The Beja People of Sudan, Eritrea and Egypt are an ancient people, who are linguistically, the closest kin to the ancient Egyptians. It is said that there is as much as a 70% correspondence between the Beja language and Ancient Egyptian!
The presence of the Beja people can be traced as far back as pre-dynasty times; their proud and uniquely huge crown of fuzzy hair (tiffa) was first recorded in Ancient Egyptian rock paintings.
Egyptologist, Emile Brugsch traced the clan of the Khawr kiji Beja through the matriarchal Female line to the 20th Dynasty.
The Khawr kiji Beja themselves claim their Ancestress Maternally was the Mother of an even earlier Dynasty.
In Ancient Egypt the Beja were known as the people of Ta-Seti - "People of the Land of the Bow" - and were renowned in Ancient Egypt for their skill with this weapon...
▬ ▬
The Beja were a formidable force in multi-ethnic Ancient Egypt as the "Prophecy of Neferti", written for King SnoFru of the 4th Dynasty suggests:
"Then a King will come from the South, Amen the Justified by name.
Son of a Ta-seti Woman, a child of Upper Egypt..
He will take the White Crown and He will wear the Red Crown, He will join the two Mighty Ones..
Rejoice O’ People of his time..
The Son of woman, will make his name for all Eternity !
Asiatic invaders will fall to his Sword..
Libyans will fall to his Flame..
Rebels to his wrath , Traitors to his Might !
As the serpent on his brow, subdue the rebels for him..
One will build the Walls -of- the- Ruler to Bar Asiatics from entering Egypt.."
▬ ▬
Mdu Ntr
Nefer.titi = Beauty arrives
Beja
Nefer.eta = Beauty came Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Do you actually think that anyone is buying anything your looney tune ass says?
I'll bet most of those people aren't even Beja.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
The general location of the Beja people
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Do you actually think that anyone is buying anything your looney tune ass says?
I'll bet most of those people aren't even Beja.
Even one of the inventors of the Hamitic "Caucasoid" theory, Seligman, believed the Beja and the ancient Egyptians to be one and the same people.
If these people don't look Beja to you. You must not know anything about them. Most of them are wearing Beja hairstyles as well.
Posted by Calabooz (Member # 18238) on :
When I see the Beja, I do feel as if being in the presence of the characters portrayed on the tomb walls.
Wally- You say "it is said" that their is ~70% correspondence between Beja language and ancient Egyptian- would you mind sending me the sources?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz: When I see the Beja, I do feel as if being in the presence of the characters portrayed on the tomb walls.
The southern section of the Eastern Desert is inhabited by the Hamitic Beja. Though claiming Arab descent, they are of different racial stock, with oval faces, straight noses, and large eyes; they bear a distinct resemblance to the surviving depictions of predynastic Egyptians. The Egyptian Beja are divided into two tribes-- the Ababdah and the Bisharin. The Ababdah occupy the Eastern Desert south of a line Qina and al-Ghurdaqah; there are also several groups settled along the Nile between Aswan and Qina. The Bisharin live mainly in The Sudan, although some dwell in the Elba Mountain region, their traditional place of origin. Both the Ababdah and Bisharin people are nomadic pastoralists who tend herds of camels, goats, and sheep.
The People of Egypt (Egypt), Britannica Encyclopedia, Vol. 18 Macropedia 1990 ed.
quote:Wally- You say "it is said" that their is ~70% correspondence between Beja language and ancient Egyptian- would you mind sending me the sources?
I suggest you look up To Bedawi (the Beja language) and Afroasiatic studies by Christopher Eheret and Carleton Hodge.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
I was invited to this Amhara set by an Amhara buddy of mine because this chick, who he knew that we had eyes for each other, was there - but that's another story...Well when I arrived, the gathering was formal Amhara - women cloistered in the kitchen and we men in the living room; everybody imbibing, when these two imbibers began to do a dance, sans swords and shields, which seemed remarkably like the one in this picture of Beja dancers...
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Hey Wally,
Why don't you tell everyone why you said that Hamites really exists and they are located in "east" Africa.
Posted by Please call me MIDOGBE (Member # 9216) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
Mdu Ntr
Nefer.titi = Beauty arrives
Beja
Nefer.eta = Beauty came
What the hell is your source for Beja nefer="beauty" to begin with?
What is your comparison supposed to mean anyway?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Please call me MIDOGBE wrote:
quote: What the hell is your source for Beja nefer="beauty" to begin with?
What is your comparison supposed to mean anyway?
Wally is a nut. He has an east African fetish which causes him to dream up mythical connections of his hamite east Africans as the genesis of Ancient Egypt.
He dreams this stuff up despite the fact that Ancient Egypt was a part of what is called the saharan complexes of northern Africa.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
quote:Originally posted by Please call me MIDOGBE:
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
Mdu Ntr
Nefer.titi = Beauty arrives
Beja
Nefer.eta = Beauty came
What the hell is your source for Beja nefer="beauty" to begin with?
What is your comparison supposed to mean anyway?
Mdu Ntr
Nefer.titi = Beauty arrives
Beja
Nefer.eta = Beauty came (thanks to the contribution of albukhary)
...and if you don't understand the comparison between "beauty arrives" and "beauty came" - I can't help you; didja ever take English in school?
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
The Beja and the Afar
"The Afar Danakil (is) the sister culture of the ancient Ta-Seti people. Whereas the Ta-Seti culture (was) amongst the founding branches of the eastern Bejaw or Beja People; the Ta-Antyu (Puntite) Utjenet Culture were progenitors of the Afari and Tigre cultures. The Land of Punt was of pivotal importance to the development of Egypt’s pre-dynastic civilization and played a significant role throughout dynastic Egyptian history. The Utjenet and Ta-Seti cultures formed a single territory until Egypt’s Second Intermediate Period when opposing cultures of Omo ethnic clans from further south and west pushed into central Sudan, separating the two branches of the Ta-Antyw. The Northern most branch would become the Ta-Seti whilst the Southernmost populations would become the Afar."
indepthafrica.com Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ And what is the basis for the above claims?? Last time I checked the Antyu were a people who lived in the eastern areas of Nubia in northern Sudan and were the nomad allies of the Kushites just as the Medjay were the nomad allies of the Egyptians. The Utjenet was another people mentioned living in Nubia. I don't know what either have to do with Punt which is further south. Also what do modern Afar in Eritrea have to do with Ta-Seti??
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
...as indicated in the quote that you are debating, the quotation was gleaned from
I would suggest that you read the entire article; keeping in mind that the author is writing about the dynamics of the historical processes - it is also assumed as common knowledge that the Beja (Ta Seti) and the Afar are virtually the same people and culture...
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
Beja family
Beja mother and daughter
Young Beja men
Beja man with Afro pick tucked into his Afro (tiffa)
Left: Beja man in typical Nile Valley stance - Right: Egyptian troops of the Beja clan Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally: ...as indicated in the quote that you are debating, the quotation was gleaned from
Yes. I understand that. I saw the source and have read it with my eyes. My question is where is the basis for their claims??
quote:I would suggest that you read the entire article; keeping in mind that the author is writing about the dynamics of the historical processes - it is also assumed as common knowledge that the Beja (Ta Seti) and the Afar are virtually the same people and culture...
I'm well aware of the dynamic of the historical process, but obviously the author is confused. The modern Beja are not the same as the ancient Setjau of Ta Seti. Also Beja and Afar although related are not the same since the Afar language is East Cushitic and closest related to Saho but related to Omo, Tana, Oromo, and Somali. The Beja language were once classified as North Cushitic but is now considered its own unique branch of Afrasian possessing close affinities to Egyptian as well as some to Cushitic. All these peoples as northeast Africans are obviously related to each other in some way but it is foolish to say that they are all one and the same.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
The Beja are genetically heavily Eurasian. They are far from pure Africans.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ Why is it that any Africans with narrow facial features are suspected of being admixed with Eurasians despite their dark skin? It's like people think Africans can't naturally evolve narrower noses even though such noses are an ideal adaptation for arid climates.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Global Cluster analysis by Tishkoff et al. 2009 -- see Supporting Online Material (PDF)
Beja Hadandawa Cushitic 49.2% European 33.5% Chadic 5.8% Niger-Congo 4.0% Nilo-Saharan 2.2% Indian 2.1% East Asian 0.8% Sandawe 0.6% Fulani 0.6% W. Pygmy 0.4% Hadza 0.3% American 0.2% Khoisan 0.1% Oceania 0.1%
Beja Banuamir Cushitic 51.4% European 31.7% Chadic 4.3% Niger-Congo 4.5% Nilo-Saharan 1.7% Indian 3.0% East Asian 1.0% Sandawe 0.9% Fulani 0.4% W. Pygmy 0.3% Hadza 0.3% American 0.2% Khoisan 0.2% Oceania 0.1%
Conclusion: The Beja are heavily Eurasian admixed.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
"There are several groups of people in East Africa very closely related to the Oromo. For instance, the Somalis are very similar in appearance and culture. The fact that the Somali and Oromo languages share between 30 percent and 40 percent of their vocabulary could be an indication that these two groups of people became differentiated very recently. Other Cushitic- speaking groups living in the same neighborhood who are closely related to the Oromo are Konso, Afar, Sidama, Kambata, Darassa, Agaw, Saho, Beja and other groups. Oromo language is very closely related to Konso, with more than fifty percent of the words in common, closely related to Somali and distantly related to Afar and Saho ..."
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Global Cluster analysis by Tishkoff et al. 2009 -- see Supporting Online Material (PDF)
Beja Hadandawa Cushitic 49.2% European 33.5% Chadic 5.8% Niger-Congo 4.0% Nilo-Saharan 2.2% Indian 2.1% East Asian 0.8% Sandawe 0.6% Fulani 0.6% W. Pygmy 0.4% Hadza 0.3% American 0.2% Khoisan 0.1% Oceania 0.1%
Beja Banuamir Cushitic 51.4% European 31.7% Chadic 4.3% Niger-Congo 4.5% Nilo-Saharan 1.7% Indian 3.0% East Asian 1.0% Sandawe 0.9% Fulani 0.4% W. Pygmy 0.3% Hadza 0.3% American 0.2% Khoisan 0.2% Oceania 0.1%
Conclusion: The Beja are heavily Eurasian admixed.
Exactly Thank you for pointing this out. Afrocentric trash have a tendency to compare the ancient Egyptians pictorially with heavily admixed Africans who have altered features. It's desperate as Hell on their point. Anyway spot on!
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Haplogroup doesn't determine phenotype. Or do many Europeans populations have altered phenotypes as well, given the evidence for modern human gene flow from Africa into Europe for ages.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Exactly Thank you for pointing this out. Afrocentric trash have a tendency to compare the ancient Egyptians pictorially with heavily admixed Africans who have altered features. It's desperate as Hell on their point. Anyway spot on!
That's true indeed.
The Ancient Egyptians were likely even MORE Eurasian genetically than the Beja (who are heavily Eurasian to start with).
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Haplogroup doesn't determine phenotype. Or do many Europeans populations have altered phenotypes as well, given the evidence for modern human gene flow from Africa into Europe for ages.
Their Eurasian admixture is present in their autosomal DNA (see Tishkoff reference), which DOES control phenotype. Southern Europeans do not have more than ~2% African autosomal DNA, while the Beja have DOUBLE DIGIT figures of West Eurasian admixture!
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
White Noise and Perahu lets take what you say at face value lets say they are heavily Eurasian which is BULL Sh!TT but lets play your game,soo what?? they are still black and still Africans and they would then be noo different from many new world blacks which is the target of your hate and who want to say can lay no claim to any high civilization in the continent of their origin who would most definitely carry Eurasian ancestry, blk is still blk...and you would still hate them regardless.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
First king of the 18th family dynasty "Ahmoses" - Sa Re: Iohmeses
Afar man with same hairstyle with the addition of the Nile valley 'butter melt'
the Ancient Egyptians used to mix butter with fragrant herbs and put this mixture on top of their heads. The African heat made the butter-herb paste melt during the course of the day and this treated the hair and also gave it a pleasant aroma... Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: White Noise and Perahu lets take what you say at face value lets say they are heavily Eurasian which is BULL Sh!TT but lets play your game,soo what?? they are still black and still Africans and they would then be noo different from many new world blacks which is the target of your hate and who want to say can lay no claim to any high civilization in the continent of their origin who would most definitely carry Eurasian ancestry, blk is still blk...and you would still hate them regardless.
It isn't ''bullshit'', these are scientific facts.
The Beja are genetically CLOSER to Europeans than to most Sub-Saharan Africans.
Even their MAIN AFRICAN CLUSTER is said to be closest to Europeans than to other African clusters, and on top of that they have SIGNIFICANT EURASIAN ADMIXTURE.
quote:The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs [clusters], which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African AACs, consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans into Saharan and Eastern Africa.
Tishkoff et al. 2009 -- see p. 14 Supporting Online Material (PDF)
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Eurasian admixture is very visible in their phenotype. Mainly Orientalid (Arabian) influence.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
Portraits of the Beja: looking into the authentic faces of Ancient Egypt
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: [QUOTE]
The Beja are genetically CLOSER to Europeans than to most Sub-Saharan Africans.
Then what happened to them?
Why don't they resemble Europeans respectively?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
I wonder if it's ever occurred to Perahu that the reason people like the Beja may have some genetic similarity to Europeans is because Europeans experienced some gene flow with African-influenced immigrants like the Natufians during the Neolithic. Perahu has it backwards.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
You Afrocentrists are absolutely pathetic.
The Beja have scientifically measurable EURASIAN ancestry, not just a little but but A LOT yet you Afronuts blatantly deny it.
Since the Beja are heavily EURASIAN admixed that means the Ancient Egyptians (geographically closer to Europe and the Levant) would be even MORE Eurasian.
The average Beja is genetically closer to a European Caucasoid than to a West African Negroid (where most of you Afronuts probably descend from). So stop being so obsessed with people who are completely unrelated to you.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I wonder if it's ever occurred to Perahu that the reason people like the Beja may have some genetic similarity to Europeans is because Europeans experienced some gene flow with African-influenced immigrants like the Natufians during the Neolithic. Perahu has it backwards.
The Beja have SIGNIFICANT amounts of Eurasian, waaaaaaay more than the African admixture in S.Europeans. Tishkoff et al. 2009 -- see Supporting Online Material (PDF) and see Hassan et al. 2008 .
The Beja have a higher frequency of J1 (Arabian Y-DNA) than the Iraqi Arabs. Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: Why don't they resemble Europeans respectively?
To me they do. More specifically Arabians.
These are not genetically pure Africans.
You Afronuts only seem to show interest in heavily Caucasoid admixed Africans but are embarrassed of the genetically pure Africans.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Completely incomparable.
You idiot, that study used only West Africans and West African-influenced Bantu, when the people who would have migrated into southern Europe during the Neolithic were genetically influenced by Northeast Africans. This was pointed out to you before, but you were too stupid to absorb it.
"It appears that Europeans are about two-thirds Asians and one-third African." ---L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza (2001), Genes, Peoples and Languages Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Outdated study,
Knock, knock, it's 2011 not 2001.
Regarding the usage of West Africans in the Moorjaani study, that's because Northeast Africans are not pure Africans, so using them as a measurement of African ancestry in Southern Europeans would only lead to skewed results.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Outdated study,
Knock, knock, it's 2011 not 2001.
Just because a study is old doesn't automatically invalidate its conclusions, and as was explained to you previously, the 2011 study you masturbate to was methodologically flawed.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Southern Europeans are not 33% Negroid, you are a joke. Show me any recent study that validates your claim.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Regarding the usage of West Africans in the Moorjaani study, that's because Northeast Africans are not pure Africans, so using them as a measurement of African ancestry in Southern Europeans would only lead to skewed results.
Let me get this straight...
You're arguing that the genetic affinity between NE Africans and Euros is because of Euro admixture in the former, whereas I'm arguing that you have it backwards. Your idea of a rebuttal is linking to a study that used only West African and Bantu populations. When I criticize that study's sampling, you say that Northeast Africans are admixed with Europeans and therefore aren't ideal for comparison, even though what we're trying to find out is whether it's NE Africans or Euros who are mixed. There's something circular about your reasoning here...
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Tishkoff used a wide variety of Africans, she was even able to create a Cushitic cluster, and yet still found significant European and Middle Eastern influence in the Beja in her global structure clustering method.
This European influence was not found in significant numbers in Cushites from Kenya for example.
We not only find proof of West Eurasian genetic hybridization in Beja autosomes, but it is also evident in Beja Y-Chromosome variation (significant amounts of haplogroup J, of Middle Eastern origin).
The Beja are heavily West Eurasian admixed, whether you like it or not.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Perahu come on son we playing your game for a sec you detest AAs and other new world blks who carries significant amount of Eurasian dna, you and White noise claim that the average north east Africans are essentially Eurasians but are some how different from AAs if so how so? if according to your wet dreams East Africans also carry Eurasian dna? A random search of AAs if any has Eurasian dna is a guess but they blk just like your East Africans who you obsess over who are not only blk but African born and bred carrying an African culture..so now what???
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Brada-Anansi
New World Blacks are completely unrelated to Ancient Egyptians and East Africans. They are irrelevant to this topic.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Tishkoff used a wide variety of Africans, she was even able to create a Cushitic cluster, and yet found significant European and Middle Eastern influence in the Beja in her global structure clustering method.
And this is what she had to say about it:
quote:The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs [clusters], which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African AACs, consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans into Saharan and Eastern Africa.
Did you notice the part I just bolded?
I admit that Beja probably have mixed with Arabs, but it doesn't necessarily follow from that they had broad facial features before this admixture. Why are you so adamant that pure Africans can't evolve narrow facial features even though such features are adaptive to the arid environments in which Northeast Africans live?
P.S. Y-chromosome Haplogroup E, an African haplogroup, is seen in Greeks at 25%. What do you make of that?
P.P.S. Since this discussion ultimately goes back to the biological relationships of the ancient Egyptians, what do you make of craniometric studies like this finding them to cluster with sub-Saharan Africans (yes, even broad-featured "pure" ones)?
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Perahu is just an Dienekes disciple who knows not what he speaks. Tishkoff never claimed this was due to admixture, in fact, to the contrary. Going deeper into structure analysis will most likely show that the structure shared here with Europeans is not "European" structure. This has been beaten to death. Beja clearly reflect Horn African diversity as well as recent migration. This is what is said about the Horn African diversity according to Tishkoff, who he cited without context:
quote:The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
-- Tishkoff (2000)
^Hence, whatever makes Europeans unique would be minimal in the Beja. They share the African parts of the genome that Euros have retained. Bowcock et al. further sucks the life out of European uniqueness:
quote:Nuclear DNA studies also contribute to the deconstruction of received racial entities. Ann Bowcock and her colleague's interpretation (Bowcock et al. 1991; Bowcock et al. 1994) of analyses of restriction-site polymorphisms and microsatellite polymorphisms (STRPs) suggests that Europeans, the defining Caucasians, are descendants of a population that arose as a consequence of admixture between already differentiated populations ancestral to (some) Africans and Asians. Therefore, Caucasians would be a secondary type or race due to its hybrid origin and not a primary race". This compromises the racial schema and also invalidates the metaphysical underpinnings of the persisting race construct, which implies deep and fundamental differences between its units.
-- S.O.Y. Keita & Rick Kittles
"Europeans are 1/3 African and 2/3 Asian"--Cavali Sforza
Finally, if he is trying to correlate this structure with the presence of haplogroup J, people like Nebel, Keita, etc. have already shown that J in the Nile Valley and broader North Africa can be attributed to RECENT population movement of Arabs/Islam, and therefore has no bearing on the ancient Egyptians OR ancient Beja (Medjaw).
Try again...
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Sundjata
Tishkoff was able to create a Cushitic cluster which was closer to European and other non-African clusters than to the other Sub-Saharan African clusters. So you have NO EXCUSE here. Despite the presence of an indigenous East African cluster, the Beja still showed ~35% West Eurasian admixture which could not be explained by Northeast African native genetic variation.
This is no surprise, considering the Beja are a peripheral group, living near Egyptians and Arabians.
We also find secondary evidence of West Eurasian hybridization through the Beja paternal haplogroups (high frequencies of J, which is through and through Middle Eastern).
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:New World Blacks are completely unrelated to Ancient Egyptians and East Africans.
No, YOU are unrelated to Egyptians and East Africans. Relatedness is directly reflected by familial descent, not structure (look up the definition) and PN2 is shared by over 75% of the continent, binding East, Northeast, and West Africans by a common descent that Euros don't share.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: [QB] Sundjata
Tishkoff was able to create a Cushitic cluster which was closer to European
You have it backwards which shows your Eurocentric agenda. As the quote above demonstrates, Cushitic structure is aboriginal so any closeness on the part of Europeans indicates that they are of recent Cushitic extraction or as Bowcock puts it, effectively 1/3 African due to ancestral structure via admixture. Isolating material without context doesn't help you. Also again, Nebel and others show J to be of recent provenance. There is no correlation between the two. These populations are African, get over it.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: No, YOU are unrelated to Egyptians and Easover 75% t Africans. Relatedness is directly reflected by familial descent, not structure (look up the definition) and PN2 is shared by over 75% of the continent, binding East, Northeast, and West Africans by a common descent that Euros don't share.
E-PN2 is 40KYA old, hardly any evidence of genetic relatedness.
It's as old as F-P14, which unites an Irishman, Australian Aborigine, and a Native American.
New World Blacks are completely unrelated to Ancient Egyptians and East Africans.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [qb]
quote:New World Blacks are completely unrelated to Ancient Egyptians and East Africans.
No, YOU are unrelated to Egyptians and Easover 75% t Africans. Relatedness is directly reflected by familial descent, not structure (look up the definition) and PN2 is shared by over 75% of the continent, binding East, Northeast, and West Africans by a common descent that Euros don't share.
E-PN2 is 40KYA old, hardly any evidence of genetic relatedness.
.
Check the new typology, all of the various sub-clades of E-P2 diverged no more than 22-24 kya. Common European descent goes back three times farther into the past. Around this time Europeans were develoing their own unique haplogroups and phenotypes within the confines of Ice Age Europe. Relating any of these peoples with Europeans is just stupid.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: You have it backwards which shows your Eurocentric agenda. As the quote above demonstrates, Cushitic structure is aboriginal so any closeness on the part of Europeans indicates that they are of recent Cushitic extraction or are as Bowcock puts it, effectively 1/3 African due to ancestral structure via admixture. Isolating material without context doesn't help you. Also again, Nebel and others show J to be of recent provenance. There is no correlation between the two. These populations are African, get over it.
You ignore my main point, which was that the Beja showed significant levels of the European cluster while most indigenous Northeast Africans sampled by Tishkoff did not (they were simply assigned to the Cushitic cluster). A large portion of the Beja genome clusters with Europeans, not with Cushites.
The Beja and the Ancient Egyptian were/are not genetically pure Africans, they have significant Middle Eastern ancestry, get over it.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^You tried to correlate Haplogroup J with the bulk of the structure and as shown, J is new to the area so your argument again holds no water since we are concerned with ancient populations and their demonstrable relation to modern ones.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
You are dodging the question again.
You have no explanation whatsoever why the Beja have so much of the European cluster, while many Cushitic groups sampled by Tishkoff did not.
It's because the Beja are heavily mixed with Europeans-Middle Easterners.
They also have ~40% haplogroup J, which is through and through West Asian.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
I can't believe you guys expect a peripheral group like the Beja who live so close to Arabia and the Mediterranean region to be purely African.
You people are truly nuts.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^No one is pure but they are clearly an African people who speak an African language and practice African culture.
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: You are dodging the question again.
You have no explanation whatsoever why the Beja have so much of the European cluster, while many Cushitic groups sampled by Tishkoff did not.
It's because the Beja are heavily mixed with Europeans-Middle Easterners.
They also have ~40% haplogroup J, which is through and through West Asian.
Middle-easterners are not European. Deeper resolution from other analyses show that they even have a separate structure which is why I stated a deeper resolution, like at say K = 14 will show much of that "European" structure shrink and again, the Middle Eastern affinity/J lineages are recent according to Nebel and others (clearly I have not ignored that and brought it up twice). Therefore, it has no bearing on ancient Egyptians or ancient Beja.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Check the new typology, all of the various sub-clades of E-P2 diverged no more than 22-24 kya. Common European descent goes back three times farther into the past. Around this time Europeans were develoing their own unique haplogroups and phenotypes within the confines of Ice Age Europe. Relating any of these peoples with Europeans is just stupid.
Source?
E-P2 is dated to about 40KYA, in line with an early split of various Africans as they are not genetically closely related to each other.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^The sub-clades diverged recently (approx. 22-24 kya). See the new Cruciani paper.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
What a load of crap.
I won't trust these dates until they fully scan the complete Y-Chromosome, not just small portions of it. No way in hell that E1b1a and E1b1b only diverged 22-24 KYA.
The 40 KYA divergence makes a lot more sense, considering the racial divergences between E-M2 and E-M35 groups.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^LOL, what a biased troll.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: What a load of crap.
I won't trust these dates until they fully scan the complete Y-Chromosome, not just small portions of it. No way in hell that E1b1a and E1b1b only diverged 22-24 KYA.
What bothers you about this? Is it because it doesn't agree with your effort to deny the fraternal relationship African-Americans have with ancient Egyptians?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: What bothers you about this? Is it because it doesn't agree with your effort to deny the fraternal relationship African-Americans have with ancient Egyptians?
No, it means that Y-Chromosomal diversity in Africa outside of A & B hg's is very low, which I do not think is true. Those dates sound bogus to me. I'm sticking to the 40 KYA divergence.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Perahu African Americans and new world blks carries lineages that goes back to AFRICA from all points in AFRICA and at the very least they are connected to population who in turn are connected to population living on the banks of Nile it is YOU!! if you are basically of northern Euro descent that have NO connection whatssoevea to the Nile..all your talk of pure this and that is about you projecting as that argument was never a prime focus of AAs and new world blks in general the Beja are black and African as were the Kemities...all your hair splitting boils down to you seeking connection with an African history and culture you admire but can't stand the actual inhabitance.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
There is no African race, people on the African continent are among the most diverse on the planet.
Africa is just a landmass, nothing more than that. Most Africans were unaware of the concept of 'Africa' until very recently.
New World Blacks trace their ancestry predominantly to West-Central Africa (which they show little to no interest in and are even embarrassed of them). They are completely unrelated to indigenous North-, East-, and South African groups.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:No, it means that Y-Chromosomal diversity in Africa outside of A & B hg's is very low, which I do not think is true. Those dates sound bogus to me. I'm sticking to the 40 KYA divergence.
And I'm sticking with the actual experts.
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: There is no African race, people on the African continent are among the most diverse on the planet.
Africa is just a landmass, nothing more than that. Most Africans were unaware of the concept of 'Africa' until very recently.
New World Blacks trace their ancestry predominantly to West-Central Africa (which they show little to no interest in and are even embarrassed of them). They are completely unrelated to indigenous North-, East-, and South African groups.
The are no human 'races' period and we've already demonstrated African relatedness via ancestral lineage (your pathetic denial notwithstanding). What you impose on African sentiment as some pseudo-ethnologist is irrelevant to these facts.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Egyptsearch is an excellent example that African Americans are embarrassed of their true origins (West Central Africa) and show no interest in this region whatsoever. Instead they are obsessed with Egypt and NE Africa, whom they are completely unrelated to.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^I honestly find the western Sahel to be more enchanting particularly, but that doesn't stop me from putting the beat down on clueless Eurocentrists concerning Egypt every now and again (you idiots actually pop up quite often).
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: The are no human 'races' period and we've already demonstrated African relatedness via ancestral lineage (your pathetic denial notwithstanding). What you impose on African sentiment as some pseudo-ethnologist is irrelevant to these facts.
Since the present-day Beja are much closer to Europeans than let's say to Nigerians, this means that the average Ancient Egyptian was even more distant from present-day Nigerians and other West Africans.
Therefore Europeans are closer to the Ancient Egyptians than are most West Africans and their descendants (African Americans).
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [qb]The are no human 'races' period and we've already demonstrated African relatedness via ancestral lineage (your pathetic denial notwithstanding). What you impose on African sentiment as some pseudo-ethnologist is irrelevant to these facts.
Since the present-day Beja are much closer to Europeans than let's say to Nigerians, this means that the average Ancient Egyptian was even more distant from present-day Nigerians and other West Africans.
This is an anachronistic argument that makes no sense nor has it even been demonstrated as true. No where have you cited say, Fst distances to even make such a claim. You are citing STRUCTURE, you idiot. Also, it's like using a modern NOrthern Egyptian proxy to argue that ancient Egyptians were Middle-Eastern. It's stupid and Nebel et al. have shown that the J [middle eastern] lineages are recent yet you keep ignoring that like some compartmentalizing loon, even though your correlation of J with "European" structure is the basis for your entire crackpot argument.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
There is no RACE period!! and you said their ancestry is predominantly to West-Central Africa then in the next breath you typed They are completely unrelated to indigenous North-, East-, and South African groups.
How ill informed you are when we even had a colony of Madagascan Maroons that lived in the Mountains in Jamaica in opposition to the mostly Akan group and where did Estivanico the supposed discoverer of New Mexico and Arizona came from??
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: This is an anachronistic argument that makes no sense nor has it even been demonstrated as true. No where have you cited say, Fst distances to even make such a claim. You are citing STRUCTURE, you idiot. Also, it's like using a modern NOrthern Egyptian proxy to argue that ancient Egyptians were Middle-Eastern. It's stupid and Nebel et al. have shown that the J [middle eastern] lineages are recent yet you keep ignoring that like some compartmentalizing loon, even though your correlation of J with "European" structure is the basis for your entire crackpot argument.
The Cushitic cluster which accounts for ~50% of the Beja genome is closely related to the European cluster and shows no kinship with most SSA clusters.
On top of that, the Beja have ~35% European/Middle Eastern, meaning that they would be even closer to Europeans and further away from West Africans.
The Ancient Egyptians being similar to present-day Beja, plus likely even more European-Middle Eastern ancestry, would be genetically much much closer to Europeans than to West Africans.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Egyptsearch is an excellent example that African Americans are embarrassed of their true origins (West Central Africa) and show no interest in this region whatsoever. Instead they are obsessed with Egypt and NE Africa, whom they are completely unrelated to.
People of all ethnicities like to identify with the charismatic civilizations that left behind lots of big stone buildings. We white Americans are mostly descended from Celts and Germanic peoples, yet we show far more reverence towards Greece and Rome, even going so far as to call them the cradles of our civilization, than to our own northern European ancestors.
Another reason there's more arguing about Egypt compared to West Africa is that way fewer people deny the blackness of West Africans. If most people took the blackness of the Egyptians for granted, we wouldn't be here arguing about it.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Perahu
quote:Egyptsearch is an excellent example that African Americans are embarrassed of their true origins (West Central Africa) and show no interest in this region whatsoever. Instead they are obsessed with Egypt and NE Africa, whom they are completely unrelated to.
At least they are dealing with a Civilization that is of AFRICA on the AFRICAN CONTINENT it is you who are the interloper here where is your thread on Euro Civ??? why are you here?? stop projecting.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: People of all ethnicities like to identify with the charismatic civilizations that left behind lots of big stone buildings. We white Americans are mostly descended from Celts and Germanic peoples, yet we show far more reverence towards Greece and Rome, even going so far as to call them the cradles of our civilization, than to our own northern European ancestors.
Germanics/Celts and Latins/Greeks are very close racially.
West Africans and Northeast Africans are very distant racially.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Come on Perahu were did Estivanico aka lil Steven hails from??
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: At least they are dealing with a Civilization that is of AFRICA on the AFRICAN CONTINENT it is you who are the interloper here where is your thread on Euro Civ??? why are you here?? stop projecting.
For your information, Europeans are genetically closer to Ancient Egyptians than are Sub-Saharan West Africans.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Empty claims with no evidence get no play here. Cranial and post-cranial data that bear heavily on lineage and gene expression beg to differ.
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: This is an anachronistic argument that makes no sense nor has it even been demonstrated as true. No where have you cited say, Fst distances to even make such a claim. You are citing STRUCTURE, you idiot. Also, it's like using a modern NOrthern Egyptian proxy to argue that ancient Egyptians were Middle-Eastern. It's stupid and Nebel et al. have shown that the J [middle eastern] lineages are recent yet you keep ignoring that like some compartmentalizing loon, even though your correlation of J with "European" structure is the basis for your entire crackpot argument.
The Cushitic cluster which accounts for ~50% of the Beja genome is closely related to the European cluster and shows no kinship with most SSA clusters.
On top of that, the Beja have ~35% European/Middle Eastern, meaning that they would be even closer to Europeans and further away from West Africans.
The Ancient Egyptians being similar to present-day Beja, plus likely even more European-Middle Eastern ancestry, would be genetically much much closer to Europeans than to West Africans.
The ancient Egyptians are similar to present-day Beja by virtue of descent and cultural commonality not due to a common assimilation of Arabic tribes within the past two millenia. Structure prior to this under the model presented would have been aboriginal. Also, until you cite Fst distances I will assume that you have no idea what you're talking about (which is why you keep hiding behind "race").
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
quote:To me they do. More specifically Arabians.
Arabians are not Europeans. J1 is not a European marker.
Non of them bear the faces of European people. Europeans are completely irrelevant to this thread as this thread pertains to North East African populations.
quote:These are not genetically pure Africans.
I think you ought to produce a list of these genetically pure and admixed races since you are the one arguing on the matter. No one in this thread mentioned North East Africans and their regards to their diverse ancestry. At any rate, why is this supposed admixture so important?
quote:You Afronuts only seem to show interest in heavily Caucasoid admixed Africans but are embarrassed of the genetically pure Africans.
More silly ranting and red herring. Has nothing to do with the thread in point regarding North East African populations and their discussed relationship to Ancient Egypt.
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: At least they are dealing with a Civilization that is of AFRICA on the AFRICAN CONTINENT it is you who are the interloper here where is your thread on Euro Civ??? why are you here?? stop projecting.
For your information, Europeans are genetically closer to Ancient Egyptians than are Sub-Saharan West Africans.
No they are not and they never will. You don't and you never will which is why you and your type continue to pollute by hoping to straw man your way into converting threads such as these through the mention of irrelevant Europeans.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: No they are not and they never will. You don't and you never will which is why you and your type continue to pollute by hoping to straw man your way into converting threads such as these through the mention of irrelevant Europeans.
Europeans *ARE* genetically closer to the Ancient Egyptians than are Sub-Saharan West Africans. It has already been dealt with, see this response:
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: The Cushitic cluster which accounts for ~50% of the Beja genome is closely related to the European cluster and shows no kinship with most SSA clusters.
On top of that, the Beja have ~35% European/Middle Eastern, meaning that they would be even closer to Europeans and further away from West Africans.
The Ancient Egyptians being similar to present-day Beja, plus likely even more European-Middle Eastern ancestry, would be genetically much much closer to Europeans than to West Africans.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
Europeans *ARE* genetically closer to the Ancient Egyptians than are Sub-Saharan West Africans.
Of course. And the Pyramids were built by aliens from the planet Nibiru.
Clearly no one takes you seriously.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Therefore Europeans are closer to the Ancient Egyptians than are most West Africans and their descendants (African Americans).
Lol.... you have absolutely no evidence that Europeans are in any way related to the ancient Egyptians. Keita (2005) pointed out that the crania of the Badarian is not supportive of European colonization but they do show a close relationship to the East African Teita. Furthermore, there is significant evidence that suggests a west African influence among the ancient Egyptians e.g., the diffusion of pottery from Mali northwards, predynastic remains showing an M. africanum pattern on analysis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex DNA (aDNA) (Zink AR et al. 2003), this particular type is prevalent amongst west Africans; then we have the Benin HBS haplotype present in predynastic remains; along with E-M2 which may have an ancient pre-Bantu presence.
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: The Cushitic cluster which accounts for ~50% of the Beja genome is closely related to the European cluster and shows no kinship with most SSA clusters.
This was already explained to you. This is more likely the result of their OOA status, and Tishkoff's observation of simple admixture models being less likely blows this out of the water.
quote:On top of that, the Beja have ~35% European/Middle Eastern, meaning that they would be even closer to Europeans and further away from West Africans.
In case you didn't notice, even Hassan et al. associates J in Sudan with recent Arab influence, so how could it have been present at such high frequencies in the ancient Egyptians? Answer, it couldn't and it wasn't. Given the evidence that there was not a mass presence of Near Easterners amongst them. And why the hell do you say they have 35% Middle Eastern/European ancestry? Haplogroup J is not European, so why are you saying Middle Eastern AND European? As noted in several studies, the high frequency of haplogroup J most likely suggests recent demographic events.
quote:The Ancient Egyptians being similar to present-day Beja, plus likely even more European-Middle Eastern ancestry, would be genetically much much closer to Europeans than to West Africans.
No, they LOOK similar to the Beja. We don't have evidence that they were genetically similar to the modern Beja. Going by your logic, I could argue a genetic similarity with the Badarian to the Teita, but that would make far more sense than your nonsense of them being closer to Europeans etc...
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
What Hassan et al. have to say on the Beja and Nubians:
quote:Both Beja and Nubians lie at entering ports of the Sudan; the Beja in the Red Sea area where past and **recent settlements of both Turks and Arabs are evident**, and Nubians occupy a strip along the Nile bordering south of Egypt, where successive waves of migration and conquest of the Sudan have passed over the millennia (MacMichael, 1967; Hassan, 1968). **This is attested by** the remarkable presence of the J-M172 chromosome known to be quite frequent in Turkey and the Levant, as well as other Eurasian haplogroups, including haplogroup J-12f2 (Al-Zahery, 2003; Giacomo et al., 2004) and the bondage and genetic continuum of the Nubians with their kin in southern Egypt is indicated by comparable frequencies of E-V12 the predominant M78 subclade among southern Egyptians (Cruciani et al., 2007). The group that displayed the highest population size
--Hassan et al.
Therefore, the argument that the ancient Egyptians would have been genetically akin to the modern day Beja falls flat. As the typical Arab/Turkey haplogroups observed are the result of recent settlements per Hassan et al.
Then, as already pointed out to you in regards to the Tishkoff et al. article:
"The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs [clusters], which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African AACs, consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans into Saharan and Eastern Africa."--Tishkoff et al.
As I'm sure others on this forum have mentioned before, this is only saying that said Africans are only closer to the non-African AACs than other Africans. And this seems due to their OOA status, and not simple admixture models (Tishkoff 2009; 2002). Looking through the Tishkoff paper again, she states that the Fulani have low levels of Eurasian ancestry
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
Then, as already pointed out to you in regards to the Tishkoff et al. article:
"The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs [clusters], which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African AACs, consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans into Saharan and Eastern Africa."--Tishkoff et al.
Indeed. These definitely have nothing to do with a back migration. At K = 11 Tishkoff found what she said was "low to moderate Eurasian ancestry" among the Fulani and you can see for yourself that at K = 14 Fulani and Cushitic people (besides Beta Israel) basically have NO Eurasian AACs (just like I thought) and they are in fact much higher in the Dogon! The Dogon had higher "Eurasian" AACs! What is wrong with this picture?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ Which figure in Tishkoff 2009 are you referencing?
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Fig 4.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
♫ Back to reality... ♫
Sir E.A. Wallis Budge stated that the Beja languages of the Eastern Sudan were the best to study in order to understand Ancient Egyptian. Seligman thought the Beja were a throwback to dynastic times. Indeed, cave paintings in Egypt going back to 2000 BCE show hairstyles similar to those worn by the Beja.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pair'o'huy: The Beja are genetically heavily Eurasian. They are far from pure Africans.
You said the same thing about a Bantu people in rural Uganda here and were humiliatingly debunked! Why the hell should we take any claim you make seriously??! LMAO
Funny how after your humiliation on the thread I just linked, you quite understandably gave no further replies and left this forum for almost a month. But now you've back talking similar bullsh*t? Something is seriously wrong with you mentally. Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally: ♫ Back to reality... ♫
Sir E.A. Wallis Budge stated that the Beja languages of the Eastern Sudan were the best to study in order to understand Ancient Egyptian. Seligman thought the Beja were a throwback to dynastic times. Indeed, cave paintings in Egypt going back to 2000 BCE show hairstyles similar to those worn by the Beja.
The Beja Afro: "The Hadendoa Beja of Northeast Africa were called Fuzzy-Wuzzies by British colonial troops during the Mahdist War of the late 19th century due to their oftentimes large and elaborate hairstyles, which they shaped with the assistance of butter. Similarly, young males of nomadic clans in Somalia were known to tease their hair into rather large bushes, which they would also hold in place with butter. As they aged and got married, they would tend to cut their hair." --Ebony, Feb 1973 (retrieved Feb 20, 2010)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pair'o'balls_butnobrains: E-P2 is dated to about 40KYA, in line with an early split of various Africans as they are not genetically closely related to each other.
So you admit that there was descent from a common ancestor which makes these lines siblings, yet you say they aren't closely related?! LMAO Do you know how stupid you sound??
There is a similar date for the divergence of R1 derived lineages for peoples of Western Eurasia, yet I seriously doubt you make the similar claim of Western Eurasian populations not being closely to each other, now do you??
quote:There is no African race, people on the African continent are among the most diverse on the planet.
Nobody said anything about "race" since racial groups do not exist as evident by genetics, yet that hasn't stopped you from using debunked racial terms like "caca-soid" and "orientalid" etc.! Yes Africans are the most genetically diverse in the planet but that doesn't mean the various populations are not related to one another. You obviously are totally ignorant about genetics to realize that diversity does NOT mean less relation. Africans are so genetically diverse that there is more diversity in a single village in Africa than there is in a large urban city in Eurasia but that doesn't mean the villagers are not closely related to each other you nincompoop! LOL
quote:Africa is just a landmass, nothing more than that. Most Africans were unaware of the concept of 'Africa' until very recently.
This is besides the point. Yes Africa is land mass but unlike Eurasia with extensive mountain ranges, there was never any genetic isolation and thus constant gene-flow throughout the continent. Thus the extensive range of the PN2 clade in the continent and ere go the LIE that Africans from one side of the continent are not closely related to Africans on the other side!
quote:New World Blacks trace their ancestry predominantly to West-Central Africa (which they show little to no interest in and are even embarrassed of them). They are completely unrelated to indigenous North-, East-, and South African groups.
Wrong. Most African Americans who do show interest in their African heritage obviously look to the West and Central regions of their ancestors. Why do you think ever since the Black Pride movement, African Americans would wear things like dashiki, kente cloth, or boubou, and women wearing large round headwraps-- all indicative of West Africa, you idiot?? What New World blacks have you seen dress up in East African garb unless they were from that part of the continent, let alone as ancient Egyptians?! It just so happens that some African Americans (not all, since they like many Westerners in general are unaware of Egypt's African identity and think of it as Middle Eastern) who are aware of ancient Egypt's African identity do acknowledge kinship based on common African ancestry. And YES there is a common African genetic ancestry as I've just explained above, as well as cultural. By the way, the same type of accusation you make of Western blacks actually holds more truth for Western whites!! Why do so many white Westerners look to Greece and Rome as their heritage when their true ancestry lies in Celtic and Germanic peoples who were regarded as barbarians by the former peoples?!!
That you deny all of this in favor of some false Eurasian "caca-soid" heritage is YOUR problem not the problem of Western blacks or anyone of African descent or anyone else including other Eurasians such as myself for that matter. Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Considering that West Africa was perhaps the most advanced part of Africa after the Nile Valley, I don't see any reason why black Americans would be ashamed of their West African heritage. Come to think of it, you don't really need ancestors who built a bunch of big stone structures to take pride in your heritage. Native Americans here in the US seem perfectly content with their cultures without needing to claim some stone ruins as part of their heritages.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
wow this perahu person got to be one of the biggest fools on this forum.
He comes on this forum screaming that All Europeans are linked together and most Africans share no links. What crock is that.
He also claims all Africans with fine features are mixed with eurasians when he seems to not know that Fulani with fine features are NOT the ones with eurasian mixture. Also the Dogon with broad features are Africans with more Eurasian genes than any Fulani group or even Tuareg. Then there is the Uldeme Africans from Cameroon who have the HIGHEST Hap R1 in the world...They look like any other Broad faced Africans. This clown is so obsessed with Africa and singling out Africans that he makes himself look stupid and plain dumb.
Djehuti posted a thread where he claimed a Ugandan Africans were more Eurasian then African and got torched and ran with his tail between his legs to now come back and now claim that Beja are linked with Europeans? Bahahahahahah. Just got to laugh.
Simple thing is I would never claim Egypt, but that does not mean that Africans and AA cannot claim a Civi that was created in AFRICA. Also aside from the nile valley and Axum, West Africa has more civilizations than East Africa and the people in West have been building for a LONG time. Countries like Ghana and Nigeria are growing at an remarkable rate and people should take pride in these areas. It's times like these we need Kenndo to post so he can refute this guys nonsense. AA music is mostly linked with West African music and so is the African clothes they wear and the African movements. Just because AA defend Egypt as African does not mean that they hate WA.
Really don't take this hit and run poster serious, I really believe he is only trying to get a rise out of posters. No one is that dumb to claim that Black Africans have more links to Europeans then other Africans. Just let the guy/girl spout his pathetic ideas and laugh like I am doing. No need to get angry or feel threatened.
Peace
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': What Hassan et al. have to say on the Beja and Nubians:
quote:Both Beja and Nubians lie at entering ports of the Sudan; the Beja in the Red Sea area where past and **recent settlements of both Turks and Arabs are evident**, and Nubians occupy a strip along the Nile bordering south of Egypt, where successive waves of migration and conquest of the Sudan have passed over the millennia (MacMichael, 1967; Hassan, 1968). **This is attested by** the remarkable presence of the J-M172 chromosome known to be quite frequent in Turkey and the Levant, as well as other Eurasian haplogroups, including haplogroup J-12f2 (Al-Zahery, 2003; Giacomo et al., 2004) and the bondage and genetic continuum of the Nubians with their kin in southern Egypt is indicated by comparable frequencies of E-V12 the predominant M78 subclade among southern Egyptians (Cruciani et al., 2007). The group that displayed the highest population size
--Hassan et al.
Therefore, the argument that the ancient Egyptians would have been genetically akin to the modern day Beja falls flat. As the typical Arab/Turkey haplogroups observed are the result of recent settlements per Hassan et al.
Hassan is an Arabo-centrist North Sudanese, of course he would want that all J in North Sudan is recent, confirming his Arabo-centrist world-view.
J was present in the Guanches (natives of the Canary islands who were unaffected by Arabian tribes). A large portion of J in North Africa could be Neolithic and was likely also present in the Ancient Egyptian gene pool.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: He also claims all Africans with fine features are mixed with eurasians when he seems to not know that Fulani with fine features are NOT the ones with eurasian mixture.
The Fulani are not pure Africans, far from it, they have significant European admixture. Before their own component is created they show high levels of the European genetic component, while pure Africans from the Sahel do not. This explains why the Fulani look so Caucasoid.
quote:Originally posted by KING: Also the Dogon with broad features are Africans with more Eurasian genes than any Fulani group or even Tuareg.
More illogical bullshit.
There was something structurally wrong with the Dogon samples obtained by Tishkoff, their results are unreliable, here are some quotes from the Tishkoff supplements:
quote:It should be noted that the DNA for the Dogon population extracted from blood spots appeared to be of lower quality and microsatellite markers did not amplify as well as other samples obtained from whole blood (43% of markers had missing data).
And..
quote: Detection of relative pairs: Relative pairs and duplicated samples in the dataset were inferred from the pattern of shared genotypes and population allele frequencies with RELPAIR 2.0.1 (S6-8) . Because the inclusion of closely related individuals can impact population genetic inferences (e.g. (S9)), we took the conservative approach of excluding individuals inferred to be third degree or more closely related, including inferred relative pairs between regional ethnic populations (e.g. all Tanzanian populations). An exception was made in the case of the Dogon as it is difficult to reliably infer relative pairs in a small sample and the Dogon are highly distinctive and could not be readily merged with other populations to improve allele frequency estimates.
A later study by Xing et al. 2010 using whole genome data, which was obtained rather professionally, unlike Tishkoff's Dogon data, found the Dogon to be 100% West African Negroids. This is what we would expect, since the Dogon look highly Negroid .
quote:Originally posted by KING: Then there is the Uldeme Africans from Cameroon who have the HIGHEST Hap R1 in the world...They look like any other Broad faced Africans. This clown is so obsessed with Africa and singling out Africans that he makes himself look stupid and plain dumb.
Sigh..
The Ouldeme do NOT have any Eurasian admixture on their *autosomal* DNA, explaining their Negroid facial characteristics.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Hassan is an Arabo-centrist North Sudanese, of course he would want that all J1 in North Sudan is recent, confirming his Arabo-centrist world-view.
LOL! So now you are blaming the very same author that you referenced because you realized you dug your own grave? Sorry, that won't work here.
quote:J1 was present in the Guanches (natives of the Canary islands who were unaffected by Arabian tribes). A large portion of J1 in North Africa could be Neolithic and was likely also present in the Ancient Egyptian gene pool.
Sure, J1 could have made its way into Egypt during the Neolithic. However, the high frequencies of J1 in Egypt are most likely the result of recent demographic events:
"The data suggest expansion from the north during the Neolithic (or perhaps more recently), which is also reflected in the lower STR variances in southern Arabia (0.14 for Qatar, 0.15 for UAE, 0.20 for Yemen and 0.27 for Oman4 versus 0.31 in Egypt4 and 0.51 in Turkey12). Subsequently, a series of recent demographic events may account for the high haplogroup frequency of J1-M267 in the populations from the present study."--Cadenas et al.
Looking at other studies, we don't even have evidence of a significant presence of Near Easterners in Egypt during the Neolithic.
quote:The Fulani are not pure Africans, far from it, they have significant European admixture. Before their own component is created they show high levels of the European genetic component, while pure Africans from the Sahel do not. This explains why the Fulani look so Caucasoid.
Dude, do you know that Tishkoff et al. debunks this BS? See the earlier posts....
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
there is no such thing as race, there is only
"biologically African" and
"biologically non-African"
"biologically African" is based 1) on P2 Clade (E3a and E3b haplogroups) 2) tropically adapted limb indices
The origins of the Fulani remain unknown Laura B. Scheinfeldt, Sameer Soi, and Sarah A. Tishkoff1
+ Author Affiliations University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
We would like to first point out that we never interpreted any genetic data in our review article to support a Middle Eastern or European origin for the Fulani (1). We agree with Winters that the Fulani do not originate from the Middle East or Europe (2). Furthermore, we do not maintain that there is a predominance of Eurasian markers in the Fulani; we merely point out that there is some evidence of shared recent ancestry (i.e., gene flow) between the Fulani and Eurasian populations …
There is a difference between saying "shared" recent ancestry, and claiming uni-directional gene flow. Clearly from the language of Tishkoff et al.'s piece below, the latter more immediately comes to mind. The former can be interpreted to mean "sharing" the same source population before bifurcation event(s), but not necessarily mean that one living group derives from another living one, and the below will at a quick glance demonstrate why.
The Fulani cluster with the Chadic and Central Sudanic speaking populations at K <13>Fulani show low to moderate levels of European/Middle Eastern ancestry (blue), consistent with mtDNA (S93) and Y chromosome (S89) analyses, as well as the presence at low frequency of the -13910 mutation associated with lactose tolerance in Europeans in this population (S94). Additionally, we observe moderate to high levels of Niger- Kordofanian ancestry in the Fulani populations (Figs. 3, 4, S13;Tables S8, S9). These results do not enable us to determine the definitive origin of the Fulani, although they indicate shared ancestry with Saharan and Central Sudanic populations and suggest that the Fulani have admixed with local populations, and possibly adopted a Niger-Kordofanian language, during their spread across central and western Africa. The origin of European (possibly via the Iberian peninsula) and/or Middle Eastern ancestry in the Fulani requires further exploration with additional genetic markers.
Even though the authors claim to be confused about Fulani ancestry, There Table from the study (Look at S8) showed very low levels of european genes 5% for Nigerian Fulani and 2.5% 2.6% for Cameroonian Fulani
and these genetic similarities are not consistent across the Fulbe populations sampled. Moreover, these resemblances do not appear to follow phenotypic variability within Fulbe Cerny et al. 2006: 20
Despite the large size of the contemporary nomadic Fulani population (roughly 13 million people), the genetic diversity and degree of differentiation of Fulanis compared to other sub-Saharan populations remain unknown. We sampled four Fulani nomad populations (n = 186) in three countries of sub-Saharan Africa (Chad, Cameroon, and Burkina Faso) and analyzed sequences of the first hypervariable segment of the mitochondrial DNA. Most of the haplotypes belong to haplogroups of West African origin, such as L1b, L3b, L3d, L2b, L2c, and L2d (79.6% in total), which are all well represented in each of the four geographically separated samples The haplogroups of Western Eurasian origin, such as J1b, U5, H, and V, were also detected but in rather low frequencies (8.1% in total). As in African hunter-gatherers (Pygmies and Khoisan) and some populations from central Tunisia (Kesra and Zriba), three of the Fulani nomad samples do not reveal significant negative values of Fu's selective neutrality test. The multidimensional scaling of FST genetic distances of related sub-Saharan populations and the analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) show clear and close relationships between all pairs of the four Fulani nomad samples, irrespective of their geographic origin. The only group of nomadic Fulani that manifests some similarities with geographically related agricultural populations (from Guinea-Bissau and Nigeria) comes from Tcheboua in northern Cameroon. http://www.mamiwata.com/fulani.html
^In this study, Fulani have Eurasian Genes at 8% not enough to make a impact on features.
Moving on
"The Xhosa sample is located somewhat outside the tight Niger-Congo cluster on figure 2, but it is found to be not different from the Zulu, the Fulani from Senegal, and the Dama." - "Human genetic affinities for Y-chromosome P49a,f/TaqI haplotypes show strong correspondence with linguistics"
^ according to this study, some Fulani share closest affinity to Bantu speakers, by way of the P49a,f/TaqI haplotypes.
HLA class I in three West African ethnic groups: genetic distances from sub-Saharan and Caucasoid populations. Modiano D, Luoni G, Petrarca V, Sodiomon Sirima B, De Luca M, Simporé J, Coluzzi M, Bodmer JG, Modiano G.
Istituto di Parassitologia, W.H.O. Collaborating Centre for Malaria Epidemiology, Università di Roma "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy.
Abstract
Fulani of Burkina Faso (West Africa) are a particularly interesting ethnic group because of their lower susceptibility to Plasmodium falciparum malaria as compared to sympatric populations, Mossi and Rimaibé. Moreover, the occurrence of a Caucasoid component in their genetic make-up has been suggested on the basis of their physical traits and cultural traditions even though this view was not supported by genetic studies. A total of 149 unrelated subjects (53 Mossi, 47 Rimaibé and 49 Fulani) have been typed for 97 HLA class I alleles with the amplification refractory mutation system/polymerase chain reaction (ARMS/PCR) technique. Mossi and Rimaibé data were pooled since none of the 42 statistically testable alleles exhibited a significant heterogeneity. These pooled gene frequencies were found to be very different from those of Fulani: a certain (P less than 0.001) or a likely (0.001 less than P less than 0.01) difference was found for 5 and 12 alleles, respectively. Four alleles (A*24, A*29, B*27, B*3701) appeared to be essentially "private" Fulani alleles with respect to the other two populations but their presence was not associated with higher resistance to P. falciparum. Our data have then been compared using chord distances (CD) with those from the literature on Africans (including Gambian Fulani) and Caucasoids. The Burkina Faso and Gambian Fulani turned out to be very different (CD=2.191). Moreover, Burkina Faso Fulani were very distant from sympatric Mossi and Rimaibé (CDs=1.912 and 1.884), whereas Gambian Fulani were similar to sympatric Mandinka and Wolof (CDs=0.412 and 0.388) to an extent comparable to that found between Mossi and Rimaibé (CD=0.555). Our study does not suggest the involvement of HLA I in the higher resistance to malaria of Fulani, and confirms a low, if any, Caucasoid component in their gene pool.
Hope this wakes you up from your day dreaming about Fulanis being mixed with Eurasians.
Peace
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
King all of Perahu's talk of pure this and Eurasian blah blah blah is about him not wanting them the ancient Kemites to look not like a Rendille,or Somali,Fulani,or anything of the sort he wants them to look like His ultimate^ fantasy he would give a ratz azz about a Beja or any real Africans who are close relatives of the ancient Kemites as post above Eurasian genes or not they are just props to achieve that.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Nonsense, the Eurasian admixture in Northeast Africa is Middle Eastern. These are swarthy brown people, not whites. Eurasian nonetheless.
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
[qb]
quote:The Fulani are not pure Africans, far from it, they have significant European admixture. Before their own component is created they show high levels of the European genetic component, while pure Africans from the Sahel do not. This explains why the Fulani look so Caucasoid.[qb]
The Fulani do not look Caucasoid. Neither do they have significant European admixture. Shut up with that Eurocentric crap.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: King all of Perahu's talk of pure this and Eurasian blah blah blah is about him not wanting them the ancient Kemites to look not like a Rendille,or Somali,Fulani,or anything of the sort he wants them to look like His ultimate^ fantasy he would give a ratz azz about a Beja or any real Africans who are close relatives of the ancient Kemites as post above Eurasian genes or not they are just props to achieve that.
Brada, I congratulate you! You clearly see through the smokescreen of this Pariah guy, whose primary purpose is to propagate the idiotic and virtually debunked notion of a White Ancient Egypt.
He has thrown in his racist bait - 25 times on May 14 alone - none of which has a thing to do with the connection between the Beja and the Ancient Egyptians...
However, his distraction has successfully derailed the topic originally put forth, mainly do to the educated vets here who decided to try and 'school a fool'... Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: The Fulani do not look Caucasoid. Neither do they have significant European admixture. Shut up with that Eurocentric crap.
Silly Negrocentrist!
The Fulani are admixed, just deal with it. Pure Sahelian Negroids cluster like the Senegal Mandingos!
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^You posted that stupid graph before and still persist in presenting it despite its anthropological illiteracy. WTF is a paleo-African and how are the Fulani "mixed" if they plot closest to a relatively un-admixed [with Eurasian] Nilo-Saharan group? Simply slapping graphics on there that reads "mixed" and "Paleo-African" mean absolutely nothing and do not constitute proof. It constitutes fraud and propoganda through pre-labeling (circular reasoning). Africans are inherently diverse and it has nothing to do with Europeans, who have always been irrelevant.
BTW, his obsession with East African admixture may point to some insecurity/inferiority complex. He hates being European and he is racist so he hates what he feels are "pure Negroids", but at the same time he wants to be as interesting and fascinating as he finds Africans, so the closest that he can come to this is pretend that East Africans are really European, sign up to an African-centered web forum, and take on the persona (Perahu) of an ancient East African king from Punt. It is rather pathetic to watch actually and the guy's horrendous logic speaks to his desperation to establish this connection.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^You posted that stupid graph before and still persist in presenting it despite its anthropological illiteracy. WTF is a paleo-African and how are the Fulani "mixed" if they plot closest to a relatively un-admixed [with Eurasian] Nilo-Saharan group? Simply slapping graphics on there that reads "mixed" and "Paleo-African" mean absolutely nothing and do not constitute proof. It constitutes fraud and propoganda through pre-labeling (circular reasoning). Africans are inherently diverse and it has nothing to do with Europeans, who have always been irrelevant.
The Maasai are not pure, dumbo. They have significant levels of Cushite ancestry. They are Nilo-Hamites. Their position is also explained by the fact that the OOA migration took place in East Africa.
The Fulani are not East African, they are West African. Their position should be compared to pure West Africans like the Mandingo, who they sadly cluster far away from due to Caucasoid ancestry.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Cushitic is not Eurasian you idiot. Massai have absolutely no Eurasian ancestry yet Fulani plot right next to them. According to Razid's structure the Fulani have their own color bar that is nearly full so you once again are exposed as a pathetic liar.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Even the Mozabite are able to create their own cluster, this does not mean they are pure, dumbo.
Before the Fula cluster appears they possess high frequencies of Caucasoid clusters.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Even with their own Mozabite cluster they appear mixed with other AACs! Fulani don't. You are so stupid, they are completely divergent from Europeans on any plot and again, Razid's cluser from K = 2 all the way to K = 14 show them as decidedly African. No "High" frequency of anything other than African AACs. Even at K = 11 Tishkoff claimed Eurasian affinity was "low" but even that's questionable considering the Dogon and Dioula results from Fig. 4.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: According to Razib's structure the Fulani have their own color bar that is nearly full so you once again are exposed as a pathetic liar.
Just looked it up
Look at the lower K, dumbo.
The Fulani have high levels of Caucasoid genetic input (Red).
The Mozabite have substantial levels of Sub-Saharan. This gets masked when their cluster appears due to their inbred nature.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^What idiot looks at the lower K? The higher K exposes most or nearly all of that red to be African. You are not understanding that these are merely clusters that are shared between Africans and Europeans. You are Eurocentric so you give Europeans primacy even through this is structure that likely goes back to the OOA exodus (which means these people are 60,000 years removed from you and you simply retain some of THEIR archaic structure).
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^What idiot looks at the lower K? K = 14 exposes most or nearly all of that red to be African. You are not understanding that these are merely clusters that are shared between Africans and Europeans. You are Eurocentric so you give Europeans primacy even through this is structure that likely goes back to the OOA exodus (which means these people are 60,000 years removed from you and you simply retain archaic structure).
The Fulani have little East African ancestry. This does not explain their position. They are West African. You should compare them to the Mandingo.
Their affinity with Europeans is primarily due to admixture from Caucasoid North Africans.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: King all of Perahu's talk of pure this and Eurasian blah blah blah is about him not wanting them the ancient Kemites to look not like a Rendille,or Somali,Fulani,or anything of the sort he wants them to look like His ultimate^ fantasy he would give a ratz azz about a Beja or any real Africans who are close relatives of the ancient Kemites as post above Eurasian genes or not they are just props to achieve that.
Brada, I congratulate you! You clearly see through the smokescreen of this Pariah guy, whose primary purpose is to propagate the idiotic and virtually debunked notion of a White Ancient Egypt.
He has thrown in his racist bait - 25 times on May 14 alone - none of which has a thing to do with the connection between the Beja and the Ancient Egyptians...
However, his distraction has successfully derailed the topic originally put forth, mainly do to the educated vets here who decided to try and 'school a fool'...
If this nonsense persists, I'm going to ask the moderators to lock this topic; and let them then post their own topic... Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Edit: In respecting Wally's wishes, I'll let this go. He's right anyway.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
This thread was primarily about Beja's (at least the first two pages).
Negrocentrists just needed a reality check.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally: Brada, I congratulate you! You clearly see through the smokescreen of this Pariah guy, whose primary purpose is to propagate the idiotic and virtually debunked notion of a White Ancient Egypt.
Stop putting words in my mouth, I never claimed Ancient Egyptians to be white.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Why not leave Wally be for now and continue to receive your ritualistic smack down, here.
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: [qb]The Fulani do not look Caucasoid. Neither do they have significant European admixture. Shut up with that Eurocentric crap.
Silly Negrocentrist!
The Fulani are admixed, just deal with it. Pure Sahelian Negroids cluster like the Senegal Mandingos!
Noting and searching for indigenous purity in any population is a lost cause due to the fact that no group of people on this earth are restrictively pure to begin with, therefore we can only group them in accordance to the majority of their ancestry. The Fula are ancestrally, linguistically and culturally African sharing very little AAC with Europeans making Europeans again irrelevant in regards to their ancestry. I can't help but notice the politics and anthropological illiteracy from the diagram you presented.
Who is the author of that diagram? Those people politically classified as pure Caucasoids are generally in fact more ancestrally diverse than the Fula population.
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
Can anyone on here kindly inform to me on how i can ask the moderator to remove my post above? I feel my post has further contributed to the problem rather than help the problem. Thank you.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ Ausar can edit it but you can too if you click the Pencil and Paper Icon on top of your post.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Wally
respect to you and your threads.
Love learning about the Beja and their links to Egypt.
Apologize for posting about the Fulbe ancestry in your thread and making perahu seem like he will learn anything.
Hope you continue to show the forum the great links that Other Africans have to Egypt.
To add to your thread, The Beja also known as the Fuzzie Wuzzies, and the Medjay in Ancient Egypt, look like the Egyptians and Puntites. The hair braids you shown look EXACTLY like the Ancient Egypt reliefs. We can only hope that more people see the connection and respect the Africans who were the originators of Egypt.
Peace
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Wally can simply ask ausar himself to delete all of our posts (or everything after the point where the topic was derailed).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed. It is a complete utter waste of time engaging with someone repeating the same nonsense that was already debunked! I mean my God! This guy has claimed rural Bantus and Nilo-Saharans as having "Eurasian" ancestry. It's obvious this guy is a pathetic loser who feels the need to white-wash Africans for self-esteem purposes.
quote:Originally posted by KING: He comes on this forum screaming that All Europeans are linked together and most Africans share no links. What crock is that.
Worse than that, he claims ALL Western Eurasians are closely related to each other not just Europeans. He even calls hg J "European" even though it originated in Southwest Asia, likely Arabia. Yet the idiot in double-speak dismisses the pan-African PN2 (E) clade as no proof of inter-African relation! Bias is obviously an understatement with this fool.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Considering that West Africa was perhaps the most advanced part of Africa after the Nile Valley, I don't see any reason why black Americans would be ashamed of their West African heritage. Come to think of it, you don't really need ancestors who built a bunch of big stone structures to take pride in your heritage. Native Americans here in the US seem perfectly content with their cultures without needing to claim some stone ruins as part of their heritages.
That's because Pair'ohock knows nothing about African Americans and thinks that just because some African Americans acknowledge Egypt's African identity, they must look to it as their ancestry. Obviously Pairohock is one of those low-self esteem losers who could only feel good about themselves by connecting themselves to fake ancestors hence his "caca-soid" propaganda to claim not only Egyptians but many African groups! LOL
quote:Originally posted by Wally: Brada, I congratulate you! You clearly see through the smokescreen of this Pariah guy, whose primary purpose is to propagate the idiotic and virtually debunked notion of a White Ancient Egypt.
He has thrown in his racist bait - 25 times on May 14 alone - none of which has a thing to do with the connection between the Beja and the Ancient Egyptians...
However, his distraction has successfully derailed the topic originally put forth, mainly do to the educated vets here who decided to try and 'school a fool'...
LOL the pariah KNOWS that Beja are closely related to ancient Egyptians. That is exactly why he chooses to white-wash or 'Eurasianize' them! He is a pathetic, dumb loser!
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: Who is the author of that diagram? Those people politically classified as pure Caucasoids are generally in fact more ancestrally diverse than the Fula population.
The idiot Pariah has admitted that the graph he parades around was not even created by any expert but by non other than his lame layman leader Dienekes Pontikos!! He even called the guy Dienkes et. al when Dienekes has never published a study let alone with other experts for the reason that he is NOT an expert! LMAO Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Back in March I asked are the Beja lineally descended Medjay or not?
Is this based solely on the location of the non-assimilated Medjay being coterminous with the present northern range of Beja speakers?
What of the Blemmeyes of Grec-Roman notice presumably of the same region?
Lacking any documentation of demic displacement of the people living between the Nile and the Eastern & Nubian Deserts, is it assumed folk there are continous inhabitants from Pharaonic times till now?
What are some other points in favor of the Beja = Medjay identity equation?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That is a good question that I myself have asked every now and then. The claim that the Beja are the direct lineal descendants of the Medjay is something that is repeated so often in academia one might think it is the be all end all truth. I believe additional evidence aside from them living in the same area is that some Medjay names and terms were found that show close affinity to modern Beja.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^There is no doubt that the Beja descend from the Blemmeyes. - See here
The Medjay theory does seem to rely on the geography and demographics where all groups are said to have inhabited the eastern desert areas. Beja and Medjay or Medjaw/Bedawi do seem to recall cognate-like similarities as well (Ehret, 2002 believes these groups to be continuous but doesn't explore why). I've also read about similarities in lifestyle and pottery between the groups but the connections were all tenuous.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Wow. I had no idea that the Blemyes were attested that early during the New Kingdom or that their territory was originally in the Western desert! This changes everything then. So if the Blemyes/Beja originated from the west then what are we to make of the Medjay?? By the way, the Wilkinson and others identify the ancestors of the Naqada to be nomads who also come from the Eastern Desert so there may be a relation between the Naqada and the Medjay.
Posted by KoKaKoLa (Member # 19312) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
What is wrong with this picture?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You said the same thing about a Bantu people in rural Uganda here and were humiliatingly debunked! Why the hell should we take any claim you make seriously??! LMAO ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
