I was strolling around Wikipedia (I know it isn't the best source about Ancient Egypt)
When I bumped into this quote here found on this wikipage about the A-Group Nubians (The same quote is also found on the Population History of Egypt)
I'm confused as I always read the Badari as well as the Naqada as possessing some Negroid traits and I remember reading Anthropologists such as Frank Yurco describing the Pre-dynastic Egyptians as having a blend of "North African" and "Sub-Saharan" traits.
Is this a mistake or am I misreading things? Is anybody familiar with this study or this anthropologist?
posted
Sorry the image didn't work in my last message guys here is the working image
Again from what I know from all the other studies I have read A Group Nubians, Badari and Naqada all cluster together (as this study also does) however why does he have the Nubian A Group as Caucasoid?
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
Again from what I know from all the other studies I have read A Group Nubians, Badari and Naqada all cluster together (as this study also does) however why does he have the Nubian A Group as Caucasoid?
A lot of contemporary anthropologists don't use "negroid" "caucasoid", "mongoloid" etc classifications anymore but when the do they are doing so based on specific measurements of the skull and sometimes other skeletal proportions However the cut off points are not agreed upon and you are referring to 16 years ago and the 16 years ago quote refers to 1975 and 85 classification methods
Posts: 43064 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Sorry the image didn't work in my last message guys here is the working image
Again from what I know from all the other studies I have read A Group Nubians, Badari and Naqada all cluster together (as this study also does) however why does he have the Nubian A Group as Caucasoid?
Because someone on a whim created a collection of metric traits found in human crania and labeled it "Caucasoid." When the traits of the skeleton are measured they fit into that classification whether valid or not.
-In its pseudo context it could mean migration from and or ancestry from a specific region in West Asia (Caucus).
-In its evolutionary context with an understanding of microevolution among our species it could mean adaptation to a specific region and environmental/climactic pressures which shaped these cranial feature which perform a specific function.
In BOTH cases...the metric data DOES EXIST. Whether the collection of these traits of too limited or too broad is a different discussion. Whether the classification of the features are interpreted correctly and mean what we say they do is a different discussion.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
At one time all the populations of Upper Egypt to Lower Sudan were classified as "caucasoid" to distinguish them from "Negroids" further South. The distinction being made should be obvious in the context of 19th century race science, which is to separate "black Africans" from ancient North Africans.
Posts: 8907 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I thought I explained it to you before, but for the sake of the OT I'll do it again.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Dear Forum
I was strolling around Wikipedia (I know it isn't the best source about Ancient Egypt)
When I bumped into this quote here found on this wikipage about the A-Group Nubians (The same quote is also found on the Population History of Egypt)
I'm confused as I always read the Badari as well as the Naqada as possessing some Negroid traits and I remember reading Anthropologists such as Frank Yurco describing the Pre-dynastic Egyptians as having a blend of "North African" and "Sub-Saharan" traits.
Is this a mistake or am I misreading things? Is anybody familiar with this study or this anthropologist?
Craniofacially speaking there is a general distinction between North Africans and Sub-Saharans as shown below.
That said, certain traits typically called "negroid" such as wide nasal opening and prognathism are not uncommon among North Africans. This is why North Africans have traditionally been classified as "Caucasoids" but with "negroids traits".
All of these peoples group together as North African morphologically instead of Sub-Saharan which is why they were originally classified as "caucasoid" in the first place. This is something that some Afrocentrics seem to have a hard time grasping or outright denying.
A comparison of the more reliable material shows that there is a considerable variation in calvarial measurements among Negro races: all the Egyptian series fall within the extremes of length, breadth and cephalic index shown by the Negro types. But certain other measurements--chiefly facial--apparently distinguish all Negro from all Egyptian types.-- G.M. Morant (1925)
In regards to predynastic populations, the Badarians were noted to be relatively more "negroid" with narrower heads, broader noses, and more prognathous jaws compared to the Naqada people with the opposite features.
Even so, this was said about the Naqada folk:
"Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be sufficiently homogeneous to justify speaking of a Naqada race. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the cephalic and facial indices, this race presents affinities with Negroes. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans...." ---Dr. Emile Massoulard, Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt (1949)
The Naqada people are closest in physiognomy to Qustul (A-Group) Nubians.
A distinct human type inhabited both Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the early Predynastic times. At the late Predynastic period and early Dynastic, that early race had undergone an appreciable modification owing to mixture with an alien type coming into Upper Egypt from the North and another alien negro type introduced into Lower Nubia from the South. The negro element was, however, at first very small, but in the Third Dynasty it suddenly became more pronounced, although it was still relatively slight in amount. This process of intermixture proceeded quietly from the Third Dynasty onward, the population of negroes gradually increasing and a comparatively homogeneous blend of the Predynastic Egyptian and the Negro types is produced in the time of the New Kingdom.-- Ahmed Batrawi (1946)
Of the total of 117 [Badarian] skulls, 15 were found to be markedly Europoid, 9 of these were of the gracile Mediterranean type (Figs. ia & b), 6 were of very robust structure reminiscent of the North African Cromagnon type. Eight skulls were clearly Negroid (Figs. 2a and b), and were close to the Negro types occurring in East Africa... ..Regardless of this, however, the Negroid component among the Badarians is anthropologically well based. Even though the share of 'pure' Negroes is small (6.8 per cent), being half that of the Europoid forms (12-9 per cent), the high majority of mixed forms (80.3 per cent) suggests a long-lasting dispersion of Negroid genes in the population. --Strouhal 1971
The authors are always at pains to point out that the pure negro element appears to have been minute in the groups analyzed; two skeletons in a hundred, for example, at Naga-ed-Der in early predynastic times, and one in fifty-four in Lower Nubia (Massoulard, 1949, p396 and pp410-411), although all anthropologists concur in acknowledging the existence of a "negroid" component in the mixed population which constitutes the primitive Egyptian "ethnic group", at least from Neolithic times onwards. --Vercoutter 1974
We collected measurements for a single specimen from what was called the Nubian X Group in Reisner’s terminology (Reisner, 1909). This was a population that immediately preceded the early Christian Nubians of AD 550 (Carlson and Van Gerven, 19791), and, in the subjective treatment of a generation gone by, had been regarded as evidence for a “Negroid incursion" (Batrawi, 1935; Smith, 1909; Seligman, 1915). As our figures show, the probability of finding our representative specimen in a Sub-Saharan population is 0.009, which is highly unlikely. Its column loadings are generally similar to the loadings in the column for the Predynastic Naqada sample, and, except for the fact that it is only marginally unlikely that it can be excluded from the Giza sample, it cannot be denied membership in the Naqada, European, or South Asian samples.... ..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. --Brace 1993
The Eurocentrics do the opposite or inverse of the aforementioned Afrocentrics by emphasizing the "Caucasoid" traits while downplaying or ignoring the "negroid" traits to the point that they try to group North Africans entirely with Western Eurasians (Europeans & Southwest Asians) when in fact North Africans morphologically fall in a position intermediate that is right between Sub-Saharans and Western Eurasians as these craniometric charts below show.
Mind you, all these data are based on metric traits which is more specious and are poor indicators of actual genetic relations. This is why South Asians (Indians) cluster with Nubians and in other studies Sub-Saharans cluster with Oceanian Aboriginals like Melanesians and Andamanese.
Nonmetric traits are a better indication of genetic relations and they still show North Africans to be intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians.
The West Eurasian samples given above happen to be Europeans but you should get the point.
Even in dental traits there are differences between North Africans and Sub-Saharans. The former have microdonty that is small mass-reduced teeth similar to Western Eurasians whereas the latter have have megadonty which is large mass-increased teeth similar to Australo-Melanesians. But when it comes to non-metric traits here is what one reknowned odontologist said:
Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which parallels that of Europeans, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans. --Irish (1998)
^The emboldened parts other than the bit about Carabelli's trait are all traits associated with Sub-Saharans.
Here is a chart from Irish showing the nonmetric dental divide between Sub-Saharans and North Africans.
Of course teeth are just another part of cranial features. One can turn to data of post-cranial traits i.e. skeletal body which is something Afrocentrics favor for obvious reasons.
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. ---Zakrzewski 2003
North Africans in regards to their skeletal structure are no different from Sub-Saharans especially those in the Sahel region. Yet even then, I've read that there are slight differences in the shape of certain bones of wrist and ankles.
But when it comes to actual genetics we know that Africans are indeed diverse and that North Africans comprise a part of that diversity.
Loosdrecht et al. 2018
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Eurocentrics do the opposite or inverse of the aforementioned Afrocentrics by emphasizing the "Caucasoid" traits while downplaying or ignoring the "negroid" traits to the point that they try to group North Africans entirely with Western Eurasians (Europeans & Southwest Asians) when in fact North Africans morphologically fall in a position intermediate that is right between Sub-Saharans and Western Eurasians as these craniometric charts below show.
Why do you lie when the picture clearly shows that the centroids of both Lower/upper egyptian are closer to the european cluster ? Only the nubian centroid is indeed intermediate.
Here a more simple picture of the same Analysis where you can better see the position of the centroids :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Mind you, all these data are based on metric traits which is more specious and are poor indicators of actual genetic relations. This is why South Asians (Indians) cluster with Nubians and in other studies Sub-Saharans cluster with Oceanian Aboriginals like Melanesians and Andamanese.
Yes many south asians appear intermediate because they descend in part from those same Andamanese-like populations who happen to morphologically cluster with negroids. How is that surprising ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Nonmetric traits are a better indication of genetic relations and they still show North Africans to be intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians.
The West Eurasian samples given above happen to be Europeans but you should get the point.
That's not what Hanihara et al. 2003 shows :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Even in dental traits there are differences between North Africans and Sub-Saharans. The former have microdonty that is small mass-reduced teeth similar to Western Eurasians whereas the latter have have megadonty which is large mass-increased teeth similar to Australo-Melanesians. But when it comes to non-metric traits here is what one reknowned odontologist said:
Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which parallels that of Europeans, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans. --Irish (1998)
^The emboldened parts other than the bit about Carabelli's trait are all traits associated with Sub-Saharans.
Irish actually emphasize how different the two groups are and actually shows that dentally north africans are much closer to europeans and other eurasians whether they have some negroid tendencies or not and it seems that you purposely omitted the fact that this "North African" category also includes people from the Horn of Africa who are much more SSA shifted than Egyptians or NW Africans :
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, p. 279
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of course teeth are just another part of cranial features. One can turn to data of post-cranial traits i.e. skeletal body which is something Afrocentrics favor for obvious reasons.
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. ---Zakrzewski 2003
Those patterns do not apply to NW Africans and these are simply due to adaptation as Brace highlighted :
quote:The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat . Since heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature-namely skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be “super-negroid,” meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans (Robins and Shute, 1986). It would be just as accurate to call them “super-Veddoid or “superCarpentarian” since skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term “supertropical” would be better since it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more “racially loaded” term “negroid.”
Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
So it has nothing to do with admixture or genetic relationship.
Modern Egyptians still show such traits and they are similar to those predynastic egyptians :
quote:The biological characteristics of modern Egyptians show a north-south cline, reflecting their geographic location between sub-Saharan Africa and the Levant. This is expressed in DNA, blood groups, serum proteins and genetic disorders (Filon 1996; Hammer et al. 1998; Krings et al. 1999). They are also expressed in phenotypic characteristics that can be identified in the teeth and bones (Crichton 1966; Froment 1992; Keita 1996). These characteristics include head form, facial and nasal characteristics, jaw relationships, tooth size, morphology, and upper/lower limb proportions. In all these features, modern egyptians resemble sub-saharan africans (Howells 1989, Keita 1995).
P. Smith, The Palaeo-Biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millenia BCE, 2002
On the Craniological Study of Egyptians in various periods by M.F Gaballah et al, with reference to the works of both Batrawi 1946 and Sidney Smith 1926, it is said that the available series of modern Egyptian skulls conform more closely with the Southern phenotype that characterized the predynastic and early dynastic cultures of Upper Egypt such as the Naqada .
So egyptians are simply adapted to their environnement yet you call them "arabs" "ifrangi" and cherrypick pictures of the most black looking egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: North Africans in regards to their skeletal structure are no different from Sub-Saharans especially those in the Sahel region.
You've literally just posted a chart which shows that they are in fact different. Sahelians are simply closer to North africans than other SSAs because they have north african admixture :
quote:And fourth, dentitions of Sub-Saharan/North African boundary groups (i.e., Senegambia (SEN), Tukulor (TUK), Chad (???)) indicate probable North African genetic input based on lower frequencies of LM1 deflecting wrinkle and LM1 cusp 7, and higher UM3 agenesis.
quote:Our findings suggest that Eurasian admixture and the European LP allele was introduced into the Fulani through contact with a North African population /s. We furthermore confirm the link between the lactose digestion phenotype in the Fulani to the MCM6/LCT locus by reporting the first GWAS of the lactase persistence trait.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: But when it comes to actual genetics we know that Africans are indeed diverse and that North Africans comprise a part of that diversity.
Indeed and you should acknowledge that some Africans can have light skin, straight hair, and Caucasian-like features. Moreover you should stop portraying North Africans as recent invaders and recognize the diversity that exists within the African continent instead of constantly trying to darkwash their ancestors because you don't find enough commonnalities with the modern ones.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why do you lie when the picture clearly shows that the centroids of both Lower/Upper Egyptian are closer to the European cluster? Only the Nubian centroid is indeed intermediate.
This is exactly why I'm not joking when I say you need professional mental help. You actually accuse me of lying about a graph that anyone with eyes can clearly see.
First off, that the authors divide the Nile Valley population cluster into 3 different centroid groups shows the differentiation amongst them even though all are North African.
Second, back to my main point, anyone with functioning eyes can clearly see that the Nile Valley North Africans are indeed intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans with Lower Egyptians being closer to the former and Nubians to the latter.
I even used a virtual ruler for precise distances between each centroid:
Upper Egypt -- Lower Egypt: 1cm
Upper Egypt -- Nubia: 1.1cm
Upper Egypt -- Europe: 4.3cm
Upper Egypt -- Sub-Sahara: 4.5cm
Lower Egypt -- Europe: 3.2cm
Lower Egypt -- Nubia: 1.5cm
Lower Egypt -- Sub-Sahara: 4.7cm
Nubia -- Sub-Sahara: 3.4cm
Nubia -- Europe: 4.2cm
It's apparent to everyone but YOU that the Nile Valley population instead of clustering with Europeans form their own cluster with outlying populations that grade into the Sub-Saharans from the Nubian end and outlying populations that grade into Europeans from the Lower Egyptian end. In fact the Nile Valley group that plots closest to the graph origin is the Nubian centroid, while interestingly the group that is the farthest outlier plotting away from all the clusters is the sample from the Abydos Royal Tombs.
Lastly but just as significantly is the fact that many of the European samples in the graph especially those that cluster with Lower Egyptians are those of the Bronze Age and Neolithic Aegean! And what did Brace say about these samples he studied himself??
"The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe."-- Brace (2004)
It shouldn't be surprising since anthropologists from the early 1900s have noted Neolithic and Bronze Age southern Europeans to have "negroid" features.
quote:Here a more simple picture of the same Analysis where you can better see the position of the centroids:
Yeah, and again this more compact version shows still shows them to be intermediate except that the Nubian cluster is reduced to the centroid value only and interestingly the Palestinian sample is blown up to show that it is intermediate between the Upper Egyptian and Lower Egyptian centroids. LOL
quote:Yes many South Asians appear intermediate because they descend in part from those same Andamanese-like populations who happen to morphologically cluster with Negroids. How is that surprising?
Of course if your delusion affects your eyesight, it would affect your reading comprehension. I just stated the fact that craniometrics are NOT good indicators of genetic relations because South Asians group with Nubians while Andamanese groups with Sub-Saharans. Andamanese are genetically related to a substrate of South Asians specifically certain tribal groups in the southern part of the subcontinent. The majority of South Asians lack this ancestry but both South Asians and Andamanese are genetically closer related to each other and related to East Asians than either is to ANY African populations unlike West Eurasians (Europeans and Southwest Asians) because the latter has African admixture!
quote:That's not what Hanihara et al. 2003 shows:
ROTFLMAO
You dishonest fool! I was the one who cited Hanihara et a. 2003 and posted his graphs here!
Hanihara used a 3 Dimensional MMD matrix with 3 PCOs but you conveniently cherrypicked 1 of the 3 2D combinations.
Here are all 3 of them again:
^ Note Sub-Saharans cluster closest to North Africans in graph C.
And here is the total 3D PCO
Interestingly, there are some Southeast Asian samples that cluster in between North Africans and Sub-Saharans. I've already pointed out that Hanihara leaves out many nonmetric traits which can affect the distribution. What's just as significant if not more so is the sampling bias. Experts like Hanihara still use patchy geographic sampling in regards to Sub-Saharans. The sample closest geographically to Egyptians he used is Somalis but not Sudanese or Chadians. Be that as it may the results are the same-- North Africans are between Sub-Saharans and Western Eurasians.
quote:Irish actually emphasize how different the two groups are and actually shows that dentally North Africans are much closer to Europeans and other Eurasians whether they have some negroid tendencies or not and it seems that you purposely omitted the fact that this "North African" category also includes people from the Horn of Africa who are much more SSA shifted than Egyptians or NW Africans:
Irish's quote is quite clear. It's exactly their "negroid tendencies" as you put that make them intermediate. Note that such tendencies do NOT come from admixture because the metrics show a stark difference in size. As for your false accusation of me "purposely omitting" something, why do you always project YOUR guilt on to ME?!! I just busted your ass for posting only 1/3 of Hanihara's PCO chart! LOL Whereas I did not omit anything since the quote I cited was Irish's own summary describing the nonmetric nature of North Africans alone NOT Africans from the Horn who are geographically Sub-Saharan but since you bring them up, it's interesting that although nonmetrically they are 'North African' metrically they are considered intermediate between microdontic North Africans and other East Africans who are mesodontic.
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, p. 279
Yeah and as I noted before the distance between North Africans and Sub-Saharans is only slightly greater than that between Southeast Asians like myself and South Siberians, yet nobody denies that we are still East Asians. Also note the distance between Australians and Melanesians even though both populations inhabited the same continent of Sahul during the last Ice Age. By your logic, Sub-Saharans must be closer related to Melanesians and Micronesians due to their closer proximities in that graph! LOL
quote:Those patterns do not apply to NW Africans and these are simply due to adaptation as Brace highlighted:
Yes because NW Africans have significant European admixture which is why there are white Berbers like yourself! Also, the simple adaptation alone argument is deeply flawed as I will show.
quote:The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat . Since heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature-namely skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be “super-negroid,” meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans (Robins and Shute, 1986). It would be just as accurate to call them “super-Veddoid or “superCarpentarian” since skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term “supertropical” would be better since it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more “racially loaded” term “negroid.”---Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31. So it has nothing to do with admixture or genetic relationship.
Wrong as always! Of course there is adaptation but to divorce this from genetics is absurd. This is like saying differences in skin color is due to adaptation but has no genetic basis including admixture! LOL For example, when the ancestors of Eurasians left Africa, some of their descendants lost their tropically adapted builds, while others preserved it. Of course the former are those who live in colder climes while the latter are those who live in the tropics. What's interesting though is that Amerindian populations who live in the tropics of South America still retain the cold adapted builds of their Siberian ancestors despite living in that region for about 10,000 years which suggests that this change in skeletal structure likely takes tens of thousands of years. Yet in the case of the Egyptians we have this..
..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60
But what's really interesting is that studies from Gay Robins to Sonia Zakrzewski show that the general trend among ancient Egyptians isn't merely "negroid" or tropical but rather super-negroid or supra-tropical! This fact is rather striking considering that most of Egypt is located in the sub-tropics. So what does that imply other than the fact that their ancestors originated from more tropical climes similar to how the ancestors of Amerindians originated in colder climes.
quote:Modern Egyptians still show such traits and they are similar to those predynastic egyptians:
The biological characteristics of modern Egyptians show a north-south cline, reflecting their geographic location between sub-Saharan Africa and the Levant. This is expressed in DNA, blood groups, serum proteins and genetic disorders (Filon 1996; Hammer et al. 1998; Krings et al. 1999). They are also expressed in phenotypic characteristics that can be identified in the teeth and bones (Crichton 1966; Froment 1992; Keita 1996). These characteristics include head form, facial and nasal characteristics, jaw relationships, tooth size, morphology, and upper/lower limb proportions. In all these features, modern Egyptians resemble Sub-Saharan Africans (Howells 1989, Keita 1995).
LMAO So you cite a source supporting my whole argument that Egyptians as North Africans are biologically intermediate between Sub-Saharans and Eurasians but are still Africans. I guess this is the cunning of reason. LOL
quote:P. Smith, The Palaeo-Biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE, 2002 On the Craniological Study of Egyptians in various periods by M.F Gaballah et al, with reference to the works of both Batrawi 1946 and Sidney Smith 1926, it is said that the available series of modern Egyptian skulls conform more closely with the Southern phenotype that characterized the predynastic and early dynastic cultures of Upper Egypt such as the Naqada. So Egyptians are simply adapted to their environnement yet you call them "arabs" "ifrangi" and cherrypick pictures of the most black looking egyptians.
LOL Yeah and Nigerians are adapted to their environment too. The difference is that Nigeria did not have the type of immigration and admixture with Eurasians that Egyptians experienced. I only call the Egyptians YOU cherrypick pictures of as Afrangi because that is exactly what the Baladi (indigenous Egyptians) call them. Afrangi are the fair-skinned foreign elites who rule the country largely of Arab descent but also Turkish, Circassian, and others. The black looing types I post pics of are of non other than the Baladi themselves and yet again your own source says modern Egyptians conform to a "southern" type similar to Naqada folks who again closely resemble Kerma Nubians!! So are you saying the Afrangi types you post like Zahi Hawass conform to that type but not the Baladi I post?! LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yeah I used to get the same reaction to the crap you post, but now I just have this reaction.
quote:You've literally just posted a chart which shows that they are in fact different. Sahelians are simply closer to North Africans than other SSAs because they have North African admixture:
And fourth, dentitions of Sub-Saharan/North African boundary groups (i.e., Senegambia (SEN), Tukulor (TUK), Chad (???)) indicate probable North African genetic input based on lower frequencies of LM1 deflecting wrinkle and LM1 cusp 7, and higher UM3 agenesis.
Our findings suggest that Eurasian admixture and the European LP allele was introduced into the Fulani through contact with a North African population /s. We furthermore confirm the link between the lactose digestion phenotype in the Fulani to the MCM6/LCT locus by reporting the first GWAS of the lactase persistence trait. https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-019-6296-7
My delusional, dull-witted friend. First of all if you properly read my post I was referring to post-cranial that is skeletal bodies which again are described as supra-tropical or super-"negroid".
Second, like Sub-Sahara, the term Sahel is a geographic label that denotes the vast area below:
Yet of the many populations inhabiting the above region you seize upon the Fulani as if they are the only Sahelians even though they still possess supra-tropical builds! A rather interesting exercise in psychology because the people group that I was thinking of was the Dinka and other southern Sudanese who are equally Sahelian and possess the same supra-tropical body structure. Unless you want to argue they inherited this trait from North Africans of the subtropics. LMAO
Third, Senegambia and Tukulor are inhabited by coastal Fulani who are distinct from the pastoral Fulani and thus don't carry the same genetic profile as them but are closer to West Africans like Wolof and Mande. You would know that if you read the paper at least with unwarped eyes. LOL
quote:Indeed and you should acknowledge that some Africans can have light skin, straight hair, and Caucasian-like features. Moreover you should stop portraying North Africans as recent invaders and recognize the diversity that exists within the African continent instead of constantly trying to darkwash their ancestors because you don't find enough commonnalities with the modern ones.
Yes some Africans like South African Khoisan have light skin but North Africans like YOU are white because of European admixture! How many times do I have to tell you that Northwest Africa has a different history from Northeast Africa in that the European admixture is greater in the former while Southwest Asian admixture is greater in the latter. I don't portray all North Africans recent invaders, but you can't deny that many especially in the coasts are indeed descended from said invaders. And again there is no such thing as "dark-wash" the term is dark-paint, but nobody has to do that because their dark descendants still exist today as rural Baladi, while Afrangi like Zahi Hawass like to believe the pharaohs look like them! LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would not surprise me too much now if certain facial features commonly called "Caucasoid" actually originated in northeastern Africa before spreading to western Eurasia via Basal Eurasian. We all know that BE is a major component in most West Eurasian ancestry now. So it may be less that indigenous North Africans were "Caucasoid" than West Eurasians are to a degree "North Africoid". Or something like that.
posted
^ Ironically that is a hypothesis that Swenet put forward. The Upper-Paleolithic Euros like Crog-Magnon had features reminiscent of Melanesians and Australian Aborigines, and not only were "caucasoid" features found in Africa first but these features were gracile and not robust like Paleolithic Western Eurasians. This is why you had 19th Century anthropologists like Giuseppe Sergi postulate a "Brown Mediterranean Race" that originated in Africa and were "Caucasoid" in form but much gracile and much darker/melanated skin but who "diverged" from Negroes. In fact another theory was developed about a "Eurafrican Race" that diverged from a common ancestry with Negroes and was represented by the so-called Mechta Afalou types of the Maghreb and was the ancestral to Mediterraneans. Dana Marniche has pointed all this out in her "Myth of the Mediterranean Race" paper. Even the Eurocentric blogger Dienekes years back spoke of "Prehistoric East African Caucasoids" as exemplified by fossils in the Kenyan Rift Valley like Gamble's Cave like Elmenteita or Naivasha.
This is why racial typology has been proven to be scientifically invalid.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the issue of A-Group Nubians LoStranger cites an old paper from anthropologist Eugen Strouhal. Strouhal's findings still hold valid and were verified by more recent studies as I will show. The problem with Strouhal like many anthropologists of his day is the way he interprets his findings via use of the racial typological terms like "Caucasoid" to describe certain features. Other than that, he is correct that A-Group remains closely resemble those of their neighbors. Neolithic Egyptians and their origin In contrast to the sturdy nomadic or semi-sedentary human groups of presumed Saharan origin, the first agriculturalists and cattle-breeders, living in Nubia with a culture labelled by archaeologists as Group A in the 5th millennium BC, were slim and gracile, dolichocranic, with small faces and slightly broader noses. Their physical features were Caucasoid, not distinguishable from the contemporary Predynastic Upper Egyptians of the Badarian and Nagadian cultures (Billy 1975, Simon, Menk 1985). The origin of the Egyptians was looked for in the course of almost two centuries in nearer or more distant regions in all possible directions. It has not been, however, established yet with certainty. Predynastic Egyptians seem to be similar to the Capsian Mesolithic people of North Africa and to the historical Berbers. Recently it has been supposed that they had entered the Nile Valley from Neolithic Sahara through the Western Oases, bringing with them the archaic way of agriculture and cattle breeding (Strouhal 1988). The problem of the Egyptians' origins has been intensively studied by linguists, too. Greenberg (1955) proved that Hamitic and Semitic languages are genetically bound, as both developed from a common Hamito-Semitic (recently called Afro-Asian) language. Later it was split into an Asian (Semitic) and four African branches: the Tchadian, Berberic, Egyptian, and Kushitic. The Old Egyptian language, being the most archaic known one, has retained its original Hamito-Semitic character. It assumed a central geographic position, while the three other language families further polarized during migrations and evolution of their speakers.
By the way 'A-Group' a.k.a. Qustul Culture is associated with this area of the Nile.
^ Qustul Culture stretched from just north of the 2nd Cataract to as far north as the town of Kubaniyya in Upper Egypt. The Egyptians called these people 'Setiu' (bowmen) and their land Ta-Seti (Land of the Bow), though interestingly enough the Egyptians distinguished between the 1st nome of Upper Egypt Ta-Seti nwt in Aswan from Ta-Seti khast which is the foreign kingdom beyond the 1st Cataract. But more on that soon.
For now, to answer LoStranger's question, there have been many studies done elucidating the relations of Qustuli Nubians with other Nile Valley populations since that Strouhal study.
For example here are some charts from craniometric studies showing who the Qustuli most resembled and they all agree that they have the closest affinity with Wawati (C-Group) Nubians.
Carlson 1974
Brothwell 2016
Irish 2010
^ Note Sub-Saharan Tigray from Ethiopia craniometrically cluster with Nubians specifically the D-Group sample.
Now here are a couple of charts from nonmetric studies which yield a more accurate indications of genetic relations.
Godde 2018 (cranial nonmetrics)
Irish 2010 (dental nonmetrics)
Note that in both A-Group strays away from the nucleus of Nile Valley groups, but note that in Irish's graph A-Group clusters with the Ethiopian Tigray sample.
And here are both of Irish's charts to show the contrast between craniometrics and dental nonmetrics with the latter being more reliable in genetic relations.
What's interesting about these nonmetric findings is that there seems to be support from Y-DNA evidence.
Bone samples from different skeletal elements of burial sites from Neolithic, Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods in Sudan were collected from Sudan National Museum. aDNA extraction was successful in 35 out of 76 samples, PCR was performed for sex determination using Amelogenin marker. Fourteen samples were females and 19 were males. To generate Y-chromosome specific haplogroups A-M13, B-M60, F-M89 and Y Alu Polymorphism (YAP) markers, which define the deep ancestral haplotypes in the phylogenetic tree of Y-chromosome were used. Haplogroups A-M13 was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods. Haplogroup B-M60 was not observed in the sample analyzed. Hassan 2009
Ironically haplogroup A is the oldest clade in the world and is known as "Sub-Saharan" yet it was common among Qustuli Nubians.
^ It also seems that hg A is also found in the Tigray region of Ethiopia as well.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ironically haplogroup A is the oldest clade in the world and is known as "Sub-Saharan" yet it was common among Qustuli Nubians.
please show us a journal article title saying that haplogroup A was found in Qustul Nubians.
Posts: 43064 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You're correct. The Hassan article I cited only analyzed the Neolithic remains of Upper Nubia (Kadruka) but not those of Lower Nubia (Qustul). The non-metric data though seems to imply it.
Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Hey snake, if you're going to scrutinize my posts, at least do a half-decent job at it! Are you even citing the same study as me?? I was not referring to Hassan's 2008 study but his 2009 study! The area known today as Sudan may have been the scene of pivotal human evolutionary events, both as a corridor for ancient and modern migrations, as well as the venue of crucial past cultural evolution. Several questions pertaining to the pattern of succession of the different groups in early Sudan have been raised. To shed light on these aspects, ancient DNA (aDNA) and present DNA collection were made and studied using Y-chromosome markers for aDNA, and Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers for present DNA. Bone samples from different skeletal elements of burial sites from Neolithic, Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods in Sudan were collected from Sudan National Museum. aDNA extraction was successful in 35 out of 76 samples, PCR was performed for sex determination using Amelogenin marker. Fourteen samples were females and 19 were males. To generate Y-chromosome specific haplogroups A-M13, B-M60, F-M89 and Y Alu Polymorphism (YAP) markers, which define the deep ancestral haplotypes in the phylogenetic tree of Y-chromosome were used. Haplogroups A-M13 was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post Meroitic and Christian periods. Haplogroup B-M60 was not observed in the sample analyzed. For extant DNA, Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroup variations were studied in 15 Sudanese populations representing the three linguistic families in Sudan by typing the major Y haplogroups in 445 unrelated males, and 404 unrelated individuals were sequenced for the mitochondrial hypervariable region. Y-chromosome analysis shows Sudanese populations falling into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 8.1, 34.2, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively. Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group. Mantel test reveal a strong correlation between genetic and linguistic structures (r= 0.30, p= 0.007), and a similar correlation between genetic and geographic distances (r= 0.29, p= 0.025) that appears after removing nomadic pastoralists of no known geographic locality from the analysis. For mtDNA analysis, a total of 56 haplotypes were observed, all belonging to the major sub-Saharan African and Eurasian mitochondrial macrohapolgroups L0, L1, L2, L4, L5, L3A, M and N in frequencies of 12.1, 11.9, 22, 4.2, 6.2, 29.5, 2, and 12.2% respectively. Haplogroups L6 was not observed in the sample analyzed. The considerable frequencies of macrohaplogroup L0 in Sudan is interesting given the fact that this macrohaplogroup occurs near the root of the mitochondrial DNA tree. Afro-Asiatic speaking groups appear to have sustained high gene flow form Nilo-Saharan speaking groups. Mantel test reveal no correlations between genetic, linguistic (r = 0.12, p = 0.14), and geographic distances (r = -0.07, p = 0.67). Accordingly, though 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. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13. The data analysis of the extant Y-chromosomes suggests that the bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events mainly from Asia and Europe, evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared to the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former. While the mtDNA data suggests that regional variation and diversity in mtDNA sequences in Sudan is likely to have been shaped by a longer history of in-situ evolution and then by human migrations form East, west-central and North Africa and to a lesser extent from Eurasia to the Nile Valley.
Unless you want to say I made up all the above.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Hassan's statement above is from an earlier paper and is in reference to MODERN Nubians who, of course lack haplogroup A! The results from Neolithic Nubians however is different story.
This thread is not about modern Nubians but ancient Nubians specifically Neolithic Nubians! Sorry that Hassan's findings shatter your preconceived notions of genetic Sub-Saharan.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Genetic Patterns of Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Variation, with Implications to the Peopling of the Sudan
Hisham Yousif Hassan Mohamed B.sc. (Honors) of Zoology, University of Khartoum, 1999 Upgrading to PhD. Institute of Endemic Diseases, 2004 Thesis Submitted for the Fulfillment of Requirements for Philosophy Degree of Science in Molecular Biology Supervisor: Prof. Muntaser Eltayeb Ibrahim Department of Molecular Biology Institute of Endemic Diseases University of Khartoum July 2009 231 pages
The area known today as Sudan may have been the scene of pivotal human evolutionary events, both as a corridor for ancient and modern migrations, as well as the venue of crucial past cultural evolution. Several questions pertaining to the pattern of succession of the different groups in early Sudan have been raised. To shed light on these aspects, ancient DNA (aDNA) and present DNA collection were made and studied using Y-chromosome markers for aDNA, and Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers for present DNA. Bone samples from different skeletal elements of burial sites from Neolithic, Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods in Sudan were collected from Sudan National Museum. aDNA extraction was successful in 35 out of 76 samples, PCR was performed for sex determination using Amelogenin marker. Fourteen samples were females and 19 were males. To generate Y-chromosome specific haplogroups A-M13, B-M60, F-M89 and Y Alu Polymorphism (YAP) markers, which define the deep ancestral haplotypes in the phylogenetic tree of Y-chromosome were used. Haplogroups A-M13 was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post Meroitic and Christian periods. Haplogroup B-M60 was not observed in the sample analyzed. For extant DNA, Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroup variations were studied in 15 Sudanese populations representing the three linguistic families in Sudan by typing the major Y haplogroups in 445 unrelated males, and 404 unrelated individuals were sequenced for the mitochondrial hypervariable region. Y-chromosome analysis shows Sudanese populations falling into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 8.1, 34.2, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively. Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group. Mantel test reveal a strong correlation between genetic and linguistic structures (r= 0.30, p= 0.007), and a similar correlation between genetic and geographic distances (r= 0.29, p= 0.025) that appears after removing nomadic pastoralists of no known geographic locality from the analysis. For mtDNA analysis, a total of 56 haplotypes were observed, all belonging to the major sub-Saharan African and Eurasian mitochondrial macrohapolgroups L0, L1, L2, L4, L5, L3A, M and N in frequencies of 12.1, 11.9, 22, 4.2, 6.2, 29.5, 2, and 12.2% respectively. Haplogroups L6 was not observed in the sample analyzed. The considerable frequencies of macrohaplogroup L0 in Sudan is interesting given the fact that this macrohaplogroup occurs near the root of the mitochondrial DNA tree. Afro-Asiatic speaking groups appear to have sustained high gene flow form Nilo-Saharan speaking groups. Mantel test reveal no correlations between genetic, linguistic (r = 0.12, p = 0.14), and geographic distances (r = -0.07, p = 0.67). Accordingly, though 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. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13. The data analysis of the extant Y-chromosomes suggests that the bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events mainly from Asia and Europe, evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared to the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former. While the mtDNA data suggests that regional variation and diversity in mtDNA sequences in Sudan is likely to have been shaped by a longer history of in-situ evolution and then by human migrations form East, west-central and North Africa and to a lesser extent from Eurasia to the Nile Valley.[/i]
I have added the proper citation^ into your post which you should have done. It's a 231 page PhD Thesis. The above in the abstract
So assuming you can coordinate this specifically to A-Group Nubians (but I didn't see anything in the thesis that was that specific, although it is a lot to get through and the search doesn't work too efficiently ) but assuming that A-group Nubians were A-M13 then according to the below they would be expected to correspond to type A below
and as wee can the chart on the bottom if A group was A-M13 then genetically Sudanese groups Dinka, Nuba, Fur are much closer to A-Group "Nubians" as compared to modern day Nubians none of whom in this sample of 39 were bearing any clade of Haplogroup A
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Craniofacially speaking there is a general distinction between North Africans and Sub-Saharans are shown below.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Ironically that is a hypothesis that Swenet put forward. The Upper-Paleolithic Euros like Crog-Magnon had features reminiscent of Melanesians and Australian Aborigines, and not only were "caucasoid" features found in Africa first but these features were gracile and not robust like Paleolithic Western Eurasians. This is why you had 19th Century anthropologists like Giuseppe Sergi postulate a "Brown Mediterranean Race" that originated in Africa and were "Caucasoid" in form but much gracile and much darker/melanated skin but who "diverged" from Negroes. In fact another theory was developed about a "Eurafrican Race" that diverged from a common ancestry with Negroes and was represented by the so-called Mechta Afalou types of the Maghreb and was the ancestral to Mediterraneans. Dana Marniche has pointed all this out in her "Myth of the Mediterranean Race" paper. Even the Eurocentric blogger Dienekes years back spoke of "Prehistoric East African Caucasoids" as exemplified by fossils in the Kenyan Rift Valley like Gamble's Cave like Elmenteita or Naivasha.
This is why racial typology has been proven to be scientifically invalid.
I remember Swenet telling me that Paleolithic Western Eurasians were trending in a direction superficially resembling Native Americans as well as Oceanians prior to receiving further admixture from North Africa. Recall, of course, that Native Americans share "Ancient North Eurasian" ancestry with Europeans.
I was strolling around Wikipedia (I know it isn't the best source about Ancient Egypt)
When I bumped into this quote here found on this wikipage about the A-Group Nubians (The same quote is also found on the Population History of Egypt)
I'm confused as I always read the Badari as well as the Naqada as possessing some Negroid traits and I remember reading Anthropologists such as Frank Yurco describing the Pre-dynastic Egyptians as having a blend of "North African" and "Sub-Saharan" traits.
Is this a mistake or am I misreading things? Is anybody familiar with this study or this anthropologist?
Caucasoid is an outdated racial term created by Europeans to indicate features of human crania that supposedly originated in the caucasus mountains. In calling various African groups caucasoid, what they are claiming is that these groups have ancestry from the caucasus, when they don't. And the fact is that most European race scientist acknowledged early on that all human features came from Africa, including so called caucasoid features. But they could not stop themselves from trying to twist the data to promote Europe as the origin of such features. And this includes claiming aboriginal black African populations with those features as somehow part of the white race.
quote: Carleton Coon
There was never consensus among the proponents of the "Caucasoid race" concept regarding how it would be delineated from other groups such as the proposed Mongoloid race. Carleton S. Coon (1939) included the populations native to all of Central and Northern Asia, including the Ainu people, under the Caucasoid label. However, many scientists maintained the racial categorizations of color established by Meiners' and Blumenbach's works, along with many other early steps of anthropology, well into the late 19th and mid-to-late 20th centuries, increasingly used to justify political policies, such as segregation and immigration restrictions, and other opinions based in prejudice. For example, Thomas Henry Huxley (1870) classified all populations of Asian nations as Mongoloid. Lothrop Stoddard (1920) in turn classified as "brown" most of the populations of the Middle East, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Central Asia and South Asia. He counted as "white" only European peoples and their descendants, as well as a few populations in areas adjacent to or opposite southern Europe, in parts of Anatolia and parts of the Rif and Atlas mountains.
In 1939, Coon argued that the Caucasian race had originated through admixture between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens of the "Mediterranean type" which he considered to be distinct from Caucasians, rather than a subtype of it as others had done. While Blumenbach had erroneously thought that light skin color was ancestral to all humans and the dark skin of southern populations was due to sun, Coon thought that Caucasians had lost their original pigmentation as they moved North. Coon used the term "Caucasoid" and "White race" synonymously.
In 1962, Coon published The Origin of Races, wherein he proposed a polygenist view, that human races had evolved separately from local varieties of Homo erectus. Dividing humans into five main races, and argued that each evolved in parallel but at different rates, so that some races had reached higher levels of evolution than others. He argued that the Caucasoid race had evolved 200,000 years prior to the "Congoid race", and hence represented a higher evolutionary stage.
Coon argued that Caucasoid traits emerged prior to the Cro-Magnons, and were present in the Skhul and Qafzeh hominids. However, these fossils and the Predmost specimen were held to be Neanderthaloid derivatives because they possessed short cervical vertebrae, lower and narrower pelves, and had some Neanderthal skull traits. Coon further asserted that the Caucasoid race was of dual origin, consisting of early dolichocephalic (e.g. Galley Hill, Combe-Capelle, Téviec) and Neolithic Mediterranean Homo sapiens (e.g. Muge, Long Barrow, Corded), as well as Neanderthal-influenced brachycephalic Homo sapiens dating to the Mesolithic and Neolithic (e.g. Afalou, Hvellinge, Fjelkinge).
Coon's theories on race were much disputed in his lifetime,[44] and are considered pseudoscientific in modern anthropology.
So a lot of it is basically propaganda using semantics and word games to hide the fact that so-called caucasoid features originate in Africa in Northern and North Eastern Africa. This is why these people are so obsessed with classifying Africans in North East Africa as "caucasoid" so they can claim them as being part of white or Eurasian history, when they are not.
And the fact is that to this day, large numbers of people in Northern Sudan and Southern Egypt have so-called "caucasoid" features. This phenotype includes straighter hair, narrow faces and features, which are also found in populations across North East Africa.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I have added the proper citation^ into your post which you should have done. It's a 231 page PhD Thesis. The above in the abstract
Thank you, and I apologize for the confusion.
quote:So assuming you can coordinate this specifically to A-Group Nubians (but I didn't see anything in the thesis that was that specific, although it is a lot to get through and the search doesn't work too efficiently ) but assuming that A-group Nubians were A-M13 then according to the below they would be expected to correspond to type A below
Firstly, the Neolithic genetic sample that Hassan refers to actually came from the Kadruka remains of Upper Nubia not those of Qustul. Second, we know from skeletal analysis of those remains by Becker et al. 2011 that they actually resemble Qustul remains and thus were type B! Hence Becker's conclusion below. Substantial gene flow and migrations from the north entered the Northern Sudanese Nile Valley after its original Saharo-Nilotic inhabitants had adopted Neolithic subsistence strategies. The incomers partly replaced and interbred with the Saharo-Nilotes of the region. The people of the A-Group and the inhabitants of sites like Kadruka were representatives of the resulting non-Saharo-Nilotic population. Conversely, the Saharo-Nilotic groups further south, both in the Nile Valley and in the adjacent areas of the Sahara, remained largely unaffected by the northern influence.
The problem is that there are many people like you and Antalas who attempt to equate genetic lineage with morphotype so you assume all carriers of so-called "Sub-Saharan" lineages (as if such lineages are limited to Sub-Sahara to begin with) have to look a certain way.
Even Becker is probably guilty of such thinking since he talks of interbreeding, which probably did happen, which he probably bases on the presence of A-M13. Yet according to the genetic findings A-M13 seemed to be the predominant male lineage among the Kadruka even though they were 'type B'. A-M13 also occurs at high frequency today among northern Ethiopians who are also 'type B'.
quote:and as wee can the chart on the bottom if A group was A-M13 then genetically Sudanese groups Dinka, Nuba, Fur are much closer to A-Group "Nubians" as compared to modern day Nubians none of whom in this sample of 39 were bearing any clade of Haplogroup A
Yes they would be closer in paternal lineage but again that is just *one fraction* of their genome. What about maternal lineage? Or better yet, what about autosomal DNA which provides the best indicator of actual admixture amount. We've already discussed the latter here, and the results are shown below:
^ Notice how unlike the Kulubnarti samples, Kadruka is devoid of any 'Dinka' ancestry and instead seems to be just slightly less than half Jordan PPNB ancestry with the rest being Kenyan LSA.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are continuing on with this same pattern of missing citation You have some chart here not from a peer review article and then you do your usual thing about quoting a thread and then the usual "we discussed this" The chart you have above is from blog, any chart you post should have the title of the article below it, not just a link that could go dead and the link you have is not directly to an article. I think you do this to conceal the sketchiness of the info source
That blogs says
"Much cannot be said outside of what the “leaked” abstract above can confirm. I say so due to the extremely poor (though available) coverage of the specimen. "
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Here's a quick look into KDR001 Autosomal make up posted on Revoiye.
^ at minimum you should quote this from the thread instead of the thread. and then optionally the thread discussing it
This citation is not that great either, assumes we know what Revoiye is
so with further investigation
_____________________________________
About Revoiye
What is Revoiye? This is the product of when you combine what started as an individual with questions and the vast resources buried on the web. Since 2014 that individual took those resources and questions to forums and e-mails to seek and provide context they and others were starved of. Though there was progress in understanding since then, it had been seldom when it came to what mattered to some. Those who maintained a certain line of reasoning and or questioning had been drowned out due to erroneous factors. This is why we’re here now; as there is potential for more to be answered once the voices who question grows louder.
It's not even a person giving their name and there are zero credentials given
So it's some nameless person on a blog, unpublished chart, no peer review and of admitted poor quality of DNA
And you keep mentioning Kadruka. Hassan published nothing about Kadruka
I am going to update that other thread with the actual peer-review article that came out later (December 2022)
the only DNA published from Neolithic Kadruka as of May 23 2023 is from a single hair of of one individual
4000-year-old hair from the Middle Nile highlights unusual ancient DNA degradation pattern and a potential source of early eastern Africa pastoralists Ke Wang, et al, Dec 2022
posted
^ LOL You can scrutinize Revoiye all you want. You are mistaken if you think I consider them to be the end all be all. I take their expertise as seriously as I did DNA Tribes. That is while I don't take their genomic assessments as top tier peer-reviewed research, I do consider their findings to be relevant clues if not bread crumbs to what the actual genetic situation is. Take for example their findings on ANA vs. Eurasian. This is why Swenet is correct to not just scrutinize everything even the works of peer-reviewed scholars but also take note on what clues are elucidated and throw out the bathwater but not the baby so to speak. It's the same with DNA Tribes findings on Amarna affinities to Great Lakes populations. There is some truth to that but it tends to get misconstrued by many Afrocentrics from what it may actually imply. The same can be said in regards to Jordanian PPNB vs. Kenyan LSA.
Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I remember Swenet telling me that Paleolithic Western Eurasians were trending in a direction superficially resembling Native Americans as well as Oceanians prior to receiving further admixture from North Africa. Recall, of course, that Native Americans share "Ancient North Eurasian" ancestry with Europeans.
Yes. Though don't get me wrong, Unlike Dana or some Afrocentrics I don't attribute all gracilization in Europeans to African admixture. Gracilization was (still is) an ongoing craniomorphic trend happening in all Anatomically Modern Humans. Many tend to attribute gracilization to the Neolithic lifestyle and later industrialization but that the same trend occurs in modern hunter-gatherers including Australian Aborigines refutes this. The problem with racial thinking is that traits like narrow faces and narrow noses get be labeled as "caucasoid" despite such craniometric trends occurring not only in Africa and South Asia but Tibet and the Pacific. I have repeated many times years ago how old Western anthropology has even classified some Filipinos as "Mediterranean Caucasoid" due to certain features. So it is any wonder this craziness continues to afflict African anthropology.
Getting more to the topic, Nubians especially Lower Nubians were long noted to be the closest in affinity to Egyptians which contradicted the 'Wretched Black Nubians" propaganda that early Egyptology was spreading.
Ironically, this contradicted Greco-Roman texts grouping Ethiopians and Egyptians together. Meanwhile as archaeology excavates further up the Nile we can see a continuation of so-called North African population stretching further south in what some have called the case of the "disappearing Negro". LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Getting more to the topic, Nubians especially Lower Nubians were long noted to be the closest in affinity to Egyptians which contradicted the 'Wretched Black Nubians" propaganda that early Egyptology was spreading.
You have "Wretched Black Nubians" in quotes
yet if you look that up in google the result is zero
Closeness of biological affinity has nothing to do the term "Wretched Kush", that is the term translated by Breasted. The context of it is not describing a physique it's describing an enemy nation and there is a similar translation when describing Libyans: _________________________
Merenptah’s record:
quote: The wretched, fallen chief of Libya, Meryey, son of Dyd, has fallen upon the country of Tehenu with his bowmen … Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Luka, Teresh, (all Sea People), taking the best of every warrior and every warship of his country. He has brought his wife and his children … leaders of the camp, and he has reached the western boundary in the fields of Perire. … infantry and chariotry in great number were camped before them on the shore in front of the district of Perire.
Amenemhat I and Senusret I’s Nubian expeditions are confirmed by graffiti left by the participants at Gebel el Girgawi, about 180km south of Elephantine. Further expeditions occurred under Amenemhat II, but it was during the reign of Senusret III that canals through the First Cataract were constructed and the southern frontier was pushed to the Third Cataract and the forts of Semna and Uronarti were built. Year 8 under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt:
quote: Khakaura (Senusret III), living forever. His majesty commanded to make the canal anew, the name of this canal being: ‘Beautiful are the Ways of Khakaura OPERATIONS IN THE SOUTH — THE NUBIAN NILE 67 living forever’, when his majesty proceeded up-river to overthrow Kush, the wretched. Length of this canal 150 cubits (75m); width 20 (10m); depth 15 (7.5m). Year 16, third month of the second season, occurred his majesty’s making the southern boundary as far as Heh (Semna). I have made my boundary beyond that of my fathers. … I captured their women, I carried off their subjects, went forth to their wells, smote their bulls; I reaped their grain and set fire theret
An inscription on the island of Sehel near Elephantine, describes how Thutmose I had to clear the canal built at the First Cataract during the Middle Kingdom before he would be able to attack Kush. His majesty commanded to dig this canal, after he found it stopped up with stones, so that no ship sailed upon it. He sailed downstream upon it, his heart glad having slain his enemies.172 The clearing of a canal would normally be considered a constabulary state building task, but such a task was also undertaken as part of a military operation. In this instance: His majesty sailed this canal in victory and power, at his return from overthrowing the wretched Kush.
An inscription on the island of Sehel near Elephantine, describes how Thutmose I had to clear the canal built at the First Cataract during the Middle Kingdom before he would be able to attack Kush.
quote: His majesty commanded to dig this canal, after he found it stopped up with stones, so that no ship sailed upon it. He sailed downstream upon it, his heart glad having slain his enemies.
The clearing of a canal would normally be considered a constabulary state building task, but such a task was also undertaken as part of a military operation. In this instance:
quote: His majesty sailed this canal in victory and power, at his return from overthrowing the wretched Kush.
Sinuhe was not the only Egyptian to participate in wars fought in Syria. The Ancient Egyptian maritime forces of the Middle Kingdom could pick and choose in which Syrian wars they preferred to participate. The biography of the noble Sebek-khu, from Abydos, describes how he led a reserve force during a battle fought by Senusret III in Syria.
quote: His majesty proceeded northward, to overthrow the Asiatics. His majesty arrived at a district, Sekmem was its name. His majesty led the good way in proceeding to the palace of ‘Life, Prosperity and Health’, when Sekmem had fallen, together with Retjenu (Syria) the wretched, while I was acting as rearguard. Then the ‘living-ones’ of the army mixed in, to fight with the Asiatics. Then I captured an Asiatic, and had his weapons seized by two ‘living-ones’ of the army, for one did not turn back from the fight, but my face was to the front, and I gave not my back to the Asiatic.
posted
^ If you were paying attention, I was referring to the racist propaganda of the time that attempted to racialize the conflicts Egypt had with Nubia. Of course the Egyptians had the same epithets for other foreigners they were at conflict with. By the way, the word Egyptologists translate as "wretched" is khsy which is etymologically related to khsw which means foreign or strange. Though as Ibis showed here Nubians were not as khsw as other foreigners. This issue was discussed before and explained by Egyptologist Dr. Stuart Tyson Smith.
Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes I know that. His book was discussed in the thread I cited. My point is that James Breasted translation of Nehesi to mean "negro" has long been debunked and now we have skeletal and genetic evidence showing that Africans of 'Type B' morphology the same as the Egyptians stretched up the Nile into Upper Nubia as shown by Kadruka, and that nonmetric traits for A-Group shows ties to modern Ethiopians and is suggested by Y-DNA hg A-M13 in Kadruka remains.
So the whole notion of so-called 'Sub-Saharan' haplogroups being limited to that part of the continent is debunked and so too is the notion of certain cranial morphotypes being geographically limited.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should point out that the culture to which Kadruka belongs is the Abkan Culture which is part of the Sudanese Neolithic Complex. The Abkan Culture also shows many affinities to A-Group/Ta-Seti Culture to its north showing a direct relation.
As mentioned earlier, their dental morphology shows them to be part of the North African complex and judging by the look of their skulls their cranio-morphology also fits that type though this type reaches into Sub-Sahara in the Horn area.
Also, though I posted this chart showing hg A-M13 having its highest frequency in the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia...
Ethiohelix cites a paper published years ago showing a higher frequency among Wolayta of southwest Ethiopia.
The prevalence of this haplogroup in Ethiopia has always been known to us, however the extremely high frequency in the Wolayta is quite a surprise, this could be due to the relatively small sample size however, as the much higher sample size of the Wolayta found in the Plaster thesis, only showed 13% of A-M13.
But in regards to the Nile Valley, though we only have the genetic findings of Kadruka and not Qustul or other A-Group sites, we do have findings for Egyptians of the Old and Middle Kingdoms that Beyoku first posted in FBD
quote: OK A-M13, L3f Ok A-M13, L0a1 OK B-M150, L3d OK E-M2, L3e5 OK E-M2, L2a1 OK E-M123, L5a1 OK E-M35, R0a OK E-M41, L2a1 OK E-M41, L1b1a OK E-M75, M1 OK E-M78, L4b OK J-M267, L3i OK R-M173, L2 OK T-M184, L0a
posted
While we're on the topic of A-Group Nubians, this paper on Academia.edu suggests that the Egyptians referred to their first nome as Ta-Seti because they resettled A-Group people there after defeating their kingdom:
quote:Having considered and analyzed the historical events of the time, I am now more inclined to believe that the 22nd Upper Egyptian nome was created primarily to become the new home for the displaced A-Group people.After defeating the ruler of Ta-Sty and destroying his capital and the royal cemetery at Qustul, whether by king Hor -Aha or Djer or whoever, the A-Group population of Lowe Nubia was widely dispersed; some fled southward following the Nile , others headed eastward and west-ward into the deserts.Thousands were undoubtedly taken prisoners to Egypt. Probably part of the population anticipated the catastrophe and surrendered peacefully . Under such situations, and after considering the best way as to how make most of the defeated A-Group people,the Egyptian authorities decided upon accommodating them inside its borders, naming their new home Ta-Sty. Thereafter, the region was organized to become the southern border.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: While we're on the topic of A-Group Nubians, this paper on Academia.edu suggests that the Egyptians referred to their first nome as Ta-Seti because they resettled A-Group people there after defeating their kingdom:
quote:Having considered and analyzed the historical events of the time, I am now more inclined to believe that the 22nd Upper Egyptian nome was created primarily to become the new home for the displaced A-Group people.After defeating the ruler of Ta-Sty and destroying his capital and the royal cemetery at Qustul, whether by king Hor -Aha or Djer or whoever, the A-Group population of Lowe Nubia was widely dispersed; some fled southward following the Nile , others headed eastward and west-ward into the deserts.Thousands were undoubtedly taken prisoners to Egypt. Probably part of the population anticipated the catastrophe and surrendered peacefully . Under such situations, and after considering the best way as to how make most of the defeated A-Group people,the Egyptian authorities decided upon accommodating them inside its borders, naming their new home Ta-Sty. Thereafter, the region was organized to become the southern border.
That the citizens of Ta-Sty were resettled in the 1st Nome after their defeat by Ta-Shemau is a common theory that I and many others have always had, but I question if the name 'Ta-Sty' was applied to the nome after this event. If the inhabitants of the 1st Nome were already ethnic Setiu prior to the wars with Qustul Kingdom, then there's no reason why the Egyptians didn't call the nome Ta-Sty before their conquest.
The main point of this thread is to address Lostranger's query. A-Group Nubians were morphologically "caucasoid" like other North Africans but this also includes Sub-Saharans in the Horn region as well. So I think the Abkan people like Kadruka were the link in this anthropological chain.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: While we're on the topic of A-Group Nubians, this paper on Academia.edu suggests that the Egyptians referred to their first nome as Ta-Seti because they resettled A-Group people there after defeating their kingdom:
quote:Having considered and analyzed the historical events of the time, I am now more inclined to believe that the 22nd Upper Egyptian nome was created primarily to become the new home for the displaced A-Group people.After defeating the ruler of Ta-Sty and destroying his capital and the royal cemetery at Qustul, whether by king Hor -Aha or Djer or whoever, the A-Group population of Lowe Nubia was widely dispersed; some fled southward following the Nile , others headed eastward and west-ward into the deserts.Thousands were undoubtedly taken prisoners to Egypt. Probably part of the population anticipated the catastrophe and surrendered peacefully . Under such situations, and after considering the best way as to how make most of the defeated A-Group people,the Egyptian authorities decided upon accommodating them inside its borders, naming their new home Ta-Sty. Thereafter, the region was organized to become the southern border.
That paper is just repeating the same theories since Petrie and Reisner, based solely on a few glyphs with nothing more than that. And it also gets the numbering of the nomes wrong. Ta Seti s the FIRST nome, not the 22nd nome or in other words, the beginning of the nome system. And this is reflected in the Edfu texts which uses mythology to tell the story of the founding of the various nomes, starting in Ta Seti, ie with southerners. And given that the Edfu texts are one of the best remaining examples of the mythological narrative surrounding the origin of the kingdom, I am surprised it still isn't fully published in English. But anyway, if these people were displaced it is because of shifting environmental conditions not due to some war.
Also, a recent work by Maria Gatto shows there is no evidence for this and actually supports the position of the so-called "Nubians", "A-group" or whatever you want to call them being above the first cataract for quite some time.
quote: On the other hand, a long-term and stable presence of Nubian people in the area surrounding the First Cataract and from there northward up to Hierakonpolis and even Armant is well attested (Gatto 2003; in press a; in press b; Midant-Reynes & Buchez 2002) and has to be taken into consideration. Interesting to note, unique cultural features, unknown elsewhere, are there recorded and may indicate the presence of a regional variant of the Naqadian culture combining, particularly during the first half of the fourth millennium BC, both Egyptian and Nubian traditions (Gatto 2003; in press b). The sites located between Kubbaniya and Metardul are 23 in total: 14 on the west bank consists on 11 cemeteries and 3 settlements; 9 cemeteries were found on the east bank; and some graves and remains within the habitation site were recorded at Elephantine island.
Otherwise there has been numerous evidences of Southerners with so called caucasoid features even if they were depicted as jet black. Such as some of the depictions from the tomb of Huy.
Posts: 8907 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah Doug is right I was confused because Ta-Seti was the first nome of Egypt as the nation was situated from south to north…
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Craniofacially speaking there is a general distinction between North Africans and Sub-Saharans as shown below.
That said, certain traits typically called "negroid" such as wide nasal opening and prognathism are not uncommon among North Africans. This is why North Africans have traditionally been classified as "Caucasoids" but with "negroids traits".
Nonmetric traits are a better indication of genetic relations and they still show North Africans to be intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians.
I was reading through this thread again and I have a few questions on these points that you made.
When you say North Africans display a mix of Cauacasoid and Negroid cranial traits are you talking only about Ancient North Africans such as Badari, Naqada, etc etc or all North Africans? How about the modern fairer and "Arab looking" North Africans such as these guys:
Would they still fit intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasian craniometrically? If so wouldn't that indicate craniometric continuity between Ancient Egyptians and Modern Egyptians?
I ask this because several craniometric studies often show Ancient (Upper) Egyptians such as the Badari and Naqada for example clustering with Sub-Saharan African groups such as Kerma/Nubians/Sudanese, Tigreans, Somalis etc etc. By this logic shouldn't Badari and Naqada be within the Sub-Saharan craniometric grouping or at least close to it? And if there truly is a distinction between North African craniofacial traits and Sub-Saharan craniofacial traits as you stated why then did Keita show the Badari and Naqada (both North Africans) clustering more with "southerly groups?"
Thank You
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I was talking about indigenous North Africans both modern but especially ancient ones. Many modern North Africans are mixed (with Europeans in the Maghreb and Arabs in the Nile Valley) and while some of that admixture may go back to ancient times by and large the original phenotype is still retained especially in rural areas. Many photos you see of fair-skinned types in Egypt are found though not exclusively in the urban areas like in Cairo, Damietta, etc.
When I speak of a "mix" of traits, it depends on the traits. For example many North Africans may have prognathism despite having "caucasoid" like morphology. Another example comes from metric studies done by Cicely Fawcett as far back as 1902.
Skull and cliometrician measurement apparatus, from 1902.
A Second Study of the Variation and Correlation of the Human Skull, With Special Reference to the Naqada Crania Cicely D. Fawcett and Alice Lee 1902
"Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be sufficiently homogeneous to justify speaking of a Naqada race. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the cephalic and facial indices, this race presents affinities with Negroes. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans...." ---Dr. Emile Massoulard, Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt
That's just with metric traits. There seems to be a lot more with nonmetric traits, but all of these tend to get glossed over or ignored by Euronuts. But the facial morphometric trend is not just found in North Africans but also in indigenous East Africans as well.
I ask this because several craniometric studies often show Ancient (Upper) Egyptians such as the Badari and Naqada for example clustering with Sub-Saharan African groups such as Kerma/Nubians/Sudanese, Tigreans, Somalis etc etc. By this logic shouldn't Badari and Naqada be within the Sub-Saharan craniometric grouping or at least close to it? And if there truly is a distinction between North African craniofacial traits and Sub-Saharan craniofacial traits as you stated why then did Keita show the Badari and Naqada (both North Africans) clustering more with "southerly groups?"
Thank You
Those "Sub-saharan African groups" you highlight fall into the North african variation and are physically/genetically much closer to North Africans and eurasians than the rest of SSA.
quote: Nubia, for its part, is significantly different from six of the 12 groups with which it is compared. It comes close to being excluded from the Late Dynastic sample from Giza in Lower Egypt, and it comes within few percentage points of being excluded from sub-Saharan Africa as well. Nubians cannot be excluded from modern Europeans or from their northern neighbors at Predynastic Naqada, and barely from modern Somalis. Perhaps somewhat more surprisingly, they also cannot be excluded from South Asia-the Indian subcontinent . This simply reaffirms what can be seen in Figures 2-4.
Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
In Joel D. Irish 1998, people from Ancient Nubia are grouped with North Africans and these are some of his conclusion :
quote: As described by others (Hiernaux, 1975; Excoffier et al, 1987; Roychoudhury and Nei, 1988; Lipschultz, 1996; among others) and as noted in this and previous studies (Irish, 1993b, 1997, 1998a), North Africans are genetically and phenetically allied with Europeans and western Asians. North African dental frequencies are similar to those of Europeans, except for some traits that show apparent sub-Saharan influence. Such a North/ Sub-Saharan African combination is also evident in many genetic systems (e.g., Roychoudhury and Nei, 1988). Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which parallels that of Europeans, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans.
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).
Irish Joel D. Dental morphological affinities of Late Pleistocene through recent sub-Saharan and north African peoples. In: Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'anthropologie de Paris, Nouvelle Série. Tome 10 fascicule 3-4, 1998.
Here from Irish 2010, we see that the SSA cluster plots far from Ethiopians, Ancient Egyptians and maghrebis who all plot much closer to the european series :
Furthermore, do not fall into the misconception that the inhabitants of the Nile Valley shared a uniform appearance. Throughout both contemporary and ancient periods, there has consistently existed a spectrum of diversity.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Furthermore, do not fall into the misconception
Probably is not going to do me any good to point this out (I have already pointed this out to you, before, and pointing things out on anthro fora is generally a waste of time in my experience as shown by explained subjects reverting back to square one, like the Groundhog Day movie). But if you want to talk about misconceptions...
If you look at the Taf and Afa samples in that Irish PCA, that's roughly where 'unmixed' Europeans and Middle Eastern Mesolithic HGs would be, before the homogenization of West Eurasia that took place in the holocene. So Nubians plotting where they do with respect to SSA samples is part of a larger set of reasons that also involves Europeans and Middle Easterners no longer being anywhere close to West Eurasian hgs.
At this point, you're just exploiting false appearances that are a recent thing (they only arose in the holocene and have no real antiquity as shown by the large distance of the pre-holocene Afa and Taf samples in your PCA). At least Nubians can be linked to populations in Africa dated to at least 17ky ago. What Palaeolithic populations can modern European and Middle Easterners be linked to? Nothing older than Natufians, and even Natufians don't look like modern Euros or Middle Easterners, as I've already explained to you.Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Probably is not going to do me any good to point this out (I have already pointed this out to you, before, and pointing things out on anthro fora is generally a waste of time in my experience as shown by explained subjects reverting back to square one, like the Groundhog Day movie). But if you want to talk about misconceptions...
If you look at the Taf and Afa samples in that Irish PCA, that's roughly where 'unmixed' Europeans and Middle Eastern Mesolithic HGs would be, before the homogenization of West Eurasia that took place in the holocene. So Nubians plotting where they do with respect to SSA samples is part of a larger set of reasons that also involves Europeans and Middle Easterners no longer being anywhere close to West Eurasian hgs.
At this point, you're just exploiting false appearances that are a recent thing (they only arose in the holocene and have no real antiquity as shown by the large distance of the pre-holocene Afa and Taf samples in your PCA). At least Nubians can be linked to populations in Africa by 17ky ago. What Palaeolithic populations can modern European and Middle Easterners be linked to? Nothing older than Natufians, and even Natufians don't look like modern Euros or Middle Easterners, as I've already explained to you. [/QB]
How does this relate to any points raised in this thread ? And in what way does it dispute the content of my previous post ? Your response seems to lack concrete arguments to challenge the clear fact that whether you like it or not none of these ancient populations align with the majority of modern SSAs.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: At least Nubians can be linked to populations in Africa by 17ky ago. What Palaeolithic populations can modern European and Middle Easterners be linked to? Nothing older than Natufians, and even Natufians don't look like modern Euros or Middle Easterners
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by this, as such links can be inferred for most global populations. However, when it comes to certain aspects of their morphology, there is no apparent connection, and the distinctions are quite evident when compared to their Mesolithic ancestors :
quote:Here we investigated the patterns of craniofacial and mandibular variation from Mesolithic hunting-gathering to late farming (in Lower Nubia), a period spanning 11,000 years. … Our results highlight a strong morphometric distinction between Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and farmers … This study corroborates a major biological change during the transition from hunting to farming (…) Our results clearly depict a strong craniofacial and mandibular distinction in size and shape components between Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and early and late farmers. ... the cranial results align with the predictions of the “population influx” hypothesis at the point of transition from hunter-gathering to farming
quote: [...] a recent preliminary study of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic human remains (Crèvecoeur 2012) describes strong and signifcant diferences (anatomical discontinuity) between the two populations from el-Barga (in the Kerma area). The Mesolithic group is more similar in terms of body size and robustness to the groups at Jebel Sahaba, Taforalt and Wadi Halfa (Crèvecoeur 2012, p. 28). Moreover, the genetic or anatomic discontinuity between the late Pleistocene population of Jebel Sahaba and that of the Gebel Ramlah Final Neolithic (following the Wendorf terminology) implies that ‘replacement or genetic swamping of an existing gene pool by an outside group, or groups, occurred after the Pleistocene’ (Irish 2005, p. 520). If this suggestion is correct, we anticipate that this discontinuity occurred near the end of the 7th millennium cal BC and that it is linked to the arrival of small agro-pastoral groups from the Levant (Bar-Yosef 2013, p. 244), apparently in connection with the so-called 8200 BP climate crisis, as suggested on genetic grounds (Smith, A.C. 2013).
Salvatori et al., The neolithic and "pastoralism" along the Nile : a dissenting view, 2019
quote:Specifically, he suspected that population replacement or genetic swamping occurred in Nubia sometime in the early Holocene (Irish, 2005). The current results are in agreement with this finding , with one subtle distinction. The current body shape results seem to place the time of the genetic discontinuity to a period subsequent to the mid-Holocene (i.e. after 4000 years ago),as opposed to the early Holocene.
T.W. Holliday, Population affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal sample : Limb Proportion Evidence, 2013
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: How does this relate to any points raised in this thread ? And in what way does it dispute the content of my previous post ? Your response seems to lack concrete arguments to challenge the clear fact that whether you like it or not none of these ancient populations align with the majority of modern SSAs.
Let me make this simple. Moments ago, you said that certain Africans "fall inside North African variation". I more or less agree with that (enough to not make it an issue). Let me now ask you, whose variations modern Europeans, North Africans and Middle Easterners fall into?
Can you point to relevant Palaeolithic West Eurasian samples anticipating the variations of the populations in the center of your Irish PCA occupied by Egyptians, modern Maghreb, Nubians, Europeans, etc? Because, as I'm sure you know, there is a population in Sudan (pre-Mesolithic al Khiday) that already anticipates the morphology of Nubians and predynastics, and it dates to the Palaeolithic.
quote: Originally posted by Antalas: I'm not sure what you mean exactly by this, as such links can be inferred for most global populations. However, when it comes to certain aspects of their morphology, there is no apparent connection, and the distinctions are quite evident when compared to their Mesolithic ancestors
What I mean is that the PCA space in the center of your Irish graph, that I've just mentioned, is not occupied by Palaelithic Europeans or Maghrebis or Middle Easterners. At least Nubians do have a Palaeolithic population that plots nearby. So, do you see where this is going? No one is going to like where this ancient DNA is going in the end. You're not going to like it either.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's move forward in baby steps. You said, that certain Africans fall inside North African variations. But what Palaeolithic North African populations are ultimately ancestral? Please name the oldest North African (or Middle Eastern/Euro) fossils that are relevant to this morphology.
BTW, if you don't answer/evade my questions and respond instead to trivial things in my post that I never intended to discuss right now, I'll just move on from the conversation because this was already explained in the 3 abstracts thread, so it's nothing that warrants a long discussion.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: How does this relate to any points raised in this thread ? And in what way does it dispute the content of my previous post ? Your response seems to lack concrete arguments to challenge the clear fact that whether you like it or not none of these ancient populations align with the majority of modern SSAs.
Let me make this simple. Moments ago, you said that certain Africans "fall inside North African variation". I more or less agree with that (enough to not make it an issue). Let me now ask you, whose variations modern Europeans, North Africans and Middle Easterners fall into?
Can you point to relevant Palaeolithic West Eurasian samples anticipating the variations of the populations in the center of your Irish PCA occupied by Egyptians, modern Maghreb, Nubians, Europeans, etc? Because, as I'm sure you know, there is a population in Sudan (pre-Mesolithic al Khiday) that already anticipates the morphology of Nubians and predynastics, and it dates to the Palaeolithic.
quote: Originally posted by Antalas: I'm not sure what you mean exactly by this, as such links can be inferred for most global populations. However, when it comes to certain aspects of their morphology, there is no apparent connection, and the distinctions are quite evident when compared to their Mesolithic ancestors
What I mean is that the PCA space in the center of your Irish graph, that I've just mentioned, is not occupied by Palaelithic Europeans or Maghrebis or Middle Easterners. At least Nubians do have a Palaeolithic population that plots nearby. So, do you see where this is going? No one is going to like where this ancient DNA is going in the end. You're not going to like it either.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's move forward in baby steps. You said, that certain Africans fall inside North African variations. But what Palaeolithic North African populations are ultimately ancestral? Please name the oldest North African (or Middle Eastern/Euro) fossils.
BTW, if you don't answer/evade my questions and respond instead to trivial things in my post that I never intended to discuss right now, I'll just move on from the conversation because this was already explained in the 3 abstracts thread, so it's nothing that warrants a long discussion.
I see where this is going. Attempting to categorize this "NA variation" solely as an African phenomenon, while positing that the Eurasian pattern is simply derivative of it, is a perspective further supported by the belief that there is no Paleolithic fossil outside Africa anticipating this morphology like the Al Khiday. This is despite the understanding that Eurasian ancestry did indeed spread in Africa during that period.
I won't delve deeply into this, but once again, how does this oppose the factual reality that, whether in contemporary times or antiquity, African populations residing in North Africa and a significant portion of the Horn are/were morphologically distinct from the majority of modern SSAs ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I was getting ready to grab my popcorn, too. But looks like Antalas is already copping out after realizing he can't name one relevant Maghrebi, Middle Eastern or Euro fossil that shows Palaeolithic/autochtonous Euros, Maghrebi or West Asians used to resemble NE Africans.
Antalas knows this already because he's been saying that Taforalt and Afalou resemble Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, and we can see where the Afalou and Taforalt are in his PCA. This is why Antalas last post is such a contradiction. He says I'm wrong because it's a fact that Eurasian ancestry came into Africa (which I agree that it did), but the recipients of this Eurasian ancestry (ie the Taforalt and Afalou samples) at best show only vague hints of affinity to predynastics/Nubians (hence, Briggs finding Type B among Afalou/Taforalt, but only as a minority component). In other words, Palaeolithic Eurasian ancestry does not help Africans become more similar to predynastics.
Antalas' only hope is that Loosdrecht's recently excavated Taforalt sample is different from the Taforalt and Afalou samples excavated in the 20th century. Like that daily mail race war article, he can place his bets on such Maghrebis being a better/more pristine example, compared to more eastern samples bearing this general phenotype. But we now know Loosdrecht's Taforalt carry E-M78, which looks like it came from somewhere west of the Red Sea (not the Maghreb or Levant), and I bet their ANA, being only distantly related to modern populations, belongs to robust/mechtoid populations. so good luck with banking on that sample to fill the gap between predynastics and palaeolithic Eurasians.
Like I said, it's not just his 'Afrocentrics' that he loves to lecture about genetic distance, who have misconceptions. He's not going to like the outcome, either.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I just busted your ass for posting only 1/3 of Hanihara's PCO chart! LOL Whereas I did not omit anything since the quote I cited was Irish's own summary describing the nonmetric nature of North Africans alone NOT Africans from the Horn who are geographically Sub-Saharan but since you bring them up, it's interesting that although nonmetrically they are 'North African' metrically they are considered intermediate between microdontic North Africans and other East Africans who are mesodontic.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
So you cite a source supporting my whole argument that Egyptians as North Africans are biologically intermediate between Sub-Saharans and Eurasians but are still Africans. I guess this is 
Printer-friendly view of this topic