies indicate the Gebel Sahaba/Tushka/Wadi Halfa population was not indigenous to Nubia or the region, instead showing affinities to sub-Saharan Africans, notably West Africa. This too is not new , and two earlier studies reported x is not new [40, also see 64]. "
When did this continuity in cranial affinity between Mesolithic Nubians into Bronze Age through Medieval break? Do you think that the break in Nubian culture noted by archaeologist might have occurred when ALLLL OF the inhabitants of the river Nile migrated West into the temporarily fertile Sahara region between 10,000 -6,000 BC? Did the Nilo-Saharan speakers with the "European head shapes" leaving Lake Chad or another African ethnic group simply beat those "Negroid" formerly Mesolithic Nubians back to the river and took that particular spot? What bearing would this findings have on pre-dynastic Egyptians? Wouldn't they be the A-group Nubians who are directly linked to early Nile Valley state formation whom Beyoku once described their aDNA as "very Nilotic";
"Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley, and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba/Nubians"
Could this be the "European" race described by early anthropologist as the relatively small in number group during early state formation whom suddenly disappeared further south?
quote:https://imgur.com/a/6mRYi3t Here Upper Egypt plots closer to Europe than to Jebel Sahaba, so does Nubia A different study: “Not surprisingly, samples noted to exhibit relatively high or low frequencies are most divergent. Gebel Ramlah and the Greek Egyptians have identical mean MMD values of 0.126.” These MMD values are relative to the Egyptian centroid, so the Egyptian centroid is something In between GRM and Greek Egyptians, no way near Wadi Halfa or West Africans
Nevermind the fact that these findings are inconsistent with other osteological analysis, why are you posting random graphics with no context???;
"Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. "
The decisively "Negroid" Badarians were distinct from late Dynastic Egyptians, which is noted to be a confirmed finding. You will not find any other study that implies continuity from the Neolithic into Late period or modern Egyptians. In fact Howell's database made an omission that their prior data set of Egyptians was not representative of the early and pre-dynastic Egyptians populace because they were Late Dynastic from the 26th dynasty onward. So there's not really much to debate here.
quote:Look how close Nagada Bronze age is to Somalis and Early Europeans Farmers
Notice how the Indian/Dravidian sample is not in this later study by Brace (2005), which makes Somalis appear to be the closest living population to the Pre-Dynastic Egyptians and Nubians. Notice in the latter study Modern Egyptians are also not the primary relative to the pre-dynastic (lol), which utterly shats on Brace's earlier conclusion from his own data. In Brace 93' aside from the uncorroborated findings of modern Egyptians having primary affinity to the ancient's, the closest LIVING population in the study to both Pre-Dynasatic Kham AND both Medieval and Bronze Age Nubians were in fact INDIANS/DRAVIDIANS.
Not to mention that one of the most overlapping relationships on the index chart is between Waldi Halfa and NC speakers from SSA.
quote: and how distant they are to Congo and Dahomey, they are closer to modern Egyptians than these SSAs, the people who are supposed to have nothing to do with Pharanoic Egypt according to you
No it would appear that Pre-Dynastic to Dynastic Upper Kham was a multi ethnic region that resulted from various groups of Africans leaving the drying Sahara. The Naqada period remains seem to be characterized by a heavy Dravidian element, and one of those clues that the PC Western science of today are purposely HIDING is that Petrie was noted to have concluded about the Naqada inhabitants is that they were a "NEW RACE" "FROM LIBYA"...When you know the CONTEXT behind this terminology it makes sense! It's not just "RACISM", but giving their own primitive details. The Dravidians migrated in waves onto the river Nile as desertification progressed. The Naqada period remains that show this "gracile" tendency is the result of Dravidians migrating onto a dying Badarian culture (characterized as "Negroid"), and temporarily "replacing" these Negroid people.
..Is the context behind these "replacement" populations really an ethnic/racial conflict hindering on religious differences?
"These Mesnitu had overthrown the original ruling ethnic/class, the Anu (those belonging to Osiris's ethnic group; and yes, Osiris was a real life personage), who had previously established its domination over all of Kemet through military conquest and political unification. Their place of origin was also "Ta Seti" ('Land of the Bow') in the Sudan."
The word Anu I have seen is an another word to say "people" which means of course BANTU. I've heard the argument that the Anu were the Twa. The only problem with that is that the ANU were agricultural and the Twa are hunter and gatherers. Two distinct lifestyles.
We read about these constant civil wars throughout the pre-dynastic. Was Narmer the Osirian (NC speaker) who ousted these Dravidians/Seth worshipers from the land?
quote: I can do this all day, there isnt a single study that shows Ancient Egyptians clustering with West Africans before North Africans.
Then let's that play game homie lol. I've been doing it for over a third of my life. Oh and you're wrong;
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian. -- Pierre M. Vermeersch (Author & Editor), 'Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt', Egyptian Prehistory Monographs Vol. 4, Leuven University Press (2002).
quote: Angel wouldn't agree with your assessment of his work btw, nor would Keita, the implications of Angels statements is that the ancestors of ancient Egyptians/Nubians form part of the ancestry of EEFs, a population that has been modelled and has been shown to have little to no SSA ancestry,
An African population carrying SSA affinities with no "SSA ancestry". Think about what you just said...
quote:You didn't address this "The indications of exclusion, however, are much easier to interpret. For example, the likelihood that either the Giza or Naqada configuration could occur in West Africa, the Congo, or points south is vanishingly small-0.000 and 0.001. Whatever else one can or cannot say about the Egyptians, it is clear that their craniofacial morphology has nothing whatsoever in common with sub-Saharan Africans"
What is there to address? A politically driven attack on Afrocentrism (Brace 93') that has been thoroughly refuted, and essentially recanted with Brace's later work. There is nothing to address unless you find a study that replicates Brace's results from his 93 study. Instead we find the OPPOSITE lol;
Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt - such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semai 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens.This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other Investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations ......
Go back onto your owners lap. [/QB]
You keep bringing up Wadi Halfa as if they cluster with later Egyptians/Nubians, please post data indicating this, the palaeolithic continuity your looking for is in Al Khiday, not Wadi Halfa, why is this so hard to understand? EEFs with <10% SSA cluster way closer to Egyptians than Wadi Halfa does.
Also, Wadi Halfa hasn't been shown to cluster with Indians, so where does this Indian element you talk of present in Egypt come from? If Egyptians/Nubians were Indian-like than why don't West Africans have Indian ancestry seeing as they migrated from Nubia right? You still haven't addressed the issue of Neolithic Pastoralists who directly came from Upper Egypt/Lower Sudan carrying no Indian or Bantu ancestry.
The EEF genomes have been modelled https://imgur.com/a/57Lq2px Red indicates SSA ancestry, again, little to none.
Also look at where EEFs plot in Brace 2005, LBK plots with North Africans, Nea Nikomedeia plots with Somalis, not with West Africans.
In what world does: skulls possessing “Negroid” traits = decisively "Negroid" Badarians lol Keita doesn't even characterise Egyptians as negroid yet you spam his studies when they don't support your position.
https://imgur.com/a/bmcOgsM Again, Upper Egyptians plotting closer to Europeans and Ethiopians than Jebel Sahaba
https://imgur.com/a/57N7tP7 Early Egyptians and Nubians cluster closer to Eritreans, 5th century AD middle Egyptians, 8th century Israelis and modern Cairo before they do with Wadi Halfa. So much for modern Egyptians having nothing to do with the ancient ones.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
- Waldi Halfi /Mesolithic "Egyptian/Nubians" showed closest affinity towards contemporary NC speakers. The ending of the cultural phase correlates with the beginning of the Holocene in which the Sahara became fertile Savannah. The NC speakers left this modern Egyptian/Sudanese border region dispersing throughout the Fezzan region of the Sahara. Where did they go after desertification around 6,000 BC? They couldn't have went into Cameroon. Why? It was uninhabitable swamp land until around 2,000 BC. aDNA also refutes that.
The formerly "Mesolithic Nubians" or NC speakers migrated back into Nubia and made their presence as the Anu people. Who were ancestral to the "Negroid" Badarians.
- I never claimed that Waldi Halfa were Indians smh. Again you and Beyoku are deliberately obfuscating my argument. The Indian element of pre-dynastic Kham is what I put on FULL DISPLAY in my last post to you. The evidence of interaction between Dravidian speakers and NC speakers is found in the fact that Dravidian is spoken in Cameroon;
Two linguistic groups NC speakers and Dravidians have verifiable genetic relationships. Why does this living example to you not suffice as proof that of interaction between NC speakers and Dravidian speakers in antiquity?
- As far as EEF, "About 44% of EEF ancestry was determined to come from a "Basal Eurasian" population that split prior to the diversification of other non-African lineages" -
It's all African.
- "In what world does: skulls possessing “Negroid” traits = decisively "Negroid" Badarians lol Keita doesn't even characterise Egyptians as negroid"
I've never attributed the word "Negroid" to Keita. None the less the Badarians being described as such is in no short supply and you know that.
" the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups." Pierre M. Vermeersch (Author & Editor), 'Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt', Egyptian Prehistory Monographs Vol. 4, Leuven University Press (2002).
- "Braces conclusion that West Africans and Egyptians don't cluster"
This was already explained to you in my last post. The Naqada represent the "NEW RACE" "FROM LIBYA" coming on the "Negroid" Badarians described by Petrie, so NO they are going to show closest affinity to the Indian/Dravidian sample as the data that I presented on the last page shows (since Brace's 05 data refuted his modern Egyptians being closest claim in 93). Unification occurred when this "New Race" and their religion were ousted to unify the land.
- On the Kemp study did you forget that he made this ommission about the modern Bantu samples (modern Ugandans and Tanzanians)?
Did you miss that the "Negroid" samples were in the primary block of affinity, and NOT the Late Dynastic or modern Egyptians.
"Indeed, the bottom two Africa' groups could more reasonably (and without violating the overall arrangement) be rotated to the top of the diagram ." - Anatomy of a Civilization pg. 54
The Bantu's can "reasonably" be placed at the top of the dendrogram RIGHT NEXT to the Badarians. What a surprise lol. Oh and if Dravidians were on there then they would show much closer affinity to those predynastic samples than the Semitic speaking Tigreans.
I read in a study years ago that this haplogroup has been present in the Arabian peninsula since the Neolithic or something like that. Is it a possibility that this African haplogroup reentered Northeast Africa as a result of this major invasion during the 7th century AD rather than having been sitting in Northern-Northeast Africa for over 12,000? If you look at the distribution even outside of Africa E1b1b mirrors the movements of the Arab invasion. From the Indus Valley region, and even when you look at where it's distributed in Europe around Rome and Spain these were Arab-Moorish patterns. Perhaps this represents a mass migration of E1b1b from the Arabian peninsula. As far as the Horn is concerned given it's proximity to the Arabian peninsula that may have been an area of nonsense transmigration between the two.
Modern peoples in the Sudan today do not hold primary affinities with more ancient "Negroid" populations of antiquity. There may have been a swapping of sorts between the various Africans. I think in some regards Keita's interpretation of the research may have it backwards. A good chunk of his research rest on the assumption that peoples in the areas that they are in now have always been there. If you go into this question with that assumption then you will try to force a piece of a puzzle into a space that it does not fit. Meaning trying to Africanize modern Egyptians by pointing out that they have an African lineage, and vainly trying to link THAT African lineage to the African lineage in the region during antiquity is fallacious IMO. You have no basis for that assumption other than a political one ("we must not hurt the feelings of those who are on the land"). The fact is however we know that the one invading element that DID in fact penetrate into Nubia/Northeastern Africa from the North was he Arab invasion. These people in the region today maintain an Arab identity over an African one. The miniscule remnants of other native African lineages in the region are likely IMO those few individuals who submitted to the religion and became absorbed into the greater genepool. I don't think that there is much of anything Khametic about the modern peoples in Northern Sudan and Egypt (even in the south).
E1b1b outside of Africa dates to the Neolithic if not earlier.
But I have no doubt that some E-M78 and especially E-M34 returning to Africa is the result of Arab immigration. But it's not just E-M215 (E1b1b)..
From a 2009 Underhill et al. paper: Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions Results Saudi Arabia differentiates from other Arabian Peninsula countries by a higher presence of J2-M172 lineages. It is significantly different from Yemen mainly due to a comparative reduction of sub-Saharan Africa E1-M123 and Levantine J1-M267 male lineages. Around 14% of the Saudi Arabia Y-chromosome pool is typical of African biogeographic ancestry, 17% arrived to the area from the East across Iran, while the remainder 69% could be considered of direct or indirect Levantine ascription. Interestingly, basal E-M96* (n = 2) and J-M304* (n = 3) lineages have been detected, for the first time, in the Arabian Peninsula. Coalescence time for the most prominent J1-M267 haplogroup in Saudi Arabia (11.6 ± 1.9 ky) is similar to that obtained previously for Yemen (11.3 ± 2) but significantly older that those estimated for Qatar (7.3 ± 1.8) and UAE (6.8 ± 1.5).
I also remember reading years ago that the largest percentage of E-M75 (E2) outside of Africa is found in the Anaiza Arab tribe of Saudi Arabia.
This shows that Southwest Asia-- both the Levant and Arabia-- is but a mere extension of Africa not just geologically but also biologically before Eruasians propper became dominant in that region. This is why I find Euronuts like Antalas funny when they try to de-Africanize North Africa as part of Eurasia when even Southwest Asia was originally not 'Eurasian' either.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look at how close 5 century Egyptians are to earlier groups, its clearly closer than your Bantus and Wadi Halfa, this destroys the idea of a mass exodus into West Africa and modern egyptians having no relation to ancient Egypt, it's clear the physical data isn't on your side.
Basal Eurasian doesn't even fit into your model, your just saying stuff now.
Either way, the genomes of Egyptian/Nubian derived groups have been published, you brought up EEFs yourself, we also have Natufians, Pastoral Neolithic remains and Afro Asiatic speaking Horn Africans, all you have to do is show the presence of Indian and/or Bantu ancestry in these people.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
This shows that Southwest Asia-- both the Levant and Arabia-- is but a mere extension of Africa not just geologically but also biologically before Eruasians propper became dominant in that region. This is why I find Euronuts like Antalas funny when they try to de-Africanize North Africa as part of Eurasia when even Southwest Asia was originally not 'Eurasian' either. [/QB]
What does that even mean ? "Africa" has no reality outside of geography ; that you find some north african haplogroups in the middle east (and vice versa) confirm the bi-directional nature of these interactions. What's the next step ? Southern europe an extension of africa because of north african haplogroups, sickle cell, NA admixture, etc ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, like I said before, the only way to show whether "Arabs" or more accurately people from the Arabian peninsula, as "Arab" didn't exist 3,000 years ago, is to have ancient DNA from Arabia and North Africa. Everything else is speculation and that is the problem with most DNA modeling of North Africa to begin with.
Beyond that, we don't know what specific lineages are associated with the ancient phases of Nile Valley evolution and migration so it is again speculation. And the reason this is annoying because it is being used to obfuscate the fact that this evolution was happening among black Africans and therefore it is really irrelevant what lineages they carried as they were still black Africans. Clowns trying to parse out lineages as if that changes something is the problem because many not all of them are somehow trying to imply non Africans were responsible for African cultural and social evolution which is ridiculous. Also recall that the unique aspect of the early neolithic is pottery which distinguishes it from the early neolithic elsewhere. And this neolithic package of pastoralism, pottery and other characteristics found in the Nile and Sahara is what distinguishes that culture from those around it. Again, specific DNA lineages don't change this from an African cultural evolution and complex. It didn't come from anywhere else but Africa.
Haplogroup E originated in Africa and logic would argue that E1b1b did as well. And if some downstream populations outside of Africa did also have it, them migrating back to Africa would not mean that those migrants introduced that lineage back to Africa. That is backwards.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The evidence for my argument is ALREADY sufficient. With aDNA still in it's infancy, such results would simply be "icing on the cake". Nonetheless we have a pound cake, so we don't need icing.
Firstly you have presented UNSORCED charts to create doubt on my argument with NO CONTEXT. What charts are you possibly talking about? None the less remember not all NC groups had left Northeast Africa during the initial invasions around the 6th century BC. The Wolof and some other groups (Diop's people) for example detail remaining in Egypt until the Arab invasion. The map by Alfred M M'Imanyara captions the Bantu home with;
"Original homeland of the Bantu up to 1500 A.D Dark shading: Possible ultimate origin of the Bantu Cross shading: Area of Bantu expansion into Kemet"
Saying that even after the time of Columbus NC speakers were leaving Northern - Northeast Africa. So while we see that late-modern Egyptians do not share primary affinity at all with early Egyptians there may still be some remnants of the NC speaker in the region (hence the E-M2 still in Upper Egypt to this date).
Despite those remnants however Late Dynastic - Modern Egyptians are consistently shown to be distinct from Early-Pre Dynastic. Howell's omission is all that we need to validate that fact. Keep in mind that your study from Kemp posted shows Bantu's grouping with Dynastic - Pre Dynastic Kham ahead of Late or modern Egyptians who group with Europeans.
"Haplogroup E originated in Africa and logic would argue that E1b1b did as well. And if some downstream populations outside of Africa did also have it, them migrating back to Africa would not mean that those migrants introduced that lineage back to Africa. That is backwards."
This is where FULLY READING what was written will come into play. I NEVER NEVER NEVER claimed the E1b1b ORIGINATD outside of Africa. The thread title says "BROUGHT BACK" into Africa not ORIGINATED in Asia. This is BASIC reading comprehension brotha.
Can somebody split this thread into two different ones? I asked the question about E1b1b without being aware of some North Africa aDNA results, which means that the question of this hypothesis is answered. There is no need to continue to push the hypothesis on my end, as we can see through me dropping the argument on the first page, and eventually a debate of a different nature regarding Bantu continuity in ancient Northeast Africa *second thread title).
"Haplogroup E originated in Africa and logic would argue that E1b1b did as well. And if some downstream populations outside of Africa did also have it, them migrating back to Africa would not mean that those migrants introduced that lineage back to Africa. That is backwards."
This is where FULLY READING what was written will come into play. I NEVER NEVER NEVER claimed the E1b1b ORIGINATD outside of Africa. The thread title says "BROUGHT BACK" into Africa not ORIGINATED in Asia. This is BASIC reading comprehension brotha.
Can somebody split this thread into two different ones? I asked the question about E1b1b without being aware of some North Africa aDNA results, which means that the question of this hypothesis is answered. There is no need to continue to push the hypothesis on my end, as we can see through me dropping the argument on the first page, and eventually a debate of a different nature regarding Bantu continuity in ancient Northeast Africa *second thread title).
You aren't understanding my point. If some non Africans brought E1b1b back into Africa, they didn't displace those in Africa from which E1b1b originated. Again the overall problem here is disentangling ancient patterns of migration and DNA from limited samples. Therefore, it is hard to distinguish when or where E1b1b could have been part of any particular migration event in the past versus E1b1b that never left. And again this goes back to the whole problem with DNA studies in Africa overall and especially North Africa.
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Big O Lil bro, slow down for a second and notice what you are doing and the samples you are talking about.
What Ehret is talking about are NOT Wadi Halfans. He is talking about the North East Africa Neolithic Egypto-Nubian affinity you see in your dendrogram (A-Group, C-Group, Kerma, Naqada, Badari, Tigre) at the TOP of the exhibit. Its The Egypto-Nubians that are physically separated from Wadi Halfans and Jebel Sahabans.
Wadi Halfans are ALL the way at the bottom of the Dendrogram, Tanzanian and Ugandan sample have strong signatures from Nilotic and Cushitic speakers, the Ugandan sample may be fully Nilotic. Can you see the Wadi Halfan sample ALL the way at the bottom???
What you are calling the "Very Niltoic Nubian A Group" AGAIN show discontinuity with Wadi Halfans and Jebel Sahabans. A-Group is with the Neolithic Nubian Egyptian cluster. Do you see its relationship at the top with Wadi Halfa ALL THE WAY at the bottom? The "Southernly Africa groups" they are talking about are the Tigre and Somali, not Wadi Halfans.
You are acting like "All Nubians are the same" right now, but then you flip flop. On one hand you dissing modern and ancients Nubians because they are not related to Wadi Halfans, then on the next page you Claiming Egyptians relationship to "southernly Africans based on the Nubians and Horners you just dissed. You are going to have to pick one.
Please take the time to READ and INVESTIGATE those stone age cultures during that time frame that are entering and leaving the Sahara and Nile Valley. The are not all the same. You are looking at a cline of phenotypes and diversity with Wadi Halfan types on ONE side of the cline going through Tushkans, Nabtan Playans, Jebel Moyans, Jebel Ramlahns, Wadi Howar, Kudruka, A Group, etc to get to Predynastic-Egypto Nubians, Horners etc in the middle to a cline that eventually leads you out of Africa to Palestine.
The samples are not saying what you think they are saying, they dont support you. Predynastic Egyptian and Wadi Halfans are on opposite ends of the spectrum, one is at the top, Wadi Halfa on the bottom is a total Outlier to EVERY sample. Are you Trolling us?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
"Indeed, the bottom two Africa' groups could more reasonably (and without violating the overall arrangement) be rotated to the top of the diagram ." - Anatomy of a Civilization pg. 54
The two SSA African groups ("Negroid") are in the PRIMARY affinity. Also the fact that Kemp DISTINGUISHES "Ethiopic" Sub Saharan Africans from "Negroid" SSA's makes your doubt on the Bantu nature of the sample DUBIOUS! The term Negroid when used almost ALWAYS is exclusive to the NC speakers, and again the physical distinction noted between Ethiopic and Negroid samples in the very same dendrogram makes it clear that they are two distinct populations. Despite the Bantoid nature of the inhabitants of that region, the 14th century Tanzania sample may likely have some Nilotic elements in their ancestry based on the detailed dendrogram due to their distance from the modern "Negroid" samples from Tanzania, which strengthens their affinity with A-group Nubians who again were "very Nilotic" according to you. None the less it is a fact that the modern "Negroid" groups are also close to Waldi Halfa, and both groups could be placed at the top;
"Assuming phenetic affinities reflect genetic relatedness, Gebel Sahaba appears too divergent to be ancestral to succeeding Nubians—differing significantly based on 36 and 21 traits. Such findings were reported previously [22-30,33-34]. These same studies indicate the Gebel Sahaba/Tushka/Wadi Halfa population was not indigenous to Nubia or the region, instead showing affinities to sub-Saharan Africans, notably West Africa. This too is not new, and two earlier studies reported cranial similarities with sub-Saharan samples: West African Ashanti [41], and late Palaeolithic Ishango, Democratic Republic of the Congo [40, also see 64]."
that were noted to having overlapping affinities with West African/NC speakers makes that confirmation even stronger wouldn't you say? Again these two three two "Negroid" groups can reasonable be placed at the top of the dendrogram with the general Dynastic Egyptian populace. This affinity spanning across all but the late dynasties in my views help confirm that "centroid" value that the Negroid Badarians were said to have by Irish.
- Beyoku says, "What you are calling the "Very Niltoic Nubian A Group" AGAIN show discontinuity with Wadi Halfans and Jebel Sahabans. A-Group is with the Neolithic Nubian Egyptian cluster. Do you see its relationship at the top with Wadi Halfa ALL THE WAY at the bottom? The "Southernly Africa groups" they are talking about are the Tigre and Somali, not Wadi Halfans."
WHY...are you acting like the context behind the discontinuity in Nubians from the Mesolithic into dynastic has not been explained to you and others MULTIPLE TIMES on this page and the last already????? GO BACK UP and address what I wrote to you DIRECTLY. Every fucking thing that you just wrote was already broken down to you.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: I asked the question about E1b1b without being aware of some North Africa aDNA results, which means that the question of this hypothesis is answered.
posted
^^^ And because he keeps track of aDNA like a fucking WWE soap opera HE THINKS HE'S A FUCKING GENIUS...Dude I TOLD KEITA about Hawass 2013, and DNAtribes. Does that make me "smarter" than Keita????? NO!!! tf... lol smh. This has to be your highest troupe in this "debate".
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Beyoku did you read the study?
"Indeed, the bottom two Africa' groups could more reasonably (and without violating the overall arrangement) be rotated to the top of the diagram ." - Anatomy of a Civilization pg. 54
The two SSA African groups ("Negroid") are in the PRIMARY affinity. Also the fact that Kemp DISTINGUISHES "Ethiopic" Sub Saharan Africans from "Negroid" SSA's makes your doubt on the Bantu nature of the sample DUBIOUS! The term Negroid when used almost ALWAYS is exclusive to the NC speakers, and again the physical distinction noted between Ethiopic and Negroid samples in the very same dendrogram makes it clear that they are two distinct populations. Furthermore the fact that the modern "Negroid" groups are also close to Waldi Halfa;
"Assuming phenetic affinities reflect genetic relatedness, Gebel Sahaba appears too divergent to be ancestral to succeeding Nubians—differing significantly based on 36 and 21 traits. Such findings were reported previously [22-30,33-34]. These same studies indicate the Gebel Sahaba/Tushka/Wadi Halfa population was not indigenous to Nubia or the region, instead showing affinities to sub-Saharan Africans, notably West Africa. This too is not new, and two earlier studies reported cranial similarities with sub-Saharan samples: West African Ashanti [41], and late Palaeolithic Ishango, Democratic Republic of the Congo [40, also see 64]."
that were noted to having overlapping affinities with West African/NC speakers makes that confirmation even stronger wouldn't you say?
You aren't reading it properly, look at the x axis, look at the percentages and what groups they line up with. Look at the way the branches are formed.
Ethiopic, Nubia and 3rd to 20th century AD Egyptians all form a tight cluster with pre dynastic Upper Egyptians, Wadi Halfa is nowhere to be seen in this cluster, so much for Modern Egyptians having nothing to do with Ancient Egyptians.
Modern Greeks, Anatolians and the others in that group including Canary Islanders who have no Indian or Bantu ancestry cluster closer to Egyptians than Wadi Halfa based on this dendrogram, Wadi Halfa is insanely divergent from Egyptians based on this pic.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: ^^^ And because he keeps track of aDNA like a fucking WWE soap opera HE THINKS HE'S A FUCKING GENIUS...Dude I TOLD KEITA about Hawass 2013, and DNAtribes. Does that make me "smarter" than Keita????? NO!!! tf... lol smh. This has to be your highest troupe in this "debate".
This thread wouldn't have been made if you looked into aDNA, a scroll through wikipedia would tell you that E1b1b has been present in Africa before Arabs as we know them today even existed.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Beyoku did you read the study?
"Indeed, the bottom two Africa' groups could more reasonably (and without violating the overall arrangement) be rotated to the top of the diagram ." - Anatomy of a Civilization pg. 54
Bruh..... it dont matter if its at the top or the bottom. I noted its on the bottom cause i had to assume your ass didnt see it! Its the *relationship of the BRANCHES* in the dendrogram that matters. Wadi Halfans are total outliers to later Egypto-Nubians.
You are not explaining anything because you keep grouping the Mesolithic and Neolithic Nubians with a "Negroid" Tag not understanding the "Negroid" affinity in Egypto Nubians is not related to Wadi Halfans.
Basically you have all these Black people, and Egyptio-Nubians are related to Black group A and NOT Black group B EVEN if both A and B have a common ancestor. I keep coming back to this because you KEEP making bogus inferences based on your misunderstanding of this sample and the data showing its relationship. You keep fvcking up, so we keep having to beat you over the head with this. You slow, and you hard headed. You are constantly LOUD AND WRONG.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: ^^^ And because he keeps track of aDNA like a fucking WWE soap opera HE THINKS HE'S A FUCKING GENIUS...Dude I TOLD KEITA about Hawass 2013, and DNAtribes. Does that make me "smarter" than Keita????? NO!!! tf... lol smh. This has to be your highest troupe in this "debate".
I told DNA tribes about Hawass et al and ramesses III, and Napolean STR and the Belgrade mummy. If you had cursory knowledge of adna or even modern dna you would be in here flailing.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: ^^^ And because he keeps track of aDNA like a fucking WWE soap opera HE THINKS HE'S A FUCKING GENIUS...Dude I TOLD KEITA about Hawass 2013, and DNAtribes. Does that make me "smarter" than Keita????? NO!!! tf... lol smh. This has to be your highest troupe in this "debate".
This thread wouldn't have been made if you looked into aDNA, a scroll through wikipedia would tell you that E1b1b has been present in Africa before Arabs as we know them today even existed.
Dude stfu, as though you are above asking questions. You warrantless egomaniac.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: ^^^ And because he keeps track of aDNA like a fucking WWE soap opera HE THINKS HE'S A FUCKING GENIUS...Dude I TOLD KEITA about Hawass 2013, and DNAtribes. Does that make me "smarter" than Keita????? NO!!! tf... lol smh. This has to be your highest troupe in this "debate".
This thread wouldn't have been made if you looked into aDNA, a scroll through wikipedia would tell you that E1b1b has been present in Africa before Arabs as we know them today even existed.
Dude stfu, as though you are above asking questions. You warrantless egomaniac.
I never said I was above asking questions, there's nothing wrong with it, I'm just saying if you didn't ignore/disregard genetics the way you do, you wouldn't have asked this question.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: ^^^ And because he keeps track of aDNA like a fucking WWE soap opera HE THINKS HE'S A FUCKING GENIUS...Dude I TOLD KEITA about Hawass 2013, and DNAtribes. Does that make me "smarter" than Keita????? NO!!! tf... lol smh. This has to be your highest troupe in this "debate".
This thread wouldn't have been made if you looked into aDNA, a scroll through wikipedia would tell you that E1b1b has been present in Africa before Arabs as we know them today even existed.
Dude stfu, as though you are above asking questions. You warrantless egomaniac.
It aint about ego. Its about you coming in here, saying unsupported dumb shit, then think you can smooth it all over and get folks on your side by using the words "Coon" and "White people". Its about you having an antiquated idea of human population relationships which leads to you asking questions and making conclusions that wouldnt have entered your mind if you was familiar with like ONE DNA study....or understood the affinity of ONE Sample. You are a classic example of the failure of American education.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Modern Egyptians have nothing to do with ancient Kemet.
This obsessive promoting of Hamitic East Africans is a clear sign of nonsense. The Somalis are nomads, so we know that they had nothing to do with building a civilizations. The Habesha of Ethiopia are known returning African migrants who have nothing to do with ancient Nubia or Egypt, which leaves for the most part Oromo (the entirely African Ethiopians) and Nilotic groups.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: We have genetic evidence that the ancient Egyptians were related to Neolithic Turks. Neolithic Turks were a Negroid population plain and simple.
Interesting, so Neolithic Turks were bantu, these connections are mind blowing
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Modern Egyptians have nothing to do with ancient Kemet.
This obsessive promoting of Hamitic East Africans is a clear sign of nonsense. The Somalis are nomads, so we know that they had nothing to do with building a civilizations. The Habesha of Ethiopia are known returning African migrants who have nothing to do with ancient Nubia or Egypt, which leaves for the most part Oromo (the entirely African Ethiopians) and Nilotic groups.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: We have genetic evidence that the ancient Egyptians were related to Neolithic Turks. Neolithic Turks were a Negroid population plain and simple.
Interesting, so Neolithic Turks were bantu, these connections are kind of mind blowing
My dream job is a Teacher. Teachers dont get paid anything so i am not a Teacher. People need to learn so i still Teach. I will be a real teacher when i retire.
In any case a lot of the back and forth in MANY of these discussion would immediately halt when each side clearly understands other sides argument. Without that we are simply arguing over "facts". We shouldn't be arguing over facts. We should instead be discussing the interpretation of DATA and what it actually means. I Been posting a lot on Youtube and Facebook lately. Also been using the Clubhouse app (Audio Social Media)
Ultimately i see "Afrocentricity" diverging into three camps, 1 - Those that use DNA to reinforce, confirm, Falsify, or supplement past scholarship : No African dna in Precolumbian skeletons. 2 - Those who dont, and concentrate on "Pre-Genomic" ideas of human populations: Luzia and Naia is African, Melanesians are African, we was everywhere. 3 - Those that use DNA for dubious means: mtdna A is African, We ARE Jews because E1b1a is Hebrew.
Dont know how many times i have been in a room and someone asks for recommendations on African subject X and they are bombarded with suggestions of books that are 50-70 years old. There is nothing wrong with those books but i believe we should work backwards considering there 50 years of African excavation that they can read about. Like why recommend something on Ancient Nubia written BEFORE the Nubian Salvation Project and the Building of the Aswan Dam? But that's what they do.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
-"Bruh..... it dont matter if its at the top or the bottom. I noted its on the bottom cause"
Beyoku
-"Wadi Halfans are ALL the way at the bottom of the Dendrogram...."
Beyoku
-" Egyptian and Wadi Halfans are on opposite ends of the spectrum, one is at the top, "
Beyoku
-"Can you see the Wadi Halfan sample ALL the way at the bottom???"
lol nice cleanup. When you read on the X-axis on the modern "Negroid" Sub Saharan African groups are with the 20% percentile, which is shown as a primary affinity with the dynastic samples.
Let's review what we already know;
"Gebel Sahaba/Tushka/Wadi Halfa population was not indigenous to Nubia or the region, instead showing affinities to sub-Saharan Africans, notably West Africa. This too is not new, and two earlier studies reported cranial similarities with sub-Saharan samples: West African Ashanti [41], and late Palaeolithic Ishango, Democratic Republic of the Congo [40, also see 64]." http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/15124/1/IrishRSPBFinal.pdf
The continuity of this Mesolithic "Negroid" presence is seen in the Middle Kingdom as Keita noted about Berry and Berry 1967.
That Berry and Berry even goes as far as saying that YES Indians/Dravidians are the closest match to the Egyptian series, AND West Africans!!! The Naqada findings that I pointed out in Brace have another precedent, so we can say that that this affinity between Indians/Dravidians and Naqada and other Egyptian groups are a consistent finding when Indians are included in the samples.
Now I've long had a problem with Keita's dismissal of this relationship. When given the proper context we see that this has good support. Not to mention the fact that NC speakers (WEST AFRICANS) have a closer affinity to the ancient Egyptians the MENA populations. So yes we see evidence continuity in the early Nile Valley's "Negroid" element.
and we know that there is some genetic evidence of exchange between West Africa and the Indian sub continent, through the presence of Indian sickle cell being found in West Africa to this date;
Now you are saying the Egyptians were more similar to Indians than Africans
yet at the same time:
quote:Originally posted by Big O: We have genetic evidence that the ancient Egyptians were related to Neolithic Turks. Neolithic Turks were a Negroid population plain and simple.
-"Bruh..... it dont matter if its at the top or the bottom. I noted its on the bottom cause"
"Gebel Sahaba/Tushka/Wadi Halfa population was not indigenous to Nubia or the region, instead showing affinities to sub-Saharan Africans, notably West Africa. This too is not new, and two earlier studies reported cranial similarities with sub-Saharan samples: West African Ashanti [41], and late Palaeolithic Ishango, Democratic Republic of the Congo [40, also see 64]."
In relationship to the Dendrogram i tried to dumb it down for you, apparently it wasn't dumb enough.
In this example of A-F It doesn't matter if you swing the A/B cluster from the left of the dendrogram to the Right side. Even when A/B is on the right side and A is right next to F the AFFINITY of the tree is what matters. A and B would STILL be an outgroup of C/D/E/F/. In fact Cluster A-B is the furthest away from cluster E-F Dodo Bird. Consider A/B and stand-in for Wadi Halfa/jebel Sahaba and E-F as standings for Egypt and Nubia. Changing the A/B cluster to the left or right DOES NOT affect the PLOT that has A/B separated by the dotted orange line from CDEF. Do you understand how this works now?
In refence to your spammed quote - Maybe they are not indigenous to Nubia or the region, lets play that game. Perhaps this is why they sit as an outgroup to the Egyptians and Nubians that ARE indigenous to the region. LOL You trolling right? Now way you are this dumb, you always take it too far with the comedy.
Example number 2 on Dendrograms for Dummies
Mtdna L0, my lineages is the first on the scene. M and N are the last in relationship to them all. If we were to MOVE the L0 branch from the Left of the Tree to the Right it would be right next to M1 and U6. That doesnt change the relationship of L0 to U6. The Tree stays the same. L0 = Wadi Halfans, U6 = Egyptians and Nubians.
Get it? Got it? Good.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Just admit that you didn't know what tf you were talking about lol. YOU emphasized Y axis when you said "Bottom" 100 times in your reply. Egomaniacs lol.
posted
Beyoku the Goofy - "you asking questions and making conclusions that wouldnt have entered your mind if you was familiar with like ONE DNA study....or understood the affinity of ONE Sample. You are a classic example of the failure of American education."
You went from accusing me of claiming that E1b1b was not African to ignoring the fact that the thread title is literally a QUESTION, beginning with a QUESTION word. This a weak a nigga victory. Look at at how happy he is. You cannot even ask a question or propose a theory without the ego when dealing with juvenile behavior from coons.
posted
^^ It was answered LAST WEEK. Beyoku and them brought this shit up to distract from the ass whooping that I gave them throughout this thread. I asked for it to be split. The E1b1b thread is done, because YOU (lioness) answered the question, and I happily accepted that this is where it stands. There was nothing else to talk about after that, then we see what happened. But yeah if I could a Mod to split this thread on the Mesolithic Nubians and the original it would be great.
posted
This would all be resolved if you could show Indian/Bantu ancestry in either EEFs, Natufians, or the Pastoral Neolithic people.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
The continuity of this Mesolithic "Negroid" presence is seen in the Middle Kingdom as Keita noted about Berry and Berry 1967.
.
.
That Berry and Berry even goes as far as saying that YES Indians/Dravidians are the closest match to the Egyptian series, AND West Africans!!! The Naqada findings that I pointed out in Brace have another precedent, so we can say that that this affinity between Indians/Dravidians and Naqada and other Egyptian groups are a consistent finding when Indians are included in the samples.
Now I've long had a problem with Keita's dismissal of this relationship. When given the proper context we see that this has good support. Not to mention the fact that NC speakers (WEST AFRICANS) have a closer affinity to the ancient Egyptians the MENA populations. So yes we see evidence continuity in the early Nile Valley's "Negroid" element.
and we know that there is some genetic evidence of exchange between West Africa and the Indian sub continent, through the presence of Indian sickle cell being found in West Africa to this date;
this is why one has to go to the original sources because Berry and Berry wrote something that was unintentionally ambiguous and SOY Keita in those yellow highlighted quotes misconstrued what Berry said because when you look at the context of what Berry said and more importantly the data we see what the degree of divergences are -and it doesn't correspond just to the way the chart is laid out left to right
-but the polemicist doesn't care about context, as soon as they see something printed they like they assume it's true and won't go deeper to the source to see if the second hand remark was accurate, they don't want to hear it
what we see here is the least divergence between the Egyptian and Indian (Punjab) and second least divergence the Nubian (the asterisks tell the story)
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
WHICH IS THE MORE RELIABLE INDICATOR OF GENETIC DISTANCE ? With special reference to crania from ancient Greece and Egypt. Judith Elaine Powell Department of Anatomy Bristol Medical School. A thesis submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science. March 1989
1.1.3. Morphological variation in the cranium. For over a century now, morphological variation in the cranium has been the focus of studies of population affinity. It is generally accepted that skulls, jaws and teeth are the structures . in which the effects of natural selection and the n-dcroevolutionary chang6s which follow can be most readily detected (Musgrave and Evans 1980). There is disagreement among craniologists, however, about which morphological features are the most reliable indicators of genetic distance. Some regard metric traits (cranial measurements reflecting size and shape of the skull) as the most rewarding sphere of study; others claim that n-dnor morphological variants such as sutural bones, number and site of -2- INTRODUCION foramina and bony bridges (collectively known as epigenetic, non-metric or quasi-continuous traits) are generally superior indicators of population affinity. The object of this work is to compare distance measures derived from both metric and non-metric traits, with a view to determining which type is the more useful for answering questions about population affinity.
_______________
Despite the superior performance of metric traits in this work, it should not be taken as advocating the abandonment of non-metric studies. In certain circumstances (e. g. where there is much distortion, or irreparable fragmentation of the crania) discrete traits may be all that is available. They are undoubtedly much quicker to record than measurements, even if accurate scoring is more difficult to attain than was at first thought. They do contain some genetic information, as several studies have shown, though further elucidations of their modes of development is needed before they can live up to their initial promise.
Furthermore, several workers (Brothwell 1981, Corruccini 1974, Ossenberg 1976, Kaul et al. 1979) are of the opinion that they are only of use for studying relationships within major racial stocks. If this were the case, it would explain why many otherwise successful non-metric studies turn up the odd aberrant result. However, it is hoped that the present work will stimulate a renewed interest in craniometric analysis.
6.4. The implications of this work for metric studies. Apart from its major findings, this study has several implications for the practical exercise of metric analysis. Most importantly, it emphasises the value of metric studies when sample sizes are small. The superior performance of metric distances, as presented in this
Crania from Egypt and Greece should again be measured by a single person, using a single school of measurements, to confirm that the differences between Greek and Egyptian crania apparent in this work are not only due to different workers using different methods
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: What does that even mean ? "Africa" has no reality outside of geography ; that you find some north african haplogroups in the middle east (and vice versa) confirm the bi-directional nature of these interactions. What's the next step ? Southern europe an extension of africa because of north african haplogroups, sickle cell, NA admixture, etc ?
I could pose your own question to YOU, since you don't seem to consider North Africa as part of Africa but part of Eurasia instead. Admixture works both ways but you seem to focus on only the back-migrations from Eurasia which you conveniently forget comprised largely of Africans coming back. By the way, you forgot to mention that southern Europeans also possess Sub-Saharan HLA -DRB1 and -DQB1 shared with West Africans as well as Ethiopians as well as T-13910 allele for lactose tolerance that's found among Sahelian pastoralists.
But tell me, do you consider West Africans like Cameroonians to be an extension of Europe since they carry R1b-V88?
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
That is neither here nor there. We've already established that certain pre dynastic cultures were more dominated by the Dravidian element like the Naqada culture. Whereas the Badarian culture that it replaced was characterized as "Negroid", and having a presence displaying continuity going back over 30,000 years. That group was defeated by the Anu represented by Narmer, and that's why there is a distinction noted between Naqada period 1 & 3. This is why the end of the Naqada period correlates with Narmer uniting the land through defeating these Set worshipers creating dynasty 1 of Kham. These Nubian-Dravidian (as Diop noted)
The Anu people people were clearly the ancestors of modern NC speakers;
"All those cities have the characteristic symbol which serves to denote the name Anu. It is also in an ethnic sense that we must read the term Anu applied to Osiris. As a matter of fact, in a chapter introducing hymns in honor of Ra and containing Chapter XV of the Book of the Dead, we read: "Hail to thee, O God Ani in the mountainous land of Antem! O great God, falcon of the double solar mountain!
If Osiris was a Nubian origin, although born at Thebes, it would be easy to understand why the struggle between Set and Horus took place in Nubia. In any case, it is striking that the goddess Isis, according to the legend, has precisely the same skin color that Nubians always have, and that the god Osiris has what seems to me an ethnic epithet indicating his Nubian origin. Apparently this observation has never before been made".--Amélineau, Prolégomčnes, pp. 124-125
Notice how both the Kemetic pharaoh and Dahomey king are depicted as giant rulers, and have one hand sticking out while being served by smaller humans. More proof of this diffusion of people and culture from the Hapi Valley into interior regions of Africa is shown in the appearance of the ancient Kemetic spiritual system being shown in these other African cultures. The Osirian crock and flail were sported by the kings of inner Africa. Notice that the Dahomey king holds the traditional Osirion Crock while the ancient Kemetic figure holds the Flail. It's also note worthy...that the color scheme of the Dahomey (Nigeria) are not depicting "black skinned" people despite us knowing that these people were/are still melaninated "black" Africans. It's also worth noting how these little Damomey citizens are shaped almost identically (even pointy noses) to how the ancient Mesopotamians depicted themselves.
Dahomey Kingdom (Nigeria)
If Ausarian was an "ethnic" cult then look at what "ethnic" group has carried on this culture onto this day. This is not a debate. You guys to try to suspend this shyt in the air as a question are clowns.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Big O, now you are on another track
Now you are saying the Egyptians were more similar to Indians than Africans
yet at the same time:
quote:Originally posted by Big O: We have genetic evidence that the ancient Egyptians were related to Neolithic Turks. Neolithic Turks were a Negroid population plain and simple.
Big O is not wrong. The Dravidians and Munda people came from the Nile Valley. As a result, there would be correspondence between Africans and Indians.
Many people assume that the history of Africa begins and ends on the African continent. This is false. Africans have left their imprint in ancient Eurasia.
An important part of Africa was the Nile Valley. The Nile Valley was not only the homeland of ancient Egypt. It was also the place where the Kushites originated.
An interesting record of Nile Valley Africans is found in the ancient records of India. These records are written in Sanskrit and Prakrit. As a result, we find mention of the Nile Valley in Pali and Purana text.
The word Puranas means "ancient, old. It is and it is Indian literature written in Sanskrit. Prakrit any ancient or medieval vernacular dialect of northern and central India that existed alongside Sanskrit. Pali was a Prakrit language of India used by Buddhist to write their conical records.
Many of us have heard about the fact that the ancient text of India, called the Purana and Pali text provide valuable information on Nile Valley history. In this post we will discuss the research of Dr. Liny Srinivasan an Indian linguist and Indologist.
Dr. Srinivasan has published many articles and Books on the presence of Mesopotamian and Nile Valley people in the Rig Veda (RV), Puranas and Pali documents. Dr. Srinivasan in her article : Myths, Metaphors and Dravidians, provides considerable information on Upper and Lower Nubia.
The people in Upper and Lower Nubia in the Nile valley, were called ḫЗš (Kushites) or ḫЗšt (Khasut) by the ancient Egyptians. The inhabitants of the Fezzan were round headed Africans. (Jelinek, 1985,p.273) The cultural characteristics of the Fezzanese were analogous to C-Group culture items and the people of Ta-Seti . The anthropologist Jelinek made it clear that C-Group people occupied the Sudan and Fezzan regions between 3700-1300 BC .
The inhabitants of Libya were called Tmhw (Temehus). Dr. Anta Diop noted that the Temehus were organized into two groups the Thnw (Tehenu) in the North and the Nhsj (Nehesy) in the South. Farid observed that a Tehenu personage is depicted on Amratian period pottery . The Tehenu wore pointed beard, phallic-sheath and feathers on their head. The archeaologist B.B. Lal, who conducted research in Africa and India, proved that the ancient Nubians and the Dravidians of Megalithic South India practiced the same culture. Dr. Lal a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. B.B. Lal (1963) proved conclusively that the culture associated with the South Indian Megalithic was related to the C group people or Nehesy, given the fact that both groups used 1) a common black-and-red ware (BRW), 2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures and 3) a common type of rock cut sepulchre.
The South Indian Megalithic is usually associated with the Tamil speaking Dravidian people of Tamilnadu . This suggest that the Tamil belonged to the Nehesy , and the Telugu and Kannada belonged to the Tehenu. In ancient Indian text the Nile Valley was called Kušadvipa or Kushland . The inhabitants of Kušadvipa were mainly named Kashi in the Indian text.
Other people living in Kušadvipa were called Nhsj (Nehesy) . Heqa Khasut also appears in the Epic Puranas as Ikshvaku ( < Heqa Khasu)t. The Ikshvaku were seen as evil. The ancient Indian records report that the Ikshvaku worshiped Seth.
The Rig Veda (RV) provides considerable information on the Kushites of Nubia and Anatolia. These people belonged to the Kushite Confederation. The term Kushite was a generic term for the tribes that belonged to the Confederation living in the Nile Valley, Levan and Anatolia.
Dr.Srinivasan notes that Nile Valley Kush was called Kušadvipa or Kush in the Puranas and Kuš-Nila in Pali texts. The Puranas and Pali are the names given to ancient Vedic/Indian text. In the Indian text Rama’s sons were Lava and Kušs. Ancient Libya was called Lava and Kush in the Nile Valley was called Kuša.
In the Puranas Kuša was southern Nubia or upper Kush. In the Purana northern Nubia or lower Kush was called Krouńcha . The main urban center in Kuša , was Kaši. Kaši was described as a great city in Pali and Purana text.
Dr. Srinivasan made it clear that the RV King named Divadoasa “servant of Diva” . In the Mahabbarata, Divodaase .was an ancientr King of Kaaši and Puranic Kaaši or Nubia.
In the Puranas and Pali text Nhšy, corresponds to Mandaean Nahas, the name for the undersorld abode of the serpent Ur, the metaphoric name for Nubia (see page 2).
A major Kushite nation and tribe were the Wawat. The Egyptian semivowels change into Sankrit /y/ or /v/. Srinivasan believes that Yayaati (/ Vayati) was the name for Wawat. We also find in the Puranas, the a tribe named Vaša or Vaasishtha. The Vaša tribe corresponds to the Wase/ Waset tribe/nation (/w/ = /v/). Srinivasan according to Srinivasan was the name for Thebes. It was also the name for the Nehesy: Waset tribe.
In the myth of Višvaamitra they lived on the otherside of Sarasuati. The alternate name for Višvaamitra was Kušika or Kuša
The Sumerians trade with Punt or Meluhha. Meluhha was the home of the Medjay. The Medjay served as mercenaries in the Egyptian army.
Malaya was an ancient people/country in the Nile Vallley. The Vayu Purana, said that the Mayadvipa was “naanaa Mleccha ganaakirna”, a place where mercenaries were recruited. This passage in the Vayu Purana suggest that Malaya or Mleccha was Meluhha of the Sumerians.
Meluhha was a place where Egyptians recruited mercenaries for their armies. This makes it clear that “mythical” Malayadvipa was located in Africa.
In the Puranas we see the Name Draavira. The Dravira was the Purana name for the Tamil. The heqa khasut, "ruler(s) of the Kushites" or Hyksos/ Hykussos, were Hattians or Kashkas. in otherwords they were Kushites. This is obvious in their name khasut which corresponds to Kaska. The name heqa khasut , was first used by the Old Kingdom to refer to the Kushite Nubian chieftains. That is why the Hyksos / Hykussos expected the Kushites in Nubia to support them in their war with the Egyptians.
During the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (2563-2423), namely during the reign of Sahure there is mention of the Tehenu people. Sahure referred to the Tehenu leader “Hati Tehenu” . These Hatiu, correspond to the Hatti speaking people of Anatolia. The Hatti/Hurrian people often referred to themselves as Kashkas or Kaskas.
During the Old Kingdom the Kushites were also called heqa khasut. The term Heqa Khasut was used for the Kings of Nile Valley Kushites and the Hyksos. The term Heqa Khasute appears in line 46 of the Weni inscription.
There is mention of Nahuša, which correspond to the 15th Dynasty King Nhšy (Nehesy). Nehesy was a Hyksos prince.
The Nhsj (Nehesy) or C-Group people began to settle Kush around 2200 BC. The kings of Kush had their capital at Kerma, in Dongola and a sedentary center on Sai Island. The same pottery found at Kerma is also present in Libya especially the Fezzan.
Srinivasan claims the Hurrian tribe was mentioned in the R V, called Hastuk ‘elephant herd’. Singer and Steiner, said the Hurrians lived in Mittanni. Mittanni was situated on the great bend of the Upper Euphrates river. Hurrian was spoken in eastern Anatolia and North Syria .
In the Indian records the individual Hurrian was called Hasti. Srinivasan made it clear that Hasti corresponds to Egyptian (Hšty) Hštyw (Ta Seti). Ta Seti is mentioned in Egyptian literature as an early Kushite nation in Nubia. Asoka Prakrit inscriptions mention several Dravidian tribes including Cholas, Seraa (Tamil), Keras (Keraalputra ) , Pandya, Cheras and Satyaputra. The Cholas were Telugu speakers. The Chola were related to the Naga. The Naga were suppose to have lived in Naagaloka, in the Underworld. Dr. Srinivasan believes the Purana underworld: Nagaloka was located in upper Nubia.
The Chola Kings in the Puranas were called Ikshvaakuš or Heqa Khasut like the Nehesy kings of the Nile Valley. Ikshvaa of the Puranas corresponds to ḫЗšt (Khasut).
The ancient Indian records indicate the Chola came to India with a great knowledge of war strategy, charioteering, ship building and navigation.
The Chola are related to the Naga. This is evident in the story of the romance between the Chola and Naga princess. Srinivasan wrote “In both [legends] the son of their union came from Naagaloka in Paataal was a real country of Upper Nubia, the myths point to a connection of the Chola with Nubia. To realize some important points of similarities the Cholas and the great Napatan Kingdom of Nubia…”.
In the Indian texts the royal title of the Cholas was Qore/Kora/Chora. In Meroitic, qore was the title for king. Among the Tamils Chola is pronounced with a /r/. As a result, in Prakrit inscription Cholas is written as Soraa and Koraa. Srinivasan suggested that the Qore “Korites” of the Bible ( 1 Chronicles 26:1), may be the same people.
A coastal region of East India was called Coromandel / Koramandal ‘domain of Koraa” . Koraa is a dynastic name for the Cholas . The royal insignia of the Cholas was snakes. Twin serpents was a popular symbol of royalty among the Napatan Kings.
The Napatan Kushite double crown was worn by the rulers of Kerma. It was called the Double Wadjet Crown. This Wadjet crown was worn by Taharqa.
In summary the Telugu speakers belonged to the Tehenu and Nehesy tribes of Nubia, or Kush in the Nile Valley. The Telugu and Egyptian languages share many terms because the Chola came from Kaši or Kush, which was called Kušadvipa. They migrated into Anatolia and formed several city states including the Hurrian/Mitanni and Kassite states and were members of the Hatti Confederation.
The major Telugu state in India was Chola. In the Puranas the Chola were also called Kora/Chora /Qore. The Chola who came to India by land and sea settled on the Coromande coast. It takes it’s name from the word Koraa, one of the names for the Chola Dynasty.
Ancient Telugu continued in India to refer to themselves as Heqa Khasut or IkshvaaKuš. The royal insignia for the Chola were two snakes. The two snakes as a symbol of royalty goes back to the Napatan Kings of Kush (Nubia) who wore the Double Wadjet crown.
References:
Bright, John (2000). "A History of Israel". Westminster John Knox Press . Borchardt, L. Das Grabdenkmal des Konigs Sahure. Vol. II, Table 1. Brass, M. (2013). Revisiting a hoary chestnut: the nature of early cattle domestication in North-East Africa. Sahara (Segrate, Italy), 24, 65–70. Drews, Robert ( 1994). "The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East". Princeton University Press El Mosallamy,A.H.S. Libyco-Berber relations with ancient Egypt:The Tehenu in Egyptian records. In (pp.51-68) 1986, p.55; Lal, B B. 1963. "The Only Asian Expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an India Mission at Afyeh and Tumas". THE ILLUSTRATED TIMES, 20 April. Levy et al. ( 1997).Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction at Nahal Tillah, Israel (ca. 4500-3000 B. C. E.): An Interim Report on the 1994-1995 Excavations. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302287010_Egyptian-Canaanite_Interaction_at_Nahal_Tillah_Israel_ca_4500-3000_B_C_E_An_Interim_Report_on_the_1994-1995_Excavations Mitchell P., Paul Lane (Ed.),(2013). The Oxford Handbook of African Archaeology. Oxford . Miller N.F., Robert N Spengler, Michael Frachetti. (2010). Millet cultivation across Eurasia: Origins, spread, and the influence of seasonal climate, The Holocene , Vol. 26 10:1566-1575 Singer, Itamar. (1981). Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the beginning of the Second Millennium B.C., Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2):119-149. Srinivasan, L.. Myths, Metaphors and Dravidians. Indian Linguistics, 66:133-156. Steiner, Gerd. (1981).The role of the Hittites in ancient Anatolia, Journal of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1-2): 119-149. Wengrow, D., Dee, M., Foster, S., Stevenson, A., & Ramsey, C. (2014). Cultural convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley: A prehistoric perspective on Egypt's place in Africa. Antiquity, 88(339), 95-111. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/cultural-convergence-in-the-neolithic-of-the-nile-valley-a-prehistoric-perspective-on-egypts-place-in-africa/198005B5D23B6 44951E17B3F0803AF74
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignoring the nonsense above and getting back to the topic...
Ethio-Helix wrote an excellent article on just how 'African' the Arabs were/are here!
This is the result of his PCA which he ran based on 166,000 SNPs:
..West Asian and North African "Arab" populations such as Yemenite Muslims, Saudis, Palestinians, Moroccans, Egyptians and so on; all display a clear northward pull towards populations in Africa, away from from the orange cluster whom Southern Europeans such as Sardinians are within...
..Yemenite Muslims tend to be at levels comparable to those of North Africans such as Egyptians and Morrocans or even Mozabites (varying between ~15-25% on average from what I've noticed) most likely due to the Arab Slave Trade which resulted in them incurring later West-Central African-related input seemingly from peoples like Southeast African Bantu speakers which is noticeable in the K=14 admixture results from Lazaridis et al. 2013-2014 below:
Basically, various Muslim West Asian "Arab" populations, as opposed to some of their non-Muslim counterparts (Lebanese Christians, most so far tested Egyptian Copts, Yemenite Jews etc.), show signs of West-Central African-esque admixture probably acquired via the Arab Slave Trade. [note]
The more "ancient" looking East African cluster-related "African" ancestry (pink cluster that forms much of Dinkas' ancestry above) seems markedly older and is present in their non-Muslim minorities at notable levels (~5-15% in Yemenite Jews) who in the eyes of some academics seem like a bit of a throwback to some of these regions' pre-Islamic genetic profiles [3].
So yeah, I'd say it's very probable at least some of the E1b1b markers were brought back to Africa by the Arab invaders.
Many people like to attribute African ancestry in Arabs to 'slavery', but in the case of slavery the majority of males were castrated while females (at least those reported in Egypt) had low fertility rates and difficulty conceiving. This makes me wonder how much of the African ancestry in Arabs really had to do with slavery.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: What does that even mean? "Africa" has no reality outside of geography; that you find some north African haplogroups in the middle east (and vice versa) confirm the bi-directional nature of these interactions. What's the next step? Southern European extension of Africa because of North African haplogroups, sickle cell, NA admixture, etc?
How hypocritical of you as always. The same can be said about "Eurasia" yet you seem to have no problem making North Africa and even the Horn a supposed extension of Eurasia based on alleged "Eurasian" admixture, even though more evidence is showing these presumed "Eurasian" elements to be African! LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being on twitter space for the last three months.... I'm going to have to double down on this with the INSISTENCE of the native people of Somalia.
There is CONSTANT CHATTER on Twitter space with East Africans and what not, and the beef is CLEARLY between the lighter skinned Somalis along the coast with curly hair, and the darker skinned ones more in the interior. The lighter skinned Somalis are VEHEMENTL anti Black African, AND IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, that they DO in fact share a recent lineage with Arabs and even Indians. The "Curry Somalis" is the derogatory name for them. There are Somali historians WHO INSIST that these people are not Africans confirming what the lighter skinned ones say. The Ethiopian PROBLEMS ALL COME FROM THE HABESHA/AMHAROC SEMITIC SPEAKERS who clearly look distinct from their Oromo and darker skinned Somali neighbors.
THE HABESHA WERE PARTICOIPANTS IN THE BERLIN CONFERENCE....just to put it in scope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.....THEY ALSO SAY THAT THE FULANI AND THE HAUSA WHO KEEP SHIT GOING THROUGHOUT ALLLLLL OF AFRICA ARE ALSO NOT AFRICAN.... but have a lineage and identity with Asiatic invaders.
It allllll makes sense! The ones who have a distinguished look that people on here mislead us to say is "indigenous African diversity" are NOT African by lineage nor alliance, and their terroristic actions are a reflection of their disloyal to the original people of the continent.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Being on twitter space for the last three months.... I'm going to have to double down on this with the INSISTENCE of the native people of Somalia.
There is CONSTANT CHATTER on Twitter space with East Africans and what not, and the beef is CLEARLY between the lighter skinned Somalis along the coast with curly hair, and the darker skinned ones more in the interior. The lighter skinned Somalis are VEHEMENTL anti Black African, AND IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, that they DO in fact share a recent lineage with Arabs and even Indians. The "Curry Somalis" is the derogatory name for them. There are Somali historians WHO INSIST that these people are not Africans confirming what the lighter skinned ones say. The Ethiopian PROBLEMS ALL COME FROM THE HABESHA/AMHAROC SEMITIC SPEAKERS who clearly look distinct from their Oromo and darker skinned Somali neighbors.
THE HABESHA WERE PARTICOIPANTS IN THE BERLIN CONFERENCE....just to put it in scope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.....THEY ALSO SAY THAT THE FULANI AND THE HAUSA WHO KEEP SHIT GOING THROUGHOUT ALLLLLL OF AFRICA ARE ALSO NOT AFRICAN.... but have a lineage and identity with Asiatic invaders.
It allllll makes sense! The ones who have a distinguished look that people on here mislead us to say is "indigenous African diversity" are NOT African by lineage nor alliance, and their terroristic actions are a reflection of their disloyal to the original people of the continent.
I went through every reply on this post and you haven't supported any of your claims with evidence
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Being on twitter space for the last three months.... I'm going to have to double down on this with the INSISTENCE of the native people of Somalia.
There is CONSTANT CHATTER on Twitter space with East Africans and what not, and the beef is CLEARLY between the lighter skinned Somalis along the coast with curly hair, and the darker skinned ones more in the interior. The lighter skinned Somalis are VEHEMENTL anti Black African, AND IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, that they DO in fact share a recent lineage with Arabs and even Indians. The "Curry Somalis" is the derogatory name for them. There are Somali historians WHO INSIST that these people are not Africans confirming what the lighter skinned ones say. The Ethiopian PROBLEMS ALL COME FROM THE HABESHA/AMHAROC SEMITIC SPEAKERS who clearly look distinct from their Oromo and darker skinned Somali neighbors.
THE HABESHA WERE PARTICOIPANTS IN THE BERLIN CONFERENCE....just to put it in scope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.....THEY ALSO SAY THAT THE FULANI AND THE HAUSA WHO KEEP SHIT GOING THROUGHOUT ALLLLLL OF AFRICA ARE ALSO NOT AFRICAN.... but have a lineage and identity with Asiatic invaders.
It allllll makes sense! The ones who have a distinguished look that people on here mislead us to say is "indigenous African diversity" are NOT African by lineage nor alliance, and their terroristic actions are a reflection of their disloyal to the original people of the continent.
You're honestly insane, imagine denying Coastal Somalis, Ethio-Semites, Fulanis and Hausas as African but claiming Dravidians.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
In Africa there is this black v red thing also seen in the Caribbean and the USA.
Notice the OP's problem is the lack of esteem for his own phenotype. Obvious by his use of his term "distinguished looking". That means he readily buys into white European and 'white Arab' values.
We Hal Pulaaren are an indigenous African people whose beginnings as a distinct ethnic group are at least as old as early-middle Holocene African Humid Period southeast Algeria.
Bovidians r us.
Whether our cattle domestication is our solo local invention or derived from the Bir and the Playa locales nearby the Nile in Sudan is rationally debateable but as yet not looked into. What is certain is we are the oldest people on Earth with cow milk tolerance.
Cattle dates for regions between Bir/Playa and the central Sahra delineated by Niger- Algeria-Libya confluence are younger.
And it's ludicrous to postulate Gafsians spreading cattle to the cattle cult ethnies in South Sudan because Sahra rupestrine art is clear the paler Caspian or Mediterranean coast Africans raised ovicaprids not beeves. Nor do those far northern Africans who adapted bovines have anything approaching a Cattle Cult evident in pre-historic Bir/Playa and recent South Sudan.
Nonetheless the 'only geneticist articles are correct' crew swallows the 'whites introduced cattle to the blacks' conclusions of 'objective mainstream science' since PBS introduced the idea Sudanese Saharans of Bir/Playa as anything but a black people.
note the brown and red date spans vs the orange and the PBS First Civilizations BIG LIE hell bent on removing African blacks from our own pre-history. But then it wouldn't serve the BIGGER LIE called Western=White Civilization if the civ's foundations are not white washed as needed.
posted
Having European anthropologists and archaeologists be the dominant force in the history of Africa is always prone to distortion as these people try and impose their own social and historical ideologies on African history.
If anything the African semi-nomadic cultural paradigm overflowed from Africa into surrounding regions in prehistory and likely is the reason for similarities in culture at various time periods, including the spread of the E1b lineages in later eras.
quote: 1.1 Background Early to Middle Holocene North Africa has previously been stereotyped as a monolithic culture in two hypotheses: the African Aqualithic (Sutton 1974, 1977) and the Néolitique de Tradition Soudanaise (Camps 1974). Lithic diversity was ignored in favour of a broad-based cultural tradition defined by remains from aquatic activities and by the supposed observance of wavy-line and dotted wavy-line pottery. However, objections have been raised. A reanalysis of Saharan pottery concluded that wavy-line pottery constitutes a pottery mode-tradition rather than a horizon style, thus restricting the value and applicability of the Khartoum Horizon Style to the dotted wavy-line component only for the Sahara-Sahel Belt (Mohammed-Ali & Khabir 2003). The dotted wavy-line motifs frequently appear with other motifs on the sherds, reducing their diagnostic value and highlighting the cultural variability of the region in the early Holocene. A more fundamental issue lies in the typological classificatory systems employed: there was and remains primacy placed upon the appearance of motifs rather than the tools which made them, thereby undermining classification by elements of technical style, involving identification of the tools, their corresponding motor actions and their single and co-occurrences, which is normally a more reliable indicator of social boundaries (Haour et al. 2010; MacDonald 2011b; Brass 2016, 28-70). This approach seriously questions the diagnostic utility of such pottery classifications and too-broad interpretations arising from them.
Susan Keech McIntosh and Roderick McIntosh (1988) have previously argued there was no social complexity in West and Saharan Africa before the advent of iron production. Influenced by the ferrocentric tenets of Technology, Tradition and the State in Africa (Goody 1971), they dismissed early Saharan pastoralists as the progenitors of social complexity and downplayed the importance of Late Stone Age Dhar Tichitt (Mauritania) (McIntosh & McIntosh 1988, 101-2).
Roderick McIntosh (1993, 1998) has subsequently argued there was no social complexity before corporate diversification (non-hierarchical, kinship-based, specialist communities living in symbiotic relationships) around 2000 BC, termed the Pulse Model. Ultimately, the Pulse Model rests on the principle of a heterarchical rather than a hierarchical mode of socio-political organisation. Its theoretical foundations lie in diverse but not very socially differentiated groups of people migrating out of a drying Sahara and establishing complex co-dependency relationships.
Subsequently, MacDonald (1998a) approached the issue differently. He proposed early Saharan pastoral complexity as the harbinger of sedentary West African states. His economic model of “mobile elites” relied heavily on the same data. However, it also incorporated Francois Paris’ (1996) work in Niger using tumulus fields as social and boundary markers, and evaluated the applicability of potential currency using ethnographic analogies. Tracking the presence of polished stone rings and hachettes (defined as small axes under six centimeters), he hypothesized a tandem spread of the items after the initial adoption of pastoralism across the Sahara and their use as mediums of exchange. He modelled that the spread was complete throughout the Sahara-Sahel by 1800 BC. This chronologically distributed pattern, stressing long-distance mediums of exchange with cattle serving as their repositories of wealth, was taken as indicative of incipient social complexity arising ca. 4000 BC with transitory leadership positions; these transitory peaks eventually took hold and developed into complex, hierarchical societies such as seen at Dhar Tichitt (Mauritania) (Munson 1971; Holl 1993, 1998a; MacDonald 2011b) and Kerma (Sudan) (Bonnet 1992; Bradley 1992; Bonnet & Valbelle 2005; Honeggar et al. 2013).
MacDonald’s hypothesis has been incorporated by Andrew Smith (2004) into a model of population movement claimed to be depicted in the rock art of the Tassili N’Ajjer. Smith (1993) relates the white-face rock art style around 3500 BC to the appearance of Proto-Berbers, while claiming that the black-face style of pre-existing populations depicts ideological similarities to modern Fulani cultural practices. Following the results of Paris’ (1996, 1997, 2000) excavations of burials and settlements in the Aďr Mountains of Niger, and his tenuous conclusion of a migratory flow of Proto-Berbers of unknown origin bringing tumuli with them, Smith (2000) brackets these events as a package. Smith (1993) has also drawn attention to the Iheren, Tassili rock art which show deference of people to an obvious elite person or people (Kuper 1978, 424-5, 430-1). The platform cairn, making its earliest appearance ca. 3800 BC in the Central Sahara, is regarded in the model as the earliest form introduced by the Proto-Berbers, who Smith (2004) postulates originated in North-East Africa.
Over in North-East Africa, the postulated degree of control over labour and the expression of ritual activity by Nabta Playa’s Late Neolithic (ca. 5000 BC) inhabitants for the construction of the cattle tumuli and stone structures has been heralded as the earliest material manifestation of pastoral social elites (Wendorf & Schild, 1998; Wendorf et al. 2001), while the emphasis on cattle symbols subsequently influenced the ideology of the Predynastic Nile Valley inhabitants (see Midant-Reynes 2000; Brass 2003; Warfe 2003; Barich et al. 2014; Dachy et al. 2018, amongst others, on the late Holocene Eastern Desert and Nilotic cultural networks).
These competing hypotheses share a common thread in recognising that socio-economic strategies are manifestations of behavioural adaptations whereby knowledge and culture are transmitted through social learning. They differ in the timing when the accumulated repertoire was materially expressed in a wide diversity of situations through socially mediated responses to internal or external stimuli. By now, however, the data upon which they drew has been significantly advanced by further excavations in the Central Sahara in particular.
2. Forms cultural organisation and the implications for prehistoric pastoral studies The framing of archaeological research was dominated until the 1980s by a tendency to downplay the full range of social diversity while focusing on high-level society as the epitome of social formation through the development of over-arching models. These approaches have their conceptual origins in the old Enlightenment ladder of social progress. In the twentieth century, this evolutionary ladder was reworked by Elman Service (1958, 1962, 1971, 1975) and others to include a neo-evolutionary progression of band-tribe-(big man collectivity)-chiefdom-state (see, for example, Johnson & Earle 2000, Richerson & Boyd 2005) developed their dual inheritance theory which instead integrated ritual and social inequality into a model outlining how ritually sanctioned justification may be monopolized by high-ranking individuals to increase their lineage’s social status.
All these B.S. grandiose theories simply exist to obfuscate the fact that this evolution happened in Africa among black Africans of course. Because there is no Near East in the Central or Southern Sahara that would lead to the groups seen in the Nabta Playa Episode of PBS First Civilizations....
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Man it just ain't funny the way they claim everything known about us as something they freshly hypothesize.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Having European anthropologists and archaeologists be the dominant force in the history of Africa is always prone to distortion as these people try and impose their own social and historical ideologies on African history.
from Amadou Hampâté Bâ et Germaine Dieterlen Koumen: texte initiatique des Pasteurs Fulɓe Cahiers de l'Homme. École Pratique des Hautes Études, VIe section. Mouton et Cie. Paris, 1961, 95 pages.
... knowledge of the text of Koumen made it possible to attribute without any doubt to Fulɓe the frescoes of the Bovidian period collected in Tassili by H. Lhote and his team 5. The various scenes they present, constructed and responding to a specific object, offer all the characteristics of representations linked to traditional initiatory conceptions.
We find there all the varieties of coats of cattle, in transhumance or in the park 6 , the instruments and altars of the pastorate ( kaggu, shepherd's sticks, ropes for calves, etc.), milking milk, sacrificing ox, etc. The caps of the characters are identical to those traditionally worn by pastors. In complex figures appears Caanaba, in the form of a serpent, accompanying a stylized ox, the image of the hermaphroditic bovid (pl. A, 1 and 2): from its chest emerge the heads of domestic animals which, according to the myth, come from him ;
There also appear two superimposed oxen which traditionally represent the twins Caanaba and Ilo. Finally, we find the "clearing" of the initiation, represented by a large circle, with the sun in the center and around the heads of bovids and different phases of the moon (pl. B, 2). The dating of these frescoes will be a sure milestone in the history of the Fulɓe in the African continent.
. . .
We hope that these studies will be carried out, jointly with that of the Saharan frescoes, by specialists and with Fulɓe educated in their initiatory traditions and the rules of the pastorate.
6. The frescoes present bovines without humps, whereas currently the livestock of Senegal and Sudan are humped. This problem is beyond our competence. However, we point out that the educated Fulɓe all declare that their ancestors had lost their herds when they arrived in Senegal and that they acquired new herds there. On the other hand, modern terracotta toys present bovids with disproportionately enlarged humps, while similar objects collected in the bend of the Niger and dating from the prehistoric period represent bovids without humps. (Information communicated by Z. Ligers and collected during investigations carried out on board the Mannogo, Vedette-Laboratoire du CNRS).
posted
Bro the very term E1b is in reference to Eurasia LOL the E1b haplogroup was brought into sub Sahara Africa and Replaced the Haplogroup there as so I've read and with proof it seems.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
But that's what they do.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic