posted
A common objection to the argument that foreign immigration lightened the average Egyptian complexion over time is that there wouldn't have been enough immigrants trickling into Egypt to change the phenotype. However, I've thought about how the United States of America is growing more and more non-white due to higher birth rates for non-whites, and it occurred to me that perhaps something similar could have happened in Egypt. Perhaps the rate of foreign immigration wasn't especially high, but those people who did immigrate had higher birthrates than the native Egyptians, therefore gradually outnumbering them. Is this possible?
Posts: 7103 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have used a similar argument against Afrocentrists, over the years. They contend that ancient Egypt, prior to and during her megalithic age, was settled and populated by a people today referred to as Negroes. Well, I have countered that argument with the history of America; America was originally settled by Native Indians, yet, the indigenous population was overrun by Europeans. Now, fast foward to modern time, and, what you now have is a majority WHITE America. Again fast foward but, this time 400 yrs into the future, will Afrocentrists claim the Native or indigenous population built America? Based on the very logic they use with AE, they will claim that the historical nation United States, was built by Native Americans.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps the rate of foreign immigration wasn't especially high, but those people who did immigrate had higher birthrates than the native Egyptians, therefore gradually outnumbering them. Is this possible?
This is a naive statement to make in light of genetic evidence and the fact that Palestinians rush in droves to Egypt to this very day.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
-- Keita, S.O.Y. (1996)
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Do you discount the recolonization of N.Africa by further evolved first wave homosapiens from the Levant, circa 40kya?
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^My statement was directed to Truthcentric. Homosapiens had left Africa 70kya, approximately. Homosapiens, having evolved an additional 30ky, returned to Africa, approx. 40kya. These Homosapiens did not retain the original physiognomy of the first wave ancestors, hence, parallels with US history.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, they would have still resembled Africans who left:
"Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples - some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans.. Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations." (Christopher Stringer, Robin McKie (1998). African Exodus. Macmillan, p. 162)
I do not see any sources on your part. What are your statements based on.
posted
Please place a date to the early humans in Europe you are referencing. After you provide the date, I will address the rest of your missive.
quote:Originally posted by L': No, they would have still resembled Africans who left:
"Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples - some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans.. Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations." (Christopher Stringer, Robin McKie (1998). African Exodus. Macmillan, p. 162)
I do not see any sources on your part. What are your statements based on.
posted
^No, sir, the onus is shifted to you to clarify a part of your argument. You need to date "early humans in Europe." Without a date, I don't know what time frame you are referencing to advance the argument that they remained anatomically "Negro-African."
You obviously are referencing a particular period to buttress your argument. Provide the date, sir.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^No one says they "looked negro" which is a misnomer and a red herring. The FACT is that the earliest Europeans retained tropical adaptations. Not sure what any of this has to do with Brandon's question which was already answered in this post:
quote:Originally posted by L': Maybe this will help:
quote:The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
-- Keita, S.O.Y. (1996)
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do not know what Early Modern Europeans entails? I already linked you to another thread. Read that and then come back.
quote:Not sure what any of this has to do with Brandon's question which was already answered in this post
He claimed that:
quote:My statement was directed to Truthcentric. Homosapiens had left Africa 70kya, approximately. Homosapiens, having evolved an additional 30ky, returned to Africa, approx. 40kya. These Homosapiens did not retain the original physiognomy of the first wave ancestors, hence, parallels with US history.
Which led to this discussion. Now, instead of providing evidence for his claims, he keeps asking me for "dates" which he can not only find in the studies in question, but also in the thread I directed him to. Now he is trying to get out of providing evidence for his claims (of which, he has NONE)
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
"No, they would have still resembled Africans who left" (L').
Cut it out, ok? Who do you think you are kidding? Go tell your boy, L', that sh*t. I already know they aint look like a nigga.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^No one says they "looked negro" which is a misnomer and a red herring. The FACT is that the earliest Europeans retained tropical adaptations. Not sure what any of this has to do with Brandon's question which was already answered in this post:
quote:Originally posted by Euro-centric exposed: Then what the fvck does this mean?
"No, they would have still resembled Africans who left" (L').
It means that my citation directly contradicts your unsupported claim:
quote:Originally posted by Euro-centric exposed: These Homosapiens did not retain the original physiognomy of the first wave ancestors, hence, parallels with US history.
The Earliest Modern Europeans did indeed retain tropical African characteristics.
quote:Cut it out, ok? Who do you think you are kidding? Go tell your boy, L', that sh*t. I already know they aint look like a nigga
quote:^^^Do you discount the recolonization of N.Africa by further evolved first wave homosapiens from the Levant, circa 40kya?
What do you mean "further evolved"? Into what?
BTW, I DO discount the above. I don't believe there's any evidence of a colonization (not re-, when was it EVER "colonized" up to that point?) of N. Africa from Eurasia 40kya, first because most of North Africa was uninhabitable and two, because most of the remains going back that far are described as "Negroid", especially in the Nile Valley. Maybe a few maternal haplogroups came back, rejoining the flow of African biohistory, but those people would have absolutely nothing to do with Europeans who were isolated in caves for the next 30,000 years, genetically drifting away from whatever population you think recolonized this huge desert and remained there stagnant for 40,000 years. Not to mention the proposed haplogroups (I namely am referring to U6) are rare in Egypt, which is what we're discussing. That's a Berber problem.
Regardless, Europe at that point hadn't even been colonized at all. You are nuts, no one believes whites inhabited the Nile Valley or even wider NOrth Africa that damn long ago or that they even existed that damn long ago. What can your argument possibly be against Afrocentrists? You couldn't possibly be trying racialize this?
quote:Originally posted by Afrocentric Liars Exposed: [QB] Then what the fvck does this mean?
"No, they would have still resembled Africans who left" (L').
I don't see the word "Negro" in his statement.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have got to be kiddin me! I contended that 40kya Homosapiens returned to Africa with less resemblence to their ancestors who preceded them 70kya. Your porch monkey ass decided to challenge that w/a claim that early Europeans were anatomically closer to Africans and Australians. Here is the quote:
"Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples - some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans"
You did not place a date to "early Europeans." For all I know, this could be 60kya, which would have NO BEARING on what I am saying. In 20kys, a heck of a lot of mutation can occur.
Are you going to place a date to it or not? I am not going to go back and forth with you anymore.
quote:Originally posted by L': You do not know what Early Modern Europeans entails? I already linked you to another thread. Read that and then come back.
quote:Not sure what any of this has to do with Brandon's question which was already answered in this post
He claimed that:
quote:My statement was directed to Truthcentric. Homosapiens had left Africa 70kya, approximately. Homosapiens, having evolved an additional 30ky, returned to Africa, approx. 40kya. These Homosapiens did not retain the original physiognomy of the first wave ancestors, hence, parallels with US history.
Which led to this discussion. Now, instead of providing evidence for his claims, he keeps asking me for "dates" which he can not only find in the studies in question, but also in the thread I directed him to. Now he is trying to get out of providing evidence for his claims (of which, he has NONE)
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^No one says they "looked negro" which is a misnomer and a red herring. The FACT is that the earliest Europeans retained tropical adaptations.
they didn't look "Negro" they looked tropical
tropical is the new negro
Posts: 42981 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afrocentric Liars Exposed: You did not place a date to "early Europeans." For all I know, this could be 60kya, which would have NO BEARING on what I am saying.
The initial colonization of Europe is generally regarded as taking place around 40 kya, around the same time as your proposed colonization of North Africa by Southwest Asians.
Posts: 7103 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afrocentric Liars Exposed: Give me the exact quote from his source.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^35,000 years ago, now move on.
No, you need to address the topic. This is a red herring!
Guys, stop chasing him around and make him stay on topic.
Now address my above post or get lost. You are just a coward looking for a weak target/sticking point. You know your "argument against afrocentrists" makes absolutely no sense.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
the Egyptians were part immigrant from predynastic times. The Levantine/Mediterranean limb ratios in those are not all that different anyway. Of course you see bigger difference if you compare to "Terry whites" mainly of North Western European lineage. The population became more Nilotic in proportion after the pre-dynastic period (Zakrzewski) Also in cases of admixture certain traits are dominant, not everything turns out 50/50- see limb indices in admixted poulations
Posts: 42981 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QB] the Egyptians were part immigrant from predynastic times.
Sorry, you have no evidence for that and trying to clean it up with further spin after I exposed you in the last thread won't help. A mosaic of tropical and Saharan (but mostly tropical) body proportions agrees heavily with archaeology and what people have been saying here; that Egypt was populated from the south and southwest by Saharans and Nilotic populations. You were called out for your embarrassing confounding of "mixed" vs "intermediate" so why should anyone here take you seriously at all?
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Funny you reference Zakrzewski: what she says is that their limb-length ratios were longer than in many African populations with no significant differences from the early predynastic through the New Kingdom.
Provide evidence that Meditterranean people had "not so different" limb ratios. Kemp (2006) contradicts that claim.
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness still magically pulling stuff out of thin air.
Moving to the opposite geographical extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. - Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2006.
Even a European knows African matters much better than lioness, and she has the nerve to associate herself with Africans.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: A common objection to the argument that foreign immigration lightened the average Egyptian complexion over time is that there wouldn't have been enough immigrants trickling into Egypt to change the phenotype. However, I've thought about how the United States of America is growing more and more non-white due to higher birth rates for non-whites, and it occurred to me that perhaps something similar could have happened in Egypt. Perhaps the rate of foreign immigration wasn't especially high, but those people who did immigrate had higher birthrates than the native Egyptians, therefore gradually outnumbering them. Is this possible?
I've heard it mentioned many times that the acceptable thing to do for foreigners was to marry local women. We also know from skeletal analysis that the Lower Egyptian patterns gradually converged on Upper Egypt. I think all those factors collectively played a role in watering down the way they looked.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there is a simple way to answer the question being raised. Just the haplogroup lineages of North Africa. As we know haplogroup lineages go back thousands of years. North Africa is mainly the African E and the Arabian Peninsula J. And J is relatively--around the time of the invasions and migrations from West Asia post 650 PE.
Given where the largest population centres are in North Africa it's obvious that they resulted from migrations. These population centres are coastal towns and cities spread from East to West: the settlers hugged the coast as they moved in during post-pharaonic times. By contrast the blacks who developed the civilisation of Ancient Egypt and Kush formed their cities and towns in a South-North gradient along the Nile.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the Natufians? They were among the first colonists of West Asia and were among the first to practice agriculture. Now anthropologists describe them as essentially Africanoid in skeletal phenotype. So if there was some colonisation of North Africa some 40KYA--think of the Africanoid Natufian types.
The types you see in North Africa are either recent settlers, hybrids of the settlers and the indigenous or descendants of kidnapped European slave women and Africans.
The non-African types were definitely not in Africa as far back as 40KYA.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All it takes is a steady continuous trickle of one phenotype into the majority domain of a different phenotype to produce a new but biased in features toward the origin phenotype in the region of contact.
This is what happened in the Delta where eventually immigrant populations great in number began to hole up and be absorbed by the end of the Middle Kingdom.
So Exodus story style outbreeding need not necessarily be invoked to account for either lightening skin colour or modified facial features over time in Ancient Egypt.
The Mushabaeans from ~11th cent BCE Egypt gave the Natufians their looks that differentiate them from the Kebaran. But by 4000 BCE that look persists only spottily because there was not a steady early Holocene influx of Egyptians into Sinai/Levant to maintain any widespread Natufian facial or skeletal features to backflow into Lower Egypt in Tasian, Badarian, and pre-dynastic times. Thus Kemp's find of no south-north cline of variation smoothly continuing from the Nile Valley into Palestine.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ This makes sense and also supports Ehret's view that Semitic languages were introduced or rather developed in Asia by a small population of Africans.
By the way, to the Euronut Liar Exposed, the earliest known modern human remains in Egypt are those of Nazlet Khater Man and here is what studies of him show:
"Oldest human skeleton found in Egypt". Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry.
Thoma A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khater man, Journal of Human Evolution, vol 13, 1984.
Sorry stupid liar, but you've been exposed yet again as usual! Posts: 26339 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you ever ask yourself why the people calling themselves "Egyptians" went on to become 80 million people while those calling themselves "Nubians" went on to become only 2-3 million?
Does that make any sense?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Do you ever ask yourself why the people calling themselves "Egyptians" went on to become 80 million people while those calling themselves "Nubians" went on to become only 2-3 million?
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ^ But there's no evidence of a major Southwest Asian invasion into Egypt until well into the historical period.
WTF???
Usually I don't involve myself in such inane discussions - except with Lioness. But that is such a fuching stupid statement that I just had to say something.
From 332 B.C. until 30 B.C. Egypt was ruled by Greeks - (302 years).
Now I know that to your simple mind that means that a Greek king just took up residence in Alexandria, and that was that.
But nooo simple-minded one, in order to take over a country, you need to bring an army. The army brings it's family. The army makes it safe for merchants. Then the settlers looking for free land come - capish?
From 30 B.C. to 640 A.D. Egypt was ruled by Romans (670 years).
Now I know that to your simple mind that means that a Roman king just took up residence in Alexandria, and that was that.
But nooo simple-minded one, in order to take over a country, you need to bring an army. The army brings it's family. The army makes it safe for merchants. Then the settlers looking for free land come - capish?
From 640 A.D. to 868 A.D. Egypt was ruled by Arabs (228 years).
Now I know that to your simple mind that means that a Arab king just took up residence in wherever, and that was that.
But nooo simple-minded one, in order to take over a country, you need to bring an army. The army brings it's family. The army makes it safe for merchants. Then the settlers looking for free land come - capish?
From 868 A.D. (Ibn Tulun) to 1250 A.D. Turks under Arab auspices ruled Egypt - except for The Ikhshidid dynasty (382 years).
In 1250 A.D. The Turk Mamluks rebelled and established their own dynasty (266 years).
In 1516 A.D. the Ottoman Turks along with other Eastern European troops (Serbs and Bosnians), defeated the Mamluks (495 years).
UP UNTIL TODAY, TURKS STILL RULE EGYPT (total for Turks, 1,143 years).
Now I know that to your simple mind that means that a Turk king just took up residence in wherever, and that was that.
But nooo simple-minded one, in order to take over a country, you need to bring an army. The army brings it's family. The army makes it safe for merchants. Then the settlers looking for free land come - capish?
Damn - some of you are just tooo fuching stupid!
Ya see the two guys in the pretty red uniforms - they're Turkish SOLDIERS!!!
posted
^I think you may be misinterpreting Truthcentric's statement Mike111. Do you deny that there was no major presence of non-Africans until the historical period?
-------------------- L Writes: Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
His statement was in response to Afrocentric Liars Exposed comment that an indigenous population was overrun by Europeans.
Factually there is just zero truth to his statement "But there's no evidence of a major Southwest Asian invasion into Egypt until well into the historical period."
They Sea people invaded circa 1100 B.C.
The Assyrians invaded circa 700 B.C.
The Persians invaded circa 548 B.C.
Then came the Greeks.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Okay, but do not the dates above correspond to the historical period?? Seriously Mike you are about as loony as Lyingass.
Posts: 26339 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic