posted
Hawass, who isn't pro-black, said straightforwardly that the Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned but that they were not black like SSAs. So even Hawass doesn't argue for light-skinned Ancient Egyptians.
As an illustration, this Soqotri/Yemeni boy is dark-skinned, but I wouldn't mistake him for an African or a so-called black person.
Besides, here is the definition of black people: The term black generally refers to a person with African ancestral origins.
And then there is also the term Black African, which is usually used in the UK and refers to people and their offspring with African ancestral origins who migrated via sub-Saharan Africa.
Posts: 102 | From: private | Registered: Jul 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: It is very odd that he'd settle for being happy about the resurrection of the DRT. It's also very odd that he'll see a sample as young as 2500 BC, who also might've been mixed but show such a stark difference from later Egyptians who cluster closer to Abusir and modern egyptians in ancestry composition, and not point out that the represents some of the North_East African substructure everything was hinting at. He should know all of this.
Yes let's focus on a single sample and disregard all the others, because we used to highlight NE African substructure didn't we ? And since we're at it let's also deny any variation in the Nile Valley.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Look at what you're arguing with. The AEs can share pigmentation and shade with other Africans but he draws the line when the comparison is made specifically with Africans who aren't Afroasiatic. Even though there are Africans who might've been on average lighter skinned than the Ancient Egyptians. So we see evidence popping up which is showing indigenous African substructure and the AE's were likely dark beyond the threshold of what anyone would blindly consider black (in the literal sense not social), but actually saying that they were black Africans is really harmful in his eyes. Why Argue with this?
Doesn't this man share "pigmentation and shade with other Africans" ?
Yet is he genetically and morphologically akin to them ? So yes, my question was entirely valid because relying solely on skin tone doesn't provide significant insights into their genetic makeup or cranial morphology. This is the concern I have with your approach. It appears that your desire to claim them as part of a "Black African" category has led you to broaden it to such an extent that it has lost its biological significance. Skin color is a superficial and inconsequential trait when it comes to establishing genetic relationships between diverse human groups. Yet, you seem unconcerned by this as you strive to assert this claim, even to the point of labeling those who disagree as "anti-black".
...I don't even know what you're going on about. That man has derived pigmentaion genes. He also likely has autosomal ancestry representative of the later samples we now know is ode to a bronze age expansion from the levant. And the Nuerat sample is only ~4.5kya. The full sample set is obviously relevant you don't have to disregard anything. The next oldest sample (with uniparentals) is J1 for example. Why you can't see you're constantly contradicting yourself is mind numbing.
Posts: 1785 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Hawass, who isn't pro-black, said straightforwardly that the Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned but that they were not black like SSAs. So even Hawass doesn't argue for light-skinned Ancient Egyptians.
As an illustration, this Soqotri/Yemeni boy is dark-skinned, but I wouldn't mistake him for an African or a so-called black person.
Besides, here is the definition of black people: The term black generally refers to a person with African ancestral origins.
And then there is also the term Black African, which is usually used in the UK and refers to people and their offspring with African ancestral origins who migrated via sub-Saharan Africa.
We're not arguing semantic/social definitions of black in this thread. Define how you're using it and post on.
Posts: 1785 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: What is "dark skinned" even supposed to mean ? The majority of Egyptians today have dark skin. It seems to be a common American interpretation to equate dark skin with "Black African", which I don't endorse. I refute the claims of those who assert that AEs were "black" in the sense of being "similar to most modern Sub-Saharans", as such an opinion lacks support from any academic paper.
Black skin is not exclusive from dark skin, yet here we go with you and your nonsense. There are black African Egyptians in Egypt today and they have always been there just like they have always been part of "North Africa". The reason why I asked you if you call yourself African is because you are pushing this idea that "North Africans" are separated from Africans by having substantial Eurasian ancestry. Obviously the underlying point being that light skin is dominant in Eurasian evolutionary history while dark skin is dominant in African evolutionary history. And therefore, according to this, "North Africans" were never "black" or "African" because the majority of their ancestry going back 5, 10 or 20k years ago was Eurasian according to you. This is the point of view behind all these DNA studies which is to show that the ancient Nile Valley, as also being "North African" got most of its genetic ancestry from Eurasia and not Africa. So you see "North Africans" simply as an offshoot of Eurasians and theefore not African and therefore distinct from Africans, subsharan or otherwise, because the first North Africans were black and there were no Eurasians there. Not to mention there are plenty of lighter skinned Africans in North Africa and elsewhere who are still Africans, not Eurasians. Black skin in North Africa is just as indigenous as any other part of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You may not be aware but I do acknowledge the presence of SSA admixture, as well as ANA ancestry and certain negroid traits among the ancient Egyptians.
ANA is African genetic ancestry and not Eurasian and disproves your claim of ancient North Africans being segregated in features from other Africans because of Eurasian input. In other words, it shows that ancient "North African" ancestry originated in Africa not Eurasia. But even beyond that, there is no monolithic "North African" anyway and different populations in ancient times and today have different ancestry components. Just like the Nile Valley has distinct ancestry components as well. And in ancient times, there were different population clusters in the Nile and it is those populations in the South that originated the dynastic culture. Which means that it obviously originated in Africa and would have its closest affinity to other Africans and not Eurasians. That is beyond dispute, but these DNA samples are not taken from these groups.
Also, Sub Saharan is a meaningless buzz word, because nobody in their right minds would argue that the people of the Nile Valley were more related to Kenyans and Ugandans or Nigerians than Sudanese and Saharans or Horners, but of course these papers routinely use Nigeria as a proxy for all other Africans because they won't sample populations from Chad, Niger, Sudan, Southern Libya as they are the most relevant to the population structure in this region. And you keep parroting these talking points when makes no sense and has no meaning. African ancestry is ancestry that originates in Africa and of course black skin comes with that because Africa straddles the equator.
So again, unless they are actually sampling the DNA from the main population clusters in the Nile Valley during the predynastic in large numbers, this kind of DNA work is useless because it isn't telling you anything about the majority of the population.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kenyans and Ugandans or Nigerians than Sudanese and Saharans or Horners, but of course these papers routinely use Nigeria as a proxy for all other Africans because they won't sample populations from Chad, Niger, Sudan, Southern Libya as they are the most relevant to the population structure in this region
Keep in mind Horners, Sudanese and most Saharans are mixed. They've SSA ancestry clearly but they also have Eurasian derived ancestry. What would using them as a proxy over Nigerians or Ugandans prove exactly? That the Ancient Egyptians are also Eurasian (even if only partially) derived?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Obviously the underlying point being that light skin is dominant in Eurasian evolutionary history while dark skin is dominant in African evolutionary history. And therefore, according to this, "North Africans" were never "black" or "African" because the majority of their ancestry going back 5, 10 or 20k years ago was Eurasian according to you. This is the point of view behind all these DNA studies which is to show that the ancient Nile Valley, as also being "North African" got most of its genetic ancestry from Eurasia and not Africa. So you see "North Africans" simply as an offshoot of Eurasians
Doug I hate to butt into other peoples business but Atlantas is correct on this point. Most North Africans are Eurasian in ancestry and they've been for at least 15,000 years. They even have a spike in Neanderthal ancestry compared to SSA's which again owes credence to how "Eurasian" they're.
Now on that note I'll concede when it comes to the Ancient Sahara things get more "muddy" in terms of genetic ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB]Now watch how the morphologically Negroid Takarkori samples who seems to not have Eurasian ancestry (at least not shared with other Sub-Saharan Africans) will be spun post autosomal sequencing. Somehow someway they'll be Eurasianized because of the implications of Mt.DNA M and N and contemporaneous and later pocket populations particularly those of the Nile valley.
I was just reading this again and wanted to ask you, which study showed the Takarkori as morphologically "Negroid?"
Posts: 61 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Hawass, who isn't pro-black, said straightforwardly that the Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned but that they were not black like SSAs. So even Hawass doesn't argue for light-skinned Ancient Egyptians.
As an illustration, this Soqotri/Yemeni boy is dark-skinned, but I wouldn't mistake him for an African or a so-called black person.
Besides, here is the definition of black people: The term black generally refers to a person with African ancestral origins.
And then there is also the term Black African, which is usually used in the UK and refers to people and their offspring with African ancestral origins who migrated via sub-Saharan Africa.
We're not arguing semantic/social definitions of black in this thread. Define how you're using it and post on.
I use the modern definition of black because there was a time when Europeans referred to white people who wore black robes, armor, or had a sun tan or dark hair as black. And, as I previously stated, I do not consider the Yemeni boy with dark skin to be black in the "racial sense," but some Americans may. Nonetheless, I know that many Americans, including Afro-Americans, do not consider Indians, who can be nearly jet black, to be black. Furthermore, if there is no clear definition of what "black people" means, and alternative and descriptive, anthropological terms such as "Negroid," Subsaharan African, or SSA-like are dismissed, then determining what "race" the Ancient Egyptians were or whether they were black in the modern sense will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Having said that, the abstracts are an indicator but do not tell the entire story. And who knows, maybe some future papers on Ancient Egypt will be able to flip the coin. So far, it appears that the Ancient Egyptians had only a minor indigenous African ancestral component.
Posts: 102 | From: private | Registered: Jul 2021
| IP: Logged |
All segments of the body preserve the anatomical connections, particularly with respect to the right arm and hand The skull (Fig. 2b) appears to be gracile, with visible parietal bosses and a verticalized frontal bone, according to the female sex estimate. While the face only preserved the skeletal tissue, the superior and posterior areas corresponding with the parietal and occipital bones includes large portions of connective tissues referred to the galea aponeurotica and fragments of the overlying dermis and epidermis, with no traces of hair, mostly preserved on the resting side.
The Neigbourgh Joining tree shows that the small sample from Takarkori takes relationships with the populations from Gobero in Niger, either coeval Gobero B or more ancient (Gobero A), thus with humans from sub-Saharan regions which are characterized by a wide morphological variation . Populations from the Fezzan such as Fewet, Wadi-el-Ajal and Tahala, much younger chronologically than the Takarkori sample, are separated from it (according to the length of the branches that are proportional to the Euclidean distances between the metrical variables) and are, by contrast, more in relationship with one of the earliest representatives of our species such as the cranium from Herto. Paradoxically, therefore, although more recent than the two women from Takarkori, samples from this time period appear more “archaic” and closer to the root of the tree. We speculate that this occurrence is probably in relationship with the expression of recessive phenotypic features, which in turn suggests a certain degree of geographic and genetic isolation.
Having said that, the abstracts are an indicator but do not tell the entire story. And who knows, maybe some future papers on Ancient Egypt will be able to flip the coin. So far, it appears that the Ancient Egyptians had only a minor indigenous African ancestral component.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kenyans and Ugandans or Nigerians than Sudanese and Saharans or Horners, but of course these papers routinely use Nigeria as a proxy for all other Africans because they won't sample populations from Chad, Niger, Sudan, Southern Libya as they are the most relevant to the population structure in this region
Keep in mind Horners, Sudanese and most Saharans are mixed. They've SSA ancestry clearly but they also have Eurasian derived ancestry. What would using them as a proxy over Nigerians or Ugandans prove exactly? That the Ancient Egyptians are also Eurasian (even if only partially) derived?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] Obviously the underlying point being that light skin is dominant in Eurasian evolutionary history while dark skin is dominant in African evolutionary history. And therefore, according to this, "North Africans" were never "black" or "African" because the majority of their ancestry going back 5, 10 or 20k years ago was Eurasian according to you. This is the point of view behind all these DNA studies which is to show that the ancient Nile Valley, as also being "North African" got most of its genetic ancestry from Eurasia and not Africa. So you see "North Africans" simply as an offshoot of Eurasians
Doug I hate to butt into other peoples business but Atlantas is correct on this point. Most North Africans are Eurasian in ancestry and they've been for at least 15,000 years. They even have a spike in Neanderthal ancestry compared to SSA's which again owes credence to how "Eurasian" they're.
Now on that note I'll concede when it comes to the Ancient Sahara things get more "muddy" in terms of genetic ancestry.
What "North Africans" are you talking about from 15,000 years ago? Again, there has never been a monolithic "North African" population just like there has never been a monolithic Eurasian population. So what Eurasians from where spread into North Africa 15,000 years go? The fact is that most of North Africa is made up of the Sahara and 10,000 years ago it was wet. So of course unless you and Antalas can prove some magical expressway for Eurasians to migrate into the interior of the Sahara or North Africa prior to Africans, the argument is mostly pseudo science claiming Eurasians swept across "North Africa" 15,000 years ago because there is no proof of it.
As for the Nile Valley goes, again, there is no monolithic "North African" population and the Nile Valley has never clustered with "North African" as opposed to "Nile Valley" or North East African. This particular DNA leak or whatever it is just randomly DNA from whatever locations on the Nile, but not the primary population clusters of the Upper Nile during the predynastic or primary cemeteries of the Old, Middle or New Kingdom. And there is no evidence that those Upper Nile Valley populations were anything other than African in origin either from the Sahara or more South on the Nile. Any study claiming to show otherwise is suspect in my book especially if it is avoiding those primary population clusters previously mentioned.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kenyans and Ugandans or Nigerians than Sudanese and Saharans or Horners, but of course these papers routinely use Nigeria as a proxy for all other Africans because they won't sample populations from Chad, Niger, Sudan, Southern Libya as they are the most relevant to the population structure in this region
Keep in mind Horners, Sudanese and most Saharans are mixed. They've SSA ancestry clearly but they also have Eurasian derived ancestry. What would using them as a proxy over Nigerians or Ugandans prove exactly? That the Ancient Egyptians are also Eurasian (even if only partially) derived?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] Obviously the underlying point being that light skin is dominant in Eurasian evolutionary history while dark skin is dominant in African evolutionary history. And therefore, according to this, "North Africans" were never "black" or "African" because the majority of their ancestry going back 5, 10 or 20k years ago was Eurasian according to you. This is the point of view behind all these DNA studies which is to show that the ancient Nile Valley, as also being "North African" got most of its genetic ancestry from Eurasia and not Africa. So you see "North Africans" simply as an offshoot of Eurasians
Doug I hate to butt into other peoples business but Atlantas is correct on this point. Most North Africans are Eurasian in ancestry and they've been for at least 15,000 years. They even have a spike in Neanderthal ancestry compared to SSA's which again owes credence to how "Eurasian" they're.
Now on that note I'll concede when it comes to the Ancient Sahara things get more "muddy" in terms of genetic ancestry.
What "North Africans" are you talking about from 15,000 years ago? Again, there has never been a monolithic "North African" population just like there has never been a monolithic Eurasian population. The fact is that most of North Africa is made up of the Sahara and 10,000 years ago it was wet. So of course unless you and Antalas can prove some magical expressway for Eurasians to migrate into the interior of the Sahara or North Africa prior to Africans, the argument is mostly pseudo science claiming Eurasians swept across "North Africa" 15,000 years ago because there is no proof of it.
As for the Nile Valley goes, again, there is no monolithic "North African" population and the Nile Valley has never clustered with "North African" as opposed to "Nile Valley" or North East African. This particular DNA leak or whatever it is just randomly DNA from whatever locations on the Nile, but not the primary population clusters of the Upper Nile during the predynastic or primary cemeteries of the Old, Middle or New Kingdom. And there is no evidence that those Upper Nile Valley populations were anything other than African in origin either from the Sahara or more South on the Nile. Any study claiming to show otherwise is suspect in my book especially if it is avoiding those primary population clusters previously mentioned.
Levantine Ancestry is well documented in Upper Palaeolithic and Neolithic North Africans (especially the coastal regions)
Now when it comes to the Sahara I actually agree with your statements there's no real evidence that Levantines penetrated deep in the Sahara and replaced and/or mixed with a pre-existing population. However we cannot count out the fact that some North Africans (carrying acquired Eurasian ancestry) would've moved in and out of the greening than drying Sahara, as obviously did Black Africans.
Posts: 61 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
quote:Why you can't see you're constantly contradicting yourself is mind numbing.
Because he's a troll whose job it is to be subversive against people like us. Why haven't you gotten that already? He's only here because he wants to use this opportunity as a keyboard warrior to stop "Afrocentrists" (his definition, not mine) from potentially ever using the slightest of info against his flock of fawning Nationalists & disgruntled Bloggers. Why you think he's been instigating arguments ever since he first came to this forum? He obviously was attracted to its notoriety as a place against his fellow white compatriots from other forums and was never interested in actually learning from this one.
Posts: 340 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are folks like the Tibbu, Chadians, and Fulani etc. not Africans considering they also have significant Eurasian ancestry. Also the Nubians in that study look heavily Eurasian as well are they not Africans? I’m just curious as to what “African” here… SSA is the only true African genetic ancestry?
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kenyans and Ugandans or Nigerians than Sudanese and Saharans or Horners, but of course these papers routinely use Nigeria as a proxy for all other Africans because they won't sample populations from Chad, Niger, Sudan, Southern Libya as they are the most relevant to the population structure in this region
Keep in mind Horners, Sudanese and most Saharans are mixed. They've SSA ancestry clearly but they also have Eurasian derived ancestry. What would using them as a proxy over Nigerians or Ugandans prove exactly? That the Ancient Egyptians are also Eurasian (even if only partially) derived?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [qb] Obviously the underlying point being that light skin is dominant in Eurasian evolutionary history while dark skin is dominant in African evolutionary history. And therefore, according to this, "North Africans" were never "black" or "African" because the majority of their ancestry going back 5, 10 or 20k years ago was Eurasian according to you. This is the point of view behind all these DNA studies which is to show that the ancient Nile Valley, as also being "North African" got most of its genetic ancestry from Eurasia and not Africa. So you see "North Africans" simply as an offshoot of Eurasians
Doug I hate to butt into other peoples business but Atlantas is correct on this point. Most North Africans are Eurasian in ancestry and they've been for at least 15,000 years. They even have a spike in Neanderthal ancestry compared to SSA's which again owes credence to how "Eurasian" they're.
Now on that note I'll concede when it comes to the Ancient Sahara things get more "muddy" in terms of genetic ancestry.
What "North Africans" are you talking about from 15,000 years ago? Again, there has never been a monolithic "North African" population just like there has never been a monolithic Eurasian population. The fact is that most of North Africa is made up of the Sahara and 10,000 years ago it was wet. So of course unless you and Antalas can prove some magical expressway for Eurasians to migrate into the interior of the Sahara or North Africa prior to Africans, the argument is mostly pseudo science claiming Eurasians swept across "North Africa" 15,000 years ago because there is no proof of it.
As for the Nile Valley goes, again, there is no monolithic "North African" population and the Nile Valley has never clustered with "North African" as opposed to "Nile Valley" or North East African. This particular DNA leak or whatever it is just randomly DNA from whatever locations on the Nile, but not the primary population clusters of the Upper Nile during the predynastic or primary cemeteries of the Old, Middle or New Kingdom. And there is no evidence that those Upper Nile Valley populations were anything other than African in origin either from the Sahara or more South on the Nile. Any study claiming to show otherwise is suspect in my book especially if it is avoiding those primary population clusters previously mentioned.
Levantine Ancestry is well documented in Upper Palaeolithic and Neolithic North Africans (especially the coastal regions)
Now when it comes to the Sahara I actually agree with your statements there's no real evidence that Levantines penetrated deep in the Sahara and replaced and/or mixed with a pre-existing population. However we cannot count out the fact that some North Africans (carrying acquired Eurasian ancestry) would've moved in and out of the greening than drying Sahara, as obviously did Black Africans.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Baalberith
Ungodly and Satanic Entity
Member # 23079
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Hawass, who isn't pro-black, said straightforwardly that the Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned but that they were not black like SSAs. So even Hawass doesn't argue for light-skinned Ancient Egyptians.
As an illustration, this Soqotri/Yemeni boy is dark-skinned, but I wouldn't mistake him for an African or a so-called black person.
Besides, here is the definition of black people: The term black generally refers to a person with African ancestral origins.
And then there is also the term Black African, which is usually used in the UK and refers to people and their offspring with African ancestral origins who migrated via sub-Saharan Africa.
Not even Hawass gave a straightforward answer to what the Ancient Egyptians looked like and he always remained vague about it. The closest we got for an answer from him was this:
quote:Zahi in responding to the inquisitive party, seemingly implied the current consensus was that, "a scholar" had "a theory" that ancient Egyptians were "hamitic", while the other major theory was supposedly that they were both "hamitic" and "semitic" peoples. Zahi made sure to add, that the one scholar who held the theory that ancient Egyptians were "hamites" was "an Ethiopian".
quote:His answer made it quite obvious, first of all, that he still held firmly to his old racial conceptions of Africa and that no faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania where he had spent some years preparing for his Ph.D. had mentioned to him that such terms, "hamitic" and "semitic", were mostly linguistic at least in academic-speak today, having little genetic significance. After all, most "semitic" dialects are still found in the modern Ethiopian/Eritrean area among the peoples formerly called "hamites".
But, to add insult to injury, he explicitly expressed the view that they weren't Africans either, equating "African" & "SSA" as synonymous with each other. So the biological concept of North Africa probably doesn't even pass by his mind. He also discounted the notion that they weren't Arabs, ironic considering this leak:
quote:He adds, "Hawass has already made this quite clear with his latest commentaries on this issue to the official Egyptian MENA news agency....the portrayal of ancient Egyptians as black has no truth to it. Egypt is not Arab, and not African, despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa" (Bauval, p. 178)
So not only doesn't he believe they were Black, he doesn't even believe they were Africans or above all Arabs, the group the Old Kingdom remains are closest to.
Posts: 340 | From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Kenyans and Ugandans or Nigerians than Sudanese and Saharans or Horners, but of course these papers routinely use Nigeria as a proxy for all other Africans because they won't sample populations from Chad, Niger, Sudan, Southern Libya as they are the most relevant to the population structure in this region
Keep in mind Horners, Sudanese and most Saharans are mixed. They've SSA ancestry clearly but they also have Eurasian derived ancestry. What would using them as a proxy over Nigerians or Ugandans prove exactly? That the Ancient Egyptians are also Eurasian (even if only partially) derived?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Obviously the underlying point being that light skin is dominant in Eurasian evolutionary history while dark skin is dominant in African evolutionary history. And therefore, according to this, "North Africans" were never "black" or "African" because the majority of their ancestry going back 5, 10 or 20k years ago was Eurasian according to you. This is the point of view behind all these DNA studies which is to show that the ancient Nile Valley, as also being "North African" got most of its genetic ancestry from Eurasia and not Africa. So you see "North Africans" simply as an offshoot of Eurasians
Doug I hate to butt into other peoples business but Atlantas is correct on this point. Most North Africans are Eurasian in ancestry and they've been for at least 15,000 years. They even have a spike in Neanderthal ancestry compared to SSA's which again owes credence to how "Eurasian" they're.
Now on that note I'll concede when it comes to the Ancient Sahara things get more "muddy" in terms of genetic ancestry.
What "North Africans" are you talking about from 15,000 years ago? Again, there has never been a monolithic "North African" population just like there has never been a monolithic Eurasian population. The fact is that most of North Africa is made up of the Sahara and 10,000 years ago it was wet. So of course unless you and Antalas can prove some magical expressway for Eurasians to migrate into the interior of the Sahara or North Africa prior to Africans, the argument is mostly pseudo science claiming Eurasians swept across "North Africa" 15,000 years ago because there is no proof of it.
As for the Nile Valley goes, again, there is no monolithic "North African" population and the Nile Valley has never clustered with "North African" as opposed to "Nile Valley" or North East African. This particular DNA leak or whatever it is just randomly DNA from whatever locations on the Nile, but not the primary population clusters of the Upper Nile during the predynastic or primary cemeteries of the Old, Middle or New Kingdom. And there is no evidence that those Upper Nile Valley populations were anything other than African in origin either from the Sahara or more South on the Nile. Any study claiming to show otherwise is suspect in my book especially if it is avoiding those primary population clusters previously mentioned.
Levantine Ancestry is well documented in Upper Palaeolithic and Neolithic North Africans (especially the coastal regions)
Now when it comes to the Sahara I actually agree with your statements there's no real evidence that Levantines penetrated deep in the Sahara and replaced and/or mixed with a pre-existing population. However we cannot count out the fact that some North Africans (carrying acquired Eurasian ancestry) would've moved in and out of the greening than drying Sahara, as obviously did Black Africans.
Actually neither paper you posted proves what you claim. The first paper is from 7KYA not 15KYA and is only relevant to parts of coastal North West Africa and it doesn't represent the main body of Neolithic activity in ancient North Africa. Much of that activity would be found at places like the Al Takarkori Rock shelter.
Not to mention the second paper states point blank that they find no evidence for European entrance into North Africa and that the connection between the Levant and Africa was via the Natufians. Which does not prove Levantine migrations into North Africa as opposed to African migrations into the Levant. And it is that ancient African population of the Holocene Sahara we are calling "ANA" ancestry. That is not Eurasian.
quote: North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture, from Morocco. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans to Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one-third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.
.....
Archaeogenetic studies on additional Iberomaurusian sites will be critical to evaluate the representativeness of Taforalt for the Iberomaurusian gene pool. We speculate that the Natufian-related ancestral population may have been widespread across North Africa and the Near East, associated with microlithic backed bladelet technologies that started to spread out in this area by at least 25,000 yr B.P. [(10) and references therein]. However, given the absence of ancient genomic data from a similar time frame for this broader area, the epicenter of expansion, if any, for this ancestral population remains unknown.
And none of those population above have anything to do with the Upper Nile Valley cemeteries and population centers of the predynastic or even dynastic, except as related to that ancestral Saharan "ANA" population.
And as far as the Natufians go, I have always argued that it was Africans moving out of the Sahara/Nile due to the environmental changes that helped spark the Neolitchic due to the need to adapt and create survival strategies, including wild grain cultivation/attempts at domestication.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Are folks like the Tibbu, Chadians, and Fulani etc. not Africans considering they also have significant Eurasian ancestry. Also the Nubians in that study look heavily Eurasian as well are they not Africans? I’m just curious as to what “African” here… SSA is the only true African genetic ancestry?
There's a clear difference in the amount of Eurasian ancestry between the groups you just mentioned and other North Africans who tend to predominate in Eurasian ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually neither paper you posted proves what you claim. The first paper is from 7KYA not 15KYA and is only relevant to parts of coastal North West Africa and it doesn't represent the main body of Neolithic activity in ancient North Africa. Much of that activity would be found at places like the Al Takarkori Rock shelter.
This is the 15kya one. It's from the same 2018 study by VAN DE LOOSDRECHT
You're correct about the coastal regions though that's why I said "There's no evidence of Levantines moving deep into the Sahara." The Sahara is a completely different kettle of fish compared to the coastal regions of North Africa. So I think we're in agreement here.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Not to mention the second paper states point blank that they find no evidence for European entrance into North Africa and that the connection between the Levant and Africa was via the Natufians. Which does not prove Levantine migrations into North Africa as opposed to African migrations into the Levant. And it is that ancient African population of the Holocene Sahara we are calling "ANA" ancestry. That is not Eurasian.
There's actually another study about the 15kya Moroccans done by Lazaridis 2018 which contested the results of the previous study I posted. It basically infers what you're saying about "ANA" moving into and contributing to the Natufians instead of the reverse. However there was still significant Eurasian ancestry within that genome as they were modelled as 45% Ancestral North African and 55% Dzudzuana (Eurasian)
Posts: 61 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, but The only real group who are predominantly Eurasian are coastal NAs and even then E1B1B is pretty dominant and that haplogroup derived in Africa and is widespread in Africa(correct me if I’m wrong)
Also the Nubians in that study (and many others for that matter) are heavily Eurasian, almost as much as A. Egyptians, are Nubians now not African? I’m just confused honestly looking for clarification
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Are folks like the Tibbu, Chadians, and Fulani etc. not Africans considering they also have significant Eurasian ancestry. Also the Nubians in that study look heavily Eurasian as well are they not Africans? I’m just curious as to what “African” here… SSA is the only true African genetic ancestry?
There's a clear difference in the amount of Eurasian ancestry between the groups you just mentioned and other North Africans who tend to predominate in Eurasian ancestry.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, especially considering the Nile Valley being a crossroads so to speak I can definitely see “foreigners” being in Kmt in early periods.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That's a good point you're making Jari as far as people trying to portray themselves as friends of Egyptians. I didn't think of it that way, but people caping for Egyptians is really a thing, even here on ES. But if you're going to cape for anything, why not for truth or science. People having standing up for truth lower in priority is crazy.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Sad that we won't get clarity, I was under the assmuption that E1b1b1 was forming some sort of "Afro-Asiatic" cluster and that it could've originate in North Africa...These results from the Leak and Nuruet being both from the OK and opposite different results seems to throw a wrench in that but it's interesting your take on possible Early Mesopotamian Shemetic and Predynastic connection...because if there was it would fit in with that E1b1b1 Afro-Asiatic cluster scenario..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I’m curious as to how the Nuruet results square with the leaks if it ends up being true
This is going to drag on for years, and the Egyptian government is not going to bring clarity, especially since they seem to have it out for certain African Americans artists and seem to be taking sides more firmly now, in public.
As I said earlier, a lot of these shenanigans by the public that are a consequence of the silence of the Egyptian government (e.g. Tut = R1b and Abusir genomes, and now again with people like Antalas) could have been avoided if we had Mesopotamian aDNA. Some of the early Semitic speakers there were just like predynastics.
I'm with you on E1b1b having that affinity. Why the change of mind? There were always going to be foreigners based on old anthropology identifying what they called "aliens" in dynastic Egyptian and Nubian cemeteries (which were rare or absent in most predynastic samples).
Many of the non.negroid bodieg in these pits arc undoubtedly Egyptian, but a considerable proportion of them present features of alien types."
Notice people were already calling out features foreign to the predynastic type, in the 19th and 20th century (this report was written for an expedition dating to 1907-1908). People nowadays are regressing in terms of this basic fact, which nowadays may be considered an 'Afrocentric' view by some who think any Egyptian genome is automatically biologically Egyptian, even if it carries Y-DNA J (Abusir).
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually neither paper you posted proves what you claim. The first paper is from 7KYA not 15KYA and is only relevant to parts of coastal North West Africa and it doesn't represent the main body of Neolithic activity in ancient North Africa. Much of that activity would be found at places like the Al Takarkori Rock shelter.
This is the 15kya one. It's from the same 2018 study by VAN DE LOOSDRECHT
So now you are jumping around trying to find a paper to match your points when the first paper was the most accurate and better reflects more recent data, such as that from Takarkori. So it sounds like you are just jumping on a bandwagon as opposed to following the facts.
You haven't disproven my point Eurasians did not sweep across all of "North Africa" 15 thousand years ago. And those papers focused on Morocco do not prove that. Morocco is not all of North Africa and ancient Morocco does not cluster with the Nile Valley, ancient or modern. The issue is using ancient coastal North Africa as a proxy for all "North Africa" over the span of thousands of years with little ancient DNA from any other parts of North Africa.
Ultimately there isn't a lot of proof ancient Eurasians sweeping across North Africa except in interpretations of small amounts of ancient DNA from certain locations in North Africa, which is focused on coastal North Africa. Like I mentioned, coastal North Africans are not representative of all ancient North African populations.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: You're correct about the coastal regions though that's why I said "There's no evidence of Levantines moving deep into the Sahara." The Sahara is a completely different kettle of fish compared to the coastal regions of North Africa. So I think we're in agreement here.
You keep claiming you agree but then jump back to arguing that coastal North Africans are the ancestors of all North Africans when they aren't. If an ANA lineage is found that would be ancestral to ancient coastal North Africans and that is an African lineage, not Eurasian.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Not to mention the second paper states point blank that they find no evidence for European entrance into North Africa and that the connection between the Levant and Africa was via the Natufians. Which does not prove Levantine migrations into North Africa as opposed to African migrations into the Levant. And it is that ancient African population of the Holocene Sahara we are calling "ANA" ancestry. That is not Eurasian.
There's actually another study about the 15kya Moroccans done by Lazaridis 2018 which contested the results of the previous study I posted. It basically infers what you're saying about "ANA" moving into and contributing to the Natufians instead of the reverse. However there was still significant Eurasian ancestry within that genome as they were modelled as 45% Ancestral North African and 55% Dzudzuana (Eurasian)
The more recent data from the Takarkori cave supports the first. So I am not sure why there are objections to Africans being in ancient Africa are coming from as the data supports it. Not to mention the ultimate point presented here about Natufians having African ancestry. All of that lines up with the paper you originally posted which would line up with ANA ancestry being African.....
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just recently post the info below in another thread and i will post it here as well.
Topic: What types of modern Egyptians do you think best resemble the ancients?
Some updates on dna and other talk.
Genetic history of Egypt
quote:The genetic history of Egypt reflects its geographical location at the crossroads of several major biocultural areas: North Africa, the Sahara, the Middle East, the Mediterranean and sub-Saharan Africa.
Two haplogroups, E1b1b and J, that are carried by both ancient and modern Egyptians. The subclade E-M78 of E1b1b is suggested to have originated in Northeast Africa in the area of Egypt and Libya, and is more predominant in Egypt. These two haplogroups and their various subclades in general are distributed in high frequencies in the Middle East and North Africa.
Genetic studies on ancient Egyptians
quote: Egyptologist Barry Kemp has noted that DNA studies can only provide firm conclusions about the population of ancient Egypt if the sample results are of a significant number of individuals and represent a broad geographical and chronological range. According to historian William Stiebling and archaeologist Susan N. Helft, conflicting DNA analysis on recent genetic samples such as the Amarna royal mummies has led to a lack of consensus on the genetic makeup of the ancient Egyptians and their geographic origins.
Wikipedia.
Egypt–Mesopotamia relations
quote: Egypt–Mesopotamia relations were the relations between the civilisations of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, in the Middle East. They seem to have developed from the 4th millennium BCE, starting in the Uruk period for Mesopotamia (circa 4000–3100 BCE) and the half a millennium younger Gerzean culture of Prehistoric Egypt (circa 3500–3200 BCE), and constituted a largely one way body of influences from Mesopotamia into Egypt.
Prior to a specific Mesopotamian influence there had already been a longstanding influence from West Asia into Egypt, North Africa and even into some parts of the Horn of Africa and the Sahel in the form of the Neolithic Revolution which from circa 9000 BCE diffused advanced agricultural practices and technology, gene-flow, certain animals and crops and the likely spread of Proto-Afroasiatic language into the region.
Mesopotamian influences can be seen in the visual arts of Egypt, in architecture, in technology, weaponry, in imported products, religious imagery, in agriculture and livestock, in genetic input, and also in the likely transfer of writing from Mesopotamia to Egypt and generated "deep-seated" parallels in the early stages of both cultures.
2017 DNA Genome Study
quote: A 2017 study of the mitochondrial DNA and Genome wide DNA composition of Egyptian mummies has shown a high level of affinity with the DNA of the populations of Western Asia and Anatolia. The study was made on mummies of Abusir el-Meleq, near El Fayum, which was inhabited from at least 3250 BCE until about 700 CE. A shared drift analysis of the ancient Egyptian mummies is highest with ancient populations from the Levant and Anatolia, and to a lesser extent modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. the Admixture analysis and PCA show the most affinity to ancient and modern middle eastern populations.
Overall the mummies studied were closer genetically to near easterners than the modern Egyptian or indeed nearby Libyan or Sudanese populations, who today have a greater proportion of genes (8% more) coming from sub-Saharan Africa which probably arrived after the Roman period.
The data suggest a very high level of genetic input from Western Asia since ancient times, probably going back to Prehistoric Egypt and as far back as the Neolithic Era: "Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, colonisation, immigration, invasion and deportation".
The study stated that "our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the [native] population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level."
The study's authors cautioned that the mummies may be unrepresentative of the Ancient Egyptian population as a whole.
Gourdine, Anselin and Keita criticised the methodology of the Scheunemann et al. study and argued that the Sub-Saharan "genetic affinities" may be attributed to "early settlers" and "the relevant Sub-Saharan genetic markers" do not correspond with the geography of known trade routes".
In 2022, Danielle Candelora noted several limitations with the 2017 Scheunemann et al. study such as its “untested sampling methods, small sample size and problematic comparative data” which she argued had been misused to legitimise racist conceptions of Ancient Egypt with “scientific evidence”
Because the 2017 study only sampled from a single site at Abusir el-Meleq, Scheunemann et al.(2022) carried out a follow-up study by collecting samples from six different excavation sites along the entire length of the Nile Valley, spanning 4000 years of Egyptian history. 81 samples were collected from 17 mummies and 14 skeletal remains, and 18 high quality mitochondrial genomes were reconstructed from 10 individuals. The authors argued the analyzed mitochondrial genomes supported the results from the earlier study at Abusir el-Meleq.
In 2023, Christopher Ehret criticised the conclusions of the 2017 study which proposed the ancient Egyptians had a Levantine background based on insufficient sampling and a biased interpretation of the genetic data. Ehret argued this was reminiscent of earlier scholarship and also conflicted with existing archaeological, linguistic and biological anthropological evidence which determined the founding locales of Ancient Egypt to be the descendants of longtime populations in Northeastern Africa such as Nubia and the northern Horn of Africa. Ehret also criticised the study for asserting that there was “no sub-Saharan” component in the Egyptian population. Ehret cited other genetic evidence which had identified the Horn of Africa as a source of a genetic marker “M35 /215” Y-chromosome lineage for a significant population component which moved north from that region into Egypt and the Levant.
Wikipedia.
Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Position of modern scholarship
quote: William Stiebling and Susan Helft wrote in 2023 on the historical debate concerning the race and ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians in light of recent evidence. They argued that the physical appearances would have varied along a continuum from the Delta to the Nille’s source regions in the south. The authors specified that “some ancient Egyptians looked more Middle Eastern and others looked more Sudanese or Ethiopians of today, and some may even have looked like other groups in Africa”. The authors reached the view that “Egypt was a unique civilization with genetic and cultural ties linking it to other African cultures to its south and west and to Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures to its north”.
posted
I don't know why the mods keep letting this chump take shots at African Americans, a group of people he knows nothing about. As for identity crisis maybe he should ask his fellow North Africans why do a lot of them consider themselves as Arabs.
Posts: 2601 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Significance of Takarkori in the African archaeological record:
Africa's Earliest 'Farmers' Grew Cereals in The Lush Sahara 10,000 Years Ago
quote: Some 10,000 years ago, during the early Holocene, the Sahara desert looked very different. Up until around 5,000 years ago, the region was thought to be lush and fertile, covered with vegetation and lakes. This was known as the African Humid Period.
During this time, a place now known as the Takarkori rock shelter was frequented by human hunter-gatherers. Sediments and fibre artefacts such as baskets and rock art point to a long history of a human presence.
Aquatic fauna from the Takarkori rock shelter reveals the Holocene central Saharan climate and palaeohydrography
quote: The abundant faunal remains from the Takarkori rock shelter in the Tadrart Acacus region of southwestern Libya are described. The material that covers the period between 10,200 to 4650 years cal BP illustrates the more humid environmental conditions in the Central Sahara during early and middle Holocene times. Particular attention is focussed on the aquatic fauna that shows marked diachronic changes related to increasing aridification. This is reflected in the decreasing amount of fish remains compared to mammals and, within the fish fauna, by changes through time in the proportion of the species and by a reduction of fish size. The aquatic fauna can, in addition, be used to formulate hypotheses about the former palaeohydrographical network. This is done by considering the possible location of pre-Holocene relic populations combined with observations on the topography and palaeohydrological settings of the Central Sahara.
Takarkori rock shelter (SW Libya): an archive of Holocene climate and environmental changes in the central Sahara
quote: Rock shelters in the central Saharan massifs preserve anthropogenic stratigraphic sequences that represent both a precious archive for the prehistory of the region and a powerful proxy data for Holocene palaeoenvironments. The geoarchaeological (micromorphology) and archaeobotanical (pollen analysis) approaches were integrated to investigate the anthropogenic sedimentary sequence preserved within the Takarkori rock shelter, a Holocene archaeological site located in the Libyan central Sahara (southern Tadrart Acacus massif). The site was occupied throughout the Early and Middle Holocene (African Humid Period) by groups of hunter–gatherers before and by pastoral communities later. The investigation on the inner part of the sequence allows to recognize the anthropogenic contribution to sedimentation process, and to reconstruct the major changes in the Holocene climate. At the bottom of the stratigraphic sequence, evidence for the earliest frequentation of the site by hunters and gatherers has been recognized; it is dated to c. 10,170 cal yr BP and is characterized by high availability of water, freshwater habitats and sparsely wooded savannah vegetation. A second Early Holocene occupation ended at c. 8180 cal yr BP; this phase is marked by increased aridity: sediments progressively richer in organics, testifying to a more intense occupation of the site, and pollen spectra indicating a decrease of grassland and the spreading of cattails, which followed a general lowering of lake level or widening of shallow-water marginal habitats near the site. After this period, a new occupational phase is dated between c. 8180 and 5610 cal yr BP; this period saw the beginning of the frequentation of pastoral groups and is marked by an important change in the forming processes of the sequence. Sediments and pollen spectra confirm a new increase in water availability, which led to a change in the landscape surrounding the Takarkori rock shelter with the spreading of water bodies. The upper part of the sequence, dating between c. 5700 and 4650 cal yr BP records a significant environmental instability towards dryer climatic conditions, consistent with the end of the African Humid Period.
Ancestral mitochondrial N lineage from the Neolithic ‘green’ Sahara
quote: Because Africa’s climate hampers DNA preservation, knowledge of its genetic variability is mainly restricted to modern samples, even though population genetics dynamics and back-migrations from Eurasia may have modified haplotype frequencies, masking ancient genetic scenarios. Thanks to improved methodologies, ancient genetic data for the African continent are now increasingly available, starting to fill in the gap. Here we present newly obtained mitochondrial genomes from two ~7000-year-old individuals from Takarkori rockshelter, Libya, representing the earliest and first genetic data for the Sahara region. These individuals carry a novel mutation motif linked to the haplogroup N root. Our result demonstrates the presence of an ancestral lineage of the N haplogroup in the Holocene “Green Sahara”, associated to a Middle Pastoral (Neolithic) context.
Networking through pottery characterisation at Takarkori rock shelter (Libyan Sahara, 10,200–4650 cal BP)
quote: Routine pottery analyses (optical microscopy, X-ray powder diffraction, X-ray fluorescence) and digital image processing of polarised light photomicrographs were used to answer questions on the provenance and technology of pottery assemblages belonging to Late Acacus hunter–gatherers (ca. 10,200–8000 cal BP) and Pastoral herders (ca. 8300–4650 cal BP) from Takarkori rock shelter (SW Libya, central Sahara). This integrated analytical approach on potsherds was combined with the characterisation of local clayey sediments to identify different local and proximal sources for coarse and fine sediments exploited for pottery production. Two main fabric groups (i.e. Q* and QF*) were identified among the analysed potsherds, where the sediments from the Takarkori area are compatible with the quartz-dominated fabrics (Q*). The local fabric QVe shows evidence of dung addition. Pottery with plutonic non-plastic inclusions (QF*) points to provenance from the southern edges of the Tassili n’Ajjer and is more frequent in Late Acacus and Early Pastoral layers. New insights into pottery production and circulation between Early Holocene Saharan hunter–gatherers and Pastoral communities, as well as into modes of occupation of Takarkori rock shelter, are provided.
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Hawass, who isn't pro-black, said straightforwardly that the Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned but that they were not black like SSAs. So even Hawass doesn't argue for light-skinned Ancient Egyptians.
He just said that "the black in Egypt" is not like African Americans or Sub-Saharan Africans. He may or may not have been saying that this 'black' is close to ancient Egyptians. Probably that's what he meant, but I wouldn't call it a straightfoward admission.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There’s actually a lot of racist animosity between Berbers and Arabs
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I don't know why the mods keep letting this chump take shots at African Americans, a group of people he knows nothing about. As for identity crisis maybe he should ask his fellow North Africans why do a lot of them consider themselves as Arabs.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with elMaestro who, just like myself, isn't taking Antalas bait when he's trying to insert subjectives like the meaning of black or the meaning of African.
No one is inserting these subjectives, only Antalas. The alleged leaks have Ancient Egyptian skin pigmentation as "pretty dark", which has nothing to do with the discussion of what 'black' means. Likewise, the anthropology has predynastics as in an African direction compared to Bronze Age Levantines, dynastics and modern Egyptians, which has nothing to do with what 'African' means. We are talking about objectives (ie genetic and morphological distrance).
Antalas for some reason thinks he's much smarter than he really is, and that everyone is much dumber than he is.
(Not a criticism of Jari's question to Mightywolf and things like that, but Antalas underhanded behaviour)
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ...I don't even know what you're going on about. That man has derived pigmentaion genes. He also likely has autosomal ancestry representative of the later samples we now know is ode to a bronze age expansion from the levant. And the Nuerat sample is only ~4.5kya. The full sample set is obviously relevant you don't have to disregard anything. The next oldest sample (with uniparentals) is J1 for example. Why you can't see you're constantly contradicting yourself is mind numbing.
Let's suppose, hypothetically, that this individual indeed possesses derived pigmentation genes, possibly owing to the Bronze Age expansion from the Levant. Can you tell me who introduced these genes to the Levantine population and during which specific historical period ? I've noticed you express strong opinions, which seem to lack substantial basis.
It's important to remember that near eastern migrations into the Nile Valley occurred long before the foundation of Egypt, and these migrations involved people who already had ANF ancestry. Additionally, as MightyWolf has pointed out, having dark skin doesn't automatically categorize a population as racially black. That's why I emphasized that it's too simplistic to rely solely on skin color when trying to understand the characteristics of ancient Egyptians and their genetic affiliations.
I've noticed that you haven't brought up or discussed bio-anthropological papers, which are often corroborated by genetic findings, concerning these early Egyptians. I really wonder why...
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
All segments of the body preserve the anatomical connections, particularly with respect to the right arm and hand The skull (Fig. 2b) appears to be gracile, with visible parietal bosses and a verticalized frontal bone, according to the female sex estimate. While the face only preserved the skeletal tissue, the superior and posterior areas corresponding with the parietal and occipital bones includes large portions of connective tissues referred to the galea aponeurotica and fragments of the overlying dermis and epidermis, with no traces of hair, mostly preserved on the resting side.
The Neigbourgh Joining tree shows that the small sample from Takarkori takes relationships with the populations from Gobero in Niger, either coeval Gobero B or more ancient (Gobero A), thus with humans from sub-Saharan regions which are characterized by a wide morphological variation . Populations from the Fezzan such as Fewet, Wadi-el-Ajal and Tahala, much younger chronologically than the Takarkori sample, are separated from it (according to the length of the branches that are proportional to the Euclidean distances between the metrical variables) and are, by contrast, more in relationship with one of the earliest representatives of our species such as the cranium from Herto. Paradoxically, therefore, although more recent than the two women from Takarkori, samples from this time period appear more “archaic” and closer to the root of the tree. We speculate that this occurrence is probably in relationship with the expression of recessive phenotypic features, which in turn suggests a certain degree of geographic and genetic isolation.
Sereno et al. 2008 showed that Gobero E clustered close to Iberomaurusians and capsians so how can they suddenly be "negroid" ? (there also seems to be a chronological mistake in your paper in regards to Gobero) Also "wide morphological variation" is ambiguous. Is it Brachycephaly ? I'm also curious about why this seems to be a concern for you, given that there are numerous examples of populations with significant Eurasian ancestry that still exhibit many SSA traits simultaneously.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] I agree with elMaestro who, just like myself, isn't taking Antalas bait when he's trying to insert subjectives like the meaning of black or the meaning of African.
No one is inserting these subjectives, only Antalas. The alleged leaks have Ancient Egyptian skin pigmentation as "pretty dark", which has nothing to do with the discussion of what 'black' means. Likewise, the anthropology has predynastics as in an African direction compared to Bronze Age Levantines, dynastics and modern Egyptians, which has nothing to do with what 'African' means. We are talking about objectives (ie genetic and morphological distrance).
Antalas for some reason thinks he's much smarter than he really is, and that everyone is much dumber than he is.
(Not a criticism of Jari's question to Mightywolf and things like that, but Antalas underhanded behaviour)
Of course it has all to do with what "black" means since this "pretty dark" is used by your fellow Afrocentrists, like Maestro, to advance the idea that the ancient Egyptians were unequivocally "Black Africans", and hence can legitimately be taken as a source of pride by west africans like him. Anyone questioning this or introducing nuance into this discourse is labeled as "anti-black" and perceived as uncomfortable with the notion of historical Egyptians having darker complexions.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Update info for Population history of Egypt.
Population history of Egypt Neolithic and Predynastic periods
quote: Around 8000 BCE, the Sahara had a wet phase, the Neolithic Subpluvial (Holocene Wet Phase). There is very little evidence of human occupation of the Egyptian Nile Valley during the Early and Middle Holocene periods. This may be due to problems in site preservation. The Middle Nile Valley (Nubia) had population settlements attested by occupational sequence since the Pleistocene and the Holocene. People from the surrounding areas moved into the Sahara, and evidence suggests that the populations of the Nile Valley reduced in size. Several scholars have argued that the origins of the Egyptian civilisation derived from pastoral communities which emerged in both the Egyptian and northern Sudanese regions of the Nile Valley in the 5th millennium BCE.
According to historian, Donald Redford (1992), the period from 9000 to 6000 BC had left very little in the way of archaeological evidence. Around 6000 BC, Neolithic settlements appear all over Egypt. Some studies based on morphological,genetic,and archaeological data have attributed these settlements to migrants from the Fertile Crescent in the Near East returning during the Egyptian and North African Neolithic, bringing agriculture to the region.
However, other scholars have disputed this view and cited linguistic, biological anthropological, archaeological and genetic data which does not support the hypothesis of a mass migration from the Levantine during the prehistoric period. According to historian William Stiebling and archaeologist Susan N. Helft, this view posits that the ancient Egyptians are the same original population group as Nubians and other Saharan populations, with some genetic input from Arabian, Levantine, North African, and Indo-European groups who have known to have settled in Egypt during its long history. Historian Christopher Ehret, cited genetic evidence which had identified the Horn of Africa as a source of a genetic marker "M35/215" Y-chromosome lineage for a significant population component which moved north from that region into Egypt and the Levant. Ehret argued that this genetic distribution paralleled the spread of the Afrasian language family with the movement of people from the Horn of Africa into Egypt and added a new demic component to the existing population of Egypt 17,000 years ago.
Predynastic Egypt is conventionally said to begin about 6000 BCE. Between 5300 and 3500 BCE. the wet phase declined and increasing aridity pushed the Saharan peoples into locations with reliable water, such as oases and the Nile Valley.The mid-Holocene droughts drove refuges from the Southern Levant and the Eastern Sahara into Egypt, where they mixed and settled.
From around 4800 to 4300 BCE, the Merimde culture, known from the typesite Merimde Beni-Salame, flourished in Lower Egypt.Later, Lower Egypt was also the home of the Buto Maadi culture, best known from the site at Maadi near Cairo. In Upper Egypt, the predynastic Badari culture was followed by the Naqada culture (Amratian).
Around 3000 BCE, the wet phase of the Sahara came to an end. The Saharan populations retreated to the south towards the Sahel, and east in the direction of the Nile Valley. It was these populations, in addition to Neolithic farmers from the Near East, that likely played a role in the formation of the Egyptian state as they brought their food crops, sheep, goats, and cattle to the Nile Valley.
Wikipedia
Posts: 2586 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
All segments of the body preserve the anatomical connections, particularly with respect to the right arm and hand The skull (Fig. 2b) appears to be gracile, with visible parietal bosses and a verticalized frontal bone, according to the female sex estimate. While the face only preserved the skeletal tissue, the superior and posterior areas corresponding with the parietal and occipital bones includes large portions of connective tissues referred to the galea aponeurotica and fragments of the overlying dermis and epidermis, with no traces of hair, mostly preserved on the resting side.
The Neigbourgh Joining tree shows that the small sample from Takarkori takes relationships with the populations from Gobero in Niger, either coeval Gobero B or more ancient (Gobero A), thus with humans from sub-Saharan regions which are characterized by a wide morphological variation . Populations from the Fezzan such as Fewet, Wadi-el-Ajal and Tahala, much younger chronologically than the Takarkori sample, are separated from it (according to the length of the branches that are proportional to the Euclidean distances between the metrical variables) and are, by contrast, more in relationship with one of the earliest representatives of our species such as the cranium from Herto. Paradoxically, therefore, although more recent than the two women from Takarkori, samples from this time period appear more “archaic” and closer to the root of the tree. We speculate that this occurrence is probably in relationship with the expression of recessive phenotypic features, which in turn suggests a certain degree of geographic and genetic isolation.
Sereno et al. 2008 showed that Gobero E clustered close to Iberomaurusians and capsians so how can they suddenly be "negroid" ? (there also seems to be a chronological mistake in your paper in regards to Gobero) Also "wide morphological variation" is ambiguous. Is it Brachycephaly ? I'm also curious about why this seems to be a concern for you, given that there are numerous examples of populations with significant Eurasian ancestry that still exhibit many SSA traits simultaneously.
Now you are misrepresenting Serreno:
quote: Craniometric data from seven human groups (Tables 3, 4) were subjected to principal components analysis, which allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania [18], [26], [27] and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb (see cluster in Figure 6). The striking similarity between these seven human populations confirms previous suggestions regarding their affinity [18] and is particularly significant given their temporal range (Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene) and trans-Saharan geographic distribution (across the Maghreb to the southern Sahara).
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002995 Nowhere in that study does it say these fossils represent 'Eurasian' derived populations in Africa. In fact the paper references a French study on "Mecthoids" and related populations and nowhere in that does it say either of these populations represent Eurasians or populations of Eurasian type. So they were all Africans.
Hommes fossiles du Sahara : peuplements holocènes du Mali septentrional / Olivier Dutour
quote: This is the first significant study of a fossil human population from the Sahara Desert. The sample is large, the methods of analysis are sophisticated and the results are commensurately important. Until recently, the prehistory of the southwestern Sahara has been virtually unknown. This report will stand as a landmark study of the physical anthropology of that area.
The report deals with two distinct populations who lived in the south-western Sahara during the early and middle Holocene. The earlier and better sampled of these populations is Mechtoid. These were a robust and Cro-Magnon-like type, who were originally known only from the Maghreb where they were associated with the Iberomaurusian : le parent pauvre de la Palethnologie maghrébine (Gobert, 1954 : 441). Because of their limited distribution and restricted association, Mechtoids were not regarded as very important in the story of human physical development. Subsequently, they have been found associated with the later Capsian industries in the Maghreb, and with the Late Palaeolithic industries of the Nile Valley, from more than 20 000 until about 12 000 years ago. The earliest Mechtoid remains now known were found with an Upper Palaeolithic industry in the Nile Valley and are about 35 000 years old. Thus, it is now apparent that Mechtoid groups lived across the whole of North Africa, and were the makers of at least most of the later Palaeolithic industries there. Their relationship to the makers of the earlier, Middle Palaeolithic is uncertain, but is likely to have been one of descent. Dutour's study shows that this important human type survived in North Africa until much later than had been thought, contributing to North African cultural development even down to the Neolithic period.
Nowhere do these papers support the idea of "Eurasian types" spreading across North Africa 20,000 years ago.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Population history of Egypt Material culture and archaeological data
quote: Located in the extreme north-east corner of Africa, ancient Egyptian society was at a crossroads between the African and Near Eastern regions. Early Egyptologists noted the increased novelty and seemingly rapid change in Predynastic pottery and noted trade contacts between ancient Egypt and the Middle East. Fekri Hassan and Edwin et al. point to mutual influence from both inner Africa as well as the Levant.Similar cultural features have been observed between the early Saharan populations and dynastic Egypt such as pottery, iconography and mummification.
The culture of Merimde in Lower Egypt, among others, has been linked to the Levant. The pottery of the Buto Maadi culture, best known from the site at Maadi near Cairo, also shows connections with the southern Levant. In Upper Egypt, the predynastic Badari culture was followed by the Naqada culture (Amratian). These groups have been described to be culturally related to the Nubian and Northeastern African populations. Upper Egypt is considered to have formed the pre-dominant basis for the cultural development of Pharaonic Egypt and the Proto-dynastic kings emerged from the Naqada region.Several dynasties of southern or Upper Egyptian origin, which included the 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th and 25th dynasties, reunified and reinvigorated pharaonic Egypt after periods of fragmentation.
Egyptian scholar Gamal Mokhtar argued that the inventory of hieroglyphic symbols derived from "fauna and flora used in the signs [which] are essentially African" and in "regards to writing, we have seen that a purely Nilotic, hence African origin not only is not excluded, but probably reflects the reality" although he acknowledged the geographical location of Egypt made it a receptacle for many influences.
quote:
Maria Gatto also wrote in 2014 that archaeological research in the Aswan area has revealed that the process of cultural mixing in the boundary region of the First Cataract of the Nile River during the fourth millennium BCE, which is clearly detectable in the cultural material, was much more complex than previously thought. In the first half of the fourth millennium BCE the rise of the Naqada culture gave rise to a distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity. Before then the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt were strongly similar to the Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition. The earliest evidence of the Naqada culture comes from the area of Abydos, and then it spread south into Nubia, and north across Egypt. The author also noted that the cultural substratum in Upper Egypt was mostly Nubian-related.
quote: Deitrich Wildung (2018) examined Eastern Saharan pottery styles and Sudanese stone sculptures and suggested these artefacts were transmitted across the Nile Valley and influenced the pre-dynastic Egyptian culture in the Neolithic period.Wildung, in a separate publication, has argued that Nubian features were common in Egyptian iconography since the pre-dynastic era and that the early dynastic pharaohs such as Khufu were represented with these Nubian features.
quote:The use of craniofacial criteria as reliable indicators of population grouping or ethnicity has been a longstanding focus of biological anthropology. In 1912, Franz Boas argued that cranial shape was heavily influenced by environmental factors and could change within a few generations under differing conditions, thereby making the cephalic index an unreliable indicator of inherited influences such as ethnicity. Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard (2003), Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) and Williams and Armelagos (2005) similarly posited that "race" and cranial variation had low correlations, and proposed that cranial variation was instead strongly correlated with climate variables.
Brace (1993) differentiated adaptive cranial traits from non-adaptive cranial traits, asserting that only the non-adaptive cranial traits served as reliable indicators of genetic relatedness between populations.This was further corroborated in studies by von Cramon-Taubadel (2008, 2009a, 2011). Clement and Ranson (1998) claimed that cranial analysis yields a 77%-95% rate of accuracy in determining the racial origins of human skeletal remains. However, the traits are not clear until puberty, racial determination of preadolescent skulls is much more difficult.
quote: In 2013, Terrazas et al. conducted a comparative craniometric analysis of paleolithic to modern crania from different parts of the continent. The purpose of the research, was to test certain hypothesis about the possible origins and evolution of the earliest people in Africa. In it, the dynastic Egyptian skulls were morphologically closest to Afroasiatic-speaking populations from the Horn region. Both of these fossil series possessed notable Middle Eastern affinities and were distinct from the analyzed prehistoric crania of North Africa and the Horn of Africa, including the Pleistocene Rabat skull, Herto Homo sapiens idaltu fossil and Early Holocene Kef Oum Touiza skeleton. The scientists suggest this may indicate that the Afroasiatic-speaking groups settled in the area during a later epoch, having possibly arrived from the Middle East. People in Northern and Eastern Africa would have been the result of local people and immigrants from Asia.
In 2020, Godde analysed a series of crania, including two Egyptian (predynastic Badarian and Nagada series), a series of A-Group Nubians and a Bronze Age series from Lachish, Palestine. The two pre-dynastic series had strongest affinities, followed by closeness between the Nagada and the Nubian series. Further, the Nubian A-Group plotted nearer to the Egyptians and the Lachish sample placed more closely to Naqada than Badari. According to Godde the spatial-temporal model applied to the pattern of biological distances explains the more distant relationship of Badari to Lachish than Naqada to Lachish as gene flow will cause populations to become more similar over time.
Wikipedia
Posts: 2586 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Population history of Egypt Material culture and archaeological data
quote: Located in the extreme north-east corner of Africa, ancient Egyptian society was at a crossroads between the African and Near Eastern regions. Early Egyptologists noted the increased novelty and seemingly rapid change in Predynastic pottery and noted trade contacts between ancient Egypt and the Middle East. Fekri Hassan and Edwin et al. point to mutual influence from both inner Africa as well as the Levant.Similar cultural features have been observed between the early Saharan populations and dynastic Egypt such as pottery, iconography and mummification.
The culture of Merimde in Lower Egypt, among others, has been linked to the Levant. The pottery of the Buto Maadi culture, best known from the site at Maadi near Cairo, also shows connections with the southern Levant. In Upper Egypt, the predynastic Badari culture was followed by the Naqada culture (Amratian). These groups have been described to be culturally related to the Nubian and Northeastern African populations. Upper Egypt is considered to have formed the pre-dominant basis for the cultural development of Pharaonic Egypt and the Proto-dynastic kings emerged from the Naqada region.Several dynasties of southern or Upper Egyptian origin, which included the 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th and 25th dynasties, reunified and reinvigorated pharaonic Egypt after periods of fragmentation.
Egyptian scholar Gamal Mokhtar argued that the inventory of hieroglyphic symbols derived from "fauna and flora used in the signs [which] are essentially African" and in "regards to writing, we have seen that a purely Nilotic, hence African origin not only is not excluded, but probably reflects the reality" although he acknowledged the geographical location of Egypt made it a receptacle for many influences.
quote:
Maria Gatto also wrote in 2014 that archaeological research in the Aswan area has revealed that the process of cultural mixing in the boundary region of the First Cataract of the Nile River during the fourth millennium BCE, which is clearly detectable in the cultural material, was much more complex than previously thought. In the first half of the fourth millennium BCE the rise of the Naqada culture gave rise to a distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity. Before then the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt were strongly similar to the Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition. The earliest evidence of the Naqada culture comes from the area of Abydos, and then it spread south into Nubia, and north across Egypt. The author also noted that the cultural substratum in Upper Egypt was mostly Nubian-related.
quote: Deitrich Wildung (2018) examined Eastern Saharan pottery styles and Sudanese stone sculptures and suggested these artefacts were transmitted across the Nile Valley and influenced the pre-dynastic Egyptian culture in the Neolithic period.Wildung, in a separate publication, has argued that Nubian features were common in Egyptian iconography since the pre-dynastic era and that the early dynastic pharaohs such as Khufu were represented with these Nubian features.
quote:The use of craniofacial criteria as reliable indicators of population grouping or ethnicity has been a longstanding focus of biological anthropology. In 1912, Franz Boas argued that cranial shape was heavily influenced by environmental factors and could change within a few generations under differing conditions, thereby making the cephalic index an unreliable indicator of inherited influences such as ethnicity. Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard (2003), Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) and Williams and Armelagos (2005) similarly posited that "race" and cranial variation had low correlations, and proposed that cranial variation was instead strongly correlated with climate variables.
Brace (1993) differentiated adaptive cranial traits from non-adaptive cranial traits, asserting that only the non-adaptive cranial traits served as reliable indicators of genetic relatedness between populations.This was further corroborated in studies by von Cramon-Taubadel (2008, 2009a, 2011). Clement and Ranson (1998) claimed that cranial analysis yields a 77%-95% rate of accuracy in determining the racial origins of human skeletal remains. However, the traits are not clear until puberty, racial determination of preadolescent skulls is much more difficult.
quote: In 2013, Terrazas et al. conducted a comparative craniometric analysis of paleolithic to modern crania from different parts of the continent. The purpose of the research, was to test certain hypothesis about the possible origins and evolution of the earliest people in Africa. In it, the dynastic Egyptian skulls were morphologically closest to Afroasiatic-speaking populations from the Horn region. Both of these fossil series possessed notable Middle Eastern affinities and were distinct from the analyzed prehistoric crania of North Africa and the Horn of Africa, including the Pleistocene Rabat skull, Herto Homo sapiens idaltu fossil and Early Holocene Kef Oum Touiza skeleton. The scientists suggest this may indicate that the Afroasiatic-speaking groups settled in the area during a later epoch, having possibly arrived from the Middle East. People in Northern and Eastern Africa would have been the result of local people and immigrants from Asia.
In 2020, Godde analysed a series of crania, including two Egyptian (predynastic Badarian and Nagada series), a series of A-Group Nubians and a Bronze Age series from Lachish, Palestine. The two pre-dynastic series had strongest affinities, followed by closeness between the Nagada and the Nubian series. Further, the Nubian A-Group plotted nearer to the Egyptians and the Lachish sample placed more closely to Naqada than Badari. According to Godde the spatial-temporal model applied to the pattern of biological distances explains the more distant relationship of Badari to Lachish than Naqada to Lachish as gene flow will cause populations to become more similar over time.
Wikipedia
What is all of this wikipedia data supposed to be saying that is relevant?
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Population history of Egypt Material culture and archaeological data
quote: Located in the extreme north-east corner of Africa, ancient Egyptian society was at a crossroads between the African and Near Eastern regions. Early Egyptologists noted the increased novelty and seemingly rapid change in Predynastic pottery and noted trade contacts between ancient Egypt and the Middle East. Fekri Hassan and Edwin et al. point to mutual influence from both inner Africa as well as the Levant.Similar cultural features have been observed between the early Saharan populations and dynastic Egypt such as pottery, iconography and mummification.
The culture of Merimde in Lower Egypt, among others, has been linked to the Levant. The pottery of the Buto Maadi culture, best known from the site at Maadi near Cairo, also shows connections with the southern Levant. In Upper Egypt, the predynastic Badari culture was followed by the Naqada culture (Amratian). These groups have been described to be culturally related to the Nubian and Northeastern African populations. Upper Egypt is considered to have formed the pre-dominant basis for the cultural development of Pharaonic Egypt and the Proto-dynastic kings emerged from the Naqada region.Several dynasties of southern or Upper Egyptian origin, which included the 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th and 25th dynasties, reunified and reinvigorated pharaonic Egypt after periods of fragmentation.
Egyptian scholar Gamal Mokhtar argued that the inventory of hieroglyphic symbols derived from "fauna and flora used in the signs [which] are essentially African" and in "regards to writing, we have seen that a purely Nilotic, hence African origin not only is not excluded, but probably reflects the reality" although he acknowledged the geographical location of Egypt made it a receptacle for many influences.
quote:
Maria Gatto also wrote in 2014 that archaeological research in the Aswan area has revealed that the process of cultural mixing in the boundary region of the First Cataract of the Nile River during the fourth millennium BCE, which is clearly detectable in the cultural material, was much more complex than previously thought. In the first half of the fourth millennium BCE the rise of the Naqada culture gave rise to a distinction between an Egyptian and a Nubian identity. Before then the Tarifian, Badarian and Tasian cultures of Middle and Upper Egypt were strongly similar to the Nubian/Nilotic pastoral tradition. The earliest evidence of the Naqada culture comes from the area of Abydos, and then it spread south into Nubia, and north across Egypt. The author also noted that the cultural substratum in Upper Egypt was mostly Nubian-related.
quote: Deitrich Wildung (2018) examined Eastern Saharan pottery styles and Sudanese stone sculptures and suggested these artefacts were transmitted across the Nile Valley and influenced the pre-dynastic Egyptian culture in the Neolithic period.Wildung, in a separate publication, has argued that Nubian features were common in Egyptian iconography since the pre-dynastic era and that the early dynastic pharaohs such as Khufu were represented with these Nubian features.
quote:The use of craniofacial criteria as reliable indicators of population grouping or ethnicity has been a longstanding focus of biological anthropology. In 1912, Franz Boas argued that cranial shape was heavily influenced by environmental factors and could change within a few generations under differing conditions, thereby making the cephalic index an unreliable indicator of inherited influences such as ethnicity. Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard (2003), Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) and Williams and Armelagos (2005) similarly posited that "race" and cranial variation had low correlations, and proposed that cranial variation was instead strongly correlated with climate variables.
Brace (1993) differentiated adaptive cranial traits from non-adaptive cranial traits, asserting that only the non-adaptive cranial traits served as reliable indicators of genetic relatedness between populations.This was further corroborated in studies by von Cramon-Taubadel (2008, 2009a, 2011). Clement and Ranson (1998) claimed that cranial analysis yields a 77%-95% rate of accuracy in determining the racial origins of human skeletal remains. However, the traits are not clear until puberty, racial determination of preadolescent skulls is much more difficult.
quote: In 2013, Terrazas et al. conducted a comparative craniometric analysis of paleolithic to modern crania from different parts of the continent. The purpose of the research, was to test certain hypothesis about the possible origins and evolution of the earliest people in Africa. In it, the dynastic Egyptian skulls were morphologically closest to Afroasiatic-speaking populations from the Horn region. Both of these fossil series possessed notable Middle Eastern affinities and were distinct from the analyzed prehistoric crania of North Africa and the Horn of Africa, including the Pleistocene Rabat skull, Herto Homo sapiens idaltu fossil and Early Holocene Kef Oum Touiza skeleton. The scientists suggest this may indicate that the Afroasiatic-speaking groups settled in the area during a later epoch, having possibly arrived from the Middle East. People in Northern and Eastern Africa would have been the result of local people and immigrants from Asia.
In 2020, Godde analysed a series of crania, including two Egyptian (predynastic Badarian and Nagada series), a series of A-Group Nubians and a Bronze Age series from Lachish, Palestine. The two pre-dynastic series had strongest affinities, followed by closeness between the Nagada and the Nubian series. Further, the Nubian A-Group plotted nearer to the Egyptians and the Lachish sample placed more closely to Naqada than Badari. According to Godde the spatial-temporal model applied to the pattern of biological distances explains the more distant relationship of Badari to Lachish than Naqada to Lachish as gene flow will cause populations to become more similar over time.
Wikipedia
What is all of this wikipedia data supposed to be saying that is relevant?
That was suppose to be included with the first page with the dna info i recently posted above but just split up. I wanted to combined the dna info with the above other info since dna was not the only thing talk about in the thread even if that's the main focus.
Note- Just a reminder that most of the population of ancient egypt live in upper egypt.
Posts: 2586 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Antalas You're just talking to talk or typing to type. The reason why I don't post any papers in rebutting you is because I don't have to. You're refuted by logic. For example you're looking for chronology in the NJT of vincenzo 2015, while highlighting Gobero e's (or a regarding Vincenzo) mechtoid affinity, while also stating Eurasians can have multiple SSA traits at random. In attempt to bulletproof your non-point (cause you actually don't have an argument, you're just trying to refute everything I say.) you contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. And you did all of this in the face of an abstract insinuating a novel ancestral lineage.
Also, regarding your question about levantines and light skinned pigmentation being introduced to where ever, etc. etc. look at your leak. You answered your own question pages and ages ago.
I already made it clear we aren't discussing sociology in this thread, so the mental gymnastics about "black people and west Africans" will be ignored by me and I urge other's to do the same. But I want people to see how desperate you are for attention so I won't delete it. But further posts will be removed.
Any who I was discussing the topic with Lostranger, sort yourself out & let the grown men talk.
@Lostranger Just in case you didn't know, there are two set of burials at Gobero each likely representing a different population. Kiffian, Gobero E and Tenerean, M according to Sereno and Gobero A and B according to Vincenzo respectively. Kiffian were more mechtoid and robust while Tenereans were more gracile akin to modern SSA populations however with short statures. The eastern Iberomaurasian pool used in Serano clustered with later Capsians, Samples form Mali; Hassi el Abiod, and Gobero E who trended toward the later samples (Gobero m,). The NJT in Vincento doesn't group phylogeny, ie not assigning chronology but grouping based on similarity/phenetics. The Takartori 2 groups the two Gobero populations together likely from being intermediate or like both in measurements. If you need further insight on their biological classifications you can inquire or take it to pms.
Posts: 1785 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can anyone sum up that leak in simple layman's terms?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2730 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's actually a lot going on with these leaks
The main "controversy" so to speak is that Basically someone leaked some o the results which has a significant amount of genetic lineage called CHG, and further this was from OK samples from Upper Egypt.
This basically means that the OK A. Egyptians were more "Eurasian" than Modern Egyptians..This is seen in the images posted by Nassa, someone(The Miro C dude?) put some of the samples into a program that showed 0 SSA who are modeled as Yoruba in that image.
People are spinning this is different ways, some like Antalas and Miro are advocating for Dynastic Race and celebrating it as a way to own Hoteps.
Others like Maestro and Swenet and Brandon are pointing out the predynastic samples that morphologically group with SSA, meaning these sample are not representative of all A. Egyptian or at least the whole picture is not being told as neatly as folks like Miro C are implying.
Also funny with this Miro dude(I know Maestro does'nt want this thread to be about him but I think its relevant.)
This dude is spamming images of subject/defeated NHSY as a way to own "Hoteps" claiming these are the way A.Egyptians treated SSAs....after admiting that these same NHSY(Who are North Africans not SSA btw) had lower amounts of SSA, and even in the leaked image the NUB samples Eurasian ancestry is similar to A. Egyptians.
Naw this dude isn't biased, he isnt using same old tired tolken Nubians are Kakazoid in one breath then Abid slaves in the Next...
Like you really hate Hoteps so much you have to lie, obfuscate and misrepresnt A. Egyptian history and A.Egyptian/NHSY relations to make your argument, and at that point, aren't you no better than the Hoteps? Yet Hoteps remain the token devil in the Biodiversity Totem Pole..
Edit: I also wanted to point out that the leaks had OK with "Dark Skin" and E1b1b was found in significant numbers...Make of that what you will I guess..
Whatever, IDK, you can probably get a better breakdown from other Members like Lostranger or Brandon
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Can anyone sum up that leak in simple layman's terms?
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also agree with Maestro to ignore the semantics game of "Dark Skin" as folks will just post cherry picked images of various dark skinned non Africans like someone did earlier of the most Eurasian looking Socotran despite other more "Africoid" looking Socotrans existing
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another Sample is supposedly "A Woman from Thbes who some are guessing is Takabuti
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: .
Then we go to the list of haplogroups above That whole section of G2 is marked Djehutynakh, so that seems to be all that one mummy and it was already tested as of a rare U5a on the mitochondrial side
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Craniometric data from seven human groups (Tables 3, 4) were subjected to principal components analysis, which allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania [18], [26], [27] and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb (see cluster in Figure 6). The striking similarity between these seven human populations confirms previous suggestions regarding their affinity [18] and is particularly significant given their temporal range (Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene) and trans-Saharan geographic distribution (across the Maghreb to the southern Sahara). Nowhere in that study does it say these fossils represent 'Eurasian' derived populations in Africa. In fact the paper references a French study on "Mecthoids" and related populations and nowhere in that does it say either of these populations represent Eurasians or populations of Eurasian type. So they were all Africans.
Wait a minute brother but aren't the Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from the Maghreb at the very least partially Eurasian? For example the human material left at Nabta Playa as well as the child mummy at Uan Muhuggiag were definitely Negroid(s) as the studies on them mentioned mostly no North African affinities (there were some minor North African traits detected in Nabta Playa samples but they were mostly Sub-Saharan.)
However from the sound of it, it seems like the populations at Gobero aren't Negroid (at least not mostly) but instead line up with North African Iberomaurusians and Caspians whom from what I understand are definitely not "Negroid."
Posts: 61 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Mar 2023
| IP: Logged |
People are spinning this is different ways, some like Antalas and Miro are advocating for Dynastic Race and celebrating it as a way to own Hoteps.
I'm not advocating for the Dynastic race theory.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Others like Maestro and Swenet and Brandon are pointing out the predynastic samples that morphologically group with SSA, meaning these sample are not representative of all A. Egyptian or at least the whole picture is not being told as neatly as folks like Miro C are implying.
No predynastic egyptians are grouped with SSA, they appear overall even more caucasoid than Horners :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Some thing to note the original initial pre-peer-reviewed abstract had samples with no CHG found, and these were also OK.
that's not from the same study.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: This dude is spamming images of subject/defeated NHSY as a way to own "Hoteps" claiming these are the way A.Egyptians treated SSAs....after admiting that these same NHSY(Who are North Africans not SSA btw) had lower amounts of SSA, and even in the leaked image the NUB samples Eurasian ancestry is similar to A. Egyptians.
Are you suggesting that all nubians were similar to each other ? Don't you see in the picture above that some nubians cluster very close to the SSA cluster ? Some are literally part of it (nub-X). Can't you see that some nubians also cluster with egyptians and closer to europeans than SSA ?
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Edit: I also wanted to point out that the leaks had OK with "Dark Skin" and E1b1b was found in significant numbers...Make of that what you will I guess..
Aren't egyptians dark skinned (Especially Upper egyptians) ? Isn't E1b1b the dominant paternal haplogroup in Modern North Africa ? Indeed make of that what you will.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] I also agree with Maestro to ignore the semantics game of "Dark Skin" as folks will just post cherry picked images of various dark skinned non Africans like someone did earlier of the most Eurasian looking Socotran despite other more "Africoid" looking Socotrans existing
His point was to show that the combo "Dark skin" + high Natufian-like ancestry doesn't make people necessarily physically similar to what we consider "Black".
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
Craniometric data from seven human groups (Tables 3, 4) were subjected to principal components analysis, which allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania [18], [26], [27] and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb (see cluster in Figure 6). The striking similarity between these seven human populations confirms previous suggestions regarding their affinity [18] and is particularly significant given their temporal range (Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene) and trans-Saharan geographic distribution (across the Maghreb to the southern Sahara). Nowhere in that study does it say these fossils represent 'Eurasian' derived populations in Africa. In fact the paper references a French study on "Mecthoids" and related populations and nowhere in that does it say either of these populations represent Eurasians or populations of Eurasian type. So they were all Africans.
Wait a minute brother but aren't the Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from the Maghreb at the very least partially Eurasian? For example the human material left at Nabta Playa as well as the child mummy at Uan Muhuggiag were definitely Negroid(s) as the studies on them mentioned mostly no North African affinities (there were some minor North African traits detected in Nabta Playa samples but they were mostly Sub-Saharan.)
However from the sound of it, it seems like the populations at Gobero aren't Negroid (at least not mostly) but instead line up with North African Iberomaurusians and Caspians whom from what I understand are definitely not "Negroid."
The Serreno paper shows that these populations cluster together as Africans. There are no Eurasians populations part of that particular paper. You are trying to interpret the data in such a way to try and inject Eurasians into something that has nothing to do with Eurasia, at least from the data provided. Both of the papers I posted state clearly that the Mechtoid populations were spread across Northern Africa from Nile over to the Maghreb 20,000 years ago. And neither of those papers claim that they shared affinities with Eurasians except in the general case of having 'cromagnon' features. Therefore, the affinity of these mechtoids with Iberomaurisans is a sign of African affinity through common ancestry not of Eurasian affinity. The point was people take these papers and twist them to try and argue Eurasians somehow spread over Northern Africa 20,000 years ago, when the papers literally say the opposite. If there was Eurasian introgression it came at the later stages of occupation of these sites, including those of the Iberomaurisans. So basically what the evidence is saying is that ancient North African populations 20,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago were primarily of African origin. But that isn't what certain folks want to hear who are arguing that North Africa has always been separated from the rest of Africa due to Eurasian migrations from this timeframe, which these papers do not support. Gracile does not mean Eurasian. Negroid/non Negroid is not a marker for African/Non African population is what I am saying. These were African populations.
If they wanted relationships to Eurasians then they would have to post cranial metrics for various contemporary Eurasian populations to see how they cluster.....
quote:Figure 6. Principal components analysis of craniofacial dimensions among Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene populations from the Maghreb and southern Sahara.
Plot of first two principal components extracted from a mean matrix for 17 craniometric variables (Tables 4, 7) in 9 human populations (Table 3) from the Late Pleistocene through the mid-Holocene from the Maghreb and southern Sahara. Seven trans-Saharan populations cluster together, whereas Late Pleistocene Aterians (Ater) and the mid-Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-m) are striking outliers. Axes are scaled by the square root of the corresponding eigenvalue for the principal component. Abbreviations: Ater, Aterian; EMC, eastern Maghreb Capsian; EMI, eastern Maghreb Iberomaurusian; Gob-e, Gobero early Holocene; Gob-m, Gobero mid-Holocene; Mali, Hassi-el-Abiod, Mali; Maur, Mauritania; WMC, western Maghreb Capsian; WMI, western Maghreb Iberomaurusian.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: There's actually a lot going on with these leaks
The main "controversy" so to speak is that Basically someone leaked some o the results which has a significant amount of genetic lineage called CHG, and further this was from OK samples from Upper Egypt.
This basically means that the OK A. Egyptians were more "Eurasian" than Modern Egyptians..This is seen in the images posted by Nassa, someone(The Miro C dude?) put some of the samples into a program that showed 0 SSA who are modeled as Yoruba in that image.
People are spinning this is different ways, some like Antalas and Miro are advocating for Dynastic Race and celebrating it as a way to own Hoteps.
Others like Maestro and Swenet and Brandon are pointing out the predynastic samples that morphologically group with SSA, meaning these sample are not representative of all A. Egyptian or at least the whole picture is not being told as neatly as folks like Miro C are implying.
Also funny with this Miro dude(I know Maestro does'nt want this thread to be about him but I think its relevant.)
This dude is spamming images of subject/defeated NHSY as a way to own "Hoteps" claiming these are the way A.Egyptians treated SSAs....after admiting that these same NHSY(Who are North Africans not SSA btw) had lower amounts of SSA, and even in the leaked image the NUB samples Eurasian ancestry is similar to A. Egyptians.
Naw this dude isn't biased, he isnt using same old tired tolken Nubians are Kakazoid in one breath then Abid slaves in the Next...
Like you really hate Hoteps so much you have to lie, obfuscate and misrepresnt A. Egyptian history and A.Egyptian/NHSY relations to make your argument, and at that point, aren't you no better than the Hoteps? Yet Hoteps remain the token devil in the Biodiversity Totem Pole..
Edit: I also wanted to point out that the leaks had OK with "Dark Skin" and E1b1b was found in significant numbers...Make of that what you will I guess..
Whatever, IDK, you can probably get a better breakdown from other Members like Lostranger or Brandon
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Can anyone sum up that leak in simple layman's terms?
Basically it is just the same old game of trickling out limited genetic data from the Nile Valley in order to try and support a narrative as long as possible. And some people in the online community are so desperate for data they will jump on "leaks" (whatever that means), just to have something to talk about. Because the scientific community is obviously dragging their feet DNA testing the various cemeteries from various time frames and regions that they have across the region.
Concerning CHG, note how comprehensive they are in papers discussing the DNA evolution across Europe compared with what they do for Africa, such as this study from Europe:
quote: Map of samples, sites and archaeological cultures mentioned in this study. Temporal and geographic distribution of archaeological cultures is shown for two windows in time a, b that are critical for our data. The zoomed map c shows the location of studied individuals from various sites in the Caucasus. Symbols and sample names correspond with Fig. 2 and Supplementary Data 1. The dashed line illustrates a hypothetical geographic border between genetically distinct Steppe and Caucasus clusters. (BB Bell Beaker; CW Corded Ware; TRB Trichterbecher/Funnel Beaker; SOM Seine-Oise-Marne complex). (All three maps were prepared by S. Reinhold and D. Mariaschk based on freely available geological and vegetation GIS-data from https://www.usgs.gov/,https://www.naturalearthdata.com/ and modified after Stone, T.A., and P. Schlesinger. 2003. RLC Vegetative Cover of the Former Soviet Union, 1990. ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/700.)
That said, if you go back to the paper where they detailed the genomes of CHG, it says the following:
quote: (a). Genomic affinity of modern populations1 to Kotias, quantified by the outgroup f3-statistics of the form f3(Kotias, modern population; Yoruba). Kotias shares the most genetic drift with populations from the Caucasus with high values also found for northern Europe and central Asia. (b). Sources of admixture into modern populations: semicircles indicate those that provide the most negative outgroup f3 statistic for that population. Populations for which a significantly negative statistic could not be determined are marked in white. Populations for which the ancient Caucasus genomes are best ancestral approximations include those of the Southern Caucasus and interestingly, South and Central Asia. Western Europe tends to be a mix of early farmers and western/eastern hunter-gatherers while Middle Eastern genomes are described as a mix of early farmers and Africans.
Craniometric data from seven human groups (Tables 3, 4) were subjected to principal components analysis, which allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania [18], [26], [27] and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb (see cluster in Figure 6). The striking similarity between these seven human populations confirms previous suggestions regarding their affinity [18] and is particularly significant given their temporal range (Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene) and trans-Saharan geographic distribution (across the Maghreb to the southern Sahara). Nowhere in that study does it say these fossils represent 'Eurasian' derived populations in Africa. In fact the paper references a French study on "Mecthoids" and related populations and nowhere in that does it say either of these populations represent Eurasians or populations of Eurasian type. So they were all Africans.
Wait a minute brother but aren't the Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from the Maghreb at the very least partially Eurasian?
Evidence of human occupation at Gobero started during the Early Holocene dating around 7550 BCE to 6250 BCE (9500 to 8200 BP).[5] The Early Holocene occupation is associated with the Kiffian culture
The Middle Holocene occupation is associated with the Ténérians, who settled the area 1000 or more years after the Kiffians, 6250 BCE to 2550 BCE (8200 to 4500 BP)
Distribution of archaeological sites with human remains from the Iberomaurusian (top) Capsian (middle) and Neolithic (bottom) periods in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia
The Iberomaurusian Taforalt sample within an African-West-Eurasian PCA model. Loosdrecht et al. (2018) analysed genome-wide data from seven ancient individuals from the Iberomaurusian Grotte des Pigeons site near Taforalt in north-eastern Morocco. The fossils were directly dated to between 15,100 and 13,900 calibrated years before present. The scientists found that all males belonged to haplogroup E1b1b Taforalt individuals carried the mtDNA Haplogroup N subclades like U6 and M which points to population continuity in the region dating from the Iberomaurusian period.[9][10]
The Iberomaurusian is a backed bladelet lithic industry found near the coasts of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. It is also known from a single major site in Libya, the Haua Fteah, where the industry is locally known as the Eastern Oranian.[note 1] The Iberomaurusian seems to have appeared around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), somewhere between c. 25,000 and 23,000 cal BP. It would have lasted until the early Holocene c. 11,000 cal BP.
The Capsian culture was a Mesolithic and Neolithic culture centered in the Maghreb that lasted from about 8,000 to 2,700 BC
Posts: 43043 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Western Europe tends to be a mix of early farmers and western/eastern hunter-gatherers while Middle Eastern genomes are described as a mix of early farmers and Africans.
Very interesting. This pre-Natufian paper (it was published in 2015) has Middle Easterners as EEF + African, which appears to have been mostly reframed as/subsumed under Levant N. (Arabs, Levant) and Natufian (Hadramawt, Soqotri) with better aDNA.
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Modeling the Soqotri gene pool requires a ~55% contribution from a Natufian-like source, while models with a Neolithic Levantine-related source do not fit. This Natufian-related source is also required to model the ancestry of present-day people from the Hadramawt, while other groups living in Arabia and the Levant often are mostly better modeled with a Neolithic Levantine-related proxy. These data suggest that Natufian-like ancestry was also present in the Arabian Peninsula and that later Levantine-related ancestry may not have permeated throughout the entirety of this region. Soqotra was home to a small and consanguineous population during the Medieval Period:
Although these high Natufian Middle Eastern populations still have minor SSA levels in addition to Natufian, so not all 'African' was subsumed under Natufian. So we are dealing with an African component that is 1) not Basal Eurasian, 2) not common among EEF, that is 3) not common in Sub-Saharan Africans, but is at the very least considerable in Natufians and dynastic Egyptians, but lower in Levant N.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Western Europe tends to be a mix of early farmers and western/eastern hunter-gatherers while Middle Eastern genomes are described as a mix of early farmers and Africans.
Very interesting. This pre-Natufian paper (it was published in 2015) has Middle Easterners as EEF + African, which appears to have been mostly reframed as/subsumed under Levant N. (Arabs, Levant) and Natufian (Hadramawt, Soqotri) with better aDNA.
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Modeling the Soqotri gene pool requires a ~55% contribution from a Natufian-like source, while models with a Neolithic Levantine-related source do not fit. This Natufian-related source is also required to model the ancestry of present-day people from the Hadramawt, while other groups living in Arabia and the Levant often are mostly better modeled with a Neolithic Levantine-related proxy. These data suggest that Natufian-like ancestry was also present in the Arabian Peninsula and that later Levantine-related ancestry may not have permeated throughout the entirety of this region. Soqotra was home to a small and consanguineous population during the Medieval Period:
Although these high Natufian Middle Eastern populations still have minor SSA levels in addition to Natufian, so not all 'African' was subsumed under Natufian. So we are dealing with an African component that is 1) not Basal Eurasian, 2) not common among EEF, that is 3) not common in Sub-Saharan Africans, but is at the very least considerable in Natufians and dynastic Egyptians, but lower in Levant N.
Genetically the population(s) you're alluding to has been identified. By "tricking" the admixture algorithm by using the homozygous Taforalt samples and a high quality Ifri_Ouberid of Epipaleolithic morocco in the same run. North East African ancestry has been parsed.. What essentially happened is the Taforalt individuals tightly clustered together causing the heterozygousity of the later Oub02 to be split into proper ancestral components, one representing local Iberomaurasian and the other representing the pulse migration form an eastern source like we spoke about a couple years ago with Capra.Posts: 1785 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Interesting run. But I think we are really looking for a relatively exclusive group of populations due to the component being maximized in Natufians, and dynastic Egyptians (ie Nuerat), and to a somewhat lesser extent in Taforalt, then even less in African pastoralists, Luxmanda, Levant N and among the lowest in Bronze Age Levantines.
The Natufian component also got watered down quickly, compared to the EEF-like component which is present in Dzudzuana at 24ky and is still at similar levels in Iceman and Middle Neolithic farmers. (Though Natufian-like is still high in Egypt by OK times). This seems to me consistent with a somewhat exclusive ancestry that that got replaced due to the lack of closely related migrants reinforcing the component in places outside of Egypt.
EDIT: re: exclusiveness
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Although these high Natufian Middle Eastern populations still have minor SSA levels in addition to Natufian, so not all 'African' was subsumed under Natufian. So we are dealing with an African component that is 1) not Basal Eurasian, 2) not common among EEF, that is 3) not common in Sub-Saharan Africans, but is at the very least considerable in Natufians and dynastic Egyptians, but lower in Levant N.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Since we're unlikely to get it from the Egyptian government, early Mesopotamian DNA would be the next best thing. And of course I'm not talking about Semitic speakers who are mostly just speakers (Eberites, Canaanites, etc), but about Semitic speakers who are actually biologically Egyptian, who were concentrated mostly south of the Caucasus, in and around the Mesopotamian area. (Without necessarily implying they were numerically dominant).
Thus, from North Africa, wave after wave of Semitic migrations would seem to have set forth. The earliest of these migrants, and those who went farthest to the East, were the Akkadians who, journeying along the Fertile Crescent through Palestine and Syria, and crossing over into Mesopotamia, reached Northern Babylonia ca. 3000 B.C. and founded the first Semitic Empire at Kish (§4.2; 5.2; 6.2). Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar https://books.google.nl/books/about/Semitic_Languages.html?id=IiXVqyEkPKcC&redir_esc=y
Though I would disagree with him (ie Lipinski) on including Eberites (Edomites, Hebrews, Moabites) and Canaanites as particularly influenced by these migrations. We know from the Naqada/predynastic colonies in Palestine that Levantines and Egyptians at that time didn't really mix and must have been very different (unlike, for instance cultural compatibility between Egyptians and Nubians). I would also mainly look to the earliest settlers for resemblance to predynastics, not so much the later periods.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic