quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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.
I notice Anty keeps strawmanning you, DJ, and others by insisting on how different these ancient North African populations would have looked from SSA. You'd think by now he would have gotten wise to what your positions actually are, but so far he hasn't. Dude is willfully blind at this point.
posted
^I just ignore it because I'm not going to jump through his hoops and fetch quotes of me saying the opposite, whenever he feels like accusing me. But yes, I asked him to quote me on saying that, and he admitted he doesn't have quotes of me saying that, but then he does it again. I assume he's just doing that to divert the attention away from his cognitive biases/blindspots/the elephant in the room that he doesn't want to address.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ More like the whale in the room in his case. Anty boy thinks he's talking to Afrocentrics stuck on outdated racial models where North African is the same as cranial "true negroid" and genetic IBD "Sub-Saharan". Nobody in here says that and the only one who keeps bringing up that model is him! LOL So by his own silly standard even Pygmies aren't genetically SSA and why he avoids Elijah's bloggers & laymen thread like the plague.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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.
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.
Right so in other words Pre-Dynastic Egyptians/Nubians were craniometrically distinct from palaeolithic Taforalt and Alou?
How about the Neolithic version of Taforalt and Alou/Maghrebis (whatever they're known as) is there any increase or decrease with cranio affinities with Pre-Dynasitc Egyptians/Nubians?
So in closing and again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but what I'm getting from your and Djheutis responses to Antalas is that you're essentially saying Pre-Dynastic Egyptians/Nubians despite being very different from most Sub-Saharan Africans are still just as African as any "Sub-Saharan" African and that in contrast Maghrebis aren't due to them having Eurasian ancestry?Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^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.
There's easily more than 10 000 years between these fossils, with a Neolithic revolution occurring in between. So, what is your argument precisely ? Are all anatomical changes attributed solely to admixture ? Seems like you're only arguing for the sake of arguing, perhaps due to discomfort that these ancient populations had minimal connections with most SSAs.
Let's acknowledge two points you've previously agreed upon: these individuals had Eurasian ancestors and exhibited an overall Caucasoid morphology, aligning them more closely with Eurasians than other Africans. Suggesting a potential distant Paleolithic African origin for this morphology doesn't contradict either of these points and unlike what you implied this eurasian influx isn't only restricted to the Paleolithic.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually emailed C Loring Brace 18 years ago regarding the notion of "Caucasoid" Nubians and here is what he said:
quote:Somehow the Groves and Thorne paper never came through, but I went to the library and read it there. Their results are similar to ours in many ways. And you're right, there is no evidence of for "Caucasoids" in Nubia. We have Bronze Age Nubians and more recent ones, and they are essentially the same, a whiff of sub-Saharan Africa is there in both although not nearly so clear as in the Late Pleistocene Wadi Halfa sample.
C. L. Brace
--On Monday, October 10, 2005 10:02 AM -0700 Charles Rigaud <cr_rigaud@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Dr. Brace its me Charles Rigaud once again. I > have another question for you. In Eugen Strouhal's > work, "Evidence of the Early Penetration of Negroes > into Prehistoric Egypt", he makes the following > statement: > > "In Nubia, according to the results of the analysis of > physical anthropology, the original Europoid > (Caucasoid) stock of the population was several times > overrun by Negroid waves, flowing in from the south." > > This seems to be a bit of a stretch here, but it > sounds to me like old anthropological lore when > Nubians were thought to be Caucasoids. From the > anthropological I've viewed[COLIN P. GROVES AND ALAN > THORNE 1999 The Terminal Pleistocene and > Early Holocene Populations of Northern Africa. Homo > 50(3):249-262.] the early prehistoric Nubians at jebel > Sahaba and Tushka on the Egyptian-Sudanese border were > most certainly not Caucasoids. I wonder which original > Europoid Nubians is Strouhal referring to? Enclosed is > a copy of Groves and Thorne's study also. Thanks in > advance. > > > Best Regards, > > Charles Rigaud
posted
Antalas, you're writing words but you're not saying anything, but somehow you still think you're backing me in a corner by holding me to my acknowledgement of Eurasian ancestry in Africa.
Eurasians did bring U6, and so on. One example of a Euro U6 carrier is Peştera Muierii 1. So how are you going to get me in trouble by using my statement against me, when you can't even explain how you go from Peştera Muierii 1 to NE Africans?
Alkhiday pushes back predynastics from a purely holocene population, to a palaeolithic population, and so you can't point to holocene Eurasian populations to explain predynastics. But then you can't point to Palaeolithic MENA and European populations either because the populations from that era don't even resemble the modern people who live there today (do I need to post the Natufian morphometric presentation slide again?). So you have a problem in that the holocene Eurasians are younger than alKhiday, while the Paleolithic West Eurasians populations are a dead end or absorbed into modern populations. Either way, modern West Eurasians being near NE Africans in your Irish graph doesn't bode well for your positions because their palaeolithic predecessors are much more distant.
Or maybe I give you too much credit in thinking you can figure out yourself what it means that your Irish graph has modern West Eurasians are closer to Africans than palaeolithic West Eurasians are to Africans. You can't figure out what that means?
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Antalas, you're writing words but you're not saying anything, but somehow you still think you're backing me in a corner by holding me to my acknowledgement of Eurasian ancestry in Africa.
Eurasians did bring U6, and so on. One example of a Euro U6 carrier is Peştera Muierii 1. So how are you going to get me in trouble by using my statement against me, when you can't even explain how you go from Peştera Muierii 1 to NE Africans?
Alkhiday pushes back predynastics from a purely holocene population, to a palaeolithic population, and so you can't point to holocene Eurasian populations to explain predynastics. But then you can't point to Palaeolithic MENA and European populations either because the populations from that era don't even resemble the modern people who live there today (do I need to post the Natufian morphometric presentation slide again?). So you have a problem in that the holocene Eurasians are younger than alKhiday, while the Paleolithic West Eurasians populations are a dead end or absorbed into modern populations. Either way, modern West Eurasians being near NE Africans in your Irish graph doesn't bode well for your positions because their palaeolithic predecessors are much more distant.
Or maybe I give you too much credit in thinking you can figure out yourself what it means that your Irish graph has modern West Eurasians are closer to Africans than palaeolithic West Eurasians. You can't figure out what that means?
What you still haven't understood is that you haven't contradicted any of my points at all, and you're completely missing the point, thinking that I would be bothered by the Al Khiday sample and its implications.
Irish 2021 has demonstrated that the El Khiday sample doesn't align with the clustering of Nubians, let alone Ethiopians and other Sub-Saharan Africans. Therefore, I fail to see why you're drawing a direct connection between the two, especially considering I've previously shared citations emphasizing a significant influx from the Near East during the mid-Holocene that extended into the Nile Valley and reached as far as Nubia. Consequently, a profile like that of Al Khiday doesn't necessarily imply a direct and unaltered descent from those origins. Your argumentation is clearly highly conjectural and biased.
It would be like claiming that a mixed-race individual (West African - European) descends from Ethiopians simply because they cluster together... What kind of amateurism is this ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: What you still haven't understood is that you haven't contradicted any of my points at all, and you're completely missing the point, thinking that I would be bothered by the Al Khiday sample and its implications.
Irish 2021 has demonstrated that the El Khiday sample doesn't align with the clustering of Nubians, let alone Ethiopians and other Sub-Saharan Africans. Therefore, I fail to see why you're drawing a direct connection between the two, especially considering I've previously shared citations emphasizing a significant influx from the Near East during the mid-Holocene that extended into the Nile Valley and reached as far as Nubia. Consequently, a profile like that of Al Khiday doesn't necessarily imply a direct and unaltered descent from those origins. Your argumentation is clearly highly conjectural and biased.
Have you even read Irish 2021? It clearly states this:
quote:In summary, the most parsimonious explanation is ancestors of Holocene agriculturalists were in Nubia—just not at Wadi Halfa, Gebel Sahaba, and Tushka. Although cultural diffusion with the incorporation of non-local resources occurred, with perhaps some immigration, it is unnecessary to hypothesize a significant post-Pleistocene influx of agriculturalists. The results suggest most future Nubian agriculturalists were in residence the entire time, though previously in the guise of Neolithic agro-pastoralists and intensive collectors. It would seem likely that, soil deflation aside, more Late Palaeolithic skeletal remains akin to Al Khiday may yet be discovered, possibly including Lower Nubia. So, long-term population continuity appears likely after all, perhaps including in situ selection for a reduction in cranial robusticity, as well as dental size (only), during the transition from hunting–gathering to agriculture.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Antalas, you're writing words but you're not saying anything, but somehow you still think you're backing me in a corner by holding me to my acknowledgement of Eurasian ancestry in Africa.
Eurasians did bring U6, and so on. One example of a Euro U6 carrier is Peştera Muierii 1. So how are you going to get me in trouble by using my statement against me, when you can't even explain how you go from Peştera Muierii 1 to NE Africans?
Alkhiday pushes back predynastics from a purely holocene population, to a palaeolithic population, and so you can't point to holocene Eurasian populations to explain predynastics. But then you can't point to Palaeolithic MENA and European populations either because the populations from that era don't even resemble the modern people who live there today (do I need to post the Natufian morphometric presentation slide again?). So you have a problem in that the holocene Eurasians are younger than alKhiday, while the Paleolithic West Eurasians populations are a dead end or absorbed into modern populations. Either way, modern West Eurasians being near NE Africans in your Irish graph doesn't bode well for your positions because their palaeolithic predecessors are much more distant.
Or maybe I give you too much credit in thinking you can figure out yourself what it means that your Irish graph has modern West Eurasians are closer to Africans than palaeolithic West Eurasians. You can't figure out what that means?
What you still haven't understood is that you haven't contradicted any of my points at all, and you're completely missing the point, thinking that I would be bothered by the Al Khiday sample and its implications.
Irish 2021 has demonstrated that the El Khiday sample doesn't align with the clustering of Nubians, let alone Ethiopians and other Sub-Saharan Africans. Therefore, I fail to see why you're drawing a direct connection between the two, especially considering I've previously shared citations emphasizing a significant influx from the Near East during the mid-Holocene that extended into the Nile Valley and reached as far as Nubia. Consequently, a profile like that of Al Khiday doesn't necessarily imply a direct and unaltered descent from those origins. Your argumentation is clearly highly conjectural and biased.
It would be like claiming that a mixed-race individual (West African - European) descends from Ethiopians simply because they cluster together... What kind of amateurism is this ?
Dental affinities and cranial affinities are well, they don't always line up, the earliest Nubians were "Negroid" and you're not going to like this if you keep being stubborn. I have data from a study that supports my position.
The terminal Pleistocence and early Holocene populations of northern Africa
Colin Groves, Alan Thorne
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: 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.
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.
Right so in other words Pre-Dynastic Egyptians/Nubians were craniometrically distinct from palaeolithic Taforalt and Alou?
How about the Neolithic version of Taforalt and Alou/Maghrebis (whatever they're known as) is there any increase or decrease with cranio affinities with Pre-Dynasitc Egyptians/Nubians?
So in closing and again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but what I'm getting from your and Djheutis responses to Antalas is that you're essentially saying Pre-Dynastic Egyptians/Nubians despite being very different from most Sub-Saharan Africans are still just as African as any "Sub-Saharan" African and that in contrast Maghrebis aren't due to them having Eurasian ancestry?
The 20th century Taforalt and Afalou and NE Africans are distinct, but in the bigger scheme of things (ie in a context with global populations), the former will likely possess some distant affinities with populations who have the Natufian-like component. Keith explained it as follows:
When we take into consideration the distance of Algeria from Palestine, and the antiquity of the two peoples we are considering—for the Capsian culture of North Africa is regarded as contemporary with the later Aurignacian of Europe—it is remarkable to find such a degree of correspondence between the cultures of Algeria and Palestine—particularly that they should have the practice of incisor extraction in common. Were the two peoples the same? They were certainly not of the same physical type, and yet may well have been branches of the same human stock—the Mediterranean New discoveries relating to the antiquity of man https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002696519&view=1up&seq=1Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Dental affinities and cranial affinities are well, they don't always line up, the earliest Nubians were "Negroid" and you're not going to like this if you keep being stubborn. I have data from a study that supports my position.
The terminal Pleistocence and early Holocene populations of northern Africa
Colin Groves, Alan Thorne [/QB]
"Terminal Pleistocene Nubians" aren't similar to later Nubians :
quote:Assuming phenetic affinities reflect genetic relatedness, Gebel Sahaba appears too divergent to be ancestral to succeeding Nubians —differing significantly based on 36 and 21 traits. Such findings were reported previously [22-30,33-34]. These same studies indicate the Gebel Sahaba/Tushka/Wadi Halfa population was not indigenous to Nubia or the region, instead showing affinities to sub-Saharan Africans, notably West Africa. This too is not new, and two earlier studies reported cranial similarities with sub-Saharan samples: West African Ashanti [41], and late Palaeolithic Ishango, Democratic Republic of the Congo [40, also see 64]
quote:As such, this finding contradicts the idea of genetic continuity (see above) between Late Paleolithic and recent populations (i.e., Meroitic, X-Group, and Christian) (e.g., Greene, 1972; Carlson and Van Gerven, 1977;Small, 1981; Smith and Shegev, 1988; Calcagno, 1989),and instead suggests discontinuity (e.g., Irish and Turner,1990; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997,1998a,b,d). In accordance with the latter model, it is then implied that replacement or genetic swamping of an existing gene pool by an outside group, or groups, occurred after the Pleistocene (Irish and Turner, 1990; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Irish, 1998d).
quote:To illustrate, it was demonstrated that traits characterizing the Late Paleolithic sample are common in recent populations south of the Sahara (Irish and Turner, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997, 1998a–d). A sub-Saharan affinity was also reported by workers using nondental data (de Heinzelin, 1957; Wendorf, 1968; Hiernaux, 1975; Franciscus, 1995, personal communication in 1995; Holliday, 1995; Groves and Thorne, 1999). On the other hand, traits shared by Final Neolithic and later Nubians more closely emulate those found among groups originating to the north, i.e., in Egypt and, to a diminishing degree, greater North Africa, West Asia, and Europe (Irish and Turner, 1990; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997, 1998a–d).
J.D. Irish, Population continuity vs discontinuity revisited: dental affinities among late palaeolithic through christian-era nubians, 2005
quote:[...]principal coordinates analysis with minimum spanning tree and neighbour-joining cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba humans is most similar to that of recent sub-Saharan Africans and different from that of either the Levantine Natufians or the northwest African ‘Iberomaurusian’ samples. Importantly, these results corroborate those of both Irish and Franciscus, who, using dental, oral and nasal morphology, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent sub-Saharan Africans and morphologically distinct from their penecontemporaries in other parts of North Africa or the groups that succeed them in Nubia.
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 Elijah The Tishbite: Dental affinities and cranial affinities are well, they don't always line up, the earliest Nubians were "Negroid" and you're not going to like this if you keep being stubborn. I have data from a study that supports my position.
The terminal Pleistocence and early Holocene populations of northern Africa
Colin Groves, Alan Thorne
"Terminal Pleistocene Nubians" aren't similar to later Nubians :
quote:Assuming phenetic affinities reflect genetic relatedness, Gebel Sahaba appears too divergent to be ancestral to succeeding Nubians —differing significantly based on 36 and 21 traits. Such findings were reported previously [22-30,33-34]. These same studies indicate the Gebel Sahaba/Tushka/Wadi Halfa population was not indigenous to Nubia or the region, instead showing affinities to sub-Saharan Africans, notably West Africa. This too is not new, and two earlier studies reported cranial similarities with sub-Saharan samples: West African Ashanti [41], and late Palaeolithic Ishango, Democratic Republic of the Congo [40, also see 64]
quote:As such, this finding contradicts the idea of genetic continuity (see above) between Late Paleolithic and recent populations (i.e., Meroitic, X-Group, and Christian) (e.g., Greene, 1972; Carlson and Van Gerven, 1977;Small, 1981; Smith and Shegev, 1988; Calcagno, 1989),and instead suggests discontinuity (e.g., Irish and Turner,1990; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997,1998a,b,d). In accordance with the latter model, it is then implied that replacement or genetic swamping of an existing gene pool by an outside group, or groups, occurred after the Pleistocene (Irish and Turner, 1990; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Irish, 1998d).
quote:To illustrate, it was demonstrated that traits characterizing the Late Paleolithic sample are common in recent populations south of the Sahara (Irish and Turner, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997, 1998a–d). A sub-Saharan affinity was also reported by workers using nondental data (de Heinzelin, 1957; Wendorf, 1968; Hiernaux, 1975; Franciscus, 1995, personal communication in 1995; Holliday, 1995; Groves and Thorne, 1999). On the other hand, traits shared by Final Neolithic and later Nubians more closely emulate those found among groups originating to the north, i.e., in Egypt and, to a diminishing degree, greater North Africa, West Asia, and Europe (Irish and Turner, 1990; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997, 1998a–d).
J.D. Irish, Population continuity vs discontinuity revisited: dental affinities among late palaeolithic through christian-era nubians, 2005
quote:[...]principal coordinates analysis with minimum spanning tree and neighbour-joining cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba humans is most similar to that of recent sub-Saharan Africans and different from that of either the Levantine Natufians or the northwest African ‘Iberomaurusian’ samples. Importantly, these results corroborate those of both Irish and Franciscus, who, using dental, oral and nasal morphology, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent sub-Saharan Africans and morphologically distinct from their penecontemporaries in other parts of North Africa or the groups that succeed them in Nubia.
T.W. Holliday, Population affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal sample : Limb Proportion Evidence, 2013 [/QB]
Thats because of gracilisation, not lack of common ancestors, not an influx of Eurasians. And the dental morphology doesn't refute the cranial morphology. Afalou was intermediate
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Antalas is going to do the ugly cry meme once it hits him that his genetics program tools are leaving him with no recourse, and that his "Caucasoid admixture" from Palaeolithic times are only going to lead to robust populations rather than get him closer to something resembling NE Africans.
And this was already realized in the 20th century by capable anthropologists, before anthropologists botched the proper reconstruction of Natufian population affinity, so that Natufian is today is sometimes synonymous with Eurasian.
When we take into consideration the distance of Algeria from Palestine, and the antiquity of the two peoples we are considering—for the Capsian culture of North Africa is regarded as contemporary with the later Aurignacian of Europe—it is remarkable to find such a degree of correspondence between the cultures of Algeria and Palestine-particularly that they should have the practice of incisor extraction in common. Were the two peoples the same? They were certainly not of the same physical type, and yet may well have been branches of the same human stock—the Mediterranean. We have to remember the tendency which every isolated community has to differen- tiate into a local type, and also the fact that neither Dr. Cole nor the writer had at their disposal skulls and limb bones which were intact and undisturbed. Nevertheless, the Shukbah people differed from the Algerian type in the narrowness of their skulls and in the profile of their heads. The midden people had bigger and wider heads; their brows tended to recede, and their occiputs to be high and rather steep. A similar type can be recognized in some of the living Kabyle of North Africa. On the other hand, the Shukbah people seem to me to find their nearest analogues in the predynastic type of Egypt. Certain it is that so far we have found no suggestion of the Cromagnon type of Europe in either the prehistoric people of North Africa or of Palestine. New discoveries relating to the antiquity of man https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002696519&view=1up&seq=1
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: 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:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Thats because of gracilisation, not lack of common ancestors, not an influx of Eurasians. And the dental morphology doesn't refute the cranial morphology. Afalou was intermediate
IMO, the fact that late Pleistocene Al-Khiday remains already resemble historic Egypto-Nubians means that the latter can't simply be gracilized descendants of Jebel Sahabans etc. However, it's also inconvenient for Anty's narrative because it indicates that a phenotype related to that of historic Egypto-Nubians was already in the region prior to the Holocene. Combine that with what Swenet mentioned about Pleistocene West Eurasians not resembling Egypto-Nubians that much and you can see how he can't really claim the Al-Khiday phenotype to have originated through admixture with Pleistocene back-migrants.
This is the key passage from Irish et al 2021 that I notice Anty didn't address (even though, amusingly enough, it's one of the papers he quoted in response to you):
quote:In summary, the most parsimonious explanation is ancestors of Holocene agriculturalists were in Nubia—just not at Wadi Halfa, Gebel Sahaba, and Tushka. Although cultural diffusion with the incorporation of non-local resources occurred, with perhaps some immigration, it is unnecessary to hypothesize a significant post-Pleistocene influx of agriculturalists. The results suggest most future Nubian agriculturalists were in residence the entire time, though previously in the guise of Neolithic agro-pastoralists and intensive collectors. It would seem likely that, soil deflation aside, more Late Palaeolithic skeletal remains akin to Al Khiday may yet be discovered, possibly including Lower Nubia. So, long-term population continuity appears likely after all, perhaps including in situ selection for a reduction in cranial robusticity, as well as dental size (only), during the transition from hunting–gathering to agriculture.
posted
^This search alluded to in your Irish quote was even acknowledged in the widely circulated Lawrence Angel quote where he connects his el Wad Natufian sample to Africa "via the unknown predecessors of Badarians and Tasians". A decades long search followed by a breakthrough with the alKhiday sample is nothing to sneeze at or take lightly. Lets you know the kind of blind faith Antalas has in his ideology to ignore all this context.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This comes to show just how foolishly ignorant Anty is when it comes to North African history. I remember decades ago in this forum the old moderator Ausar kept reminding people that despite the geographic label of 'North Africa', the bioanthropological history of the Maghreb (Northwest Africa) is very different from that of Northeast Africa. But apparently Anty doesn't know that, or does he? Since in another thread he wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Yes Natufians are notably distant from my Iberomaurusian ancestors too:
To Lo Stranger, Anty is correct that the narrow so-called "caucasoid" facial form is not limited to North Africa but East Africa as well which is in the paper I cited in my last post of the previous page.
But of course he is dead wrong to attribute this morphology to "Eurasians". As Swenet points out, such morphology is indigenous to Africa and the earliest evidence is found in Sub-Sahara i.e. Al Khiday in central Sudan.
quote: She was one of the first generation of high-profile black supermodels and although attitudes have changed since 1975, she insists that the fashion industry is inherently racist. Then, she was treated as some kind of exotic alien. 'Oh, you're so beautiful,' was one comment, 'you must be half-white.' Her reply? 'I don't have a drop of white blood in me. I'm beautiful because I am black and I am Somali.'
Jean Hiernaux Peoples of the World Series: The People of Africa (1975) The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions............. From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.
Of course Hiernaux's 'Elongated African' theory was that such populations were simply "negroids" who developed narrow facial forms but non-metric traits suggested a much greater/older genetic divergence that was later confirmed by DNA.
Posts: 26461 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ... how you go from Peştera Muierii 1 to NE Africans?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ...and that his "Caucasoid admixture" from Palaeolithic times are only going to lead to robust populations rather than get him closer to something resembling NE Africans.
For those who want to learn more, here is something that has helped me years ago, to better understand the concept of robusticity and how this in itself can be used as a marker of population affinity, in some contexts (e.g. in this context where it's claimed that populations that are very robust, were directly involved in producing populations that are not nearly as robust, i.e. certain Africans under discussion):
From these data it is clear that females are more gracile than the males of their own population, although there is overlap between the sexes (more in Inuits). However, the gracile and robust character of each group is maintained. Male Inuit skulls show ‘‘robusticity scores’’ similar to female Fueguian crania and no Inuit skull is as robust as Fueguian males. Plotting the ‘‘robusticity scores’’ of the unsexed populations used in this study (the complete series) further confirms the identification of gracile (sub-Saharan African, Southeast Asian, East Asian, European, Natufian) and robust (Australian, and to a less extent Afalou/Taforalt) groups, with fossil European crania falling in the robust end of the scale (Figure 10). The question of robusticity and the relationship between cranial size and shape in Homo sapiens https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248496900561
The especially relevant parts:
gracile (sub-Saharan African
and robust (Australian, and to a less extent Afalou/Taforalt) groups, with fossil European crania falling in the robust end of the scale (Figure 10).
Looking at all of this, can we say the data is consistent with relatively gracile African groups largely absent from the big population centers in the Maghreb and the Nile Valley during the palaeolithic, but present in more southern regions in Africa as well as in refugia in North Africa, were involved in the gracialization of Egypt, the Maghreb and Palestine—places that were formerly inhabited by mechtoid (or just robust) populations? I would say, yes. Can we say that palaeolithic Europeans were in a position to introduce relatively gracile populations to the Levant and North Africa to produce less robust population like NE Africans and certain Natufians? I would say no.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, we do know Al Khiday was found at the Nile, and they resemble Bronze Age Egypto-Nubians non-metrically (and presumably also metrically)
Swenet I got this quote from you from a completely different thread. By any chance are you able to provide a graph showing Al Khiday clustering with Bronze Age Egypto-Nubians? I've looked all over the forum but can't find this.
Thank You
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
Fantastic thank you so much. You're an absolute star mate.
Anyway for any newbies like me reading. This data from the Irish 2021 study basically shows how Nile Valley populations cluster with one another and how there has been population continuity between Nile Valley populations all the way from the Paleoithic 12th Millennium BCE (Al Khiday) to other Nile Valley populations such as Bronze Age Kerma (1750-1500 BCE) and Bronze Age A Group Nubians (3800-2900 BCE) which in turn has been shown to cluster with Pre-Dynastic Badari and Naqada Egyptians (4500-3000 BCE)
Note: The only outlier is the reamins at Jebel Sahaba (GSA) and this was due largely to their "West African" like affinities.
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
Fantastic thank you so much. You're an absolute star mate.
Anyway for any newbies like me reading. This data from the Irish 2021 study basically shows how Nile Valley populations cluster with one another and how there has been population continuity between Nile Valley populations all the way from the Paleoithic 12th Millennium BCE (Al Khiday) to other Nile Valley populations such as Bronze Age Kerma (1750-1500 BCE) and Bronze Age A Group Nubians (3800-2900 BCE) which in turn has been shown to cluster with Pre-Dynastic Badari and Naqada Egyptians (4500-3000 BCE)
Note: The only outlier is the reamins at Jebel Sahaba (GSA) and this was due largely to their "West African" like affinities.
You have this misinterpreted. I suggest you change the way you think about population affinity regarding Africans in general. Through out this thread it has been clear that there is a temporal gap that exaggerates affinity (or lack there of) of populations between varying time periods. Antalas posted the Irish 2010 figure in this very thread a page ago. Modern pooled Equatorial Africans are closer to the centroid including Horners and Predynastics than Jebel Sahaba(JSA) . It is not "West-African" like Affinities that draws JSA away, JSA isn't West African. It is extinct metrics including traits such as robusticity associated with an entirely different population history than the Paleolithic samples in question (Al-Khiday) which drew it away. The inclusion of JSA-like or related ancestry (or continuity) in modern African populations draws them away form biological North Africans.
The other samples in this analyses all directly have ancestry from a source related to the Paleolithic NE Africans in question. Also you can see evidence of the homogenization in the 3D pca as well. Examine the positioning of the older samples; Gebel Ramleh and Al-Khiday, who both hold outlying positions.
Posts: 1791 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
I see you've just got your a-ha moment re: the importance of the alKhiday population, and how it changes things as far as demystifying what predynastic populations were like in the palaeolithic and confirming they were primarily indigenous by all indications.
Some of that thanks should also go to others who contributed to your thread, which I did see you thank people for their contributions several times.
I don't know about the other contributors, but for me the best reward is when newer people actually learn and take the evidence as it is without relapsing to dated notions or pet theories projecting racial ideas and populations back to ancient times. See what I mean here, here and here. Ancient Africa, especially palaeolithic Afirca, was nothing like modern Africa, so the best way forward is to leave behind all preconceptions.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Antalas, you're writing words but you're not saying anything, but somehow you still think you're backing me in a corner by holding me to my acknowledgement of Eurasian ancestry in Africa.
Eurasians did bring U6, and so on. One example of a Euro U6 carrier is Peştera Muierii 1. So how are you going to get me in trouble by using my statement against me, when you can't even explain how you go from Peştera Muierii 1 to NE Africans?
Alkhiday pushes back predynastics from a purely holocene population, to a palaeolithic population, and so you can't point to holocene Eurasian populations to explain predynastics. But then you can't point to Palaeolithic MENA and European populations either because the populations from that era don't even resemble the modern people who live there today (do I need to post the Natufian morphometric presentation slide again?). So you have a problem in that the holocene Eurasians are younger than alKhiday, while the Paleolithic West Eurasians populations are a dead end or absorbed into modern populations. Either way, modern West Eurasians being near NE Africans in your Irish graph doesn't bode well for your positions because their palaeolithic predecessors are much more distant.
Or maybe I give you too much credit in thinking you can figure out yourself what it means that your Irish graph has modern West Eurasians are closer to Africans than palaeolithic West Eurasians are to Africans. You can't figure out what that means?
Notice the same itcouldbeisms for the same exact subject albeit from a different discipline. What he's about to realize was already broken down for him. There's some sort of mental block that didn't allow him to see that he was arguing for paleolithic Eurasian ancestry which is easily detectable across all disciplines to explain away discrete components with Ancient North African Distribution. See the teal component.
posted
^ Some individuals are enslaved by their ideologies to the point that they ignore reality and therefore suffer delusion.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Fantastic thank you so much. You're an absolute star mate.
Anyway for any newbies like me reading. This data from the Irish 2021 study basically shows how Nile Valley populations cluster with one another and how there has been population continuity between Nile Valley populations all the way from the Paleoithic 12th Millennium BCE (Al Khiday) to other Nile Valley populations such as Bronze Age Kerma (1750-1500 BCE) and Bronze Age A Group Nubians (3800-2900 BCE) which in turn has been shown to cluster with Pre-Dynastic Badari and Naqada Egyptians (4500-3000 BCE)
Note: The only outlier is the reamins at Jebel Sahaba (GSA) and this was due largely to their "West African" like affinities.
The writing was already on the wall since the time of Coon in the old days, when it was stated that a 'race' connected to predynastics originated either in Africa or the Levant, and became very visible in the archaeological record in many places, at the end of the palaeeolithic.
So the early date of the al Khiday sample further reduces options for people like Antalas, in a context where his options were already limited (ie it was either Africa or the Levant, like I aaid, and the Levant has E1b, we now know, go figure).
So if he's going to keep this up, I would just like Antalas to make a serious attempt at reconciling al Khiday having primacy over Natufians and Taforalt and other available samples. And to do it in a way that makes sense, without deflecting/playing forum games.
Posts: 8807 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The writing was already on the wall since the time of Coon in the old days, when it was stated that a 'race' connected to predynastics originated either in Africa or the Levant, and became very visible in the archaeological record in many places, at the end of the palaeeolithic.
So the early date of the al Khiday sample further reduces options for people like Antalas, in a context where his options were already limited (ie it was either Africa or the Levant, like I aaid, and the Levant has E1b, we now know, go figure).
So if he's going to keep this up, I would just like Antalas to make a serious attempt at reconciling al Khiday having primacy over Natufians and Taforalt and other available samples. And to do it in a way that makes sense, without deflecting/playing forum games.
All I'm seeing here is pure straw man. What I think is that you got bored and decided to discuss with me because you thought I was your usual anthrotard racist user.
Are you implying that I support the Dynastic race theory ? Honestly, I couldn't care less whether there's continuity or a Near Eastern influx predating Predynastic Egypt by millennia. What I've pointed out, and you can't really dispute, is that those Nubian samples align more with the North African variation. they are not associated/Similar to most modern SSAs no matter how "african" they are.
It's amusing how certain Afrocentrist members believe that pointing out a potential African substrate on a given population automatically establishes them as "black" or connected to their ancestors. It's like this odd pan-African perspective, treating all Africans as if they're one uniform black entity. Now, you can very well claim not to subscribe to such an opinion, but many members here support this idea, and obviously, you never contradict them.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: All I'm seeing here is pure straw man. What I think is that you got bored and decided to discuss with me because you thought I was your usual anthrotard racist user.
Are you implying that I support the Dynastic race theory ? Honestly, I couldn't care less whether there's continuity or a Near Eastern influx predating Predynastic Egypt by millennia. What I've pointed out, and you can't really dispute, is that those Nubian samples align more with the North African variation. they are not associated/Similar to most modern SSAs no matter how "african" they are.
It's amusing how certain Afrocentrist members believe that pointing out a potential African substrate on a given population automatically establishes them as "black" or connected to their ancestors. It's like this odd pan-African perspective, treating all Africans as if they're one uniform black entity. Now, you can very well claim not to subscribe to such an opinion, but many members here support this idea, and obviously, you never contradict them.
> Accuses Swenet of strawmanning him. > Proceeds to then strawman his opponents once again.
posted
I'm glad I kept these old emails from anthropologists I communicated over the years. Anyways:
> -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Rigaud [mailto:cr_rigaud@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2005 6:29 AM > To: Colin Groves > Subject: Prehistoric East Africans > Both Rightmire and Hiernaux > concluded that prehistoric East Africans are ancestral > to the above stated modern living East African > populations.
I think you're right about this. The Howells huge dataset does have some holes in it, and the Nilotic and other North East African populations constitute one of them. Rightmire, in particular, has shown that these do not really fall outside the subsaharan sphere of morphology. It would be good if Phil Rightmire would add his measurements, where compatible, to the Howells dataset (which is available for free on the web, by the way), so that we could see where these fit.
So much for Northeast Africans like Nubians having zero overlap with so called "sub-Saharans," what Antalas dubs as True Negroes. I guess Groves, Rightmire and Hiernaux are all raging "Afrocentrists."
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: All I'm seeing here is pure straw man. What I think is that you got bored and decided to discuss with me because you thought I was your usual anthrotard racist user.
Are you implying that I support the Dynastic race theory ? Honestly, I couldn't care less whether there's continuity or a Near Eastern influx predating Predynastic Egypt by millennia. What I've pointed out, and you can't really dispute, is that those Nubian samples align more with the North African variation. they are not associated/Similar to most modern SSAs no matter how "african" they are.
It's amusing how certain Afrocentrist members believe that pointing out a potential African substrate on a given population automatically establishes them as "black" or connected to their ancestors. It's like this odd pan-African perspective, treating all Africans as if they're one uniform black entity. Now, you can very well claim not to subscribe to such an opinion, but many members here support this idea, and obviously, you never contradict them.
> Accuses Swenet of strawmanning him. > Proceeds to then strawman his opponents once again.
Why does this guy have this weird obsession with "Afrocentrists?" In Keita's study he has shown that Egyptian crania and Maghreb crania aren't necessarily the same.
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Why does this guy have this weird obsession with "Afrocentrists?" In Keita's study he has shown that Egyptian crania and Maghreb crania aren't necessarily the same.
Notice he gives DJ a hard time for describing certain North African populations as "black" even though the latter has consistently used that term in a chromatic sense (i.e. as a superlative for darker skin) rather than a racial one (as in "the Black race"). The whole kinship BS is just another of Anty's straw men, and we all know what he and people like him really care about is lookership anyway. They just don't want prestigious North Africans to look "black" or be associated with "Black people", however you define those terms.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Notice he gives DJ a hard time for describing certain North African populations as "black" even though the latter has consistently used that term in a chromatic sense (i.e. as a superlative for darker skin) rather than a racial one (as in "the Black race").
Yeah yeah simply a superlative for darker skin (which btw has no use as I've pointed out many times). We can see that .
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: The whole kinship BS is just another of Anty's straw men, and we all know what he and people like him really care about is lookership anyway. They just don't want prestigious North Africans to look "black" or be associated with "Black people", however you define those terms. [/QB]
Yeah a "straw men" hence why they get so emotional when I simply highlight obvious facts. It's pretty ironic how you're suggesting I'm only concerned with "lookership" when you just pointed out how someone like Djehuti uses "black" solely in a chromatic sense. The real culprits here for fixating on appearances are those who consistently overlook genetic results and categorize people solely based on skin tone.
And what's the deal with calling some North Africans "prestigious"? That sounds like a pretty loaded and possibly racist term, don't you think ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
It's amusing how certain Afrocentrist members believe that pointing out a potential African substrate on a given population automatically establishes them as "black" or connected to their ancestors. It's like this odd pan-African perspective, treating all Africans as if they're one uniform black entity. Now, you can very well claim not to subscribe to such an opinion, but many members here support this idea, and obviously, you never contradict them.
I don't think it's entirely an outrageous position "Black" at it's fundamental core is just a skin color. So if genetics end up showing the Early Ancient Egyptians to be mostly indigenous to Africa and if they're also shown to be largely dark skinned I don't see why that would disqualify them from "Blackness." in an African context.(Even if they're distinct from modern day Sub-Saharan Africans)
Remember Sub-Saharan Africans TODAY are among the most genetically diverse people in the world. A Yoruba, Pygmy, Hazda and Nilote all differ from each other genetically but all could be considered "Black Africans" due to them possessing dark skin.
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
It's amusing how certain Afrocentrist members believe that pointing out a potential African substrate on a given population automatically establishes them as "black" or connected to their ancestors. It's like this odd pan-African perspective, treating all Africans as if they're one uniform black entity. Now, you can very well claim not to subscribe to such an opinion, but many members here support this idea, and obviously, you never contradict them.
I don't think it's entirely an outrageous position "Black" at it's fundamental core is just a skin color. So if genetics end up showing the Early Ancient Egyptians to be mostly indigenous to Africa and if they're also shown to be largely dark skinned I don't see why that would disqualify them from "Blackness." in an African context.(Even if they're distinct from modern day Sub-Saharan Africans)
Remember Sub-Saharan Africans TODAY are among the most genetically diverse people in the world. A Yoruba, Pygmy, Hazda and Nilote all differ from each other genetically but all could be considered "Black Africans" due to them possessing dark skin.
It's problematic since the use of this term is profoundly oversimplifying certain realities and misleading. Moreover, it can be employed in deeply racist ideological discourses seeking to appropriate the heritage of other populations. As I have emphasized many times, there is no reason to associate populations solely based on a shared dark skin color if they do not share a genetic heritage, culture, or even certain anatomical traits. The term "black", as understood today, is defined not only by dark skin but also by particular hair types and distinctive physical features. That's why today you have populations with very dark skin in North Africa, Arabia, or India, yet no one considers them black, and they can be distinguished quite well. In genetics as well, it is quite straightforward to differentiate a component shared by many Eurasian and North African populations from that found in West or Central Africa. A Berber with light skin from the remote mountains of the Atlas is genetically and physically closer to these Nubians than a West African, and yet, with the label "black", one would think the opposite...
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
It's problematic since the use of this term is profoundly oversimplifying certain realities and misleading. Moreover, it can be employed in deeply racist ideological discourses seeking to appropriate the heritage of other populations. As I have emphasized many times, there is no reason to associate populations solely based on a shared dark skin color if they do not share a genetic heritage, culture, or even certain anatomical traits. The term "black", as understood today, is defined not only by dark skin but also by particular hair types and distinctive physical features. That's why today you have populations with very dark skin in North Africa, Arabia, or India, yet no one considers them black, and they can be distinguished quite well. In genetics as well, it is quite straightforward to differentiate a component shared by many Eurasian and North African populations from that found in West or Central Africa. A Berber with light skin from the remote mountains of the Atlas is genetically and physically closer to these Nubians than a West African, and yet, with the label "black", one would think the opposite...
Ok that's it.
Define here and now, what makes a Black person
I want a concrete definition from you of what makes a Black person and why your definition is the one true one.
No picture shows. No deflections.
I'm not going to do like last time going back and forth with you.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Ok that's it.
Define here and now, what makes a Black person
I want a concrete definition from you of what makes a Black person and why you're definition is the one true one.
No picture shows. No deflections.
I'm not going to do like last time going back and forth with you; I'll just ban you immediately.
I have previously proposed a definition, but it seems to be challenging for some African Americans to understand, as they perceive it as denying the diversity of black africans. Many Afro-americans make the mistake of equating the diversity of their phenotypes (often resulting from numerous mixtures with Europeans or even Latinos/Amerindians) with that prevailing in Africa.
My own personal definition of "black" :
A person of African origin with dark skin, kinky hair, a morphology distinct from that prevailing in Eurasia, and a genetic profile showing little to no influence from the OOA or Late Paleolithic/Holocene back-to-Africa migrations.
Also : The exception does not make the rule.Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
A person of African origin with dark skin, kinky hair, a morphology distinct from that prevailing in Eurasia, and a genetic profile showing little to no influence from the OOA or Late Paleolithic/Holocene back-to-Africa migrations.
1. What point of skin pigmentation meets the threshold of dark?
2.Eurasia is a huge span of territory. What is the specific morphological characteristics that prevail in Eurasia?
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
1. What point of skin pigmentation meets the threshold of dark?
The skin can be described as dark in my definition if it conforms to the pigmentation that predominates in sub-Saharan Africa :
I also want to emphasize that my definition is not limited to skin color alone.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: 2.Eurasia is a huge span of territory. What is the specific morphological characteristics that prevail in Eurasia?
Here are some morphological traits that characterize Eurasians :
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: It's problematic since the use of this term is profoundly oversimplifying certain realities and misleading. Moreover, it can be employed in deeply racist ideological discourses seeking to appropriate the heritage of other populations.
I don't disagree with this and this is precisely the reason why modern anthropologists have abandoned using terms like "Black/White/Negroid/Caucasoid to describe especially ancient populations.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: As I have emphasized many times, there is no reason to associate populations solely based on a shared dark skin color if they do not share a genetic heritage, culture, or even certain anatomical traits.
Again I think what is truly at the heart of this issue is what is biologically an African and what is not. Association with skin color of course is problematic since there are SO many populations outside of Africa with darker skin colours. That's why I think it's important to emphasize skin colour AND "Africaness" (genetically)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The term "black", as understood today, is defined not only by dark skin but also by particular hair types and distinctive physical features.
This part I disagree with. That's not what the term "Black" means that's what the term "Negroid" means. This is why I can't fault Afrocentrics for playing the "African Skin color game" because it's no different to what Europeans did. Notice how people had no issue with defining "Blackness" by Negroidness however when people expand Blackness to in-cooperate non-Negroid populations of Africa then all of a sudden folks don't like it.
Remember when folks use to refer to the Nubians as "The Black slaves of Non-Black Caucasoid Egyptians" I'm sorry but they shouldn't have started this game if they didn't want to play it all the way. Like don't pick up your ball and leave now that folks have found a way to fight back against these classifications that black people didn't even start.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: That's why today you have populations with very dark skin in North Africa, Arabia, or India, yet no one considers them black, and they can be distinguished quite well. In genetics as well.
I partially agree with this point. While different skin colours and features can span many different populations. The major difference is those populations you mentioned particularly Arabia and India aren't Africans. The genetic and biology of North Africans are not as a cut and dry of course but large portions of their ancestry are also Non-African even in (Ancient times). It's sort of like how you can get some phenotype crossover between West/Central Africans and Melaniasians/Ogne obviously these people are not Africans despite them sometimes resembling West and Central Africans. because they lack African DNA.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: it is quite straightforward to differentiate a component shared by many Eurasian and North African populations from that found in West or Central Africa.
Yes that's true but the keyword here is Eurasian Of course an African can't claim any Eurasianess because it's an ancestry which came outside of continent. However I employ the words of Keita:
There is more then one way to be African
Again if folks have an issue with West Africans claiming Ancient Nubians through the lens of "Pan-Blackness" then folks need to show that same concern with other groups too like Nilotes, Pygmy's Sandawes and San Bushmen since they're genetically different to West and Central Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: A Berber with light skin from the remote mountains of the Atlas is genetically and physically closer to these Nubians than a West African, and yet, with the label "black", one would think the opposite...
Berbers with fair skin are largely Eurasian descended and have been for a long time honestly. What a West African shares with a Nubian (if they in fact turn out to mostly genetically African) is that they're both indigenous Africans.
BTW before you mention the Eurasian genetics of Nubians. There's just too many holes in Ancient African genetic substructures at the moment. These populations as well as Ancient Egyptians could very well have copious amounts of Ancestral North African genetic markers. Also let us not forget Basal Eurasian which is another genetic marker that could be within groups like Ancient Egyptians, Nubian, Horners. could very well be African we just don't know yet.
Posts: 66 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
The point of the previous exercise was to get out of Antalas his specific and personal definition so people knew exactly how he was employing that term instead of getting caught up in pitfalls from lack of concrete definition.
Carry on
Actually Edit2 @Antalas: for even more clarity, I think it would be beneficial for you to post the list of African characteristics from the same source you pulled the European and Asian/Native American characteristics from, just so we have a better idea of "African physiology" according to you. Also the name of the work you got those images from.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: This part I disagree with. That's not what the term "Black" means that's what the term "Negroid" means. This is why I can't fault Afrocentrics for playing the "African Skin color game" because it's no different to what Europeans did. Notice how people had no issue with defining "Blackness" by Negroidness however when people expand Blackness to in-cooperate non-Negroid populations of Africa then all of a sudden folks don't like it.
Are you from a North American background? I can assure you that this is how most people interpret it where I live. It's highly unlikely to find someone here asserting that dark-skinned Indians or mulattoes are categorically "black". While it's true that Horn Africans, despite their Caucasoid morphology, are sometimes labeled as black, many instances involve people claiming they're mixed or labelling them as half-Arab. Additionally, it's worth noting that Horn Africans often have kinky hair, which can impact their view.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Yes that's true but the keyword here is Eurasian Of course an African can't claim any Eurasianess because it's an ancestry which came outside of continent. However I employ the words of Keita:
There is more then one way to be African
Again if folks have an issue with West Africans claiming Ancient Nubians through the lens of "Pan-Blackness" then folks need to show that same concern with other groups too like Nilotes, Pygmy's Sandawes and San Bushmen since they're genetically different to West and Central Africans.
I agree, but what truly bothers them is that behind this appropriation of the Nubians, there lies an intent of claiming and associating that serves ideological interests. Just as we would be more disturbed by a Swede exaggerating the similarities of his people with the Minoans rather than the Russians or Serbs. Also, let's be honest, we don't see many Afrocentrists appropriating the Nilotes, San, or Sandawe.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Berbers with fair skin are largely Eurasian descended and have been for a long time honestly. What a West African shares with a Nubian (if they in fact turn out to mostly genetically African) is that they're both indigenous Africans.
BTW before you mention the Eurasian genetics of Nubians. There's just too many holes in Ancient African genetic substructures at the moment. These populations as well as Ancient Egyptians could very well have copious amounts of Ancestral North African genetic markers. Also let us not forget Basal Eurasian which is another genetic marker that could be within groups like Ancient Egyptians, Nubian, Horners. could very well be African we just don't know yet.
Here again listen to Keita. Indians and Japanese are both indigenous Asians, yet you won't find anyone excessively exaggerating the connections between these two populations or even attempting to associate them, as both groups are well aware of their differences.
So the fact that both are indigenous Africans doesn't inherently make them more closely related, and in this case, it becomes even more complex because it is evident that Nubians do have non-African ancestry. The extent of this ancestry is another question altogether.
Your line of reasoning would be akin to attempting to associate Afghans and Chinese solely based on the fact that both are indigenous Asians, disregarding the greater genetic proximity of the former to Europeans or even North Africans.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elongated African and "Caucasoid" morphology are not the same so its foolish to say Horners have caucasoid morphology when the origin of their traits have nothing to do with so called "Caucasoids," Hiernaux makes this point in his book and DJ posted it earlier.
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
The point of the previous exercise was to get out of Antalas his specific and personal definition so people knew exactly how he was employing that term instead of getting caught up in pitfalls from lack of concrete definition.
Carry on
Actually Edit2 @Antalas: for even more clarity, I think it would be beneficial for you to post the list of African characteristics from the same source you pulled the European and Asian/Native American characteristics from, just so we have a better idea of "African physiology" according to you. Also the name of the work you got those images from.
No problem :
The source is : Fundamentals of Forensic Anthropology by Linda L. Klepinger
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
You have a list for africans just below and are you suggesting that African-Americans do not have traits characteristic of Africans ? Did African-Americans develop their own traits distinct from Eurasians and Africans ? If yes, post any evidence pls.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
No I asked for a list for Africans similar to the lists for Caucasians and Asian/Native Americans. Interestingly the one for African-Americans isn't written as "African-Americans/Africans" like the Asian/Native American one.
So where is that list from that book? Or is such a list not there?
You deflect and throw things into my question that weren't there again instead of a direct answer to what is actually being asked and you'll be on vacation.
Edit @Elmaestro:
I know what I'm doing here.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
The last few posts was a clear regression in the thread.
It had been established that the morphological as well as Genetic variation (While still very high) in Africa has been significantly watered down since prehistoric times. In any which case where there are a selection of Africans who have a subset of traits whether unique or overlapping with non Africans, there is likelihood that their ancestry is passed down in extant populations.
Instead of asking Antalas what his definition of black is and giving credence to his practice of lookership. We should be asking him to explain how/why individuals like this young lady isn't black by his definition. Watch how all of his traits he listed will go out the window when really pressed ("see! the exception doesn't make the rule.")
"A person of African origin with dark skin, kinky hair, a morphology distinct from that prevailing in Eurasia, and a genetic profile showing little to no influence from the OOA or Late Paleolithic/Holocene back-to-Africa migrations." -Antalas
Watch as how the part of this definition he'd adjust to exclude this girl, will exclude 90% of African Americans and maybe even some or all of black Africans depending on how little is too little influence from Paleolithic OOA back migrants in his view. All things considered, he pointed out Neanderthal ancestry in the same thread I linked earlier to highlight the prevalence of Paleolithic Eurasian ancestry in Africans.
He has no standard definition. Please stop asking him about what he think is black. It stifles everything and goes nowhere.
Posts: 1791 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
So my patience is wearing thin and I previewed the book myself on google. Of course there is no such list for Africans as Klepinger did a snapshot based off the most studied US populations. So you're using a 2006 Forensic Anthropology work(last time I checked there are much newer works in the field) that only included African-Americans to make part of your argument on what pure/near pure "Black" people across the whole swath of dark blue and black areas of Africa on the map you posted look like morphologically.
Ok.
Now how is your definition the one true one that is more objective and less arbitrary than DJ or any other poster?
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: He has no standard definition. Please stop asking him about what he think is black. It stifles everything and goes nowhere.
You're right, but seeing him perform mental gymnastics as he tries to pretend his definition of "black" somehow has more weight than DJ's or that of other posters is an amusing diversion nonetheless. The very fact that he has no standard definition of "black" (besides thinking of it as an association he wants to exclude certain ancient North Africans from) is part of the fun.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic