You know what Antalas is trying to do is declare the racial understanding of "Black" as the only acceptable one. Hence why he gets salty whenever people apply "black" to anyone outside of "sub-Saharan" Africa. Of course, that very racial understanding was applied to groups with disparate ancestry to begin with, as you astutely point out, so his argument that "Black" refers to a particular lineage or ethnic grouping is moot anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, an idiotic straw doll! Nobody used the label of black to describe ancestry, you nitwit! Hence the reason why both Nubians and Egyptians would more accurately be called black AFRICAN civilizations.
Actually everyone does use it to describe ancestry. I've never seen a single person calling indians "black" here despite being dark skinned. Where I live, "black" is restricted to black africans.
Why would nubians and egyptians (except upper nubians) be described as "black african" ? Most egyptians were not black skinned and morphologically both populations were not similar to most sub-saharan africans. Here a simple example from Irish 2010 :
Also why "african" ? Did most africans participated in the foundation of those two civilizations ? Did they share most of their cultural background with them ? The answer is no therefore labelling cultures/civilizations by a continent is utterly idiotic and useless. That would be like someone insisting that Ancient Persia "WAS AN ASIATIC CIVILIZATION OKAY ?!" XD
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again it is only only useless if used for anything else besides describing skin color! Which again nobody in here has ever done! You are just a negrophobe who hates the FACT that indigenous North Africans were indeed melanoderm i.e. black and not white like those of European ancestry like yourself!
Only skin color ? You sure ? Why are those people describe as "black" in your country then ? :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I never said anything about them being related to Sub-Saharans! In fact I said they are 100% Eurasians! I'm not the one lumping them under the label 'black' because they ARE already lumped there simply by the criteria of black skin!! When will you get it through your head that 'black' is are reference to skin color NOT ancestry!!
Therefore you admit the label is totally misleading since those people despite being dark skinned are not related to black africans.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again there is nothing "racist" about the label anymore than the label 'white'. This is why you're a negrophobe, because your problem is only with the label 'black' but not 'white' which you and other coastal Maghrebis fall under. Also the charts I posted from Lazaridis, LLoosdrecht, and Fregel show that Ethiopians are as closely related to Europeans as they are West Africans, you liar! Which again brings me back to my original point that when it comes to genetic relations, there are degrees of relativity! West Africans are closer related to North Africans than they are to Southern Africans yet you desperately try to lump the first and last groups together into a Sub-Saharan group while lumping North Africans with West Eurasians into a "Eurasian" group. Yet why is it that in none of the charts I cited there are no other Eurasians like South Asians, East Asians etc.?? That's because West Eurasians have African admixture that pools them closer to Africans, specifically North Africans while people like Indians and Andamanese do NOT! Europeans and Middle-Easterners have African admixture which is why they are closer to North Africans than other Eurasians!
I would have no problem with "white" if it's restricted to europeans since most of them form a coherent and homogeneous cluster. The same way I have no problem with "black" if it's restricted to africans with no or negligible amount of eurasian ancestry.
As for ethiopians, I did not lie :
Here you can see Afar are closer to italians than west africans (even closer to french) :
Same for Tigray :
or Amhara :
Let's not even talk about how close they are to berbers like me than west/central or east africans.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: they create this artificial divide of North Africans being totally separate from a monolithic "Sub-Saharan" category i.e. (genetic true negro). It's even come to the point that they will even white-wash the appearance of ancient Egyptians in their reconstructions. Antalas is just par-exemplar of this fallacious idiocy.
Seems like Anthropologists do not agree with you :
quote:We recognized five major modern dental populations: Western Eurasia (including North Africa and India), sub-Saharan Africa, Sino-America, SundaPacific, and Sahul-Pacific. These divisions have substantial correspondence with linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and ethnographic classifications.
Joel D. Irish, Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology, pp. 28
quote: Three broad geographic based groups are evident: (1) Europe/Mediterranean (Europe, West Asia, North Africa) , (2) Northeast Asia/New World (South Siberia, China-Mongolia, Northeast Asia, American Arctic, North and South Native Americans), and (3) Australia/Oceania (Southeast Asia, Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia). These groupings, alone, support the utility of categorization at a broad, that is, geographic, level [e.g., Mongoloid Dental Complex (Hanihara 1968) and Sinodonty characterize the second grouping]. Moreover, the Southeast Asian sample, as would be expected given known population history, is intermediate between the latter two groups. The sub-Saharan sample is divergent from all others , though it is more or less equidistant between Europe/Mediterranean and Australia/Oceania.
Joel D. Irish, Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology, pp. 279
Here Again :
quote:As seen in Figure 2, there is an obvious separation of sub-saharan and north african samples, yet apparent homogeneity within regions - particularly North Africa.These findings are supported by previous affinity estimates based on African genetic, skeletal, dermatoglyphic, anthropometric, linguistic, and cultural data (see Mourant 1954, 1983; Greenberg 1959, 1966; Murdock 1959; Hiernaux 1975; Nurse et al, 1985; Sanchez-Mazas et al, 1986; Excoffier et al, 1987; Roychoudhury and Nei 1988; Howells 1989; Froment, 1992a,b; Franciscus 1995; Holliday 1995; among others).
J.D. Irish, Dental morphological affinities of late pleistocene through recent sub-saharan and north african peoples, 1998
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black never was exclusively limited to only West/Central Africans, don't know why Nassbean keeps trying to limit it that way.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, I'll never forget George Orwell describing Indian people like this in his essay Shooting an Elephant, which I had to read in high school.
quote:I rounded the hut and saw a man’s dead body sprawling in the mud. He was an Indian, a black Dravidian coolie, almost naked, and he could not have been dead many minutes.
Hasn't Antalas himself admitted that "black" had different meanings back in the past when confronted with ancient descriptions of dark-skinned people in North Africa?
posted
LOL The malcontent Mazigh is still arguing over the term 'Black African' and posts pictures of fair-skinned white-admixed African Americans.
Such has no bearing on actual Africans with black skin.
North Africans
^ Last picture above is of Mostafa Hefny a Nubian from Egypt who sued the U.S. government for classifying him as "white" simply because he is from North Africa! You see the government census went along with the myth that North African = Caucasian and thus 'white' while black Africans are only from Sub-Sahara. His court cased exposed this stupidity to the rest of world.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
This doesn't contradict what I said. What would be the point of using a "color descriptor" to assess relatedness between populations? If I label ancient Kush as a "black" civilization would that means that an aboriginal australian, andamanese and a himba from Namibia can consider it their heritage/history?
Again, an idiotic straw doll! Nobody used the label of black to describe ancestry, you nitwit! Hence the reason why both Nubians and Egyptians would more accurately be called black AFRICAN civilizations.
quote:Your color descriptor is absolutely useless and I don't gain any concrete knowledge from it. It's a broad inaccurate category used by insecure Americans to claim and appropriate anything they want.
Again it is only only useless if used for anything else besides describing skin color! Which again nobody in here has ever done!
Djehuti, is he brown or black?
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok thanks djehuti you show that you have no proper arguments when confronted to proper datas. Also the people you posted are genetically and morphologically closer to me than any west/central or east african.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: See the video in the OP where the creator speaks of New Kingdom Egyptians being "PURE" Africans while presenting data that doesn't show those said Egyptians to be "PURE" African. The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS!
Please post timecode reference of this statement, and I can't find a single reference to 'pure' Africans anywhere in the video...?
6 minutes 30 seconds. "A purely African population inhabited Ancient Egypt"
Excuse me, how is that incorrect? Are you suggesting a purely African population didn't inhabit ancient Egypt? Are you supporting the idea that Kemet was colonised from Mesopotamia or the Middle East? Last time I checked the Kemetic population were an indigenous nilo-saharan population... what the hell is going on here. This is exactly why I stopped posting in this group, eurocentric apologists.
Wait so we in 2023 and we still arguing that ancient Egyptians were "100% Sub Saharan African"? We really doing that? "Kemetic population were an indigenous nilo-saharan population" Wait, what? "Ancient Egyptian" linguistically is no longer part of the Afro-Asiatic language family anymore?
Don't we have DNA From Ancient Egypt indicating they were not "Pure Africans". Doesn't Amarna R-M269 and Mtdna K1 indicate they are not "Pure Africans". Doesn't DNA Tribe debunk the notion of "Pure Africans" ?
Did you just step out of a time capsule or something and have yet to get reoriented with the latest genetic findings? Everyone want to put Keitas name in their mouth but dont really want to folly Keita and 5 Minutes later the talking about "Pure Races".
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, you have an Afronut on one side and a Euronut on the other, speaking of the latter..
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Ok thanks djehuti you show that you have no proper arguments when confronted to proper datas. Also the people you posted are genetically and morphologically closer to me than any west/central or east african.
You have presented no 'data' which is the plural of datum, and West/Central Africans are closer to North Africans than they are to Southern Africans so what is your point?! LOL North Africans are still African and there are degrees of relativity.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed, you have an Afronut on one side and a Euronut on the other, speaking of the latter..
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Ok thanks djehuti you show that you have no proper arguments when confronted to proper datas. Also the people you posted are genetically and morphologically closer to me than any west/central or east african.
You have presented no 'data' which is the plural of datum, and West/Central Africans are closer to North Africans than they are to Southern Africans so what is your point?! LOL North Africans are still African and there are degrees of relativity.
I've posted data showing why your "black" category is invalid and I've posted data showing that morphologically North africans do belong to a cluster separated from most sub-saharans .
and how did you answer ? By posting pictures of random people who btw are genetically closer to me than most SSAs.
Thanks.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
The R in the Armana's has been called as M269? OFFICIALLY?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
showing that morphologically North africans do belong to a cluster separated from most sub-saharans.
Which ones? Because the issue is one of semantics,SSA is suppose to be a region, along with Mediterranean. Until groups started to leave,there weren't any European or Western Asian Mediterranean untill ancient Africans went into those regions and called it home
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
ANALYSIS : In the past 10-15 years traditional ideas regarding "physical race" SHOULD HAVE dissolved due to the realities of genomic research, particularly ancient Genomic research.
Dr. Keita cannot get enough credit for being FAR ahead of the curve regarding the "persistence of racial thinking" and instead went with a model that revolves around ideas if micro-adaptation as an evolutionary process in the human species due to external factors of environment/climate/diet/etc. In this model Physical "Race" has no genetic indicators as far as ancestry. This has been demonstrated time and time again, specifically with ancient fossils who's Genomic affinity precede the physical affinities found among the descendants (Phenotypic discontinuity combined with genetic continuity in West Asians, South Asians, South East Asians, East Asians, Europeans, Amerindians)
In the genetic space there has been considerable work uncovering the specifics of Continental African substructure which phases out simplistic ideas of "Sub Saharan African Blacks" being a monolith. There is also considerable data we should ALL be familiar with regarding the multiple wet phases of the Sahara that provide opportunities for geneflow between regions.
IMO and from my observations. The latest generation of "Black Egypt" proponents have regressed. They are discarding everything we have known and learned over the past 15 years and reverting back to ideas of discrete races to the advantage of Eurocentrist that used these tools to obfuscate identities in the first place. There is certain language we should be using. There are certain arguments we should be making based on NEW data and science. WE shouldn't be reverting back to ideas genetic "Purity" that border on pseudo science. Where is the balance? Who is going to clean up their mess?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: The R in the Armana's has been called as M269?
Basically.
-It has to be SNP tested but it is what it is. -The mitochondrial DNA is what it is. -The presence of Non-African genetic signatures in Pleistocene Moroccans 15 thousand years ago is that it is. -The presence of Natufian like signatures and non African mtdna in East African Pastoral Neolithic is what it is.
It's so silly we are playing the "Pure African" game in 2023 in the face of overwhelming evidence. The feelgoodism is a mind killer.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: showing that morphologically North africans do belong to a cluster separated from most sub-saharans.
Which ones? Because the issue is one of semantics,SSA is suppose to be a region, along with Mediterranean. Until groups started to leave,there weren't any European or Western Asian Mediterranean untill ancient Africans went into those regions and called it home
Look up above I've posted 3 quotes by J.D. Irish and I said "most sub-saharans" not simply sub-saharan Africa since many populations in north-east Africa despite being located below the Sahara are part of the North African cluster hence why calling them "black" and therefore lumping them with west/central/east africans is deeply misleading and inaccurate. I've also posted a scatterplot where you can see that ancient upper egyptians, lower nubians and modern ethiopians plot far from most modern sub-saharan africans and are much closer to europeans and maghrebis.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the point of going back and forth with Antalas? Africa has the greatest diversity on the planet. These different geographic populations CAN look different, BE genetically distinct and still have a long standing origin/presence on the continent. Cranial, Dental and Genetic observations show EVERY region in africa to have long standing distinctions.
SURE there is overlap, sure there is external and internal geneflow. Why are we dying on this hill?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ANALYSIS : In the past 10-15 years traditional ideas regarding "physical race" SHOULD HAVE dissolved due to the realities of genomic research, particularly ancient Genomic research.
Dr. Keita cannot get enough credit for being FAR ahead of the curve regarding the "persistence of racial thinking" and instead went with a model that revolves around ideas if micro-adaptation as an evolutionary process in the human species due to external factors of environment/climate/diet/etc. In this model Physical "Race" has no genetic indicators as far as ancestry. This has been demonstrated time and time again, specifically with ancient fossils who's Genomic affinity precede the physical affinities found among the descendants (Phenotypic discontinuity combined with genetic continuity in West Asians, South Asians, South East Asians, East Asians, Europeans, Amerindians)
In the genetic space there has been considerable work uncovering the specifics of Continental African substructure which phases out simplistic ideas of "Sub Saharan African Blacks" being a monolith. There is also considerable data we should ALL be familiar with regarding the multiple wet phases of the Sahara that provide opportunities for geneflow between regions.
IMO and from my observations. The latest generation of "Black Egypt" proponents have regressed. They are discarding everything we have known and learned over the past 15 years and reverting back to ideas of discrete races to the advantage of Eurocentrist that used these tools to obfuscate identities in the first place. There is certain language we should be using. There are certain arguments we should be making based on NEW data and science. WE shouldn't be reverting back to ideas genetic "Purity" that border on pseudo science. Where is the balance? Who is going to clean up their mess?
Most Members here don't care about this. A "color descriptor" is enough for them, for Djehuti if ancient nubians were dark skinned that's enough to label their whole culture and history as "black" and therefore there is no problem with an afro-american of west african descent to take pride in it and see it as "black achievement" despite the fact the two populations are not related and are genetically/morphologically very different. That's the level we're dealing with here.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Antalas - "Black" is a social description not a scientific one. The way people use it depends on their personal bias and cultural conditioning. I dont really care how they use the word so long as they are not arguing it SCIENTIFIC.
My gripes is how they (we) are ignoring science. leaving us flat footed and unable to address Eurocentrism even when Eurocentrists have bad interpretation of scientific data. I have seen Euroclowns make up things out of THIN AIR and "Black Egypt" proponents (1) not know the argument was made up and (2) not understand how to simply ask for a "Source".
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: What is the point of going back and forth with Antalas? Africa has the greatest diversity on the planet. These different geographic populations CAN look different, BE genetically distinct and still have a long standing origin/presence on the continent. Cranial, Dental and Genetic observations show EVERY region in africa to have long standing distinctions.
SURE there is overlap, sure there is external and internal geneflow. Why are we dying on this hill?
Beyoku this probably isn't my place to ask but do you believe the Ancient Egyptians most likely had an admixture of Sub-Saharan genes and "Eurasian" DNA? If so what do you think the proportion might be (If you had to take a guess)
Posts: 58 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Antalas - "Black" is a social description not a scientific one. The way people use it depends on their personal bias and cultural conditioning. I dont really care how they use the word so long as they are not arguing it SCIENTIFIC.
I agree it is a social description, often highly politicized. If one go by color in a more literal sense most people who are called black are in fact different nuances of brown. It seems many are so caught up in the dichotomy of black or white that they forget the true spectrum of diversity among people also regarding skin color.
When we see a brown cat, we call it brown, but many times if we see a person with brown skin we call him black. Seems we are more objektive and accurate when we assess color among cats than among humans.
Like these two cats I posted in another thread. No one would call the brown cat black. And the difference between the brown and the black cat are quite obvious.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
@beyoku I Agree, however, I firmly believe that for many individuals, the situation is a lost cause because even when presented with factual information, they persist in engaging in mental acrobatics. This was for instance evidenced by the mislabeling of the Abusir samples as "foreigners," the labeling of the Nuerat sample as "black" due to the unfounded belief that Natufians were "black," the unfounded assertion that Ramses III had the E1b1a haplogroup, the labeling of Tut's R1b haplogroup as "R-V88" without justification, etc
These individuals are in a constant state of denial and simply want to see themselves in those samples. At this point, their behavior can be considered pathological.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Objectively seen he is brown. Here where I live he would be called brown, or "Indian" (from India or Pakistan). Interestingly if he would have had nappy hair instead of straight hair some would probably have called him black, even if he still would have had the same skin color. That shows how arbitrary the label black is.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2687 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: What is the point of going back and forth with Antalas? Africa has the greatest diversity on the planet. These different geographic populations CAN look different, BE genetically distinct and still have a long standing origin/presence on the continent. Cranial, Dental and Genetic observations show EVERY region in africa to have long standing distinctions.
SURE there is overlap, sure there is external and internal geneflow. Why are we dying on this hill?
Beyoku this probably isn't my place to ask but do you believe the Ancient Egyptians most likely had an admixture of Sub-Saharan genes and "Eurasian" DNA? If so what do you think the proportion might be (If you had to take a guess)
"Sub Saharan African" ancestry in Indigenous "Pharaonic" Egyptian is not "Admixture". This component was likely already present at unification. Using fossil data in lieu of Genetic data, the Neolithic and Mesolithic ancestors of pharaonic Egyptians will likely range somewhere from 0-100% Equatorial African / North African depending on Age/location. AT the moment "north African" can be used as a synonym of Natufian since this seems to be the component which is being modeled as a proxy for ONE TYPE of Hunter Gatherer Ancestry in this region of Africa. At this moment in time its useless to attempt to distinguish Non-African Levantine from North African using the models we have today. Archeology on the other hand provides distinctions. It provides no evidence of mass migration. It also provides the evidence of food producing technology and cultural precursors already being present prior to Near Eastern Domesticate arrival. Levantines didn't teach Africans how to Farm nor herd animals.
We dont have enough Genetic data. Using the Limited genetic data we have, and using the current models we have that DONT recognize regional genetic Substructure instead treating the region as a Dinka(Nilotic) and Natufian (Levantine) composite: Sarahan related Pre-Neolithic Agro Pastoral Egyptians were predominantly Dinka like. Other Pre-Neolithic populations within Africa migrate north and Neolithic pastoralist from the levant migrate south and out compete Earlier Egyptians pastoralists who are absorbed in the Nile Valley and also migrate south. Dinka like ancestry goes from being predominant 9000-12000 years ago.....to being whittled down to "6-15%" in Late dynastic Northern Egyptians at Abusir. IF the Abusir Mummies are Actual "levatines" as other have argued, then 6-15% represents Sub Saharan ancestry in ancient Levatines (Higher than today) or it represents Egyptian Admixture into Abusir Migrants.....someone can do the math and attempt to predict SSA in ancient Egyptians using Abusir as an example of levatines with Egyptian admixture.
That is my answer. I will answer a request for (2) sources to anything that i have wrote above.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: "Sub Saharan African" ancestry in Indigenous "Pharaonic" Egyptian is not "Admixture". This component was likely already present at unification. Using fossil data in lieu of Genetic data, the Neolithic and Mesolithic ancestors of pharaonic Egyptians will likely range somewhere from 0-100% Equatorial African / North African depending on Age/location. AT the moment "north African" can be used as a synonym of Natufian since this seems to be the component which is being modeled as a proxy for ONE TYPE of Hunter Gatherer Ancestry in this region of Africa. At this moment in time its useless to attempt to distinguish Non-African Levantine from North African using the models we have today. Archeology on the other hand provides distinctions. It provides no evidence of mass migration. It also provides the evidence of food producing technology and cultural precursors already being present prior to Near Eastern Domesticate arrival. Levantines didn't teach Africans how to Farm nor herd animals.
We dont have enough Genetic data. Using the Limited genetic data we have, and using the current models we have that DONT recognize regional genetic Substructure instead treating the region as a Dinka(Nilotic) and Natufian (Levantine) composite: Sarahan related Pre-Neolithic Agro Pastoral Egyptians were predominantly Dinka like. Other Pre-Neolithic populations within Africa migrate north and Neolithic pastoralist from the levant migrate south and out compete Earlier Egyptians pastoralists who are absorbed in the Nile Valley and also migrate south. Dinka like ancestry goes from being predominant 9000-12000 years ago.....to being whittled down to "6-15%" in Late dynastic Northern Egyptians at Abusir. IF the Abusir Mummies are Actual "levatines" as other have argued, then 6-15% represents Sub Saharan ancestry in ancient Levatines (Higher than today) or it represents Egyptian Admixture into Abusir Migrants.....someone can do the math and attempt to predict SSA in ancient Egyptians using Abusir as an example of levatines with Egyptian admixture.
That is my answer.
There is no justification for classifying the Abusir samples as foreign because the authors of the paper note that these samples demonstrate continuity over a period of 1,300 years. Additionally, there are at least two other Egyptian samples, one from Phoenicia and one from York, which are very similar to the Abusir samples. An upcoming paper by U. Christian et al. has also confirmed that mummies from several sites and different eras match the mtDNA profile of the Abusir samples. Furthermore, there are now hundreds of ancient Levantine samples that have been sequenced and are similar to modern Levantines, without being as African-shifted as the Abusir samples.
I believe you are referring to the Jebel Sahaba/Wadi Halfa people when you mention the predominance of Dinka-like ancestry during the UP. However, do you remember when I told you about them being considered as foreign migrants who were moving towards the Nile Valley during the climatic optimum? This may explain why El Khiday is more similar to later Nubians. That's why I think the situation was probably more intricate than what you are suggesting.
I personally think that by the early predynastic era, their African ancestry would have been comparable to that of modern Egyptians, with the most SSA shifted being similar to the Kulubnarti samples.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: [qb] The R in the Armana's has been called as M269?
Basically.
-It has to be SNP tested but it is what it is. -The mitochondrial DNA is what it is. -The presence of Non-African genetic signatures in Pleistocene Moroccans 15 thousand years ago is that it is. -The presence of Natufian like signatures and non African mtdna in East African Pastoral Neolithic is what it is.
"haplogroup R-V88 was only observed in Afroasiatic-speaking populations from northern Africa, with frequencies ranging from 0.3% in Morocco, to 3.0% in Algeria, and to 11.5% in Egypt, where a particularly high frequency (26.9%) was observed among the Berbers from the Siwa Oasis. " ~ Fulvio Cruciani, 2010 Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: [qb] The R in the Armana's has been called as M269?
Basically.
-It has to be SNP tested but it is what it is. -The mitochondrial DNA is what it is. -The presence of Non-African genetic signatures in Pleistocene Moroccans 15 thousand years ago is that it is. -The presence of Natufian like signatures and non African mtdna in East African Pastoral Neolithic is what it is.
"haplogroup R-V88 was only observed in Afroasiatic-speaking populations from northern Africa, with frequencies ranging from 0.3% in Morocco, to 3.0% in Algeria, and to 11.5% in Egypt, where a particularly high frequency (26.9%) was observed among the Berbers from the Siwa Oasis. " ~ Fulvio Cruciani, 2010 Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages
The simple answer to my question was no... the call has not been made
quote: Now let see some samples, with fitness scores distribution in range from 0 to 100. First goes fitting of R1a haplotypes into R1b statistics in NevGen’s General Levels (from R1a and R1b are excluded some very old subclades , like YP4141, YP1272, V88, V1636, PH155… which does not change results much), together with fitting coefficients. We can see it on six different markers sets./QUOTE]
quote: Bayesian approach which NevGen predictor uses has one bad property, or problem: it assumes that entered haplotype belongs to one of subbranches supported by predictor . So it divides 100% of probability to its supported haplogroups
quote:A group of chromosomes of potential interest to past trans-Saharan connections is the paragroup R1b1* (R-P25*). Cruciani et al18 found this paragroup (at that time defined as haplogroup 117, or R-M173*(xSRY10831, M18, M73, M269)) to be present at high frequencies (up to 95%) in populations from northern Cameroon. The same paragroup was only rarely observed in other sub-Saharan African regions, and not observed at all in western Eurasia.18 Subsequent studies dealing with the MSY diversity in Africa have confirmed the presence of R-P25*(xM269) in northern Cameroon at high frequencies23 and, at lower frequencies (mean 5%, range 0–20%), of R-P25* immediately south of Cameroon, in several populations from Gabon.25 Interestingly, chromosomes of haplogroup R-P25/R-M173, ancestral for M269 as well as for other ‘Eurasian' downstream markers , have been found to be present in northern Africa (1% in Algeria, 4% in Tunisia, and 2–4% in Egypt).20, 23, 26 The presence of R-P25 Y chromosomes has also been reported in population groups from the Sudan;27 however, as no internal markers were typed, the sub-haplogroup affiliation of these chromosomes remains undefined. " target="_blank">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987365/[/QUOTE]
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Yatunde Lisa Bey - Why argue over ONE lineage when there are other Eurasians ones? What is the point? Egypt is a crossroads. 15KYA Moroccans have Eurasian DNA that likely crossed into Africa via the Sinai. Stop wasting time trying to prove genetic "Purity". ITS BS. Even Diop, Williams, et al speak of foreign migration going back into the predynastic. Even Keita said in an analysis of Egyptian crania: "However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity". V-88 Aint "African" anyway if you have been paying attention to ancient DNA....and the matriarch is K1a Does that make King Tut "Non-African" ? NO. Does that mean the 18th Dynasty carry lineages indicative of Recent or ancient migration from Eurasia? Yes. Further analysis will point out the time depth of these lineages in Africa. Archaeological data does a VERY good job of providing information of When opportunities for Geneflow would have happened. Its the best tool we have at the moment.
@Antalas - I am not arguing the mummies are foreign. I am creating a contingency for those that are: "If This" > "Then This". I don't care either way. But notice those that DO make the argument don't think hard enough to cross the line and argue Levantines were "More African" than they are now. Or use this 6-15% as Egyptian "admixture" to reconstruct SSA in Ancient Egypt. IMO, this means they are not really thinking about it, its just COPE.
As for the fossils, Foreign or not (1) They were THERE and exist as the only known fossils recognized and associated with Specific *EGYPTIAN* material cultures, they have no West African lithic precursors that i know of (Unless you argue Nile Valley pottery is a transplant of an Ounjougou precursor ). (2) They seem local, in that Modern Egyptian's African Substratum is not West African derived if there was stone age continuity. The lineages that exist contain diversity that has the time depth that can only be associated with these old fossils. Egypt's SSA is modeled as "DINKA" not anything else, not Senegambian. Furthermore The Eastern Sahara/Nile Valley derived African ancestry in Horn Africans and East African pastoral Neolithic is also DINKA, not Senegambian. The type of the Australo Melanesian / Jebel Sahaba affinity goes all the way back to Nazlet Khater and Taramsa Hill Boy 35kya and 65-75kya respectively. Its not "NEW".
Also keep in mind, this is just ONE model. The simplest model. The really dumbed down no genetic substructure in africa Model. This is a model i can prove appealing to peer review. I don't support this model. I am separating what i personally think and expect seeing the trends of Ancient dna vs what i can prove appealing to peer review and using the models we have right now.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
1st You need to quit arguing with me like you actually know my position and opinions, because you don't. Quit talking down to people like they are stupid. Quit telling people to read, when you won't crack a history book to save your life. Quit trying to tear down the old heads... and replace it with the even more spurious eurocentric white supremacists. Eat the meat throw out the bones...
Iconoclasm & Nhilism never really helped anyone.
Akenaten was an Iconoclast... look where that got him.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, an idiotic straw doll! Nobody used the label of black to describe ancestry, you nitwit! Hence the reason why both Nubians and Egyptians would more accurately be called black AFRICAN civilizations.
Actually everyone does use it to describe ancestry. I've never seen a single person calling indians "black" here despite being dark skinned. Where I live, "black" is restricted to black africans.
Why would nubians and egyptians (except upper nubians) be described as "black african" ? Most egyptians were not black skinned and morphologically both populations were not similar to most sub-saharan africans. Here a simple example from Irish 2010 :
Also why "african" ? Did most africans participated in the foundation of those two civilizations ? Did they share most of their cultural background with them ? The answer is no therefore labelling cultures/civilizations by a continent is utterly idiotic and useless. That would be like someone insisting that Ancient Persia "WAS AN ASIATIC CIVILIZATION OKAY ?!" XD
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again it is only only useless if used for anything else besides describing skin color! Which again nobody in here has ever done! You are just a negrophobe who hates the FACT that indigenous North Africans were indeed melanoderm i.e. black and not white like those of European ancestry like yourself!
Only skin color ? You sure ? Why are those people describe as "black" in your country then ? :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I never said anything about them being related to Sub-Saharans! In fact I said they are 100% Eurasians! I'm not the one lumping them under the label 'black' because they ARE already lumped there simply by the criteria of black skin!! When will you get it through your head that 'black' is are reference to skin color NOT ancestry!!
Therefore you admit the label is totally misleading since those people despite being dark skinned are not related to black africans.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again there is nothing "racist" about the label anymore than the label 'white'. This is why you're a negrophobe, because your problem is only with the label 'black' but not 'white' which you and other coastal Maghrebis fall under. Also the charts I posted from Lazaridis, LLoosdrecht, and Fregel show that Ethiopians are as closely related to Europeans as they are West Africans, you liar! Which again brings me back to my original point that when it comes to genetic relations, there are degrees of relativity! West Africans are closer related to North Africans than they are to Southern Africans yet you desperately try to lump the first and last groups together into a Sub-Saharan group while lumping North Africans with West Eurasians into a "Eurasian" group. Yet why is it that in none of the charts I cited there are no other Eurasians like South Asians, East Asians etc.?? That's because West Eurasians have African admixture that pools them closer to Africans, specifically North Africans while people like Indians and Andamanese do NOT! Europeans and Middle-Easterners have African admixture which is why they are closer to North Africans than other Eurasians!
I would have no problem with "white" if it's restricted to europeans since most of them form a coherent and homogeneous cluster. The same way I have no problem with "black" if it's restricted to africans with no or negligible amount of eurasian ancestry.
As for ethiopians, I did not lie :
Here you can see Afar are closer to italians than west africans (even closer to french) :
Same for Tigray :
or Amhara :
Let's not even talk about how close they are to berbers like me than west/central or east africans.
What do you mean by most ancient egyptians not being Black skinned?? This color is part of Black this is what the average Egyptian looked like:
now east africans from punt looked this color also:
that shows that reddish brown skin color is the average color of East Africa and Ancient Egypt.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Beyoku What you're saying makes sense and is a possibility but the thing is Why are they so different from upper nubians (UP and neolithic) ? The latter being much less "negroid". Irish clearly insists that they're too divergent to be ancestral to neolithic/dynastic nubians. Also morphologically the closest populations to them are modern west/central africans (notably Ashanti/Ishango) not south sudanese.
As for Nazlet Khater, correct me if I'm wrong but all we know about their biological affinities is based on their mandibula/teeth only and unlike Jebel Sahaba they are not associated with modern west africans but with khoisans (+ some other MSA pop.) and even in that case they are still quite different from the latter. But I may be wrong since your wadi Howar paper says they show affinities with Jebel Sahaba/wadi Halfa/Tushka.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Akenaten was an Iconoclast... look where that got him.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam
You are right
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2707 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: What do you mean by most ancient egyptians not being Black skinned?? This color is part of Black this is what the average Egyptian looked like:
now east africans from punt looked this color also:
that shows that reddish brown skin color is the average color of East Africa and Ancient Egypt.
Exactly this is not black skinned like in the case of how many nubians were depicted :
"Reddish brown" is basically the skin tone of many modern egyptians :
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder why none of the soldiers have light skin color not even one
as you see the soldiers were uniformaliy described as black skinned and you can see the reddish brown skin that majority Ancient Egyptians shared with East Africa
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: @Beyoku What you're saying makes sense and is a possibility but the thing is Why are they so different from upper nubians (UP and neolithic) ? The latter being much less "negroid". Irish clearly insists that they're too divergent to be ancestral to neolithic/dynastic nubians. Also morphologically the closest populations to them are modern west/central africans (notably Ashanti/Ishango) not south sudanese.
As for Nazlet Khater, correct me if I'm wrong but all we know about their biological affinities is based on their mandibula/teeth only and unlike Jebel Sahaba they are not associated with modern west africans but with khoisans (+ some other MSA pop.) and even in that case they are still quite different from the latter. But I may be wrong since your wadi Howar paper says they show affinities with Jebel Sahaba/wadi Halfa/Tushka.
The Genetic connection is still there. Irish/Becker are a bit too Rigid in their argument. We know this because genetic data exists:
We already know that sample like Jebel Ramlah are dentally "mixed". We dont have their DNA Though. We have ancient Nubians (Kulubnarti), Modern Horners, Ancient Pastoralists who are STRONGLY Natufian like...have some of these Northern dental Affinities but are STILL 35-55% Dinka.
All the Neolithic and Post Neolithic Nubians samples show affinity to Egyptian samples regarding the North African dental pattern still carry Dinka. So there cant be total discontinuity : "The Kulubnarti Nubians had ~43% Nilotic-related ancestry (individual variation between ~36–54%) " - Sirak.
East African Neolithics from limited data of a Kenyan Sample were also Dentally North African. THe Genomic Data is 40/40/20 Dinka/Natufian/MOTA respectively. Kadruka autosomal sample is from Kerma. Kerma is EXTREMELY close to Egyptians cranially and Dentally. The sample was genetically indistinguishable for Pastoral Neolithic: 40/40/20. Early Y-dna from Neolithic Kadruka was 60/40 A-M91/E-M40 respectively. So Dinka like ancestry using the generic model we have can still persist in Dentally "North African" populations even to the tune of 33-54% in the case of Kulubnarti. 40% in the case of Pastoral Neolithic.
These samples, IMO represent what could be the upper bound limites of Dinka type ancestry in populations that dentally/cranial North African in the Nile Valley. None of them would be out of place. WE should use these frequencies with the understanding they have been reduced to 6-15% in Late Northern Dynastics at Abusir.
Again, this is ONE WAY to look at the data. If we wanted to take a literal interpretation of dental affinity in lieu of genetic data as suggested by the Abstract.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: See the video in the OP where the creator speaks of New Kingdom Egyptians being "PURE" Africans while presenting data that doesn't show those said Egyptians to be "PURE" African. The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS!
Please post timecode reference of this statement, and I can't find a single reference to 'pure' Africans anywhere in the video...?
10: minutes in he also goes into supporting a pseudo scientific Physical Race = Autosomal Genetics argument. If folks dont know why both these statements are problematic..... These folks are in amatuer hour. They need to consult someone who knows more before they make these videos. A competent Eurocentrist would destroy this video, this is a problem.
Destroy it then. I haven't seen anything but rhetoric thus far. I for one would be interested to hear it. I have a friend who is a geneticist and he said STR matching algorithms are the only method by which geneticists can ascertain ethnicity... are they incorrect? If so, I'd like to know because I've been guilty of promoting the same.
beyoku can you answer this
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: I wonder why none of the soldiers have light skin color not even one
as you see the soldiers were uniformaliy described as black skinned and you can see the reddish brown skin that majority Ancient Egyptians shared with East Africa
If I'm not mistaken these are soldiers from the private army of Mesehti which included nubian archers and soldiers :
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: I wonder why none of the soldiers have light skin color not even one
as you see the soldiers were uniformaliy described as black skinned and you can see the reddish brown skin that majority Ancient Egyptians shared with East Africa
If I'm not mistaken these are soldiers from the private army of Mesehti which included nubian archers and soldiers :
We have to understand the pictures show only black skinned people. Where the picture was found does not make it someones private army.
The picture shows egyptians with the spears the also look black not just the ones with the arrows.
what you have to understand is that your exxplanation comes from bias ideas of eurocentric comments.
the army is all we have to go by, and they are all Black. there is not another group of armies togo by.
we have this army and they are all Black skinned that does not count the nubians only but the egyptians with spears.
when the two groups were found there is no explanation, its a random grouping of the egyptian army that is all
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@KING, sorry I used a quick fix picture resize site but turns out the image only has a short time limit. You need one of the free image host sites to resize stuff
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Thanks again lioness hopefully this picture will stay
as you can see antlas this is a grouping of the egyptian Army and they all look Black there is differences inside the grouping with different noses and eyes and lips yet not inside there skin color that remains the same rich Black skin that is used its not someones private army to dismiss that the egyptian army drew from black skin people of Ancient egypt.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's are a couple of pictures of ancient Puntites that should be manageable for this board:
As for the models of soldiers from the tomb of Mesehti, my understanding is that the archers are from Wawat (Lower Nubia) and the spearmen with the cowhide shields are native Egyptians. The Wawatian archers do have darker skin on average, but both are clearly melanoderm peoples.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The Genetic connection is still there. Irish/Becker are a bit too Rigid in their argument. We know this because genetic data exists:
We already know that sample like Jebel Ramlah are dentally "mixed". We dont have their DNA Though. We have ancient Nubians (Kulubnarti), Modern Horners, Ancient Pastoralists who are STRONGLY Natufian like...have some of these Northern dental Affinities but are STILL 35-55% Dinka.
All the Neolithic and Post Neolithic Nubians samples show affinity to Egyptian samples regarding the North African dental pattern still carry Dinka. So there cant be total discontinuity : "The Kulubnarti Nubians had ~43% Nilotic-related ancestry (individual variation between ~36–54%) " - Sirak.
East African Neolithics from limited data of a Kenyan Sample were also Dentally North African. THe Genomic Data is 40/40/20 Dinka/Natufian/MOTA respectively. Kadruka autosomal sample is from Kerma. Kerma is EXTREMELY close to Egyptians cranially and Dentally. The sample was genetically indistinguishable for Pastoral Neolithic: 40/40/20. Early Y-dna from Neolithic Kadruka was 60/40 A-M91/E-M40 respectively. So Dinka like ancestry using the generic model we have can still persist in Dentally "North African" populations even to the tune of 33-54% in the case of Kulubnarti. 40% in the case of Pastoral Neolithic.
These samples, IMO represent what could be the upper bound limites of Dinka type ancestry in populations that dentally/cranial North African in the Nile Valley. None of them would be out of place. WE should use these frequencies with the understanding they have been reduced to 6-15% in Late Northern Dynastics at Abusir.
Again, this is ONE WAY to look at the data. If we wanted to take a literal interpretation of dental affinity in lieu of genetic data as suggested by the Abstract. [/QB]
Ok but I did not mean to suggest that El Khiday was entirely of Eurasian descent. My point was that there may have been populations in that region with a significant amount of Eurasian ancestry, even as far south and as early as El Khiday. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if the people of the Jebel Sahaba culture turn out to be something other than Dinka-like.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). (2) They seem local, in that Modern Egyptian's African Substratum is not West African derived if there was stone age continuity. The lineages that exist contain diversity that has the time depth that can only be associated with these old fossils. Egypt's SSA is modeled as "DINKA" not anything else, not Senegambian. Furthermore The Eastern Sahara/Nile Valley derived African ancestry in Horn Africans and East African pastoral Neolithic is also DINKA, not Senegambian. The type of the Australo Melanesian / Jebel Sahaba affinity goes all the way back to Nazlet Khater and Taramsa Hill Boy 35kya and 65-75kya respectively. Its not "NEW".
Printer-friendly view of this topic