I know theres lots of stuff that talks about mass migration into Egypt which means modern egyptians are not genetically made exactly like AE but are there primary material like documents, mass graves, etc that show mass occupation into Egypt happened? I also read that migration of about 1 percent a year or so could tremendously change stuff but i dont remember what study it was that said that.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Since the Assyrians first conquered the Egyptians there was a slow replacement of ancient Egyptians by Middle Eastern and Western European peoples.
Beginning with the Assyrian defeat of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty large number of nomadic people from the Middle East began to migrate into Egypt. These people began to take over many Egyptian settlements, while other Egyptians fled to Nubia and Kush to avoid non-Egyptian rule.
Other ancient Egyptian caused political and military conflicts that led many Egyptians to migrate out of Egypt into Nubia and Kush. Herodotus’ mentions the mutiny of Psamtik I’s frontier garrison at Elephantine—these deerters moved into Kush. Moreover, the archaizing trend in Kush among the post Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Kings testfy to a possible large migration of Egyptians into Kush.
In 343 BC Nectanebos II, fled to Upper Egypt. Later according to the Natasen period stela we evidence of other Egyptians migrating into Kush from Egypt (Torok, 1997, p.391).
Between the 260’s-270’s BC Upper Egyptian Nationalists were fighting the Ptolemy (Greek) rulers of Egypt. The rebellion was put down by Ptolemy II. This military action led to Egyptians migrating out of Egypt into Kush (Torok, pp.395-396). These rebellions continued in Egypt into the 2nd Century BC (Torok, p.426).
Between Ptolomy II and Ptolemy V, the Greeks began to settle Egypt. This was especially true in the 150’sBC and led to many Egyptians migrating back into Egypt.
By the time the Romans entered Egypt, many Egyptians had already left Egypt and settled. Roman politics also forced many Egyptians to migrate into Kush. This was compounded by the introduction of the Pax Agusta policy of the Romans which sought the establishment of Roman hegemony within territories under Roman rule (Torok, 454-456). This led to the emigration of many Romans into Egypt.
The Kush was a multi-ethnic society. It included speakers of many languages within the empire. During most of Kushite history the elites used Egyptian for record keeping since it was recognized as a neutral language.
As more and more Egyptians, led by Egyptian nationalists, fled to Kush as it became under foreign dominantion the Egyptians formed a large minority in the Empire. Because of Egyptian migrations to Kush, by the rule of the Meroitic Queen Shanakdakheto, we find the Egyptian language abandoned as a medium of exchange in official records, and the Meroitic script takes its place.
By the rise of Greeks in Egypt, the cultural ideology , like the people were changing. This is supported by the transition from Demotic writing (7th 5th Centuries BC) to Coptic (4th BC-AD 1400). The Coptic people are the best evidence for the change in the Egyptian population. .
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I don't think there is a smoking gun for mass migration in the Nile Valley of the magnitude touted in some circles. In all my years, I've never seen evidence of mass migration of biblical proportions.
A lot of people cite mass migration as a reason for why modern Egyptians look the way they do but remain vague on the specifics. The argument goes "Egyptians were conquered many times" or "things changed with the arrival of Islam" but they make no attempt to correlate these periods with tangible data that supports demographic shifts radically different from other periods.
It might be that mass migration happened, but that we simply haven't detected it for various reasons. Also, as you point out, Oshun, one doesn't need mass migration to explain why the modern Egyptians shown in the media look different compared to the figures in regional rock art and the monuments.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: I know theres lots of stuff that talks about mass migration into Egypt which means modern egyptians are not genetically made exactly like AE but are there primary material like documents, mass graves, etc that show mass occupation into Egypt happened? I also read that migration of about 1 percent a year or so could tremendously change stuff but i dont remember what study it was that said that.
I believe you can find a passage saying that here:
S.O.Y. Keita and AJ Boyce, “The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians”, Egypt in Africa (1996: pp. 25–27
I've looked for that very text online so I could quote it more specifically, but for some reason Google isn't cooperating very well this time.
But as Swenet said, you don't necessarily need mass immigration to explain why modern Egyptians appear more Eurasian or Middle Eastern on average than the ones 4,000 or more years ago. As the Keita passage implies, it could have been a gradual trickle over the centuries rather than sudden, massive invasions. At any rate, there's no record I know of that states the indigenous Egyptian population was wiped out by any of the invaders.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
Sorry for bumping an old thread, but it came to mind after answering a question on Quora over whether modern Egyptians were predominantly descended from the ancient indigenous population.
Anyone who maintains that modern Egyptians are predominantly descended from some indigenous "North African Caucasoid" population will have to explain why the two largest components in Egyptian ancestry today show affinities with Europeans (blue) and Arabs (green). There is some ancestry with a Maghrebi (red) affinity (which we know has Eurasian influence), but in this particular graph it's barely thicker than the Luhya-like African (yellow) component. So even if one felt that AE ancestry would be best represented by the red Maghrebi-like component, it's clearly a minority in modern Egyptian ancestry.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:In all my years, I've never seen evidence of mass migration of biblical proportions....but they make no attempt to correlate these periods with tangible data that supports demographic shifts radically different from other periods.
Well actually this is one of the primary basis of my thread over on Egyptsearchreloaded. This is simply covered up by Westerners. The so called "Bantu migration" is a Western farce that is used to explain away our cohabitation with other Africoid populations along the Nile Valley prior to the 6th century B.C.E.
The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.
Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region." -- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528 Read more: ]http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/15/basic-database-nile-valley-studies#ixzz4ZAY7Ri7e
and add this given the context to the situation.
"Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV. -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404." Read more: ]http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1547/valley-origins-dispersal-niger-speakers#ixzz4ZAXfShvc
You have "Negroid" populations comprising the founding populations of Kemet until the time pointed out by Dr. Winters, and you later (and now) have a highly misceginated ( variable depending on location) Ethiopic (a remnant African element of the ancient population) Africoid population base.
The M2 lineage of West-South-Central Africa having originated in Eastern Africa along the Hapi River in Ta-Seti/Nubia is a pivotal fact yet ignored by Westerners. We know for a fact that we were along the Hapi River as the oral traditions of just about all Africans in the mentioned regions attest. We know from recent genetic evidence that the M2 lineage traveled northward from Nubia per the studies of Ramses III and the DNAtribes results for Amarna. That evidence taken into consideration completely debunks the Western lead lie that the migration of the M2 lineage into West Africa occurred during the ending of the last Ice Age.
Notice how he gives absolutely no evidence for the proclamation of that migration at that time period. He did an "It happened because I'm white and I say so".
The map above depicts Ehrets false narrative that wants to exclude the fact that the "Negroid" "Niger-Congo" speakers actually went northward up the path of the so called "Afro-Asiatic" expansion.
The M2 lineage and sickel cell adaptation which are indicative of only one particular population were found respectively in Pre-Dynastic and Dynastic remains. That should not be the case when there is no mention in Western scholarship of a migration of the only populations who carry those genetic traits north from the Sudan into Kemet if they were trust worthy as many on Egyptsearch seem to think.
I'm also reluctant to attribute that late date of the expansion into Kemet from the Sudan (again all based on Western linguist information) to the situation simply because anthropology is showing a much more ancient northward expansion into Kemet from the Sudan of Negroid populations that are older than the supposite origin date of "Niger-Congo".
The Nazlet Khater man and the "Nubian Complex" make it clear that there was a much more ancient bio-cultural continuum not only along the Nile but also into the adjacent Arabian peninsula.
Now take this "finding" into consideration however you would like, but there appears according to this finding to have been a highly advanced (engineering) civilization in place for over 70,000 years in Nubia.
you lose credibility by doing that.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Early Nile Valley-influenced ancient DNA speaks for itself:
quote:[P]resent-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians. We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia.
The beauty of published aDNA is that it removes the need for middlemen who try to inject their own opinionated "take" on things.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Early Nile Valley-influenced ancient DNA speaks for itself:
quote:[P]resent-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians. We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia.
The beauty of published aDNA is that it removes the need for middlemen who try to inject their own opinionated "take" on things.
That does not address nor negate a single point that was brought up in my post.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I'm afraid it does.
You've been bodied and you don't even realize it
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^One thing people should understand about Akachi is that, in his world, nothing ever negates his posts.
We're talking about the same person who used to debate me, swearing that Natufians were part of the larger Nile Valley Niger-Congo population. Now I post their DNA and he says it has nothing to do with his point.
quote:Originally posted by Akachi in 2014: Below is a map of the migration of these sickle cell carrying "Niger-Congo" speakers (along with Horners under the "Negro-Egyptian" language family detailed by Theophile Obenga) (detailed in Ricaut 2008) originating in Northeast Africa (Sudan) and migrating Northward into Egypt and eventually into the Levant (Natufians) and Europe.
Note how they silently vacate vehemently defended positions and later act like they were right all along somehow.
Like I said, this is the aDNA era. The aDNA speaks for itself. Readers can make up their own mind. There is nothing to debate here.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Knowing TMRCA of all E carriers, do you guys know why YRI is as different from Natufians as they are most any other non-African sample?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I'm afraid it does.
You've been bodied and you don't even realize it
This LOL.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^One thing people should understand about Akachi is that, in his world, nothing ever negates his posts.
We're talking about the same person who used to debate me, swearing that Natufians were part of the larger Nile Valley Niger-Congo population. Now I post their DNA and he says it has nothing to do with his point.
quote:Originally posted by Akachi in 2014: Below is a map of the migration of these sickle cell carrying "Niger-Congo" speakers (along with Horners under the "Negro-Egyptian" language family detailed by Theophile Obenga) (detailed in Ricaut 2008) originating in Northeast Africa (Sudan) and migrating Northward into Egypt and eventually into the Levant (Natufians) and Europe.
Note how they silently vacate vehemently defended positions and later act like they were right all along somehow.
It was a faction of different Africans (including the Twa (who lead and are responsible for the science of farming), Nilotic (missclassified as a "cro magnom" type), Ethiopic Africans), but the predominant group according to consistent anthropological evidence sported "Negroid" cranial morphology.
“..one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". (Angel 1972. Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean Populations.. JrnHumEvo 1:1, p307
I believe that it was an exodus of mostly "Negroid" -"Niger Congo Africans that largely had to do with their involvement in the first noted ethnic conflict (resulting from strained resources) in Jebel Sahara Sudan. I further attribute "Niger-Congo" speaking populations to those Natufians through the consistently noted affinity between early Kemetic populations (who were over 1/3 Negroid) and those adjacent Natufians through identical physical traits.
In case you missed it also my entire narrative is almost completely supplemented by contemporary research. Through his/her interpretations of various lines of research, Ricuat is in fact making the case that the Niger-Congo speaking populations originated along the Nile Valley....and spread into the adjacent Levant becoming those "Natufians" who spread north into Anatolia-Greece. He/She specifies that sickle cell found in anatolia coupled with the Negroid morphologies LOGICALLY means that the "Niger-Congo" populations were at the core of the Natufians.
From looking at the distribution of Benin sickle cell adaption who see a core basis throughout tropical Africa, and we also see and an unexplained distribution along the the Mediterranean and particularly in Palestine (Natufian territory), Syria, Turkey and Greece as well as North-Northwestern Africa.
Now in my logical opinion....The migration that explains how this unique blood lineage ended up in all of these places (that according to the arguments of Western scholars should never have taken place) is the so-called Afro-Asiatic migration (which again is Western lie, because Afro-Asiatic is a fake language family).
Now logically...since Afro-Asiatic is proven to be a fake language family..... YOU MUST NAME WHO IN THE HELL TOOK THAT MIGRATION PATH... and it was "Negroid-Niger speakers largely coupled with Cushitic speaking Ethiopic Africans. Now name the other populations in this World who have " true Negroid affinities. To throw off the certainly that I have that these affinities only indicate one particular in the World provide a list of the other populations throughout this Earth who could possibly fit that biological distinction.
quote: Like I said, this is the aDNA era. The aDNA speaks for itself. Readers can make up their own mind. There is nothing to debate here.
I don't play those Caucasians authority games though dude. The use of genetics to determine population relationships is nothing more than the Caucasians recent attempt to remystify what was demystified with consistent anthropology and other lines of information over a century ago. Their lies about ourstory and history had caught up with them when they tried for two centuries to misconstrue anthropology as Cheikh Anta Diop and other scholars proved decisively. Years ago I emailed SOY Keita about these issues, and he agrees that Westerners are trying to plays games games with DNA...........
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: that largely had to do with the their involvement in the first noted ethnic conflict (resulting from strained resources) in Jebel Sahara Sudan.[/b]
This is the only thing worth mentioning I agree with in your posts. And I'm surprised you of all people have made that link because most people haven't.
quote: Originally posted by Akachi: Now name the other populations in this World who have " true Negroid affinities. To throw off the certainly that I have that these affinities only indicate one particular in the World provide a list of the other populations throughout this Earth who could possibly fit that biological distinction.
Stuttgart from the German Neolithic.
Stuttgart has African ancestry and cranio-facial features you can find in Sub-Saharan Africa, but is genetically distant from Niger Congo speakers. Hope you didn't quit your dayjob because this anthro stuff clearly isn't working out for you.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Akachi, You're going to need to be able to understand explain the evolutionary mechanics responsible for shaping Hg E. putting your hands over your ears and yelling as loud as possible doesn't help those who are trying to learn, including yourself. The answers are there, wrapped up like layers of an onion, the "Caucasians" as you put it are the ones with all the knifes, you have to start peeling.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: The use of genetics to determine population relationships is nothing more than the Caucasians recent attempt to remystify what was demystified with consistent anthropology and other lines of information over a century ago.
Akachi's arguments and comebacks fit the classic hallmarks of pseudoscience. Here are some examples of classic red flags of pseudocience taken from the website quackwatch:
Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test. Pseudoscientists never carry out careful, methodical experiments themselves—and they also generally ignore results of those carried out by scientists. Pseudoscientists also never follow up. If one pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment (such as the "lost" biorhythm studies of Hermann Swoboda that are alleged basis of the modern pseudoscience of biorhythms), no other pseudoscientist ever tries to duplicate it or to check him, even when the original results are missing or questionable! Further, where a pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment with a remarkable result, he himself never repeats it to check his results and procedures. This is in extreme contrast with science, where crucial experiments are repeated by scientists all over the world with ever-increasing precision.
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings.
Howells took 57 measurements on a Natufian skull, Brace et al. only recorded 24. Howells study has the Natufian closest to Ainu (modern) and Zalavar (medieval Hungarians): "This view is be considered also in the case of the pro-Neolithic Natufian skull from the Levant. Ainu and Zalavar are the reasonable affiliations, which might be read as 'generalized European'." No close "Negroid" craniometric affinities at all.
You only get Natufians showing some west sub-Saharan African craniometric ties when you use much fewer measurements - the same happened for Upper Palaeolithic European skulls (see the G.V. Van Vark vs. Jantz and Owsley debate that covered 3 or more papers and replies.). With European UP crania with few measurements, closest match is with Zulu using FORDISC. But when the maximum amount of measurements is recorded (57) they score closest to Norse & Zalavar.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: that largely had to do with the their involvement in the first noted ethnic conflict (resulting from strained resources) in Jebel Sahara Sudan.[/b]
This is the only thing worth mentioning I agree with in your posts. And I'm surprised you of all people have made that link because most people haven't.
quote: Originally posted by Akachi: Now name the other populations in this World who have " true Negroid affinities. To throw off the certainly that I have that these affinities only indicate one particular in the World provide a list of the other populations throughout this Earth who could possibly fit that biological distinction.
Stuttgart from the German Neolithic.
Stuttgart has African ancestry and cranio-facial features you can find in Sub-Saharan Africa, but is genetically distant from Niger Congo speakers. Hope you didn't quit your dayjob because this anthro stuff clearly isn't working out for you.
Well logically if the "Negroid" Natufians who were the pioneers of the Neolithic migrated into Europe, then I would fully expect to see those Neolithic Europeans with Negroid traits as well.
and once again;
“.. one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians ....". (Angel 1972. Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean Populations.. JrnHumEvo 1:1, p307 Read more: ]http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1547/valley-origins-dispersal-niger-speakers#ixzz4ZF8XTBLR
This shows that the Natufians were Africans typified with the "Negroid" skeletal morphology and sickle cell adaption who migrated northward. You have not named any other type of "Negroid" morphology sporting sickle cell carrying human beings in this World could that that Neolithic population in Europe have possibly stemmed from.
Notice also how Angel indicated that the Sudanese-Nubian basis of the Natufian populations was also ancestral to the later "Negroid" Badarians who of course were ancestral to Dynastic Kemites. We know....That Niger-Congo speakers in Sub Saharan Africa today are simply the "Negroid" migrants of dynastic Hapi Valley civilization.
That logically means that the Natufians came from the same ancestral stock as contemporary Niger-Congo speakers. Now WALA bitch...it's that fucking simple.
Westerners and their agents promoting advocacy of their bullshit are trying to throw people off with the obfuscation of genetics. Some people have taken their participation in Caucasian cave dribble as a marker of intelligence, and that just speaks volumes about their own.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] Akachi, You're going to need to be able to understand explain the evolutionary mechanics responsible for shaping Hg E.
I know for one...that genetics while it is a revealing science it is still a baby. That being said it should never be the end all be all in this discussion per S.O.Y Keita. I'm not going to allow random bi-annual back and forth inferences thrown out from those baby steps along the path to completely negate what other lines of evidence (archaeology, anthropology, linguistics and including to a large extent genetics) run parallel to form a clear narrative.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: You have not named any other type of "Negroid" morphology sporting sickle carrying human beings in this World could that Neolithic population in Europe have possibly stemmed from.
If the criteria are sickle cell and negroid morphology, all African populations qualify. All African populations have admixture from Wet Sahara West/Central Africans because all African populations have L2a1 and related lineages that expanded during that time. You're not fooling anyone by trying to make it seem like Nile Valley groups were the only Africans influenced by this expansion.
quote:Additionally, around 20% of Eastern African lineages cluster within the L2a1 + 143 branch (24.8 ka in ML). A founder age of this cluster suggests a migration time at 14.8 ka [10.2; 19.5], pointing to a migration in the Late Glacial or postglacial period. Overall, as predicted by HVSI-I data, most of the L2 lineages entered [equatorial] Eastern Africa between 15 and 7 ka.
60,000 years of interactions between Central and Eastern Africa documented by major African mitochondrial haplogroup L2 http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12526 Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If the criteria are sickle cell and negroid morphology, all African populations qualify.
Now now let's not lie. Those traits typify one particular Africoid population within the scope of great African diversity, and that population is the "True Negroid" "Niger-Congo" population.
Now Swenet, Bitchoyku etc what other populations sports a "true Negroid" canial morphology (identified simply as "Niger-Congo" by anthropologist Ricaut and Brace) and the sickle cell lineage (you bitches keep running from the fact this is an inherited trait)
quote:All African populations have admixture from Wet Sahara West/Central Africans
Ok and that noted shared ancestry does not negate that Africans are the most genetically distinct populations on Earth. We know that at the time noted that this shared ancestry took place just about every population was huddled along the Hapi River struggling for strained resources. Despite that shared ancestry those population distinctions (Nilotes, Niger-Congo speakers, Cushitic Africans etc etc) are a biological reality.
quote:Additionally, around 20% of Eastern African lineages cluster within the L2a1 + 143 branch (24.8 ka in ML). A founder age of this cluster suggests a migration time at 14.8 ka [10.2; 19.5], pointing to a migration in the Late Glacial or postglacial period. Overall, as predicted by HVSI-I data, most of the L2 lineages entered Eastern Africa between 15 and 7 ka.http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12526 [/QB]
This study sadly plays the Devil's game by advocating the Nigerian-Cameroonian Bantu migration myth. That is absolute bullshit! The people who listen to Caucasians who they know are lying about this crucial piece of Africa population history cannot be trusted.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
If sicklemia was spread by L2a1 carriers, as you admit, all Africans with L2a1 could have spread sicklemia to Europe >10ky ago. The only reason why you can sit here and make up this tale about an exclusive sickle cell link between Niger Congo speakers and Nile Valley is because the mutation can only survive in regions where there is malaria. In African regions without malaria the mutation is subject to purifying selection (explaining why some L2a1 carrying populations may no longer have it today). But I bet you don't even know what purifying selection is.
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: Those traits typify one particular Africoid population within the scope of great African diversity
Prove it. Right now. Without copping out. Prove that other African populations (e.g. Omotics) don't have those features as part of their variations.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Also, Badarians had little to no sign of sicklemia, further weakening your claim that negroid features and sicklemia were necessarily connected in the Nile Valley.
Why don't you post full quotes from Angel relevant to the discussion? Or are you quote mining?
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If sicklemia was spread by L2a1 carriers, as you admit, all Africans with L2a1 could have spread sicklemia to Europe 10ky ago.
You're trying to play the genetic obfuscation game. My main point in noting that point of shared maternal ancestry was that despite it's African connection.... THERE ARE STILL CLEAR GENETIC DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN AFRICANS WITH IT.
I mean come on you know that if that was a legitimate connection uniting all Africans as biologically close then it would have been much more championed on this forum then the PN2 clade that only unites Y-DNA E carriers (and most importantly to some of you all it's links the pretty East Africans and Berbers with Niger-Congo speakers). Therefore let's not pretend that it is more than what it is!
quote: The only reason why you can sit here and make up this tale about an exclusive sickle cell link between Niger Congo speakers and Nile Valley is because the mutation can only survive in a population where there is malaria. In regions without malaria the mutation is subject to purifying selection.
Sickle cell is an adaption that formed naturally to combat malaria.
Despite the Bight of Biafra not being a highly marlaria infected area the over whelming presence of Niger-Congo speakers have determined that it would have extremely high frequencies of sickle cell.
I also use the distribution of sickle Cell in the Sub-tropical Afro-American population who we know are exclusively of the Niger-Congo Africoid type.
quote:Prove it. Right now. Without copping out. Prove that other African populations (e.g. OMotics) don't have those features as part of their variations.
Now you know that Omotic Ethiopians likely represent that ancestral haplogroup E population that Ethiopic and Niger-Congo speakers broke apart from. This small population obviously has ancestral traits to both.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, Badarians had little to no sign of sicklemia, further weakening your claim that negroid features and sicklemia were necessarily connected in the Nile Valley.p
Those "Negroid" predynastic Kemites were found with sickle cell none the less according to your own words!
quote:Why don't you post full quotes from Angel relevant to the discussion? Or are you quote mining? [/QB]
The reason why I picked that particular quote from angel is because it was actually built on with the more recent research by Ricaut in 2008. He took the "Negroid"-"Niger-Congo" affinities of these Natufians that were noted by Angel and completed the narrative with his own research see...
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: You're trying to play the genetic obfuscation game.
Why? Because it's inconvenient for you right now that all of Africa was influenced by expanding L2a1 carriers and not just the Nile Valley? Why is it not an obfuscation game when you use genetics to claim ancient Egyptians consisted of E-M2 carriers or that they had sickle cell of the Benin variety?
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: Now you know that Omotic Ethiopians likely represent that ancestral haplogroup E population that Ethiopic and Niger-Congo speakers broke apart from.
So then you admit that Niger Congo speakers aren't the only ones who fit the 'negroid' description and that other Africans fit your criteria just as easily?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Don't want to screw up this intellectually stimulating thread. But Ceasar and Alexander is a fake also.
No portrait of Alexander was EVER commissioned during his life-time. Correct me?!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Akachi:
Middle row, second from left is fake
Stop posting fake stuff, thanks
you lose credibility by doing that.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Don't want to screw up this intellectually stimulating thread. But Ceasar and Alexander is a fake also.
No portrait of Alexander was EVER commissioned during his life-time. Correct me?!
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Akachi:
Middle row, second from left is fake
Stop posting fake stuff, thanks
you lose credibility by doing that.
Yeah I didn't create those memes, but the point...
Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations... Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528
Is well taken.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
As an aside...
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: Now in my logical opinion....The migration that explains how this unique blood lineage ended up in all of these places (that according to the arguments of Western scholars should never have taken place) is the so-called Afro-Asiatic migration (which again is Western lie, because Afro-Asiatic is a fake language family).
I continue to be perplexed by the desire by certain wannabe-Afrocentrics to declare the entire Afrasan phylum fake. The phylum most probably originated in Africa to the south of Egypt. In fact I recently came across a map based on the scholarship of Roger Blench (another linguist who studies African languages) that places the proto-Afrasan homeland even further into the African interior than Ehret:
If you think about it, the scenario proposed by Blench actually would vindicate the narrative that AE ancestors came from further south within Africa, assuming these proto-Afrasans contributed a significant degree of ancestry to AE (though I am not 100% certain of this). It's not even that far from the African Great Lakes. So this hating on the Afrasan phylum as a construct doesn't make sense.
@ Swenet
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: You're trying to play the genetic obfuscation game.
Why? Because it's inconvenient for you right now
No bitch, you are trying to denounce the noted distinction of Afrioid types for the purpose of denying that their is a distinct variation ("Negroid") for "Niger-Congo" speakers that no other population on Earth has.
quote: Why is it not an obfuscation game when you use genetics to claim ancient Egyptians consisted of E-M2 carriers or that they had sickle cell of the Benin variety?
Well that's a straight forward finding.
We amplified 16 Y chromosomal, short tandem repeats (AmpF\STR Yfiler PCR amplification kit; Applied Biosystems).........Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1⇓); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a
Compare that to the genetic revelations of the ancient Minoans (Keita commented on the fuckery in an email to me) in which you have "Negroid" skull (yes again this was noted by Dr. Keita) that they are saying is an "indigenous European" because of the letter of a haplogroup.
quote: So then you admit that Niger Congo speakers aren't the only ones who fit the 'negroid' description and that other Africans fit your criteria just as easily?
Well logically...If we're discussing the remnants (very small numbers) of an ancestral population then there will remain shared traits, but they none the less have their own physical and genetic distinctions separating them from Niger-Congo speakers. That's a silly game of obfuscation that you're playing.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: As an aside...
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: Now in my logical opinion....The migration that explains how this unique blood lineage ended up in all of these places (that according to the arguments of Western scholars should never have taken place) is the so-called Afro-Asiatic migration (which again is Western lie, because Afro-Asiatic is a fake language family).
I continue to be perplexed by the desire by certain wannabe-Afrocentrics to declare the entire Afrasan phylum fake. The phylum most probably originated in Africa to the south of Egypt. In fact I recently came across a map based on the scholarship of Roger Blench (another linguist who studies African languages) that places the proto-Afrasan homeland even further into the African interior than Ehret:
If you think about it, the scenario proposed by Blench actually would vindicate the narrative that AE ancestors came from further south within Africa, assuming these proto-Afrasans contributed a significant degree of ancestry to AE (though I am not 100% certain of this). It's not even that far from the African Great Lakes. So this hating on the Afrasan phylum as a construct doesn't make sense.
@ Swenet
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
Here you go. From Theophile Obenga's mouth. In summary he says that Afro-Asiatic is a fake language that serves only an ideological purpose for Caucasian Westerners.
I trust Theophile Obenga on this matter over non African tongue speaking Caucasian liberals any day.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted Akachi: No bitch,
The midget got mad because I already had him cornered within a couple of posts.
Niger Congo speakers have no proto vocabulary for sheep and aurochs. And they were not in an aquatic environment such as the Nile. They were not in North Africa, you intellectual midget. Lol.
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted Akachi: No bitch,
The midget got mad because I already had him cornered without a couple of post.
Niger Congo speakers have no proto vocabulary for sheep and aurochs. And they were not in an aquatic environment such as the Nile. They were not in North Africa Intellectual midget. Lol.
I kicked your asses and I'm responding accordingly. You actually smugly suggested earlier that I promote a narrative without knowing what I'm talking. I attribute that to your cognitive dissonance or agent objective.
Also
BULLS (collective) Faulkner 111 Kiswahili-Bantu - Mori-wao (collective) "This also translates as mori. The Ancient Egyptians used the ending w as the plural form for the word mori. The ending w could be approximated to wao, meaning those. In other words it may be interpreted as those belonging to mori, the bulls, that is, mori-wao. The collective in -t are written as plural strokes. In these two examples the words for cattle or a herd appear to be duplicated. The word for a domestic animal which includes sheep, goat or ox in the Luvale-Bantu language is given by using the prefixed word chi-muna. This is clearly shown in the set of hieroglyphics given by Budge on page 299 as seen below. In the Oshindonga-Bantu language muna means, raise, rear, breed livestock."
Ancient Egyptian: ankhugoat, any small domestic animal
Ancient Egyptian: ankht goat
Northern Soto-Bantu: NKU = sheep In this instance, the Northern-Soto-Bantu language Nku is the word which defines a sheep."
Alright midget. Come back when you have evidence that proto-Niger Congo speakers had an awareness of aurochs and Barbary sheep and maybe you won't get laughed out the room.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: @ Swenet
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
I think Charlie Bass did a couple of posts on ancient Ethiopian and Somali skeletal remains. They're all 'negroid' as far as I know. But I don't think these sites are old enough to be relevant to your question.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: @ Swenet
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
I think Charlie Bass did a couple of posts on ancient Ethiopian and Somali skeletal remains. They're all 'negroid' as far as I know. But I don't think these sites are old enough to be relevant to your question.
So what is your opinion on exactly where in Africa did proto-Afroasiatic originate? Do you believe it to be the Ethiopian interior (Blench's suggestion), somewhere along the Red Sea coast (Ehret's), or somewhere else entirely?
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Alright midget. Come back when you have evidence that proto-Niger Congo speakers had an awareness of aurochs and Barbary sheep and maybe you won't get laughed out the room.
^^ Already responded.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: [QUOTE]
Now Swenet, Bitchoyku etc what other populations sports a "true Negroid" canial morphology (identified simply as "Niger-Congo" by anthropologist Ricaut and Brace) and the sickle cell lineage (you bitches keep running from the fact this is an inherited trait)
I have two NAS quotes for you:
quote: And bring it back up top, remove the fake king of New York You show off, I count dough off when you sample my voice I rule you, before, you used to rap like the Fu-Schnickens Nas designed your Blueprint, who you kidding?
quote: Y'all niggas deal with emotions like bitches What's sad is I love you 'cause you're my brother You traded your soul for riches My child, I've watched you grow up to be famous And now I smile like a proud dad, watching his only son that made it
Posted by Akachi (Member # 21711) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: [QUOTE]
Now Swenet, Bitchoyku etc what other populations sports a "true Negroid" canial morphology (identified simply as "Niger-Congo" by anthropologist Ricaut and Brace) and the sickle cell lineage (you bitches keep running from the fact this is an inherited trait)
I have two NAS quotes for you:
quote: And bring it back up top, remove the fake king of New York You show off, I count dough off when you sample my voice I rule you, before, you used to rap like the Fu-Schnickens Nas designed your Blueprint, who you kidding?
quote: Y'all niggas deal with emotions like bitches What's sad is I love you 'cause you're my brother You traded your soul for riches My child, I've watched you grow up to be famous And now I smile like a proud dad, watching his only son that made it
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Proto Afroasiatic.. rofl ...I would love to see it, sh!t don't even have a functioning phylum.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: As an aside...
quote:Originally posted by Akachi: Now in my logical opinion....The migration that explains how this unique blood lineage ended up in all of these places (that according to the arguments of Western scholars should never have taken place) is the so-called Afro-Asiatic migration (which again is Western lie, because Afro-Asiatic is a fake language family).
I continue to be perplexed by the desire by certain wannabe-Afrocentrics to declare the entire Afrasan phylum fake. The phylum most probably originated in Africa to the south of Egypt. In fact I recently came across a map based on the scholarship of Roger Blench (another linguist who studies African languages) that places the proto-Afrasan homeland even further into the African interior than Ehret:
If you think about it, the scenario proposed by Blench actually would vindicate the narrative that AE ancestors came from further south within Africa, assuming these proto-Afrasans contributed a significant degree of ancestry to AE (though I am not 100% certain of this). It's not even that far from the African Great Lakes. So this hating on the Afrasan phylum as a construct doesn't make sense.
@ Swenet
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
Afrasian does nor exist. As a result any hypothesis that models Afro-Asiatic in the spread of African people is invalid.
Proto-Afrasian is a joke.In many books on Afrasian languages, the proto-terms for this language are primarially semitocentric.
Both Ehret(1995) and Orel/Stolbova have reconstructed Proto-Afrsian. A comparison of the 217 linguistic sets used to demonstrate Proto-Afrasian lexica only 59 agree. Of Ehret's 1011 entries 619 are incompatible with Orel/Stolbova, while only 175 are complimentary.
Less than 6% of the cognate sets of Ehret were proposed by Orel/Stolbova and only 17% are complimentary. This illustrates the imaginary relationship that exist between the so-called Afrasian languages.
Obenga made it clear that AfroAsiatic does not exist and you can not reconstruct the Proto-language.
This is true. Ehret (1995) and Orel/Stolbova (1995) were attempts at comparing Proto-AfroAsiatic. The most interesting fact about these works is that they produced different results. If AfroAsiatic existed they should have arrived at similar results. The major failur of these works is that there is too much synononymy. For example, the Proto-AfroAsiatic synonym for bird has 52 synonyms this is far too many for a single term and illustrates how the researchers just correlated a number of languages to produce a proto-form.
Radcliffe commenting on these text observed:
quote: Both sources reconstruct lexical relationships in the attested languages as going back to derivational relationships in the proto-language. (In at least one case OS also reconstruct a derivational relationship-- an Arabic singular-plural pair qarya(tun), qura(n)-- as going back to lexical ones in Proto-Afroasiatic, reconstructions 1568, 1589.) E does this in a thorough-going way and the result is proto-language in which the basic vocabulary consists of a set of polysemous verbal roots with abstract and general meanings, while verbs with more specific meanings, and almost all nouns are derived by suffixation. Further all consonants in this language can serve as suffixes. I would argue that both points are violations of the uniformitarian principle. In general the underived, basic vocabulary of a language and specific and concrete, while abstract words are formed by derivation. Further it is rare for the full consonant inventory of a language to be used in its productive derivational morphology. Finally, given the well-known homorganic cooccurence restrictions on Afroasiatic roots (Greenberg 1950, Bender 1974), each suffix would have to have at least one allomorph at a different point of articulation and a hideously complex system of dissimilation rules would be needed to account for their distribution. E’s justification for this is revealing “With respect to triconsonantal roots in Semitic, a[n] ... explanation of the third consonant as lexicalized pre-proto-Semitic suffixal morphemes has now been put forward (Ehret 1989).... It has been applied here without apology because, quite simply it works.” This is the worst possible argument in favor of the hypothesis. As the above calculations have shown, such a procedure should indeed work quite well as a way of generating random noise.
Orel, Vladimir and Olga V. Stolbova. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a reconstruction. E.J. Brill. Leiden. .
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The Niger-Congo speakers originated in North and Middle Africa.
Niger-Congo Speakers probably played an important role in the peopling of the Sahara. Drake et al make it clear there was considerable human activity in the Sahara before it became a desert[1]. Drake et al [1] provides evidence that the original settlers of this wet Sahara, who used aquatic tool kits, were Nilo-Saharan (NS) speakers. The authors also recognized another Saharan culture that played a role in the peopling of the desert. This population hunted animals with the bow-and –arrow; they are associated with the Ounanian culture. The Ounanian culture existed 12kya [2].
The Ounanians were members of the Capsian population.There was continuity between the populations in the Maghreb and southern Sahara referred to as Capsians, Iberomaurusians, and Mechtoids [3]. The Niger-Congo speakers are decendants of the Capsian population.
Capsian people did not only live in Afrca, they were also present in South Asia. Using craniometric data researchers have made it clear that the Dravidian speakers of South India and the Indus valley were primarily related to the ancient Capsian or Mediterranean population [4-9]. Lahovary [7] and Sastri [8] maintains that the Capsian population was unified over an extensive zone from Africa, across Eurasia into South India. Some researchers maintain that the Capsian civilization originated in East Africa [7].
The Ounanian culture is associated with sites in central Egypt, Algeria, Mali, Mauretania and Niger [10]. The Ounanian tradition is probably associated with the Niger-Congo phyla. This would explain the close relationship between the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages.
The original homeland of the Niger-Congo speakers was probably situated in the Saharan Highlands during the Ounanian period. From here NC populations migrated into the Fezzan, Nile Valley and Sudan as their original homeland became more and more arid.
Below are 15 points that support a Saharan--not East African origin of the Niger-Congo speakers.
1. The Proto-Niger Congo population hunted animals with the bow-and –arrow; they are associated with the Ounanian culture. The Ounanian culture existed 12kya [2].
2. The Ounanians were members of the Capsian population.There was continuity between the populations in the Maghreb and southern Sahara referred to as Capsians, Iberomaurusians, and Mechtoids [3].
3. The Ounanian culture is associated with sites in central Egypt, Algeria, Mali, Mauretania and Niger. There are no East African sites. . 4. The original homeland of the Niger-Congo speakers was probably situated in the Saharan Highlands.
5. Proto-Niger- Congo people developed an agro-pastoral economy which included the cultivation of millet, and domestication of cattle (and sheep).
6. The Niger-Congo speakers probably began to exit the Saharan Highlands during the Ounanian period. By the 8th millennium BC Saharan-Sudanese pottery was used in the Air [22]. Ceramics of this style have also been found at sites in the Hoggar [22-23]. Dotted wavy-line pottery has also been discovered in the Libyan Sahara [22]. Again no sites are found in East Africa.
7. They migrated from the Highlands into Nubia.
7a. Genetic evidence supports the upper Nile settlement for the Niger-Congo speakers. Rosa et al, in a paper discussing the y-Chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau, noted that while most Mande & Balanta carry the E3a-M2 gene, there are a number of Felupe-Djola, Papel, Fulbe and Mande carry the M3b*-M35 gene the same as many non-Niger-Congo speaking people in the Sudan.
8. They were the C-Group people.
9. Researchers have conclusively proven that the Dravidians are related to the Niger-Congo speaking group and they originally lived in Nubia [7]. The Dravidians and C-Group people of Nubia used 1) a common BRW [7]; 2) a common burial complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures [7] and 3) a common type of rock cut sepulcher [7] and writing system [50-51]. .
.
10. The BRW industry diffused from Nubia, across West Asia into Rajastan, and thence to East Central and South India [30]. Singh [30] made it clear that he believes that the BRW radiated from Nubia through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India
11. The mtDNA haplogroups L1, L2, L3 and U5 are associated with Niger-Congo speakers. Phylogenetically all the Eurasian mtDNA branches descend from L3. The Pan-African haplotypes are 16189,16192,16223, 16278,16294, 16309, qnd 16390. This sequence is found in the L2a1 haplotype which is highly frequent among the Mande speaking group and the Wolof.
12. The phylogeography of y-Chromosome haplotypes shared among the Niger-Congo speakers include A,B, Elb1a, E1b1b, E2, E3a and R1 [57] (See: Figures 1-2). The predominate y-Chromosome among the Niger-Congo is M2, M35, and M33.
Haplogroup E has three branches carried by Niger-Congo populations E1, E2 and E3. The E1 and E2 clines are found exclusively in Africa. Haplogroup E3 is also found in Eurasia. Haplogroup E3 subclades are E3b, E-M78, E-M81 and E-M34. The E clades probably originated in Saharan Africa. This is based on the fact that the Niger-Congo people carry this haplogroup at high frequencies.
The majority of Niger-Congo speakers belong to E1b1a, Elb1b, E2 and R1. Around 90% belong to y-Chromosome group E (215,M35*).
Y-Chromosome haplogroup A is represented among Niger-Congo speakers. In West Africa, under 5% of the NC speakers belong to group A. Most Niger-Congo speakers who belong to group A are found in East Africa and belong to A3b2-M13: Kenya (13.8) and Tanzanian (7.0%).
13. The Bantu originated in Saharan Africa not East Africa. The Bantu expansion is usually associated with the spread of y-Chromosome E3a-M2. The most common branch of the V-38 haplogroup is E-M2. E-M2 dates to around 25ky old. It probably originated in the Highland area during the Ounanian period.
14. Some researchers claim that: “The downstreams SNP E-M180 possibly originated on the moist south-central Saharan savannah/grassland of northern West Africa during the early Holocene period. Much of the population that carried E-M2 retreated to southern West Africa with the drying of the Sahara. These later people migrated from Southeastern Nigeria and Cameroon ~8.0 kya to Central Africa, East Africa, and Southern Africa causing or following the Bantu expansion.[4][5][6] According to Wood et al. (2005) and Rosa et al. (2007), such population movements from West Africa changed the pre-existing population Y chromosomal diversity in Western, Central, Southern and southern East Africa, replacing the previous haplogroups frequencies in these areas with the now dominant E1b1a1 lineages.” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V38 “ In Kenya the frequentcy for E3a-M2 is 52%; and 42% in Tanzania. In Burkina Faso high frequentcies of E-M2* and E-M191* are also represented. It is interesting to note that among the Mande speaking Bisa and Mandekan there are high frequentcies of E-M2*. This is in sharp contrast to the Marka and South Samo who have high frequencies of E-M33.
15. The pristine form of R1-M173 is found in Africa. Y-Chromosome R is characterized by M207/ V45. The V45 mutation is found among NC speakers. The R1b mutations include V7, V8, V45, V69 and V88. The frequentcy of R1-M173 varies among Niger-Congo speakers. The frequentcy of R-M173 range between 3-54%. The most frequent subtype in Africa is V88 (R1b1a). Haplogroup R1b1a ranges between 2-20% among the Bantu speakers.The highest frequentcy of R1 is found among Fulbe or Fulani speakers .
In summary, the Niger-Congo speakers formerly lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan and Hoggar until after 4000 BC. Originally hunter-gatherers the Proto-Niger- Congo people developed an agro-pastoral economy which included the cultivation of millet, and domestication of cattle (and sheep).
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
I think Charlie Bass did a couple of posts on ancient Ethiopian and Somali skeletal remains. They're all 'negroid' as far as I know. But I don't think these sites are old enough to be relevant to your question.
So what is your opinion on exactly where in Africa did proto-Afroasiatic originate? Do you believe it to be the Ethiopian interior (Blench's suggestion), somewhere along the Red Sea coast (Ehret's), or somewhere else entirely?
When I look at various proposals of reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic words, I think it's somewhere that included Egypt and Sudan. I never understood the appeal of the Ethiopian homeland proposal and I think that the argument for Ethiopia may actually be weaker than the argument for the Levant. Both, IMO, are weaker than the argument for the eastern Sahara.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Proto-Afro-Asiatic can not be reconstructed. And most so-called reconstructed cognates are usually semiticentric, because the language does not exist across other African languages like Egyptian.It neither originated in the Levant or Ethiopia.
Both Ehret(1995) and Orel/Stolbova have reconstructed Proto-Afrsian. A comparison of the 217 linguistic sets used to demonstrate Proto-Afrasian lexica only 59 agree. Of Ehret's 1011 entries 619 are incompatible with Orel/Stolbova, while only 175 are complimentary.
Less than 6% of the cognate sets of Ehret were proposed by Orel/Stolbova and only 17% are complimentary. This illustrates the imaginary relationship that exist between the so-called Afrasian languages.
Obenga made it clear that AfroAsiatic does not exist and you can not reconstruct the Proto-language.
This is true. Ehret (1995) and Orel/Stolbova (1995) were attempts at comparing Proto-AfroAsiatic. The most interesting fact about these works is that they produced different results. If AfroAsiatic existed they should have arrived at similar results. The major failur of these works is that there is too much synononymy. For example, the Proto-AfroAsiatic synonym for bird has 52 synonyms this is far too many for a single term and illustrates how the researchers just correlated a number of languages to produce a proto-form.
Radcliffe commenting on these text observed:
quote: Both sources reconstruct lexical relationships in the attested languages as going back to derivational relationships in the proto-language. (In at least one case OS also reconstruct a derivational relationship-- an Arabic singular-plural pair qarya(tun), qura(n)-- as going back to lexical ones in Proto-Afroasiatic, reconstructions 1568, 1589.) E does this in a thorough-going way and the result is proto-language in which the basic vocabulary consists of a set of polysemous verbal roots with abstract and general meanings, while verbs with more specific meanings, and almost all nouns are derived by suffixation. Further all consonants in this language can serve as suffixes. I would argue that both points are violations of the uniformitarian principle. In general the underived, basic vocabulary of a language and specific and concrete, while abstract words are formed by derivation. Further it is rare for the full consonant inventory of a language to be used in its productive derivational morphology. Finally, given the well-known homorganic cooccurence restrictions on Afroasiatic roots (Greenberg 1950, Bender 1974), each suffix would have to have at least one allomorph at a different point of articulation and a hideously complex system of dissimilation rules would be needed to account for their distribution. E’s justification for this is revealing “With respect to triconsonantal roots in Semitic, a[n] ... explanation of the third consonant as lexicalized pre-proto-Semitic suffixal morphemes has now been put forward (Ehret 1989).... It has been applied here without apology because, quite simply it works.” This is the worst possible argument in favor of the hypothesis. As the above calculations have shown, such a procedure should indeed work quite well as a way of generating random noise.
Orel, Vladimir and Olga V. Stolbova. 1995. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a reconstruction. E.J. Brill. Leiden. .
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
At the base of the Semitic languages are usually African roots.
Examples of these roots in Semitic were made by Diop in his book The Cultural Unity of Black Africa. See page 113.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There is no such thing as AfroAsiatic.
To the contrary. The evidence for Afro-Asiatic is so strong that Y DNA and mtDNA line up in a way that is consistent with Afro-Asiatic.
^No one tampered with this map to make it align with the distribution of Afro-Asiatic. The genetic evidence accumulated over time and this Y DNA pattern emerged organically. This is how you know Afro-Asiatic works and is a sound scientific concept; independent lines of evidence are organically converging and saying the same thing.
The Negro-Egyptian proponents can't say that about their ideas. Obenga's ideas are notorious for completely falling apart as soon as you look for evidence outside of linguistics. You have all these people who have basically locked themselves up in their own linguistic bubble, scared to come out because other scientific fields are full of reality checks they don't want to be confronted with.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Also, Afro-Asiatic works because all of its predictions have come true so far. For instance, Kitchen et al 2009's prediction was that ancestral Semitic migrated out of Africa during the early Bronze Age and settled in the region of Syria:
In 2015 we got Bronze aDNA right across from Syria (Armenia) and guess what? We see the classic 'Semitic' E-M34 lineage in their aDNA.
Ehret and others have proposed that the Natufians spoke an early form of Afro-Asiatic. The African Y DNA haplogroups among the Natufians are unambiguously 'Afro-Asiatic', again, showing that proponents of Afro-Asiatic make predictions that are later confirmed.
Please explain how Afro-Asiatic is capable of making accurate predictions if its an arbitrary linguistic construct concocted by the white establishment.
Compare this with Obenga, who denies that Semitic is African. E-M34 in Bronze Age Armenia doesn't just confirm the validity of Afro-Asiatic, it also falsifies important aspects of Obenga's work. If you want to accept Obenga you basically have to become someone like Asar, who locks himself up in his linguistic bubble, or you have to become someone like Akachi who tries to integrate different ideas but fails completely.
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: @ Swenet
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
I think Charlie Bass did a couple of posts on ancient Ethiopian and Somali skeletal remains. They're all 'negroid' as far as I know. But I don't think these sites are old enough to be relevant to your question.
So what is your opinion on exactly where in Africa did proto-Afroasiatic originate? Do you believe it to be the Ethiopian interior (Blench's suggestion), somewhere along the Red Sea coast (Ehret's), or somewhere else entirely?
When I look at various proposals of reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic words, I think it's somewhere that included Egypt and Sudan. I never understood the appeal of the Ethiopian homeland proposal and I think that the argument for Ethiopia may actually be weaker than the argument for the Levant. Both, IMO, are weaker than the argument for the eastern Sahara.
Fair enough.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: a hypothesis about the place of origin of a language family or phylum must be based on linguistic evidence and methods, not on DNA or craniofacial patterns. --S.O.Y Keita
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
LOL. DNA does not demonstrate Afro-Asiatic Family of languages ever existed.
The DNA represents the people living in the area where the so-called Afro-Asiatic speakers live, so it does not tell us anything about the origins of the alleged Afro-Asiatic language family. The DNA just tells us what haplogroups are carried by people in this part of Northeast Africa and the Levant.
Afro-Asiatic is a linguistic term. It has to be explained by linguistic evidence. A genetically related language can be reconstructed and show regular correspondence. Ehret and Orel/Stolbova were attempts at comparing Proto-Afro-Asiatic. The most interesting fact about these works is that they produced different results. If AfroAsiatic existed they should have arrived at similar results. If the linguistic evidence does not exist supporting this linguistic family as illustrated in Ehret,C. Reconstructing Proto-Afro-Asiatic; and Orel, Vladimir and Olga V. Stolbova, Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a reconstruction the language family does not exist.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote: a hypothesis about the place of origin of a language family or phylum must be based on linguistic evidence and methods, not on DNA or craniofacial patterns. --S.O.Y Keita
Are you saying someone here has not used linguistic evidence to identify the homeland of a language family?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Clyde, you're just repeating yourself. I'm assuming you want to argue your points instead of doing a hit and run. If I'm wrong about your intentions, just say so, so I don't have to waste my time.
Please answer the question. How come Afro-Asiatic makes accurate predictions if it doesn't exist?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote: a hypothesis about the place of origin of a language family or phylum must be based on linguistic evidence and methods, not on DNA or craniofacial patterns. --S.O.Y Keita
Are you saying someone here has not used linguistic evidence to identify the homeland of a language family?
I threw that in, thought it might stick on somebody
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Researchers claim Afro-Asiatic is spoken predominantly in the the Horn of Africa, Middle East, North Africa,and parts of the Sahel. So of course the Y-DNA and mtDNA is going to line up consistent with where the so-called Afro-Asiatic speakers live.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
So, if I'm understanding you right, you say its only natural that this correlation exists. This assumes that you know of some sort of unknown reason (other than Afro-Asiatic) that these people are related in a way that resembles the structure of Afro-Asiatic. What is this unknown "self-evident" reason for this correspondence you seem to be hinting at?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Natural correlation exist because geneticist use Bayesian statistics to conduct their research.
In normal scientific research the researcher states a hypothesis and uses the scientific method to test his/her hypothesis. The validity and reliability of the piece of research is then determined by statistical significance tests focused on the interaction between the independent and dependent variable.
In the traditional evaluation of a piece of research literature you look at the researcher's hypothesis, results and statistical methods s/he used to determine the statistical significance of the research.
This is not the case in population genetics research; in this research you are evaluating statistical inferences based on the beliefs already held by the researcher about a set of data, instead of testing a hypothesis. This is why genetics research articles rarely test hypothesis, they only present a set of descriptive data which supports the point of view of the author.
As a result, the research contained in a population genetics article, reflects the views and beliefs already held by the researcher. Thusly, the statistical inferences will automatically support the views and beliefs held by that researcher; and any outliners that fail to support the researcher’s beliefs may not be mentioned in the resulting research.
As a result, the DNA data for Afro-Asiatic is going to automatically fit the regions where people speak these so-called languages because it matches the beliefs already held by the researchers relating to Afro-Asiatic language family.
. .
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
So, you're saying that everyone can take a genetic maker and build a linguistic narrative around it. So why are Obenga supporters struggling to do this with Negro-Egyptian? Where is the universal Negro-Egyptian marker (analogous to E-M35) with sublineages corresponding to different language groups within Negro-Egyptian? If what you're saying is true, you should have no shortage of lineages to pair Negro-Egyptian up with in this manner. What are they?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
lol I Don't quote Dr. Winters much but this...
quote: in this research you are evaluating statistical inferences based on the beliefs already held by the researcher about a set of data, instead of testing a hypothesis. This is why generic research articles rarely test hypothesis, they only present a set of descriptive data which supports the point of view of the author.
regardless though
the haplogroups have been periodically assigned to their language groups upon discovery, the "predictions" are weightless in validating the structure of the Language group. for instance, saying that an ancient sample probably spoke a proto-language cause their descendant speak the daughter language isn't really saying much. a good example of a prediction is assigning a parent between two siblings, only to see it being corroborated by DNA as well or vice versa. Eg. Which population spoke the egypto-Semitic language? - Based on DNA it should be some Pn2 group right...m215 no? if it has any weight linguistic evidence should somewhat support that...
In fact there should be a universal clear cut prediction of where ever this proto-AA tongue emerged. Considering we know so much about parental Hg lineage, Considering how "Well" these paternal groups fit into the AA "phylum"... the origin of protoAA should be no mystery.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I don't think there is a smoking gun for mass migration in the Nile Valley of the magnitude touted in some circles. In all my years, I've never seen evidence of mass migration of biblical proportions.
A lot of people cite mass migration as a reason for why modern Egyptians look the way they do but remain vague on the specifics. The argument goes "Egyptians were conquered many times" or "things changed with the arrival of Islam" but they make no attempt to correlate these periods with tangible data that supports demographic shifts radically different from other periods.
It might be that mass migration happened, but that we simply haven't detected it for various reasons. Also, as you point out, Oshun, one doesn't need mass migration to explain why the modern Egyptians shown in the media look different compared to the figures in regional rock art and the monuments.
Well instead of mass migration how about small scale invasion with later population expansions. We know that during dynastic times the majority of the population lived in the valley in contrast to modern times with the majority of the population living in the delta. Yes there were various invasions but it wasn't enough to change the native population persay through innundation and massive admixture. However, with demographic shifts due to massive population growth in the Delta one can see how the population can be skewed with those of foreign ancestry or admixture in the Delta being over-represented compared to those of the valley or even Baladi (natives of the Delta) who tend to be overshadowed economically and politically by the Afrangi (foreigners).
Oh and though Ausar was dishonest about his identity and heritage I did verify his knowledge about medieval Egypt to know that there were various invasions of Arab tribes during the Caliphates that reached well in the south of the valley.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: @ Swenet
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
I think Charlie Bass did a couple of posts on ancient Ethiopian and Somali skeletal remains. They're all 'negroid' as far as I know. But I don't think these sites are old enough to be relevant to your question.
So what is your opinion on exactly where in Africa did proto-Afroasiatic originate? Do you believe it to be the Ethiopian interior (Blench's suggestion), somewhere along the Red Sea coast (Ehret's), or somewhere else entirely?
When I look at various proposals of reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic words, I think it's somewhere that included Egypt and Sudan. I never understood the appeal of the Ethiopian homeland proposal and I think that the argument for Ethiopia may actually be weaker than the argument for the Levant. Both, IMO, are weaker than the argument for the eastern Sahara.
Do you know of some good documents with an overview of the arguments of someone like Blench or Bernal and why they place Afroasiatic in Ethiopia? I want to make sure I still feel the same way about Afroasiatic in Ethiopia knowing what I know now.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, Badarians had little to no sign of sicklemia, further weakening your claim that negroid features and sicklemia were necessarily connected in the Nile Valley.
Why don't you post full quotes from Angel relevant to the discussion? Or are you quote mining?
Correction. Badarian skeletal remains do, in fact, have the physical signs of anemia, sometimes interpreted as evidence of sicklemia. The table in Angel 1972 I was basing this on said evidence of porotic hyperostosis in Badarians was likely absent. Subsequent analyses have confirmed Badarian skeletal remains also have it (see link above).
Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: @ Swenet
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
I think Charlie Bass did a couple of posts on ancient Ethiopian and Somali skeletal remains. They're all 'negroid' as far as I know. But I don't think these sites are old enough to be relevant to your question.
So what is your opinion on exactly where in Africa did proto-Afroasiatic originate? Do you believe it to be the Ethiopian interior (Blench's suggestion), somewhere along the Red Sea coast (Ehret's), or somewhere else entirely?
When I look at various proposals of reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic words, I think it's somewhere that included Egypt and Sudan. I never understood the appeal of the Ethiopian homeland proposal and I think that the argument for Ethiopia may actually be weaker than the argument for the Levant. Both, IMO, are weaker than the argument for the eastern Sahara.
Do you know of some good documents with an overview of the arguments of someone like Blench or Bernal and why they place Afroasiatic in Ethiopia? I want to make sure I still feel the same way about Afroasiatic in Ethiopia knowing what I know now.
At the moment, this is the closest I could find. The Ethiopian homeland hypothesis he provides seems to be based on Omotic representing the most divergent and diversified branch of Afrasan.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I don't think there is a smoking gun for mass migration in the Nile Valley of the magnitude touted in some circles. In all my years, I've never seen evidence of mass migration of biblical proportions.
A lot of people cite mass migration as a reason for why modern Egyptians look the way they do but remain vague on the specifics. The argument goes "Egyptians were conquered many times" or "things changed with the arrival of Islam" but they make no attempt to correlate these periods with tangible data that supports demographic shifts radically different from other periods.
It might be that mass migration happened, but that we simply haven't detected it for various reasons. Also, as you point out, Oshun, one doesn't need mass migration to explain why the modern Egyptians shown in the media look different compared to the figures in regional rock art and the monuments.
Well instead of mass migration how about small scale invasion with later population expansions. We know that during dynastic times the majority of the population lived in the valley in contrast to modern times with the majority of the population living in the delta. Yes there were various invasions but it wasn't enough to change the native population persay through innundation and massive admixture. However, with demographic shifts due to massive population growth in the Delta one can see how the population can be skewed with those of foreign ancestry or admixture in the Delta being over-represented compared to those of the valley or even Baladi (natives of the Delta) who tend to be overshadowed economically and politically by the Afrangi (foreigners).
Oh and though Ausar was dishonest about his identity and heritage I did verify his knowledge about medieval Egypt to know that there were various invasions of Arab tribes during the Caliphates that reached well in the south of the valley.
Note also the unique geography of Egypt. Most Egyptians lived along the Nile river. There were few natural barriers in between population centers north to south; the barriers were mostly to the east and west. In times of an epidemic or invasions, the vast majority of the Egyptian population was basically sitting ducks. There were few places to hide without leaving their country (which, as you know, they were very reluctant to do). It seems to me that Egypt's geography makes it relatively easy for foreigners to disseminate along the Nile and change the native population compared to countries like Greece and Italy. These countries are insulated, spatially more spread out (as opposed to just in a narrow north-south direction) and have mountains and other refugia to retreat to.
It would be interesting to see someone model this and come up with statistics for different countries' susceptibility to migration and population change due to geography.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Nodnarb
Thanks. Will look into it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: @ Swenet
Incidentally, do you know if any skeletal remains have been uncovered from the Ethiopian region that date back to the probable origin of the Afrasan phylum (i.e. >10,000 BP)?
I think Charlie Bass did a couple of posts on ancient Ethiopian and Somali skeletal remains. They're all 'negroid' as far as I know. But I don't think these sites are old enough to be relevant to your question.
So what is your opinion on exactly where in Africa did proto-Afroasiatic originate? Do you believe it to be the Ethiopian interior (Blench's suggestion), somewhere along the Red Sea coast (Ehret's), or somewhere else entirely?
When I look at various proposals of reconstructed proto-Afro-Asiatic words, I think it's somewhere that included Egypt and Sudan. I never understood the appeal of the Ethiopian homeland proposal and I think that the argument for Ethiopia may actually be weaker than the argument for the Levant. Both, IMO, are weaker than the argument for the eastern Sahara.
Do you know of some good documents with an overview of the arguments of someone like Blench or Bernal and why they place Afroasiatic in Ethiopia? I want to make sure I still feel the same way about Afroasiatic in Ethiopia knowing what I know now.
At the moment, this is the closest I could find. The Ethiopian homeland hypothesis he provides seems to be based on Omotic representing the most divergent and diversified branch of Afrasan.
I agree with Swenet that the likely urheimat of Proto-Afrasian is somewhere in the eastern Sahara which does not exclude the Red Sea coast of Ehret's hypothesis. That said, I believe Omotic may indeed represent the most divergent member of the phylum but that doesn't mean that Omotic originated in Ethiopia let alone proto-Afrasian.
Just because a language or language group is found in an area today does not necessarily mean it originated there, and this is especially true for very ancient linguistic groups that were concieved during late paleolithic times.
My personal hypothesis is that the oldest or most divergent branches simply radiated out the furthest from the urheimat before historical expansions of other branches of course. Note I said branches (plural) as there is no doubt that there were other branches of Afrasian that went extinct. In fact, I personally believe that the first expansion of Afrasian into Southwest Asia probably wasn't pre-proto-Semitic but an entirely different branch of Afrasian.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Note also the unique geography of Egypt. Most Egyptians lived along the Nile river. There were few natural barriers in between population centers north to south; the barriers were mostly to the east and west. In times of an epidemic or invasions, the vast majority of the Egyptian population was basically sitting ducks. There were few places to hide without leaving their country (which, as you know, they were very reluctant to do). It seems to me that Egypt's geography makes it relatively easy for foreigners to disseminate along the Nile and change the native population compared to countries like Greece and Italy. These countries are insulated, spatially more spread out (as opposed to just in a narrow north-south direction) and have mountains and other refugia to retreat to.
It would be interesting to see someone model this and come up with statistics for different countries' susceptibility to migration and population change due to geography.
Your point regarding Egypt is precisely my point. I have heard arguments that the oases may have been refugia but even these areas were not safe from foreign influence as we have seen from past genetic studies.
By the way, European nations like Greece and Italy were not as insulated as you think. Sure there were mountains for the natives to take refuge but foreign invasions in these nations is largely underrated and underestimated. I'll save that topic for another thread.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@DJ
Note the northern borders of Greece and Italy. Seems ideal to me from a military viewpoint (especially during the Bronze Age, when most powers invested in chariots and didn't have great navies), although not insurmountable as you pointed out DJ. I think Egyptian generals and kings knew their geography didn't provide enough protection. Hence, why they used the Levant as a buffer zone after the Hyksos invasion.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Well the invasions I was referring to in regards to Greece and Italy largely date from Medieval to modern times. But I get your point.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Václav Blažek, argues in AFROASIATIC MIGRATIONS: LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE, that “ Regarding the tree-diagram above, the hypothetical scenario of disintegration of Afroasiatic and following migrations should operate with two asynchronic migrations from the Levantine homeland: Cushitic (& Omotic?) separated first c. 12 mill. BP (late Natufian) and spread into the Arabian Peninsula; next Egyptian, Berber and Chadic split from Semitic (the latter remaining in the Levant) c. 11-10 mill. BP and they dispersed into the Nile Delta and Valley “. .
. Václav Blažek hypothesis is unfounded because the Natufians originated in East Africa and spread to the Levant. As a result, the foundation of the hypothesis is faulty since it does not conform to the archaeological reality.
Add this to the fact that the Nilo-Saharan speakers founded the Aqualithic culture which is 12.5ky old. Yet, Václav Blažek believes that Cushitic separated from Afro-Asiatic in the Levant 7.5kya. As a result, the Proto-Cushitic speakers based on archaeology would have been in Africa, 5000 years before they allegedly separated from Proto-Afro-Asiatic in the Levant.
Finally, he has Egyptian breaking away from Afro-Asiatic in the Levant -7200. This is impossible, because the Egyptian civilization originated in the Sahara—not the Levant. In fact, there is no evidence of Levantines influencing the rise of Egypt.
In summary, the archaeological evidence disputes Václav Blažek’s theory. The presence of Proto-Nilo-Saharans and Proto-Egyptians in Africa nullifies the entire theory.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Well the invasions I was referring to in regards to Greece and Italy largely date from Medieval to modern times. But I get your point.
It's interesting you say that because I've been reading about the Renaissance lately. Now that you've said that I definitely know what you're talking about.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Lol. I see what you did there, Clyde. If you can't answer the question just say so. What you're saying right now doesn't take away the thorn in the side of Obenga supporters: the structural correspondence between Afroasiatic language families and E-M35 sublineages (e.g. Semitic and E-M34). Even if you say Afroasiatic doesn't exist, the other fields still point to Afroasiatic-like relationships on all sides of the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. It's not like wishing away Afroasiatic clears ground for Negro-Egyptian. Saying Afroasiatic doesn't exist still doesn't get you a nanometer closer to establishing Negro-Egyptian genetic and archaeological relationships in areas where Afroasiatic is spoken. The African component of the Natufians, PPN and later groups is E-M35, not some universal Negro-Egyptian lineage Obenga supporters wish they could latch onto.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Afro-Asiatic does not exist.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Well the invasions I was referring to in regards to Greece and Italy largely date from Medieval to modern times. But I get your point.
It's interesting you say that because I've been reading about the Renaissance lately. Now that you've said that I definitely know what you're talking about.
Correction. At least since late Roman Empire times were there major incursions into Italy and Greece.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You don't even understand what you posted. SMH.
Understand the context. More =in this instance means the share the SAME amount of SSA ancestry and no more.
In other words Natufians ***DO** have SSA ancestry.
They could not test modern Berbers...yeah right> Why? because it will screw they premise because the Natufians are Amazigh.
You are so dense ...sometimes.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [Q] Early Nile Valley-influenced ancient DNA speaks for itself:
quote:[P]resent-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share**** MORE*** alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians. We [b]****could not test**** for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia.[/]
The beauty of published aDNA is that it removes the need for middlemen who try to inject their own opinionated "take" on things. [/QB]
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
That is not the point. I have said many times that the Natufians had a degree of SSA ancestry. I don't think that needs repeating every time I point out that the Africans who mixed with the Natufians had a northeast African YDNA and autosomal profile.
Why should I? Just because some people feel insecure if I don't slide in that extra side-note that Natufians' African side was northeast African + some SSA? Get a life gramps.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
you are welcome......SMH
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: That is not the point. I have said many times that the Natufians had a degree of SSA ancestry. I don't think that needs repeating every time I point out that the Africans who mixed with the Natufians had a northeast African YDNA and autosomal profile.
Why should I? Just because some people feel insecure if I don't slide in that extra side-note that Natufians' African side was northeast African + some SSA? Get a life gramps.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
As I said many times. There is No, nein, nada, zero genetic evidence that AE was invaded by Romans, Greeks, Steppes, Persians other than Modern Turks. I challenge anyone to provide the proof. ANYONE!!!!!!!!!
That leaves only one logical conclusion.....anyone?
Carry on with this nonsensical thread.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
To the newbies who don't get it. That is why ALL, ALL, ALL published DNA of AEians have them DISTANTLY related to the people who currently occupy their land. And at the same time closely related to Africans further South and West. Modern Egyptians are heavily admixed West Asians (ie Turks).
---
caryy on.....SMH
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: You don't even understand what you posted. SMH.
Understand the context. More =in this instance means the share the SAME amount of SSA ancestry and no more.
In other words Natufians ***DO** have SSA ancestry.
They could not test modern Berbers...yeah right> Why? because it will screw they premise because the Natufians are Amazigh.
You are so dense ...sometimes.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [Q] Early Nile Valley-influenced ancient DNA speaks for itself:
quote:[P]resent-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share**** MORE*** alleles with Natufians than with other 192 ancient Eurasians. We [b]****could not test**** for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia.[/]
The beauty of published aDNA is that it removes the need for middlemen who try to inject their own opinionated "take" on things.
[/QB]
The article is bs. the levantines were SSA.Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.
The genetic data only makes it clear these people were Africans and does nothing to support Afro-Asiatic.
Reference:
Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) .
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Also, one thing gramps 'forgot' to mention, is that SSA were apparently closer to some random Eurasians in some cases than they were to Natufians in one analysis. So, gramp's attempt to act like the comparison somehow still leaves room for a Niger-Congo interpretation fails completely.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Agreed Dr Winters. Swenet cannot read properly. Probably flunked out of high school and became a hustler? lol!
anyways.
-- Again to be clear the Natufians are Africans(Berbers). A mixture of SSA and North African DNA(ie basal Eurasian). They carry 'no" Neanderthal Ancestry just as modern SSAfricans. (Pssst!- in reality they do it is just in smaller genetic segments - sources cited). They carry no Hg-La Brana ancestry. Why? Because they just left Africa through the Levant. Also if you read and understand the paper Sardinians are MORE related to Africans than Natufians. Keeping in mind Sardinians are the closest "Europeans" to EEF. What does it all mean. The passage was NOT through the Levant but via Tunisia/Sardinia and upcoming papers will also show through Morocco/Iberia.
Excuse me for interjecting with common sense....carry on!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Watch gramps go MIA or ignore what I said above.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
WTF did you just babble there....man! you are hopeless. Also WTF is "random'. SMH . What do you sell Swenet? Lol!
We know some modern populations OUTSIDE of Africa carry SSA ancestry . Yemenis is a prime example and it is not due to the supposed slave trade. Since the early Holocene SSA occupied the Arabian peninsular . Sources cited many times over.
QUOTE: "Also, one thing gramps 'forgot' to mention, is that SSA were apparently closer to some RANDOM Eurasians in some cases than they were to Natufians in one analysis. So, gramp's attempt to act like the comparison somehow still leaves room for a Niger-Congo interpretation fails completely."
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, one thing gramps 'forgot' to mention, is that SSA were apparently closer to some RANDOM Eurasians in some cases than they were to Natufians in one analysis. So, gramp's attempt to act like the comparison somehow still leaves room for a Niger-Congo interpretation fails completely.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Post the Fst values of the Natufians vis a vis the rest of the samples and let the readers make up their own mind. No need for all this extra chest thumping and hollow rhetoric.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: There is no deny modern Europeans are depigmented Africans. That is undeniable. That is clear now.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed Dr Winters. Swenet cannot read properly. Probably flunked out of high school and became a hustler? lol! anyways. -- Again to be clear the Natufians are Africans(Berbers). A mixture of SSA and North African DNA(ie basal Eurasian).
quote: The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200–8800 BCE. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region
So xyyman why do you insist that the ancestors of modern Europeans went to Europe by crossing Gibraltar? Shouldn't you revise that to the Levant and the Natufians with the path out of Egypt and then coming from the middle east?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Tic toc, tic toc (xyyman's voice)
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Again. To be clear this is not some rocket science high tech super intelligent requireming stuff. The pattern is very clear. Only the racist, racialist and delusional will conclude other than Modern Europeans are depigmented Africans. Rosenberg et al made it clear since his 2002 deep AIM analysis of modern Humans. He stated it was a continuum. His "Unsupervised" AIM analysis had shown modern Europeans were MORE African than non-African. That does not mean "non-African is not African also of course. There was essentially TWO major waves. Paleolithic and Neolithic. Close to 15years later Lazardis (his now famous paper) et al along with over 100 well-known genetic scientist concluded the same thing. Basal Eurasian is African. The continuum transcends North Africa to Southern Europe. And NOT through the Levant. So , obviously there were shallow waters or land masses between the two lands of North Africa and Southern Europe including Iberia. That is why Haplotypes of mtDNA H found in North Africa is similar to BOTH the Levant/Near east and Europe. And E1b1-sub-clades found in Europe and Levant is different yet ALL subclades is found in AFRICA. Both Levant /Near east is DIFFERENT to Europe. The Natufian analysis further confirms that. Natufians are North Africans who did NOT make it to Europe but will be similar to Eurasians in Turkey and points further East in Asia up to the Harrapan Valley.
As I said before the ONLY perplexing thing was R1b-M269. Why the sudden dominance? aDNA WILLshow that R1b-M269 is OLDER in Africa than Europe. You will see that eventually. That is why R1b-M269 was present in the ancient Canary Islanders BEFORE supposed "European" colonization.
This is not rocket science people.
BTW - it all goes back to the LWK. I said ti before and some scuffed. LWK(or similar popualtion0 are ancestral to Berbers who are in turn ancestral Europeans. This is too easy.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: There is no deny modern Europeans are depigmented Africans. That is undeniable. That is clear now.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Agreed Dr Winters. Swenet cannot read properly. Probably flunked out of high school and became a hustler? lol! anyways. -- Again to be clear the Natufians are Africans(Berbers). A mixture of SSA and North African DNA(ie basal Eurasian).
quote: The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200–8800 BCE. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region
So xyyman why do you insist that the ancestors of modern Europeans went to Europe by crossing Gibraltar? Shouldn't you revise that to the Levant and the Natufians with the path out of Egypt and then coming from the middle east?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Sergi ...and xyyman...were right. Sergi got it right over 125 years ago through cranium analysis.
Coon also.
See Dhoxie ...I give whites what is due to them! Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Sergi ...and xyyman...were right. Sergi got it right over 125 years ago through cranium analysis.
Coon also.
So xyyman why do you insist that the ancestors of modern Europeans went to Europe by crossing Gibraltar? Shouldn't you revise that to the Levant with the Natufians, the path out of Egypt and then coming from the middle east to Europe?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: As I said many times. There is No, nein, nada, zero genetic evidence that AE was invaded by Romans, Greeks, Steppes, Persians other than Modern Turks. I challenge anyone to provide the proof. ANYONE!!!!!!!!!
That leaves only one logical conclusion.....anyone?
Carry on with this nonsensical thread.
Are you saying that the historical texts of all those peoples you mentioned (Persians, Greeks, Romans) as well as Arabs are are not proof??! Are you saying all the archaeology showing the presence of all these peoples is not proof??!
Saying that the invasions of all theses peoples was not enough to change the native demographics is one thing, but to say these invasions "never occurred" is something else entirely. These are just historical facts verified not only by the texts, but archaeology, and even genetics.
I find it strange how you deny the invasions of all these groups except the Turks which only occurred during the Ottoman Empire. Exactly what is your fixation on the Turks anyway??
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
" the Pillars of Hercules" paper which I referenced many times made it clear. Kefi 2014 paper added fuel to the flame. This is not too difficult to understand. The Pillars paper made it clear. mtDNa H haplotypes found in Southern Europe which includes Iberia and Sardinia/Italy is only a SUB_SET found in North Africa like the Saharawis /Morocco and Tunisia. The Nile was Obviously a barrier...sources sited. SSA for some reason odd reason had full control of that land AFTER the Natufian migration. I am thinking remember E1b1b is 18,000years old!!! It is essentially Paleolithic unlike E1b1a which middle-late Neolithic. AEians are E1b1a. All are Africans.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] Sergi ...and xyyman...were right. Sergi got it right over 125 years ago through cranium analysis.
Coon also.
So xyyman why do you insist that the ancestors of modern Europeans went to Europe by crossing Gibraltar? Shouldn't you revise that to the Levant with the Natufians, the path out of Egypt and then coming from the middle east to Europe?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [qb] As I said many times. There is No, nein, nada, zero genetic evidence that AE was invaded by Romans, Greeks, Steppes, Persians other than Modern Turks. I challenge anyone to provide the proof. ANYONE!!!!!!!!!
That leaves only one logical conclusion.....anyone?
Carry on with this nonsensical thread.
Are you saying that the historical texts of all those peoples you mentioned (Persians, Greeks, Romans) as well as Arabs are are not proof??! Are you saying all the archaeology showing the presence of all these peoples is not proof??!
No, he's saying that genetics proves that to be fake history
A white so called scientist could easily plant a skull or stone artifacts and then say "see I found this here"
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
What Fuckging hsitorical text. Can you read latin?
Even in that recent ancient Canary Islander paper the WHITE Author admitted the lies perpetuated in academia. That Iberians, Canary Islanders and North Africans share archaeological connections through their scripts. But we are being lied to...
Look man! I am only the messenger. "books" can be doctored. Europeans lie. You need to understand that first and foremost. There is absolute NO!!! genetic evidence the Romans and Greeks occupied AE unless they are one and the same people Africans. GIVE ME THE GENETIC PROOF or stop BSing. GIVE ME the GENETIC Proof!!
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: As I said many times. There is No, nein, nada, zero genetic evidence that AE was invaded by Romans, Greeks, Steppes, Persians other than Modern Turks. I challenge anyone to provide the proof. ANYONE!!!!!!!!!
That leaves only one logical conclusion.....anyone?
Carry on with this nonsensical thread.
Are you saying that the historical texts of all those peoples you mentioned (Persians, Greeks, Romans) as well as Arabs are are not proof??! Are you saying all the archaeology showing the presence of all these peoples is not proof??!
Saying that the invasions of all theses peoples was not enough to change the native demographics is one thing, but to say these invasions "never occurred" is something else entirely. These are just historical facts verified not only by the texts, but archaeology, and even genetics.
I find it strange how you deny the invasions of all these groups except the Turks which only occurred during the Ottoman Empire. Exactly what is your fixation on the Turks anyway??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] What Fuckging hsitorical text. Can you read latin?
Even in that recent ancient Canary Islander paper the WHITE Author admitted the lies perpetuated in academia.
when were the Canary Islands first inhabited by people?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I am saying the effect and presence in Africa may be grossly exaggerated!!1 We already know modern Greeks carry African genes including sickle traits. We also know that Cleopatra was white, no black no white no black. lol! Sources cited.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
There is absolute NO!!! genetic evidence the Romans and Greeks occupied AE unless they are one and the same people Africans. GIVE ME THE GENETIC PROOF or stop BSing. GIVE ME the GENETIC Proof!!
Why would you see any genetic evidence Europeans are depigmented Egyptians?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I have no idea. But based upon the genetic evidence it was long before what is "documented" in books. Lol! Why? Canary Islanders carry their own unique version of the North African mtDNA Hg U6. U6 is Paleolithic. So I will guess may be early Neolithic. Also keep in mind in that Cape Verde paper the people occupying Islands of the coast of Nigeria are NOT SSA. They are North Africans genetically. I am guessing that is another lie. Modern Europeans did meet Africans occupying those Islands when they "discovered" it.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] What Fuckging hsitorical text. Can you read latin?
Even in that recent ancient Canary Islander paper the WHITE Author admitted the lies perpetuated in academia.
when were the Canary Islands first inhabited by people?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Fool! The Nile was a barrier. Sources cited. I am thinking control of the water ways by the young upstarts E1b1a. Natufians are North Africans, we know that, North Africans are ...well..North Africans so why are the Egyptians SSA? Obviously All of North Africa and the Levant was controlled by the North African related peoples. IIRC 8000year old Neolithics of the Levant were mtDNA H, L, and K. Right?
Eva Fernadez et al?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
There is absolute NO!!! genetic evidence the Romans and Greeks occupied AE unless they are one and the same people Africans. GIVE ME THE GENETIC PROOF or stop BSing. GIVE ME the GENETIC Proof!!
Why would you see any genetic evidence Europeans are depigmented Egyptians?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Watch gramps go MIA or ignore what I said above.
Lol. One thing about xyyman is he knows when to be loud and when to pick his battles wisely.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Look man! I am only the messenger. "books" can be doctored. Europeans lie. You need to understand that first and foremost. There is absolute NO!!! genetic evidence the Romans and Greeks occupied AE unless they are one and the same people Africans. GIVE ME THE GENETIC PROOF or stop BSing. GIVE ME the GENETIC Proof!!
To what extent are modern Egyptians primarily the descendants of ancient Egyptians?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
There is no genetic proof, no archaeological proof nor anthropological proof that AE was occupied or invaded by Modern Europeans except through "documented" history. lol! Nein! certainly not through genetics.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Come on agent provocateur, we went through this ...how many times?
Yes, Modern Egyptians are "primarily" Africans but they are the MOST admixed of all Africans(North). As that one paper we battled over contends it commenced around 1300AD. The author tried to spin it as Mohamedian invasion but the date better corresponds to Ottoman Turks. Sources cited. DNATribes contend modern Egyptians are up to 18% Turks/Levant(Not Bedoiuns). Modern Egyptians are not really Maghrebians but an admixture of Sub-Saharan Africans and Turks with small amounts of Maghrebian.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Look man! I am only the messenger. "books" can be doctored. Europeans lie. You need to understand that first and foremost. There is absolute NO!!! genetic evidence the Romans and Greeks occupied AE unless they are one and the same people Africans. GIVE ME THE GENETIC PROOF or stop BSing. GIVE ME the GENETIC Proof!!
To what extent are modern Egyptians primarily the descendants of ancient Egyptians?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I win these battles because I can defend EVERYTHING I post on. I can back it up with data. EVERYTHING!!! I don't selectively picture spam becauseI have never been to Africa so I have no idea what ALL Africans or a Berber looks like. I have been to Northern Central Europe many times but not Iberia or Italy.
Not to mention my IQ is off the charts....signed...Mensa.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Watch gramps go MIA or ignore what I said above.
Lol. One thing about xyyman is he knows when to be loud and when to pick his battles wisely.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
You think people didn't notice that you changed your tune when I asked you to post Fst data from the supps from Lazaridis et al 2016?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You can't make this stuff up. I didn't write this...hooonnnnest! lol!
This is from Mr La Brana - Carles Lalueza-Fox,
All Western Europeans had blue eyes and black skin and then white skin and dark eyes Africans arrived. Keep in mind It looks like Paleolithic Africans (Cape Verde) indicates Africans also had light eyes. Genetics is really turn the world upside down. Of course the Kurgan thing is nonsense and he knows it. He will come around when cornered. The flaw is assuming the women don’t exist! Tsk tsk! White males!
Because 8,000 years ago the whole population of Western Europe had blue eyes
And what came next?
A wave of dark-eyed and fair-skinned people came from the Middle East and settled in western Europe 6,500 years ago.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Do you think my man(Mr la Brana) is reading my posts. lol!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: There is no genetic proof, no archaeological proof nor anthropological proof that AE was occupied or invaded by Modern Europeans except through "documented" history. lol! Nein! certainly not through genetics.
xyyman you are not making sense here
What would be genetic proof that AE was occupied or invaded by Modern Europeans ?
If a group of Europeans occupied Africa and their DNA is the same as African DNA they are biologically Africans, depigmented Africans as you say. Therefore you cannot use genetics to find out if they invaded Egypt even though they may still have invaded Egypt. You would have to look at other types of evidence
Since you can point to NOTHING which would be genetic proof then you cannot say there is no genetic proof.
I am going closely by your premises, don't get emotional now, just please address the above
It is very contradictory to say Europeans are depigmented Africans and then say there is no genetic evidence of them being in Africa. There wouldn't be such evidence if they are Africans, you are trying to play both sides at once, it doesn't work
Kiswahili-Bantu - Mori-wao (collective) "This also translates as mori. The Ancient Egyptians used the ending w as the plural form for the word mori. The ending w could be approximated to wao, meaning those. In other words it may be interpreted as those belonging to mori, the bulls, that is, mori-wao. The collective in -t are written as plural strokes. In these two examples the words for cattle or a herd appear to be duplicated. The word for a domestic animal which includes sheep, goat or ox in the Luvale-Bantu language is given by using the prefixed word chi-muna. This is clearly shown in the set of hieroglyphics given by Budge on page 299 as seen below. In the Oshindonga-Bantu language muna means, raise, rear, breed livestock."
any small domestic animal 
goat 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
