And this latter article is based on the assumption that M1 in Africa and U6 are both based on back migrations that happened somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 thousand years ago as seen here.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I feel the problem in the scientific establishment is not agendas, in and of themselves (e.g. the agenda to pose backmigrations). The problem is agendas that persist even though the evidence is not there or agendas that make people indifferent to facts. So I don't see why backmigration agendas are such a problem, considering that backmigrations happened. The ancient Egyptian mtDNAs speak for themselves.
But if you say shortcomings discussed above are part of a pattern in his work, where results always deviate from other papers, that would be a different issue.
The idea that North Africans were to be separated from Africans biologically predates genetics and goes back to the origins of anthropology itself. Samuel Morton being a prime example of such theories that have everything to do with racism and nothing to do with science and this was blatant in most history books and anthropology texts prior to the 80s. That itself is simply a part of the history of modern anthropology and has absolutely nothing to do with any modern DNA support for back migrations. I am just pointing out the reason why these older works of craniology are being introduced and it is about promoting ancient Nile Valley Africans not being African, which is false and there is no DNA evidence showing that either, with or without back migration.
Also the idea of back migration technically applies to OOA populations in Eurasia who returned to Africa within a few thousand years of the original exit. Populations migrating into Africa long after that such as CHG or Anatolian Farmers is just migration, not back migration.
The specific problem with the idea of back migration as defined above is faulty interpretation and/or modeling of ancient DNA lineages with limited ancient DNA from Africa. As seen in numerous papers but most obviously this one:
And this latter article is based on the assumption that M1 in Africa and U6 are both based on back migrations that happened somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 thousand years ago as seen here.
Of course I am not saying that "back migration" didn't happen in ancient times or that migration hasn't happened since then. What I am saying is that distinguishing between ancient migrations > 20 thousand years ago, more recent migrations since then and DNA lineages that have been in Africa since or prior to OOA is impossible without ancient DNA from all the relevant regions of North Africa. And a handful of samples of DNA from any time period on the Nile Valley is not going to tell you that. Overall I am not of the opinion that "North African" groups were subject to population replacement as seen in Europe. Which is what the European paper on the spread of farming lays out, but I don't believe occurred in ancient North Africa and the Nile Valley.
Still, having said all that, the dynastic aDNA so far came out supporting them more than it supports their opponents (you mentioned that Froment opposed Diop). Your posts also don't exactly match the aDNA results so far (your position was, among other things, that older and more southern dynastic aDNA would show major differences, but these two abstracts deny that). The more southern types of ancestry so far have only gone up significantly in the pastoral period, and I have been predicting it will also go up in the predynastic period, but probably only to a level where we can say they're predominantly African and with 'African' implying an expanded definition only understood by some anthropologists, but not by society). But you are still waiting for dynastic Egyptians to have results more optimistic than I would predict even for predynastics.
So, all these academics you feel are driven by agendas and pseudo-science.. why has the aDNA not put their claims with the rest of the abandoned and outdated theories of anthropology? It seems it's really people like Hiernaux that have been quoted extensively on this site, whose theories are outdated in light of aDNA. Including Keita to some extent (Keita recently endorsed a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes and had Egyptians as Saharo-Tropical variants, and criticized his colleagues for proposing affinities that center around the Mediterranean basin).
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I feel the problem in the scientific establishment is not agendas, in and of themselves (e.g. the agenda to pose backmigrations). The problem is agendas that persist even though the evidence is not there or agendas that make people indifferent to facts. So I don't see why backmigration agendas are such a problem, considering that backmigrations happened. The ancient Egyptian mtDNAs speak for themselves.
But if you say shortcomings discussed above are part of a pattern in his work, where results always deviate from other papers, that would be a different issue.
The idea that North Africans were to be separated from Africans biologically predates genetics and goes back to the origins of anthropology itself. Samuel Morton being a prime example of such theories that have everything to do with racism and nothing to do with science and this was blatant in most history books and anthropology texts prior to the 80s. That itself is simply a part of the history of modern anthropology and has absolutely nothing to do with any modern DNA support for back migrations. I am just pointing out the reason why these older works of craniology are being introduced and it is about promoting ancient Nile Valley Africans not being African, which is false and there is no DNA evidence showing that either, with or without back migration.
Also the idea of back migration technically applies to OOA populations in Eurasia who returned to Africa within a few thousand years of the original exit. Populations migrating into Africa long after that such as CHG or Anatolian Farmers is just migration, not back migration.
The specific problem with the idea of back migration as defined above is faulty interpretation and/or modeling of ancient DNA lineages with limited ancient DNA from Africa. As seen in numerous papers but most obviously this one:
And this latter article is based on the assumption that M1 in Africa and U6 are both based on back migrations that happened somewhere in the range of 30 to 40 thousand years ago as seen here.
Of course I am not saying that "back migration" didn't happen in ancient times or that migration hasn't happened since then. What I am saying is that distinguishing between ancient migrations > 20 thousand years ago, more recent migrations since then and DNA lineages that have been in Africa since or prior to OOA is impossible without ancient DNA from all the relevant regions of North Africa. And a handful of samples of DNA from any time period on the Nile Valley is not going to tell you that. Overall I am not of the opinion that "North African" groups were subject to population replacement as seen in Europe. Which is what the European paper on the spread of farming lays out, but I don't believe occurred in ancient North Africa and the Nile Valley.
Still, having said all that, the dynastic aDNA so far came out supporting them more than it supports their opponents (you mentioned that Froment opposed Diop). Your posts also don't exactly match the aDNA results so far (your position was, among other things, that older and more southern dynastic aDNA would show major differences, but these two abstracts deny that). The more southern types of ancestry so far have only gone up significantly in the pastoral period, and I have been predicting it will also go up in the predynastic period, but probably only to a level where we can say they're predominantly African and with 'African' implying an expanded definition only understood by some anthropologists, but not by society). But you are still waiting for dynastic Egyptians to have results more optimistic than I would predict even for predynastics.
So, all these academics you feel are driven by agendas and pseudo-science.. why has the aDNA not put their claims with the rest of the abandoned and outdated theories of anthropology? It seems it's really people like Hiernaux that have been quoted extensively on this site, whose theories are outdated in light of aDNA. Including Keita to some extent (Keita recently endorsed a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes and had Egyptians as Saharo-Tropical variants, and criticized his colleagues for proposing affinities that center around the Mediterranean basin).
None of the data so far proves population replacement is my point whether ancient pre historic back migration or more recent neolithic migrations. So-called "Eurasian" haplogroups in Africa does not make Africans into Eurasians no more than African haplogroups in Europe make Europeans into Africans. I have said it numerous times that a handful of DNA samples is not going to disprove that the creation of the Nile Valley started in the South among African groups in between Abydos and Aswan. And hardly any of the DNA samples so far come from these regions. Not to mention any of the numerous predynastic early dynastic or dynastic cemeteries in the same region from Nekhen or Abydos, etc. Again, I refer to that same paper on the spread of farming in Europe and the comprehensive DNA samples covering numerous regions before and after the spread of the Neolithic as model of showing population replacement and/or mixture over time between populations. Nothing like that exists for North Africa or the Nile Valley. I am also distinguishing that potential migratory event around the Neolithic with the proposed "backmigration" of M1 and U6 upwards of 30 thousand years prior.
Some are leaning towards significant Eurasian mixture and or population replacement sometime after wet phase African populations moved into the Nile and before or during the creation of the dynastic state. Which would be fine if the data supported that, but first you would need the DNA from those wet period populations to say for sure as a starting point to identify later mixture. At the end of the day a lot of people are trying to do a whole lot with a little bit of data that hasn't even been released yet. And it just doesn't make sense to even model Eurasian migrants moving all the way UP the Nile to start a dynastic state vs starting at the Delta where they entered. Not to mention what happens when populations further South have similar DNA in the same time period? Are they simply Eurasian back migrants as well?
As for pseudoscience I specifically was referring to the fact that these ideas of population replacement in North Africa or associating North African physical variation with Eurasians predates DNA and absolutely was based on pseudoscience based on cranial measurements. The point being that certain folks introduced those into this thread which is primarily about DNA because of the "racialist" language of such old papers. And I am not going to sit here and go back over the last 200 years of European anthropology in this thread.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Nothing like that exists for North Africa or the Nile Valley. I am also distinguishing that potential migratory event around the Neolithic with the proposed "backmigration" of M1 and U6 upwards of 30 thousand years prior.
It makes for imprecise argumentation to use the term "North Africa" which is too broad in the era of genetics
As we see thus far M1 is more spread in the horn and U6 is defiantly more prominent in the Maghreb than Egypt Of the competing theories on M1 (Africa vs Asia)in the African theory it is believed to originated in the horn not Egypt)
The Nile valley is a river civilization the Maghreb is not The Maghreb has Iberomaurusian sites the Nile Valley does not. E-M81 is the predominant Y-group of the Maghreb but it is not the predominant E group in Egypt
All of this could actually enhance your argument about Egyptian civilization because conclusions about the North West population of the Maghreb have significant differences from Egypt's history and you can also see that in the Egyptian art depicting Libyans. And adding to this further if you are suggesting Egyptian civilization originated from Sudan or further south then that is not even "North Africa"
West Africa is not East Africa, similarly Northern Africa is split between the coastally oriented Maghreb and the Nile Valley river system originating in Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya > not North Africa
So to keep using the term "North Africa" is weakening your own arguments To use that term anthropologically today is vague and old school, similarly "Near East" (although NA can be used in strictly geographic contexts effectively)
Posts: 43042 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: None of the data so far proves population replacement is my point whether ancient pre historic back migration or more recent neolithic migrations. So-called "Eurasian" haplogroups in Africa does not make Africans into Eurasians no more than African haplogroups in Europe make Europeans into Africans. I have said it numerous times that a handful of DNA samples is not going to disprove that the creation of the Nile Valley started in the South among African groups in between Abydos and Aswan. And hardly any of the DNA samples so far come from these regions. Not to mention any of the numerous predynastic early dynastic or dynastic cemeteries in the same region from Nekhen or Abydos, etc. Again, I refer to that same paper on the spread of farming in Europe and the comprehensive DNA samples covering numerous regions before and after the spread of the Neolithic as model of showing population replacement and/or mixture over time between populations. Nothing like that exists for North Africa or the Nile Valley. I am also distinguishing that potential migratory event around the Neolithic with the proposed "backmigration" of M1 and U6 upwards of 30 thousand years prior.
Some are leaning towards significant Eurasian mixture and or population replacement sometime after wet phase African populations moved into the Nile and before or during the creation of the dynastic state. Which would be fine if the data supported that, but first you would need the DNA from those wet period populations to say for sure as a starting point to identify later mixture. At the end of the day a lot of people are trying to do a whole lot with a little bit of data that hasn't even been released yet. And it just doesn't make sense to even model Eurasian migrants moving all the way UP the Nile to start a dynastic state vs starting at the Delta where they entered. Not to mention what happens when populations further South have similar DNA in the same time period? Are they simply Eurasian back migrants as well?
As for pseudoscience I specifically was referring to the fact that these ideas of population replacement in North Africa or associating North African physical variation with Eurasians predates DNA and absolutely was based on pseudoscience based on cranial measurements. The point being that certain folks introduced those into this thread which is primarily about DNA because of the "racialist" language of such old papers. And I am not going to sit here and go back over the last 200 years of European anthropology in this thread. [/QB]
The data says Egyptians form a clade (autosomally) with farmers to the exclusion of all other populations in the world. This clade is so exclusive with respect to modern day Africans that 1) it's extinct, 2) most of Africa probably never had members belonging to it other than through migration (e.g. Tenereans at Gobero) and 3) up until recently, the Middle East had the most members of this population.
What I mean with the last point is that we've only just now introduced some balance as far as representation of this population in Africa. It used to be that this population's oldest attestation was in the Middle East (Natufians), whereas today we have about 50% of this population in coastal North Africa and the Rift Valley (Loosdrecht's Taforalt, Al Khiday, Olduvai Man). The African side of this population has largely been uncovered in the last 10 years (Kefi's 20th century Taforalt is largely Eurasian, allegedly, but Loosdrecht's new Taforalt sample was excavated close to the time of their publication in 2018, while al Khiday was announced in 2012).
Given the correction of this imbalance over time, the argument of Morton and others is nowhere near as crazy as you're portraying it to be. Certainly far less crazy than some other ideas going around the forum or Keita endorsing a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes.
Anyway, I've already explained this to you in 2016 and other occasions. except back then we didn't have dynastic Egyptian mtDNAs. It's honestly crazy to see you bring this "backmigration agenda/conspiracy" back up again with these mtDNAs.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: None of the data so far proves population replacement is my point whether ancient pre historic back migration or more recent neolithic migrations. So-called "Eurasian" haplogroups in Africa does not make Africans into Eurasians no more than African haplogroups in Europe make Europeans into Africans. I have said it numerous times that a handful of DNA samples is not going to disprove that the creation of the Nile Valley started in the South among African groups in between Abydos and Aswan. And hardly any of the DNA samples so far come from these regions. Not to mention any of the numerous predynastic early dynastic or dynastic cemeteries in the same region from Nekhen or Abydos, etc. Again, I refer to that same paper on the spread of farming in Europe and the comprehensive DNA samples covering numerous regions before and after the spread of the Neolithic as model of showing population replacement and/or mixture over time between populations. Nothing like that exists for North Africa or the Nile Valley. I am also distinguishing that potential migratory event around the Neolithic with the proposed "backmigration" of M1 and U6 upwards of 30 thousand years prior.
Some are leaning towards significant Eurasian mixture and or population replacement sometime after wet phase African populations moved into the Nile and before or during the creation of the dynastic state. Which would be fine if the data supported that, but first you would need the DNA from those wet period populations to say for sure as a starting point to identify later mixture. At the end of the day a lot of people are trying to do a whole lot with a little bit of data that hasn't even been released yet. And it just doesn't make sense to even model Eurasian migrants moving all the way UP the Nile to start a dynastic state vs starting at the Delta where they entered. Not to mention what happens when populations further South have similar DNA in the same time period? Are they simply Eurasian back migrants as well?
As for pseudoscience I specifically was referring to the fact that these ideas of population replacement in North Africa or associating North African physical variation with Eurasians predates DNA and absolutely was based on pseudoscience based on cranial measurements. The point being that certain folks introduced those into this thread which is primarily about DNA because of the "racialist" language of such old papers. And I am not going to sit here and go back over the last 200 years of European anthropology in this thread.
The data
What data? You mean this supposed leaked data from a study that hasnt been released?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: says Egyptians form a clade (autosomally) with farmers at the expense of all other populations in the world.
What clades of what lineages and how are they clustered? Again, are you arguing for population replacement due to Neolithic migrations or are you arguing for ancient genetic shared ancestry between populations? And what "Egyptians" and how many, in what time period and what region of the Nile? Are you claiming all inhabitants of the ancient Nile down to Sudan or just certain individuals? And where is all this ancient DNA that you are saying supports this?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This clade is so exclusive with respect to modern day Africans that 1) it's extinct, 2) most of Africa probably never had members belonging to it other than through migration (e.g. Tenereans at Gobero) and 3) up until recently, the Middle East had the most members of this population.
And if it is so elusive where is all the ancient DNA that you are using to show its distribution and evolution over time and who had it and when in or outside Africa going back 10,000 years in the Nile and Levant? Where is this ancient DNA from all these regions going back that far showing this?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What I mean with the last point is that we've only just now introduced some balance as far as representation of this population in Africa. It used to be that this population's oldest attestation was in the Middle East (Natufians), whereas today we have about 50% of this population in coastal North Africa and the Rift Valley (Loosdrecht's Taforalt, Al Khiday, Olduvai Man). The African side of this population has largely been uncovered in the last 10 years (Kefi's 20th century Taforalt is largely Eurasian, allegedly, but Loosdrecht's new Taforalt sample was excavated close to the time of their publication in 2018, while al Khiday was announced in 2012).
We who and what data are you talking about? And how are African populations being in Africa not balanced? Not sure what "balance" you are talking about because again, I said it multiple times, the ancient DNA over large regions of the Nile, Levant and other regions of Africa don't exist to begin to even claim a comprehensive distribution of DNA clades that may have disappeared and in what time periods. Where is the ancient Sudanese DNA from the same time frame? Do they have these same clades or no?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Given the correction of this imbalance over time, the argument of Morton and others is nowhere near as crazy as you're portraying it to be. Certainly far less crazy than some other ideas going around the forum or Keita endorsing a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes.
What imbalance? Anybody looking at the Sahara, Nile and North Africa over the last 20,000 years knows full well the problem of modeling ancient population history without actual ancient DNA. The fact that many DNA lineages in this region over time may have disappeared, migrated or been replaced is not new. So where is all this data that you claim is now available showing all the details of the ancient genetic landscape of this region over time.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Anyway, I've already explained this to you in 2016 and other occasions. except back then we didn't have dynastic Egyptian mtDNAs. It's honestly crazy to see you bring this "backmigration agenda/conspiracy" back up again with these mtDNAs.
Honestly what I have always been saying is that people are making a whole lot of assumptions based on little data. So again, what ancient DNA has suddenly become available that clarifies this history of the NIle and surrounding regions over the last 10,000 years? Including what data says that Africans were not the primary population on the Nile during the predynastic and dynastic that formed the culture and civilization there. What "clades" do you expect these Sudanese/Upper Egyptians to have leading up to the predynastic and when did these other "clades" you refer to that clusters the early Iranian farmers with the Nile get introduced? Was it already there, a result of population mixture or population replacement? And why is calling ancient populations in Africa African not balanced if that is what they were?
Because you know it is funny you mention "balance" when last I checked nobody needs DNA to prove ancient Rome or Greece were European no matter how much mixture there was. Nobody needs DNA to prove that ancient Syria or Mesopotamia were Levantine no matter how much mixture there was and nobody needs it for ancient civilizations in other places, except in Africa. And nobody argues that such things aren't "balanced".
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What data? You mean this supposed leaked data from a study that hasnt been released?
Not leaked data. The Nuerat and Kerma samples' affinities show they form a clade with farmers (Natufian in their case). But I guess you're going to tell me an Old Kingdom Egyptian genome that is conservative to some extent due to the absence of an foreign admixture (CHG) is a part of a backmigration conspiracy/agenda as well, and that the "real" dynastic Egyptians have not been sampled yet.
Don't have time for the rest of your post.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What data? You mean this supposed leaked data from a study that hasnt been released?
Not leaked data. The Nuerat and Kerma samples' affinities show they form a clade with farmers (Natufian in their case). But I guess you're going to tell me an Old Kingdom genome from Upper Egypt that is conservative to some extent due to its lack an important foreign admixture (CHG) is a part of a conspiracy/agenda as well, and that the "real" dynastic Egyptians have not been sampled yet.
No, I am asking why you are being so ambiguous about how you respond to me without saying anything. If Kerma clusters with the Lower Nile and Levant, how does that show those populations in Africa weren't African? Because I don't think we are saying the same thing here. Are you saying those clades aren't African and represent migrations from the Levant? And if so when did those migrations take place going all the way down to Kerma and what population is candidate as the source of those clades and from where?
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excuse me, Doug, but exactly which African populations do you expect ancient Egyptians to resemble the most on a genetic level? You know so-called “Natufian” ancestry appears to have a significant chunk of (North or Northeast) African ancestry, don’t you?
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Excuse me, Doug, but exactly which African populations do you expect ancient Egyptians to resemble the most on a genetic level? You know so-called “Natufian” ancestry appears to have a significant chunk of (North or Northeast) African ancestry, don’t you?
So you want me to provide the details of what genetic lineages in the ancient Nile should be categorized as "African" vs "Eurasian". Dude I am not paying that game. There should be shared lineages between both regions and the issue is finding out what lineages where where and when over time to determine which are "African" vs which are "Eurasian". Not sure why people are acting like this is some kind of new issue.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet, as part of my science major I took an epistimology course (philosophy of knowledge and science) and it really opened up my eyes to how much of science we take for granted as fact was actually no different from religious ideology that was scientifically unproven. In fact, well after I got my degree I still do research on the scientific topics including the medical fields I work in and you'd be shocked about how unscientific a lot of things were and still are. So when the so-called COVID pandemic hit I was not at all surprised at the way things were handled with the lockdowns and so-called vaccines.
A lot of people are fooled by what so-called experts say even other experts. And of course when it comes to the history of bioanthropology and the racial agendas I am never amazed or surprised by the duplicity.
Take for example the Kadruka sample that Euronuts are raving about as their proof of non-black Nubians.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26412 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Did you catch the controversy in the scientific community called replication crisis? They really don't like to talk about that one in public.
Funny how in politics there is checks and balances, while in society, there is often an unquestioning obedience to mainstream science and its various outlets (science textbooks, science celebrities like Sagan and Neil Tyson, educational institutes like NG).
At the end of the day, for people with a lifetime interest in science, there is really no alternative to taking charge of one's own research as outsourcing one's research and letting 'experts' do your thinking for you, is inevitably going to run into problems sooner or later. Although this assumes one has a scientific mind to begin with. Tinfoil hats and flat earthers do 'research' too.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Indeed. As far as replication crisis, it seems like > 90% of all scientific studies that come out are based on research or rather experiments impossible to replicate. I know many in the medical field who've even filed complaints in regards to certain "medications" as to their efficacy and what experiments they were based on, but you know that it's gotten to the point of Soviet style science where one is literally paid to generate whatever results that are wanted.
This is why in some ways studies from the olden days are more reliable than today. I hate to get conspiratorial but it seems that academia and the sciences are being corrupted on purpose so as to be manipulated.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26412 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When enough people get together influential voices emerge that get to dictate things more than should be allowed under scientific ideals, and then things start taking a life of their own, which then creates a feedback loop due to sheep mentality of many people who follow authority rather than evidence and shouldn't be in science in the first place.
We see this in the media too, with fabricated outrage ignoring plight and dignity and humanity of Palestinians, to where Biden talks about committing the most powerful nation (USA) to Israel's system of oppression, but to do what? To help a country with nuclear capabilities fight a group of fighters that numbers in the 10s of thousands? We're seeing narratives being created right in front of us by "respectable" institutions, but not the scientific establishment. They would never..
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what Im thinking, all the DNA evidence seems to point to some grouping or Clade as you say that is grouping the Afro-asiatic speakers/people and it could have evolved in North Africa..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What data? You mean this supposed leaked data from a study that hasnt been released?
Not leaked data. The Nuerat and Kerma samples' affinities show they form a clade with farmers (Natufian in their case). But I guess you're going to tell me an Old Kingdom Egyptian genome that is conservative to some extent due to the absence of an foreign admixture (CHG) is a part of a backmigration conspiracy/agenda as well, and that the "real" dynastic Egyptians have not been sampled yet.
Don't have time for the rest of your post.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
We see this in the media too, with fabricated outrage ignoring plight and dignity and humanity of Palestinians, to where Biden talks about committing the most powerful nation (USA) to Israel's system of oppression, but to do what? To help a country with nuclear capabilities fight a group of fighters that numbers in the 10s of thousands? We're seeing narratives being created right in front of us by "respectable" institutions, but not the scientific establishment. They would never.. [/QB]
The U.S. sent aircraft carriers attempting to deter Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah (possibly Syria also) from opening up a second front and potentially escalating the conflict into a regional war
Posts: 43042 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^They said that's their intention. I just mentioned narratives being created right in front of us, by official and "respectable" institutions. Not sure if I'm buying that that's not just the US' pattern of providing unprincipled and hypocritical protection to countries when it feels like it. AFAIK, no other country or intelligence agency has warned of imminent threats by Iran for example, so it seems far more likely that they're just going above and beyond to help isolate and trap fighters by further tightening up Israel's blockade of Gaza already imposed decades ago. Funny how these groups number only in the 10s of 1000s, yet here comes US swashbuckling itself into yet another conflict it helped create. They know they look ridiculous, so they need these narratives to justify jumping in against fighters who are no threat to the West (notice the comparison to ISIL, was another bogus propaganda narrative to fool the public), that Israel is perfectly capable of inflicting damage on.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: This is what Im thinking, all the DNA evidence seems to point to some grouping or Clade as you say that is grouping the Afro-asiatic speakers/people and it could have evolved in North Africa..
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What data? You mean this supposed leaked data from a study that hasnt been released?
Not leaked data. The Nuerat and Kerma samples' affinities show they form a clade with farmers (Natufian in their case). But I guess you're going to tell me an Old Kingdom Egyptian genome that is conservative to some extent due to the absence of an foreign admixture (CHG) is a part of a backmigration conspiracy/agenda as well, and that the "real" dynastic Egyptians have not been sampled yet.
Don't have time for the rest of your post.
Right. But notice how the African side of this population only materialized after a long delay. I thought that was mention-worthy because Badarians and Naqadans at 6ky old were for decades the oldest on the African side of this population. Aside from occasional discoveries (e.g. Gebel Ramlah 7-6ky, Tenereans 7-6ky, and Wengrow's 'primary pastoral community' 7-6ky), there was nothing older on this population nearby, so the Middle Eastern side had better dates and early attestation all this time.
That's changed rapidly, only in the last 11 years, with the populations I've already mentioned. Taforalt being announced as allegedly being the best proxy for Basal Eurasians was also welcome news in this regard. I say allegedly because it's not yet been confirmed by a source I would accept it from. I'm not sure that the Arabia paper understands Basal Eurasian, so I'm not sure what to make of it.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ If you guys want to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there's a thread on the issue here.
In regards to all these DNA studies on North Africans I've always been skeptical until more information coms out let alone how the genetic data is interpreted. I've seen how the skeletal data gets skewed. In regards to Arabia, I distinctly remember reading from an old source in my college library of "negroid" remains in Arabia which I asked Dana about. She tells me that these old sources are far and few and are hardly addressed today. Most sources I see today on skeletal remains in Arabia, specifically Yemen simply describe them as "Mediterranean" and don't go into any details the way Egyptian remains are. So you can see why I'm skeptical.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26412 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not interested in discussing the Israel-Palestinian conflict, anymore than you were discussing pharmaceutical industry or medicine or conspiracies. Giving examples with the main subject in mind is not discussing a different subject.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Under which context are you mentioning Olduvai Man? And are you suggesting morphological overlap with Kiffians and al-Khiday with your comment on Tenerians?
Posts: 1785 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Olduvai Man was considered as the par exemplar "prehistoric East African Caucasoid" when he was discovered.
The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called the Upper Kenya Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble’s Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar association is presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble’s Cave[…] The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region. Many authors regard these people as physically akin to the Mediterraneans, hence the label of ‘Caucasoids’ (or European-like) generally attached to them.--Hiernaux
Craniometric graph from Rightmire (1975)
As for for Afroasiatics and other linguistic phyla forming their own genetic clusters this was hinted at by cranial data.
Rightmire (1976) craniometrics
Rightmire (1976) cranio-nonmetrics
Froment (1998) craniometrics
^ The above is one Froment graph you would never see Antalas post. LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26412 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ^^Under which context are you mentioning Olduvai Man? And are you suggesting morphological overlap with Kiffians and al-Khiday with your comment on Tenerians?
Tenereans had some 'Egyptian' style artefacts, like flint knives, and seem to belong the Wengrow's cultural convergence, from which Gebel Ramlah and predynastics also originate.
Olduvai Man resembles Type B, in my view, although he lacks traits foreign to it (e.g. negroid features), that we see in Type B populations during the predynastic, Capsian and Natufian. Olduvai also lacks the short stature in predynastics (mostly Badarians), Shuqbah Natufians and Tenereans. So Olduvai's ancestral population is contributing ancestry to all those populations, but is at some distance from all of them.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
the reason for that first trip to Olduvai Gorge was to test the idea that a modern-looking skeleton, discovered by German scientist Hans Reck in 1913, was, as Reck claimed, about half a million years old—the age of the deposits in which it had been found.
. But a few years later, other researchers, using improved geological methods, concluded that the skeleton wasn’t ancient at all, but had simply been buried in far-older sediments.
quote: Protsch, R. (1974). The age and stratigraphic position of Olduvai Hominid I. Journal of Human Evolution, 3(5), 379–385. doi:10.1016/0047-2484(74)90200-0
This famous site in Tanzania was first discovered and named 0lduva.i (German-Oldoway) in 19 11 by Professor Kattwinkel of the Bayerische Palaeontologische Staatssammlung of Munich. Then, in 19 13, the institution conducted the “Zentralafiikanische Expedition” in conjunction with the Geological and Palaeontological Institute and Museum of the University ofBerlin. In order to obtain geomorphological and other scientific information, a three month trial excavation was undertaken at the Gorge. A preliminary report (Reck, 1914) dealt with the archaeological, anthropological and palaeontological finds; the Olduvai Hominid I, the first of the numerous hominids later found, was first mentioned in this report.
3. New Chronological Interpretation
The individual, Olduvai Hominid I, dates to the middle unit of the Naisiusiu Bed, contemporary with the microlithic industries dated to approximately 17,000 years. The individual does not date the final period of the former Bed V, contemporary with the Gamble’s Cave II individuals and the Naivasha Railroad Rockshelter individual. Since the latter two sites have dates of c. 8200 and 10,600 on skeletons displaying similar morphological characteristics as Olduvai I, it can be assumed that the same physical type existed in this area for at least 9000 years. This individual from the Olduvai Naisiusiu Bed also displays some morphological characteristics similar to the contemporary Lukenya Hill individual (Gramley, Gramley & G. P. Rightmire, 1973).
Taphonomy and Paleoichnology of Olduvai Hominid 1 (OH1), Tanzania Matu Marie May 2017 International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Olduvai Hominid 1 (OH1; Figure 1) represents asubcomplete modern human skeleton discovered in 1913 by Hanz Reck in the Olduvai Gorge (northernTanzania). It is the first fossil, as well as the only Homosapiens, found at this site (Reck, 1914). It has been directly radiocarbon dated to 16,920 ± 920 BP and was thought to be contemporary with the middle unitof the Naisiusiu Bed, which contains Later Stone Agemicrolithic fragments (Protsch, 1974).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Olduvai Man resembles Type B, in my view, although he lacks traits foreign to it (e.g. negroid features), that we see in Type B populations during the predynastic, Capsian and Natufian.
Did I seriously read above that the Olduvai specimen from 17 kya was less morphologically "negroid" than predynastic Egyptians and Natufians? I know other mentioned traits like its stature preclude it from representing those other populations' ancestors, but still, they gotta get aDNA from those Olduvai remains. If a specimen from late Pleistocene Kenya turns out to have even less affinity toward extant sub-Saharan populations than ancient North African and even Natufian samples do, that's gotta scramble a lot of people's brains.
Also, what about the Hofmeyr specimen from South Africa that resembles UP Eurasians more than it does modern SSA? Could there possibly be a distant connection between that, the Olduvai specimen, and ancient North Africans?
Certainly, remains with those affinities being in Kenya ~17kya complicate any narrative that such traits first appeared in the region with the arrival of Eurasian-admixed Cushitic pastoralists. I suppose a Eurocentric could attribute that phenotype to early U6-carriers, but that raises the question of why their post-cranial proportions reportedly don't show the same European-like tendencies as their cranial morphology.
Biocultural diversity in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Africa: Olduvai Hominid 1 (Tanzania) biological affinity ]and intentional body modification John C. Willman1,et al 2019
Results: The morphological variation of the OH1 mandible is closely aligned with variation in penecontemporaneous fossils from Africa and outside that of recent humans.... The wear on both the anterior and postcanine teeth closely resemble that caused by adornments (“labrets”) worn in lower-lip and buccal facial piercings known from bioarchaeological and ethnographic contexts. The wear pattern suggests that the OH1 wore three facial piercings—two buccal/lateral and a medial one in the lower lip.
Extensive morphological variation has been documented within the sparse human fossil record from Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Africa, which suggests that we are only beginning to understand how much variation existed prior to the biological homogenization that occurred during the late Holocene and historic periods. Likewise, the evidence for labret-use presented here adds to the diversity of body modification practices already documented elsewhere in Africa during the Late Pleistocene (e.g., dental ablation) and Early to Middle Holocene (e.g., dental ablation, chipping, filing, and labret use). We have provided a detailed analysis of labret wear, and a review of similar cases, to stimulate further documentation of this cultural practice that together with inferences from biological variation and archeological investigations, can provide additional means of understanding inter- and intraregional population dynamics and interactions among prehistoric peoples across Late Pleistocene and early Holocene Africa.
Posts: 43042 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Races Of Europe by Stevens Coon Carleton. 1939
Chapter: PLEISTOCENE WHITE MEN , p 16-51
Aurignacian Man In East Africa pp 44-45
The remains of six Upper Aurignacian men have been discovered in the two colonies named. Five of these were exhumed by Leakey at Gamble's Cave, Elementitia, B4 and the sixth is the famous Oldoway skull discovered by Reck in 1914.
The orbits are high and narrow, and the noses likewise. The Gamble's Cave skulls are lep- torrhine, leptene, and leptoprosopic; Oldoway is mesorrhine, and hyperleptoprosopic. The two Gamble's Gave skulls are orthognathous, but Oldoway possesses considerable alveolar prognathism.
10/16, add for clarity: Thus when Coons says "Oldoway possesses considerable alveolar prognathism" despite his bogus "PLEISTOCENE WHITE MEN" chapter title he descibes a trait more common in Africans, alveolar prognathism
Posts: 43042 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yes, but it's restricted to the tooth-bearing (alveolar) region. Olduvai wouldn't have a high gnathic index.
@BrandonP
Europeans around that time (17ky) retain distal limbs that are long relative to their proximal limbs, but are different in that they have stocky bodies, and at least some of them also have shorter limbs in terms of absolute limb length. This differs from Olduvai Man whose body proportions are not stocky but represent an extreme in the African direction, as Keita pointed out.
But yes. It's not exactly water tight without aDNA. But I do think it counts for something that populations that look something like that haven't been found in Palaeolithic West Eurasia that early (e.g. La Brana, Villabruna, Ohalo, Cro Magnon I, Chancelade, Cheddar Man) except where African ancestry is suspected (Nea Nikomedea, Shuqbah Natufians have Type B).
Kefi's 20th century Taforalt and Afalou samples with lots of Eurasian mtDNA (allegedly), also look very different in general, although traces of Type B have been found among them by Briggs. So strong Eurasian in palaeolithic African sites seems to not bring Type B phenotypes, but dilute its presence.
So, we do know that large sections of West Eurasia can be ruled out from being the origin of this population, and that its earliest attestation so far (17ky), is in Africa.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Lioness does not know the difference between alveolar and gnathic prognathism i.e. maxillary and/or mandibular. Suffice to say Hanihara's study on gnathic index shows Somalis to be the most orthognathic population in his global samples even more so than Europeans, but his study was based on gnathic index alone and did not include the alveolus which Somalis are very prognathic in that area.
As far as skeletal builds, some Euronuts try to discount skeletal limb proportions as purely adaptive but fail to take into account the time frame it takes for a population to acclimate.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26412 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I seem to recall some of Harris & Weeks' New Kingdom X rayed mummies have the same combination of traits (alveolar, but little gnathic prognatism). But KV55 is an example of a royal Egyptian who stands out in terms of the latter.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I seem to recall some of Harris & Weeks' New Kingdom X rayed mummies have the same combination of traits (alveolar, but little gnathic prognatism). But KV55 is an example of a royal Egyptian who stands out in terms of the latter.
some of those old X rays are good for the head shape but not clear on the face. This is resolved in the recent CT scans
Posts: 43042 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. But what recent CT scans? Hawass 2010? And what happened to the PK Manansala site with the royal New Kingdom x rays?
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL Lioness does not know the difference between alveolar and gnathic prognathism i.e. maxillary and/or mandibular.
smartypants, "gnathic" means "of or relating to the jaw" it is not a type prognathism and orthognathic means "Having a face without projecting jaw, one with a gnathic index less than 98"
2005 Secular change in the skull between American blacks and whites Nicole Danielle Truesdell Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
Alveolar Prognathism (AP) - forward projection of the mandible and maxilla regions
Whites in the Terry Collection exhibited strong “typical” Caucasoid characteristics for each of the traits. There was no alveolar prognathism; the orbits were rhomboid with a narrow nasal bridge, large nasal spine, and sharp nasal sill...
The American Colonial blacks displayed higher frequencies for alveolar prognathism, wide nasal bridge, long cranial form, lack of a nasal spine, lack of a nasal sill, and a wide total nasal form. As such, this group presents more strongly “typical” Negroid features than the Terry blacks.
Results from the research showed that Terry blacks exhibited typical Negroid characteristics in orbital shape (oblong), nasal bridge (wide 50% of the sample), cranial form (long, 65% of the sample), nasal spine (small, 46% of the sample), and nasal sill (dull to no sill for 84% of the population). Alveolar prognathism was not a strong characteristic in the black population with only 32.5% having pronounced and 38.6% having slight prognathism. Total nasal form was also not as expected, with only 44% having a broad nasal form (Table 2).
Thus when I quoted Coon saying "Oldoway possesses considerable alveolar prognathism" despite his bogus "PLEISTOCENE WHITE MEN" chapter he mentions a trait more common in Africans
The most common terms Maxillary (Alveolar)- overbite
and
Mandibular - lower jaw protrusion
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region. Many authors regard these people as physically akin to the Mediterraneans, hence the label of ‘Caucasoids’ (or European-like) generally attached to them.-Hiernaux
I don't know if the remark "prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region" is correct, making this tooth region distinction because as we see above "The American Colonial blacks displayed higher frequencies for alveolar prognathism," (although this thesis seems to show that it's not as wide spread in contemporary AAs as one might assume)
Also isn't saying "Lol" all the time sort of young for you and been in decline since 2010?
Posts: 43042 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I agree. But what recent CT scans? Hawass 2010? And what happened to the PK Manansala site with the royal New Kingdom x rays?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: smartypants, "gnathic" means "of or relating to the jaw" it is not a type prognathism and orthognathic means "Having a face without projecting jaw, one with a gnathic index less than 98"
Yes gnathic means relating to jaws and the word itself does not mean prognathism but when jaws protrude it is prognathic. Orthognathic literally means "straight jaws". Jaws can be orthognathic while the alveolus (dental lining) can still protrude. The CT scans clearly delineate this as you said.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I agree. But what recent CT scans? Hawass 2010? And what happened to the PK Manansala site with the royal New Kingdom x rays?
As to Manansala, the Asiapacific Universe webserver shut down years ago but you can still look up his pages in the archive.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26412 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I checked the link but the pics and text appear to be gone.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I agree. But what recent CT scans? Hawass 2010? And what happened to the PK Manansala site with the royal New Kingdom x rays?
I said "I agree" mainly because some bones like the nasal bones are often not clearly visible on X Rays (e.g. Ramses II's nasal bone is not clearly visible in his X Ray, while his mummy shows an aquiline nose, implying a projecting nasal bone). But you are just saying the "new CT scans" (which turns out to be just one blurry CT scan of a skeleton with debris attached to it) are better because.. you feel it 'corrects' previous comments about this mummy having prognathism?
Amenhotep I clearly has prognathism, even in the new CT scan, which you feel is better and more accurate.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that pic his midface doesn't project forward nearly as much, as in the previous pictures you linked to, though it's still there.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the CT scan at the level of the bone, his head is tilted up (his chin is aligned with his brow). See the top of his head in both pics (on the left, it's level/even, on the right it's not). So, in the pic on the left, his face is positioned so you can see it better. "Midfacial prognathism" is what I've seen some call it, also in Neanderthal contexts. But it would translate to a higher gnathic index just as other cases already mentioned (KV55), who have it more as subnasal than midfacial.
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In the CT scan at the level of the bone, his head is tilted up
photo angle fixed
This is how it's calculated (if you're interested). When the bottom line is longer (relative to the line going to the point between the eyes), it leads to a higher gnathic index.
In the Froment paper posted by Antalas, these two measurements made a difference as far as distinguishing Egyptian samples with more African ancestry, from Egyptian samples with less African ancestry.
Furthermore, two additional variables have been included: basion-nasion distance and basion-prosthion distance, measurements that allow for quantifying prognathism or the projection of the facial structure. --Froment
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
So technically what they're measuring is maxillary prognathism.
By the way, here are the results of Hanihara's 2000 study on facial flatness.
You can see how Hanihara did his calculations. Note the M40/M5 means for his North African samples and Somalia.
Posts: 26412 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Right. Notice also that, in table 3, it's M40 that differentiates the samples in the region (Palestine, Gizeh, Naqada, Badari, Kerma) more than M5 does. So you can clearly see that some variables are more useful than others for differentiating populations in the region according to their genetic distance. Although samples outside of the region and from a different era, like Olduvai, would probably be differentiated by M5 as well, due to his larger size. So M5 would be useful in that case as a variable that improves accuracy, while in the situation of NE Africa it doesn't contribute all that much (although Badarians are differentiated by it).
Posts: 8792 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have not read it yet. The only ones I use so far are from Brauer. I find most people don't understand them. Rightmire for instance thinks they are Bantu or Nilotes, as we discussed in a PM months ago. Some others think the that the phenotype originates from Eurasian ancestry brought to Kenya by pastoralists, even though Olduvai is 17ky and has no direct relationship to Kenyan pastoralists. Today most claim that they are a part of the Kenyan LSA, or Eburran, and that the Kenya Capsian lithic affinities were somehow mistaken/obsolete. But this has never been proved. But that's academia for you.
I find Brauer does a better job, although he uses terms like "Caucasian" and "Europid" to describe them, which is remarkable because he is one of the founders of OOA theory, so I feel he should know better as far as considering African substructure.
Brauer 1 (possibly the one Keita had in mind when he said "they cluster with Europeans") Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implication https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0047248490900213
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yes gnathic means relating to jaws and the word itself does not mean prognathism but when jaws protrude it is prognathic. Orthognathic literally means "straight jaws". Jaws can be orthognathic while the alveolus (dental lining) can still protrude. The CT scans clearly delineate this as you said.
Printer-friendly view of this topic