quote:
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
quote:Of course I expect the presence of Eurasian mtDNA in AE remains from that period. Just not at a higher proportion than modern Egyptians. But again, we will see what's up with it all when the stuff gets published.
Originally posted by Swenet:
You expect aDNA from during and after the Third Intermediate Period to not contain any Eurasian mtDNAs?
quote:My ideas have changed from YEARS ago when that data was leaked. Regardless of what I said about that specific list of lineages that does not let Afrocentricity off the hook for thinking that AE was ALL sub Saharan, ALL the time......ignoring ALL the ancient DNA outside of Africa showing discontinuity, and ignoring African sub Structure all together. ES has been repreating that same mantra over and over when its quite clear that that idea is no longer tenable.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Noticed Beyoku had a different tone recently, especially in regards to the "list" he posted before I joined... Is this it? Or is there more?
quote:This argument is NOT new. Remember the Dakhla Oasis data that was interpreted that way?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Whats surprising is the fact that supposed SSA ancestry increases during the Roman period.... Not the fact that the subjects were of Eurasian decent.
quote:Why are you always biting off my posts? And you don't know that they're Eurasian. I said if they don't have regional ancestry they're not Egyptian. Then you come around and say it's a fact that they're Eurasian. It's not a fact that they're Eurasian. It's a fact that these tested mummies are not Sub-Saharan African. Live with it. And stop biting my posts. Read papers and book and come up with your own ideas.
Whats surprising is the fact that supposed SSA ancestry increases during the Roman period.... Not the fact that the subjects were of Eurasian decent.
quote:It's crazy because I honestly don't see how any of this sh!t matters right now.... Why are we even talking about armanas... Look at the recorded history of AEgypt during the late intermediate period!! ...the concern is the increased SSA affinities and what it entails about the demographic structure during the Roman period...
Originally posted by xyyman:
" It's a fact that these tested mummies are not Sub-Saharan African. Live with it" lol!
It is NOT a fact . SMH
It is not what you may think it is. We have seen many abstracts like that. But when we get the full paper it is completely different. It is impossible for the AEians to be anything but SSA or North Africans. Keep in mind E1b1b found in the 8000 year old Natufians. Natufians are North Africans with some SSA (NO MORE SSA ANCESTRY). Does not mean “no” SSA ancestry. Remember King Tut was R1b, lol!. Amarna’s carry SSA STRs. Also Rameses III and Man E was E1b1a.
Don’t read too much into this abstract until you get the paper. Modern Egyptians are heavily admixed with Turks. These facts cannot change no matter how they try to spin it.
quote:I agree a 100%, gramps. Best is just to wait and see as far as what "Near Eastern" means. But, like I said, what we know is that these mummies are not primarily like modern day SSA.
Originally posted by xyyman:
We have seen many abstracts like that. But when we get the full paper it is completely different.
quote:My suspicions exactly. You know as well as I do that often times these experts are quick to call certain genetic elements 'Near Eastern' because they happen to found in the Near East when in fact they originated in Africa, even if North Africa. Recall that Y-DNA clade E-M215 (E1b1b) was originally thought to be "Near Eastern" upon its discovery.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Nodnarb
I interpreted it as that these specific mummies have less SSA than modern Egyptians, not that they have MORE Near Eastern. They always report less SSA as more Near Eastern—as if it is a trade off. But you're right. We won't know until we see the specifics.
But if they really DO have MORE Near Eastern ancestry in the place of modern Egyptians' Maghrebi, Ethio-Somali, Basal Eurasian, etc., these mummies can hardly be ethnically Egyptian.
quote:Anyone?
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I hope people here DO NOT interpret me sounding like an "Afrocentric crybaby" because I ALWAYS knew the DNAtribes results were not to be taken literally as Sub-Saharan in their results were only used as "proxies" since they had the most "African" DNA. That did not mean the AE had affinity with them just that they were a good proxy with hardly any Eurasian DNA.
But moving on to what I really wanted to say... Aren't the remains from the late dynastic to Roman period? So it isn't surprising that we would see this much Near Eastern ancestry in my honest opinion.
quote:Yeah just like how they had a field day when they mistakenly thought Tut carried Y-hg R1b or years before that when they thought E-M215 was a Eurasian clade. LOL Yes I'm sure they are partying until reality hits them once again.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The Euronuts are probably having a field day right now...lol
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:It says that the ancient sample (as a whole) had less SSA than living Egyptians. It doesn't say anything about a gradual increase in SSA ancestry in the ancient samples. You made that up.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Also Swenet his sometimes get caught up in …bs. The paper said “increased SSA” during the Roam period
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:It says that the ancient sample (as a whole) had less SSA than living Egyptians. It doesn't say anything about a gradual increase in SSA ancestry in the ancient samples. You made that up.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Also Swenet his sometimes get caught up in …bs. The paper said “increased SSA” during the Roam period
quote:Xyyman debunking his own initial claim:
Originally posted by xyyman:
The paper said “increased SSA” during the Roam period
quote:Again, the abstract doesn't say anything about a gradual increase of SSA ancestry in the ancient sample, only that living Egyptians have more SSA ancestry than this pooled ancient sample.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Increase****** of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods
quote:The symposium is on March 29 to April 2 according to Beyoku's link.
Originally posted by Oshun:
Any timetable for when this will be released? And didn't Beyoku post some research about Egyptians containing indigenous dna? what happened to that?
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Thank you for debunking yourself, gramps.
Xyyman's initial claim:
quote:Xyyman debunking his own initial claim:
Originally posted by xyyman:
The paper said “increased SSA” during the Roam period
quote:Again, the abstract doesn't say anything about a gradual increase of SSA ancestry in the ancient sample, only that living Egyptians have more SSA ancestry than this pooled ancient sample.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Increase****** of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods
quote:Three weeks into the Third month of 2017 and there's a possibility that researchers are still referring to North-african/Neolithic components as non-african or near eastern... Interesting.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Yeah just like how they had a field day when they mistakenly thought Tut carried Y-hg R1b or years before that when they thought E-M215 was a Eurasian clade. LOL Yes I'm sure they are partying until reality hits them once again.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The Euronuts are probably having a field day right now...lol
quote:^This is exactly what I mean. Constantly updating his views in response to others' posts. First it's a "fact" that these mummies are "Near Eastern", now he's saying the fault lies with the researchers. He's doing this all the time as if online debates or conversations are an acceptable main source of information. They aren't. If you don't read any papers or books and you come here to update your views based on what others say and then pass them off a conclusion you already arrived at... that's biting, period.
Three weeks into the Third month of 2017 and there's a possibility that researchers are still referring to North-african/Neolithic components as non-african or near eastern... Interesting.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I predict "near eastern ancestry" in this study includes Egyptian.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Why are yall trying to CHANGE THE DATA. You have to change your narrative. Look at the authors and see what Ancient DNA they have published in the past few years.
Take a look at THOSE samples and take a guess at what these samples would look like to come to the conclusion they have.
Its like yall scared to even hypothesize what that data would look like. It will not go away if yall just stick yall heads in the sand. BTW Where is Amun Ra?
quote:http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/ancient-human-dna-at-saa-2017.html
Sure there is.
* The Hyskos Dynasty (ca. 1650 BCE to 1545 BCE)
* Egypt's political boundaries extended into modern Lebanon ca. 1450 BCE in the Hittite era.
* Bronze Age Collapse sent migrants from the North to Egypt (although the ethnically Mycenean Greek Philistines were diverted to what is now the Gaza strip).
* Egypt has vigorous trade and diplomatic relations in the Eastern Mediterranean region during the Phoenician era and the Roman era.
Sub-Saharan admixture was probably greater pre-1800 BCE.
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
It depends what they mean by "near eastern ancestry" since the Near East includes Egypt in many definitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East) and this has been done before in genetics studies; if this study included Egypt in NE this is a good study for me, it just confirms ancient Egyptians had a large indigenous (Egyptian) ancestry component, Brace et al vindicated. Regardless negrocentric (sub-Saharan African) afrocentrists are completely destroyed.
quote:I really hope you turn out to be right. Because if results like these were coming from predynastic Upper Egyptian remains---with "Near Eastern" unequivocally meaning non-African---nothing in the world would make sense to me anymore.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Nodnarb
I interpreted it as that these specific mummies have less SSA than modern Egyptians, not that they have MORE Near Eastern. They always report less SSA as more Near Eastern—as if it is a trade off. But you're right. We won't know until we see the specifics.
But if they really DO have MORE Near Eastern ancestry in the place of modern Egyptians' Maghrebi, Ethio-Somali, Basal Eurasian, etc., these mummies can hardly be ethnically Egyptian.
quote:
With regards to the talk on Egyptian aDNA, I have to wonder what “Near Eastern” would entail. A couple of years back, there was a study by Pagani et al that found even the *indigenous African* ancestry in modern Egyptians has a stronger affinity to “Out of Africa” populations than does that of West/Central Africans etc., because it was from Northeast Africa that “Out of Africa” splintered off.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/modern-humans-trekked-out-africa-egypt-dna-study-suggests-n366121
Of course, given the Third Intermediate to Roman Period age of these Egyptian remains, there probably is some real non-African ancestry in there. But given the above, I think there’s also chance that some of this “Near Eastern” ancestry could really be indigenous African, but of a Northeast rather than stereotypically sub-Saharan type.
quote:That's what I would have thought too, but you always have to be prepared for surprises.
Originally posted by Oshun:
It doesn't really debunk that Egypt was created by Africans that were not separated by a Sahara that didn't exist (or had only existed briefly). There's a lot of data that would suggest in-situ development and the remains are simply not old enough to suggest otherwise. What this does do is potentially provide a blow to those who assumed heavy (and uninterrupted) indigenous African genetic continuity within Egypt from the predynastic era (both upper and lower Egypt).
quote:Also if I am reading this study correctly aren't the samples only from what the call "Middle Egypt." Didn't different regions of Egypt have different ancestry? Because what we do know is that the Ancient Egyptian population was not homogeneous.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Nodnarb
Even if there was 0% mtDNA L in this sample, there are scenarios in which that can happen without changing much as far as my views are concerned. But I don't think we even need to go there. There are enough lines of evidence in place that let us know that, even in the worst case scenario (let's say 0% L lineages in this sample), such a result can't hold true for the entire AE population.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:I think this would be a good topic for a blog post. Not only are the usual suspects going to get carried away exploiting these new findings for their agendas, but fair and accurate summations of AE origins and affinities are hard to come by on the Internet. Just a suggestion...
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Nodnarb
Even if there was 0% mtDNA L in this sample, there are scenarios in which that can happen without changing much as far as my views are concerned. But I don't think we even need to go there. There are enough lines of evidence in place that let us know that, even in the worst case scenario (let's say 0% L lineages in this sample), such a result can't hold true for the entire AE population.
quote:If slavery in Egypt was one factor what are some others?
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[QB] I knew it was a matter of time before Eurocentrics like Lioness would bring up slavery as a way to explain the results.
quote:The anthro-blog Dispatches From Turtle Island has an interesting observation on this pre print abstract, pointing out that the DNA of noble class Egyptians, the ones who could afford mummification may or may not be an accurate source to make generalizations about the DNA of the general population in AE >
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
Source
quote:
Ancient Egyptian Elites Had Less Sub-Saharan Admixture Than Modern Egypti
Krause et al., "Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes Suggest an Increase of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods" (Forthcoming Society for American Archaeology 2017 Conference Paper) Via Eurogenes.
I would suggest that pretty much anyone who's reading an SAA 2017 conference paper actually knows where Egypt is even without having it explained in the first sentence of the abstract to the paper.
I would also suggest that the remains of royal or aristocratic Egyptians that survive as mummies, particularly those following the Levantine derived Hyskos 15th Dynasty (ca. 1650 BCE to 1545 BCE) in the Third Intermediate period (ca. 1070 BCE to 664 BCE), and with the Eastern Mediterranean interchange enriched Roman period, may not be representative of the larger Egyptian population genetically, any more than the genetics of royal families in Europe were in the early modern and modern periods of European history when royals were frequently foreigners.
It could be that ancient Egyptians did indeed have less sub-Saharan admixture than they do in more recent times, but it would not be at all surprising to see a class differential in population genetics in Egypt in much the same way that we do in India.
quote:What evidence do you have that make Ancient Egyptians were predominately R1b1?
Originally posted by Lawaya:
just because the new info said the Egyptians weren't sub-Saharan that don't mean they weren't black. when they say sub-Saharan they mean west Africans that's not an surprise most of the Egyptians body were R1b1 and west Africans are E1b1a
quote:I change it I meant e1b1b
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:What evidence do you have that make Ancient Egyptians were predominately R1b1?
Originally posted by Lawaya:
just because the new info said the Egyptians weren't sub-Saharan that don't mean they weren't black. when they say sub-Saharan they mean west Africans that's not an surprise most of the Egyptians body were R1b1 and west Africans are E1b1a
quote:just because something is on blogs doesn't mean its true, I'm not saying its not true because it wouldn't surprise me and also it would me old news if you put the information together they been release
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Why would it not be credible? I just think the results have not been published.
quote:The problem is we are dealing with ancient populations whose genepools were very different from those of their modern day alleged descendants. This is why people shouldn't jump to conclusions one way or another until the details of the findings are more fleshed out.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Three weeks into the Third month of 2017 and there's a possibility that researchers are still referring to North-african/Neolithic components as non-african or near eastern... Interesting./quote]
Not interesting. More like redundant and unsurprising. Experts have been making such a mistake for the longest especially in regards to Egypt. As Swenet has said, they did the same to NRY hgs E-M81 and E-M78 and mt hgs L3 and M1.
[quote]You don't think they'd eyeball the unique African component easily in these old samples, considering Egyptians tends to form unique/ Coptic clusters? - if I was a betting man I'd say that that particular cluster gets foggy in these samples... Rather that than throw the researchers under the bus for such a poorly constructed or intentionally misleading abstract.
quote:Your premise of indigenous Africans being totally separate into a sub-Saharan 'true negro' and a North African something else besides negro with no genetic relations or ties to one another is what has been destroyed decades ago by modern bio-anthropology. This is the equivalent of trying to genetically separate modern Southeast Asians like myself from northeast Asians. Sure there are distinctions even genetically but to exaggerate such differences to the point creating separate racial categories as you've done in your twisted mind is laughable. Of course genetically it is even easier to do this with Africans considering they possess greater genetic diversity. But seriously, anyone with common sense who is familiar with all the data can see the ancient Egyptians are equally as "black" as any sub-Saharan and even culturally have a lot more in common with the latter than Near-Easterners. Egypt is still in Africa and therefore the 'Afrocentrics' still win.
Originally posted by Cass/:
It depends what they mean by "near eastern ancestry" since the Near East includes Egypt in many definitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East) and this has been done before in genetics studies; if this study included Egypt in NE this is a good study for me, it just confirms ancient Egyptians had a large indigenous (Egyptian) ancestry component, Brace et al vindicated. Regardless negrocentric (sub-Saharan African) afrocentrists are completely destroyed.
quote:Without access to the genomes and mtDNAs we can't say a whole lot about what the results mean without speculating. Right now, all non-SSA components in Africa are considered non-African. Therefore, terms like "Near Eastern" in the abstract only raise more questions than they answer. We also don't know what the samples look like (are they morphologically Lower Egyptian, more like predynastic Egyptians, or neither?). There are simply too many unknowns to comment intelligently on how periods of foreign rule may or may not relate to these results.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Swenet and @Nodnarb
What about the Faiyum? We DO KNOW there were Greek/Roman migrations to that area especially based off of Greek/Roman items there. Of course this mostly speaks for the Greek/Roman period.
I believe Faiyum is "Middle Egypt?"
quote:http://www.anthropology.uw.edu.pl/02/bne-02-02.pdf
Both populations, ancient and contemporary, fit the north-south clinal distribution of “southern” and “northern” mtDNA types (Graver et al. 2001). However, significant differences were found between these populations. Based on an increased frequency of HpaI 3592 (+) haplotypes in the contemporary Dakhlehian population, the authors suggested that, since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis.
quote:Sadly to say, our old moderator the fraudulent Ausar was very knowledgeable about Egyptian history from medieval to modern times. He has posted much data on slavery in Egypt though he made it clear that these slaves were the property of Arabs only and that many of the female slaves had fertility issues. This doesn't explain the population genetics of the non-Arab Baladi (native) populations of Egypt who never owned slaves and were nothing more than serfs in Arab dominated land.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Slavery in 19th Century Egypt: The Khedivate (1805-82)
Slavery existed for much of the 19th century in Egypt. Slavery in the Khedivate was not unlike slavery in Ancient Egypt. The great bulk of the labor force was the landless peasantry. Slaves were a small part of the labor force and concentrated in a few specific activities. Slavery followed the pattern set during earlier historical periods, most recently Egypt's position as a province of the Ottoman Empire. Slavery was similar in Egyopt to that of the wider Arab world. The Mamuluks were destinctive to Egypt. Egypt had access to as well as access to African slaves and until the early-19th century had access to the European catives of the Barbary pirates. There were both white and black slaves as well as male and female slaves. Slavery gradually disappeared in Egypt during the 19th century. Formal abolition was just part of this transition. Although defeated by the Ottomans and Napoleon, the Mamluks still had considerable influence in Egypt and important positions. They were annililated in a great massacre conducted by Muhammed Ali (1811). This ended their rule as a ruling aristocracy. They continued to play an important role in the military and government administration. Many Mamluks and other white make slaves were owned by Turks (non-Arab Ottomans) and increasingly wealthy Egyptians. [Baer, p. 147.] The slave population of Egypt during the 19th century was an estimasted 20,000-30,000, although there is no precise accounting. Certainly they were a small fraction out of out of the overall populstion of about 5 million people. About half of Egyptian slaves were concentrated in Egyot. The number of slaves in Cairo has been estimated at 12,000-15,000 in a city of about 350,000 people. Female slaves might be kept in harems. Wealthy Turks preferred Circassian females (white women who were primarily obtained in the Caucasus). More humble Egyptain harems were more commonly Abyssinians (Africans). While male and female Negro slaves were commonly used as domestic servants. Black slaves were used as soldiers as well as the decling number of Mamluks. African slaves were also used as agricultural labor, although this was a very small part of the largely peasant labor force. The estates of the Muhammed Ali family were worked by African slaves. [Baer] The supression of the slave trade was largely brought about by the British. The first major step was the First Anglo-Egyptian Convention (1877). One focus of the effort was the Sudan. Sudan was seen by Egyptian officials as a part of Egypt. The Sudan was more traditional than Egypt itself and a more austere form of Islam widely followed. And the slave trade was an important part of the economy whoch was not the case in Egypt. British governors were appointed in the Sudan. The most notable was Charles "Chinese" Girdon. Special missions were dispatched to supress the slave trade. The Mahdist revolution delayed the effort in the Sudan (1881). More aggressive steps were taken after the establishment of the British Protectorate (1882).
Slave Usage
Slavery existed for much of the 19th century in Egypt. Slavery in the Khedivate was not unlike slavery in Ancient Egypt. The great bulk of the labor force was the landless peasantry. Slaves were a small part of the labor force and concentrated in a few specific activities. Egyptian slaves included men and women as well as various racial and ethnic groups. Many of the white male slaves were Mamelukes. Although defeated by the Ottomans and Napoleon, the Mamluks still had considerable influence in Egypt and important positions. They were annililated in a great massacre conducted by Muhammed Ali (1811). This ended their rule as a ruling aristocracy. They continued to play an important role in the military and government administration. Many Mamluks and other white make slaves were owned by Turks (non-Arab Ottomans) and increasingly wealthy Egyptians. [Baer, p. 147.] Female slaves might be kept in harems. Wealthy Turks preferred Circassian females (white women who were primarily obtained in the Caucasus). More humble Egyptain harems were more commonly Abyssinians (Africans). While male and female Negro slaves were commonly used as domestic servants. Black slaves were used as soldiers as well as the decling number of Mamluks. African slaves were also used as agricultural labor, although this was a very small part of the largely peasant labor force. The estates of the Muhammed Ali family were worked by African slaves. [Baer]
Destinctive Aspects
Slavery followed the pattern set during earlier historical periods, most recently Egypt's position as a province of the Ottoman Empire. Slavery was similar in Egyopt to that of the wider Arab world. The Mamuluks were destinctive to Egypt. Egypt's geographic position was also detinctive, providing access to slaves from Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Independence
Muhammed Ali was appointed as the Ottoman pasha or govenor of Egypt. The French invasion showed the Ottoman weakness (1898) and destroyed the Mamelukes as a miklitaery force. Mohammed Ali gradually built his power base and moved Egypt toward independence. This was a gradual process, but essentially schieved by 1805.
Slave Population
The slave population of Egypt during the 19th century was an estimasted 20,000-30,000, although there is no precise accounting. Certainly they were a small fraction out of out of the overall populstion of about 5 million people. About half of Egyptian slaves were concentrated in Egyot. The number of slaves in Cairo has been estimated at 12,000-15,000 in a city of about 350,000 people.
Source of Slaves
Egypt had access to as well as access to African slaves and until the early-19th century had access to the European catives of the Barbary pirates. There were both white and black slaves as well as male and female slaves. White slaves in the 18th century were obtained from Barbary Pirate raids on European shipping and coastal communities. Egyptians were not major partipants in Barbary piracy, but some of the captives taken by the pirates reached the Cairo slave market. This source was closed off by first the American-Barbary Wars and ultimately French colonization of Algeria (1830). Circassian white slaves reached Egypt from the eastern coast of the Black Sea and from the Circassian settlements of Anatolia through Istambul. There were several sources of African slaves. This included routes across the Sahara and the Indian Ocean/Red Sea.
Slave Trading
The slave dealers in Egypt were mainly individuals from Upper Egypt/Sudan and the Saharan Oases. They were largely Bedouin and villagers from Bulayra province. They specialized in black or white slaves. They were organized in a guild with a shaykh. Cairo was the center of the Egyptian slave trade and slaves wwre sold year round. There was also an annual event--the mawlid of Tanta. [Baer]
Supression of the Slave Trade
Slavery gradually disappeared in Egypt during the 19th century. Formal abolition was just part of this transition.The supression of the slave trade was largely brought about by the British. The first major step was the First Anglo-Egyptian Convention (1877). One focus of the effort was the Sudan. Sudan was seen by Egyptian officials as a part of Egypt. The Sudan was more traditional than Egypt itself and a more austere form of Islam widely followed. And the slave trade was an important part of the economy whoch was not the case in Egypt. British governors were appointed in the Sudan. The most notable was Charles "Chinese" Girdon. Special missions were dispatched to supress the slave trade. The Mahdist revolution delayed the effort in the Sudan (1881). More aggressive steps were taken after the establishment of the British Protectorate (1882).
Sources
Baer, Gabriel. "Slavery in nineteenth century Egypt," Journal of African History Vol. VIII, No. 3 (1967), pp. 417-41.
quote:Yeah, I too would like to know the morphological of these remains. I remember when King Ramses III was predicted to be E1b1a and reading through that thread one of you guys said that while Ramses was E1b1a which is associated with "stereotypical looking Africans", Ramses himself did not have those phenotypes. BUT an even better point.... Towards the discussions of the Natifians. The Natufians were said to resemble "Sub Saharan Africans", however they showed very little SSA ancestry. That is why I would like to know the morphological of these remains... Because both that and genetics tell two stories in my honest opinion.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Without access to the genomes and mtDNAs we can't say a whole about what the results mean without speculating. Right now, all non-SSA components in Africa are considered non-African. Therefore, terms like "Near Eastern" in the abstract only raise more questions than they answer. We also don't know what the samples look like (are they morphologically Lower Egyptian, more like predynastic Egyptians, or neither?). There are simply too many unknowns to comment intelligently on how periods of foreign rule may or may not relate to these results.
quote:http://www.anthropology.uw.edu.pl/02/bne-02-02.pdf [/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Swenet:
One thing I can add, though, is that this is not the first time that a higher level of SSA in modern Egyptians than late Egyptians has been found. Although, here, too, we can't tell how much "non SSA" equates to non-African.
Both populations, ancient and contemporary, fit the north-south clinal distribution of “southern” and “northern” mtDNA types (Graver et al. 2001). However, significant differences were found between these populations. Based on an increased frequency of HpaI 3592 (+) haplotypes in the contemporary Dakhlehian population, the authors suggested that, since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis.
quote:The authors expressed complex population demographics in the abstract.
Posted by Djehuti
premise that these particular Egyptians from this time period truly were indigenous.
quote:The abstract is not mentioning a separation between what you call non-native Arabs and and native Egyptians.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Sadly to say, our old moderator the fraudulent Ausar was very knowledgeable about Egyptian history from medieval to modern times. He has posted much data on slavery in Egypt though he made it clear that these slaves were the property of Arabs only and that many of the female slaves had fertility issues. This doesn't explain the population genetics of the non-Arab Baladi (native) populations of Egypt who never owned slaves and were nothing more than serfs in Arab dominated land.
quote:
Originally posted by Lawaya:
just because the new info said the Egyptians ***weren't sub-Saharan**** that don't mean they weren't black. when they say sub-Saharan they mean west Africans that's not an surprise most of the Egyptians body were E1b1b and west Africans are E1b1a
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
typical fool. It did not say they had "no" SSA ancestry. It said less. Same mis-reading as those who are spinning the Natufians.
quote:
Originally posted by Lawaya:
just because the new info said the Egyptians ***weren't sub-Saharan**** that don't mean they weren't black. when they say sub-Saharan they mean west Africans that's not an surprise most of the Egyptians body were E1b1b and west Africans are E1b1a
quote:
Originally posted by Real tawk:
WTF is Black??!! Ha! That is the Negro's trojan horse to lay hold on other people of color historical, cultural and genetic heritage. Don't you love the self-hating Negros. I guess East Indians are Black too! Why not identify populations by their hair texture also? Oh, wait! that what exclude the Negro from the rest of humanity. I love it when Negros cling onto antiquated racial taxonomies.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
typical fool. It did not say they had "no" SSA ancestry. It said less. Same mis-reading as those who are spinning the Natufians.
quote:
Originally posted by Lawaya:
just because the new info said the Egyptians ***weren't sub-Saharan**** that don't mean they weren't black. when they say sub-Saharan they mean west Africans that's not an surprise most of the Egyptians body were E1b1b and west Africans are E1b1a
quote:Additional to your source this is what I found.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@BBH
At least some of that migration is Nubian. See Haddow's dissertation. Try googling the Kellis population and see what you find.
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1370585/1/HADDOW_PHD_THESIS.pdf
quote:https://www.promega.com/-/media/files/resources/conference-proceedings/ishi-10/poster-abstracts/69parr.pdf?la=en
A compelling story of life at the ancient Roman-Christian town of Kellis (circa AD 300) in the Dakhleh
Oasis, Egypt, is developing through mitochondrial analyses of ancient DNA. Through excavations at
Kellis 2, the Roman-Christian period necropolis where the ancient inhabitants of Kellis are interred, a
fascinating genetic profile of the residents of classical Kellis is beginning to emerge. Interestingly, metric
and non-metric trait analyses of 310 burials suggests a local population in residence at Kellis changing
slowly over time through antiquity; however, archaeological evidence alludes to frequent trade with the
Nile River valley, suggesting population movement into, through, and out of the oasis during this period.
Moreover, social and political conditions throughout the Roman Empire, of which Egypt was a possession
during this interval, hint at substantial population movements, possibly involving the oasis. Indeed,
preliminary sequencing data of HV-1 suggests a genetically diverse population from a maternal
perspective. Moreover, specific point mutations, in the small number of individuals analyzed to date
(n=13), hint at potential maternal associations with sub-Saharan Africa in antiquity.
quote:I'm going to see if I can find something else. But you're right in that this is not the first time a study was SSA increase.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Yes Beyoku has already posted a screenshot from that Ryan Parr aDNA study. He bought the book.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
yeah! WTF are you blabbering about. Yes, most Indians are black, AEians were not white. AEians are indigenous Africans.
oh! African!? lol! another fool.
quote:
Originally posted by Real tawk:
WTF is Black??!! Ha! That is the Negro's trojan horse to lay hold on other people of color historical, cultural and genetic heritage. Don't you love the self-hating Negros. I guess East Indians are Black too! Why not identify populations by their hair texture also? Oh, wait! that what exclude the Negro from the rest of humanity. I love it when Negros cling onto antiquated racial taxonomies.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
typical fool. It did not say they had "no" SSA ancestry. It said less. Same mis-reading as those who are spinning the Natufians.
quote:
Originally posted by Lawaya:
just because the new info said the Egyptians ***weren't sub-Saharan**** that don't mean they weren't black. when they say sub-Saharan they mean west Africans that's not an surprise most of the Egyptians body were E1b1b and west Africans are E1b1a
quote:I wasn't referring to the abstract, moron. I was speaking about the medieval era YOU were referrring to!
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The abstract is not mentioning a separation between what you call non-native Arabs and and native Egyptians.
quote:Again, I am reminded of that old Batrawi study.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I have never looked into or come across detailed studies of mass migration from any period. I don't know how, or if, Assyrians fit into this. There is one big gap in our understanding of how AE changed over time. But they did change over time, starting early in dynastic times, but slowly and unevenly (e.g. remains from the 1st dy royal tombs from Abydos already resemble late dynastic Lower Egyptian samples to a degree, but this doesn't necessarily say anything about the local population).
quote:correction medieval up to the modern era, which was the time period Ausar gave about slaves from sub-Sahara imported into Egypt. Why did you assume I was talking about the abstract? Pay attention.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Why are you saying I referred to the medieval era when my post was on the 19th century?
quote:Good point.
Originally posted by Real tawk:
[QB] WTF is Black??!! Ha! That is the Negro's trojan horse to lay hold on other people of color historical, cultural and genetic heritage. Don't you love the self-hating Negros. I guess East Indians are Black too! Why not identify populations by their hair texture also? Oh, wait! that what exclude the Negro from the rest of humanity. I love it when Negros cling onto antiquated racial taxonomies.
quote:We all know what 'black' is, which is a description of skin color and says nothing about ancestry. Just because someone is black doesn't mean they are of recent African ancestry. Clyde and Xyzman know this but they would rather live in a fantasy.
Originally posted by Real tawk:
WTF is Black??!! Ha! That is the Negro's trojan horse to lay hold on other people of color historical, cultural and genetic heritage. Don't you love the self-hating Negros. I guess East Indians are Black too! Why not identify populations by their hair texture also? Oh, wait! that what exclude the Negro from the rest of humanity. I love it when Negros cling onto antiquated racial taxonomies.
quote:The question is which mtDNA is this? There are several mitochondrial clades claimed to be 'Near Eastern' which are not uncommon even in Sub-Sahara like L3, M1, R0 etc. Whose to say this Egyptian priest did not carry Hpa I. LOL.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians; "Near Eastern" in this study will probably include Egyptians, furthermore as for mtDNA:
"One study reported that the mitochondrial DNA of a Middle Kingdom Period Egyptian priest was
similar to modern mtDNA samples from the Delta (Pääbo and Di-Rienzo, 1993), suggesting some level of genetic population continuity between ancient and modern populations." (Raxter, 2011)
I can confirm the leuko-aethiops were not Khoisans.
quote:If the term is not burdened by ancestry and other physical features than you should easily be able to identify the black range below, give or take one unit.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:We all know what 'black' is, which is a description of skin color and says nothing about ancestry. Just because someone is black doesn't mean they are of recent African ancestry. Clyde and Xyzman know this but they would rather live in a fantasy.
Originally posted by Real tawk:
WTF is Black??!! Ha! That is the Negro's trojan horse to lay hold on other people of color historical, cultural and genetic heritage. Don't you love the self-hating Negros. I guess East Indians are Black too! Why not identify populations by their hair texture also? Oh, wait! that what exclude the Negro from the rest of humanity. I love it when Negros cling onto antiquated racial taxonomies.
quote:In an ideal world, yes. But we also see that some are, in fact, using it as a Trojan horse. The lunatic who is going around demanding academics describe AE as 'black' in a racial/ancestry sense was using YOUR posts to justify this ancestry-based use of 'black'. When I told him your use is different from his, he lost it and threw a tantrum. I don't think you understand how deceitful and low some of these people are.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
We all know what 'black' is, which is a description of skin color and says nothing about ancestry
quote:This has already been done, i.e. if you look at anthro literature such as Coon, "black" is used from 29-36, which Coon (1939) describes as the "chocolate-brown class". I already provided quotes that show this. Since these are fuzzy catagories, sometimes you get 28 or even 27 also called "black", but it virtually never covers the light brown skin shades that Afrocentrists try to categorize as black to fit their politics.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
If "black" has nothing to do with African ancestry but is only darkness level of skin and we all know what it is, that means you should easily be able to describe what the measurement of that darkness level is. If you can't do that then saying " We all know what black is" is useless rhetoric.
quote:Unless there really is a description
Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB]quote:In an ideal world, yes.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
We all know what 'black' is, which is a description of skin color and says nothing about ancestry
quote:Personally, if someone were to ask me about AE appearance and affinities right now, I would say "some would consider them 'black'". That phrasing would address the many conflicting definitions of the term while emphasizing that most AE wouldn't have looked like the stereotypical tan-skinned "North African Arab". Of course, I'd also name related populations in Northeast Africa to avoid painting a stereotyped "True Negro" image of AE.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Lioness
You're never going to get agreement on this. This is why I've said a long time ago that I'm going to stop using the term without trying to persuade others. Others can use it if they want to. I see the politics and so I'm dropping it. Others here can pretend that only the Eurocentric opposition is doing these spin antics all they want, but parties on both sides are doing it.
I love sitting back and pointing out how aDNA is exposing them. Somehow people here think only Europeans have to make adjustments after the discovery that Labrana wasn't white.
quote:This is an example of what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
That said, in my experience even simply calling AE "African"---without using any color terminology at all---is going to provoke accusations of "Afrocentrism" from certain people. In the end the bias against an African Egypt is still going to be there no matter what vocabulary you use.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:It's beyond dispute that ancient Egypt was established and developed by Northeast African cultures diffusing from North Sudan and the Horn. That some "Eurasians" migrated into Egypt long after it was established does nothing to undermine this.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I love Ancient Egypt but if they weren't "black" I wouldn't give crap to be honest.
As long as Mali, Songhai and especially the Swahili coast was "black" I have no personal problems.
*Shrugs*
quote:
Originally posted by Real tawk:
You're a bigger idiot than I thought if you think that that is a representation of Indians.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
yeah! WTF are you blabbering about. Yes, most Indians are black, AEians were not white. AEians are indigenous Africans.
oh! African!? lol! another fool.
quote:
Originally posted by Real tawk:
WTF is Black??!! Ha! That is the Negro's trojan horse to lay hold on other people of color historical, cultural and genetic heritage. Don't you love the self-hating Negros. I guess East Indians are Black too! Why not identify populations by their hair texture also? Oh, wait! that what exclude the Negro from the rest of humanity. I love it when Negros cling onto antiquated racial taxonomies.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
typical fool. It did not say they had "no" SSA ancestry. It said less. Same mis-reading as those who are spinning the Natufians.
quote:
Originally posted by Lawaya:
just because the new info said the Egyptians ***weren't sub-Saharan**** that don't mean they weren't black. when they say sub-Saharan they mean west Africans that's not an surprise most of the Egyptians body were E1b1b and west Africans are E1b1a
quote:You would have to quote Doug to prove he said that
Originally posted by Cass/:
My argument is based on the standard used by physical anthropologists: black is 29-36. Like you said, give or take a couple of units because these are fuzzy. But we have afronuts on this forum like Doug who think light brown hues as low as 17 are black and they only say this so they can lump much lighter skinned north African populations in with themselves as part of their pan-African politics. No physical anthropologist however does this.
quote:The proposal is on the table, you don't know, maybe people will agree.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Lioness
You're never going to get agreement on this. This is why I've said a long time ago that I'm going to stop using the term without trying to persuade others. Others can use it if they want to. I see the politics and so I'm dropping it. Others here can pretend that only the Eurocentric opposition is doing these spin antics all they want, but parties on both sides are doing it.
I love sitting back and pointing out how aDNA is exposing them. Somehow people here think only Europeans have to make adjustments after the discovery that Labrana wasn't white.
quote:In what strange world are Northeast Africans not black? Are North Sudanese, Somalis, Eritreans and Ethiopians not black? These are the people that eventually created ancient Egypt... it was a Sudanese transplant.
Originally posted by Cass/:
My argument is based on the standard used by physical anthropologists: black is 29-36. Like you said, give or take a couple of units because these are fuzzy. But we have afronuts on this forum like Doug who think light brown hues as low as 17 are black and they only say this so they can lump much lighter skinned north African populations in with themselves as part of their pan-African politics. No physical anthropologist however does this.
quote:Several people in this forum, Djehuti, Doug, Tukular prefer the definition of black as not having to do with ancestry or features but instead a particular range of darker skin tones.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:In what strange world are Northeast Africans not black? Are North Sudanese, Somalis, Eritreans and Ethiopians not black? These are the people that eventually created ancient Egypt... it was a Sudanese transplant.
Originally posted by Cass/:
My argument is based on the standard used by physical anthropologists: black is 29-36. Like you said, give or take a couple of units because these are fuzzy. But we have afronuts on this forum like Doug who think light brown hues as low as 17 are black and they only say this so they can lump much lighter skinned north African populations in with themselves as part of their pan-African politics. No physical anthropologist however does this.
quote:That's bonkers. That sort of arrangement would be a bloody mess. You would be left with a situation in which people from the same ethnic group would be placed into different racial boxes in opposition to genetics, linguistics, culture and common sense.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Several people in this forum, Djehuti, Doug, Tukular prefer the definition of black as not having to do with ancestry or features but instead a particular range of darker skin tones.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:In what strange world are Northeast Africans not black? Are North Sudanese, Somalis, Eritreans and Ethiopians not black? These are the people that eventually created ancient Egypt... it was a Sudanese transplant.
Originally posted by Cass/:
My argument is based on the standard used by physical anthropologists: black is 29-36. Like you said, give or take a couple of units because these are fuzzy. But we have afronuts on this forum like Doug who think light brown hues as low as 17 are black and they only say this so they can lump much lighter skinned north African populations in with themselves as part of their pan-African politics. No physical anthropologist however does this.
Therefore if one establishes that range's boundary we can look at
various North Sudanese, Somalis, Eritreans and Ethiopians and on a case by case basis of individual people determine if they are black or not by comparing them to a color chart
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:We all know what 'black' is, which is a description of skin color and says nothing about ancestry. Just because someone is black doesn't mean they are of recent African ancestry. Clyde and Xyzman know this but they would rather live in a fantasy.
Originally posted by Real tawk:
WTF is Black??!! Ha! That is the Negro's trojan horse to lay hold on other people of color historical, cultural and genetic heritage. Don't you love the self-hating Negros. I guess East Indians are Black too! Why not identify populations by their hair texture also? Oh, wait! that what exclude the Negro from the rest of humanity. I love it when Negros cling onto antiquated racial taxonomies.
quote:Some might describe the range of being black as starting earlier than 27
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:That's bonkers. That sort of arrangement would be a bloody mess. You would be left with a situation in which people from the same ethnic group would be placed into different racial boxes in opposition to genetics, linguistics, culture and common sense.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Several people in this forum, Djehuti, Doug, Tukular prefer the definition of black as not having to do with ancestry or features but instead a particular range of darker skin tones.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:In what strange world are Northeast Africans not black? Are North Sudanese, Somalis, Eritreans and Ethiopians not black? These are the people that eventually created ancient Egypt... it was a Sudanese transplant.
Originally posted by Cass/:
[qb] My argument is based on the standard used by physical anthropologists: black is 29-36. Like you said, give or take a couple of units because these are fuzzy. But we have afronuts on this forum like Doug who think light brown hues as low as 17 are black and they only say this so they can lump much lighter skinned north African populations in with themselves as part of their pan-African politics. No physical anthropologist however does this.
Therefore if one establishes that range's boundary we can look at
various North Sudanese, Somalis, Eritreans and Ethiopians and on a case by case basis of individual people determine if they are black or not by comparing them to a color chart
quote:I know that. I'm sayng IF we lived in that alternative universe and that was the case.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:It's beyond dispute that ancient Egypt was established and developed by Northeast African cultures diffusing from North Sudan and the Horn. That some "Eurasians" migrated into Egypt long after it was established does nothing to undermine this.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I love Ancient Egypt but if they weren't "black" I wouldn't give crap to be honest.
As long as Mali, Songhai and especially the Swahili coast was "black" I have no personal problems.
*Shrugs*
I'll truly care when Eurocentrics can demonstrate that it was "Eurasians" from the Levant or Southern Europe that created ancient Egypt from the predynastic period to Pharaonic times.
It's already well known that Levantine people were able to assume an Egyptian identity after being naturalised and that they were able to serve as soldiers and scribes. Ancient Egypt was essentially the first truly cosmopolitan civilization.
quote:FFS didn't we give you a thread to go on and on about this sh!t?
Originally posted by Cass/:
My argument is based on the standard used by physical anthropologists: black is 29-36. Like you said, give or take a couple of units because these are fuzzy. But we have afronuts on this forum like Doug who think light brown hues as low as 17 are black and they only say this so they can lump much lighter skinned north African populations in with themselves as part of their pan-African politics. No physical anthropologist however does this.
quote:
In Egyptology, we often do not saying things are a fraud or forgery because it implies a certain intent (ie you made it with the intent to deceive vs you made a really good copy and someone mistakenly believed it real). We often prefer to use the words, cannot be authenticated. And this is exactly where this bust falls. Why? Several reasons.
1. We aren't certain the original maker of this intended to deceive. The story goes it was made in Germany during the early 1900's by an artist, someone saw it and was very impressed with its beauty, the artist never had the heart to say the truth and sold it to the collector. The collector assumed it to be real and it was presented as such and just assumed to be legitimate, with no actual evidence.
"According to a Swiss art historian, the bust is less than 100 years old. Henri Stierlin has said the stunning work that will later this year be the showpiece of the city's reborn Neues Museum was created by an artist commissioned by Ludwig Borchardt, the German archaeologist credited with digging Nefertiti out of the sands of the ancient settlement of Amarna, 90 miles south of Cairo, in 1912.
In his book, Le Buste de Nefertiti – une Imposture de l'Egyptologie? (The Bust of Nefertiti – an Egyptology Fraud?), Stierlin has claimed that the bust was created to test ancient pigments. But after it was admired by a Prussian prince, Johann Georg, who was beguiled by Nefertiti's beauty, Borchardt, said Stierlin, "didn't have the nerve to make his guest look stupid" and pretended it was genuine.
Berlin author and historian Edrogan Ercivan has added his weight to the row with his book Missing Link in Archaeology, published last week, in which he has also called Nefertiti a fake, modelled by an artist on Borchardt's statuesque wife.
Public and political enthusiasm about the find at the time gave the artefact its "own dynamic" and led to Borchardt ensuring it was kept out of the public gaze until 1924, the authors have argued."
"Other aspects of the find, which he has claimed support his theory, are the facts that the bust has no left eye, which the ancient Egyptians would have considered a sign of disrespect towards their much-loved queen, and that the first scientific reports on the discovery were not written up for 11 years."
You see this isn't technically a forgery. There wasn't an intent by the artist to deceive. However it isn't an authentically Egyptian artwork either.
Is this Nefertiti – or a 100-year-old fake?
2. "Inconsistent with Egyptian style
He noted that the bust has no left eye, which the ancient Egyptians would have considered a sign of disrespect to their queen. He pointed out that the shoulders were cut vertically, while Egyptian artisans cut their busts' shoulders horizontally.
And he said French archeologists who were present at the 1912 dig never mentioned the find, nor did contemporary written accounts.
Berlin author and historian Edrogan Ercivan's new book, Missing Link in Archaeology, which was published last week, adds to Stierlin's argument. Ercivan has also called the Nefertiti bust a fake, saying it was modelled on Borchardt's wife, the Guardian newspaper reported.
Both historians have said Borchardt kept the bust for 11 years before handing it over to a Berlin museum."
Nefertiti bust may be a fake: art historians
3. I actually have a PH.d in Egyptology, when I was in Egypt I looked into this. I also looked in Germany and France and UK to try to find some export record. Contrary to what people think, these things have to be recorded. Even in war time, the soldiers have to record what they were taking where the governments permit them to loot. The bust has no history. What I mean by this, is for most artifacts to be considered valid, they basically have to look right, feel right, and seem right, and have a history of the moment they were removed from the ground, until now. Anything less, means it cannot be authenticated to the best ability of archaeologist. Now sometimes if it is consistent with other styles in a perfect manner, we can say it is most probable but has a missing history. The bust meets neither of these requirements, it is inconsistent with Egyptian style of its time, you cannot find another bust like it Ancient Egypt, additionally it doesn't appear in any record, export record, military record nor import record. In otherwords, it first appears in Germany not Egypt, according to the record. This makes it impossible to authenticate as Egyptian. Now in theory it could have been smuggled in, but that isn't a tiny bust, its not the easiest thing to smuggle. So already its not likely, it is also quiet heavy, add on to the fact that if someone was willing to lie to 2 governments to sneak out an artifact where they could go to jail for, why should I believe that same person wouldn't lie to me and pass off a forgery that is of the wrong style with missing parts?
4. The bust doesn't look like Nefertiti to me. Not from what I've seen in pyramid depictions at least.
Look at the facial features, the lips, the nose, the eyes. Also look at the crown. Notice how the crown in the bust above has multiple key differences like it has a red, green, yellow and blue band around the mid-section of it, but the hieroglyph doesn't. There are alot of inconsistencies with the crown in the sculpture than with the glyph.
What I notice immediately as well, is nefertiti is depicted as someone with a clearly extreme form of prognathism where their low jaw is forward and forehead slants backwards. This is not depicted in the bust.
Nefertiti and Akenaten her husband.
Nefertiti's father is Ay, his mother is Tiye. This is queen Tiye
Note the huge difference in artistic styles between this and the bust, both are queens of egypt, but the depictions are highly different in art styles.
5. Borchardt (the guy who first has the bust), was, unethical at best, but had a reputation as a forger and a reputation for buying fakes and making fakes and trying to pass them off as real. Additionally we know for a fact other parts in support of the bust are certainly fake, we know because...
"The renowned Egyptologist Rolf Krauss, a curator at the Egyptian Museum in Berlin for more than 20 years and the custodian of the Nefertiti bust, claims that the folding altar used as compensation for the bust was fake.
Krauss theorizes that Borchardt, consumed with ambition, had the magnificent panel, with which he enticed Lefebvre, made by skilled stonemasons in Cairo.
But could the excavator have been capable of such contemptuous fraud? Some, who believe Borchardt was a hatchet man, say he could.
It is true that the scholar had been working at the German consulate general in Cairo since 1899. His official title was "academic attaché." But in reality Borchardt's job -- in the struggle against the other imperialistic powers, England, France and the United States -- was to fill Germany's museums with treasures from the days of the pharaohs.
His approach was often crude. In 1908, British Egyptologist Alan Gardiner accused him of "tactless and brusque behavior." Gardiner also claimed that the German had established a network of academic spies in the Nile Valley.
When confronted at home, the accused admitted that he had illegitimately acquired "a large number of photographs, drawings, private letters and foreign documents, and so on." In a letter to the foreign ministry, a colleague complained that a man who had "compromised German academia in such a way cannot remain in his position."
But the Indiana Jones of the German Empire survived the scandal. He was simply too good at what did. Borchardt often roamed through the souks of Cairo, where bearded merchants offered stolen antiquities for sale, as well as fakes made to look old with etching acid. Borchardt himself described the dealers' tricks. For example, it was common that "the men scratch off old paint, crush it and apply it with a binding agent."
There is even evidence that Borchardt made forgeries himself when he was a student. He imitated a cuneiform tablet and wrote logarithms onto it. A scholar fell for the practical joke.
Its interest peaked by the rumors, the restoration laboratory (set up by Italians) in Cairo examined the folding altar some time ago. When it was placed under ultraviolet light, it turned out that the supposed weathering was only a "darker base color" that had been painted onto the limestone.
"I think this is absolute proof of forgery," says Egyptologist Christian Loeben."
Mystery on the Nile: Re-Examining Nefertiti's Likeness and Life - SPIEGEL ONLINE
6. COLOR. None of the other sources mentioned this, but in addition to appearing in a German art style rather than an Egyptian one, the color is wrong. The Egyptians were often depicted in many different colors, often having a symbolic meaning. Dark brown or ruddy brown is most common. For females usually it was dark brown or yellow brown or golden brown type color. Dead were often depicted in white (like ghost white). Gods depicted in jet black like Osiris and Amun (supreme god). and Ptah depicted in green (a god), water goddess like nut in blue. The bust doesn't fall into any known category we find anywhere in egypt. It seems to be painted in a modern day flesh color of a caucasian person maybe with a tan. Now being painted tan isn't disqualifying in and of itself. It is all the other factors, mysterious history, not looking like nefertiti and appearing in a paint color we never seen before, or after.
7. The bust is made of stone, but has plaster on it. This is again, unheard of. It is also possible that the bust was modified. It could have been a bust of someone else, was changed in appearance. For instance,
" The right ear canal showed a pointed end, which suggested the use of a drill-type tool, whereas the left ear canal ended bluntly."
" The findings were inspected to possibly differentiate multiple layers of plaster. The bonding between limestone and plaster was analyzed to identify points of weakness that are potentially at risk for breaking and to provide guidance for handling of the bust. In addition, the limestone core was analyzed for homogeneity and for inclusions that could provide information to help determine the origin of the stone."
Nondestructive Insights into Composition of the Sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti with CT
8. The bust also has multiple layers, again this is uncommon. Usually they'd sculpt down a single piece of stone. They wouldn't plaster it.
quote:We are not talking about what African is or social function is.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Lioness.
Are you sure you're African American? So you think people are going to willingly shut out the skin pigmentation levels of Obama, Sade and Bill Withers from 'black'?
Some will argue that definite boundaries are irrelevant because most skin color is controlled by a handful of genes. Statistically this means that you can be predominantly African but extremely light skinned.
Another reason why this is pointless is because these undefined boundaries are undefined for a reason. They have a social function. (Just like the Arab nationalism has a social function). You're trying to get people to decrease the size of their social identity just because you want to hold them accountable.. people aren't stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Man, Why do so many topics eventually arrive at this bullsh!t subject.
Black as a "racially" or biological term of classification varied based on context as well as who you are speaking to, we all know this.
You can't go to the Caribbean or Africa and accurately describe someone below a color grade of 24 black, no matter how big the lips, wide the nose, kinky the hair and dark their parents might be. ...same-thing for India, and Korea (-minus a few shades).
quote:There's already a topic on race and what it means and how to define Egyptians by it. please guys leave this sort of thing there.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Man, Why do so many topics eventually arrive at this bullsh!t subject.
Black as a "racially" or biological term of classification varied based on context as well as who you are speaking to, we all know this.
You can't go to the Caribbean or Africa and accurately describe someone below a color grade of 24 black, no matter how big the lips, wide the nose, kinky the hair and dark their parents might be. ...same-thing for India, and Korea (-minus a few shades).
If Black is the range is 24-36 and this sculpture is accurate then she is included
quote:beyoku is running this topic, the term "black" was introduced in the second post in this thread and brought up man times after. Now after we try to define it and whether or not other non-SSA Africans are black you dont want it discussed
Originally posted by Oshun:
There's already a topic on race and what it means and how to define Egyptians by it. please guys leave this sort of thing there. [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
I don't think populations who fall in the medium UV radiation zone with "moderate" skin are "white". For example North African populations such as Berber groups and the Egyptians would fall in the "moderate" skin category - light brown to reddish-brown. They score between 50 and 60% skin reflectance.
quote:We know what occurred during the Third Intermediate period to the Roman Period.
Originally posted by beyoku:quote:
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
Source
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
Swenet is a clown! The only way for anyone to possibly adhere to such bullshit is if they are complete immune to thinking for themselves based on evidence and logic.
quote:Thanks for proving my point. You're trying to attach yourself to lighter phenotypes out of idealising/admiring them.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lioness, honestly.... This is utter foolishness...
To each his own respective criteria... 24 and up cannot be considered black in my eyes, No one would be called black if their skin shade was of 20 in the Caribbean and south america as well as few places in Africa, unless relaying cultural African identity... you say Nef was >24 then 26 is the cut off point ...to me at least. Not only that but most people with pigment functionality can achieve a tan of at least 19.
Can we agree and dead this now...
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by Akachi:
Swenet is a clown! The only way for anyone to possibly adhere to such bullshit is if they are complete immune to thinking for themselves based on evidence and logic.
The recently sampled Natufians are closer to Han Chinese tho.
quote:Show me a Han Chinese individual with a "Negroid" cranial morphology.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Natufians are closer to Han Chinese tho.
quote:BEFORE YOU START CALLING NAMES I SAID THEY WERENT WEST AFRICANS NOT THAT THEY DIDNT HAVE WEST AFRICANS DNA IN THEM. EGYPTIANS HAD SOME EURASIAN IN THEM THAT DONT MAKE EURASIN
Originally posted by xyyman:
typical fool. It did not say they had "no" SSA ancestry. It said less. Same mis-reading as those who are spinning the Natufians.
quote:
Originally posted by Lawaya:
just because the new info said the Egyptians ***weren't sub-Saharan**** that don't mean they weren't black. when they say sub-Saharan they mean west Africans that's not an surprise most of the Egyptians body were E1b1b and west Africans are E1b1a
quote:ITS BEEN SHOWN MANY SHADES OF THIS QUEEN SO TO USE THIS TYPICAL QUEEN IS AN MISTAKE IN YOUR LOGIC, EYPTIANS HAD MANY TYPES OF SHADES. AFRICA HAVE MANY SHADES OF COMPLEXION WHETHER ITS NORTH,EAST,WEST,SOUTH
Originally posted by Cass/:
Show me a photo of black women with pigmentation this light:
The only reason black men on this forum call this black is because they admire lighter skinned phenotypes and its in their social and sexual interests to try to extend their definition of black to include these lighter non-black pigmentation phenotypes.
quote:I AGREE THAT THEY LOVE GIVING OUT THE SAME INFO JUST IN DIFFERENT HEADLINES, THEY DO THIS EVERY YEAR BUT THEY NEVER GIVE THE FULL DETAILS OF DNA AND THEY WONT.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Nodnarb
You're right. But that's different from people who are deliberately misinterpreting DJ's use of 'black' (and my past use of the term) as referring to ancestry/race. The same intellectual midgets are also taking ancient Greek use of 'melas' and translating it to the western use of 'black', which has heavy SSA connotations that these ancient authors had no awareness of. They're also doing the same thing with 'Cush', going as far as to say that Eden being encircled by Cushites to the north, west and east must mean Eden was in Africa. This, despite the fact that the bible clearly says Eden was to the east (from its audience's perspective). Against all evidence, we're supposed to think that, because these Cushites were dark skinned, this whole setting of Adam and Eve must have been imagined to take place in Africa.
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with saying that the ancient Greeks would have described AE pigmentation as heavily pigmented and consistent with their artwork. But that doesn't translate to the racial baggage that 'black' carries today. They're taking ancient pigmentation-based terms and using it to sneak in their own agenda. And when academics refuse to get on board with defining AE on their terms (why should it specifically have to be THEIR terms?) they want to throw a tantrum and publish emails.
quote:Assuming that this bust is not a fake and that Nefertiti was not a naturalised Egyptian from the Levant or Armenia, as theorised by some... then she was not black and was certainly not representative of ancient Egypt [even Lower Egyp], and in light of the fact that the Upper Egyptians were the overwhelming demographic majority and resemble other Northeast Africans -even today- in North Sudan and the Horn -- I don't see your point.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Show me a photo of black women with pigmentation this light:
The only reason black men on this forum call this black is because they admire lighter skinned phenotypes and its in their social and sexual interests to try to extend their definition of black to include these lighter non-black pigmentation phenotypes.
quote:The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians by Professor S O Y keita and Professor A J Boyce
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
quote:Most women in my family have a shade ~25 and above I'm not far from there as-well, which is why I was being lenient but with all actuality I'm called "brown" when I leave the country...
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Thanks for proving my point. You're trying to attach yourself to lighter phenotypes out of idealising/admiring them.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lioness, honestly.... This is utter foolishness...
To each his own respective criteria... 24 and up cannot be considered black in my eyes, No one would be called black if their skin shade was of 20 in the Caribbean and south america as well as few places in Africa, unless relaying cultural African identity... you say Nef was >24 then 26 is the cut off point ...to me at least. Not only that but most people with pigment functionality can achieve a tan of at least 19.
Can we agree and dead this now...
Who are the biggest buyers of light eye contacts in America? African-Americans.
quote:You're right that "black" has often been associated with obsolete racial typology. It certainly seems awkward to call AE "black" while acknowledging that race is a social construct that isn't useful for biological anthropology. On the other hand, I do find it can be a convenient shorthand for darker-skinned Africans in certain contexts. For instance, if you're discussing racial tension between light-skinned North Africans of predominantly Eurasian ancestry and darker-skinned Africans with more indigenous ancestry, you can't really use "African" by itself for either team.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Nodnarb
You're right. But that's different from people who are deliberately misinterpreting DJ's use of 'black' (and my past use of the term) as referring to ancestry/race. The same intellectual midgets are also taking ancient Greek use of 'melas' and translating it to the western use of 'black', which has heavy SSA connotations that these ancient authors had no awareness of. They're also doing the same thing with 'Cush', going as far as to say that Eden being encircled by Cushites to the north, west and east must mean Eden was in Africa. This, despite the fact that the bible clearly says Eden was to the east (from its audience's perspective). Against all evidence, we're supposed to think that, because these Cushites were dark skinned, this whole setting of Adam and Eve must have been imagined to take place in Africa.
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with saying that the ancient Greeks would have described AE pigmentation as heavily pigmented and consistent with their artwork. But that doesn't translate to the racial baggage that 'black' carries today. They're taking ancient pigmentation-based terms and using it to sneak in their own agenda. And when academics refuse to get on board with defining AE on their terms (why should it specifically have to be THEIR terms?) they want to throw a tantrum and publish emails.
quote:WHY YOU KEEP BRINGING UP THAT IT WAS SOME EGYPTIANS THAT HAD MORE EURASIAN THAN WEST AFRICAN THATS NOT AN SURPRISE MAJORITY OF THEIR DNA STILL WAS NORTH AFRICAN
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Most women in my family have a shade ~25 and above I'm not far from there as-well, which is why I was being lenient but with all actuality I'm called "brown" when I leave the country...
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Thanks for proving my point. You're trying to attach yourself to lighter phenotypes out of idealising/admiring them.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lioness, honestly.... This is utter foolishness...
To each his own respective criteria... 24 and up cannot be considered black in my eyes, No one would be called black if their skin shade was of 20 in the Caribbean and south america as well as few places in Africa, unless relaying cultural African identity... you say Nef was >24 then 26 is the cut off point ...to me at least. Not only that but most people with pigment functionality can achieve a tan of at least 19.
Can we agree and dead this now...
Who are the biggest buyers of light eye contacts in America? African-Americans.
Go to the thread started by oshun about the race of kemet, and read through the first seven pages again.... I'm not revisiting this sh!t with you. Either your trolling or you're an idiot.
Back to the abstract and natufians and near easterners and Han Chinese out scoring yorubans lmao.
quote:Then why are there thousands of artworks depicting many Egyptians as medium to dark brown and why are most of the Pharoahs depicted medium to dark brown?
Originally posted by Cass/:
[QB] Ancient Egyptians were the same pigmentation as populations at their latitude. I already posted reflectance spectroscopy data for this. The skin colour cline runs from the Nile Valley, starting at the Mediterranean coast and Egyptian Delta, to Middle Egypt, to Upper Egypt, to Lower Nubia and to Upper Nubia. This cline was light brown > medium brown > dark brown. The Egyptians distinguished themselves to their southern neighbours based on skin colour - so they couldn't have been dark brown, but light brown (Lower and Middle Egyptians) to medium brown (Upper Egyptians).
quote:Not interested in anecdotes. "Black" on the Luscan Scale as used by physical anthropologists e.g. Carleton Coon is 29-36. You're trying to move the standard boundary for your own agenda. Show me a single anthropologist who thinks 24 or 25 is black.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Most women in my family have a shade ~25 and above I'm not far from there as-well, which is why I was being lenient but with all actuality I'm called "brown" when I leave the country...
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Thanks for proving my point. You're trying to attach yourself to lighter phenotypes out of idealising/admiring them.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lioness, honestly.... This is utter foolishness...
To each his own respective criteria... 24 and up cannot be considered black in my eyes, No one would be called black if their skin shade was of 20 in the Caribbean and south america as well as few places in Africa, unless relaying cultural African identity... you say Nef was >24 then 26 is the cut off point ...to me at least. Not only that but most people with pigment functionality can achieve a tan of at least 19.
Can we agree and dead this now...
Who are the biggest buyers of light eye contacts in America? African-Americans.
Go to the thread started by oshun about the race of kemet, and read through the first seven pages again.... I'm not revisiting this sh!t with you. Either your trolling or you're an idiot.
Back to the abstract and natufians and near easterners and Han Chinese out scoring yorubans lmao.
quote:Why are there thousands of artworks depicting many Egyptians as medium to dark brown and why are most of the Pharoahs depicted medium to dark brown?
Originally posted by Cass/:
Not interested in anecdotes. "Black" on the Luscan Scale as used by physical anthropologists e.g. Carleton Coon is 29-36. You're trying to move the standard boundary for your own agenda. Show me a single anthropologist who thinks 24 or 25 is black.
quote:DO YOU BELIEVE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE MORE EURASIAN THAN NON EURASIAN ???
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lewaya, Relax... Me n swenet are not in cahoots, but you have a lot of digging to do ...and I don't trust you enough to help you fight this fight... Apparently people like to misuse information here.
quote:I've been on Stormfront, VNN and the reverse, i.e. black nationalist/Afrocentric forums. All people do from both is cherry pick images off Google - those on Stormfront cherry-pick the lightest they can find, while Afrocentrists just spam the darkest. I'm not interested in going down this route. Me posting the Nefertiti bust was just to falsify the "black Egypt" theory, the fact is I recognise the variation/skin cline in Nile Valley. Note however I've never tried to lump Egyptian pigmentation as "white" - I've stuck to finer categories like light brown / medium brown and dark brown. Only dark brown would be "black". The average Nubian was dark brown, not Egyptian. This is in Snowden, Brace et al etc. Are all those cross-disciplinary classicists and physical anthropologists wrong?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Why are there thousands of artworks depicting many Egyptians as medium to dark brown and why are most of the Pharoahs depicted medium to dark brown?
Originally posted by Cass/:
Not interested in anecdotes. "Black" on the Luscan Scale as used by physical anthropologists e.g. Carleton Coon is 29-36. You're trying to move the standard boundary for your own agenda. Show me a single anthropologist who thinks 24 or 25 is black.
quote:Holistically? ...no
Originally posted by Lawaya:
quote:DO YOU BELIEVE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE MORE EURASIAN THAN NON EURASIAN ???
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lewaya, Relax... Me n swenet are not in cahoots, but you have a lot of digging to do ...and I don't trust you enough to help you fight this fight... Apparently people like to misuse information here.
quote:Yep. And I think that's why we all use/used it. It's a convenient shorthand especially since we don't have the right terminology yet to refer accurately to populations. And now with recent findings piling up rapidly, it's getting even worse. I'm out here use my own terms like pre-Toba because the right terms don't exist. So every time I talk about these populations I have to explain what I mean.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:You're right that "black" has often been associated with obsolete racial typology. It certainly seems awkward to call AE "black" while acknowledging that race is a social construct that isn't useful for biological anthropology. On the other hand, I do find it can be a convenient shorthand for darker-skinned Africans in certain contexts. For instance, if you're discussing racial tension between light-skinned North Africans of predominantly Eurasian ancestry and darker-skinned Africans with more indigenous ancestry, you can't really use "African" by itself for either team.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Nodnarb
You're right. But that's different from people who are deliberately misinterpreting DJ's use of 'black' (and my past use of the term) as referring to ancestry/race. The same intellectual midgets are also taking ancient Greek use of 'melas' and translating it to the western use of 'black', which has heavy SSA connotations that these ancient authors had no awareness of. They're also doing the same thing with 'Cush', going as far as to say that Eden being encircled by Cushites to the north, west and east must mean Eden was in Africa. This, despite the fact that the bible clearly says Eden was to the east (from its audience's perspective). Against all evidence, we're supposed to think that, because these Cushites were dark skinned, this whole setting of Adam and Eve must have been imagined to take place in Africa.
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with saying that the ancient Greeks would have described AE pigmentation as heavily pigmented and consistent with their artwork. But that doesn't translate to the racial baggage that 'black' carries today. They're taking ancient pigmentation-based terms and using it to sneak in their own agenda. And when academics refuse to get on board with defining AE on their terms (why should it specifically have to be THEIR terms?) they want to throw a tantrum and publish emails.
But that's how I see things personally. Not going to blackmail anyone into agreeing with me the way Carlos Coke would.
quote:When you see males in Egyptian art in military groupings, when you see the Pharaohs the vast majority are depicted medium to dark brown.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:I've been on Stormfront, VNN and the reverse, i.e. black nationalist/Afrocentric forums. All people do from both is cherry pick images off Google - those on Stormfront cherry-pick the lightest they can find, while Afrocentrists just spam the darkest. I'm not interested in going down this route. Me posting the Nefertiti bust was just to falsify the "black Egypt" theory, the fact is I recognise the variation/skin cline in Nile Valley. Note however I've never tried to lump Egyptian pigmentation as "white" - I've stuck to finer categories like light brown / medium brown and dark brown. Only dark brown would be "black". The average Nubian was dark brown, not Egyptian. This is in Snowden, Brace et al etc. Are all those cross-disciplinary classicists and physical anthropologists wrong?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Why are there thousands of artworks depicting many Egyptians as medium to dark brown and why are most of the Pharoahs depicted medium to dark brown?
Originally posted by Cass/:
Not interested in anecdotes. "Black" on the Luscan Scale as used by physical anthropologists e.g. Carleton Coon is 29-36. You're trying to move the standard boundary for your own agenda. Show me a single anthropologist who thinks 24 or 25 is black.
quote:The point is that racism as defined by 19th century Europeans is heavily based on skin color. That is the problem. Not black folks use of the word black. Trying to make black folks jump through hoops when pointing out the racism of denying the skin color of Ancient Egypt is simply designed to try and make it seem like black folks somehow invented the concept of race and racism. ALL of which was created by and defined by SELF DESCRIBED white people?
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Personally, if someone were to ask me about AE appearance and affinities right now, I would say "some would consider them 'black'". That phrasing would address the many conflicting definitions of the term while emphasizing that most AE wouldn't have looked like the stereotypical tan-skinned "North African Arab". Of course, I'd also name related populations in Northeast Africa to avoid painting a stereotyped "True Negro" image of AE.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Lioness
You're never going to get agreement on this. This is why I've said a long time ago that I'm going to stop using the term without trying to persuade others. Others can use it if they want to. I see the politics and so I'm dropping it. Others here can pretend that only the Eurocentric opposition is doing these spin antics all they want, but parties on both sides are doing it.
I love sitting back and pointing out how aDNA is exposing them. Somehow people here think only Europeans have to make adjustments after the discovery that Labrana wasn't white.
That said, in my experience even simply calling AE "African"---without using any color terminology at all---is going to provoke accusations of "Afrocentrism" from certain people. In the end the bias against an African Egypt is still going to be there no matter what vocabulary you use.
quote:Some might suggest the terms "black" and "white" as identities is innately a racist concept
Originally posted by Doug M:
The point is that racism as defined by 19th century Europeans is heavily based on skin color. That is the problem. Not black folks use of the word black. Trying to make black folks jump through hoops when pointing out the racism of denying the skin color of Ancient Egypt is simply designed to try and make it seem like black folks somehow invented the concept of race and racism. ALL of which was created by and defined by SELF DESCRIBED white people?
quote:Complete dummy. By that logic deny all of taxonomy, including species. Also no one invented "racism", it is wired in the brain or innate. Just google studies/research on this.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:The point is that racism as defined by 19th century Europeans is heavily based on skin color. That is the problem. Not black folks use of the word black. Trying to make black folks jump through hoops when pointing out the racism of denying the skin color of Ancient Egypt is simply designed to try and make it seem like black folks somehow invented the concept of race and racism. ALL of which was created by and defined by SELF DESCRIBED white people?
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Personally, if someone were to ask me about AE appearance and affinities right now, I would say "some would consider them 'black'". That phrasing would address the many conflicting definitions of the term while emphasizing that most AE wouldn't have looked like the stereotypical tan-skinned "North African Arab". Of course, I'd also name related populations in Northeast Africa to avoid painting a stereotyped "True Negro" image of AE.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Lioness
You're never going to get agreement on this. This is why I've said a long time ago that I'm going to stop using the term without trying to persuade others. Others can use it if they want to. I see the politics and so I'm dropping it. Others here can pretend that only the Eurocentric opposition is doing these spin antics all they want, but parties on both sides are doing it.
I love sitting back and pointing out how aDNA is exposing them. Somehow people here think only Europeans have to make adjustments after the discovery that Labrana wasn't white.
That said, in my experience even simply calling AE "African"---without using any color terminology at all---is going to provoke accusations of "Afrocentrism" from certain people. In the end the bias against an African Egypt is still going to be there no matter what vocabulary you use.
quote:Frank Snowden was not an authority on ancient Egyptian civilization and is not a anthropologist, so citing him is worthless. It's clear that you have to ignore the fact that ancient Egyptians came from further South -- in the tropics of the Sahara.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Ancient Egyptians were the same pigmentation as populations at their latitude. I already posted reflectance spectroscopy data for this. The skin colour cline runs from the Nile Valley, starting at the Mediterranean coast and Egyptian Delta, to Middle Egypt, to Upper Egypt, to Lower Nubia and to Upper Nubia. This cline was light brown > medium brown > dark brown. The Egyptians distinguished themselves to their southern neighbours based on skin colour - so they couldn't have been dark brown, but light brown (Lower and Middle Egyptians) to medium brown (Upper Egyptians).
"Afrocentrists claim that Egyptian civilization was a "black" civilization, and this is not accurate... Most scholars believe that ancient Egyptians looked pretty much like today’s Egyptians - that is, they were brown, becoming darker as they approached the Sudan (Snowden 1970, 1992; Smedley 1993)." (De Montellano, 1995)
"Ancient Egyptians, like their modern descendants, varied in complexion from a light Mediterranean type, to a light brown in Middle Egypt, to a darker brown in southern Egypt." (Snowden, 1997)
As Snowden observes people living on the Mediterranean coastal strip in Egypt would have been indistinguishable (to the casual observer at least) to southern European pigmentation. If these people are "black", then so are southern Europeans.
quote:- Outside of western racialist classification, color; white/brown/red/black is described in relation of average pigmentation
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Black as a "racially" or biological term of classification varied based on context as well as who you are speaking to, we all know this.
You can't go to the Caribbean or Africa and accurately describe someone below a color grade of 24 black, no matter how big the lips, wide the nose, kinky the hair and dark their parents might be. ...same-thing for India, and Korea (-minus a few shades).
The problem at it's root isn't color, but race. Arguing about interpretation of the word "black" is a mere smokescreen. A good portion of people don't desire to subscribe to the Idea of race and within those that do, No one wants to agree on the parameters at which we classify each other.
This rolls over to how we chose Identify ourselves and gives space for semantic manipulation in which we classify subjects racially based on a varying degree of pigment. this is because of the fact that in the western world we apply color scheme to racial categorization; Black, brown, white, yellow, red... we confuse ourselves *purposefully* when we seek to associate or dissociate ourselves and others from a group in question.
An Amerindian can be well darker than an African, but they're considered red, A Chinese man can be well lighter than an Iberian, but the Chinese man would be considered yellow.
It's never been about color... It's politics, It's vanity. How it relates to Aegyptians is one in the same... To my knowledge they're Pigmented indigenous Africans, So in the western world... I would say they're black cause they fit the open criteria for such a classification....
quote:That's a very good critique, lioness. Thank you.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:When you see males in Egyptian art in military groupings, when you see the Pharaohs the vast majority are depicted medium to dark brown.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:I've been on Stormfront, VNN and the reverse, i.e. black nationalist/Afrocentric forums. All people do from both is cherry pick images off Google - those on Stormfront cherry-pick the lightest they can find, while Afrocentrists just spam the darkest. I'm not interested in going down this route. Me posting the Nefertiti bust was just to falsify the "black Egypt" theory, the fact is I recognise the variation/skin cline in Nile Valley. Note however I've never tried to lump Egyptian pigmentation as "white" - I've stuck to finer categories like light brown / medium brown and dark brown. Only dark brown would be "black". The average Nubian was dark brown, not Egyptian. This is in Snowden, Brace et al etc. Are all those cross-disciplinary classicists and physical anthropologists wrong?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Why are there thousands of artworks depicting many Egyptians as medium to dark brown and why are most of the Pharoahs depicted medium to dark brown?
Originally posted by Cass/:
Not interested in anecdotes. "Black" on the Luscan Scale as used by physical anthropologists e.g. Carleton Coon is 29-36. You're trying to move the standard boundary for your own agenda. Show me a single anthropologist who thinks 24 or 25 is black.
It's harder to find light brown unless you go to later periods.
You have to go out of your way to find that
Akhenaten with Nefertiti
Seti I
Rameses II , relief, Brooklyn Museum
^^ this is not cherry picked. This is typical for Egyptian males depicted in the art. Yet you are out there saying they were light brown.
Start looking at a lot more Egyptian art. Then men are more commonly not light brown, and check the Pharoahs as well.
You are slanting things toward light brown and that is not honest. And the women are not all categorically lighter either as we see the female above.
Black people want a little acknowledgment of realistic skin tone in history. Instead just a year ago, Joel Edgerton is playing Ramesses, showing cultural inaccuracies haven't changed since the 1950's.
You are being reactionary to some people who might exaggerate in the other direction, you call Afrocentric.
Stop being reactionary and try to be fair.
You don't have to use the word "black"
But "light brown" is not right
quote:Wrong. Western Racialism sees differences in skin color as denoting separate and distinct sub species of humans which also identifies inherent biological traits unique to each, such as level of intellect and so forth. This then leads to an inherent "ranking" of races based on the most desirable traits within each group. And of course, at the top is whites and at the bottom is blacks.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro:
- Within Western racialism, color is representative of ancestry by region.
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Point blank. These are black people.
No explanation needed.
.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/manna4u/32847358016/in/album-72157678734593810/
It is self explanatory
quote:No that is not legitimate that is the foundation of racism. You can't identify populations by skin color alone
Originally posted by Doug M:
Humans have skin color and it is perfectly legitimate to identify populations by their skin color.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Yep. And I think that's why we all use/used it. It's a convenient shorthand especially since we don't have the right terminology yet to refer accurately to populations. And now with recent findings piling up rapidly, it's getting even worse. I'm out here use my own terms like pre-Toba because the right terms don't exist. So every time I talk about these populations I have to explain what I mean.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:You're right that "black" has often been associated with obsolete racial typology. It certainly seems awkward to call AE "black" while acknowledging that race is a social construct that isn't useful for biological anthropology. On the other hand, I do find it can be a convenient shorthand for darker-skinned Africans in certain contexts. For instance, if you're discussing racial tension between light-skinned North Africans of predominantly Eurasian ancestry and darker-skinned Africans with more indigenous ancestry, you can't really use "African" by itself for either team.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Nodnarb
You're right. But that's different from people who are deliberately misinterpreting DJ's use of 'black' (and my past use of the term) as referring to ancestry/race. The same intellectual midgets are also taking ancient Greek use of 'melas' and translating it to the western use of 'black', which has heavy SSA connotations that these ancient authors had no awareness of. They're also doing the same thing with 'Cush', going as far as to say that Eden being encircled by Cushites to the north, west and east must mean Eden was in Africa. This, despite the fact that the bible clearly says Eden was to the east (from its audience's perspective). Against all evidence, we're supposed to think that, because these Cushites were dark skinned, this whole setting of Adam and Eve must have been imagined to take place in Africa.
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with saying that the ancient Greeks would have described AE pigmentation as heavily pigmented and consistent with their artwork. But that doesn't translate to the racial baggage that 'black' carries today. They're taking ancient pigmentation-based terms and using it to sneak in their own agenda. And when academics refuse to get on board with defining AE on their terms (why should it specifically have to be THEIR terms?) they want to throw a tantrum and publish emails.
But that's how I see things personally. Not going to blackmail anyone into agreeing with me the way Carlos Coke would.
But these mental midgets have no clue. They will call Aterians 'black' in the western sense without even having a notion that that's inappropriate for several reasons. Some even call Neanderthals 'black'. This is why I've always been against amateurs and lay people trying to talk Anthropology because they read three forum posts. Some of these people will then try to lecture you on topics even though they're updating their arguments every time you say something. Then they will act like they knew it all along even though you can clearly track the progress in their post since the day before. Every time there is a debate you can see them using terms you used and try to lecture people on their newfound information as if they've given it any thought. They're just parroting and not from books or papers, but from guys online. This is what Amun Ra used to do and so I know exactly when some newbie is doing this.
quote:Most of the world is to some degree brown but for argument's sake we will pretend that brown doesn't exist in humans.
Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] Within human biology and the earths environment humans only come in one range of colors, white on the very light end and black on the very dark end. ALL humans are somewhere within that range of colors. Hence there are populations on the planet that can rightly be called black and others that can rightly be called white. All human skin color is determined by the amount of melanin, which by definition means "black" from the root "mela".
Not to mention all human populations ultimately started out as black.
There are no blue, orange, green or purple humans.
quote:The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians by Professor S O Y keita and Professor A J Boyce
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
quote:So 5 to 7 percent migration rates into Egypt could explain why modern Egyptians are more Sub Saharan than ancient Egyptians were
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians by Professor S O Y keita and Professor A J Boyce
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Assuming migration per generation was about 5 to 7 percent in middle Egypt this could explain things easily.
quote:lol.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Within human biology and the earths environment humans only come in one range of colors, white on the very light end and black on the very dark end. ALL humans are somewhere within that range of colors. Hence there are populations on the planet that can rightly be called black and others that can rightly be called white. All human skin color is determined by the amount of melanin, which by definition means "black" from the root "mela".
Not to mention all human populations ultimately started out as black.
Therefore to claim that skin color has no biological or scientific basis and that black and white aren't valid as adjectives describing it is simply a falsehood.
There are no blue, orange, green or purple humans.
Not ironically Khem as in KMT means the same thing chemically as the AE recognized carbon "the black element" as the key to life on earth and the universe......
Of course one of the purposes of scientific racism was to deny these facts and muddy the waters so to speak.
quote:.
Originally posted by the lioness,
quote:So how would you describe the difference between the man I posted and the man you posted?
Originally posted by Thereal:
The Tibetans didn't look like that 100 plus years ago and when an African mixes with east people they can produce similar looking people. I can't post images so well.
http://betterphotography.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Three_Tibetans_in_traditional_costume_1865-66.jpg
quote:Yes. The ancient Greeks and Romans did not consider themselves white and distinguished themselves to more northern European tribes/peoples based on pigmentation. Now what?
Now tell me would the people who have a problem calling the the AE black people have a problem calling the Romans white?
quote:wog definition:
Wog is a slang word in the idiom of Australian English and British English, usually employed as an ethnic or racial slur and considered derogatory and offensive.
In British English, wog is an offensive racial slur usually applied to black, Middle Eastern or South Asian/Maritime Southeast Asian peoples. In Australian English, wog is a term used as a racial slur mostly for people from Southern Europe and the Mediterranean region in general, including the Mediterranean region of the Middle East ( i.e. the Eastern Mediterranean or the Levant and North Africa).
quote:Ah, I see only a crazy "Afrocentric" would place an African majority language phylum with the oldest branches of Afroasiatic and the most diversity... in Africa.
Originally posted by Cass/:
We don't know where the Proto-Afroasiatic homeland was, so your 1996 quote is useless. It makes more sense to me Afroasiatic in Egypt arrived together with agriculture and domesticates from the Levant (as a farming language dispersal hypothesis), but I don't know. There is no scholarly consensus on this. Yea, no doubt though an Afrocentrist will put it in Africa.
quote:It's well understood that the best representatives of the ancient Egyptians are the indigenous people in Upper Egypt in Esna, Luxor, Edfu, Kom Ombo and Aswan. The people of Lower Egypt are derivatives of over a millennia of invasions, migration and settlement from half a dozen "Eurasian" populations. Looking to modern Egyptians from Lower Egypt for the ancients is foolhardy.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:lol.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Within human biology and the earths environment humans only come in one range of colors, white on the very light end and black on the very dark end. ALL humans are somewhere within that range of colors. Hence there are populations on the planet that can rightly be called black and others that can rightly be called white. All human skin color is determined by the amount of melanin, which by definition means "black" from the root "mela".
Not to mention all human populations ultimately started out as black.
Therefore to claim that skin color has no biological or scientific basis and that black and white aren't valid as adjectives describing it is simply a falsehood.
There are no blue, orange, green or purple humans.
Not ironically Khem as in KMT means the same thing chemically as the AE recognized carbon "the black element" as the key to life on earth and the universe......
Of course one of the purposes of scientific racism was to deny these facts and muddy the waters so to speak.
Black isn't just skin colour to you though. You've been caught with pants down on this issue, I've seen it in several threads.
Is the Egyptian football team black?
quote:Yes although the region of Middle Egypt could've recieved these "SSA" influences from Upper Egyptians further south (and Kushites). How do I at least theorize this? Because Ramses III was from Waset and shared DNA found in SSA.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So 5 to 7 percent migration rates into Egypt could explain why modern Egyptians are more Sub Saharan than ancient Egyptians were
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians by Professor S O Y keita and Professor A J Boyce
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Assuming migration per generation was about 5 to 7 percent in middle Egypt this could explain things easily.
quote:By "Sub-Saharan", I assume they are not including North Sudanese, because a significant portion of North Sudan is in the Sahara.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So 5 to 7 percent migration rates into Egypt could explain why modern Egyptians are more Sub Saharan than ancient Egyptians were
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians by Professor S O Y keita and Professor A J Boyce
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Assuming migration per generation was about 5 to 7 percent in middle Egypt this could explain things easily.
quote:
Originally posted by Lawaya:
quote:DO YOU BELIEVE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE MORE EURASIAN THAN NON EURASIAN ???
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lewaya, Relax... Me n swenet are not in cahoots, but you have a lot of digging to do ...and I don't trust you enough to help you fight this fight... Apparently people like to misuse information here.
quote:and:
Originally posted by Oshun:
From earlier periods to the third intermediate, and from then to now migrations could change demographics.
quote:In other words, in 5000 years some ancient Egyptian regions/communities could have gone from:
Originally posted by Oshun:
I would be of no surprise if Near East and African influences waxed and waned over time periods in certain regions and were not static after Egypt established itself as a world power.
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009501;p=1#000031
Originally posted by Swenet:
My man looking like Morgan Freeman in Robin Hood. With the freckles and everything.
The phenotypical diversity of Siwans is striking. We see the same thing in the Khargha Oasis. You got the coastal Maghrebi looking Siwans (for the lack of a better term) and the more 'African' looking ones, with both often (but not always) having corresponding lighter and darker skin. The fact that these people live side by side for so long in the middle of the desert without becoming more homogeneous suggests that one of these has been intermingling more with new arrivals than the other.
Or maybe they're both diluted just as much and genetically unrepresentative of the ancient inhabitants. In this scenario the subset with more 'African' features simply look more like the ancient inhabitants but don't have this look because they're less diluted. Kellis burials and other ancient oasis inhabitants show commonalities with Nubian samples in Roman times (indicating migration from elsewhere on the continent, not necessarily northern Sudan) so more 'African' phenotypes don't always have to be a direct link to the ancient inhabitants.
quote:Haddow 2012
The results of the inter-regional comparison of trait
frequencies demonstrate an overall affinity with North African populations,
especially with several early Upper Egyptian and contemporary Lower
Nubian groups. Despite these similarities, however, the Kellis assemblage
remains relatively distinct in relation to the comparative groups. This is
consistent with a geographically isolated population experiencing limited
gene-flow.
Whatever their exact origin, these modern Siwans with darker skin and certain facial features would still be closer in phenotype to the original oasis Egyptians:
Tomb of Bannentiu in Bahariya Oasis [/qb]
quote:Kudos. You were already making adjustments as early as 2011. In fact, threads like these prove that most of the serious posters had already decided that, out of the many uses, the purely pigmentation-based use of 'black' is the only one that can be defended. Very few serious mainstream posters used the term 'black' as a synonym for some sort of 'African race'. Maybe some still slipped up every now and then, but there was a general agreement that, ideally, it should be about one's level of pigmentation. In that sense the AE would be 'black' obviously [meaning a range of brown that includes jetblack]. But the problem is that you will always have people slipping in some trojan horse and making it about 'race'.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[qb] Yep, this is why I brought up this same issiue back in 2011, now I feel vindicated in my skepticism of the usage of black.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=004897
quote:YOU STILL CALLING NAMES THE QUESTION WASNT ABOUT DO EURASIAN ANCESTRY EXIST THE QUESTION WAS WHAT HE BELIEVE BECAUSE THE TERM EURASIAN IS A LABEL THAT WE TALKING ABOUT AND ALSO WHAT WHITES RACIST BELIEVE IN WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT
Originally posted by xyyman:
Another fuchging idiot who has no clue. Europeans are more African than non-African. also eben YRI carry non-African and Eurasian ancestry. why? because there is no such thing as "Eurasian" ancestry.
quote:
Originally posted by Lawaya:
quote:DO YOU BELIEVE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE MORE EURASIAN THAN NON EURASIAN ???
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lewaya, Relax... Me n swenet are not in cahoots, but you have a lot of digging to do ...and I don't trust you enough to help you fight this fight... Apparently people like to misuse information here.
quote:So then, I take it you agree that the ancient Egyptians were indeed black, at least royals such as these.
Originally posted by Cass/:
This has already been done, i.e. if you look at anthro literature such as Coon, "black" is used from 29-36, which Coon (1939) describes as the "chocolate-brown class". I already provided quotes that show this. Since these are fuzzy catagories, sometimes you get 28 or even 27 also called "black", but it virtually never covers the light brown skin shades that Afrocentrists try to categorize as black to fit their politics.
quote:Yeah, I know who you're referring to. Well I guess anyone (especially those suffering from neuroses) can take anything anyone else says out of context.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:In an ideal world, yes. But we also see that some are, in fact, using it as a Trojan horse. The lunatic who is going around demanding academics describe AE as 'black' in a racial/ancestry sense was using YOUR posts to justify this ancestry-based use of 'black'. When I told him your use is different from his, he lost it and threw a tantrum. I don't think you understand how deceitful and low some of these people are.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
We all know what 'black' is, which is a description of skin color and says nothing about ancestry
quote:Why? Doesn't this thread entail the very topic??
I'll send you something later in regards to what you asked (gradual change in AE). I'm trying to stay away from this topic on ES.
quote:That is assuming the bust preserves the original skin color which I believe it does not.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Not black.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefertiti_Bust
quote:"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
Originally posted by Lawaya:
Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
quote:I don't know why people insist on peddling the fantasy that the ancient Egyptians were West African or were closely related to them when the ancient Egyptians were clearly Northeast Africans. The relation was distant and very far in time. You have no idea just how much this irks me.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
Originally posted by Lawaya:
Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
quote:Ok. But are you prepared to admit AE's were closer to Europeans than west/central/south sub-Saharan Africans? The same applies to most or all north Sudanese/Nubians because of closer geographical distance. On most maps the true size of Africa is not shown clearly.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I don't know why people insist on peddling the fantasy that the ancient Egyptians were West African or were closely related to them when the ancient Egyptians were clearly Northeast Africans. The relation was distant and very far in time. You have no idea just how much this irks me.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
Originally posted by Lawaya:
Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
quote:
Originally posted by Cass:
As I posted in my first thread: a prediction of the isolation-by-distance model in population genetics is ancient Egyptians will be closest genetically to their nearest geographical neighbours, but since Europe is smaller than Sub-Saharan Africa, that populations from Europe and east Mediterranean, will plot closer than many Sub-Saharan African populations.
As expected (although I was mocked for saying this) Nubian skeletal samples from northern Sudan plot closer to Zalavar+Berg+Norse than Sub-Saharan populations such as Zulu.
Howells, 1995-
http://i62.tinypic.com/34dfn6e.jpg
"Indeed, in nine cases a European population measured by Howells provided the closest match to one of the Nubian specimens studied by Williams et al. (2005)." (Bulbeck, 2011)
quote:Geographic distance does NOT equal genetic distance. I don't know how many times this has been explained to you.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Ok. But are you prepared to admit AE's were closer to Europeans than west sub-Saharan Africans? The same applies to most or all north Sudanese/Nubians because of closer geographical distance.
quote:Size of a geographic region is a non-issue. The issue is populaition affinities based on recent ancestry as well as gene-flow.
Originally posted by Cass:
As I posted in my first thread: a prediction of the isolation-by-distance model in population genetics is ancient Egyptians will be closest genetically to their nearest geographical neighbours, but since Europe is smaller than Sub-Saharan Africa, that populations from Europe and east Mediterranean, will plot closer than many Sub-Saharan African populations.
quote:Could you elaborate more on this? If craniometrically the Nubians align more with Europeans especially Nords then it is no surprise because Brace (1995) said the same thing and even Somalians group closer to English than 'typical' Sub-Saharan West Africans. But again, what does this have to do with genetic relations??
As expected (although I was mocked for saying this) Nubian skeletal samples from northern Sudan plot closer to Zalavar+Berg+Norse than Sub-Saharan populations such as Zulu.
Howells, 1995-
http://i62.tinypic.com/34dfn6e.jpg
"Indeed, in nine cases a European population measured by Howells provided the closest match to one of the Nubian specimens studied by Williams et al. (2005)." (Bulbeck, 2011)
quote:The point is that nobody would object to calling some of these people white, except the most racist Nazis in Europe who believe white is to be preserved for only the "purest" populations of Northern Europe with no admixture from outside groups. But that doesn't mean that white as a description of very light skin is not an accurate label. However, the idea here is that even if the lightest skinned Egyptians and Arabs are technically "white", Europeans will still treat them as "non whites" when they migrate to Europe. Even as these same Europeans claim close kinship to the ancient populations of Egypt and the Euphrates. Ironically enough the Europeans don't want to call them as white because they know that these people have a "mixed" ancestry including populations who had black skin at some point. The FUNNIEST part is that Europeans also have a mixed ancestry and most of their ideas of race are based on denial of this fact.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:lol.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Within human biology and the earths environment humans only come in one range of colors, white on the very light end and black on the very dark end. ALL humans are somewhere within that range of colors. Hence there are populations on the planet that can rightly be called black and others that can rightly be called white. All human skin color is determined by the amount of melanin, which by definition means "black" from the root "mela".
Not to mention all human populations ultimately started out as black.
Therefore to claim that skin color has no biological or scientific basis and that black and white aren't valid as adjectives describing it is simply a falsehood.
There are no blue, orange, green or purple humans.
Not ironically Khem as in KMT means the same thing chemically as the AE recognized carbon "the black element" as the key to life on earth and the universe......
Of course one of the purposes of scientific racism was to deny these facts and muddy the waters so to speak.
Black isn't just skin colour to you though. You've been caught with pants down on this issue, I've seen it in several threads.
Is the Egyptian football team black?
quote:Bullshit.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Yes. The ancient Greeks and Romans did not consider themselves white and distinguished themselves to more northern European tribes/peoples based on pigmentation. Now what?
Now tell me would the people who have a problem calling the the AE black people have a problem calling the Romans white?
Also, just look up the old immigration policies of the US. At one point northern Europeans were favoured over southern Europeans, and the latter were not considered white. And they were not considered white because of their darker phenotypes.
I've been on places like Stormfront for years. Although that website purports to support pan-European unity, none exists. Just go to the individual country sections for the Swedes, English etc. most see Italians as "wogs".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wog
In England we have a saying - "The wogs begin at Calais". Google it.
quote:wog definition:
Wog is a slang word in the idiom of Australian English and British English, usually employed as an ethnic or racial slur and considered derogatory and offensive.
In British English, wog is an offensive racial slur usually applied to black, Middle Eastern or South Asian/Maritime Southeast Asian peoples. In Australian English, wog is a term used as a racial slur mostly for people from Southern Europe and the Mediterranean region in general, including the Mediterranean region of the Middle East ( i.e. the Eastern Mediterranean or the Levant and North Africa).
British
a person who is not white.
Australian
a foreigner or immigrant, especially one from southern Europe.
Not all Europeans = white, and not all Africans = black. This simple fact is problematic for your politics.
quote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/01/oxford-university-launches-summer-school-aimed-white-working/
Oxford University has launched a summer school aimed at white British boys, in an effort to increase its intake of working class students.
Those taking part will get to try out subjects such as ancient history, computer science, law and medical sciences as well as being taught by Oxford academics.
The move comes amid mounting pressure on universities to boost diversity and increase their intake of disadvantaged students.
In her first speech as Prime Minister, Theresa May highlighted the issue, saying that white working-class boys were "less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university".
quote:Since you have not stated what the range for being black is your comment is useless and will continue to be.
Originally posted by Doug M:
It does not mean that humans don't have skin color or that the AE didn't fall WELL WITHIN the range of skin colors called "black".
quote:How on earth are Europeans closer to Northeast Africans on a molecular genetic level? Please provide molecular genetic evidence for this assertion.
Ok. But are you prepared to admit AE's were closer to Europeans than west/central/south sub-Saharan Africans? The same applies to most or all north Sudanese/Nubians because of closer geographical distance. On most maps the true size of Africa is not shown clearly.
quote:There are some things I will never discuss on ES. This community clearly can't move on without aDNA evidence forcing them to move on and even then they do it reluctantly or try to slip in some bs about "suspicious white man's science". I've seen it all. From people talking about academics planting hairs in Egyptians' scalps to people trying to focus on convenient non metric data to make points they know are false. I'm not talking about this stuff because I don't respond well to Afrocentric-sounding denial. Might as well avoid it.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Why? Doesn't this thread entail the very topic?? [/qb]
Originally posted by Swenet:
[QUOTE]I'll send you something later in regards to what you asked (gradual change in AE). I'm trying to stay away from this topic on ES.
quote:sh!t no! send me too!
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:There are some things I will never discuss on ES. This community clearly can't move on without aDNA evidence forcing them to move on and even then they do it reluctantly or try to slip in some bs about "suspicious white man's science". I've seen it all. From people talking about academics planting hairs in Egyptians' scalps to people trying to focus on convenient non metric data to make points they know are false. I'm not talking about this stuff because I don't respond well to Afrocentric-sounding denial. Might as well avoid it. [/QB]
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Why? Doesn't this thread entail the very topic??
Originally posted by Swenet:
[QUOTE]I'll send you something later in regards to what you asked (gradual change in AE). I'm trying to stay away from this topic on ES.
quote:Thanks. It'd seem many Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics want a "static Egypt" and would mentally prefer to assume remains in one era or region transfers to all the others. That requires less thinking. I'm supposing the response has been expected that somehow evidence of mixture some centuries before the Late period in Lower or Middle Egypt should have some kind of death star effect.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Oshun
Even though I disagree with some of your sources/how you're reading them, I love how you are quickly integrating these different ideas and coming up with your own explanations and turning things into a coherent whole with your own analysis. The key point here is coherent. Everyone can slap a few quotes together like Akachi, but you're making sense. Keep it up.
Especially this point is huge, IMO:
quote:and:
Originally posted by Oshun:
From earlier periods to the third intermediate, and from then to now migrations could change demographics.
quote:In other words, in 5000 years some ancient Egyptian regions/communities could have gone from:
Originally posted by Oshun:
I would be of no surprise if Near East and African influences waxed and waned over time periods in certain regions and were not static after Egypt established itself as a world power.
1) looking like predynastic Egyptians (e.g. Badarians and Naqadans), to
2) more like a hybridized population (e.g. perhaps this ancient sample, although, again, we're not sure if it's really that hybridized; all we can do is speculate), to
3) back to more African-like, or, at least, going back in that direction to a degree (e.g. modern Egyptians are more African-like due to post-Roman migration from SSA).
I can easily post skeletal evidence that this could have happened in some regions. This is one of the reasons why I said earlier that a result of 0% L lineages in some samples can easily happen without big implications for AE as a whole.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Yeah, I know who you're referring to. Well I guess anyone (especially those suffering from neuroses) can take anything anyone else says out of context.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:In an ideal world, yes. But we also see that some are, in fact, using it as a Trojan horse. The lunatic who is going around demanding academics describe AE as 'black' in a racial/ancestry sense was using YOUR posts to justify this ancestry-based use of 'black'. When I told him your use is different from his, he lost it and threw a tantrum. I don't think you understand how deceitful and low some of these people are.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
We all know what 'black' is, which is a description of skin color and says nothing about ancestry
quote:Why? Doesn't this thread entail the very topic??
I'll send you something later in regards to what you asked (gradual change in AE). I'm trying to stay away from this topic on ES.
quote:THIS..... I tried to warn them they are digging themselves into a hole but they were not trying to hear it. I can say truthfully I am ALMOST equally enthusiastic on seeing these results as I would if they said the exactly opposite. I post it here and cats down playing it like its not really a big deal
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:This community clearly can't move on without aDNA evidence forcing them to move on and even then they do it reluctantly or try to slip in some bs about "suspicious white man's science". [/QB]
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Why? Doesn't this thread entail the very topic??
Originally posted by Swenet:
[QUOTE]I'll send you something later in regards to what you asked (gradual change in AE). I'm trying to stay away from this topic on ES.
. SURE Its not. They know ES would be having ORGASMS if the data said the opposite, the thread would be like 20 pages already. quote:This is bullshit though. This is 2017.
Originally posted by xyyman:
So if the paper is saying less SSA and is using YRI instead of Great Lakes SSAfricans as the representive …then. That is the game these racialist play. Ignore the paper until the full study is presented.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:This is bullshit though. This is 2017.
Originally posted by xyyman:
So if the paper is saying less SSA and is using YRI instead of Great Lakes SSAfricans as the representive …then. That is the game these racialist play. Ignore the paper until the full study is presented.
LOOK at the names and who is posting the paper, looked at what they have posted.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=FuHzq6sAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
You think they are going to be dumb enough to make THAT type of analysis? I think not. MAYBE they would classify Seemingly North African components now concentrated in Sub Saharan Africa (Ethio-Somali) as "Non Sub Saharan" but more generic Southern, Central and Eastern African equatorial ancestry? Hell no.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
?? you know something we don't (insert sarcasm)?
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:This is bullshit though. This is 2017.
Originally posted by xyyman:
So if the paper is saying less SSA and is using YRI instead of Great Lakes SSAfricans as the representive …then. That is the game these racialist play. Ignore the paper until the full study is presented.
LOOK at the names and who is posting the paper, looked at what they have posted.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=FuHzq6sAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
You think they are going to be dumb enough to make THAT type of analysis? I think not. MAYBE they would classify Seemingly North African components now concentrated in Sub Saharan Africa (Ethio-Somali) as "Non Sub Saharan" but more generic Southern, Central and Eastern African equatorial ancestry? Hell no.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
I think he's accusing you of making assumptions about the what the author's said without proof. Until the study's released I don't know how much more can be said.
quote:By the time they wake up the other multi-ethnic and 'white' fora and bloggers will be light years ahead of them and European bloggers will have more to teach on AE population affinity. How ironic that lurkers will be going to European sites for analysis of AE genomes.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:THIS..... I tried to warn them they are digging themselves into a hole but they were not trying to hear it. I can say truthfully I am ALMOST equally enthusiastic on seeing these results as I would if they said the exactly opposite. I post it here and cats down playing it like its not really a big deal
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:This community clearly can't move on without aDNA evidence forcing them to move on and even then they do it reluctantly or try to slip in some bs about "suspicious white man's science".
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Why? Doesn't this thread entail the very topic??
Originally posted by Swenet:
[QUOTE]I'll send you something later in regards to what you asked (gradual change in AE). I'm trying to stay away from this topic on ES.
ES dont even have a reasonable way to interpret the abstract based on 100's of ancient DNA findings around the globe. SMH. [/QB]
quote:More woe is me, racism and 'but white people' bullshit. The data is NOT worse than useless. If the samples are sufficient it will tell is HOW CLOSER Modern Egyptians are to pre-Arab Egyptians! I will show the genetic differences during the transition between Modern, Roman, Greek, West Asian, Berber, Nubian and Late Native Egyptian dynasties. You are so stuck on denying the data you are not even able to see the benefits of what is actually being presented. SMH.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Obviously, if they aren't going to show the DNA for any Egyptians prior to the Third Intermediate Period, then the findings of this paper are less than useless on the origin and development of AE society. The third intermediate period was effectively the end of native Egyptian rule along the Nile, right up to the current "Arab" Egyptian state. Whatever inflows of genetics that happened during or after this point are irrelevant to the origin of the ancient culture. And obviously does nothing to answer the question of the overall affinity of the AE population from the Pre Dynastic thru 21st Dynasty.
Ironically enough the Third Intermediate Period is also the time frame of the Kushite Pharoahs of Egypt. So does that represent "Sub Saharan" DNA inflows into Egypt? That is a key question here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Kudos. You were already making adjustments as early as 2011. In fact, threads like these prove that most of the serious posters had already decided that, out of the many uses, the purely pigmentation-based use of 'black' is the only one that can be defended. Very few serious mainstream posters used the term 'black' as a synonym for some sort of 'African race'. Maybe some still slipped up every now and then, but there was a general agreement that, ideally, it should be about one's level of pigmentation. In that sense the AE would be 'black' obviously [meaning a range of brown that includes jetblack]. But the problem is that you will always have people slipping in some trojan horse and making it about 'race'.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[qb] Yep, this is why I brought up this same issiue back in 2011, now I feel vindicated in my skepticism of the usage of black.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=004897
quote:I dont really think any of that matters. Just ask yourself a simple question. When you look at populations in the horn of Africa, where does it look like their external ancestry comes from?
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I don't know why certain people are trying to deny the data. They are only making the "Afrocentric" side look bad. Just wait until we see more...
Also @Swenet @Djehuti @Beyoku
Going by the study could SSA Benin sickle cell gene also be recent in Egypt?
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
One reason why I'm interested in this data is because it will hopefully also give some insight in the reason why Egyptian authorities have withheld Egyptian aDNA for so long, supposedly because it represents a security threat.
As Muslims in an 'Arab' state, the last thing they want is an affinity to Jews/Levant to come out of these DNA tests. When you look at DNA Tribes' analysis of the Amarna data, the Levant scores just as good as most SSA regions in one measure, though scoring relatively poorly in the 'main result'.
quote:Look at the TribeScores of Ramses III and his son (unfortunately, no TribeScores are given for the Amarna mummies). IIRC, they're highest in the Horn of Africa region, then the Levant, then most SSA regions. Compare that to the post I just did on the bright green component in the Middle East. Broadly speaking, it's all consistent and saying the same thing.
Originally posted by Blessedbyhorus:
Strange. Don't modern Egyptians THEMSELVES already have affinity to Levantines? I remember seeing some studies on that.
quote:So its NOT recent. Will check out there. But I did some digging and I saw poster Punos_Rey post this on another thread.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@BBH
Potential evidence of sicklemia as early as the Badarian. See here .
quote:– Marin et. al. 1999, Use of the Amplification Refractory Mutation System (ARMS) in the Study of HbS in Predynastic Egyptian Remains.”
“We conducted a molecular investigation of the presence of sicklemia in six predynastic Egyptian mummies (about 3200 BC) from the Anthropological and Ethnographic Museum of Turin. Previous studies of these remains showed the presence of severe anemia, while histological preparations of mummified tissues revealed hemolytic disorders. DNA was extracted from dental samples with a silica-gel method specific for ancient DNA. A modification of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), called amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) was then applied. ARMS is based on specific priming of the PCR and it permits diagnosis of single nucleotide mutations. In this method, amplification can occur only in the presence of the specific mutation being studied. The amplified DNA was analyzed by electrophoresis. In samples of three individuals, there was a band at the level of the HbS mutated fragment, indicating that they were affected by sicklemia."
quote:Okay, now I see what you are seeing. But I still see Great Lakes and Southern Africa outscoring. HOWEVER... Like we all agreed these results are not to be taken "literally." Since Great Lakes are seen as a better "proxy" for the African origins of Ramesse III I believe. Correct me if I am wrong.
Originally posted by Swenet:
In terms of Ramses III's TribeScores, the Levant outscores/rivals some SSA regions, though not all. In the case of his son, the Levant outscores only the Sahel. In both cases, the Levant is far above the remaining non-African regions, consistent with known African migration to that area.
http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf
quote:I've also kinda seen the Levant as an important region. It basically has always been a "bridge" between two(or three even) main worlds!
Originally posted by Swenet:
Yes, you're reading it right and it's a good thing you corrected me because I was talking from memory. In my upcoming short book you will see why I'm taking this stance and why I'm identifying the Levant as an important region. I will also explain other things about DNA Tribes' data.
quote:Fixed
Originally posted by xyyman:
Good god man! the modern African Americans in the USA are off-white Brits and Germans. The indigenous population of Slave decent in the USA are immigrant Nigerians and Senegalese. Stop feeding the hysteria like a pussy.
It is quite possible the "Black Americans" are the Nigerians/Senegalese. Not the "African Americans" living there.
quote:[/QB]
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Precisely.
Originally posted by beyoku:
More woe is me, racism and 'but white people' bullshit. The data is NOT worse than useless. If the samples are sufficient it will tell is HOW CLOSER Modern Egyptians are to pre-Arab Egyptians! I will show the genetic differences during the transition between Modern, Roman, Greek, West Asian, Berber, Nubian and Late Native Egyptian dynasties. You are so stuck on denying the data you are not even able to see the benefits of what is actually being presented. SMH.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Fixed :p [/QB]
Originally posted by xyyman:
Good god man! the modern African Americans in the USA are off-white Brits and Germans. The indigenous population of Slave decent in the USA are immigrant Nigerians and Senegalese. Stop feeding the hysteria like a pussy.
It is quite possible the "Black Americans" are the Nigerians/Senegalese. Not the "African Americans" living there.
quote:
.
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Okay, now I see what you are seeing. But I still see Great Lakes and Southern Africa outscoring. HOWEVER... Like we all agreed these results are not to be taken "literally." Since Great Lakes are seen as a better "proxy" for the African origins of Ramesse III I believe. Correct me if I am wrong.
Originally posted by Swenet:
In terms of Ramses III's TribeScores, the Levant outscores/rivals some SSA regions, though not all. In the case of his son, the Levant outscores only the Sahel. In both cases, the Levant is far above the remaining non-African regions, consistent with known African migration to that area.
http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf
quote:When I have a presentable draft I'll send it to you if you're interested.
Originally posted by Jari:
I would be really interested in your finds on Egypt's relationship with the Levant.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I never said egyptyian weren't black and yes there were Pharaoh bodies that were west African that facts
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
Originally posted by Lawaya:
Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
quote:Source?
Originally posted by Lawaya:
quote:I never said egyptyian weren't black and yes there were Pharaoh bodies that were west African that facts
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
Originally posted by Lawaya:
Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
quote:I never said they weren't north African but the facts is some of the pharaoh were of west African
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I don't know why people insist on peddling the fantasy that the ancient Egyptians were West African or were closely related to them when the ancient Egyptians were clearly Northeast Africans. The relation was distant and very far in time. You have no idea just how much this irks me.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
Originally posted by Lawaya:
Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
quote:The Benin (severe) sickle cell haplotype has been found in Kemet since the dawn during Pre-Dynastic times.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:Going by the study could SSA Benin sickle cell gene also be recent in Egypt?
quote:why keep name calling so if information is by afrocentrist its pseudo and if by white person its facts
Originally posted by Cass/:
That Keita article was published in a pseudo-journal. Same pseudoscience "black studies" journal that published Chinese civilization was founded by blacks.
Blacks in Ancient China, Part 1: The Founders of Xia and Shang
CA Winters
Journal of Black Studies 1 (2), 8-13
The editor of the journal also self-describes himself as an "Afrocentrist". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molefi_Kete_Asante#Afrocentricity
quote:You should talk about those Chinese and Indian "Afrocentrist" as well.
Originally posted by Cass/:
That Keita article was published in a pseudo-journal. Same pseudoscience "black studies" journal that published Chinese civilization was founded by blacks.
Blacks in Ancient China, Part 1: The Founders of Xia and Shang
CA Winters
Journal of Black Studies 1 (2), 8-13
The editor of the journal also self-describes himself as an "Afrocentrist". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molefi_Kete_Asante#Afrocentricity
quote:Not at all. See my work criticizing the Open Pysch journals.
Originally posted by Lawaya:
why keep name calling so if information is by afrocentrist its pseudo and if by white person its facts
quote:would what I suggested require "SSA" at levels reaching West or Central Africa????
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Oshun
My main criticism is this. We all know there has to have been SSA ancestry. But at the same time there also has to be a limit. That is what the data says. A presence and a limit. When you look at the West Eurasian samples with the most affinity to the recently sampled Natufians, they have a bit of SSA, but they can't have too much or they will be distant to these Natufians.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
From where I was positioned, I didn't think what I posted would have required or not required limits to exist (though please explain if it does). My reason for pointing to Ramses and the Amarnas was with labeling the "SSA" contribution in moderns "SSA" in the first place. SSA discusses populations of Africans that developed after the Sahara's return, and this will affect how the conclusions and data are reviewed. Before concluding the genetics of moderns could be local, some of the first reactions we got here was people suggesting 19th century slavery was the reason for why it is seen in higher levels. Even if there's to be a limit, the Amarnas and Ramses III suggest a local origin of this supposed "Sub Saharan" contribution to moderns. It may have been focused more in certain regions and over some time periods more than others, but it never needed slaves or wandering non-indigenous Africans to explain it. quote:Wouldn't Hassan's work suggest this to some extent??
I said that to say this: when thinking about dynastic AE population affinity, we should work from here. Dynastic AE ratio of SSA to North African may or may not be larger than what we see in the Natufians. However, if it's larger it will largely depend on post-Natufian SSA migration to the ancestors of ancient Egyptians. And it also has to be ongoing and substantial to continually counteract ongoing small Eurasian and Maghrebi influences during the dynastic era. I have seen no one here who has been able to provide evidence for this. In my view, those who take DNA Tribes literally, their priorities should lie here before using less certain data (i.e. data that is not based on ancient DNA).
quote:its already been posted in the thread
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Source?
Originally posted by Lawaya:
quote:I never said egyptyian weren't black and yes there were Pharaoh bodies that were west African that facts
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:"most of them"?? So which few were West African??! LOL
Originally posted by Lawaya:
Egyptians were black most of them just weren't west Africans
This is just nonsense from the other (extreme Afrocentric) side. Since when does being black African mean sub-Saharan West African or even Central African "Bantu"??! This is the other side of the arugment that is just as ridiculous as North Africans not being black but "Caucasoids" closer related to modern Middle Easterners and Europeans.
-
@Xyyman forget that I asked that, it was inappropriate and based on common GEDmatch & DNA testing results I previously came across.
quote:Well hasn't it been known that the AE had multiple colonies in Canaan? I also found this Syrian fresco that was highly interesting, supposedly depicting a sacrifice by a man named "Conon", from 250 bce.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:I've also kinda seen the Levant as an important region. It basically has always been a "bridge" between two(or three even) main worlds!
Originally posted by Swenet:
Yes, you're reading it right and it's a good thing you corrected me because I was talking from memory. In my upcoming short book you will see why I'm taking this stance and why I'm identifying the Levant as an important region. I will also explain other things about DNA Tribes' data.
Also, I've been thinking about PMing you something VERY important(you may disagree) since you and the other series posters been complaining about the rotting away of ES as a alpha African fora.
quote:OK. So what does that have to do with eras PRIOR to the late period? My point was if they have exclusive DNA fro the third intermediate period and claim there is a RISE in Near Eastern lineages, then don't they have to provide similar data from previous periods to compare against? Obviously you can't expect one or two mummies to be representative of much. If all they have is some DNA from a a few mummies in the third intermediate period it really doesn't say much about how MUCH change occurred unless they can provide similar data for previous periods.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:More woe is me, racism and 'but white people' bullshit. The data is NOT worse than useless. If the samples are sufficient it will tell is HOW CLOSER Modern Egyptians are to pre-Arab Egyptians! I will show the genetic differences during the transition between Modern, Roman, Greek, West Asian, Berber, Nubian and Late Native Egyptian dynasties. You are so stuck on denying the data you are not even able to see the benefits of what is actually being presented. SMH.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Obviously, if they aren't going to show the DNA for any Egyptians prior to the Third Intermediate Period, then the findings of this paper are less than useless on the origin and development of AE society. The third intermediate period was effectively the end of native Egyptian rule along the Nile, right up to the current "Arab" Egyptian state. Whatever inflows of genetics that happened during or after this point are irrelevant to the origin of the ancient culture. And obviously does nothing to answer the question of the overall affinity of the AE population from the Pre Dynastic thru 21st Dynasty.
Ironically enough the Third Intermediate Period is also the time frame of the Kushite Pharoahs of Egypt. So does that represent "Sub Saharan" DNA inflows into Egypt? That is a key question here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt
quote:
I find a lot to object to in Pagani et al.’s piece. Masking leaves me uneasy even when the target isn’t the vast majority of your samples’ ancestry (roughly 80%, of modern Egyptian ancestry, iirc more in Copts, seems to be Eurasian) and we have a more constrained sense of what the reference populations ought to be. See the discussion of the analogously mostly European Aleut samples in the SI for Reich et al. 2012.
Even had it worked perfectly, I’m not sure what point it makes. We know that the non-Eurasian ancestry in modern Egyptians is a palimpsest, and the admixture signal most readily retrieved by linkage disequilibrium methods (I would bet there are earlier events beyond easy resolution) looks like a pulse input of “Nilotic” ancestry just 25 generations ago. (I’m quite sure however that this isn’t the sole contribution and expect heterogeneity across Egypt in sources, proportions, and timing.) Not to acknowledge this — that’s a major problem.
I agree that “Middle Eastern” is ambiguous, and it’ll be important to parse this more carefully. How much of this is “Basal Eurasian” (which may have had a very long tenure in North Africa and perhaps even diverged from “African” lineages while still geographically within the continent) and how much is specifically West Eurasian? I doubt it’s entirely the former. Since even Natufian foragers ~12ka had substantial West European hunter-gatherer-related ancestry, I would not be surprised to find it in the earliest Dynastic Egyptians.
quote:All scholarship has benefit but I don't understand why some folks are running around acting like this is something earth shattering.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
DougM. , I understand that I don't have much rapor on here but if you consider both what Beyoku and I stated you can see the possible "benefit" of this study... It's equally wrong to downplay this as it is to treat it as the end all answer to everything we've questioned.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
^I think the author may have been someone else. Keita has been debunking Nostraticists (or, at least, the version of Nostraticism that sees Afroasiatic as a branch within Nostratic) for a long time and has published work with Ehret doing the same:
Early Nile Valley Farmers From El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40034328?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
quote:When I have a presentable draft I'll send it to you if you're interested.
Originally posted by Jari:
I would be really interested in your finds on Egypt's relationship with the Levant.
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I personally believe the Ancient Egyptians and early Levantine populations were almost the same. And I believe the bible(I know I am gonna get a lot of heat from this) kinda cosigns it.
quote:It seems most people are on the same page, however, I would be incredibly surprised if we found "WHG-like" ancestry in Early dynastic Egyptians, where would it come from? I find it incredible how we found a way to lump two source populations separated by over 10 millennia together. The unidirectional dispersal pattern of a population such as Basal Eurasian is enigmatic to me because it seems improbable in the first place with all things considered. This component is really faint in non-Eurasian admixed extant populations of eastern Africa, for a population that is postulated to have emerged south east Sudan or the Sahara by some. Anything that remotely resembles or smells like a possible PreOOA Basal Eurasian Geneset is accompanied by peripheral OOA admixture, notably West Asian. I'm basically saying that Basal Eurasian as a lingering pre-OOA component won't be distinguished if its here or there or nowhere at all & WHG-like ancestry in the nile valley should be indicative of introgression from early Levantine or other Eurasian populations alike.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
This is the response I received from Sarkoboros when I commented on his post:
quote:
I find a lot to object to in Pagani et al.’s piece. Masking leaves me uneasy even when the target isn’t the vast majority of your samples’ ancestry (roughly 80%, of modern Egyptian ancestry, iirc more in Copts, seems to be Eurasian) and we have a more constrained sense of what the reference populations ought to be. See the discussion of the analogously mostly European Aleut samples in the SI for Reich et al. 2012.
Even had it worked perfectly, I’m not sure what point it makes. We know that the non-Eurasian ancestry in modern Egyptians is a palimpsest, and the admixture signal most readily retrieved by linkage disequilibrium methods (I would bet there are earlier events beyond easy resolution) looks like a pulse input of “Nilotic” ancestry just 25 generations ago. (I’m quite sure however that this isn’t the sole contribution and expect heterogeneity across Egypt in sources, proportions, and timing.) Not to acknowledge this — that’s a major problem.
I agree that “Middle Eastern” is ambiguous, and it’ll be important to parse this more carefully. How much of this is “Basal Eurasian” (which may have had a very long tenure in North Africa and perhaps even diverged from “African” lineages while still geographically within the continent) and how much is specifically West Eurasian? I doubt it’s entirely the former. Since even Natufian foragers ~12ka had substantial West European hunter-gatherer-related ancestry, I would not be surprised to find it in the earliest Dynastic Egyptians.
quote:This is what the evidence doesn't support. the near eastern related 14,000ya population is what is now loosely being referred to as Basal Eurasian... seen in that same study.
Originally posted by Cass/:
There is no such thing as "basal Eurasian".
"A previous genetic analysis of early modern humans in Europe using data from the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 suggested that the population to which Kostenki14 belonged harboured within it the three major lineages that exist in mixed form in Europe today: a lineage related to all later pre-Neolithic Europeans, (2) a ‘Basal Eurasian’
lineage that split from the ancestors of Europeans and east Asians before they separated from each other; and (3) a lineage related to the ~24,000-year-old Mal’ta1 from Siberia. With our more extensive sampling of Ice Age Europe, we find no support for this." Fu et al. 2016- The genetic history of Ice Age Europe
quote:Same here. Would also like to hear his thoughts on Sarko's response to my comment.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Swenet count me in for that draft when you're done >
quote:Yet, Hippocrates describes the Colchian skin colour as ὠχρός (ochros), yellow-white/sallow-
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
You should get no heat because you are right the bible does group the Levantines aka Cannanites with Ham's proginity(Egyptians, Ethiopian, North Africans and Levantines.) Not only the Hebrews but the Greeks with Eastern Aethiopia and Herodotus' claims of black curly haired Colchians, and even dark brown bedouin Syrians made by the Egyptians. Heck many of the Arab posters here will admit that the dark Bedouins and Arabs are an aboriginal type, a proto Caucasian dark skinned people.
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I personally believe the Ancient Egyptians and early Levantine populations were almost the same. And I believe the bible(I know I am gonna get a lot of heat from this) kinda cosigns it.
quote:And what is the % of near-eastern admixture? There is a wide range of estimates; I put a quote from Pinhasi saying from 20 to 70%. Regardless there is no "basal Eurasian" even if applied Mesolithic/Neolithic:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB]quote:This is what the evidence doesn't support. the near eastern related 14,000ya population is what is now loosely being referred to as Basal Eurasian... seen in that same study.
Originally posted by Cass/:
There is no such thing as "basal Eurasian".
"A previous genetic analysis of early modern humans in Europe using data from the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 suggested that the population to which Kostenki14 belonged harboured within it the three major lineages that exist in mixed form in Europe today: a lineage related to all later pre-Neolithic Europeans, (2) a ‘Basal Eurasian’
lineage that split from the ancestors of Europeans and east Asians before they separated from each other; and (3) a lineage related to the ~24,000-year-old Mal’ta1 from Siberia. With our more extensive sampling of Ice Age Europe, we find no support for this." Fu et al. 2016- The genetic history of Ice Age Europe
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:This is what the evidence doesn't support. the near eastern related 14,000ya population is what is now loosely being referred to as Basal Eurasian... seen in that same study.
Originally posted by Cass/:
There is no such thing as "basal Eurasian".
"A previous genetic analysis of early modern humans in Europe using data from the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 suggested that the population to which Kostenki14 belonged harboured within it the three major lineages that exist in mixed form in Europe today: a lineage related to all later pre-Neolithic Europeans, (2) a ‘Basal Eurasian’
lineage that split from the ancestors of Europeans and east Asians before they separated from each other; and (3) a lineage related to the ~24,000-year-old Mal’ta1 from Siberia. With our more extensive sampling of Ice Age Europe, we find no support for this." Fu et al. 2016- The genetic history of Ice Age Europe
Just reread the previous page... Swenet, Why are you looking for YRI in these ancient genomes, isn't their a more significant SSA pop cluster that should be considered which you might be overlooking?
quote:Show me the Ancient DNA studies that show massive near eastern (or in your view African) admixture in Europe.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Genetics is above his pay grade . ..reading and comprehending problems ?
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:This is what the evidence doesn't support. the near eastern related 14,000ya population is what is now loosely being referred to as Basal Eurasian... seen in that same study.
Originally posted by Cass/:
There is no such thing as "basal Eurasian".
"A previous genetic analysis of early modern humans in Europe using data from the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 suggested that the population to which Kostenki14 belonged harboured within it the three major lineages that exist in mixed form in Europe today: a lineage related to all later pre-Neolithic Europeans, (2) a ‘Basal Eurasian’
lineage that split from the ancestors of Europeans and east Asians before they separated from each other; and (3) a lineage related to the ~24,000-year-old Mal’ta1 from Siberia. With our more extensive sampling of Ice Age Europe, we find no support for this." Fu et al. 2016- The genetic history of Ice Age Europe
Just reread the previous page... Swenet, Why are you looking for YRI in these ancient genomes, isn't their a more significant SSA pop cluster that should be considered which you might be overlooking?
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
T-Rex posted this and no one bit. SMH. Sarkoborosis here admitting “basal Eurasian” is African. He is admitting Europeans are a subset of Africans. And no one got that?!
BS!!! @ “I doubt it’s **entirely** the former”
Quote
“I agree that “Middle Eastern” is ambiguous, and it’ll be important to parse this more carefully. How much of this is “Basal Eurasian” (which may have had a very long tenure in North Africa and perhaps even diverged from “African” lineages while still geographically within the continent) and how much is specifically West Eurasian? I doubt it’s entirely the former. Since even Natufian foragers ~12ka had substantial West European hunter-gatherer-related ancestry, I would not be surprised to find it in the earliest Dynastic Egyptians.”
You posted a rolling eyes emoji when I said that lurkers will be going to European blogs but you know you can't stay away from Davidski's blog. Lol. All over that site's comment section scavenging for perceived agreement. I bet you're going to be all over Sarkoboros' blog now too because of that little bone he threw you.
quote:Dynastic AE did change over time and was surrounded by EEF-like groups (or let me say ENF-like groups to get rid of the European connotation). If he means that WHG would have come as part of ENF-like populations I don't necessarily disagree with him because WHG (or some other HG component) is naturally built into all ENF genomes given their origins as partially North African and partially local HG. If he means that there would have been additional WHG on top of that, that seems uncalled for. Northeast Africans, even highly admixed Ethio-Semitic speakers, have very little WHG independent of their ENF-like ancestry. Some U6 carrying West Africans might have more WHG than northeast Africans via Afalou and Taforalt-like groups. You can still see WHG-like ancestry in Northwest Africans. For instance, the black Loschbour component here:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
@ Swenet
Basically I cited Pagani et al not for the masking stuff but to back up my suggestion that there would be an indigenous African element in AE that would look pre-OOA rather than stereotypically equatorial African (what you and others would call SSA). Sarko seems to acknowledge the possibility that "Basal Eurasian" split off from proper Eurasian ancestry while still in Africa, but given his expectation of significant WHG ancestry in early dynastic Egyptians, I am less confident he's open to our point of view.
quote:Can I get a PM too please????
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Punos and Nodnarb
Count yourselves in. I'll just PM you here Punos and Nodnarb I will contact you on fb when I'm ready. Beyoku, you already know you're in, too.
@Nodnarb
I wanted to reply with all sorts of stuff but I don't want to give away the stuff I've reserved for my book too much. The thing though is that the most important information in the Pagani paper does not derive from what I think are poorly masked Egyptian and Ethiopian genomes. It derives from the preOOA haplotype (or small set of haplotypes, I can't remember how many) that they counted in various regions in Africa and that appeared most in Egypt out of all African regions. See the figure with the green, blue, white etc. vertical bar charts, which has nothing to do with the masked genomes and is separate analysis. I find it interesting that that blogger said absolutely nothing about this. I also don't think you brought up masked genomes so it just distracts from your question (he might not have done it intentionally though).
BTW, I'm going from memory here, but I'm pretty sure that this is correct. You might want to reread the paper to be absolutely 100% certain that they are two separate analyses. This (double checking) is always good practice in debates. Look at my overestimated recollection of Levantine TribeScores.
quote:Where are the genetic studies showing modern Europeans are 80% near-eastern or African? This nonsense was already falsified by Fu et al. 2016 for Palaeolithic Europeans who from 37,000 - 14,000 BP "descended from a single founder population which forms part of the ancestry of present-day Europeans" with "no evidence of substantial genetic influx from elsewhere" i.e. recurrent, but restricted (minimal) gene flow.
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Modern Europeans are as much as 80% "basal Eurasian/EEF " , lol!
Both WHG and ANE are African also because it was found in Natufians according to the reply . I can't remember if it is true or not. In AFRICA ANE is high in San ding! Ding!
this is not rocket science to see what happened here. Maybe Cass will help me get my hands on Dart book "Hong Kong man in stone age south Africa.
everything is aligning now
None provided as usual and this is irritating, and as I said the estimates range from 20 - 70%, and none of these studies are ever specific. The lower estimates do not contradict IBD, and note Fu et al also mention isolation-by-distance in relation to population structure and Near eastern ancestry in Europe: "a plausible alter-native is population structure, whereby Upper Palaeolithic Europe harboured multiple groups [i.e. a cline] that differed in their relationship to the Near East".
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Xyyman
For someone who goes around calling others 'pussy' you sure love to quote the "lying white man" (your words) for 'extra credibility'. Ole appeal to authority a**. Ole I can't make up my mind up whether to seek their approval or curse them out a** :p You posted a rolling eyes emoji when I said that lurkers will be going to European blogs but you know you can't stay away from Davidski's blog. Lol. All over that site's comment section scavenging for perceived agreement. I bet you're going to be all over Sarkoboros' blog now too because of that little bone he threw you.
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Where are the genetic studies showing modern Europeans are 80% near-eastern or African? This nonsense was already falsified by Fu et al. 2016 for Palaeolithic Europeans who from 37,000 - 14,000 BP "descended from a single founder population which forms part of the ancestry of present-day Europeans" with "no evidence of substantial genetic influx from elsewhere" i.e. recurrent, but restricted (minimal) gene flow.
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Modern Europeans are as much as 80% "basal Eurasian/EEF " , lol!
Both WHG and ANE are African also because it was found in Natufians according to the reply . I can't remember if it is true or not. In AFRICA ANE is high in San ding! Ding!
this is not rocket science to see what happened here. Maybe Cass will help me get my hands on Dart book "Hong Kong man in stone age south Africa.
everything is aligning now
Fu et al do mention at roughly the start of the Holocene: "all European individuals analysed show an affinity to the Near East." That's great (no one has denied some Near East gene flow), but what is the figure of %.
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Bingo. :)
Just found a study last month.
The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early European Farmers
Jones et al. Current Biology. 2017 27(4):576–582
"The emergence of Neolithic features in the absence of immigration by Anatolian farmers highlights the roles of horizontal cultural transmission and potentially independent innovation during the Neolithic transition."
And I'm thinking many geneticist have overestimated near-eastern admixture for other European regions, it doesn't make much sense you find negligible admixture in the Baltic, but massive elsewhere. I think more evidence will come to light supporting the cultural transmission model.
quote:You're in..
Originally posted by Oshun:
Can I get a PM too please????
quote:Out of other available SSA groups (with the exception of Horners who already have substantial Basal Eurasian), the YRI are the closest to Natufians and several other ancient genomes. Like I said, I didn't post the Fst distance of other available SSA samples to Natufians because they're more than 0,2 (up to 0,255 in one Khoisan group), while YRI has at least a much better Fst of 0,186.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Just reread the previous page... Swenet, Why are you looking for YRI in these ancient genomes, isn't their a more significant SSA pop cluster that should be considered which you might be overlooking? [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
YRI outscored by almost all Eurasian samples in closeness to recently sampled Natufians. Other available SSA samples score even worse, so I did not list them.
quote:It's not about what I know or don't know, nor about what I've read or not. Whats important is your interpretation of said evidence. I'm hoping that you aren't "linearizing" the data, like you tend to do... there's a lot of weight on your shoulders people look up to you here lol.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Out of other available SSA groups (with the exception of Horners who already have substantial Basal Eurasian), the YRI are the closest to Natufians and several other ancient genomes. Like I said, I didn't post the Fst distance of other available SSA samples to Natufians because they're more than 0,2 (up to 0,255 in one Khoisan group), while YRI has at least a much better Fst of 0,186.
I thought you already knew all of this from your extensive familiarity with the subject and the many papers you've read...
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
YRI outscored by almost all Eurasian samples in closeness to recently sampled Natufians. Other available SSA samples score even worse, so I did not list them.
quote:Ancient samples with substantial SSA admixture have come forth (e.g. Switzerland HG can be modeled as WHG + Mota). Your problem is that doesn't happen with Eurasian samples with known Egyptian DNA and YDNAs (at least it does not to the same degree), and so you're salty and start making weak objections. But your objections don't bespeak familiarity with the literature so there is no reason for me to take you seriously.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:It's not about what I know or don't know, nor about what I've read or not. Whats important is your interpretation of said evidence. I'm hoping that you aren't "linearizing" the data, like you tend to do... there's a lot of weight on your shoulders people look up to you here lol.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Out of other available SSA groups (with the exception of Horners who already have substantial Basal Eurasian), the YRI are the closest to Natufians and several other ancient genomes. Like I said, I didn't post the Fst distance of other available SSA samples to Natufians because they're more than 0,2 (up to 0,255 in one Khoisan group), while YRI has at least a much better Fst of 0,186.
I thought you already knew all of this from your extensive familiarity with the subject and the many papers you've read...
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
YRI outscored by almost all Eurasian samples in closeness to recently sampled Natufians. Other available SSA samples score even worse, so I did not list them.
nonetheless, there's no published Distance measurement/FST values for the pop that I'm nudging you to look at, with Natufians. Also, even if there were, as it relates to your point it doesn't matter. You were trying to trace OOA AE presence using the ghost component, a preOOA Basal-EA component, I think you're preemptively lumping characteristics of a not yet sequenced pop with the EEF. What you say in regards to proportional YRI-Natufian/BasalEA might hold true, but its the mechanism or prehistoric events that you should highlight. The ones that could potentially explain the relationship between the composite population that is YRI, and EEF.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Lmao what... Look at the image you posted... It's not my problem.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Ancient samples with SSA admixture have come forth (e.g. Switzerland HG can be modeled as WHG + Mota). Your problem is that doesn't happen with Eurasian samples with known Egyptian DNA (at least it does not to the same degree), and so you're salty and start making weak objections. But your objections don't bespeak familiarity with the literature so there is no reason for me to take you seriously.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:It's not about what I know or don't know, nor about what I've read or not. Whats important is your interpretation of said evidence. I'm hoping that you aren't "linearizing" the data, like you tend to do... there's a lot of weight on your shoulders people look up to you here lol.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Out of other available SSA groups (with the exception of Horners who already have substantial Basal Eurasian), the YRI are the closest to Natufians and several other ancient genomes. Like I said, I didn't post the Fst distance of other available SSA samples to Natufians because they're more than 0,2 (up to 0,255 in one Khoisan group), while YRI has at least a much better Fst of 0,186.
I thought you already knew all of this from your extensive familiarity with the subject and the many papers you've read...
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
YRI outscored by almost all Eurasian samples in closeness to recently sampled Natufians. Other available SSA samples score even worse, so I did not list them.
nonetheless, there's no published Distance measurement/FST values for the pop that I'm nudging you to look at, with Natufians. Also, even if there were, as it relates to your point it doesn't matter. You were trying to trace OOA AE presence using the ghost component, a preOOA Basal-EA component, I think you're preemptively lumping characteristics of a not yet sequenced pop with the EEF. What you say in regards to proportional YRI-Natufian/BasalEA might hold true, but its the mechanism or prehistoric events that you should highlight. The ones that could potentially explain the relationship between the composite population that is YRI, and EEF.
quote:You've pointed out in the past that SSA-like remains from the Holocene epoch have been found in coastal NW Africa, including some Carthaginian sites. I presume some of these would represent West Africans who colonized the north during the Green Sahara period, since they contrast with the Eurasian-affiliated late Pleistocene inhabitants of that region. If West (as well as Northeast) Africans in the mid-Holocene could make it past the Atlas Mountains to settle the Maghrebi coast, logic would dictate that a few South Sudanese types would have been able to move down the Nile and assimilate into the eastern Saharan populations during that same time frame. Even if this Sudanic ancestry never became the majority component in AE, I would expect it to still be significant just as West African and Nile Valley ancestry would remain detectable in the Maghreb as recently as Carthaginian times.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I said that to say this: when thinking about dynastic AE population affinity, we should work from here. Dynastic AE ratio of SSA to North African may or may not be larger than what we see in the Natufians. However, if it's larger it will largely depend on post-Natufian SSA migration to the ancestors of ancient Egyptians. And it also has to be ongoing and substantial to continually counteract ongoing small Eurasian and Maghrebi influences during the dynastic era. I have seen no one here who has been able to provide evidence for this. In my view, those who take DNA Tribes literally, their priorities should lie here before using less certain data (i.e. data that is not based on ancient DNA).
quote:I only learnt what those were recently. EEF= early European farmers (but since farming spread from Anatolia/Levant they should not be confused as indigenous to Europe), WHG/EHG = western and eastern European hunter gatherers i.e. indigenous. The 2017 study I posted introduces SHG as Scandinavian hunter gatherers as a clinal population between WHG/EHG.
Originally posted by Oshun:
for those relatively new, can someone explain acronyms like eef ,whg, etc??
quote:lol. You cannot be proposing IBD if you're saying Europeans are up to 80% EEF (who you think are Africans). The model I propose is IBD, hence why I support the cultural transmission model of farming (with small-scale neighbouring amount of gene flow from Levant > Europe). We're now getting ancient DNA on Neolithic Baltics which shows EEF admixture in them is negligible to non-existent. This supports IBD and the cultural transmission model rather than those people arguing for large scale admixture or near population replacement.
Originally posted by xyyman:
So what does all this mean? There is no race. There never was. It is called isolation by distance ie gnetic surfing. Sergio was correct..mostly. Coon was correct…mostly. Neolithics that make up most Euroepans has an African origin most likely close to the Great lake….anyone saying Malawi? DNA is prving them to be correct. Europeans are depigmented Africans. A subset of Africans. Can wait for that Malawi paper of LSA Africans.
quote:According to Haddow we do see Roman era migration to Egypt from points south in the non metric data from Kellis. There is also a 'Negro Egyptian' sample in Mukherjee's study on Jebel Moya. I don't know its provenance but these samples exist. Beyoku might know more about it as I can remember I talked with him about Mukherjee's data years ago.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:You've pointed out in the past that SSA-like remains from the Holocene epoch have been found in coastal NW Africa, including some Carthaginian sites. I presume some of these would represent West Africans who colonized the north during the Green Sahara period, since they contrast with the Eurasian-affiliated late Pleistocene inhabitants of that region. If West (as well as Northeast) Africans in the mid-Holocene could make it past the Atlas Mountains to settle the Maghrebi coast, logic would dictate that a few South Sudanese types would have been able to move down the Nile and assimilate into the eastern Saharan populations during that same time frame. Even if this Sudanic ancestry never became the majority component in AE, I would expect it to still be significant just as West African and Nile Valley ancestry would remain detectable in the Maghreb as recently as Carthaginian times.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I said that to say this: when thinking about dynastic AE population affinity, we should work from here. Dynastic AE ratio of SSA to North African may or may not be larger than what we see in the Natufians. However, if it's larger it will largely depend on post-Natufian SSA migration to the ancestors of ancient Egyptians. And it also has to be ongoing and substantial to continually counteract ongoing small Eurasian and Maghrebi influences during the dynastic era. I have seen no one here who has been able to provide evidence for this. In my view, those who take DNA Tribes literally, their priorities should lie here before using less certain data (i.e. data that is not based on ancient DNA).
If that turns out not to be the case, I'd like to know why. Why would we find all this visible SSA ancestry in ancient Maghrebi remains, but not so much in AE?
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:lol. You cannot be proposing IBD if you're saying Europeans are up to 80% EEF (who you think are Africans). The model I propose is IBD, hence why I support the cultural transmission model of farming (with small-scale neighbouring amount of gene flow from Levant > Europe). We're now getting ancient DNA on Neolithic Baltics which shows EEF admixture in them is negligible to non-existent. This supports IBD and the cultural transmission model rather than those people arguing for large scale admixture or near population replacement.
Originally posted by xyyman:
So what does all this mean? There is no race. There never was. It is called isolation by distance ie gnetic surfing. Sergio was correct..mostly. Coon was correct…mostly. Neolithics that make up most Euroepans has an African origin most likely close to the Great lake….anyone saying Malawi? DNA is prving them to be correct. Europeans are depigmented Africans. A subset of Africans. Can wait for that Malawi paper of LSA Africans.
quote:Seems the abstract in the OP is beginning to make sense now in light of this^ and all the other things I've posted.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Mukherjee's 'Negro Egyptian' sample dates to the Roman period (200-400 AD) and has Egyptian cultural associations.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joel_Irish/publication/229961799_The_Ancient_Inhabitants_of_Jebel_Moya_Redux_Measures_of_Population_Affinity_Based_on_Dental_Morphology/links/0 0b7d513f1a2865920000000.pdf [/qb]
quote:This is also why one should be careful with evoking slavery. It speaks for itself that slavery should be considered as a last option when trying to explain migration. But some people just can't help themselves when it comes to Africans.
Originally posted by Swenet:
has Egyptian cultural associations
quote:Source
The recent peak of the founder scan for L3, dating to ∼1.8 ka in Eastern Africa, mainly comprises L3b and L3d lineages in the corresponding partition in table 2 (founders F8, F16, F17, and F25 in supplementary table S4, Supplementary Material online). Many of these lineages are also present in Southern Africa, with founder age estimates indicating that they arrived very recently, probably again within the last two millennia. The frequency of these four lineages is higher in the southern part of Eastern Africa (9% in Tanzania, 4.7% in Somalia, and 3.2% in Kenya) than to the north (2.3% in Ethiopia and 0.78% in Sudan). Together with the age estimates, this points to a genetic input from West/Central Africa into Eastern Africa within the last few thousand years, into regions that now have many Bantu-speaking populations.
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009588;p=1#000043
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:The corresponding male YDNA to L3 is CT or something close in age. But what you presumably meant to ask is what, in my view, the male counterpart of the original Berbers and/or L3fb16 is.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
2) What is the corresponding male DNA to the L3 ?
quote:West Africans have been traveling back and forth between North Africa and West Africa since before there was a Sahara. This nonsense about SSA as some "special" distinction in African population history should stop. Most of West Africa was hardly even settled because of the environment up until relatively recently in African terms. Prior to that these people moved between Lake Chad, the Nile, the Sahara, Northern Africa and elsewhere as a result of environmental conditions. Even today the Fulani can be found from West Africa all the way into Sudan. And not only that but West African muslims regularly travel back and forth to Sudan and there is a strong historic connection between early West African societies and Sudan via Chad and the now dry Nile Tributaries in western Sudan.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Nodnard you make an EXCELLENT point. Which is ONE of the MANY reasons why I brought up Benin sickle cell found in Egypt. I think I remember Keita saying the early UPPER Egyptian remains had a more "broad" characteristics more similar to stereotypical SSA like Nilotic Nilo-Saharans while Lower Egyptians seemed more similar to Ethio/Horner type characteristics.
I'm going based off of memory for this one. Maybe either you ro @Swenet can confirm.
But anyways I agree that if the ancestors of West Africans were able to move up to the Maghreb apparently then it should have been EASIER for Nilotics to move to Upper Egypt. Heck I THINK I remember poster Djehuti saying Nilotics lived more northern in Sudan.
quote:So that explains stuff like this???
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:West Africans have been traveling back and forth between North Africa and West Africa since before there was a Sahara. This nonsense about SSA as some "special" distinction in African population history should stop. Most of West Africa was hardly even settled because of the environment up until relatively recently in African terms. Prior to that these people moved between Lake Chad, the Nile, the Sahara, Northern Africa and elsewhere as a result of environmental conditions. Even today the Fulani can be found from West Africa all the way into Sudan. And not only that but West African muslims regularly travel back and forth to Sudan and there is a strong historic connection between early West African societies and Sudan via Chad and the now dry Nile Tributaries in western Sudan.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
[qb] @Nodnard you make an EXCELLENT point. Which is ONE of the MANY reasons why I brought up Benin sickle cell found in Egypt. I think I remember Keita saying the early UPPER Egyptian remains had a more "broad" characteristics more similar to stereotypical SSA like Nilotic Nilo-Saharans while Lower Egyptians seemed more similar to Ethio/Horner type characteristics.
I'm going based off of memory for this one. Maybe either you ro @Swenet can confirm.
But anyways I agree that if the ancestors of West Africans were able to move up to the Maghreb apparently then it should have been EASIER for Nilotics to move to Upper Egypt. Heck I THINK I remember poster Djehuti saying Nilotics lived more northern in Sudan.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/43/16444.full
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Another aspect is wondering where does this Saharo-Sudanese/Sahara-Sahel-Nile culture start.
If you consider the ceramic pottery as the starting point of the culture. Ounjougou in Southern Mali seems to be where it does start. It holds the oldest known ceramic pottery in Africa which then spread across the green Sahara.
As the text mentions: The pottery types at Tagalagal in Niger, the earliest known for this region [edit:Central Sahara], were already quite diversified when they first appeared, perhaps confirming the adoption of the use of pottery from another place of origin. That is in Southern Mali part of the "Sahelo-Sudanian" region. Notice the direction: From Southern Mali toward the Central Sahara.
As the text mentions, people from southeastern sub-Saharan zone moved toward the Sahara when the Monsoon rains began to shift northward greening the previously arid Sahara desert of the late Pleistocene.
A cultural influx from the southeastern sub-Saharan zone toward the Sahara could explain the spread of quartz microlithic industries across West Africa. First observed in Cameroon at Shum Laka (30,600-29,000 BC), we next find them in the Ivory Coast at Bingerville (14,100-13,400 BC), in Nigeria at Iwo Eleru (11,460-11,050 BC) and finally at Ounjougou (phase 1: 10th mill. BC).
So the spread of the West African microlithic industries slowly shifted northward to finally reach the Southern Mali location where it evolves into ceramic making neolithic culture which then spread toward the rest of the greening Sahara.
quote:
The beginning of the Holocene at Ounjougou
Introduction
The Ogolian, an extremely arid episode beginning in West Africa around 23,000 BP, is represented at Ounjougou by a significant sedimentary and archaeological hiatus. It is not until the return of humid climatic conditions at the beginning of the Holocene that we once again find evidence for humans in this part of the continent. It is thus in a context of heavy rains and recolonization of the vegetal cover, at the beginning of the 10th millennium BC, that a new population was established on the Bandiagara Plateau. At the Ounjougou site complex, several sites have made it possible to define two occupation phases chronologically situated between 10,000 and 7,000 cal BC. Strikingly, the presence of pottery is attested from the first half of the 10th mill. BC. This is the earliest evidence for pottery in sub-Saharan Africa. The use of stone milling material is confirmed from the 8th mill. BC by the discovery of a millstone and grinder.
Issues and objectives
It is thus within a context of climatic and environmental change, of migrations and repopulation of a region of Africa abandoned for several thousand years that the craft of making pottery and the use of milling emerged. Our aims are to better understand the material culture of these Early Holocene populations, to determine their origins and identify their development, and finally to clarify the paleoenvironmental context in which they were established and evolved. Understanding of the mechanisms in which humans invented pottery and milling tools clearly lie at the heart of our research problem. Our main objective is therefore to excavate stratified sites located in the valley base, geologically in situ, to obtain the broadest sample possible of material remains, to situate the site in relative and absolute chronologies and to place them in relation to the geomorphological and archaeobotanical sequence. By comparison to the rare contemporaneous assemblages in West and Saharan Africa, we hope to retrace the route of humans after the vegetation had returned at the beginning of the Holocene. Finally, via systematic survey, we hope to discover contemporaneous site yielding complementary data on these populations, in terms of subsistence economy or the use of space.
The 10th and 9th millennia BC (Phase 1 of the Holocene of Ounjougou)
It is at the site of Ravin de la Mouche that we identify the first Holocene sedimentary sequence, in the form of a channel cut into the yellow Pleistocene silts, infilled with coarse sand and gravel. The chronological placement of the upper layers of this first group has been determined by 12 radiocarbon dates and 3 OSL dates between 9,400 and 8,400 cal BC. The lithic industry discovered in stratigraphic position shows that unidirectional reduction predominates, but other techniques, such as bipolar reduction on anvil and multidirectional, were also employed. Quartz was the main raw material used and the typological range includes small retouched flakes, borers and especially an original type of bifacial armatures with covering retouch.
Three ceramic sherds are linked to this industry. They all come from the base of the HA1A stratigraphic unit. Their thickness ranges between 4.5 and 7 mm. The only way is refundable on board simple hemispherical bowl of 21 cm diameter. One sherd shows a roulette decoration, which could not be further identified. Microscopic analysis of two samples revealed that they contain a silicate matrix, without carbonates, with 20-30% of non-plastic inclusions. These consist mainly of single crystal quartz well rounded with an edge of recrystallization, with a fine to very fine diameter. These quartz are quite similar to those found in local sandstone and clays. Mineralogical analysis of the nearest clay deposits by X-ray diffraction revealed the presence of kaolinite, whose absence in ceramics indicates a cooking temperature above 550 � C. The pastes were prepared using non-calcareous clays with little prior treatment, as shown by their texture somewhat chaotic. The serial structure indicates that no temper has been added. Only one sherd contains fragments of grog, with a maximum diameter of 4 mm. However, this low percentage may indicate involuntary incorporation during the preparation of the paste.
The 8th millennium BC (Phase 2 of the Holocene of Ounjougou)
The next part of the Holocene sequence is documented at two principal sites – the Ravin du Hibou and Damatoumou. The archaeological layers are chronologically situated by an OSL date and 7 radiocarbon dates (8,000-7,000 cal BC). The lithic industry is characterized by reduction of quartz cobbles by unidirectional, bidirectional, multidirectional, peripheral and bipolar on anvil reduction techniques. The assemblage is composed mainly of microlithic tools: borers, backed points, notches, denticulates, sidescrapers, retouched flakes and geometric microliths.
The next part of the Holocene sequence is documented at two principal sites – the Ravin du Hibou and Damatoumou. The archaeological layers are chronologically situated by an OSL date and 7 radiocarbon dates (8,000-7,000 cal BC). The lithic industry is characterized by reduction of quartz cobbles by unidirectional, bidirectional, multidirectional, peripheral and bipolar on anvil reduction techniques. The assemblage is composed mainly of microlithic tools: borers, backed points, notches, denticulates, sidescrapers, retouched flakes and geometric microliths.
West African and Saharan context
The ceramics and grinding material from phases 1 and 2 at Ounjougou are the earliest evidence of this type currently known in sub-Saharan Africa. In our present state of knowledge, this pottery at Ounjougou may have resulted from a center of invention in the current Sahelo-Sudanian zone with exportation somewhat later toward the Central Sahara, where it is known from the 9th millennium BC. The pottery types at Tagalagal in Niger, the earliest known for this region, were already quite diversified when they first appeared, perhaps confirming the adoption of the use of pottery from another place of origin. The lithic industry of phases 1 and 2 is characterized by southern affinities, including quartz microliths using bipolar reduction on anvil proper to the "sub-Saharan microlithic technocomplex" defined by K. MacDonald, except for the bifacial armatures which are only found in the north, in the Saharan zone, at slightly younger sites. A cultural influx from the southeastern sub-Saharan zone toward the Sahara could explain the spread of quartz microlithic industries across West Africa. First observed in Cameroon at Shum Laka (30,600-29,000 BC), we next find them in the Ivory Coast at Bingerville (14,100-13,400 BC), in Nigeria at Iwo Eleru (11,460-11,050 BC) and finally at Ounjougou (phase 1: 10th mill. BC).
- Eric Huysecom
http://www.ounjougou.org/sec_arc/arc_main.php?lang=en&sec=arc&sous_sec=neo&art=neo&art_titre=ancien
quote:hmmm...
Each of these populations have implications in terms of a genetic signature which is more meaningful and useful than "SSA".
. Let alone to the SSA samples (exception being the Tigrean sample).
quote:Good post and I agree 100%. I do believe lake Chad would have been used as a "refugee spot" when the Sahara was drying as the ancestors of West Africans then migrated down to West Africa. And some even to the Nile to Sudan probably.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:West Africans have been traveling back and forth between North Africa and West Africa since before there was a Sahara. This nonsense about SSA as some "special" distinction in African population history should stop. Most of West Africa was hardly even settled because of the environment up until relatively recently in African terms. Prior to that these people moved between Lake Chad, the Nile, the Sahara, Northern Africa and elsewhere as a result of environmental conditions. Even today the Fulani can be found from West Africa all the way into Sudan. And not only that but West African muslims regularly travel back and forth to Sudan and there is a strong historic connection between early West African societies and Sudan via Chad and the now dry Nile Tributaries in western Sudan.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Nodnard you make an EXCELLENT point. Which is ONE of the MANY reasons why I brought up Benin sickle cell found in Egypt. I think I remember Keita saying the early UPPER Egyptian remains had a more "broad" characteristics more similar to stereotypical SSA like Nilotic Nilo-Saharans while Lower Egyptians seemed more similar to Ethio/Horner type characteristics.
I'm going based off of memory for this one. Maybe either you ro @Swenet can confirm.
But anyways I agree that if the ancestors of West Africans were able to move up to the Maghreb apparently then it should have been EASIER for Nilotics to move to Upper Egypt. Heck I THINK I remember poster Djehuti saying Nilotics lived more northern in Sudan.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/43/16444.full
https://books.google.com/books?id=EJYpDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT76&lpg=PT76&dq=sahel+migration+chad+corridor+nile&source=bl&ots=N6-maXwgcL&sig=x0w571sbrLE5cw6A8CwoO4rPFVk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKE wjX-OSAs9zSAhUF7IMKHexuBS8Q6AEIZDAL#v=onepage&q=sahel%20migration%20chad%20corridor%20nile&f=false
Technically if we want to be accurate we should be speaking more of geographic regions from which various populations may have been moving into AE at various times. Including Saharans moving East, Nilotics Moving North, Chadians moving West, Extreme North Africans moving south and even nomadic west Africans moving East and Horners moving North. Each of these populations have implications in terms of a genetic signature which is more meaningful and useful than "SSA".
quote:There was definitely migration between the Lake Chad basin and the Sudanese Nile. In the medieval period the Fur of Darfur were notably known to be related to the Bornu of Nigeria. And this route between Sudan and Nigeria via Chad is an old trade route as well. There has been evidence found of trade markers from the Ancient Egyptian era somewhere in the same region of the Sudanese Nile and Sahara. Nile Valley traditions influenced that of the West Africans in this way.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:Good post and I agree 100%. I do believe lake Chad would have been used as a "refugee spot" when the Sahara was drying as the ancestors of West Africans then migrated down to West Africa. And some even to the Nile to Sudan probably.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:West Africans have been traveling back and forth between North Africa and West Africa since before there was a Sahara. This nonsense about SSA as some "special" distinction in African population history should stop. Most of West Africa was hardly even settled because of the environment up until relatively recently in African terms. Prior to that these people moved between Lake Chad, the Nile, the Sahara, Northern Africa and elsewhere as a result of environmental conditions. Even today the Fulani can be found from West Africa all the way into Sudan. And not only that but West African muslims regularly travel back and forth to Sudan and there is a strong historic connection between early West African societies and Sudan via Chad and the now dry Nile Tributaries in western Sudan.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Nodnard you make an EXCELLENT point. Which is ONE of the MANY reasons why I brought up Benin sickle cell found in Egypt. I think I remember Keita saying the early UPPER Egyptian remains had a more "broad" characteristics more similar to stereotypical SSA like Nilotic Nilo-Saharans while Lower Egyptians seemed more similar to Ethio/Horner type characteristics.
I'm going based off of memory for this one. Maybe either you ro @Swenet can confirm.
But anyways I agree that if the ancestors of West Africans were able to move up to the Maghreb apparently then it should have been EASIER for Nilotics to move to Upper Egypt. Heck I THINK I remember poster Djehuti saying Nilotics lived more northern in Sudan.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/43/16444.full
https://books.google.com/books?id=EJYpDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT76&lpg=PT76&dq=sahel+migration+chad+corridor+nile&source=bl&ots=N6-maXwgcL&sig=x0w571sbrLE5cw6A8CwoO4rPFVk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKE wjX-OSAs9zSAhUF7IMKHexuBS8Q6AEIZDAL#v=onepage&q=sahel%20migration%20chad%20corridor%20nile&f=false
Technically if we want to be accurate we should be speaking more of geographic regions from which various populations may have been moving into AE at various times. Including Saharans moving East, Nilotics Moving North, Chadians moving West, Extreme North Africans moving south and even nomadic west Africans moving East and Horners moving North. Each of these populations have implications in terms of a genetic signature which is more meaningful and useful than "SSA".
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharga_Oasis
A trade route called Darb El Arba("the Way of Forty") passed through Kharga in the south and Asyut in the north It was a long caravan route running north-south between Middle Egypt and the Sudan. It was used from as early as the Old Kingdom of Egypt for the transport and trade of gold, ivory, spices, wheat, animals and plants. The maximum extent of Darb El Arba`īn was northward from Kobbei in Darfur, 25 miles north of al-Fashir, passing through the desert, through Bir Natrum and Wadi Howar, and ending in Egypt.
quote:Wow I completely missed this before, way to dry quote me... -I had no clue what this man was even referring to so I did some backtracking and started to investigate my previous posts-... I'm guessing, this is where I told Nodnarb that ALL E carriers are "Autosomally Subsaharan African" ... I don't know if I should think of you as confused, or an untruthful P.O.S. for misquoting me intentionally. Also, I'm guessing Right here is where I'm asking "how come Natufians don't cluster...etc." granted that yes, it might have been lazy to not just speak on the issue in the first place... But I was asking a question I already knew the answer to, which should have been evident by my follow up response, but like I said, confused or dishonest...
Originally posted by Swenet:
Not too long he was trying to lecture Nodnarb about how E carriers must necessarily be SSA in autosomal makeup. A week later the same turd flip flopped from lecturing, to asking questions how come Natufians don't cluster like a typical hybrid SSA population in light of their E haplogroups. One cannot know and not know at the same time. Either you know, or you don't know. Typical newbie trying to flip flop flop from lecturing to leeching information (which he will then use to lecture people again a day later). Amun Ra all over again.
quote:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004353.g004
“The last edge added corresponds to a mixture of an Iceman-related population and the Bantu-speaking Luhya (LWK) from Eastern Africa (w= 0.03). The LWK have previously been reported as showing a signal of gene flow of possible Neolithic Middle Eastern or European origin” – M. Sikora 2014.
10.1073/pnas.1313787111
quote:
quote:Notice how he silently moved away from his position that this aDNA "proves" an increase of SSA ancestry during the Roman period. It doesn't even say this. What it says is that there was an increase during the post-Roman period). The significance here is that he tried to pass off these samples as Eurasian immigrants with Egyptian ancestry, with the Roman SSA ancestry supposedly being the Egyptian ancestry. This is a complete fabrication.
Whats surprising is the fact that supposed SSA ancestry increases during the Roman period.... Not the fact that the subjects were of Eurasian decent.
quote:Again, I never implied this stop misquoting me with your micro-analysis... I have no interest in discrediting you as you do me, but I will call you out Everytime you come at my head. Way to overreact to an immediate response to a PARAGRAPH posted by Beyoku... Mind you, I made it quite clear that I'm a youngin,' so I don't understand the context your malcontent.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Look at one of his first posts in this thread:
quote:Notice how he silently moved away from his position that this aDNA "proves" an increase of SSA ancestry during the Roman period (it says an increase for these samples during the post-Roman period). The significance here is that he tried to pass off these samples as Eurasian immigrants with Egyptian ancestry, with the Roman SSA ancestry being the Egyptian ancestry. This is a complete fabrication. It's normal of course to change your views and it's normal to learn from others.
Whats surprising is the fact that supposed SSA ancestry increases during the Roman period.... Not the fact that the subjects were of Eurasian decent.
But he comes in spewing his usual bs, silently updates his views based on sound points made by others, then he tries to lecture you on those same newfound points. In his mind, that's the point where I'm supposed to "play along" and take him seriously, like he's some sort of 'vet'.
quote:^This sums up your intentions. Scavenging for crumbs on forums so you can continue lecturing. You can stop talking to me, trying to get me to "debate points". Try someone else who is falling for your ploy.
Thanks so far you guys, special shout outs to Swenet and XyzMan... Keep arguing with each other!!
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I believe that the sample in this upcoming paper has near eastern ancestry.
.... I'm getting the impression that not every here does.
....
..... I'm addressing the unlikelihood of them stating that the samples are near Eastern when they aren't.
.... I have the same views as I did when I posted my very first comment on this page.
quote:Many Eurocentrics don't care about the ancient middle east bringing agriculture to Europe because they believe in ancient times, that's where they were. It's 2017 and they STILL get excited when they hear hoaxes that say Tut is European. They still believe Jesus, the Hebrews, all the disciples, Moses and any of the other biblical heroes they love and worship would've been directly ancestral to (or at least looked) more like modern Europeans than Middle Easterners. They see no hypocrisy in worshiping people from the Middle East, or taking a Middle Eastern religion while hating anybody from that part of the world. I wonder why that is.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
@ Oshun
Honestly, in my experience many of those we call "Eurocentrics" are less interested in claiming AE for Europeans than in dissociating it from the Africans many would call "black". Many of them are perfectly comfortable with things like agriculture and other facets of "civilization" coming to Europe from the Middle East even though the latter is populated by tan-skinned people.
quote:Understandable, but I don't think that Eurocentrism is removed from the ideal of placing Egypt with modern Europeans.
Either way, I see anti-African animus as more important to these "Eurocentrics" than claiming AE for Europe per se.
quote:Unless you can show how this applies when looking at modern and ancient DNA studies with Africans and Eurasians.....you are talking bullshit. "I don't like the results so they are bogus....PS. white folks are racist" does not fly in 2017.
Originally posted by Doug M:
The whole argument is stupid because bottom line you are trying to find a needle in a haystack for something that really is designed to hide the haystack itself. Meaning Early European Farmers is simply a phrase designed to hide the key component (the haystack) which is the African component, which is descended from populations who migrated from Africa carrying a toolkit that made the development of agriculture possible. But rather than simply label this population as "Early African proto farmers", they had to call it something else to hide the origins. Now folks are trying to distinguish this one subset of Africans that developed into European farmers later after migrating outside of Africa, by the later genes of the downstream mixed population. As if the upstream population carried some special genetic marker that would distinguish it from the other Africans in a way predict their migration out of Africa later and separate them from other Africans. Seriously?
There was already an extensive debate on this in the when to use black and not to thread.
quote:I have a few theories on why the data could be what it is. But My theory is not really what is under scrutiny. The collective doctrine of ES is. When i ask questions here people dodge them, or reply with a spiel on why Europeans are racists and or why they should be willing to risk life and limb and get decapitated by extremists in the Sahara and Sahel attempting to do genetic research.
Originally posted by Oshun:
didn't you have data on a computer with data that could in large part also be attributed to the Sahara? Even if you cannot remember the name of the study (which is...weird since I'm not sure why a search on what was posted brought up nothing), are you anticipating that early dynastic mummies would show the same thing?
quote:Note "practically uninhabitable" in regards to the Sahara. Because of periods like these terms like SSA have a very real meaning, although not without their own problems (like most other terms).
Originally posted by beyoku:
This is a question for you, yes YOU. How would you hypothesize genetic affinity Levantine populations around 12-14,000 years ago? Around THIS TIME
quote:Please. Don't start with that whole science is objective and has nothing to do with racism nonsense. And yes this has everything to do with DNA. If the KEY DNA component of these populations came from Africa why are they calling it "Early European". First it is not European and second it is not early as these populations migrated into Eurasia rather late and on top of that these populations were in the Levant not Europe proper. But somehow I guess you have a problem with calling things what they are using language that is unambiguous and to the point. That is as much of a skill as DNA analysis. And what is the point if you cant say what you mean? Again, "Early African Proto Farmers" or even "Early African First Farmers" are better labels.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Unless you can show how this applies when looking at modern and ancient DNA studies with Africans and Eurasians.....you are talking bullshit. "I don't like the results so they are bogus....PS. white folks are racist" does not fly in 2017.
Originally posted by Doug M:
The whole argument is stupid because bottom line you are trying to find a needle in a haystack for something that really is designed to hide the haystack itself. Meaning Early European Farmers is simply a phrase designed to hide the key component (the haystack) which is the African component, which is descended from populations who migrated from Africa carrying a toolkit that made the development of agriculture possible. But rather than simply label this population as "Early African proto farmers", they had to call it something else to hide the origins. Now folks are trying to distinguish this one subset of Africans that developed into European farmers later after migrating outside of Africa, by the later genes of the downstream mixed population. As if the upstream population carried some special genetic marker that would distinguish it from the other Africans in a way predict their migration out of Africa later and separate them from other Africans. Seriously?
There was already an extensive debate on this in the when to use black and not to thread.
What are you going to do if or when early dynastic or even predynastic mummies show the same thing?
quote:+100
Originally posted by Doug M:
The whole argument is stupid because bottom line you are trying to find a needle in a haystack for something that really is designed to hide the haystack itself. Meaning Early European Farmers is simply a phrase designed to hide the key component (the haystack) which is the African component, which is descended from populations who migrated from Africa carrying a toolkit that made the development of agriculture possible. But rather than simply label this population as "Early African proto farmers", they had to call it something else to hide the origins. Now folks are trying to distinguish this one subset of Africans that developed into European farmers later after migrating outside of Africa, by the later genes of the downstream mixed population. As if the upstream population carried some special genetic marker that would distinguish it from the other Africans in a way predict their migration out of Africa later and separate them from other Africans. Seriously?
There was already an extensive debate on this in the when to use black and not to thread.
quote:Data is not racist, people are. The point being that people can twist data based on agenda or point of view. Otherwise, if data was so straightforward and accurate, why does this site exist? Why is there a troll on the thread telling us that the data sayz the Egyptians wuz not black folks? And where are so many sites on the net saying the same thing even with their own DATA?
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
^I'm sorry but saying science is "racist" is not a good look... The data ITSELF can not be "racist."
quote:You are not using your intelligence and knowledge of Genetics to show how you would correctly interpret the data.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Please. Don't start with that whole science is objective and has nothing to do with racism nonsense. And yes this has everything to do with DNA. If the KEY DNA component of these populations came from Africa why are they calling it "Early European". First it is not European and second it is not early as these populations migrated into Eurasia rather late and on top of that these populations were in the Levant not Europe proper. But somehow I guess you have a problem with calling things what they are using language that is unambiguous and to the point. That is as much of a skill as DNA analysis. And what is the point if you cant say what you mean? Again, "Early African Proto Farmers" or even "Early African First Farmers" are better labels.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Unless you can show how this applies when looking at modern and ancient DNA studies with Africans and Eurasians.....you are talking bullshit. "I don't like the results so they are bogus....PS. white folks are racist" does not fly in 2017.
Originally posted by Doug M:
The whole argument is stupid because bottom line you are trying to find a needle in a haystack for something that really is designed to hide the haystack itself. Meaning Early European Farmers is simply a phrase designed to hide the key component (the haystack) which is the African component, which is descended from populations who migrated from Africa carrying a toolkit that made the development of agriculture possible. But rather than simply label this population as "Early African proto farmers", they had to call it something else to hide the origins. Now folks are trying to distinguish this one subset of Africans that developed into European farmers later after migrating outside of Africa, by the later genes of the downstream mixed population. As if the upstream population carried some special genetic marker that would distinguish it from the other Africans in a way predict their migration out of Africa later and separate them from other Africans. Seriously?
There was already an extensive debate on this in the when to use black and not to thread.
What are you going to do if or when early dynastic or even predynastic mummies show the same thing?
The stupid part is as I mentioned when you go looking in Africa for some "European" population before they migrated out of Africa...... Because that is a contradiction in terms and not even supported by any DNA. DNA in Africa doesn't turn into European DNA because some folks carrying these genes migrated into Europe carrying a survival toolkit that laid the foundation for modern farming.
quote:Dude. I never said anything about racism. Don't you get it? You are the one sitting here contradicting yourself on that point. Because if there wasn't racism within the scientific community why are you engaging in debate about science about human populations in Africa? What is it you are debating? And don't sit here and tell me you are engaging in debates about DNA because of an objective interest in science and not specifically because of the documented history of distortion by racists. YOU contradict yourself. So stop with your phony lectures about when to call out racists and when not to.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:You are not using your intelligence and knowledge of Genetics to show how you would correctly interpret the data.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Please. Don't start with that whole science is objective and has nothing to do with racism nonsense. And yes this has everything to do with DNA. If the KEY DNA component of these populations came from Africa why are they calling it "Early European". First it is not European and second it is not early as these populations migrated into Eurasia rather late and on top of that these populations were in the Levant not Europe proper. But somehow I guess you have a problem with calling things what they are using language that is unambiguous and to the point. That is as much of a skill as DNA analysis. And what is the point if you cant say what you mean? Again, "Early African Proto Farmers" or even "Early African First Farmers" are better labels.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Unless you can show how this applies when looking at modern and ancient DNA studies with Africans and Eurasians.....you are talking bullshit. "I don't like the results so they are bogus....PS. white folks are racist" does not fly in 2017.
Originally posted by Doug M:
The whole argument is stupid because bottom line you are trying to find a needle in a haystack for something that really is designed to hide the haystack itself. Meaning Early European Farmers is simply a phrase designed to hide the key component (the haystack) which is the African component, which is descended from populations who migrated from Africa carrying a toolkit that made the development of agriculture possible. But rather than simply label this population as "Early African proto farmers", they had to call it something else to hide the origins. Now folks are trying to distinguish this one subset of Africans that developed into European farmers later after migrating outside of Africa, by the later genes of the downstream mixed population. As if the upstream population carried some special genetic marker that would distinguish it from the other Africans in a way predict their migration out of Africa later and separate them from other Africans. Seriously?
There was already an extensive debate on this in the when to use black and not to thread.
What are you going to do if or when early dynastic or even predynastic mummies show the same thing?
The stupid part is as I mentioned when you go looking in Africa for some "European" population before they migrated out of Africa...... Because that is a contradiction in terms and not even supported by any DNA. DNA in Africa doesn't turn into European DNA because some folks carrying these genes migrated into Europe carrying a survival toolkit that laid the foundation for modern farming.
You are not using your intelligence and knowledge of Genetics to demonstrate and alternative narrative based on what more Ancient DNA would tell us, or based on what Modern DNA tells us. You are just ranting and moaning about White people and in the process greatly overestimating their collective intelligence.
When Diop was at the international UNESCO conference guess what......he didnt come pissing and moaning and complaining about white scholarship. NO, he came with HIS OWN data, and came with his own African centered interpretation of modern data and historical facts. You are speaking in vague and generic terms and nobody here really know what specific genetic components you are talking about. This is why you are getting owned by /Cass.
Please tell us which population migrated from Africa into Europe and brought farming?
Please gives us solid dates on WHEN Africans are farming compared to Europeans and populations in the Middle East....who as far as I am concerned there is an almost 5000 year OR MORE distinction on when Africans adopt farming as opposed to populations in the middle East.
"They are racist" is not an acceptable alternative to your analysis of Ancient DNA. I doesnt matter if they are racists...That would be like you saying "the justice system is racists" and using that excuse as to why you robbed a bank! The fact that Negro-centrists argue that "Vikings were Black" and "American Negroes are the real Hebrews" does not counter the evidence of Rameses III E1b1a.
I applaud the few posters here that have tried to make meaning of Abstract. Everyone else is proving what ES is a joke. It looks like I am going to have to flee back to the "Racist" and Eurasian focused Anthropology boards to see some meaningful discussion on ancient AFRICAN dna.
quote:I dont know what it is. Its almost seems like they are scared. "Racism" is an easy target, its obvious its there so they attack that. (Secret: Black folks love at times to divert real arguments and talk about how white folks are racists and we should all stick together.) I think since they have stayed stagnant on ES so long and are literally YEARS behind their contemporary History/Bio/Anthro forum brethren, when they finally have to address the data they are scared because they haven't really been paying attention. For the last 5 years ES just masturbating over DNA Tribes Amarna and Ramesses III, and Ancient Europeans skin color.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Owned by me and I don't even know much at all about genetics. What does that make poor old doug?
quote:Still waiting on your DNA evidence of ancient Africans evolving markers for being "Non African" without migrating out of Africa or receiving any genetic influence from outside Africa.....
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:I dont know what it is. Its almost seems like they are scared. "Racism" is an easy target, its obvious its there so they attack that. (Secret: Black folks love at times to divert real arguments and talk about how white folks are racists and we should all stick together.) I think since they have stayed stagnant on ES so long and are literally YEARS behind their contemporary History/Bio/Anthro forum brethren, when they finally have to address the data they are scared because they haven't really been paying attention. For the last 5 years ES just masturbating over DNA Tribes Amarna and Ramesses III, and Ancient Europeans skin color.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Owned by me and I don't even know much at all about genetics. What does that make poor old doug?
NOW, when the genetic community hits them with this Abstract they are like:
quote:That is why I thought. A bunch of idol talk.
Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
Blah Blah Blah....I really dont want to use my brain to break down that abstract and what It could mean.
quote:The earliest samples are from around 1000 B.C. - Prior to the Nubian Dynasty. Time to cut the ****, man up and put on your thinking cap. In my ES ideological days, the same ideology most of y'all hold RIGHT NOW - There was no argument that I could make where Egyptians from 1000BC, prior to the Nubian Dynasties, would be LESS Sub Saharan than they are now.
Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times.
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Still waiting on your DNA evidence of ancient Africans evolving markers for being "Non African" without migrating out of Africa or receiving any genetic influence from outside Africa.....
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:........
Originally posted by Cass/:
[qb] Owned by me and I don't even know much at all about genetics. What does that make poor old doug?
quote:Source
Our joint analysis of data from African, European, and Asian populations yielded new dates for when these populations diverged. In particular, We found that African and Eurasian populations diverged around 100,000 years ago. This is earlier than other genetic studies suggest, because our model includes the effects of migration, which we found to be important for reproducing observed patterns of variation in the data.
quote:Yep, They were there...farming and eating sand.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Doug Do you believe Early farmers were in Africa during the dry-phase?
quote:Again, first off what on earth are you talking about? I already posted my opinion on the abstract and your attempts to pretend it means more than it does are telling. You indeed are acting like that kid in the gif you posted.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:That is why I thought. A bunch of idol talk.
Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
Blah Blah Blah....I really dont want to use my brain to break down that abstract and what It could mean.
quote:The earliest samples are from around 1000 B.C. - Prior to the Nubian Dynasty. Time to cut the ****, man up and put on your thinking cap. In my ES ideological days, the same ideology most of y'all hold RIGHT NOW - There was no argument that I could make where Egyptians from 1000BC, prior to the Nubian Dynasties, would be LESS Sub Saharan than they are now.
Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times.
How in ES Dogma do remain from 3000 Years ago have less SSA than today, using the robust sampling we use today?
Please dont waste time appealing to the board and talking about the racism or white people. Please save your typing skills to instead speak specifically on this data and how it can be explained to your advantage. You have been on this board for 12 years, you shouldnt need google for this answer. BE, ENF, WHG, ANE, EEF are term you should use to your advantage right now and understand that they mean. Dates are good, SPECIFIC cultures in Africa and Eurasia are also good to use. Man up, time to fight with the big boys.
quote:So are you saying that SCIENCE proves that there was a genetic marker that evolved in Africa among Africans before leaving Africa that made them into Europeans?
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Still waiting on your DNA evidence of ancient Africans evolving markers for being "Non African" without migrating out of Africa or receiving any genetic influence from outside Africa.....
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:........
Originally posted by Cass/:
[qb] Owned by me and I don't even know much at all about genetics. What does that make poor old doug?quote:Source
Our joint analysis of data from African, European, and Asian populations yielded new dates for when these populations diverged. In particular, We found that African and Eurasian populations diverged around 100,000 years ago. This is earlier than other genetic studies suggest, because our model includes the effects of migration, which we found to be important for reproducing observed patterns of variation in the data.
So you haven't read studies that point out Eurasians diverge from Africans at at time PRIOR to OOA?
So you haven't read studies that point out Native Americans diverge from Asians at a time PRIOR to when the Americas was populated?
You are YEARS Behind man....YEARS!
quote:Let me reiterate what I am saying for clarity as it relates to specific populations of "Early Farmers" in Africa:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Doug Do you believe Early farmers were in Africa during the dry-phase?
quote:You avoid the data all together instead focusing on your favorite friends : Europeans.
The point is that racism as defined by 19th century Europeans....
quote:-4th comment - data dodge.
"Wrong. Western Racialism sees differences in skin color....." top is whites and at the bottom is blacks.....That is racialism or racism"........
quote:
Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans
Iosif Lazaridis, 2014
Abstract
We sequenced the genomes of a ~7,000 year old farmer from Germany and eight ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Luxembourg and Sweden. We analyzed these and other ancient genomes1–4 with 2,345 contemporary humans to show that most present Europeans derive from at least three highly differentiated populations: West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), who contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners; Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians3, who contributed to both Europeans and Near Easterners; and Early European Farmers (EEF), who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that EEF had ~44% ancestry from a “Basal Eurasian” population that split prior to the diversification of other non-African lineages.
We found no models that fit the data with 0 or 1 admixture events, but did find a model that fit with 2 admixture events (SI14). The successful model (Fig. 2A) confirms the existence of MA1-related admixture in Native Americans3, but includes the novel inference that Stuttgart is partially (44 ± 10%) derived from a lineage that split prior to the separation of eastern non-Africans from the common ancestor of WHG and ANE. The existence of such “Basal Eurasian” admixture into Stuttgart provides a simple explanation for our finding that diverse eastern non-African populations share significantly more alleles with ancient European and Upper Paleolithic Siberian hunter-gatherers than with Stuttgart (that is, f4(Eastern non-African, Chimp; Hunter-gatherer, Stuttgart) is significantly positive), but that hunter-gatherers appear to be equally related to most eastern groups (SI14). We verified the robustness of the model by reanalyzing the data using the unsupervised MixMapper7 (SI15) and TreeMix21 software (SI16), which both identified the same admixture events. The ANE/WHG split must have occurred >24,000 years ago (as it must predate the age of MA13), and the WHG/Eastern non-African split must have occurred >40,000 years ago (as it must predate the Tianyuan22 individual from China which clusters with Asians to the exclusion of Europeans). The Basal Eurasian split must be even older, and might be related to early settlement of the Levant23 or Arabia24,25 prior to the diversification of most Eurasians, or more recent gene flow from Africa26. However, the Basal Eurasian population shares much of the genetic drift common to non-African populations after their separation from Africans, and thus does not appear to represent gene flow between sub-Saharan Africans and the ancestors of non-Africans after the out-of-Africa bottleneck (SI14).
Several questions will be important to address in future ancient DNA work. Where and when did the Near Eastern farmers admix with European hunter-gatherers to produce the EEF? How did the ancestors of present-day Europeans first acquire their ANE ancestry? Discontinuity in central Europe during the late Neolithic (~4,500 years ago) associated with the appearance of mtDNA types absent in earlier farmers and hunter-gatherers30 raises the possibility that ANE ancestry may have also appeared at this time. Finally, it is important to study ancient genome sequences from the Near East to provide insights into the history of the Basal Eurasians.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Ok, let's look at the Sahara then. We have pottery spreading over the Sahara as a very early marker of SSA-affiliated groups. Ok, we all know that's a clear example of what Doug is talking about (at least in terms of cultural influence).
What about before this period? Would be interesting to see substantial specifics of that. And before people start moving the goal post. The period before the period in the map below is the goal post:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Africa_Climate_14000bp.png
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. Egyptian aDNA around 1000BC was all fine and dandy when Ramses III and his son were predicted E1b1a. People can't seem to make up their mind. First, 20th dynasty aDNA (dating around 1000BC) is interpreted as a transplant from South Africa and the Great Lakes and filled with E1b1a. Now aDNA from the same general era is suspicious "white man's science" and "useless".
quote:Beyoku it is one thing to claim that data isn't racism but totally another to suggest that Europeans DID NOT create racism. This is the problem. I specifically addressed an issue about something related to DNA and now all you want to talk about is race. Yet that is all you have been talking about for the last page and a half. So if race and racism isn't an issue why do you keep bringing it up? If you like the data then fine lets talk data.
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Doug M.
Speaking on DNA do you understand what the word "Diverge" means?
Secondly, I reviewed the thread.
-The first time you open your mouth you start with :
quote:You avoid the data all together instead focusing on your favorite friends : Europeans.
The point is that racism as defined by 19th century Europeans....
-Your second comment talks about race and skin color...you avoid the data like the plague.
-Third comment? Data dodge and a blurb on white racism..
quote:-4th comment - data dodge.
"Wrong. Western Racialism sees differences in skin color....." top is whites and at the bottom is blacks.....That is racialism or racism"........
-5th comment - data dodge. "Racist Nazis in Europe", racist racism. Europe...european racist science....
-6th - data dodge. "racism", "Aryans". "Europe", "whites".
We are NOW at page 5, and your seventh post on the data describes it as "less than useless" but you weasel in the idea its useless regarding the "origin and development of AE society." :rolleyes - WHOA...wait a minute, you ignore biological affinity all together!
All of your subsequent posts argue on how the DATA should be changed...you want to keep your narrative the same.
You are just like Donald Trump.....a clown.
quote:Now again, how does a population of Africans who never left Africa and being isolated from another set of Africans become European before leaving Africa? Please explain. Divergence doesn't imply geographic migration. And it certainly doesn't imply the development and evolution of genes that only would have happened once said population actually migrated into Europe. For example, where is that precious Neanderthal DNA that is supposedly the marker for all Non Africans?
Genetic divergence is the process in which two or more populations of an ancestral species accumulate independent genetic changes (mutations) through time, often after the populations have become reproductively isolated for some period of time.
quote:Stop creating strawmen. Nobody said data is racist. I don't get it with folks who get mad because somebody tells them that something they said is invalid so they feel the need to keep spamming nonsense in order to avoid the actual problematic issue.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Once again trying to argue that the DATA ITSELF is racist is beyond ridiculous. I believe someone mentioned that it depends on how it is "interpreted" but still that doesn't even matter when AGAIN looking at the raw DATA. It is what it is.
quote:@BBH
Originally posted by Swenet:
Ok, let's look at the Sahara then. We have pottery spreading over the Sahara as a very early marker of SSA-affiliated groups. Ok, we all know that's a clear example of what Doug is talking about (at least in terms of cultural influence).
What about before this period? Would be interesting to see substantial specifics of that. And before people start moving the goal post. The period before the period in the map below is the goal post:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Africa_Climate_14000bp.png
quote:
Now again, how does a population of Africans who never left Africa and being isolated from another set of Africans become European before leaving Africa? Please explain. Divergence doesn't imply geographic migration. And it certainly doesn't imply the development and evolution of genes that only would have happened once said population actually migrated into Europe. For example, where is that precious Neanderthal DNA that is supposedly the marker for all Non Africans?
Get my point? Those are still Africans, no matter if there was divergence among some population of Africans at some point in time within Africa. And again, how do you identify this said ancestral population before they left Africa? And how would you distinguish them from those who didn't leave even within the same divergent population?
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Still waiting on your DNA evidence of ancient Africans evolving markers for being "Non African" without migrating out of Africa or receiving any genetic influence from outside Africa.....
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:........
Originally posted by Cass/:
[qb] Owned by me and I don't even know much at all about genetics. What does that make poor old doug?quote:Source
Our joint analysis of data from African, European, and Asian populations yielded new dates for when these populations diverged. In particular, We found that African and Eurasian populations diverged around 100,000 years ago. This is earlier than other genetic studies suggest, because our model includes the effects of migration, which we found to be important for reproducing observed patterns of variation in the data.
So you haven't read studies that point out Eurasians diverge from Africans at at time PRIOR to OOA?
So you haven't read studies that point out Native Americans diverge from Asians at a time PRIOR to when the Americas was populated?
You are YEARS Behind man....YEARS!
quote:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:
Now again, how does a population of Africans who never left Africa and being isolated from another set of Africans become European before leaving Africa? Please explain. Divergence doesn't imply geographic migration. And it certainly doesn't imply the development and evolution of genes that only would have happened once said population actually migrated into Europe. For example, where is that precious Neanderthal DNA that is supposedly the marker for all Non Africans?
Get my point? Those are still Africans, no matter if there was divergence among some population of Africans at some point in time within Africa. And again, how do you identify this said ancestral population before they left Africa? And how would you distinguish them from those who didn't leave even within the same divergent population?
Oh, c'mon, you have to know by now that none of your main opponents in this thread seriously advocates that view. I certainly haven't seen Swenet or beyoku argue that indigenous Egyptians or other Saharans somehow turned into Europeans before OOA. They would still have been biologically African even if, as you acknowledge yourself, they were a distinct lineage from ancestral West Africans. This is a childish imitation of a strawman if I ever saw one.
quote:OK. And I don't see where I specifically said anything about the AE or NE Africans being West Africans. Maybe I am missing something but this thread is going all over the place.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:
Now again, how does a population of Africans who never left Africa and being isolated from another set of Africans become European before leaving Africa? Please explain. Divergence doesn't imply geographic migration. And it certainly doesn't imply the development and evolution of genes that only would have happened once said population actually migrated into Europe. For example, where is that precious Neanderthal DNA that is supposedly the marker for all Non Africans?
Get my point? Those are still Africans, no matter if there was divergence among some population of Africans at some point in time within Africa. And again, how do you identify this said ancestral population before they left Africa? And how would you distinguish them from those who didn't leave even within the same divergent population?
Oh, c'mon, you have to know by now that none of your main opponents in this thread seriously advocates that view. I certainly haven't seen Swenet or beyoku argue that indigenous Egyptians or other Saharans somehow turned into Europeans before OOA. They would still have been biologically African even if, as you acknowledge yourself, they were a distinct lineage from ancestral West Africans. This is a childish imitation of a strawman if I ever saw one.
quote:If I recall correctly, the problem I had with it wasn't the European down stream populations, as opposed to the sloppy way this label was being applied across the board to later downstream descendants in Europe, the mixed population of Africans and Levanntines AND the African populations before they even left the continent. Those are not all the same populations and they have different genetic profiles. The point being the original populations were African and therefore if that population was the KEY FACTOR for developing farming then why not include African in the label since it is the AFRICAN component. So the issue is about labels and meaning implied by labels. These people were not Europeans as you just said yourself. Not only that but now we are trying to claim that the ancestral population in Africa from which these early African proto farmers arose was somehow special and distinct from the rest of Africans. Bottom line is why can't we just call these people Africans? Seems like some folks have a hard time with that. That has been my only point. And this is coming up in a thread about so called SSA DNA being more dominant in modern Egypt than TIP AE. So? Does that mean that the indigenous dynasties of AE were not Africans? And what populations and DNA lineages are they identifying as SSA? Again, this is all about labels and there seems to be some folks who feel that "their" way of looking at data means words don't matter. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. And this thread is a perfect example.
Originally posted by Swenet:
^I didn't want to say anything because I already had this discussion with him in the 'black' thread. And he simply doesn't get it, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Everyone knows EEF were colonists who entered Europe from elsewhere. They aren't thought of as Europeans. No one is saying that. Not even the authors who coined the term. Doug is simply fighting imaginary ghosts.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
This guy (HLG) actually said the AE didn't look like Michael Jordan in his argument against an African Egypt. Lol. I don't know why these scholars think their expertise in one area translates to expertise in another area. Historians especially should stay in their lane after their abysmal track record on population affinities. You can tell by their language that most of these scholars' grasp of the subject isn't very sophisticated. It's basically just parroting physical anthropologists who often also aren't specialists in African populations' history themselves. So by the time historians relay population affinities information to lay people, the picture is often completely botched. E.g. terms like 'Eurafrican' in reference to various groups in and outside of Africa suddenly become 'white' in the mind of the historian.
quote:This ancient Egyptian sample is probably like the recent Tunisian sample in that it shows that some North African samples can be largely devoid of SSA ancestry, while still carrying substantial ancestry that is deeply rooted in North Africa(n populations).
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I'm trying to understand this SSA thing. Are they including the genetic profile of North Sudan and the other people in Northeast Africa under this SSA umbrella or are they talking about the genetic profile of Bantus?
I would understand if they are saying that there are more genetic markers associated with the Bantu in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, but if they are saying that there more genetic markers associated with Northeast Africans in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, then it would not make any sense -- especially
if they are saying that these assessed mummies are actually ethnic ancient Egyptians.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
"Basal Eurasian" is a theoretical concept that relates to some of the initial OOA populations over 40Kya
_____________________________________________
‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11
West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), based on an 8,000 year-old genome from Loschbour, Luxembourg
- Ancient North Eurasian (ANE), based on a 24,000 year-old genome from South Siberia (dubbed Mal'ta boy or MA-1)
- Early European Farmer (EEF), based on a 7,500 year-old genome from Stuttgart, Germany, belonging to the Neolithic Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture
- Eastern non-African (ENA), this basically means East Eurasian, and is based on samples of present-day Onge, Han Chinese and Atayal from Taiwan
quote:As I have shown the term EEF is not at issue. "EEF" is only 7,500 yo and is a population with ancestors who had been out of Africa for tens of thousands of years.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Now again, how does a population of Africans who never left Africa and being isolated from another set of Africans become European before leaving Africa? Please explain. Divergence doesn't imply geographic migration. And it certainly doesn't imply the development and evolution of genes that only would have happened once said population actually migrated into Europe. For example, where is that precious Neanderthal DNA that is supposedly the marker for all Non Africans?
Get my point? Those are still Africans, no matter if there was divergence among some population of Africans at some point in time within Africa. And again, how do you identify this said ancestral population before they left Africa? And how would you distinguish them from those who didn't leave even within the same divergent population?
quote:People OUGHT to know better. But when they have been jacking off to great lakes region/E1b1a/Southern Africa DNA tribes results for the last few years.......they have no alternative explanation why a sample from 3000 years ago is less SSA than today.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
I do think there is a huge problem of people who ought to know better not realizing that not all biologically African ancestry is going to look stereotypically SSA. .
quote:Maybe your theory isn't of interest for discussion or scrutiny to you. But to demand my theory of a map, while avoiding the presentation of theories you say you have could be interpreted as somewhat dodgy. You didn't answer my question either. Neither here nor privately. Perhaps some are trying to be seen as all wise knowledge givers that are never wrong. But I don't make pretenses that I'm an info guru about the subject. I'm new at this and can only afford to research the subject from time to time where i can. Right now I'm trying to understand differentiation.
Originally posted by beyoku:
I have a few theories on why the data could be what it is. But My theory is not really what is under scrutiny. The collective doctrine of ES is. When i ask questions here people dodge them, or reply with a spiel on why Europeans are racists and or why they should be willing to risk life and limb and get decapitated by extremists in the Sahara and Sahel attempting to do genetic research.
quote:With just that map I can't say I'd feel strongly about any hypothesis I made.
This is a question for you, yes YOU. How would you hypothesize genetic affinity Levantine populations around 12-14,000 years ago? Around THIS TIME
quote:So "Basal Eurasian" is considered "non-differentiated?" Does non-differentiated mean they consider them Africans living outside of Africa? Like a diaspora African can live in America or Europe but is not biologically differentiated enough??? Or does it mean before the differentiation between East Asians etc? How long were they in the Levant, Middle East and Europe? And assuming the later when did Africans differentiate into basal Eurasians?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
"Basal Eurasian" is a theoretical concept that relates to some of the initial OOA populations over 40Kya
_____________________________________________
‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11
West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), based on an 8,000 year-old genome from Loschbour, Luxembourg
- Ancient North Eurasian (ANE), based on a 24,000 year-old genome from South Siberia (dubbed Mal'ta boy or MA-1)
- Early European Farmer (EEF), based on a 7,500 year-old genome from Stuttgart, Germany, belonging to the Neolithic Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture
- Eastern non-African (ENA), this basically means East Eurasian, and is based on samples of present-day Onge, Han Chinese and Atayal from Taiwan
quote:Basal Eurasians WERE differentiated, they were closer to Africans than earlier OOA populations upon exit but were separated from the earlier genepool in Africa for possibly thousands of years... How long they were in the "Near East" is a good question though!
So "Basal Eurasian" is considered "non-differentiated?" Does non-differentiated mean they consider them Africans living outside of Africa? Like a diaspora African can live in America or Europe but is not biologically differentiated enough??? If this is correct, when did we see the end of Basal Eurasians?? How long were they in the Levant, Middle East and Europe?
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:So "Basal Eurasian" is considered "non-differentiated?" Does non-differentiated mean they consider them Africans living outside of Africa? Like a diaspora African can live in America or Europe but is not biologically differentiated enough??? Or does it mean before the differentiation between East Asians etc? How long were they in the Levant, Middle East and Europe? And assuming the later when did Africans differentiate into basal Eurasians?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
"Basal Eurasian" is a theoretical concept that relates to some of the initial OOA populations over 40Kya
_____________________________________________
‘Basal Eurasians’ are a lineage hypothesized to have split off before the differentiation of all other Eurasian lineages, including eastern non-African populations such as the Han Chinese, and even the early diverged lineage represented by the genome sequence of the ~45,000-year-old Upper Palaeolithic Siberian from Ust’-Ishim11
West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG), based on an 8,000 year-old genome from Loschbour, Luxembourg
- Ancient North Eurasian (ANE), based on a 24,000 year-old genome from South Siberia (dubbed Mal'ta boy or MA-1)
- Early European Farmer (EEF), based on a 7,500 year-old genome from Stuttgart, Germany, belonging to the Neolithic Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture
- Eastern non-African (ENA), this basically means East Eurasian, and is based on samples of present-day Onge, Han Chinese and Atayal from Taiwan
quote:Then we go to a different digest article by then and we see this:
When Siberian percentages are excluded in Step 2G, new Oceanian, Southeast Asian, and Tibetan components appear, together with a predominant Horn of Africa percentage (60.4%). This further supports contacts between ancestral Europeans (such as WHG populations) and ENA populations, contrasting with Basal Eurasian (Horn of Africa) related populations closer to the Nile River and East Mediterranean.
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
I don't see what this mystical "Collective doctrine of ES"
Beyoku is talking about. Various people on here have varying views.
Some hold to what appears to be a pristine pure black Egypt where
no outside influences appeared until Greeks, etc- while others reject
such simplistic views, or seeming views. And there are variants in-between.
What is this mystical, so-called "collective doctrine of ES"?
quote:Why are you asking me for something I am not claiming in the first place? SSA is not a concept that I support when discussing African DNA or features. Africans have a common biological and genetic heritage as Africans and can easily be shown as such. SSA has no special bearing on this because all Africans South of the Sahara are not one monolithic biological or genetic type. Hence why I don't use the term. Like I said before, if you are going to go by regional variations and markers then fine. Saharan Africans, Sahelian Africans, Nilotic Africans, Horn African, etc is a start. But even then you have tremendous diversity within those groups. So again, if you are talking DNA then why even play that game of labels using SSA? Just name the specific markers identifying specific target populations of one area and time frame.
Originally posted by Swenet:
^I'm staying out of the EEF discussion. We've already talked about it. You think they should label the component African and they'd say they're not decided yet on where it ultimately originated. They'd also say they're simply following protocol by labeling sites and components according to the population's typesite and distribution. One can argue this for months.
But evidence on SSA groups being everywhere in North Africa before 14ky ago would be interesting. Do you have some specifics we can look into?
quote:No man. The only I have is when you are trying to sit here and pretend there is something SPECIAL about one group of Africans versus another. And it is funny that this thread was not originally created to talk about EEF. As far as the OP goes, I already said there is nothing ground breaking or shocking about the presence of Non African DNA in Ancient Egypt.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Labels haven't ever been a REAL problem. If their interpretation is incorrect, use the commonly accepted labels and show their interpretation is incorrect...Period. Furthermore when "They" discover something I think they have free will to name it whatever they want so long as its not Absurd. "Basal Eurasian" is not absurd, nor is ENF, ANE, WHG etc.
Ducking and dodging will do you no good. Talking about "racism" instead of a meaningful analysis of the data will do you no good.
If white mans racism in science is that big of an issue then you should avoid human population genetics all together. I find it interesting and amusing I "scold" a forum member for being too far in Europeans assholes to the point where they are the focus of comments on everything African....and that person turns around only to write MORE stuff about Europeans and their racism. Complaining about white folks requires zero brain cells, is barely even forces you to think.
ES is still years behind becuase as far as I am concerend it seems that folks are arguing the E-M78 Farmers from North East Africa colonized the Europe.
quote:I am sort of confused about this chart. I have read papers that suggest that Basal Eurasians have no affinity to sub-Saharan Africans. The Tunisian sample seems a-lot closer to Yoruba than the other Eurasians are. If you are saying this Tunisian has alot of indigenous north African ancestry, how can basal eurasian not have any affinty to SSA (compared to eurasian dna) when it is a-lot closer then the other Eurasians with more SSA. It seems to conflict with the Fst chart concerning the nafutians that you posted on a previous page.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:This ancient Egyptian sample is probably like the recent Tunisian sample in that it shows that some North African samples can be largely devoid of SSA ancestry, while still carrying substantial ancestry that is deeply rooted in North Africa(n populations).
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I'm trying to understand this SSA thing. Are they including the genetic profile of North Sudan and the other people in Northeast Africa under this SSA umbrella or are they talking about the genetic profile of Bantus?
I would understand if they are saying that there are more genetic markers associated with the Bantu in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, but if they are saying that there more genetic markers associated with Northeast Africans in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, then it would not make any sense -- especially
if they are saying that these assessed mummies are actually ethnic ancient Egyptians.
In other words, the authors of the Egyptian aDNA paper aren't saying anything new. The Tunisian sample below maintains a degree of distance from Eurasians while, at the same time, showing little evidence of SSA admixture (the red lines go from the Yoruban sample to most North African populations, but not to the Tunisians). Obviously, there is some African ancestry that is unaccounted for in the Tunisian sample. And the Egyptian mummies will show the same thing, despite their apparently low SSA ancestry.
quote:The suggestion that Egypt might have been one of the recipients of West African migrations during late Roman times is interesting but not what I had mind. I was referring to the likelihood of significant SSA contributions to proto-AE during the Green Sahara time frame, like others in this thread have suggested. Even if they were a minority element, it would be strange if these Green Saharan contributions hadn't impacted AE to the extent that they apparently impacted the ancient Maghreb.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:According to Haddow we do see Roman era migration to Egypt from points south in the non metric data from Kellis. There is also a 'Negro Egyptian' sample in Mukherjee's study on Jebel Moya. I don't know its provenance but these samples exist. Beyoku might know more about it as I can remember I talked with him about Mukherjee's data years ago.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:You've pointed out in the past that SSA-like remains from the Holocene epoch have been found in coastal NW Africa, including some Carthaginian sites. I presume some of these would represent West Africans who colonized the north during the Green Sahara period, since they contrast with the Eurasian-affiliated late Pleistocene inhabitants of that region. If West (as well as Northeast) Africans in the mid-Holocene could make it past the Atlas Mountains to settle the Maghrebi coast, logic would dictate that a few South Sudanese types would have been able to move down the Nile and assimilate into the eastern Saharan populations during that same time frame. Even if this Sudanic ancestry never became the majority component in AE, I would expect it to still be significant just as West African and Nile Valley ancestry would remain detectable in the Maghreb as recently as Carthaginian times.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I said that to say this: when thinking about dynastic AE population affinity, we should work from here. Dynastic AE ratio of SSA to North African may or may not be larger than what we see in the Natufians. However, if it's larger it will largely depend on post-Natufian SSA migration to the ancestors of ancient Egyptians. And it also has to be ongoing and substantial to continually counteract ongoing small Eurasian and Maghrebi influences during the dynastic era. I have seen no one here who has been able to provide evidence for this. In my view, those who take DNA Tribes literally, their priorities should lie here before using less certain data (i.e. data that is not based on ancient DNA).
If that turns out not to be the case, I'd like to know why. Why would we find all this visible SSA ancestry in ancient Maghrebi remains, but not so much in AE?
quote:That's about this study:
The conclusion of a migration into East Africa from Western Eurasia, and more precisely from a source genetically close to the early Neolithic farmers, is not affected. However, the geographic extent of the genetic impact of this migration was overestimated: The Western Eurasian backflow mostly affected East Africa and only a few Sub-Saharan populations; the Yoruba and Mbuti do not show higher levels of Western Eurasian ancestry compared to Mota. Hence, the title and abstract of the published paper did not accurately represent the geographical extent of the admixture, and both have been corrected accordingly. The authors acknowledge Pontus Skoglund and David Reich for detecting these problems.
quote:http://biology-web.nmsu.edu/~houde/INTO%20Africa.pdf
Here, we present an ancient human genome from Africa and use it to disentangle the effects of recent population movement into Africa. By sampling the petrous bone (5), we sequenced the genome of a male from Mota Cave (herein referred to as “Mota”) in the southern Ethiopian highlands,with a mean coverage of 12.5× (6). Contamination was estimated to be between 0.29 and 1.26% (6). Mota’s remains were dated to ~4500 years ago [direct calibrated radiocarbon date (6)] and thus predate both the Bantu expansion (7) and,more importantly, the 3000-year-old West Eurasian back-flow, which has left strong genetic signatures in the whole of Eastern and, to a lesser extent, Southern Africa (3,4)
quote:um.. I'm no expert but isn't the 1,000 B.C migration during the same time period they discuss here for middle Egypt? I don't like how the title can be misconstrued by certain crowds of people, but they say in the text itself that the Middle Egypt was subject to foreign migrations at around this period. Compared to this period, there's more ancestry they term "SSA." Unfortunately there's a lot of reaching on both sides. This does not say anything about the origins of Egypt or even it's composition before foreign inflow. All it seems to be saying is that by 1,000 B.C there was more admixture that reached middle Egypt, and today that genetic composition has since seen replacement. Ancestry dubbed "SSA" could've been higher before this period, or it may not have been. But after this period it was noticeably lower than modern times. Combined with the other study, we can possibly conclude that Egypt was probably not alone in in experiencing this either. It seems like researchers have been alluding to back migration during this period for years, seeing the other paper today. That study that's being presented would only add to the research in the link above.Minus one for the static Egypt/East African idea. At least by 1,000 B.C anyway. Still about 400 years before many anticipated, since I've read some researchers say inflow would be around the Late Period. I haven't seen any evidence provided to suggest migrations by 1,000 B.C hadn't happened. If anyone would like to challenge it with opposing data (or additional problems with the study not reported in the erratum...) the floor's yours.
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. [/b]Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
Source
quote:That puts it into perspective. Thanks a million, Swenet. Northeast Africans have their own genetic profile -distinct from Sub-Saharan Africans- so I think you're right about this. The release of the specifics in April will further clear things up.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:This ancient Egyptian sample is probably like the recent Tunisian sample in that it shows that some North African samples can be largely devoid of SSA ancestry, while still carrying substantial ancestry that is deeply rooted in North Africa(n populations).
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I'm trying to understand this SSA thing. Are they including the genetic profile of North Sudan and the other people in Northeast Africa under this SSA umbrella or are they talking about the genetic profile of Bantus?
I would understand if they are saying that there are more genetic markers associated with the Bantu in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, but if they are saying that there more genetic markers associated with Northeast Africans in modern Egypt than there was in ancient times, then it would not make any sense -- especially
if they are saying that these assessed mummies are actually ethnic ancient Egyptians.
In other words, the authors of the Egyptian aDNA paper aren't saying anything new. The Tunisian sample below maintains a degree of distance from Eurasians while, at the same time, showing little evidence of SSA admixture (the red lines go from the Yoruban sample to most North African populations, but not to the Tunisians). Obviously, there is some African ancestry that is unaccounted for in the Tunisian sample. And the Egyptian mummies will show the same thing, despite their apparently low SSA ancestry.
quote:—Gitschier J (2008) Imagine: An Interview with Svante Pääbo.
Imagine: An Interview with Svante Pääbo
Pääbo (see Image 1) broke ground in 1985, working surreptitiously at night in the lab where he conducted his unrelated PhD research, to extract, clone, and sequence DNA from an Egyptian mummy. From there, he joined the late Allan Wilson as a post-doctoral fellow in Berkeley, where together they rejuvenated sequences from extinct species. Returning to Europe, he landed a full professor position in Munich. He is now Director of Evolutionary Genetics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig.
A sterile hotel lobby wasn't the venue I had hoped for in interviewing Pääbo. I would have preferred a natural history museum, or, even better, an archaeological dig to stimulate the interview juices. But, when I realized he was attending the American Society of Human Genetics meeting in San Diego last fall, I grabbed the opportunity. Though jet-lagged, he gamely agreed to a 10 p.m. interview, following the Presidential symposium and only seven hours prior to his planned surfing excursion in La Jolla.
Jane Gitschier: What happened in your youth to make you so interested in Egypt?
Svante Pääbo: Sometime in my late boyhood, I got very interested in archeology. I went around after big storms in Sweden to spots in which trees had fallen over. You can look at the roots for things—stone age pottery and things like that. Even in the suburbs of Stockholm, where I grew up, there was still a forest around. And you could run around and have fun. It certainly was common for kids to play “stone age” behind the school in the forest.
JG: Was there something that triggered your particular interest in archeology?
SP: Not really, but I think it was the realization that you could actually go out yourself and find these things!
JG: And did you find stuff?
SP: Yes, they are still at my mother's place, in a glass cabinet—thousands of pot shards that I collected. You can sometimes passel them together and can get part of a pot that was used 3,000 years ago. Quite fascinating.
Also, my mother had taken me to Egypt because I was interested in Egyptology. I think I was 14. That made me fascinated, as so many young kids are, with Egypt and mummies and pyramids. It was mainly the trips I took to Egypt—three times with my mom.
JG: Wow, was your mother into Egypt, too?
SP: It was partially through my fascination, but I think she still goes to lectures on Egyptology in Stockholm.
JG: Were your parents scientists?
SP: Yes. I grew up with my mother. My mom and dad were not married. My mom was a chemist and worked in industry. My dad had another family, but he was a biochemist and studied prostaglandins.
JG: And then you worked in biochemistry?
SP: I first started studying Egyptology and things like that at the University [Uppsala] and got somehow disappointed. It was not as romantic as I thought it would be. And after a year and a half or so, I didn't know what to do, because this wasn't really “it”. So I started studying medicine because I figured I would get a profession. And it was also a way into basic research.
JG: I read your paper from 1985 about sequencing the mummy remains. What was the genesis of that?
SP: I knew there were hundreds and thousands of mummies around in museums and that they found hundreds of new ones every year, and molecular cloning in bacteria was a rather new thing at the time, so I found in the literature that no one had tried to extract DNA from Egyptian mummies, or any old remains actually. So I started to do that as a hobby in late evenings and weekends, secretly from my thesis advisor.
JG: As a lowly graduate student, where do you find a piece of mummy to start this investigation?
SP: I had studied Egyptology, so the professor of Egyptology knew me quite well. He helped me to sample a mummy in the museum in Uppsala. He also had very good connections with a very large museum in Berlin, which was East Berlin at the time. Germany has a long, long tradition in Egyptology, going back to the 19th century. After the British Museum and the Museum in Paris, the Berlin Museum has the biggest collection outside Egypt.
JG: So you went with your professor to the museum in East Berlin…
SP: He had convinced them of our idea in advance. We sampled, I think, 36 different mummies. Small samples, of course.
JG: Had people ever looked at mummy tissue before, at things like proteins?
SP: There had been some work on histology of mummies, and there had been some work on trying immunoreactivity of proteins extracted from it, with very mixed results. I don't think there were any convincing results from Egyptian mummies.
JG: In what kind of state are the mummies? Are you wearing gloves or masks? What are you doing?
SP: We only worked with mummies that were already unwrapped and with things that were broken, so we were not destroying anything to get to the tissues. With a scalpel we removed a little piece. It was the first time this was done, so we had no big qualms about contamination. I had no idea this could be such a big issue.
JG: What did you do with these 36 scalpeled samples?
SP: We screened them with histology. We looked at both with traditional stainings—hematoxylin-and-eosin staining and staining with ethidium bromide—and under UV light to see if one could see any fluorescence from DNA. In the skin of a particular mummy, you could see that the cell nuclei lit up. So, there was DNA there and at the place you would expect it to be.
JG: Was your interest in this simply the challenge of getting DNA sequence out of it or was there a bigger idea?
SP: It was clearly the idea that if you could study the DNA of ancient Egyptians, you could elucidate aspects of Egyptian history that you couldn't by traditional sources of archeology and the written records.
JG: Do you mean the relationships between people?
SP: Population history. Say, when Alexander the Great conquered Egypt, did that mean there were lots of people from Greece who actually came there and settled there? When the Assyrians came there, did that have an influence? Or was the population continuous? Political things that influenced the population.
Since then it has become clear that it is almost impossible to work with human remains because of contamination. It is very hard to exclude that the DNA you look at is not contaminated with modern humans.
JG: Then, how do we know that this sequence in the 1985 paper is in fact the sequence of a real Egyptian?
SP: In hindsight, we don't know that. In 1985, I had no idea how hard this is [to retrieve uncontaminated ancient DNA sequences] and thus did not do the controls we now know are necessary. We've even published at a later point on this.
JG: But there have been no data to refute the sequence of this mummy.
SP: But nothing to prove it either! It could well have been contamination, and if that was the last that had ever been written on ancient DNA, that would have been a sad state of affairs and the end of the field.
JG: Have people gone on to look at more mummy DNA since then?
SP: Egyptian mummies are actually quite badly preserved; also animal mummies. This probably has to do with climate. It seems the cooler it is, the better preserved things are. We looked at a few Neanderthal remains from Israel and Palestine and they have so far not yielded any DNA.
[…]
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Source
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
quote:I am not surprised by the outcome, by Max Planck. One would not expect any different by Max Planck, right? Would you?
Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period.
quote:That is certainly true, when one reads between the lines.
Originally posted by Swenet:
You expect aDNA from during and after the Third Intermediate Period to not contain any Eurasian mtDNAs?
quote:Also that data is out…so no surprise here as well.
Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period.
quote:--Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'… we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
quote:—Paabo S. Molecular cloning of Ancient Egyptian mummy DNA. Nature. 1985;314:644-5.
Artificial mummification was practised in Egypt from ~ 2600 BC until the fourth century AD. Because of the dry Egyptian climate, however, there are also many natural mummies preserved from earlier as well as later times. To elucidate whether this unique source of ancient human remains can be used for molecular genetic analyses, 23 mummies were investigated for DNA content. One 2,400-yr-old mummy of a child was found to contain DNA that could be molecularly cloned in a plasmid vector. I report here that one such clone contains two members of the Alu family of human repetitive DNA sequences, as detected by DNA hybridizations and nucleotide sequencing. These analyses show that substantial pieces of mummy DNA (3.4 kilobases) can be cloned and that the DNA fragments seem to contain little or no modifications introduced postmortem.
quote:Same thoughts here. This is much deeper than most think. Alt-Right?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Why are we talking about Amarnas? Because it was brought up in this thread and this new paper(abstract) was undoubtedly created to stir fervor and get people riled up. The DNA Tribes comment was about the Amarnas.
…
So The Romans brought SSA ancestry back-to-Africa? lol! No the author is implying slaves. The paper is a hoax. Wait until we get the paper and Supplementals. It is not what it makes out to be.
Reminds of the recent Natufian paper. The researcher said “no MORE SSA ancestry”. Swenet and other Euronuts retards spun as ‘no’ SSA ancestry. Tsk! tks!
quote:LOL at your impediment:
Originally posted by Cass/:
It depends what they mean by "near eastern ancestry" since the Near East includes Egypt in many definitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East) and this has been done before in genetics studies; if this study included Egypt in NE this is a good study for me, it just confirms ancient Egyptians had a large indigenous (Egyptian) ancestry component, Brace et al vindicated. Regardless negrocentric (sub-Saharan African) afrocentrists are completely destroyed.
quote:most likely nah... We're acting like the second sentence of the paragraph doesn't exist in the absence of actual data, whether refutable or misinterpreted.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Same thoughts here. This is much deep than most think. Alt-Right?
Originally posted by xyyman:
[qb] Why are we talking about Amarnas? Because it was brought up in this thread and this new paper(abstract) was undoubtedly created to stir fervor and get people riled up. The DNA Tribes comment was about the Amarnas.
…
So The Romans brought SSA ancestry back-to-Africa? lol! No the author is implying slaves. The paper is a hoax. Wait until we get the paper and Supplementals. It is not what it makes out to be.
Reminds of the recent Natufian paper. The researcher said “no MORE SSA ancestry”. Swenet and other Euronuts retards spun as ‘no’ SSA ancestry. Tsk! tks!
quote:Becareful, non-Eurasian classified North East African ancestry/profile is no more significant than different populations/cultural groups below the Sahara. In study, all of which was mentioned above is clumped together, which is why simple questions like, "what defines SSA ancestry" apparently can't be answered.
-Sudaniya
[...]"Northeast Africans have their own genetic profile -distinct from Sub-Saharan Africans- so I think you're right about this. The release of the specifics in April will further clear things up".
quote:I understand E-M78 was once claimed as being Eurasian. Some still try to force this notion, but in this paper they speak of mtDNA and nuclear DNA, however the paternal side is predominately E-M78.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:most likely nah... We're acting like the second sentence of the paragraph doesn't exist in the absence of actual data, whether refutable or misinterpreted.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Same thoughts here. This is much deep than most think. Alt-Right?
Originally posted by xyyman:
[qb] Why are we talking about Amarnas? Because it was brought up in this thread and this new paper(abstract) was undoubtedly created to stir fervor and get people riled up. The DNA Tribes comment was about the Amarnas.
…
So The Romans brought SSA ancestry back-to-Africa? lol! No the author is implying slaves. The paper is a hoax. Wait until we get the paper and Supplementals. It is not what it makes out to be.
Reminds of the recent Natufian paper. The researcher said “no MORE SSA ancestry”. Swenet and other Euronuts retards spun as ‘no’ SSA ancestry. Tsk! tks!
PS. Thank you Oshun
quote:Becareful, non-Eurasian classified North East African ancestry/profile is no more significant than different populations/cultural groups below the Sahara. In study, all of which was mentioned above is clumped together, which is why simple questions like, "what defines SSA ancestry" apparently can't be answered.
-Sudaniya
[...]"Northeast Africans have their own genetic profile -distinct from Sub-Saharan Africans- so I think you're right about this. The release of the specifics in April will further clear things up".
quote:—A. Stevanovitch, A. Gilles,
The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers.
This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations.
Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population.
quote:You're missing a few points here, as usually.
Originally posted by Cass/:
AmunRa will just claim since the earliest DNA samples from this study are Third Intermediate Period, since these samples are "late" - ancient Egyptians were already heavily admixed at that point. This is already being done by butt hurt negrocentrists on anthro forums and blogs.
Butthurt negrocentrist on eurogenes. LOL
quote:http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/ancient-human-dna-at-saa-2017.html
Sure there is.
* The Hyskos Dynasty (ca. 1650 BCE to 1545 BCE)
* Egypt's political boundaries extended into modern Lebanon ca. 1450 BCE in the Hittite era.
* Bronze Age Collapse sent migrants from the North to Egypt (although the ethnically Mycenean Greek Philistines were diverted to what is now the Gaza strip).
* Egypt has vigorous trade and diplomatic relations in the Eastern Mediterranean region during the Phoenician era and the Roman era.
Sub-Saharan admixture was probably greater pre-1800 BCE.
quote:--Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim
E-M78 subclades
The distribution of E-M78 subclades among Sudanese is shown in Table 2. Only two chromosomes fell under the paragroup E-M78*. E-V65 and E-V13 were com- pletely absent in the samples analyzed, whereas the other subclades were relatively common. E-V12* accounts for 19.3% and is widely distributed among Su- danese. E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common sub- clades among Sudanese. It has the highest frequency among populations of western Sudan and Beja. E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.
[...]
The Fulani, who possess the lowest population size in this study, have an interesting genetic structure, effectively consisting of two haplogroups or founding lineages. One of the lineages is R-M173 (53.8%), and its sheer frequency suggests either a recent migration of this group to Africa and/or a restricted gene flow due to linguistic or cultural barriers. The high frequency of sub-clade E-V22, which is believed to be northeast African (Cruciani et al., 2007) and haplogroup R-M173, suggests an amalgamation of two populations/cultures that took place sometime in the past in eastern or central Africa. This is also evident from the frequency of the ‘‘T’’ allele of the lactase persistence gene that is uniquely present in considerable frequencies among the Fulani (Mulcare et al., 2004). Interestingly, Fulani language is classified in the Niger-Congo family of languages, which is more prevalent in West Africa and among Bantu speakers, yet their Y-chromosomes show very little evidence of West African genetic affiliation.
It seems, however, that the effective size of the pastorlists and nomadic pastoralists is generally much smaller than groups of sedentary agriculturalists life style. This is intriguing in the sense that one would expect nomadic tribes to be more able to admix, spread, and receive genes than their sedentary counterparts.
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
True, but the people the Egyptians descend from and that the academic communities agree on(Archaeologists, Linguists and Geneticists) are the Saharan peoples of the Green Sahara period. These same people migrated to "West Africa" so if a Negrocentric wanted they could claim a distant, very distant btw, relationship with Ancient Egyptians..
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
It depends what they mean by "near eastern ancestry" since the Near East includes Egypt in many definitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East) and this has been done before in genetics studies; if this study included Egypt in NE this is a good study for me, it just confirms ancient Egyptians had a large indigenous (Egyptian) ancestry component, Brace et al vindicated. Regardless negrocentric (sub-Saharan African) afrocentrists are completely destroyed.
quote:The same can be employed for your Mumluks and Saqaliba's taken to Egypt from the 8th till the 15th century.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Slavery in 19th Century Egypt: The Khedivate (1805-82)
…
Baer, Gabriel. "Slavery in nineteenth century Egypt," Journal of African History Vol. VIII, No. 3 (1967), pp. 417-41.
quote:--Michael Brass
“Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general.”
quote:True.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I knew it was a matter of time before Eurocentrics like Lioness would bring up slavery as a way to explain the results. The Funny part is Egypt had large numbers of White Slaves, as alluded to in her article, so one can easily argue Egypt was "Whitened" by European slaves...
quote:even if he did, he wouldn't be saying things this study and other researchers that have dated east African migrations then have not. the study is saying the composition of Egypt became admixed during this period. Nothing "butthurt" about it:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/:
AmunRa will just claim since the earliest DNA samples from this study are Third Intermediate Period, since these samples are "late" - ancient Egyptians were already heavily admixed at that point. This is already being done by butt hurt negrocentrists on anthro forums and blogs.
Butthurt negrocentrist on eurogenes. LOL
quote:So the question is where'd the modern "SSA" come from since then? was it foreign migrations into the area? Did local/indigenous ancestors with those lineages like southern Egyptians Kushites or Nilotes increase, absorb or replace these populations? Did the lineages found in this study migrate from Middle Egypt? Or a perhaps there was a combination of scenarios? My reason for discussing Ramses, the Amarnas and DNA tribes is that even if "SSA" ancestry were limited as swenet has suggested, the presence of these lineages has been shown, and could therefore have been indigenous to Southern Egypt and Kush. They may still be of importance when paired with this data, in that they demonstrate that these lineages weren't absent until modern times.
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population.
quote:
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. --Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
quote:Source
Average MLI scores in Table 1 indicate the STR profiles of the Amarna mummies would be most frequent in present-day-populations of several African regions: including the Southern African (average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average MLI 83.74) regions.
These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).
quote:I TOO been wondering this. Many people here not only have varying opinions, but more importantly MANY in this thread do not have any issues with the results besides a select few...
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I would like to know this as well, I was going to ask but you beat me to it..
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
I don't see what this mystical "Collective doctrine of ES"
Beyoku is talking about. Various people on here have varying views.
Some hold to what appears to be a pristine pure black Egypt where
no outside influences appeared until Greeks, etc- while others reject
such simplistic views, or seeming views. And there are variants in-between.
What is this mystical, so-called "collective doctrine of ES"?
quote:This debate is too complex for you, so you go to your usual clueless and nonsensical ranting.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Good point.
Originally posted by Real tawk:
[QB] WTF is Black??!! Ha! That is the Negro's trojan horse to lay hold on other people of color historical, cultural and genetic heritage. Don't you love the self-hating Negros. I guess East Indians are Black too! Why not identify populations by their hair texture also? Oh, wait! that what exclude the Negro from the rest of humanity. I love it when Negros cling onto antiquated racial taxonomies.
quote:You're right, I agree with you on that. I've been saying "SSA" loosely because the data that we see in Ramses and the Amarnas was probably not the result of heavy inflow of SSA. As Vogel states, modern SSA and and AE's ancestors interacted during the Green Sahara phase when they were a lot more room for traveling to have contact with each other. Common ancestors are more plausible than direct ancestry.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
@ Oshun
With regards to the DNA Tribes analyses, they're not necessarily saying that these royal mummies are full-blown SSA.
quote:"24 and up cannot be considered black in my eyes, No one would be called black if their skin shade was of 20 in the Caribbean and south america as well as few places in Africa"
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lioness, honestly.... This is utter foolishness...
To each his own respective criteria... 24 and up cannot be considered black in my eyes, No one would be called black if their skin shade was of 20 in the Caribbean and south america as well as few places in Africa, unless relaying cultural African identity... you say Nef was >24 then 26 is the cut off point ...to me at least. Not only that but most people with pigment functionality can achieve a tan of at least 19.
Can we agree and dead this now...
quote:Trying to understand what the chart means in the first link. If it's 30 years per generation and the oldest ones go back about 25 years, is that then saying the oldest generations this covers were from 750 years ago?
Originally posted by beyoku:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1216069/table/TB2/
Significance?
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=011212;p=1
quote:Sure, lol
Originally posted by Cass/:
Show me a photo of black women with pigmentation this light:
The only reason black men on this forum call this black is because they admire lighter skinned phenotypes and its in their social and sexual interests to try to extend their definition of black to include these lighter non-black pigmentation phenotypes.
quote:Can you explain why 90% of the depictions all over Egypt looks like these?
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:I've been on Stormfront, VNN and the reverse, i.e. black nationalist/Afrocentric forums. All people do from both is cherry pick images off Google - those on Stormfront cherry-pick the lightest they can find, while Afrocentrists just spam the darkest. I'm not interested in going down this route. Me posting the Nefertiti bust was just to falsify the "black Egypt" theory, the fact is I recognise the variation/skin cline in Nile Valley. Note however I've never tried to lump Egyptian pigmentation as "white" - I've stuck to finer categories like light brown / medium brown and dark brown. Only dark brown would be "black". The average Nubian was dark brown, not Egyptian. This is in Snowden, Brace et al etc. Are all those cross-disciplinary classicists and physical anthropologists wrong?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Why are there thousands of artworks depicting many Egyptians as medium to dark brown and why are most of the Pharoahs depicted medium to dark brown?
Originally posted by Cass/:
Not interested in anecdotes. "Black" on the Luscan Scale as used by physical anthropologists e.g. Carleton Coon is 29-36. You're trying to move the standard boundary for your own agenda. Show me a single anthropologist who thinks 24 or 25 is black.
quote:LOL SMH Dude, you're just notoriously dumb. Plain and simple.
Originally posted by Cass/:
We don't know where the Proto-Afroasiatic homeland was, so your 1996 quote is useless. It makes more sense to me Afroasiatic in Egypt arrived together with agriculture and domesticates from the Levant (as a farming language dispersal hypothesis), but I don't know. There is no scholarly consensus on this. Yea, no doubt though an Afrocentrist will put it in Africa.
quote:--Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim*,1
Archeological and paleontological evidences point to East Africa as the likely area of early evolution of modern humans. Genetic studies also indicate that populations from the region often contain, but not exclusively, representatives of the more basal clades of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome phylogenies.
Most Y-chromosome haplogroup diversity in Africa, however, is present within macrohaplogroup E that seem to have appeared 21 000–32 000 YBP somewhere between the Red Sea and Lake Chad. The combined analysis of 17 bi-allelic markers in 1214 Y chromosomes together with cultural background of 49 populations displayed in various metrics: network, multidimensional scaling, principal component analysis and neighbor-joining plots, indicate a major contribution of East African populations to the foundation of the macrohaplogroup, suggesting a diversification that predates the appearance of some cultural traits and the subsequent expansion that is more associated with the cultural and linguistic diversity witnessed today. The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently gave rise to the different major population groups including current speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralist populations.
[...]
The network analysis on the chromosomes carrying E haplogroupswas robust enough with a main cluster near the root represented by Kunama (KUN) encompassing most of Eritreans and Sudanese populations, including Nilo-Saharan and Afro-Asiatic speakerssuggesting that linguistic divergence is either a subsequent event topopulation divergence, language replacement or that the two linguisticfamilies may have shared a common origin.
[...]
quote:— Dr. Alain Anselin
Using primarily linguistic evidence, and taking into account recent archaeology at sites such as Hierakonpolis/Nekhen, as well as the symbolicmeaning of objects such as sceptres and headrests in Ancient Egyptian and contemporary African cultures, this paper traces the geographical location and movements of early peoples in and around the Nile Valley. It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt or, earlier, in the Sahara. The marked grammatical and lexicographic affinities of Ancient Egyptian with Chadic are well-known, and consistent Nilotic cultural, religious and political patterns are detectable in the formation of the first Egyptian kingships. The question these data raise is the articulation between the languages and the cultural patterns of this pool of ancient African societies from which emerged Predynastic Egypt.
quote:—S. O. Y. Keita, Senior Research Associate, National Human Genome Center, Howard University; Research Associate, Anthropology, Smithsonian Institute, Human Biology
Linguistics and writing can give some clues to migration or major cultural interactions. Semitic and perhaps Sumerian speakers in the Near East developed agriculture some 2,000 years before it emerged in the Nile Valley. If Egypt had been peopled by a mass migration of farmers from the Near East, ancient Egyptians would have spoken either a Semitic language or Sumerian (considered a language isolate, meaning that it has no obvious close relatives). Although certain major domesticated species used in Egypt came from the Near East, it is interesting to note that the words for these in Egyptian were not borrowed from any members of the Semitic family whose common ancestor had terms for them. They are all Egyptian. The beginnings of Egyptian writing can be traced back to the cultures that led to dynastic Egypt. Flora and fauna used in the hieroglyphs are Nilotic, indicating that the writing system developed locally, with some symbols traceable back to a period before the first dynasty rulers emerged. The titles for the king, major officials, and the royal insignia are Egyptian, which is of interest because one old theory held that the dynastic Egyptians or their elites came from the Near East; however, the archaeological evidence shows that they came from southern Egypt.
quote:Great question.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:lol.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Within human biology and the earths environment humans only come in one range of colors, white on the very light end and black on the very dark end. ALL humans are somewhere within that range of colors. Hence there are populations on the planet that can rightly be called black and others that can rightly be called white. All human skin color is determined by the amount of melanin, which by definition means "black" from the root "mela".
Not to mention all human populations ultimately started out as black.
Therefore to claim that skin color has no biological or scientific basis and that black and white aren't valid as adjectives describing it is simply a falsehood.
There are no blue, orange, green or purple humans.
Not ironically Khem as in KMT means the same thing chemically as the AE recognized carbon "the black element" as the key to life on earth and the universe......
Of course one of the purposes of scientific racism was to deny these facts and muddy the waters so to speak.
Black isn't just skin colour to you though. You've been caught with pants down on this issue, I've seen it in several threads.
Is the Egyptian football team black?
quote:Swenet, on U6.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Dynastic AE did change over time and was surrounded by EEF-like groups (or let me say ENF-like groups to get rid of the European connotation). If he means that WHG would have come as part of ENF-like populations I don't necessarily disagree with him because WHG (or some other HG component) is naturally built into all ENF genomes given their origins as partially North African and partially local HG. If he means that there would have been additional WHG on top of that, that seems uncalled for. Northeast Africans, even highly admixed Ethio-Semitic speakers, have very little WHG independent of their ENF-like ancestry. Some U6 carrying West Africans might have more WHG than northeast Africans via Afalou and Taforalt-like groups. You can still see WHG-like ancestry in Northwest Africans. For instance, the black Loschbour component here:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
@ Swenet
Basically I cited Pagani et al not for the masking stuff but to back up my suggestion that there would be an indigenous African element in AE that would look pre-OOA rather than stereotypically equatorial African (what you and others would call SSA). Sarko seems to acknowledge the possibility that "Basal Eurasian" split off from proper Eurasian ancestry while still in Africa, but given his expectation of significant WHG ancestry in early dynastic Egyptians, I am less confident he's open to our point of view.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886/F3.large.jpg
Note that there is very little of it even in modern Egypt. I think if dynastic AE have had it, it would have come from the Maghreb, not Europe or as part of some population replacement or colonization as he seems to hint at when he says modern Egyptians are at least 80% Eurasian.
quote:And though most of the women could fall at >/-25 in the arbitrary Luschan scale, this group of women would be called brown or brown skinned in a descriptive sense outside of America and other European Nations. It was an arbitrary discussion 5 pages ago and still is now. Imagine calling these women BLACK solely in a descriptive sense when there are Southeast/East Asians than can approach this skin color grade on the Luschan scale? - just agree on a number and move on, there's nothing scientific about this.... regardless, the majority of Egyptian depictions I've seen are way above that mark.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:- Outside of western racialist classification, color; white/brown/red/black is described in relation of average pigmentation
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Black as a "racially" or biological term of classification varied based on context as well as who you are speaking to, we all know this.
You can't go to the Caribbean or Africa and accurately describe someone below a color grade of 24 black, no matter how big the lips, wide the nose, kinky the hair and dark their parents might be. ...same-thing for India, and Korea (-minus a few shades).
The problem at it's root isn't color, but race. Arguing about interpretation of the word "black" is a mere smokescreen. A good portion of people don't desire to subscribe to the Idea of race and within those that do, No one wants to agree on the parameters at which we classify each other.
This rolls over to how we chose Identify ourselves and gives space for semantic manipulation in which we classify subjects racially based on a varying degree of pigment. this is because of the fact that in the western world we apply color scheme to racial categorization; Black, brown, white, yellow, red... we confuse ourselves *purposefully* when we seek to associate or dissociate ourselves and others from a group in question.
An Amerindian can be well darker than an African, but they're considered red, A Chinese man can be well lighter than an Iberian, but the Chinese man would be considered yellow.
It's never been about color... It's politics, It's vanity. How it relates to Aegyptians is one in the same... To my knowledge they're Pigmented indigenous Africans, So in the western world... I would say they're black cause they fit the open criteria for such a classification....
- Within Western racialism, color is representative of ancestry by region.
...it can not get any simpler. A Dravidian can be called black by a paki, to an american that same Dravidian will be considered "brown." why is this so hard for people to grasp here.
quote:- make life easy.
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:You're right, I agree with you on that. I've been saying "SSA" loosely because the data that we see in Ramses and the Amarnas was probably not the result of heavy inflow of SSA. As Vogel states, modern SSA and and AE's ancestors interacted during the Green Sahara phase when they were a lot more room for traveling to have contact with each other. Common ancestors are more plausible than direct ancestry.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
@ Oshun
With regards to the DNA Tribes analyses, they're not necessarily saying that these royal mummies are full-blown SSA.
[...]
These lineages may be more typical in Africa, but This doesn't mean by default that L carriers found were full blown Africans. It could more than likely mean a common ancestor eventually settled in that area and mixed with the locals. The L carriers are probably the result generations of African ancestors forming of mixtures from lineages from H,K and L. I also wonder if the profile used Mota, would AE affinities have differed on DNA tribes.
If I'm missing anything though please feel free to tell me, thanks.
quote:I've missed out on the posts prior, I haven't posted in a while. And the urge is strong to respond.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Ish, why are we going backwards... there's a thread for this, already.
quote:to be honest I'm not very sure. Sorry if I'm a bit slow on this.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
- make life easy.
....Who occupied the N.East/Nile Region >9kya? [/QB]
quote:Answer. Noone - as far as archaeological evidence goes. (For the most part)
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:to be honest I'm not very sure. Sorry if I'm a bit slow on this. [/QB]
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
- make life easy.
....Who occupied the N.East/Nile Region >9kya?
quote:move the decimal points 3 spaces to the right, the estimates in years(Kya) are predicted under two models.
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Trying to understand what the chart means in the first link. If it's 30 years per generation and the oldest ones go back about 25 years, is that then saying the oldest generations this covers were from 750 years ago?
Originally posted by beyoku:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1216069/table/TB2/
Significance?
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=011212;p=1
quote:As soon as something is black organized or close to being black organized, you have this knee-jerk reaction (mind-trigger) to discredit it, thesis the very core of white supremacy. And most of the time, you don't know even what the heck you're talking about, because you're bigoted eurocentrism is on autopilot.
Originally posted by Cass/:
That Keita article was published in a pseudo-journal. Same pseudoscience "black studies" journal that published Chinese civilization was founded by blacks.
Blacks in Ancient China, Part 1: The Founders of Xia and Shang
CA Winters
Journal of Black Studies 1 (2), 8-13
The editor of the journal also self-describes himself as an "Afrocentrist". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molefi_Kete_Asante#Afrocentricity
quote:http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2004/11/27/2003212815
In honor of the Little Black People
Drinking, singing and dancing are expected to take place deep in the mountains of Miaoli and Hsinchu when the "Ritual of the Little Black People" (矮靈祭) is performed by the Saisiyat tribe once again this weekend.
For the past 100 years or so, the Saisiyat tribe (賽夏族) has performed the songs and rites of the festival to bring good harvests, ward off bad luck and keep alive the spirit of a race of people who are said to have preceded all others in Taiwan.
In fact, the short, black men the festival celebrates are one of the most ancient types of modern humans on this planet and their kin still survive in Asia today. They are said to be diminutive Africoids and are variously called Pygmies, Negritos and Aeta. They are found in the Philippines, northern Malaysia, Thailand, Sumatra in Indonesia and other places.
Chinese historians called them "black dwarfs" in the Three Kingdoms period (AD 220 to AD 280) and they were still to be found in China during the Qing dynasty (1644 to 1911). In Taiwan they were called the "Little Black People" and, apart from being diminutive, they were also said to be broad-nosed and dark-skinned with curly hair.
After the Little Black People — and well before waves of Han migrations after 1600 — came the Aboriginal tribes, who are part of the Austronesian race. They are thought to have come from the Malay Archipelago 6,000 years ago at the earliest and around 1,000 years ago at the latest, though theories on Aborigine migration to Taiwan are still hotly debated. Gradually the Little Black People became scarcer, until a point about 100 years ago, when there was just a small group living near the Saisiyat tribe.
The story goes that the Little Black People taught the Saisiyat to farm by providing seeds and they used to party together. But one day, the Little Black People sexually harassed some Aboriginal women. So, the Saisiyat took revenge and killed them off by cutting a bridge over which they were all crossing. Just two Little Black People survived. Before departing eastward, they taught the Saisiyat about their culture and passed down some of their songs, saying if they did not remember their people they would be cursed and their crops would fail.
The Saisiyat kept their promise and have held the Ritual of the Little Black People every year, though they scaled down the ceremonies during the Japanese colonial period (1895 to 1945). Now the ritual is held every two years on the 10th full moon of the lunar calendar, with a big festival once every 10 years. At this time, the Saisiyat are not supposed to fight and they congregate in their ancestral areas of Miaoli and Hsinchu, in the mountains.
"I've seen it written of as a celebration, but to me it seemed quite a mournful affair, especially in the way the music came across, which was trancelike, a haunting kind of chant with a series of 10 to 15 songs," said long-term Taiwan resident Lynn Miles, who has been to the ritual three times and will be going again this year.
"There's nothing else quite like it in its tone and in its mood. I've been to other festivals but this is non-stop."
Miles said the dances were not set pieces but usually involved holding hands and moving around in a circle, chanting, with those who know the songs doing most of the singing and a shaman figure keeping order.
A spokeswoman at the Council of Indigenous Peoples (under the Executive Yuan) said that those who have "unclean thoughts" have their souls snatched by the spirits of the Little Black People and will pass out until the shaman revives them.
Miles said the shaman seemed to serve a public-order function by chasing off those who were too drunk or out of order.
The ceremonies are held in two places. The ritual began yesterday in Nanchuang Township, Miaoli County, and will carry on there until Monday. Rituals start today in Wufeng Township, Hsinchu County, and will last through tomorrow.
Getting there:
To Wufeng:
Route 122 to Wufeng can be accessed off No. 1 Highway near Toufen.
To Nanchuang:
Take western No. 1 Highway. Near Toufen, take Route 124 toward Sanwan to Nanchuang. Shuttle buses will take visitors to the ritual site at Xiangtian Lake.
quote:It was white men who , bolsters that the Olmec heads were of African descent, you jackass!
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Not at all. See my work criticizing the Open Pysch journals.
Originally posted by Lawaya:
why keep name calling so if information is by afrocentrist its pseudo and if by white person its facts
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard
The white supremacist journals like these and Mankind Quarterly are opposite side of same coin as the Afrocentrist journals like Journal of Black Studies and Journal of African Civilizations.
"Journal of African Civilizations...consistently promote a racialist and hegemonic view of the role allegedly played by 'black peoples' in the formation of civilizations throughout the world." (Haslip-Viera, G., de Montellano, B. O., Barbour, W. [1997]. "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs". Current Anthropology. 38(3): 419-441.)
quote:Interesting
Originally posted by Cass/:
There is no such thing as "basal Eurasian".
"A previous genetic analysis of early modern humans in Europe using data from the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 suggested that the population to which Kostenki14 belonged harboured within it the three major lineages that exist in mixed form in Europe today: a lineage related to all later pre-Neolithic Europeans, (2) a ‘Basal Eurasian’
lineage that split from the ancestors of Europeans and east Asians before they separated from each other; and (3) a lineage related to the ~24,000-year-old Mal’ta1 from Siberia. With our more extensive sampling of Ice Age Europe, we find no support for this." Fu et al. 2016- The genetic history of Ice Age Europe
quote:
In agreement with this, the D-statistics
[...]
We combined these data sets with additional 32 modern-day and 46 ancient human genomes to reconstruct genetic histories of several indigenous Northern Eurasian populations. We found that Siberian and East Asian populations shared 38% of their ancestry with a 45,000-yr-old Ust’-Ishim individual who was previously believed to have no modern-day descendants. Western Siberians trace 57% of their ancestry to ancient North Eurasians, represented by the 24,000-yr-old Siberian Mal'ta boy MA-1. Eastern Siberian populations formed a distinct sublineage that separated from other East Asian populations ∼10,000 yr ago.
quote:
Let's get to, the nitty gritty
Figure 1: Sample locations and MA-1 genetic affinities.
From Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans
Sample locations and MA-1 genetic affinities.
a, Geographical locations of Mal’ta and Afontova Gora-2 in south-central Siberia.
For reference, Palaeolithic sites with individuals belonging to mtDNA haplogroup U are shown (red and black triangles): 1, Oberkassel; 2, Hohle Fels; 3, Dolni Vestonice; 4, Kostenki-14. A Palaeolithic site with an individual belonging to mtDNA haplogroup B is represented by the square: 5, Tianyuan Cave. Notable Palaeolithic sites with Venus figurines are marked by brown circles: 6, Laussel; 7, Lespugue; 8, Grimaldi; 9, Willendorf; 10, Gargarino.
Other notable Palaeolithic sites are shown by grey circles: 11, Sungir; 12, Yana RHS. b, PCA (PC1 versus PC2) of MA-1 and worldwide human populations for which genomic tracts from recent European admixture in American and Siberian populations have been excluded19. c, Heat map of the statistic f3(Yoruba; MA-1, X) where X is one of 147 worldwide non-African populations (standard errors shown in Supplementary Fig. 21). The graded heat key represents the magnitude of the computed f3 statistics.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/slides/nature12736-pf1.ppt
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature12736_F1.html
quote:
Figure 3: Evidence of gene flow from a population related to MA-1 and western Eurasians into Native American ancestors.
From Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native American
Allele frequency-based D-statistic tests20 of the forms. a, D(Yoruba, MA-1; Han, X), where X represents modern-day populations from North and South America. The D-statistic is significantly positive for all the tests, providing evidence for gene flow between Native American ancestors and the MA-1 population lineage; however, it is not informative with respect to the direction of gene flow. b, D(Yoruba, X; Han, Karitiana), where X represents non-African populations. Since all of the 17 tested western Eurasian populations are closer to Karitiana than to Han Chinese, the most parsimonious explanation is that Native Americans have western Eurasian-related ancestry. c, D(Sardinian, X; Papuan, Han), where X represents non-African populations. MA-1 is not significantly closer to Han Chinese than to Papuans, which is compatible with MA-1 having no Native American-related admixture in its ancestry. Thick and thin error bars correspond to 1 and 3 standard errors of the D-statistic, respectively.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/slides/nature12736-pf3.ppt
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/nature12736_F3.html
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Where are the genetic studies showing modern Europeans are 80% near-eastern or African? This nonsense was already falsified by Fu et al. 2016 for Palaeolithic Europeans who from 37,000 - 14,000 BP "descended from a single founder population which forms part of the ancestry of present-day Europeans" with "no evidence of substantial genetic influx from elsewhere" i.e. recurrent, but restricted (minimal) gene flow.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Modern Europeans are as much as 80% "basal Eurasian/EEF " , lol!
Both WHG and ANE are African also because it was found in Natufians according to the reply . I can't remember if it is true or not. In AFRICA ANE is high in San ding! Ding!
this is not rocket science to see what happened here. Maybe Cass will help me get my hands on Dart book "Hong Kong man in stone age south Africa.
everything is aligning now
Fu et al do mention at roughly the start of the Holocene: "all European individuals analysed show an affinity to the Near East." That's great (no one has denied some Near East gene flow), but what is the figure of %.
quote:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/images_article/nature12736-f3.jpg
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/images_article/nature12736-f1.jpg
SI 1. The archaeological sites of Mal’ta and Afontova Gora-2 S1 1.1 Mal’ta
Mal’ta is a multi-component site located along the Belaya River, tributary of the Angara River in the Pre-Baikal region of southern Siberia, about 86 km northwest of Irkutsk (Figure 1a). It is most noted for its rich middle Upper Palaeolithic (MUP) archaeological materials, including the famous double-child burial and “Venus” figurines. The site was originally excavated during the early 20th century (1928-1958) by Gerasimov1,2, and later during the 1990s by Medvedev and colleagues3. Original excavations were extensive, covering 1348 m2, where Gerasimov reported a single cultural layer for the Upper Palaeolithic found 1.5 m below the surface1.
SI 8. Y chromosome haplogroup of MA-1
Due to low depth-of-coverage of the MA-1 individual (1.5X on 5.8 million bases), genotyping at each site on the Y chromosome was performed by selecting the allele with the highest frequency of bases with a base quality of 13 or higher. Additionally, a multi-fasta file was generated from the variable positions on the Y chromosomes available from 24 Complete Genomics public genomes1. SNPs were filtered for quality (using VQHIGH as the threshold, as defined by Complete Genomics), with tri-allelic positions excluded and only those Y chromosome regions determined as being phylogenetically informative being used2. This yielded a final dataset of 22492 positions. MA-1 Y chromosome data was then included, and MEGA phylogenetic software3 was used to construct a Neighbor Joining (NJ) tree with default parameters (Figure SI 5a). MA-1 is placed as a basal lineage to hg R2,4. Phylogenetically informative positions and their state in MA-1 were then determined to confirm the placement of MA-1 on the tree. In the course of this analysis, the original dataset was severely pruned. Non-informative positions, including those with more than four Ns in the public dataset, were excluded (633 positions). Moreover, the following positions were also excluded which were 1) in reference state in all individuals including MA-1 (7172 positions); 2) N in MA-1 and either N or reference state among the rest of the individuals (9682 positions); 3) ‘N-ref’ – those with only N or reference state among all individuals (586 positions) and ‘N-alt’ - positions with alternative alleles, but difficult to classify (11 positions); 4) reference specific (79 positions); and, 5) recurrent (28 positions). This resulted in 4301 positions being retained that were classified according to their hg affiliations. Among those phylogenetically informative positions, 1889 non-N positions were retrieved from MA-1.
When counting from the split of hg DE on the unrooted phylogenetic tree, MA-1 is determined to be carrying the derived allele in 183 sites and the ancestral allele in 1706 sites. The position of MA-1 on the phylogenetic tree is established by the state of the 313 basal mutations separating hgs DE and R, where MA-1 has 143 informative positions. Of these, 138 are in the derived and 5 in the ancestral state, placing MA-1 as a lineage basal to hg R.
With only a few exceptions characterized below, all other informative positions in MA-1 are in the ancestral state, further supporting the phylogenetic positioning of MA-1 on the tree.
Among the derived markers in the final dataset only a few (11) mutations were detected that are likely to be false positives based on the phylogenetic analysis, where it is assumed that recurrent mutation is less likely than a sequencing error. One position among the 35 private to MA-1 is characteristic of a distant hg – namely C3c14.
Based on current data, 10 additional phylogenetically non-concordant positions in MA-1 were found – 1 position for hgs E, G, Q, R1b, R1 each, 2 defining positions for hg I and 3 private mutations for R1b individuals (shown in red on Figure SI 5a). Additionally, among the mutations originally excluded (the reference-private mutations), two positions were found where MA-1 is in derived state.
quote:Haplogroup DE* in Nigerians:
There has been considerable debate on the geographic origin of the human Y chromosome Alu polymor- phism (YAP). Here we report a new, very rare deep-rooting haplogroup within the YAP clade, together with data on other deep-rooting YAP clades. The new haplogroup, found so far in only five Nigerians, is the least-derived YAP haplogroup according to currently known binary markers. However, because the interior branching order of the Y chromosome genealogical tree remains unknown, it is impossible to impute the origin of the YAP clade with certainty. We discuss the problems presented by rare deep-rooting lineages for Y chromosome phylogeography.
quote:Haplogroup DE* in Guinea-Bissau:
Further refinement awaits the finding of new markers especially within paragroup E3a*-M2. The microsatellite profile of the DE* individual is one mutational step away from the allelic state described for Nigerians (DYS390*21, DYS388 not tested; [37], therefore suggesting a common ancestry but not elucidating the phylogenetics.
quote:--Hong Shi et al. 2008:
The Y chromosome Alu polymorphism (YAP, also called M1) defines the deep-rooted haplogroup D/E of the global Y-chromosome phylogeny [1]. This D/E haplogroup is further branched into three sub-haplogroups DE*, D and E (Figure 1). The distribution of the D/E haplogroup is highly regional, and the three subgroups are geographically restricted to certain areas, therefore informative in tracing human prehistory (Table 1). The sub-haplogroup DE*, presumably the most ancient lineage of the D/E haplogroup was only found in Africans from Nigeria [2], supporting the "Out of Africa" hypothesis about modern human origin. The sub-haplogroup E (E-M40), defined by M40/SRY4064 and M96, was also suggested originated in Africa [3-6], and later dispersed to Middle East and Europe about 20,000 years ago [3,4]. Interestingly, the sub-haplogroup D defined by M174 (D-M174) is East Asian specific with abundant appearance in Tibetan and Japanese (30–40%), but rare in most of other East Asian populations and populations from regions bordering East Asia (Central Asia, North Asia and Middle East) (usually less than 5%) [5-7]. Under D-M174, Japanese belongs to a separate sub-lineage defined by several mutations (e.g. M55, M57 and M64 etc.), which is different from those in Tibetans implicating relatively deep divergence between them [1]. The fragmented distribution of D-M174 in East Asia seems not consistent with the pattern of other East Asian specific lineages, i.e. O3-M122, O1-M119 and O2-M95 under haplogroup O [8,9].
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Where are the genetic studies showing modern Europeans are 80% near-eastern or African? This nonsense was already falsified by Fu et al. 2016 for Palaeolithic Europeans who from 37,000 - 14,000 BP "descended from a single founder population which forms part of the ancestry of present-day Europeans" with "no evidence of substantial genetic influx from elsewhere" i.e. recurrent, but restricted (minimal) gene flow.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Modern Europeans are as much as 80% "basal Eurasian/EEF " , lol!
Both WHG and ANE are African also because it was found in Natufians according to the reply . I can't remember if it is true or not. In AFRICA ANE is high in San ding! Ding!
this is not rocket science to see what happened here. Maybe Cass will help me get my hands on Dart book "Hong Kong man in stone age south Africa.
everything is aligning now
Fu et al do mention at roughly the start of the Holocene: "all European individuals analysed show an affinity to the Near East." That's great (no one has denied some Near East gene flow), but what is the figure of %.
quote:-- I Lazaridis - 2013
However, three source populations are consistent with the data after excluding the Spanish who have evidence for African admixture24
[...]
The Basal Eurasian split would then have to be even older. A Basal Eurasian lineage in the Near East is plausible given the presence of anatomically modern humans in the Levant29 ~100 thousand years ago and African-related tools likely made by modern humans in Arabia30,31
Alternatively, evidence for gene flow between the Near East and Africa 32, and African morphology in pre-farming Natufians33 from Israel, may also be consistent with the population representing a later movement of humans out of Africa and into the Near East.
quote:--Fulvio Cruciani et al
How does the present MSY tree compare with the backbone of the recently published “reference” MSY phylogeny?13 The phylogenetic relationships we observed among chromosomes belonging to haplogroups B, C, and R are reminiscent of those reported in the tree by Karafet et al.13
quote:--Fulvio Cruciani et al
This branching pattern, along with the geographical distribution of the major clades A, B, and CT, has been interpreted as supporting an African origin for anatomically modern humans,10 with Khoisan from south Africa and Ethiopians from east Africa sharing the deepest lineages of the phylogeny.15 and 16
[...]
The deepest branching separates A1b from a monophyletic clade whose members (A1a, A2, A3, B, C, and R) all share seven mutually reinforcing derived mutations (five transitions and two transversions, all at non-CpG sites).
[...]
How does the present MSY tree compare with the backbone of the recently published “reference” MSY phylogeny?13 The phylogenetic relationships we observed among chromosomes belonging to haplogroups B, C, and R are reminiscent of those reported in the tree by Karafet et al.13 These chromosomes belong to a clade (haplogroup BT) in which chromosomes C and R share a common ancestor (Figure 2).
quote:I have to get back on the Siwa, the Siwa are Berbers who cluster with Berbers from the Southern part of the Sahara, the authors probably didn't know that or were ignorant or perhaps too arrogant. Many people don't know that those regions have Berbers as well. I while ago, I've tried to explain this to lioness, but it became a frustrating task. lol
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Precisely.
Originally posted by beyoku:
More woe is me, racism and 'but white people' bullshit. The data is NOT worse than useless. If the samples are sufficient it will tell is HOW CLOSER Modern Egyptians are to pre-Arab Egyptians! I will show the genetic differences during the transition between Modern, Roman, Greek, West Asian, Berber, Nubian and Late Native Egyptian dynasties. You are so stuck on denying the data you are not even able to see the benefits of what is actually being presented. SMH.
I'ma just come out and say say what I believe might happen. Granted I only have a short-abstract to go off of, I feel like we'll see some elucidation on the Coptic cluster so often considered African. the Egyptian sample will cluster closely to their near eastern bank both Prehistoric and extant and possibly become more distinct later in history. They will also have other Eurasian components and a very very low if any SSA affinity. I don't think they'll shed much light on any other presumably North African correspondence.
I don't believe that they'll base their findings solely off of YRI DNA, I sure to god hope they don't but if they do and include other SSA populations like maybe the Maasalit, or even the Luhya we'll see this near eastern affinity pop up commensurately.
But regardless the interesting thing is the respective contemporaneous presence of SSA in Egypt, surely they don't think that any mixing is due to 19th century slavery, and I'm not familiar with any post intermediate period event involving SSA movement up the nile. SSA admixture in siwas dates to 750ya (Henn et al 2014 ), will we see somewhat of a gradient during or maybe after roman times?
XyyMan, don't the levantine jews consistently score high for Natufian?
EDIT: I sense a panic, I hope we all know that this abstract isn't dispelling the notion that Kemet was civilization Africans moving UP the Nile, Read the the Paragraph again guy's, there's a reason why the sample used in the study is restricted. (middle Egypt- ~1000BC-300CE).
quote:--Fulvio Cruciani et al.
Among the Niger-Congo-speaking populations, the frequency of the haplogroup R-V88 ranged between 0.0 and 66.7%. Outside central Africa, haplogroup R-V88 was only observed in Afroasiatic-speaking populations from northern Africa, with frequencies ranging from 0.3% in Morocco, to 3.0% in Algeria, and to 11.5% in Egypt, where a particularly high frequency (26.9%) was observed among the Berbers from the Siwa Oasis.
quote:I can't wait, for it to be released, it's an exiting moment.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Yes, you're reading it right and it's a good thing you corrected me because I was talking from memory. In my upcoming short book you will see why I'm taking this stance and why I'm identifying the Levant as an important region. I will also explain other things about DNA Tribes' data.
quote:--Bayazit Yunusbayev, Oleg Balanovsky et al.
Bedouins, Jordanians, Palestinians and Saudi Arabians are located in close proximity to each other, which is consistent with a common origin in the Arabian Peninsula25, whereas the Egyptian, Moroccan, Mozabite Berber, and Yemenite samples are located closer to sub-Saharan populations (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Fig. 2a).
quote:Are you serious? We have covered this extensively recently.
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:to be honest I'm not very sure. Sorry if I'm a bit slow on this
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
- make life easy.
....Who occupied the N.East/Nile Region >9kya?
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
There is no "KEY DNA component of these populations came from Africa" in EEF, we already have many ancient DNA samples, observe Natufian and Neolithic Levant (orange):
quote:http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/mushabian_culture#cite_note-13
The Mushabian culture (alternately, Mushabi or Mushabaean) is an Archaeological culture suggested to have originated east of the Levantine Rift Valley c. 14,000 BC in the Middle Epipaleolithic period.[1][2] Although the Mushabian industry was once thought to have originated in the Nile Valley it is now known to have originated in the previous lithic industries of the Levant.
[...]
Ricaut et al. (2008)[13] associate the Sub-Saharan influences detected in the Natufian samples with the migration of E1b1b lineages from East Africa to the Levant; and then into Europe.
quote:I skimmed the study and noticed this part:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Got it:
quote:Source
The recent peak of the founder scan for L3, dating to ∼1.8 ka in Eastern Africa, mainly comprises L3b and L3d lineages in the corresponding partition in table 2 (founders F8, F16, F17, and F25 in supplementary table S4, Supplementary Material online). Many of these lineages are also present in Southern Africa, with founder age estimates indicating that they arrived very recently, probably again within the last two millennia. The frequency of these four lineages is higher in the southern part of Eastern Africa (9% in Tanzania, 4.7% in Somalia, and 3.2% in Kenya) than to the north (2.3% in Ethiopia and 0.78% in Sudan). Together with the age estimates, this points to a genetic input from West/Central Africa into Eastern Africa within the last few thousand years, into regions that now have many Bantu-speaking populations.
Think that explains part of the post-Roman increase of SSA ancestry mentioned by the abstract in the OP.
quote:
(3) From Central and Eastern Africa into North Africa: We excluded the Sahel from the analysis as this region has had continuous recurrent gene flow both from north and south, dissolving the definition of well-defined populations, and the populations in this area would be difficult to either classify as source or sink population.
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Doug Do you believe Early farmers were in Africa during the dry-phase?
quote:http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3240156&fileId=S002185370001700X
From various kinds of evidence it can now be argued that agriculture in Ethiopia and the Horn was quite ancient, originating as much as 7,000 or more years ago, and that its development owed nothing to South Arabian inspiration. Moreover, the inventions of grain cultivation in particular, both in Ethiopia and separately in the Near East, seem rooted in a single, still earlier subsistence invention of North-east Africa, the intensive utilization of wild grains, beginning probably by or before 13,000 b.c. The correlation of linguistic evidence with archaeology suggests that this food-collecting innovation may have been the work of early Afroasiatic-speaking communities and may have constituted the particular economic advantage which gave impetus to the first stages of Afroasiatic expansion into Ethiopia and the Horn, the Sahara and North Africa, and parts of the Near East.
quote:For this reason I didn't support ARU's theory. It was all foreseen from far ahead, years ago.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Lol. Egyptian aDNA around 1000BC was all fine and dandy when Ramses III and his son were predicted E1b1a. People can't seem to make up their mind. First, 20th dynasty aDNA (dating around 1000BC) is interpreted as a transplant from South Africa and the Great Lakes and filled with E1b1a. Now aDNA from the same general era is suspicious "white man's science" and "useless".
quote:Aside from this article, it is an undeniable fact that racism and white nationalism has taken an increase with in recent time.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:I dont know what it is. Its almost seems like they are scared. "Racism" is an easy target, its obvious its there so they attack that. (Secret: Black folks love at times to divert real arguments and talk about how white folks are racists and we should all stick together.) I think since they have stayed stagnant on ES so long and are literally YEARS behind their contemporary History/Bio/Anthro forum brethren, when they finally have to address the data they are scared because they haven't really been paying attention. For the last 5 years ES just masturbating over DNA Tribes Amarna and Ramesses III, and Ancient Europeans skin color.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Owned by me and I don't even know much at all about genetics. What does that make poor old doug?
NOW, when the genetic community hits them with this Abstract they are like:
quote:—caellis
Afroncentrism will be dead and buried by the end of this year, no amount of picture spamming will salvage your sinking ship when those freshly sequenced ancient genomes are released
If you are professional in the field you might want to start looking around for a new employ, you have few weeks left..
quote:You are not wrong, it's correct.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I dont get what Doug is not understanding, obviously the Populations diverged into separate populations before leaving Africa....or am I wrong..
quote:--Brenna M. Henna,
Schematic of a serial found effect. We illustrate the effect of serial founder events on genetic diversity in the context of the OOA expansion. Colored dots indicate genetic diversity. Each new group outside of Africa represents a sampling of the genetic diversity present in its founder population. The ancestral population in Africa was sufficiently large to build up and retain substantial genetic diversity.
The third assumption is that there have been no dramatic postexpansion bottlenecks that differentially affected populations from which the serial migration began. If the source population for the expansion suffered a severe bottleneck that reduced its genetic diversity, we should see a poorer linear fit to the decline of heterozygosity with distance from Africa, or erroneously assign a population with higher genetic diversity as the source population. It is this third assumption we believe deserves additional consideration.
quote:Fine. Since when did anyone claim that understanding the DNA of Upper Egypt, Northern Sudan or the Sahara involved SSA anything? Why do you keep making that a distinguishing factor? Like I said you are trying to put me into a camp I am not in. I don't use SSA because it is a meaningless label. Understanding the history of populations in the Sahara and Nile Valley has no dependency on any concept called SSA. They were Africans. Period. They were no more special than any other group of Africans in Africa in that ALL Africans have varying DNA profiles over time.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug
1) The ancestry of living SSA groups is extremely monolithic when it comes to contrasting them with other regions outside of Africa or certain components in North Africa. Can you post evidence showing that naming the SSA components individually makes a useful difference when comparing them to Basal Eurasian or unadmixed OOA groups?
Saying "SSA" vs naming the SSA groups in the PCA below individually doesn't matter enough to go through the trouble. Generally speaking they're all roughly equidistant to predynastic Egyptians. The only exceptions are groups who aren't fully SSA in ancestry.
And note that "variation" has nothing to do with it. The SSA groups clearly vary in the vertical direction, but this variation is in a direction other than in the direction of predynastic Egyptians, who they're generally equidistant to (broadly speaking).
If you disagree, please post valid data, rather than merely objecting and writing a long post.
quote:The premise of Mota is based on Neanderthal extraction.
Originally posted by Oshun:
^^^ Anyone have any studies on Green Sahara migration??? I was also looking for studies that discussed lingual or genetic divergence between East and West Africans. I found this. Not really on the subject I was looking for but it's an amended paper that talks about migrations from the East from about the time period of the study:
Erratum for the Report “Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture in Eastern Africa” (previously titled “Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture throughout the African continent”)
quote:That's about this study:
The conclusion of a migration into East Africa from Western Eurasia, and more precisely from a source genetically close to the early Neolithic farmers, is not affected. However, the geographic extent of the genetic impact of this migration was overestimated: The Western Eurasian backflow mostly affected East Africa and only a few Sub-Saharan populations; the Yoruba and Mbuti do not show higher levels of Western Eurasian ancestry compared to Mota. Hence, the title and abstract of the published paper did not accurately represent the geographical extent of the admixture, and both have been corrected accordingly. The authors acknowledge Pontus Skoglund and David Reich for detecting these problems.
quote:http://biology-web.nmsu.edu/~houde/INTO%20Africa.pdf
Here, we present an ancient human genome from Africa and use it to disentangle the effects of recent population movement into Africa. By sampling the petrous bone (5), we sequenced the genome of a male from Mota Cave (herein referred to as “Mota”) in the southern Ethiopian highlands,with a mean coverage of 12.5× (6). Contamination was estimated to be between 0.29 and 1.26% (6). Mota’s remains were dated to ~4500 years ago [direct calibrated radiocarbon date (6)] and thus predate both the Bantu expansion (7) and,more importantly, the 3000-year-old West Eurasian back-flow, which has left strong genetic signatures in the whole of Eastern and, to a lesser extent, Southern Africa (3,4)
…
quote:~M. Gallego Llorente
The two African genomes, Yoruba and Mbuti, also have slightly positive D values, indicating that they are slightly more similar to Neanderthal than Mota is. This result is likely driven by the West Eurasian component found in modern Africans.
[...]
Table S8. Neanderthal component D statistics. D(AltaiNea, CAnc; Mota, X), where AltaiNea is the Altai Neanderthal, MezNea is the Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal, CAnc is the reconstructed human-chimpanzee common ancestor, Mota is the reference and X is the tested genome.
The absence of a West Eurasian component in Mota supports the dating of the backflow into Africa, which, at ~3.5kya, is younger than our ancient genome (dated to 4.5 cya).
Given that Mota predates the backflow, it potentially provides a better unadmixed African reference than contemporary Yoruba. Thus, we recomputed the extent of the West Eurasian component in contemporary African populations using Mota, λMota,Druze, instead of Yoruba in our f4 ratio. By using this better reference, we estimated West Eurasian admixture to be significantly larger than previously estimated, with an additional 6-9% of the genome of contemporary African populations being of Eurasian origin (Fig. S6, and Table S5). Importantly, this analysis shows that the West Eurasian component can be found also in West Africa (Fig. S6), albeit at lower levels 13 than in Eastern Africa. Importantly, a sizeable West Eurasian component is also found in the Yoruba and Mbuti, which are often used a representative of an unadmixed African population.
[…]
Fig. S8. Phylogeny used in f4 ratio analysis. Phylogeny composed of three populations A, B, and C, and an outgroup O all descending from the same ancestor R. An additional population, X, is a mixture of B and C.
[...]
Table S4. Mutations defining the E1b1 haplogroup of Mota. Mutations are reported with respect to the Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence. Mutations found in our sample, which are present in the reported haplogroup are shown here unless marked in bold or underlined. Underlined mutations are those present in our samples but not associated with the haplogroup determined. Bold mutations are those expected for the assigned haplogroup but absent from the sample.
[...]
Previous page: Table. S5. The proportion of West Eurasian ancestry for all African populations in our global panel. λYoruba,Druze gives estimates using Yoruba as the non-admixed reference and Druze as the source, λMota,Druze using Mota as the non-admixed reference and Druze as the source, and λMota,LBK using Mota as the non-admixed reference and LBK as a source. SE are the standard errors for these quantities.
[...]
Table S6. D statistics determining the possible source of West Eurasian ancestry in Yoruba. D(Yoruba, Mota; X, Han); where X is a range of European populations that represent possible sources of gene flow.
[...]
Table S7. D statistics determining the possible source of West Eurasian ancestry in Mbuti. D(Mbuti, Mota; X, Han); where X is a range of European populations that represent possible sources of gene flow.
[...]
Table S8. Neanderthal component D statistics. D(AltaiNea, CAnc; Mota, X), where AltaiNea is the Altai Neanderthal, MezNea is the Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal, CAnc is the reconstructed human-chimpanzee common ancestor, Mota is the reference and X is the tested genome.
[...]
Table S9. Neanderthal component based on f4 ratio. f4 (AltaiNea, Denisovan; X, Mota) / f4 (AltaiNea, Denisovan; X, MezNea), where Mota is the unadmixed reference and X is the tested population.
[...]
Table S10. Denisovan component D statistics. DYoruba, D(Denisovan, CAnc; Yoruba, X), where Yoruba is the reference and X is the tested genome, and DMota, D(Denisovan, CAnc; Mota, X), where CAnc is the reconstructed human-chimpanzee common ancestor, Mota is the reference and X is the tested genome.
quote:Here is where this confusion comes from. You folks are using these labels and then accusing someone else of mislabeling. So lets start with the Green Sahara. By definition, the Sahara DESERT disappeared during the Green Sahara period. So there were no "sub saharans" at that point. Making this whole idea that SSA is an important factor here moot. We know for a fact as well that if you define SSA literally as all points SOUTH of the Sahara Desert, we know full well that ALL populations south of the Sahara didn't move North during the wet phase. Again, this idea of a MONOLITHIC entity called SSA that covers everything from Southern Libya to the tip of South Africa as a single DNA profile is false. And we also know that the only people who historically have made a distinction like this are those who suggest that black skin in Africa is limited to areas South of the Sahara, which typically aren't folks who believe in African genetic diversity across all of Africa.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
BTW...
quote:The suggestion that Egypt might have been one of the recipients of West African migrations during late Roman times is interesting but not what I had mind. I was referring to the likelihood of significant SSA contributions to proto-AE during the Green Sahara time frame, like others in this thread have suggested. Even if they were a minority element, it would be strange if these Green Saharan contributions hadn't impacted AE to the extent that they apparently impacted the ancient Maghreb.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:According to Haddow we do see Roman era migration to Egypt from points south in the non metric data from Kellis. There is also a 'Negro Egyptian' sample in Mukherjee's study on Jebel Moya. I don't know its provenance but these samples exist. Beyoku might know more about it as I can remember I talked with him about Mukherjee's data years ago.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:You've pointed out in the past that SSA-like remains from the Holocene epoch have been found in coastal NW Africa, including some Carthaginian sites. I presume some of these would represent West Africans who colonized the north during the Green Sahara period, since they contrast with the Eurasian-affiliated late Pleistocene inhabitants of that region. If West (as well as Northeast) Africans in the mid-Holocene could make it past the Atlas Mountains to settle the Maghrebi coast, logic would dictate that a few South Sudanese types would have been able to move down the Nile and assimilate into the eastern Saharan populations during that same time frame. Even if this Sudanic ancestry never became the majority component in AE, I would expect it to still be significant just as West African and Nile Valley ancestry would remain detectable in the Maghreb as recently as Carthaginian times.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I said that to say this: when thinking about dynastic AE population affinity, we should work from here. Dynastic AE ratio of SSA to North African may or may not be larger than what we see in the Natufians. However, if it's larger it will largely depend on post-Natufian SSA migration to the ancestors of ancient Egyptians. And it also has to be ongoing and substantial to continually counteract ongoing small Eurasian and Maghrebi influences during the dynastic era. I have seen no one here who has been able to provide evidence for this. In my view, those who take DNA Tribes literally, their priorities should lie here before using less certain data (i.e. data that is not based on ancient DNA).
If that turns out not to be the case, I'd like to know why. Why would we find all this visible SSA ancestry in ancient Maghrebi remains, but not so much in AE?
quote:What I am saying is those dots in Africa are African. They don't become geographically "somthing else" until long after leaving Africa. Therefore pointing out some DNA mutation before those folks left as some "special" marker is ridiculous. Because if you notice there are many different colored circles already in Africa before moving out. So taking one of those circles that left and calling it a "special" mutation because it participated in the later migration out is silly. Nothing "special" happened to the DNA before leaving Africa that would make it less African than any of the other DNA markers of other colors on the African side of the chart.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:You are not wrong, it's correct.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I dont get what Doug is not understanding, obviously the Populations diverged into separate populations before leaving Africa....or am I wrong..
quote:--Brenna M. Henna,
Schematic of a serial found effect. We illustrate the effect of serial founder events on genetic diversity in the context of the OOA expansion. Colored dots indicate genetic diversity. Each new group outside of Africa represents a sampling of the genetic diversity present in its founder population. The ancestral population in Africa was sufficiently large to build up and retain substantial genetic diversity.
The third assumption is that there have been no dramatic postexpansion bottlenecks that differentially affected populations from which the serial migration began. If the source population for the expansion suffered a severe bottleneck that reduced its genetic diversity, we should see a poorer linear fit to the decline of heterozygosity with distance from Africa, or erroneously assign a population with higher genetic diversity as the source population. It is this third assumption we believe deserves additional consideration.
L. L. Cavalli-Sforzaa,1, and
Marcus W. Feldmanb,2
Edited by C. Owen Lovejoy, Kent State University, Kent, OH, and approved September 25, 2012 (received for review July 19, 2012)
quote:Dude. I know that. Stop pretending that this is what is in contention. The point is that before they left Africa they were Africans and that humans were diverse before leaving Africa, but that didn't make them NON African before leaving.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
@Doug M, What the scheme explains is that genetic diverse was already in Africa, and was taken out by small pockets of groups over time.
The Episode of Genetic Drift Defining the Migration of Humans out of Africa Is Derived from a Large East African Population Size
Nuha Elhassan, Sara Tishkoff et al.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097674
quote:So even if there was no AFRICAN DNA from outside the Nile Valley in the Amarna period how does that change anything? And conversely how do we know for sure that there was no other African DNA from outside the Nile Valley at any point in Egypt's history? Again SSA has nothing to do with this. If Non Africans can migrate into the Nile Valley then why cant Africans from other parts of Africa? Again, I don't see why you folks keep harping on this.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Same thoughts here. This is much deeper than most think. Alt-Right?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Why are we talking about Amarnas? Because it was brought up in this thread and this new paper(abstract) was undoubtedly created to stir fervor and get people riled up. The DNA Tribes comment was about the Amarnas.
…
So The Romans brought SSA ancestry back-to-Africa? lol! No the author is implying slaves. The paper is a hoax. Wait until we get the paper and Supplementals. It is not what it makes out to be.
Reminds of the recent Natufian paper. The researcher said “no MORE SSA ancestry”. Swenet and other Euronuts retards spun as ‘no’ SSA ancestry. Tsk! tks!
quote:So why are we entertaining this concept of Negrocentrics? Why is that even of issue here? Because to me it sounds like some folks are in stealth trying to use other labels and classifications to separate Egypt from the rest of Africa and claim to be doing so based on data. There is no DATA I know of that says the AE were any less African during the dynastic era than any other Africans. Sounds like what is really going on is some folks are trying to argue for a "less African" and "more Non African" AE and using SSA as an excuse to push this point of view. Not saying that there were no NON Africans in Dynastic Egypt, but that does not mean that Dynastic Egypt is not properly classified as African and hence closely related to other Africans as a biological unit. But those folks who seem to be making the noise seem to want to make a wedge between Dynastic Egypt and stereotypical "true Africans" which is why all this "Negrocentric" and "SSA" talk is being thrown around. As if to say that the AE were "real Africans" like other Africans is somehow a bad theory.... Some folks man.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:You're missing a few points here, as usually.
Originally posted by Cass/:
AmunRa will just claim since the earliest DNA samples from this study are Third Intermediate Period, since these samples are "late" - ancient Egyptians were already heavily admixed at that point. This is already being done by butt hurt negrocentrists on anthro forums and blogs.
Butthurt negrocentrist on eurogenes. LOL
quote:http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/ancient-human-dna-at-saa-2017.html
Sure there is.
* The Hyskos Dynasty (ca. 1650 BCE to 1545 BCE)
* Egypt's political boundaries extended into modern Lebanon ca. 1450 BCE in the Hittite era.
* Bronze Age Collapse sent migrants from the North to Egypt (although the ethnically Mycenean Greek Philistines were diverted to what is now the Gaza strip).
* Egypt has vigorous trade and diplomatic relations in the Eastern Mediterranean region during the Phoenician era and the Roman era.
Sub-Saharan admixture was probably greater pre-1800 BCE.
quote:--Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim
E-M78 subclades
The distribution of E-M78 subclades among Sudanese is shown in Table 2. Only two chromosomes fell under the paragroup E-M78*. E-V65 and E-V13 were com- pletely absent in the samples analyzed, whereas the other subclades were relatively common. E-V12* accounts for 19.3% and is widely distributed among Su- danese. E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common sub- clades among Sudanese. It has the highest frequency among populations of western Sudan and Beja. E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.
[...]
The Fulani, who possess the lowest population size in this study, have an interesting genetic structure, effectively consisting of two haplogroups or founding lineages. One of the lineages is R-M173 (53.8%), and its sheer frequency suggests either a recent migration of this group to Africa and/or a restricted gene flow due to linguistic or cultural barriers. The high frequency of sub-clade E-V22, which is believed to be northeast African (Cruciani et al., 2007) and haplogroup R-M173, suggests an amalgamation of two populations/cultures that took place sometime in the past in eastern or central Africa. This is also evident from the frequency of the ‘‘T’’ allele of the lactase persistence gene that is uniquely present in considerable frequencies among the Fulani (Mulcare et al., 2004). Interestingly, Fulani language is classified in the Niger-Congo family of languages, which is more prevalent in West Africa and among Bantu speakers, yet their Y-chromosomes show very little evidence of West African genetic affiliation.
It seems, however, that the effective size of the pastorlists and nomadic pastoralists is generally much smaller than groups of sedentary agriculturalists life style. This is intriguing in the sense that one would expect nomadic tribes to be more able to admix, spread, and receive genes than their sedentary counterparts.
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
This is a graphical perspective by Jari, basically saying the same thing.
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
True, but the people the Egyptians descend from and that the academic communities agree on(Archaeologists, Linguists and Geneticists) are the Saharan peoples of the Green Sahara period. These same people migrated to "West Africa" so if a Negrocentric wanted they could claim a distant, very distant btw, relationship with Ancient Egyptians..
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
It depends what they mean by "near eastern ancestry" since the Near East includes Egypt in many definitions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East) and this has been done before in genetics studies; if this study included Egypt in NE this is a good study for me, it just confirms ancient Egyptians had a large indigenous (Egyptian) ancestry component, Brace et al vindicated. Regardless negrocentric (sub-Saharan African) afrocentrists are completely destroyed.
quote:Burp, fart, **** aka the lioness very boring. A lot of people missed out on a lot of data, so yes I "copy & pasted" the data for them.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Folks I think it's a record.
On the previous page there is a segment of posts where Ish Gebor has 14 posts in a row, each one 99% copy and paste quote that he has posted numerous times before.
Imagine if every poster did that.It's very, very boring
quote:As Swenet explained, they have separated the basal and moved the basal out of Africa. Or at least attempt to do so.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:So even if there was no AFRICAN DNA from outside the Nile Valley in the Amarna period how does that change anything? And conversely how do we know for sure that there was no other African DNA from outside the Nile Valley at any point in Egypt's history? Again SSA has nothing to do with this. If Non Africans can migrate into the Nile Valley then why cant Africans from other parts of Africa? Again, I don't see why you folks keep harping on this.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Same thoughts here. This is much deeper than most think. Alt-Right?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Why are we talking about Amarnas? Because it was brought up in this thread and this new paper(abstract) was undoubtedly created to stir fervor and get people riled up. The DNA Tribes comment was about the Amarnas.
…
So The Romans brought SSA ancestry back-to-Africa? lol! No the author is implying slaves. The paper is a hoax. Wait until we get the paper and Supplementals. It is not what it makes out to be.
Reminds of the recent Natufian paper. The researcher said “no MORE SSA ancestry”. Swenet and other Euronuts retards spun as ‘no’ SSA ancestry. Tsk! tks!
Do you think that the original lineages of the Nile Valley that made up AE were non African?
quote:I don't think that's the reason.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
This why I posted on the previous page all that info, including Sara Tishkoff and Brenna Henn.
quote:LOL at your gibberish!
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:I don't think that's the reason.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
This why I posted on the previous page all that info, including Sara Tishkoff and Brenna Henn.
I think the real reason you are trying to get attention or have OCD.
You need to work on that.
We can get help for you
quote:The last time we talked I wasn’t sure to what extent Basal Eurasian contributes to closeness to Africans:
Originally posted by Ceasar:
I am sort of confused about this chart. I have read papers that suggest that Basal Eurasians have no affinity to sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:I said the bolded part because the Natufian sample’s affinities made me unsure about how much Basal Eurasian contributes to closeness to SSA groups. But there is actually something else going on with the Natufian sample. Basal Eurasian does, in fact, contribute affinity to SSA groups. I will talk about this extensively some time in the near future.
Originally posted by Swenet:
The component that is introducing most of the intermediateness of modern northeast Africans is Eurasian, Basal Eurasian, Omotic, Nilo-Saharan, in that order. Basal Eurasian and Eurasian may be a tie according to some studies, I'm not sure. Dynastic AE who had more Nilo-Saharan and Omotic than Basal Eurasian, would be closer to Africans than to Eurasians.
quote:Can you clarify the specific Wet Sahara period you're referring to? I assumed you were talking about later periods because it seems quite established that Egypt had SSA influences during subpluvial. There are SSA lineages in early Syrian aDNA so this is not debatable. See Oshun's thread on Fernandez 2005.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
BTW...
quote:The suggestion that Egypt might have been one of the recipients of West African migrations during late Roman times is interesting but not what I had mind. I was referring to the likelihood of significant SSA contributions to proto-AE during the Green Sahara time frame, like others in this thread have suggested. Even if they were a minority element, it would be strange if these Green Saharan contributions hadn't impacted AE to the extent that they apparently impacted the ancient Maghreb.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:According to Haddow we do see Roman era migration to Egypt from points south in the non metric data from Kellis. There is also a 'Negro Egyptian' sample in Mukherjee's study on Jebel Moya. I don't know its provenance but these samples exist. Beyoku might know more about it as I can remember I talked with him about Mukherjee's data years ago.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:You've pointed out in the past that SSA-like remains from the Holocene epoch have been found in coastal NW Africa, including some Carthaginian sites. I presume some of these would represent West Africans who colonized the north during the Green Sahara period, since they contrast with the Eurasian-affiliated late Pleistocene inhabitants of that region. If West (as well as Northeast) Africans in the mid-Holocene could make it past the Atlas Mountains to settle the Maghrebi coast, logic would dictate that a few South Sudanese types would have been able to move down the Nile and assimilate into the eastern Saharan populations during that same time frame. Even if this Sudanic ancestry never became the majority component in AE, I would expect it to still be significant just as West African and Nile Valley ancestry would remain detectable in the Maghreb as recently as Carthaginian times.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I said that to say this: when thinking about dynastic AE population affinity, we should work from here. Dynastic AE ratio of SSA to North African may or may not be larger than what we see in the Natufians. However, if it's larger it will largely depend on post-Natufian SSA migration to the ancestors of ancient Egyptians. And it also has to be ongoing and substantial to continually counteract ongoing small Eurasian and Maghrebi influences during the dynastic era. I have seen no one here who has been able to provide evidence for this. In my view, those who take DNA Tribes literally, their priorities should lie here before using less certain data (i.e. data that is not based on ancient DNA).
If that turns out not to be the case, I'd like to know why. Why would we find all this visible SSA ancestry in ancient Maghrebi remains, but not so much in AE?
quote:True. The Coptic sample from Sudan shows the same thing (little SSA ancestry compared to almost all modern North African samples, without necessarily being more Eurasian than them). But I used the Tunisian sample because that graph I posted was just easier to get my point across.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
That puts it into perspective. Thanks a million, Swenet. Northeast Africans have their own genetic profile -distinct from Sub-Saharan Africans- so I think you're right about this. The release of the specifics in April will further clear things up.
quote:I meant the subpluvial of course.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Can you clarify the specific Wet Sahara period you're referring to? I assumed you were talking about later periods because it seems quite established that Egypt had SSA influences during subpluvial. There are SSA lineages in early Syrian aDNA so this is not debatable. See Oshun's thread on Fernandez 2005.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
BTW...
quote:The suggestion that Egypt might have been one of the recipients of West African migrations during late Roman times is interesting but not what I had mind. I was referring to the likelihood of significant SSA contributions to proto-AE during the Green Sahara time frame, like others in this thread have suggested. Even if they were a minority element, it would be strange if these Green Saharan contributions hadn't impacted AE to the extent that they apparently impacted the ancient Maghreb.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:According to Haddow we do see Roman era migration to Egypt from points south in the non metric data from Kellis. There is also a 'Negro Egyptian' sample in Mukherjee's study on Jebel Moya. I don't know its provenance but these samples exist. Beyoku might know more about it as I can remember I talked with him about Mukherjee's data years ago.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:You've pointed out in the past that SSA-like remains from the Holocene epoch have been found in coastal NW Africa, including some Carthaginian sites. I presume some of these would represent West Africans who colonized the north during the Green Sahara period, since they contrast with the Eurasian-affiliated late Pleistocene inhabitants of that region. If West (as well as Northeast) Africans in the mid-Holocene could make it past the Atlas Mountains to settle the Maghrebi coast, logic would dictate that a few South Sudanese types would have been able to move down the Nile and assimilate into the eastern Saharan populations during that same time frame. Even if this Sudanic ancestry never became the majority component in AE, I would expect it to still be significant just as West African and Nile Valley ancestry would remain detectable in the Maghreb as recently as Carthaginian times.
Originally posted by Swenet:
I said that to say this: when thinking about dynastic AE population affinity, we should work from here. Dynastic AE ratio of SSA to North African may or may not be larger than what we see in the Natufians. However, if it's larger it will largely depend on post-Natufian SSA migration to the ancestors of ancient Egyptians. And it also has to be ongoing and substantial to continually counteract ongoing small Eurasian and Maghrebi influences during the dynastic era. I have seen no one here who has been able to provide evidence for this. In my view, those who take DNA Tribes literally, their priorities should lie here before using less certain data (i.e. data that is not based on ancient DNA).
If that turns out not to be the case, I'd like to know why. Why would we find all this visible SSA ancestry in ancient Maghrebi remains, but not so much in AE?
The point of contention is did this SSA to North African ratio increase substantially in between the Natufian period and dynastic Egypt (see the post you quoted when you brought up SSA influences in Iron Age Maghrebi samples)?
quote:I never said that any groups where everywhere any time. You keep trying to put me into a camp I am not in.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug M
I already see where this is going, so I'll just reframe my initial question. Do you have evidence that the groups you say were "everywhere, all the time" originate in North Africa or have been there before 14ky ago?
quote:Basal was never really in Africa. It is a composite of multiple lineages. The ONLY reason this composite group is significant is primarily because of the African component which indicates a pattern of migration which introduced a survival toolkit that would lead to the development of farming. Again, like I said, if that toolkit is derived from that African component then that is the key to the Natufians developing agriculture and their affinity to Africans. So like I said before, the point here is that if that theory is correct this composite population or at the very least that African component WITHIN that composite population should be labeled as African Proto Farmers or something like that. Because it wasn't a migration of Europeans who formed the basis of this toolkit. Second, and more importantly, just because the population OUTSIDE Africa was a composite of various non African and African populations, that doesn't make the BASE population of Africans in Africa from which the African component descended into a composite group. They were primarily African.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:As Swenet explained, they have separated the basal and moved the basal out of Africa. Or at least attempt to do so.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:So even if there was no AFRICAN DNA from outside the Nile Valley in the Amarna period how does that change anything? And conversely how do we know for sure that there was no other African DNA from outside the Nile Valley at any point in Egypt's history? Again SSA has nothing to do with this. If Non Africans can migrate into the Nile Valley then why cant Africans from other parts of Africa? Again, I don't see why you folks keep harping on this.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Same thoughts here. This is much deeper than most think. Alt-Right?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Why are we talking about Amarnas? Because it was brought up in this thread and this new paper(abstract) was undoubtedly created to stir fervor and get people riled up. The DNA Tribes comment was about the Amarnas.
…
So The Romans brought SSA ancestry back-to-Africa? lol! No the author is implying slaves. The paper is a hoax. Wait until we get the paper and Supplementals. It is not what it makes out to be.
Reminds of the recent Natufian paper. The researcher said “no MORE SSA ancestry”. Swenet and other Euronuts retards spun as ‘no’ SSA ancestry. Tsk! tks!
Do you think that the original lineages of the Nile Valley that made up AE were non African?
This why I posted on the previous page all that info, including Sara Tishkoff and Brenna Henn.
Brenna Henn on panmixia.
CARTA: Ancient DNA and Human Evolution – Brenna Henn: The Origins of Modern Humans in Africa
Brenna Henn (Stony Brook Univ) explores patterns of genetic diversity across Africa and models for modern human origins in this talk. She discusses whether genetic data is concordant with archaeological data and suggests directions for future research. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 30979]
https://youtu.be/mWwmVXZOFbU
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture
According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on six Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA haplogroup E-Z830 or E1b1b1b2, whose ancestral paternal clade is E1b1b-M123. One Natufian individual was also found to belong to the N1b mtDNA haplogroup. In terms of autosomal DNA, these Natufians carried around 50% of the Basal Eurasian (BE) and 50% of Western Eurasian Unknown Hunter Gather (UHG) components. However, they were slightly distinct from the northern Anatolian populations that contributed to the peopling of Europe, who had higher Western Hunter Gatherer (WHG) inferred ancestry. Natufians were strongly genetically differentiated[27] from Neolithic Iranian farmers from the Zagros Mountains, who were a mix of Basal Eurasians (up to 62%) and Ancient North Eurasians (ANE). This might suggest that different strains of Basal Eurasians contributed to Natufians and Zagros farmers, as both Natufians and Zagros farmers descended from different populations of local hunter gatherers. Mating between Natufians, other Neolithic Levantines, Anatolian and Iranian farmers is believed to have decreased genetic variability among later populations in the Middle East. The scientists suggest that the Levantine early farmers may have spread southward into East Africa, bringing along Western and Basal Eurasian ancestral components separate from that which would arrive later in North Africa. Elsewhere on the continent, the Natufians were found to share no significant genetic affinities with Sub-Saharan African populations.
quote:Basal Eurasian is hardly a "Composite" group, it seems so because of the supposed different groups which received contribution from them. If you're going to talk about components, 'SSA', 'Basal Eurasian', 'Basal Eurasian african' please highlight which cluster/geneset you're referring to... Africans having such a diverse genome is precisely the reason why a group like Basal Eurasian is considered non-African. - Mind you, there could have been 10's of millennia separating this group from Africans. We keep saying "because this isn't SSA, doesn't mean it's any less african"... well explain what do you consider SSA? for example, Tunisians were Identified as a group representative of an early break off from Basal Eurasian... They consistently cluster in a way that shows just that. How do east africans cluster north-south... what does it infer about OOA admixture & where does it place SSA admixture, etc. etc??
Originally posted by Doug M:
Basal was never really in Africa. It is a composite of multiple lineages. The ONLY reason this composite group is significant is primarily because of the African component which indicates a pattern of migration which introduced a survival toolkit that would lead to the development of farming. Again, like I said, if that toolkit is derived from that African component then that is the key to the Natufians developing agriculture and their affinity to Africans. So like I said before, the point here is that if that theory is correct this composite population or at the very least that African component WITHIN that composite population should be labeled as African Proto Farmers or something like that. Because it wasn't a migration of Europeans who formed the basis of this toolkit. Second, and more importantly, just because the population OUTSIDE Africa was a composite of various non African and African populations, that doesn't make the BASE population of Africans in Africa from which the African component descended into a composite group. They were primarily African.
The key point here is whether we can truly identify a DNA component of Basal European as truly originating in Africa. And that is where this discussion is going.
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture
According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on six Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA haplogroup E-Z830 or E1b1b1b2, whose ancestral paternal clade is E1b1b-M123. One Natufian individual was also found to belong to the N1b mtDNA haplogroup. In terms of autosomal DNA, these Natufians carried around 50% of the Basal Eurasian (BE) and 50% of Western Eurasian Unknown Hunter Gather (UHG) components. However, they were slightly distinct from the northern Anatolian populations that contributed to the peopling of Europe, who had higher Western Hunter Gatherer (WHG) inferred ancestry. Natufians were strongly genetically differentiated[27] from Neolithic Iranian farmers from the Zagros Mountains, who were a mix of Basal Eurasians (up to 62%) and Ancient North Eurasians (ANE). This might suggest that different strains of Basal Eurasians contributed to Natufians and Zagros farmers, as both Natufians and Zagros farmers descended from different populations of local hunter gatherers. Mating between Natufians, other Neolithic Levantines, Anatolian and Iranian farmers is believed to have decreased genetic variability among later populations in the Middle East. The scientists suggest that the Levantine early farmers may have spread southward into East Africa, bringing along Western and Basal Eurasian ancestral components separate from that which would arrive later in North Africa. Elsewhere on the continent, the Natufians were found to share no significant genetic affinities with Sub-Saharan African populations.
And Sarah Tishkoff has always said that Africa has the most diverse DNA in the world. That doesn't make them LESS African.
quote:So, you're saying that labels for populations should take into account wherever they happen to be late in their history as opposed to where they originate? Because all your groups originate in Sub-Saharan Africa. Are you telling me their labels shouldn't reflect that? Based on what? Because they can move away from those regions? I think you're the one who is being inconsistent.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:I never said that any groups where everywhere any time. You keep trying to put me into a camp I am not in.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug M
I already see where this is going, so I'll just reframe my initial question. Do you have evidence that the groups you say were "everywhere, all the time" originate in North Africa or have been there before 14ky ago?
The only thing I am saying is that labels should be consistent. And we are basically going to absurd depths of trying to redefine labels to the point of being meaningless. If I say the Nile Valley populations were African why does it need to be refined further in order to reinforce "Africanness"? See my point? Because I don't need a "SSA" qualifier in order to identify Africanness. Yet you keep trying to put me into that camp.
quote:Of course they could if they stayed in America as long as the people now called Native Americans
Originally posted by Swenet:
You're certainly not calling English-speaking settlers of North America, biologically American. You call them biologically European. As does everyone else. They will never be biologically American. I don't know why some people suddenly become forgetful when it comes to applying everyday concepts to Africa.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Of course they could if they stayed in America as long as the people now called Native Americans
Originally posted by Swenet:
You're certainly not calling English-speaking settlers of North America, biologically American. You call them biologically European. As does everyone else. They will never be biologically American. I don't know why some people suddenly become forgetful when it comes to applying everyday concepts to Africa.
quote:It doesn't matter what the term might be Europeans and African Americans would be biologically American after 10,000 years
Originally posted by Swenet:
In 10000 years we'd still refer to their Euro-American ancestry as European. Even if Americans all look like Mestizos by then.
quote:I don't understan what you are saying. People all over the world have adapted, changed biologically to new environments that they have migrated to. The whole world is the precedent
Originally posted by Swenet:
You can't even prove what you're saying because there is no precedent of that.
quote:I'm not talking about hybrid populations
Originally posted by Swenet:
All known hybrid populations are treated as consisting of two components originating in two different regions. Only you are attributing components to non-native regions.
quote:Jean Baptiste Lemark all over again.... are you at least on the plasticity train? That at the very least looks promising.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:I'm not talking about hybrid populations
Originally posted by Swenet:
All known hybrid populations are treated as consisting of two components originating in two different regions. Only you are attributing components to non-native regions.
The Chinese for instance have evolved into their phenotype by being in East Asia. There weren't people looking like that coming out of Africa.
At the earliest points in prehistoric African history there was not the diversity we see today. That comes about by the original humans moving around the continent and adapting over thousands of years to different places in Africa.
quote:You just contradicted yourself. Composite means composed of different groups. So where is the disagreement? And that is precisely what I said.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Basal Eurasian is hardly a "Composite" group, it seems so because of the supposed different groups which received contribution from them.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Basal was never really in Africa. It is a composite of multiple lineages. The ONLY reason this composite group is significant is primarily because of the African component which indicates a pattern of migration which introduced a survival toolkit that would lead to the development of farming. Again, like I said, if that toolkit is derived from that African component then that is the key to the Natufians developing agriculture and their affinity to Africans. So like I said before, the point here is that if that theory is correct this composite population or at the very least that African component WITHIN that composite population should be labeled as African Proto Farmers or something like that. Because it wasn't a migration of Europeans who formed the basis of this toolkit. Second, and more importantly, just because the population OUTSIDE Africa was a composite of various non African and African populations, that doesn't make the BASE population of Africans in Africa from which the African component descended into a composite group. They were primarily African.
The key point here is whether we can truly identify a DNA component of Basal European as truly originating in Africa. And that is where this discussion is going.
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture
According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on six Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA haplogroup E-Z830 or E1b1b1b2, whose ancestral paternal clade is E1b1b-M123. One Natufian individual was also found to belong to the N1b mtDNA haplogroup. In terms of autosomal DNA, these Natufians carried around 50% of the Basal Eurasian (BE) and 50% of Western Eurasian Unknown Hunter Gather (UHG) components. However, they were slightly distinct from the northern Anatolian populations that contributed to the peopling of Europe, who had higher Western Hunter Gatherer (WHG) inferred ancestry. Natufians were strongly genetically differentiated[27] from Neolithic Iranian farmers from the Zagros Mountains, who were a mix of Basal Eurasians (up to 62%) and Ancient North Eurasians (ANE). This might suggest that different strains of Basal Eurasians contributed to Natufians and Zagros farmers, as both Natufians and Zagros farmers descended from different populations of local hunter gatherers. Mating between Natufians, other Neolithic Levantines, Anatolian and Iranian farmers is believed to have decreased genetic variability among later populations in the Middle East. The scientists suggest that the Levantine early farmers may have spread southward into East Africa, bringing along Western and Basal Eurasian ancestral components separate from that which would arrive later in North Africa. Elsewhere on the continent, the Natufians were found to share no significant genetic affinities with Sub-Saharan African populations.
And Sarah Tishkoff has always said that Africa has the most diverse DNA in the world. That doesn't make them LESS African.
quote:Basal has nothing to do with any of these components. It is a made up label. What I am saying is that some of those components are markers for DNA from AFRICAN groups and some of the other components are markers for DNA from EURASIAN groups. That is not simply a label it is a sign of geographic ancestry and biological relationships. They are not all the same people from the same ancestral population is the point. Hence the mixture that comes as a result is a composite. You know this so stop with the semantics.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
If you're going to talk about components, 'SSA', 'Basal Eurasian', 'Basal Eurasian african' please highlight which cluster/geneset you're referring to... Africans having such a diverse genome is precisely the reason why a group like Basal Eurasian is considered non-African.
quote:I spoke clearly of Natufians and those populations in the Levant responsible for developing farming. Please show me where these people are tens of thousands of years separated from Africans. You are mixing up too many different things I never said. Somehow you cant read.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
- Mind you, there could have been 10's of millennia separating this group from Africans.
quote:What I mean is that SSA has no relevance to the discussion because I don't use it as a "marker" for anything regarding African indigenous diversity. I keep saying it and you guys keep ignoring that and trying to put me into some "SSA evangelist" camp that I am not in. The ONLY thing I am saying is that AFRICAN DNA needs no such distinction, if it is African that is the only LABEL that matters regarding ancestry and biological relationships on a geographical level regarding things like African vs Non African origins. And if this was a discussion of regional variation WITHIN Africa, SSA is to broad a term to even be meaningful.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M:
We keep saying "because this isn't SSA, doesn't mean it's any less african"... well explain what do you consider SSA? for example, Tunisians were Identified as a group representative of an early break off from Basal Eurasian... They consistently cluster in a way that shows just that. How do east africans cluster north-south... what does it infer about OOA admixture & where does it place SSA admixture, etc. etc??
quote:I am saying that calling something African indicates is origin within the continent of Africa. What further subdivision is needed? This is not a discussion of regional variation of DNA and you know it, because SSA is too broad a geographic term and I have said this multiple times yet you keep trying to somehow go back to it as if you didn't hear it when I said it.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:So, you're saying that labels for populations should take into account wherever they happen to be late in their history as opposed to where they originate? Because all your groups originate in Sub-Saharan Africa. Are you telling me their labels shouldn't reflect that? Based on what? Because they can move away from those regions? I think you're the one who is being inconsistent.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:I never said that any groups where everywhere any time. You keep trying to put me into a camp I am not in.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug M
I already see where this is going, so I'll just reframe my initial question. Do you have evidence that the groups you say were "everywhere, all the time" originate in North Africa or have been there before 14ky ago?
The only thing I am saying is that labels should be consistent. And we are basically going to absurd depths of trying to redefine labels to the point of being meaningless. If I say the Nile Valley populations were African why does it need to be refined further in order to reinforce "Africanness"? See my point? Because I don't need a "SSA" qualifier in order to identify Africanness. Yet you keep trying to put me into that camp.
You're certainly not calling English-speaking settlers of North America, biologically American. You call them biologically European. As does everyone else. They will never be biologically American. I don't know why some people suddenly become forgetful when it comes to applying everyday concepts to Africa.
quote:You really are grasping at straws aren't you? Did you forget the argument we had previously where I already noted that I don't like the term? Seems the problem here is you think Basal Eurasian is on the same level of biological and geographic meaning as African or Eurasian. I do not and never did.
Originally posted by Swenet:
You're disowning Basal Eurasian now? SMH. I'm kind of glad you did, Doug. Because now we finally have it on record. Doug's claim that Africans can have all types of ancestry is slowly falling apart. What he really means is they can have all types of ancestry as long as it's 'southern' in affinity.
quote:I am saying African as a label indicates origin within the continent of Africa. Not sure what you have a problem with. Maybe you just don't like the word African now?
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:So, you're saying that labels for populations should take into account wherever they happen to be late in their history as opposed to where they originate? Because all your groups originate in Sub-Saharan Africa. Are you telling me their labels shouldn't reflect that? Based on what? Because they can move away from those regions? I think you're the one who is being inconsistent.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:I never said that any groups where everywhere any time. You keep trying to put me into a camp I am not in.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug M
I already see where this is going, so I'll just reframe my initial question. Do you have evidence that the groups you say were "everywhere, all the time" originate in North Africa or have been there before 14ky ago?
The only thing I am saying is that labels should be consistent. And we are basically going to absurd depths of trying to redefine labels to the point of being meaningless. If I say the Nile Valley populations were African why does it need to be refined further in order to reinforce "Africanness"? See my point? Because I don't need a "SSA" qualifier in order to identify Africanness. Yet you keep trying to put me into that camp.
You're certainly not calling English-speaking settlers of North America, biologically American. You call them biologically European. As does everyone else. They will never be biologically American. I don't know why some people suddenly become forgetful when it comes to applying everyday concepts to Africa.
quote:I find it interesting that your own criticism of SSA (i.e. you say it's too large, geographically) also applies to your preferred term 'African' (which is even larger, geographically). But I'm not going to argue you over this because you will find some way to bend reality so that your contradiction appears valid.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:I am saying that calling something African indicates is origin within the continent of Africa. What further subdivision is needed? This is not a discussion of regional variation of DNA and you know it, because SSA is too broad a geographic term and I have said this multiple times yet you keep trying to somehow go back to it as if you didn't hear it when I said it.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:So, you're saying that labels for populations should take into account wherever they happen to be late in their history as opposed to where they originate? Because all your groups originate in Sub-Saharan Africa. Are you telling me their labels shouldn't reflect that? Based on what? Because they can move away from those regions? I think you're the one who is being inconsistent.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:I never said that any groups where everywhere any time. You keep trying to put me into a camp I am not in.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug M
I already see where this is going, so I'll just reframe my initial question. Do you have evidence that the groups you say were "everywhere, all the time" originate in North Africa or have been there before 14ky ago?
The only thing I am saying is that labels should be consistent. And we are basically going to absurd depths of trying to redefine labels to the point of being meaningless. If I say the Nile Valley populations were African why does it need to be refined further in order to reinforce "Africanness"? See my point? Because I don't need a "SSA" qualifier in order to identify Africanness. Yet you keep trying to put me into that camp.
You're certainly not calling English-speaking settlers of North America, biologically American. You call them biologically European. As does everyone else. They will never be biologically American. I don't know why some people suddenly become forgetful when it comes to applying everyday concepts to Africa.
quote:First you say with some confused argument that Basal Eurasian is not African. (I still don't understand what you're trying to say or how you arrived at that conclusion). Then you pose a loaded question that already assumes Basal Eurasian is not African and demands others accept a dichotomy you made up and that doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Doug M:
And lets just get to the point, do you believe the Nile Valley 10,000 years ago was populated by Africans or Basal Eurasians?
quote:What I am saying is that labels have meaning based on the context in the way they are used. If you are talking DNA from different parts of the world, then African as a label is specific enough to distinguish it from Asian or European. Likewise if you are talking about distinguishing DNA from different regions in Africa then SSA is too broad of a term in that context and hence meaningless.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:I find it interesting that your own criticism of SSA (i.e. you say it's too large, geographically) also applies to your preferred term 'African' (which is even larger, geographically). But I'm not going to argue you over this because you will find some way to bend reality so that your contradiction appears valid.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:I am saying that calling something African indicates is origin within the continent of Africa. What further subdivision is needed? This is not a discussion of regional variation of DNA and you know it, because SSA is too broad a geographic term and I have said this multiple times yet you keep trying to somehow go back to it as if you didn't hear it when I said it.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:So, you're saying that labels for populations should take into account wherever they happen to be late in their history as opposed to where they originate? Because all your groups originate in Sub-Saharan Africa. Are you telling me their labels shouldn't reflect that? Based on what? Because they can move away from those regions? I think you're the one who is being inconsistent.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:I never said that any groups where everywhere any time. You keep trying to put me into a camp I am not in.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug M
I already see where this is going, so I'll just reframe my initial question. Do you have evidence that the groups you say were "everywhere, all the time" originate in North Africa or have been there before 14ky ago?
The only thing I am saying is that labels should be consistent. And we are basically going to absurd depths of trying to redefine labels to the point of being meaningless. If I say the Nile Valley populations were African why does it need to be refined further in order to reinforce "Africanness"? See my point? Because I don't need a "SSA" qualifier in order to identify Africanness. Yet you keep trying to put me into that camp.
You're certainly not calling English-speaking settlers of North America, biologically American. You call them biologically European. As does everyone else. They will never be biologically American. I don't know why some people suddenly become forgetful when it comes to applying everyday concepts to Africa.
quote:Sunday Lulz.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:First you say with some confused argument that Basal Eurasian is not African. (I still don't understand what you're trying to say or how you arrived at that conclusion). Then you pose a loaded question that already assumes Basal Eurasian is not African and demands others accept a dichotomy you made up and that doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Doug M:
And lets just get to the point, do you believe the Nile Valley 10,000 years ago was populated by Africans or Basal Eurasians?
And precisely this is why you need a term like SSA. So you don't end up saying something obtuse like "Basal Eurasian or African" (where you really mean 'Basal Eurasian or SSA'). But notice, again, that you prefer and use a term (i.e. African) as a replacement of the term SSA. But your preferred term fails even worse in terms of your geography objection than the term SSA does.
quote:And again you are still pushing a straw man argument. I said Basal Eurasian is invalid as a label PERIOD. Therefore I don't call it African. You keep saying it because that is the straw man debate you are having with yourself.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:First you say with some confused argument that Basal Eurasian is not African. (I still don't understand what you're trying to say or how you arrived at that conclusion). Then you pose a loaded question that already assumes Basal Eurasian is not African and demands others accept a dichotomy you made up and that doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Doug M:
And lets just get to the point, do you believe the Nile Valley 10,000 years ago was populated by Africans or Basal Eurasians?
And precisely this is why you need a term like SSA. So you don't end up saying something obtuse like "Basal Eurasian or African" (where you really mean 'Basal Eurasian or SSA'). But notice, again, that you prefer and use a term (i.e. African) as a replacement of the term SSA. But your preferred term fails even worse in terms of your geography objection than the term SSA does.
quote:https://hms.harvard.edu/news/new-branch-added-european-family-tree
Agriculture was sweeping in from the Near East, bringing early farmers into contact with hunter-gatherers who had already been living in Europe for tens of thousands of years.
Genetic and archaeological research in the last 10 years has revealed that almost all present-day Europeans descend from the mixing of these two ancient populations. But it turns out that’s not the full story.
Researchers at Harvard Medical School and the University of Tübingen in Germany have now documented a genetic contribution from a third ancestor: Ancient North Eurasians. This group appears to have contributed DNA to present-day Europeans as well as to the people who travelled across the Bering Strait into the Americas more than 15,000 years ago.
“Prior to this paper, the models we had for European ancestry were two-way mixtures. We show that there are three groups,” said David Reich, professor of genetics at HMS and co-senior author of the study.
“This also explains the recently discovered genetic connection between Europeans and Native Americans,” Reich added. “The same Ancient North Eurasian group contributed to both of them.”
The research team also discovered that ancient Near Eastern farmers and their European descendants can trace much of their ancestry to a previously unknown, even older lineage called the Basal Eurasians.
quote:So according to them Asia, Europe, the Near East, the Caucasus and so forth are all major POOL of human DNA but not Africa even though ultimately all of it comes from Africa, especially when you are talking about 45,000 years ago. This fundamentally goes back to the debate we had before about when humans leaving Africa split and became NON African. I find it odd that Eurasian DNA is Eurasian no matter how far down the tree you go but African DNA magically stops being African as soon as you leave Africa. And that is what you see at the very top of the "Basal Eurasian" chart. Non African is a great big branch of the tree. Nowhere else on any part of the tree do you see such a negative identification for any branch of any DNA lineage. So it is an arbitrary marker that contradicts how all other lineages are labeled. It is almost as if they are saying those original African DNA lineages simply magically disappeared and turned into something else, which we know isn't possible.
The most surprising part of the project for Reich, however, was the discovery of the Basal Eurasians.
“This deep lineage of non-African ancestry branched off before all the other non-Africans branched off from one another,” he said. “Before Australian Aborigines and New Guineans and South Indians and Native Americans and other indigenous hunter-gatherers split, they split from Basal Eurasians. This reconciled some contradictory pieces of information for us.”
quote:So you are, in fact, saying that Basal Eurasian is not fully African. What are the specifics you're basing this on? I used to think this in 2014 and I can show exactly the specifics I was basing it on. So, let's see what you have.
Originally posted by Doug M:
some of which are African in origin and some of which are European or Asian in origin
quote:I don't have to define something I don't agree with and didn't create. The fact is that populations who migrated into Europe and evolved into modern Europeans are derived from African, Asian and European DNA lineages. That is the most consistent and simple way of explaining it without the need for Basal anything. That is my point. Africa as a geographic entity and DNA lineages arising within that geographic entity didn't disappear after the settlement of Europe. And in the way I see it the term Basal Eurasian is simply a way to mask the African component like I said multiple times and multiple ways already. Because if you look at the chart, having "Non African" at the very root means NO AFRICAN DNA lineages contributed to Europe which is pure nonsense.
Originally posted by Swenet:
The term 'Basal Eurasian' is ambiguous. It is not committed to saying its Eurasian and it's not committed to saying it's African. Therefore, it cannot be a 'wrong' label. They portray it as deriving from "non African" in some of their models. That is the problem.
quote:So you are, in fact, saying that Basal Eurasian is not fully African. What are the specifics you're basing this on? I used to think this in the past and I can show exactly the specifics I was basing it on. So, let's see what you have.
Originally posted by Doug M:
some of which are African in origin and some of which are European or Asian in origin
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Basal was never really in Africa.
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian_culture
According to ancient DNA analyses conducted by Lazaridis et al. (2016) on six Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the Natufians carried the Y-DNA haplogroup E-Z830 or E1b1b1b2, whose ancestral paternal clade is E1b1b-M123. One Natufian individual was also found to belong to the N1b mtDNA haplogroup. In terms of autosomal DNA, these Natufians carried around 50% of the Basal Eurasian (BE) and 50% of Western Eurasian Unknown Hunter Gather (UHG) components. However, they were slightly distinct from the northern Anatolian populations that contributed to the peopling of Europe, who had higher Western Hunter Gatherer (WHG) inferred ancestry. Natufians were strongly genetically differentiated[27] from Neolithic Iranian farmers from the Zagros Mountains, who were a mix of Basal Eurasians (up to 62%) and Ancient North Eurasians (ANE). This might suggest that different strains of Basal Eurasians contributed to Natufians and Zagros farmers, as both Natufians and Zagros farmers descended from different populations of local hunter gatherers. Mating between Natufians, other Neolithic Levantines, Anatolian and Iranian farmers is believed to have decreased genetic variability among later populations in the Middle East. The scientists suggest that the Levantine early farmers may have spread southward into East Africa, bringing along Western and Basal Eurasian ancestral components separate from that which would arrive later in North Africa. Elsewhere on the continent, the Natufians were found to share no significant genetic affinities with Sub-Saharan African populations.
And Sarah Tishkoff has always said that Africa has the most diverse DNA in the world. That doesn't make them LESS African.
quote:http://central.gutenberg.org
HAPLOGROUP L2A1
Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500 - 6000 BCE.[13]
quote:http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/mushabian_culture#cite_note-13
The Mushabian culture (alternately, Mushabi or Mushabaean) is an Archaeological culture suggested to have originated east of the Levantine Rift Valley c. 14,000 BC in the Middle Epipaleolithic period.[1][2] Although the Mushabian industry was once thought to have originated in the Nile Valley it is now known to have originated in the previous lithic industries of the Levant.
[...]
Ricaut et al. (2008)[13] associate the Sub-Saharan influences detected in the Natufian samples with the migration of E1b1b lineages from East Africa to the Levant; and then into Europe.
quote:Yes, it was and it was distributed by these migrating populations! See below.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Basal was never really in Africa
quote:I did not claim that, this is why I keep posting this paper, which people love to ignore.
Originally posted by Doug M:
And Sarah Tishkoff has always said that Africa has the most diverse DNA in the world. That doesn't make them LESS African.
quote:--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
According to the current data East Africa is home to nearly 2/3 of the world genetic diversity independent of sampling effect. Similar figure have been suggested for sub-Saharan Africa populations [1]. The antiquity of the east African gene pool could be viewed not only from the perspective of the amount of genetic diversity endowed within it but also by signals of uni-modal distribution in their mitochondrial DNA (Hassan et al., unpublished)
[…]
The figure, besides a separate clustering of east Africans, indicates the substantial contribution of Africans and east Africans to the founding of populations of Europe and Asia.
[…]
The central position of east Africans and some other Africans emphasizes the founding role of east African gene pool and the disparate alignment on coordinates along which the world populations were founded including populations of Aftica aligning along the 4th dimension
quote:Remarkable isn't, the proximity?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Swenet, is there a Lazaridis quote that explicitly states the geographical location of "non-African" ?
Is it safe to assume that "non-African" were people who lived outside Africa exclusively? That seems logical by the title
https://i.imgbox.com/bMrlOpUV.png
quote:
Dataset preparation for population genetic analyses
Genotypes were called in GD13a at sites which overlapped those in the Human Origins dataset (Lazaridis et al.17, filtered as described in Jones et al.24) using GATK Pileup44.
quote:
The site has been directly dated to 9650)9950 calBP (11), showing intense occupation over two to three centuries. The economy of the population has been shown to be that of pastoralists, focusing on goats (11). Archaeobotanical evidence is limited (16) but the evidence present is for two)row barley, probably wild, and no evidence for wheat, rye or other domesticates. In other words the overall economy is divergent from the classic agricultural mode of cereal agriculture found in the Levant, Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamian basin.
[…]
We compared GD13a with a number of other ancient genomes and modern populations (6, 17–29), using principal component analysis (PCA) (30), ADMIXTURE (31) and outgroup f3 statistics (32) (Fig. 1). GD13a did not cluster with any other early Neolithic individual from Eurasia in any of the analyses. ADMIXTURE and outgroup f3 identified Caucasus Hunter)Gatherers of Western Georgia, just north of the Zagros mountains, as the group genetically most similar to GD13a (Fig. 1B&C), whilst PCA also revealed some affinity with modern Central South Asian populations such as Balochi, Makrani and Brahui (Fig. 1A and Fig. S4). Also genetically close to GD13a were ancient samples from Steppe populations (Yamanya & Afanasievo) that were part of one or more Bronze age migrations into Europe, as well as early Bronze age cultures in that continent (Corded Ware) (17, 23), in line with previous relationships observed for the Caucasus Hunter)Gatherers (26).
[...]
Figure Legends:
Fig. 1. GD13a appears to be related to Caucasus Hunter Gatherers and to modern South Asian populations.
A) PCA loaded on modern populations (represented by open symbols). Ancient individuals (solid symbols) are projected onto these axes.
B) Outgroup f3(X, GD13a; Dinka), where Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (Kotias and Satsurblia) share the most drift with GD13a. Ancient samples have filled circles whereas modern populations are represented by empty symbols.
C) ADMIXTURE using K=17, where GD13a appears very similar to Caucasus Hunter Gatherers, and to a lesser extent to modern south Asian populations.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/e8r4nk.jpg
http://oi65.tinypic.com/24zap2b.jpg
[...]
S4. Mitochondrial Haplogroup Determination
The mitochondria of GD13a (91.74X) was assigned to haplogroup X, most likely to the subhaplogroup X2. Haplogroup X2 is present in modern populations from Europe, the Near East, Western and Central Asia, North and East Africa, Siberia, and North America (7). Haplogroup X2 has been associated with an early expansion from the Near East (7, 8) and has been found in early Neolithic samples from Anatolia (9), Hungary (10) and Germany (11).
quote:
S5. Principal component analysis shows that Southern Asian populations are the closest contemporary populations to the Iranian herder GD13a was placed close to the Southern Asian samples, specifically between the Balochi, Makrani and Brahui populations of South Asia. (Fig. S4). Of the ancient samples, GD13a falls closest to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (Fig. S4).
quote:—M. Gallego-Llorente,
S7. Outgroup f3 statistics show that GD13a shares the most genetic drift with Caucasus Hunter-gatherers
We used outgroup f3-statistics to estimate the amount of shared drift between GD13a and contemporary populations. This was performed on the dataset described in section S6 using the qp3Pop program in the ADMIXTOOLS package (13). We computed f3(X, GD13a; Dinka), where X represents a modern population and Dinka, an African population equally related to Eurasians, acts as an outgroup (Fig. S7). We also repeated this analysis where X represents ancient individuals/populations. Among the ancient populations, Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Kotias and Satsurblia) have the closest affinity to GD13a (Table S3), followed by other ancient individuals from Steppe populations from the Bronze age and modern populations from the Caucasus.
quote:But that isn't the case and that is the clue here.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Of course they could if they stayed in America as long as the people now called Native Americans
Originally posted by Swenet:
You're certainly not calling English-speaking settlers of North America, biologically American. You call them biologically European. As does everyone else. They will never be biologically American. I don't know why some people suddenly become forgetful when it comes to applying everyday concepts to Africa.
quote:Doug is on fire here!!! Keep calling out the BS!
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:And again you are still pushing a straw man argument. I said Basal Eurasian is invalid as a label PERIOD. Therefore I don't call it African. You keep saying it because that is the straw man debate you are having with yourself.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:First you say with some confused argument that Basal Eurasian is not African. (I still don't understand what you're trying to say or how you arrived at that conclusion). Then you pose a loaded question that already assumes Basal Eurasian is not African and demands others accept a dichotomy you made up and that doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Doug M:
And lets just get to the point, do you believe the Nile Valley 10,000 years ago was populated by Africans or Basal Eurasians?
And precisely this is why you need a term like SSA. So you don't end up saying something obtuse like "Basal Eurasian or African" (where you really mean 'Basal Eurasian or SSA'). But notice, again, that you prefer and use a term (i.e. African) as a replacement of the term SSA. But your preferred term fails even worse in terms of your geography objection than the term SSA does.
If you agree that labels like African and Asian or European identify regional and biological groupings of DNA lineages then it is possible to have mixtures of said DNA lineages across individual populations. That is established as an a-priori assumption. Hence, when untangling the roots of specific populations in terms of what lineages came from where, it is important to use LABELS that make sense and have a commonly understood definition that are unambiguous and logical. So it is therefore absolutely logical and accurate to say that what is labelled as "Basal Eurasian" is simply a collection of various DNA lineages, some of which are African in origin and some of which are European or Asian in origin. The reason I don't with this term of "Basal Eurasian" is because it is being used as a monolithic label that masks the African contributions to the DNA lineages that ultimately settled Europe both 45,000 years ago and more recently during the Neolithic. I don't see why this is hard to understand.
quote:https://hms.harvard.edu/news/new-branch-added-european-family-tree
Agriculture was sweeping in from the Near East, bringing early farmers into contact with hunter-gatherers who had already been living in Europe for tens of thousands of years.
Genetic and archaeological research in the last 10 years has revealed that almost all present-day Europeans descend from the mixing of these two ancient populations. But it turns out that’s not the full story.
Researchers at Harvard Medical School and the University of Tübingen in Germany have now documented a genetic contribution from a third ancestor: Ancient North Eurasians. This group appears to have contributed DNA to present-day Europeans as well as to the people who travelled across the Bering Strait into the Americas more than 15,000 years ago.
“Prior to this paper, the models we had for European ancestry were two-way mixtures. We show that there are three groups,” said David Reich, professor of genetics at HMS and co-senior author of the study.
“This also explains the recently discovered genetic connection between Europeans and Native Americans,” Reich added. “The same Ancient North Eurasian group contributed to both of them.”
The research team also discovered that ancient Near Eastern farmers and their European descendants can trace much of their ancestry to a previously unknown, even older lineage called the Basal Eurasians.
What I am saying bluntly is that these people are simply finding as many ways as possible to avoid labeling African DNA lineages as African.... But they have no problem talking about every other region of the world when it comes to these lineages: Europe, Asia and even North America, but yet Africa is not included as one of the key contributors to the gene pool.
quote:So according to them Asia, Europe, the Near East, the Caucasus and so forth are all major POOL of human DNA but not Africa even though ultimately all of it comes from Africa, especially when you are talking about 45,000 years ago. This fundamentally goes back to the debate we had before about when humans leaving Africa split and became NON African. I find it odd that Eurasian DNA is Eurasian no matter how far down the tree you go but African DNA magically stops being African as soon as you leave Africa. And that is what you see at the very top of the "Basal Eurasian" chart. Non African is a great big branch of the tree. Nowhere else on any part of the tree do you see such a negative identification for any branch of any DNA lineage. So it is an arbitrary marker that contradicts how all other lineages are labeled. It is almost as if they are saying those original African DNA lineages simply magically disappeared and turned into something else, which we know isn't possible.
The most surprising part of the project for Reich, however, was the discovery of the Basal Eurasians.
“This deep lineage of non-African ancestry branched off before all the other non-Africans branched off from one another,” he said. “Before Australian Aborigines and New Guineans and South Indians and Native Americans and other indigenous hunter-gatherers split, they split from Basal Eurasians. This reconciled some contradictory pieces of information for us.”
quote:...Shut up bitch
Originally posted by Swenet:
My question matters because you're clearly confusing Basal Eurasian with EEF. EEF is the mixed lineage; there is no evidence that Basal Eurasian contains Eurasian ancestry. So the question remains: what are you basing it on that Basal Eurasian is mixed?
Saying "I don't have to answer your question because I dislike the label" is kind of childish and doesn't make sense. I can talk about and dissect a lot of things that I dislike or don't formally acknowledge. So why can't you put aside your disagreement with the term and explain why it's supposedly mixed?
quote:Closer to Han Chinese, tho
Originally posted by Akachi:
quote:...Shut up bitch
Originally posted by Swenet:
My question matters because you're clearly confusing Basal Eurasian with EEF. EEF is the mixed lineage; there is no evidence that Basal Eurasian contains Eurasian ancestry. So the question remains: what are you basing it on that Basal Eurasian is mixed?
Saying "I don't have to answer your question because I dislike the label" is kind of childish and doesn't make sense. I can talk about and dissect a lot of things that I dislike or don't formally acknowledge. So why can't you put aside your disagreement with the term and explain why it's supposedly mixed?
quote:In addition:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
InB4 "Non-Africans" been in north africa the whole time...
?????????????????????????????????????????????
XYYman was 100% right all along?????
???????????????????????????????????
LMAO … ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )
quote:--On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the Maghreb, Harold L. Dibble et al.
North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two ‘industries’ are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
quote:There's no source yet, It's my map.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ Have a source of that image?
quote:It was supposed to be a joke, and I actually meant basal Eurasian, not literal "Non-African." ...however, though the Idea appears unlikely, It isn't implausible. Sex biased Geneflow into early N.Africa + Isolation, followed by flow towards the Near east >14kya... One of the few ways you can explain how presumably "Non-African" components are actually African. Looking at rare Y-Hap distribution in West Africa and various Saharan population affinities, one can make the argument.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:quote:Non-Africans" been in north africa the whole time…" based of off a map?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
InB4 "Non-Africans" been in north africa the whole time...
?????????????????????????????????????????????
XYYman was 100% right all along?????
???????????????????????????????????
LMAO ... ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )
quote:I am referring to the chart listing for "Basal Eurasian" which shows "Mbuti" and "Non African" at the very root of the chart.
Originally posted by Swenet:
My question matters because you're clearly confusing Basal Eurasian with EEF. EEF is the mixed lineage; there is no evidence that Basal Eurasian contains Eurasian ancestry. So the question remains: what are you basing it on that Basal Eurasian is mixed?
Saying "I don't have to answer your question because I dislike the label" is kind of childish and doesn't make sense. I can talk about and dissect a lot of things that I dislike or don't formally acknowledge. So why can't you put aside your disagreement with the term and explain why it's supposedly mixed?
quote:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/full/nature13673.html?message-global=remove
We sequenced the genomes of a ~7,000-year-old farmer from Germany and eight ~8,000-year-old hunter-gatherers from Luxembourg and Sweden. We analysed these and other ancient genomes1, 2, 3, 4 with 2,345 contemporary humans to show that most present-day Europeans derive from at least three highly differentiated populations: west European hunter-gatherers, who contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners; ancient north Eurasians related to Upper Palaeolithic Siberians3, who contributed to both Europeans and Near Easterners; and early European farmers, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harboured west European hunter-gatherer related ancestry. We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that early European farmers had ~44% ancestry from a ‘basal Eurasian’ population that split before the diversification of other non-African lineages.
quote:See the post above if you don't understand what I am saying. I am not going to reply to different people over and over again with the same thing.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Smh, Doug
"You just contradicted yourself. Composite means composed of different groups. So where is the disagreement? And that is precisely what I said."
Me: "-Basal Eurasian is hardly a "Composite" group, it seems so because of the supposed different groups which received contribution from them[...]"
Above, which group is composite? the one receiving(b), or the one contributing(a)?
Shared drift with the neolithic levant, Iran and Natufian Groups is the component Identified as Basal Eurasian, if you haven't realized... so yeah, it seems we are debating semantics. Which is why I'm asking you to speak specifically... one minute you are talking about 45,000ya contributions to european populations the next you are talking about Natufians.... But the discussion started with addressing the Basal Eurasian component, well, hello!!?...
Also the reason why I'm bringing up labels is because you fail to Identify the AFRICAN component in any of these populations. Which ancient African sample are you adhering to Natufian levels of drift? Where on the continent were Natufians that allowed them to accumulate unprecedented levels of distance between them and MOTA for example?
Can you Identify the source population(s) for the "components" shared by the Neolithic groups? Which extant African population simultaneously highlights Un-Admixed components and NON-SSA components?
you can choose address the questions or continue to pile on confusion. You haven't been straight up with anything so far as it relates to tangible data. Like, who cares what we "Call" Basal Eurasian.
quote:Again what is the marker/markers they are using to distinguish "African" on one hand from "Non African" on the other. Instead of asking me to clarify this, YOU should be asking the authors of said study because that is the root of the confusion, no matter how you seem to agree with it.
We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that early European farmers had ~44% ancestry from a ‘basal Eurasian’ population that split before the diversification of other non-African lineages.
quote:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/fig_tab/nature19310_F2.html
Basal Eurasian ancestry explains the reduced Neanderthal admixture in West Eurasians.
quote:No. that's a non sequitur
Originally posted by Doug M:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/fig_tab/nature19310_F2.html
So by the logic that it is Neanderthal genes that define NON African DNA, then early OOA populations WITHOUT neanderthal mixture are still African.
Make sense?
quote:
The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains
Kay Prüfer et al.
SI 13
We detect likely West Eurasian gene flow into the ancestors of Yoruba West Africans within the last ten thousand years, which indirectly contributed a small amount of Neandertal ancestry to Yoruba.
quote:OKay! cool, So where in Africa did this key component w/o Neanderthal Admixture develop?
And it is that African component without Neanderthal mixture that is the key across both Basal Eurasian and EEF populations..... That is my point.
quote:So if "Basal European" split from other non african groups in Africa, does that make the other non africans; ANE, CHG, Etc.... African as well?
We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that early European farmers had ~44% ancestry from a ‘basal Eurasian’ population that split before the diversification of other non-African lineages.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:No. that's a non sequitur
Originally posted by Doug M:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/fig_tab/nature19310_F2.html
So by the logic that it is Neanderthal genes that define NON African DNA, then early OOA populations WITHOUT neanderthal mixture are still African.
Make sense?
"Non-African" was defined before scientists found out some humans had very small percentages of Neanderthal or Denisova ancestry
Also,
quote:
The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains
Kay Prüfer et al.
SI 13
We detect likely West Eurasian gene flow into the ancestors of Yoruba West Africans within the last ten thousand years, which indirectly contributed a small amount of Neandertal ancestry to Yoruba.
quote:http://www.livescience.com/28036-neanderthals-facts-about-our-extinct-human-relatives.html
Neanderthals originated in Africa but migrated to Eurasia long before humans did.
quote:http://m.pnas.org/content/106/38/16022.full
Their origin likely relates to an episode of recolonization of Western Eurasia by hominins of African origin carrying the Acheulean technology into Europe around 600 ka.
quote:If you look closely it's just a reflection of what we've been talking about lately, remixed with his own bs.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ Have a source of that image?
quote:And how come the comments he "knews alls along" always follow on the heels of a discussion in which he had nothing to say in real time. When the discussion is over and everyone has illuminated the subject enough for him to pick up some crumbs, he's an expert all of sudden.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB] You answered your own question right here...
"and it says that Moors were Berber and Arabs"
Berbers aren't monolithic, they consist of Arabs, Maghrebs, and west Africans...
quote:Only to later update in response to what others are saying (i.e. that Mota has a lot of shared drift with OOA populations). Now Mota is no longer ancestral to Sandawe all of a sudden:
With the Sandwe finding themselves close to he mota, I'm curious to know how well the common ancestor of the Akie & ElmoLo people cluster w/ Mota. I would even bet Mota belongs to that ancestral group or is close to it.
quote:.. I guess he 'knews' that all along, too
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Notice how the argument shifts upon every rebuttal, now there's "no African grouping in population genetics & anthropology"... Interesting. I hope he reevaluate and revamps his position to adjust to that veiw.
Mind you, he failed to see why mentioning a species like MOTA literally throws a wrench in his argument despite the age of the specimen.
quote:He said this in the middle of a discussion I had with Doug regarding how populations differentiate. By the time that discussion was over, his whole terminology and approach changed towards my argument (just look at his posts before and after this discussion). Which is very bizarre, because he was trying to argue against my positions. So how can you takes shots at/cheer lead against what someone is saying, then leech from their posts, and then "knews it alls along" in the next thread?
accepting that on a grand scale, that the rate of Mutation remains uniform globally should make these things easy to understand.
quote:^Of course, he will just say it had nothing to do with my post and that he "knews it alls along".
for example, Tunisians were Identified as a group representative of an early break off from Basal Eurasian
quote:But leave it to him and he'll say he "knews it alls along".
XyyMan, don't the levantine jews consistently score high for Natufian?
quote:Well I don't have to. You need to ask the folks who created the term.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Ok Doug. You never explained how you arrived at the conclusion that Basal Eurasian represents a mixed lineage. But if that's how you dodge the issue and look at things...
quote:Oh so now we got Derived African? What on earth is that? Why are you folks so desperate to avoid just saying Europeans are descended from Africans? Period.
Originally posted by Swenet:
^'Basal Eurasian' is a relative term. Africans are BASAL to Eurasians so BASAL Eurasian can mean African (or preOOA African). The difference between BASAL Eurasian vs DERIVED African is like a half empty glass vs a half full glass.
I recommend reading about cladistics so you don't have to keep making these misinterpretations.
quote:Does it matter? No matter WHERE it occurred it is still African or are you seriously claiming not to understand this? Seriously? You are taking yourself for a ride on that one. In fact, by definition, ALL deep African historical lineages are without Neanderthal admixture, according to the scientists behind Basal Eurasian. Like I said, they are basically talking about the presence of African lineages among Early European farmers and the historic presence of African lineages in the Levant since OOA. But isn't that obvious? Look where the Levant is. Look at the paths OOA. Why the need for nonsense terminology?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Inb4 Doug doesn't realize that' I'm lobbing a bone strait up in his direction....
Honestly I also kinda feel like I'm being taken for a ride, I mean, I don't feel like I'm having the same discussion I was 2-3 posts ago... but anyways.
quote:OKay! cool, So where in Africa did this key component w/o Neanderthal Admixture develop?
And it is that African component without Neanderthal mixture that is the key across both Basal Eurasian and EEF populations..... That is my point.
quote:No the confusion comes from using nonsense terminology not me.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:So if "Basal European" split from other non african groups in Africa, does that make the other non africans; ANE, CHG, Etc.... African as well?
We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that early European farmers had ~44% ancestry from a ‘basal Eurasian’ population that split before the diversification of other non-African lineages.
- matterfact, you don't even have to answer any of this tbh. If at heart you're just concerned about the labeling of potentially African populations as being non-African, or European, then I have nothing to argue, it just seems like you were and probably still are adding to confusion.
quote:The problem here is your pan-African politics and nitpicking what you like about OOA theory and other types of data. So, no matter what we talk about (e.g. 'black', Basal Eurasian, OOA) you will always try to project your pre-conceived notions on the data and feel wronged when the data/researchers don't cooperate.
originally posted by Doug M:
Oh so now we got Derived African? What on earth is that?
quote:Sorry Swenet. Don't give me that nonsense. This goes back to your holier than thou attitude that somehow you have a "better" way of explaining human biological history and then when I call you on something that makes no sense you throw up straw men.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:The problem here is your pan-African politics and nitpicking what you like about OOA theory and other types of data. So, no matter what we talk about (e.g. 'black', Basal Eurasian, OOA) you will always try to project your pre-conceived notions on the data and feel wronged when the data/researchers doesn't cooperate.
originally posted by Doug M:
Oh so now we got Derived African? What on earth is that?
quote:Of course not. It's a geographical term. But trying to translate it to genetics leads to your repeated dumb questions like "what is the mutation that morphed Eurasians away from Africans?", "what is derived African?", "was the Nile Valley Basal Eurasian or African" and your inability to understand that Basal Eurasian is not a mixed lineage.
Originally posted by Doug M:
So by your silly logic African is a political term
quote:Not only is this comment by you useless, you as a whole are useless.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Ish Gebor, your above post is useless
quote:http://smnh.tau.ac.il/eng/gallery/anthropoligia
The southern most Neanderthal in the world (Amud Cave, Israel)
quote:—HARUN YAHYA.THE NEANDERTHALS:
To the above can be seen the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis Amud 1 skull, discovered in Israel. It is estimated that the owner of this skull would have stood 1.80 meters (5 feet, 11 inch es) tall. Its brain volume is the largest so far encountered for Neanderthals, at 1,740 cubic centimeters.
quote:—H. Valladas. et al.
Age-estimates ranging from 50 to 70 ky were obtained for the Mousterian deposits of Amud Cave in Israel from thermoluminescence measurements performed on 19 burnt flints. The late dates obtained for the stratigraphic layers bearing hominid remains confirm the evidence for the late presence of Neanderthals in the Levant. The dates enable a more effective comparison of the lithic assemblages from Amud Cave with those of other contemporaneous sites and underline the variability within Mousterian lithic industries at the end of the Middle Palaeolithic in the Levant.
quote:—Dibble HL et al.
North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two 'industries' are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
quote:—Cremaschi, Mauro, et al. "Some Insights on the Aterian in the Libyan Sahara: Chronology,
Aterian and Mousterian in North Africa
The sites in Northern Africa in country of Libya were researched because of the multiple Aterian stone tools found in the surrounding areas. The Aterian is another specialized industry similar to the Mousterian and the Levallois found in the Middle Paleolithic. The hominid species that occupied this area (modern humans) appeared to be "modern" by the types of artifacts that they left behind.
quote:—Israel Hershkovitz et al.
Extended Data Figure 4: Dating results for Area C.
Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations. […]
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/images/nature14134-st2.jpg
Extended Data Table 2 | Manot 1 calvaria morphology compared with an Upper Palaeolithic European specimen, Neanderthals and present- day humans
quote:Look at this attention whore, literally taking things I said in the past and redefining my position after I specifically stated that's my pet peeve...
Originally posted by Swenet:
More of his "I knews it all alongs"
In the 'black' thread he said that uniform mutation rates disprove the kind of population differentiation I was talking about (which is an extremely bizarre thing to say):
quote:He said this in the middle of a discussion I had with Doug regarding how populations differentiate. By the time that discussion was over, his whole terminology and approach changed towards my argument (just look at his posts before and after this discussion). Which is very bizarre, because he was trying to argue against my positions. So how can you takes shots at/cheer lead against what someone is saying, then leech from their posts, and then "knews it alls along" in the next thread?
accepting that on a grand scale, that the rate of Mutation remains uniform globally should make these things easy to understand.
And notice I never said anything about it. I don't really care what these intellectual midgets do or say. (Note who these intellectual midgets' idols are: new age mumble rappers like Kodak Black). But this lying bum keeps leeching from my posts and then tries to lecture others (including me). When it's pointed out he tries to act like others are seeing things.
quote:^He basically admits to lecturing about stuff he doesn't have the faintest clue about. Trying to be an expert and asking basic questions at the same time. How does one lecture about information one is in the hopes of getting? Then he topped it all off by saying "for now, my position, which I admit I'm ignorant about, is right".
Admittedly I jumped the gun (it was late last night [Roll Eyes] ) when posting beforehand, but I do have an overall Hypothesis of whats going on in totality, that I wont disclose until I have more information, which I was in hopes of getting earlier... For now, from my PoV (and even before the Natufian data dropped) Natufian =/= AE
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/fig_tab/nature19310_F2.html
And let me further clue you in to the point. These scientists lately have made the claim that all Non Africans have neanderthal ancestry. As a result they have been trying to find when this neanderthal mixture took place. As a result they came up with this "Basal Eurasian" marker to distiguish between AFRICAN OOA lineages without neanderthal mixture and later EURASIAN lineages with neanderthal mixture.
So by the logic that it is Neanderthal genes that define NON African DNA, then early OOA populations WITHOUT neanderthal mixture are still African.
Make sense?
quote:No wait, you're confused, you forgot to look at the DNA
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
The Neanderthal specimen was found in Israel, but somehow it couldn't interact with African species. Was the Neanderthal limited? I wonder how come? No wait, the Neanderthal originally came from Africa. And many specimen of species from Africa have been found at the Levant (Qaftzeh). smh
quote:My guess is the Middle East
Originally posted by Swenet:
@lioness
I'm assuming you missed it, so I'm reposting it.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009600;p=10#000493
quote:Based on.. what?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:My guess is the Middle East
Originally posted by Swenet:
@lioness
I'm assuming you missed it, so I'm reposting it.
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009600;p=10#000493
quote:♪ "I can feel it coming in the air tonight, Oh Lo-ord" ♫
Originally posted by xyyman:
Need to catch up here ...busy at Davidski cracking skulls. lol! That crew is crazier than Swenet and his boys.
quote:Lol. Gramps why u lying. Looks like they ripped u 2 shreds. Lol. That don't make them crazy.
@Karl_K
I agree, Davidski should do something about that troll
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Lazaridis never said his Basal Eurasian is not African.
Also, he's a booster of Natufian partial African ancestry.
Move beyond that qpGraph that shows
Mbuti <--> non-African split. Please, to
patiently read Lazaridis 2013 preprint
view of Natufians on p9 and p140.
Nature mag's peer reviewed 2014 print on
p3 "censored" and replaced what Lazaridis
originally said.
But with the 2016 World's First Farmers preprint
the public again gets to see what Lazaridis has to
say on the "Africanity" of both the Basal Eurasian
statistical model and the Natufian actual folks and
culture (lines 154 - 199).
I haven't seen the print version,
so I can only wonder what the
Peers did to Lazaridis this time.
While Lazaridis has no problem with any
African origin of Basal EurAsian, or any
African morphology and "tool kit" for
Natufians, the academic community
as represented by Nature's peers cling
to the "morphologically undifferentiated"
"Out of African".
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Lol. Gramps why u lying. Looks like they ripped u 2 shreds. Lol. That don't make them crazy.
@Karl_K
I agree, Davidski should do something about that troll
quote:Nope, you did! I read between the lines, you should try it once. It's really helpful.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/fig_tab/nature19310_F2.html
And let me further clue you in to the point. These scientists lately have made the claim that all Non Africans have neanderthal ancestry. As a result they have been trying to find when this neanderthal mixture took place. As a result they came up with this "Basal Eurasian" marker to distiguish between AFRICAN OOA lineages without neanderthal mixture and later EURASIAN lineages with neanderthal mixture.
So by the logic that it is Neanderthal genes that define NON African DNA, then early OOA populations WITHOUT neanderthal mixture are still African.
Make sense?quote:No wait, you're confused, you forgot to look at the DNA
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
The Neanderthal specimen was found in Israel, but somehow it couldn't interact with African species. Was the Neanderthal limited? I wonder how come? No wait, the Neanderthal originally came from Africa. And many specimen of species from Africa have been found at the Levant (Qaftzeh). smh
quote:—Cremaschi, Mauro, et al. "Some Insights on the Aterian in the Libyan Sahara: Chronology,
Aterian and Mousterian in North Africa
The sites in Northern Africa in country of Libya were researched because of the multiple Aterian stone tools found in the surrounding areas. The Aterian is another specialized industry similar to the Mousterian and the Levallois found in the Middle Paleolithic. The hominid species that occupied this area (modern humans) appeared to be "modern" by the types of artifacts that they left behind.
quote:—Dibble HL et al.
North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two 'industries' are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
quote:---M. Gallego Llorente
Fig. S8. Phylogeny used in f4 ratio analysis. Phylogeny composed of three populations A, B, and C, and an outgroup O all descending from the same ancestor R. An additional population, X, is a mixture of B and C.
[...]
Table S4. Mutations defining the E1b1 haplogroup of Mota. Mutations are reported with respect to the Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence. Mutations found in our sample, which are present in the reported haplogroup are shown here unless marked in bold or underlined. Underlined mutations are those present in our samples but not associated with the haplogroup determined. Bold mutations are those expected for the assigned haplogroup but absent from the sample.
[...]
Previous page: Table. S5. The proportion of West Eurasian ancestry for all African populations in our global panel. λYoruba,Druze gives estimates using Yoruba as the non-admixed reference and Druze as the source, λMota,Druze using Mota as the non-admixed reference and Druze as the source, and λMota,LBK using Mota as the non-admixed reference and LBK as a source. SE are the standard errors for these quantities.
[...]
Table S6. D statistics determining the possible source of West Eurasian ancestry in Yoruba. D(Yoruba, Mota; X, Han); where X is a range of European populations that represent possible sources of gene flow.
[...]
Table S7. D statistics determining the possible source of West Eurasian ancestry in Mbuti. D(Mbuti, Mota; X, Han); where X is a range of European populations that represent possible sources of gene flow.
[...]
Table S8. Neanderthal component D statistics. D(AltaiNea, CAnc; Mota, X), where AltaiNea is the Altai Neanderthal, MezNea is the Mezmaiskaya Neanderthal, CAnc is the reconstructed human-chimpanzee common ancestor, Mota is the reference and X is the tested genome.
[...]
Table S9. Neanderthal component based on f4 ratio. f4 (AltaiNea, Denisovan; X, Mota) / f4 (AltaiNea, Denisovan; X, MezNea), where Mota is the unadmixed reference and X is the tested population.
[...]
Table S10. Denisovan component D statistics. DYoruba, D(Denisovan, CAnc; Yoruba, X), where Yoruba is the reference and X is the tested genome, and DMota, D(Denisovan, CAnc; Mota, X), where CAnc is the reconstructed human-chimpanzee common ancestor, Mota is the reference and X is the tested genome.
quote:No it isn't a dumb question because that is the whole point of the chart that describes "Non African" in the first place as part of "Basal Eurasian". If it is are reference to early populations of OOA Africans, it is still African. If it is a reference to later EEF with African NON Neanderthal mixture, it is still masking that African DNA as somehow "non existent". So you can't have it both ways is what I am saying. Either labels are consistent and agreed upon and have meaning that is easily understood or they don't. There is nothing about the genetic history of Europe that requires the concept of "Basal Eurasian". And certainly if there is some aspect of that history that "Basal Eurasian" is relevant to, then it should be limited to that aspect and not elevated to the same level of meaning as "African" which is the problem. One is a theoretical construct being applied over a span of 30-40 KYA as a reference to a whole collection of various DNA lineages some from Africa, some from Europe and Asia. That does not make DNA lineages from Africa less accurately called African. That's all. African DNA lineages are not "better understood" by this theoretical "Basal Eurasian" construct as in reality the point of this construct is to mask the the African lineages relative to Eurasian ones.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Of course not. It's a geographical term. But trying to translate it to genetics leads to your repeated dumb questions like "what is the mutation that morphed Eurasians away from Africans?", "what is derived African?", "was the Nile Valley Basal Eurasian or African" and your inability to understand that Basal Eurasian is not a mixed lineage.
Originally posted by Doug M:
So by your silly logic African is a political term
quote:& Xyyman
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Lazaridis never said his Basal Eurasian is not African.
Also, he's a booster of Natufian partial African ancestry.
Move beyond those qpGraphs that show
Mbuti <--> non-African split. Please, to
patiently read Lazaridis 2013 preprint
view of Natufians on p9 and p99.
Nature mag's peer reviewed 2014 print on
p411 "censored" and replaced what Lazaridis
originally said.
But with the 2016 World's First Farmers preprint
the public again gets to see what Lazaridis has to
say on the "Africanity" of both the Basal Eurasian
statistical model and the Natufian actual folks and
culture (lines 154 - 199).
I haven't seen the print version,
so I can only wonder what the
Peers did to Lazaridis this time.
While Lazaridis has no problem with any
African origin of Basal EurAsian, or any
African morphology and "tool kit" for
Natufians, the academic community
as represented by Nature's peers cling
to the "morphologically undifferentiated"
"Out of African".
quote:Why are you introducing "Sub Saharan" into this discussion of DNA lineages that are African? Are you seriously claiming that other African lineages from Africa are less African? Again what is the point in distinguishing "Sub Saharan" African DNA from other African DNA. If they are all African and from within the geographic boundary of Africa, what is the point? You and others keep harping on this.
Originally posted by Swenet:
African should be used to group all lineages that never left Africa, not to group all lineages that have an affinity to Sub-Saharan Africans. Your pan-African politics constipates your mind and causes Basal Eurasian to baffle you. Since you cannot reconcile Basal Eurasian with your politics, you try to turn it into a mixed lineage. And when I ask what you're basing it on, you keep dodging the question.
How many times do you have to bump your head before this will sink in?
quote:I didn't say this. The Nature article said this. That is the point. We are debating words and labels being used by other folks.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Okay Doug. When ancient Egyptian aDNA drops we'll see whose posts have become dated and whose post can still be quoted.
And when they drop, just remember that you said Basal Eurasian is mixed. I'm going to hold you to that.
quote:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/fig_tab/nature19310_F2.html
Basal Eurasian ancestry explains the reduced Neanderthal admixture in West Eurasians.
quote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3629203/Neanderthal-inbreeding-left-humans-WEAKER-Non-Africans-lower-fitness-levels-genetic-burden-left-ancient-relatives.html
Genetic analysis has revealed that mutations built up in Neanderthal DNA over time, due to inbreeding.
The accumulation of genetic errors meant their ability to have children was reduced by up to 40 per cent.
Interbreeding with humans passwed on some of the genes, with some people today still carrying a small proportion of the mutations
This may reduce reproductive fitness of non-African people today by 1 per cent.
Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have been found to have no Neanderthal DNA, as their ancestors did not follow the same migration route.
quote:"Basal Eurasian" is a theoretical construct identified among MIXED populations of Early European Farmers as said explicitly in the Nature article. But sure you will keep claiming I made this up.....
Originally posted by Swenet:
Okay Doug. You never said that "Basal Eurasian was never really in Africa". Nature magazine said it. Lol.
None of this is a problem for me since I don't cling to Out of Africa dogma.
quote:Yes he did.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Lazaridis never said his Basal Eurasian is not African.
quote:
We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros
Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia.
no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1).
(We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is
consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.
quote:Interesting...
Originally posted by Doug M:
"Basal Eurasian" is a theoretical construct identified among MIXED populations of Early European Farmers as said explicitly in the Nature article. But sure you will keep claiming I made this up.....
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Basal was never really in Africa. It is a composite of multiple lineages. The ONLY reason this composite group is significant is primarily because of the African component which indicates a pattern of migration which introduced a survival toolkit that would lead to the development of farming.
quote:
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Basal Eurasian is hardly a "Composite" group, it seems so because of the supposed different groups which received contribution from them.
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
You just contradicted yourself. Composite means composed of different groups. So where is the disagreement? And that is precisely what I said.
quote:[...]
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Above, which group is composite? the one receiving(b), or the one contributing(a)?
Shared drift with the neolithic levant, Iran and Natufian Groups is the component Identified as Basal Eurasian, if you haven't realized...
{...}
Honestly I also kinda feel like I'm being taken for a ride, I mean, I don't feel like I'm having the same discussion I was 2-3 posts ago... [...]
quote:Amazing how you skipped this part:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Yes he did.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Lazaridis never said his Basal Eurasian is not African.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/images_article/nature13673-f3.jpg
^ This is is his Lazaridis' chart. It clearly shows that the ancestor of the Basal Eurasian is not African.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers
Iosif Lazaridis, 2016
quote:
We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros
Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia.
no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1).
(We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is
consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.
quote:--Lazaridis et al.,
Second, we observed that all three Natufian individuals that could be assigned to a specific haplogroup belonged to haplogroup E1b1. This is thought to have an East African origin, and a 4,500-year old individual from the Ethiopian highlands 13 belonged to it.
[...]
"Previously, the West Eurasian population known to be the best proxy for this ancestry was present-day Sardinians, who resemble Neolithic Europeans genetically.
However, our analysis shows that East African ancestry is significantly better modelled by Levantine early farmers than by Anatolian or early European farmers, implying that the spread of this ancestry to East Africa was not from the same group that spread Near Eastern ancestry into Europe (Extended 283 Data Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, section 8)" [p. 9].
quote:So, lionel when are you going to accept this?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Yes he did.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Lazaridis never said his Basal Eurasian is not African.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/images_article/nature13673-f3.jpg
^ This is is his Lazaridis' chart. It clearly shows that the ancestor of the Basal Eurasian is not African.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers
Iosif Lazaridis, 2016
quote:
We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros
Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia.
…
quote:http://central.gutenberg.org
HAPLOGROUP L2A1
Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500 - 6000 BCE.[13]
quote:http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/mushabian_culture#cite_note-13
The Mushabian culture (alternately, Mushabi or Mushabaean) is an Archaeological culture suggested to have originated east of the Levantine Rift Valley c. 14,000 BC in the Middle Epipaleolithic period.[1][2] Although the Mushabian industry was once thought to have originated in the Nile Valley it is now known to have originated in the previous lithic industries of the Levant.
[...]
Ricaut et al. (2008)[13] associate the Sub-Saharan influences detected in the Natufian samples with the migration of E1b1b lineages from East Africa to the Levant; and then into Europe.
quote:Makranis, the Negroes of West Pakistan
Among other groups, the Negroes and Baluch mulattoes of Baluchistan, which now forms part of West Pakistan, are of great interest to students of race and ethnic relations.
Negroes in West Pakistan are called Makranis.
[...]
Professor S. K. Chatterji, the Indian linguist, discussing the basic unity underlying the diversity of culture in India, also supports this view. According to him, "the first people to arrive in India were a Negrito or Negroid race from Africa, coming at a very early period by way of Arabia and the coastline of Iran. They spread over western and southern India, and even passed on to the northeastern part of the country . . .
quote:Remarkable isn't, the proximity?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Swenet, is there a Lazaridis quote that explicitly states the geographical location of "non-African" ?
Is it safe to assume that "non-African" were people who lived outside Africa exclusively? That seems logical by the title
https://i.imgbox.com/bMrlOpUV.png
quote:
Dataset preparation for population genetic analyses
Genotypes were called in GD13a at sites which overlapped those in the Human Origins dataset (Lazaridis et al.17, filtered as described in Jones et al.24) using GATK Pileup44.
quote:
The site has been directly dated to 9650)9950 calBP (11), showing intense occupation over two to three centuries. The economy of the population has been shown to be that of pastoralists, focusing on goats (11). Archaeobotanical evidence is limited (16) but the evidence present is for two)row barley, probably wild, and no evidence for wheat, rye or other domesticates. In other words the overall economy is divergent from the classic agricultural mode of cereal agriculture found in the Levant, Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamian basin.
[…]
We compared GD13a with a number of other ancient genomes and modern populations (6, 17–29), using principal component analysis (PCA) (30), ADMIXTURE (31) and outgroup f3 statistics (32) (Fig. 1). GD13a did not cluster with any other early Neolithic individual from Eurasia in any of the analyses. ADMIXTURE and outgroup f3 identified Caucasus Hunter)Gatherers of Western Georgia, just north of the Zagros mountains, as the group genetically most similar to GD13a (Fig. 1B&C), whilst PCA also revealed some affinity with modern Central South Asian populations such as Balochi, Makrani and Brahui (Fig. 1A and Fig. S4). Also genetically close to GD13a were ancient samples from Steppe populations (Yamanya & Afanasievo) that were part of one or more Bronze age migrations into Europe, as well as early Bronze age cultures in that continent (Corded Ware) (17, 23), in line with previous relationships observed for the Caucasus Hunter)Gatherers (26).
[...]
Figure Legends:
Fig. 1. GD13a appears to be related to Caucasus Hunter Gatherers and to modern South Asian populations.
A) PCA loaded on modern populations (represented by open symbols). Ancient individuals (solid symbols) are projected onto these axes.
B) Outgroup f3(X, GD13a; Dinka), where Caucasus Hunter Gatherers (Kotias and Satsurblia) share the most drift with GD13a. Ancient samples have filled circles whereas modern populations are represented by empty symbols.
C) ADMIXTURE using K=17, where GD13a appears very similar to Caucasus Hunter Gatherers, and to a lesser extent to modern south Asian populations.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/e8r4nk.jpg
http://oi65.tinypic.com/24zap2b.jpg
[...]
S4. Mitochondrial Haplogroup Determination
The mitochondria of GD13a (91.74X) was assigned to haplogroup X, most likely to the subhaplogroup X2. Haplogroup X2 is present in modern populations from Europe, the Near East, Western and Central Asia, North and East Africa, Siberia, and North America (7). Haplogroup X2 has been associated with an early expansion from the Near East (7, 8) and has been found in early Neolithic samples from Anatolia (9), Hungary (10) and Germany (11).
quote:
S5. Principal component analysis shows that Southern Asian populations are the closest contemporary populations to the Iranian herder GD13a was placed close to the Southern Asian samples, specifically between the Balochi, Makrani and Brahui populations of South Asia. (Fig. S4). Of the ancient samples, GD13a falls closest to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (Fig. S4).
quote:—M. Gallego-Llorente,
S7. Outgroup f3 statistics show that GD13a shares the most genetic drift with Caucasus Hunter-gatherers
We used outgroup f3-statistics to estimate the amount of shared drift between GD13a and contemporary populations. This was performed on the dataset described in section S6 using the qp3Pop program in the ADMIXTOOLS package (13). We computed f3(X, GD13a; Dinka), where X represents a modern population and Dinka, an African population equally related to Eurasians, acts as an outgroup (Fig. S7). We also repeated this analysis where X represents ancient individuals/populations. Among the ancient populations, Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Kotias and Satsurblia) have the closest affinity to GD13a (Table S3), followed by other ancient individuals from Steppe populations from the Bronze age and modern populations from the Caucasus.
quote:That's what's so disturbing. Not even a fair shake. We're just going to use that "no special affinity to SSA groups" and a superficial "non-African" label as having the last word. That's what I wanted to know.
Originally posted by TP:
Amazing how you skipped this part:
http://i66.tinypic.com/16gmsmh.jpg
quote:It becomes remarkable when you start putting the pieces of the puzzle together.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:That's what's so disturbing. Not even a fair shake. We're just going to use that "no special affinity to SSA groups" and a superficial "non-African" label as having the last word.
Originally posted by TP:
Amazing how you skipped this part:
http://i66.tinypic.com/16gmsmh.jpg
quote:—Christopher Ehret
From various kinds of evidence it can now be argued that agriculture in Ethiopia and the Horn was quite ancient, originating as much as 7,000 or more years ago, and that its development owed nothing to South Arabian inspiration. Moreover, the inventions of grain cultivation in particular, both in Ethiopia and separately in the Near East, seem rooted in a single, still earlier subsistence invention of North-east Africa, the intensive utilization of wild grains, beginning probably by or before 13,000 b.c. The correlation of linguistic evidence with archaeology suggests that this food-collecting innovation may have been the work of early Afroasiatic-speaking communities and may have constituted the particular economic advantage which gave impetus to the first stages of Afroasiatic expansion into Ethiopia and the Horn, the Sahara and North Africa, and parts of the Near East.
quote:So negresse, explain why didn't "report" this part of the paper:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
I'm just repotting what the conclusions of Lazaridis are and what his intent is when HE says "Basal Eurasian"
If anybody has a problem with that. It is a problem with him, with out of all the models he reviewed the one he choose and conclusions he made in the article.
So if you use the term "Basal Eurasian" it is coming out of HIS model. If you don't agree with it, you should not use the term "Basal Eurasian" which HE clearly meant to be non-African.
So if you think Basal Eurasians are really African it makes no sense to use such a term, obviously !
You need to find a term that makes sense.
Then you will have to explain who the first non-Africans were and where they lived
So as usual Ish Gebor, you have all sorts of problems with these articles and you are alway too scared to blame them. You blame it all on me, as if I wrote these papers.
The chart that came out of the Lazaridis paper is central to his intent. It is the theme of the whole paper and came out of reviewing many other models as we can see in the pdf
quote:—Lazaridis et al.,
Second, we observed that all three Natufian individuals that could be assigned to a specific haplogroup belonged to haplogroup E1b1. This is thought to have an East African origin, and a 4,500-year old individual from the Ethiopian highlands 13 belonged to it.
[...]
"Previously, the West Eurasian population known to be the best proxy for this ancestry was present-day Sardinians, who resemble Neolithic Europeans genetically.
However, our analysis shows that East African ancestry is significantly better modelled by Levantine early farmers than by Anatolian or early European farmers, implying that the spread of this ancestry to East Africa was not from the same group that spread Near Eastern ancestry into Europe (Extended 283 Data Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, section 8)" [p. 9].
quote:—Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim
The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently gave rise to the different major population groups including current speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralist populations.
[…]
Y-chromosome haplogroup tree
All the analyses in this study were done at the same resolution using the following 17 bi-allelic markers: E-M96, E-M33, E-P2, E-M2, E-M58, E-M191, E-M154, E-M329, E-M215, E-M35, E-M78, E-M81, E-M123, E-M34, E-V6, E-V16/E-M281 and E-M75.
[…]
The network cluster associated with the Eritrean Nilo-Saharan Kunama (Figure 1) may represent an expansion event following the out-of-Africa migration,31, 46 possibly close to the origin of the ancestral Y-chromosome clades.47, 48, 49 The expansion, carrying the diversified E-P2 mutation, may be responsible for the migration of male populations to different parts of the continent and henceforth the rise and spread of the bearers of the macrohaplogroup.50 These type of population movements, or demic expansions, driven by climatic change and/or spread of pastoralism and to some extent agriculture,51, 52, 53, 54 are not uncommon in human history. This scenario is more substantiated by the refining of the E-P2 (Trombetta et al35) and its two basal clades E-M2 and E-M329, which are believed to be prevalent exclusively in Western Africa and Eastern Africa, respectively.
[…]
The network result put North African populations like the Saharawi, Morocco Berbers and Arabs in a separate cluster. Given the proposed origin of Maghreb ancestors56, 57, 58, 59 in North Africa, our network dating suggested a divergence of North Western African populations from Eastern African as early as 32 000 YBP, which is close to the estimated dates to the origin of E-P2 macrohaplogroup.
quote:Is the title of Dave Chappele's new comedy special. The Age of Spin. The real debate is about the language families not blog rhetoric.
“analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
quote:I've seen so many examples of this. What did he delete?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Sweetness. The point is, readers catching on even my adversaries.
Now Davidski is going back and is censoring my posts. He deleted one entire thread already because of me. lol!. White people don't like to look stupid to black people. Don't you get that? SMH
quote:--- --- --- ---
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:—Lazaridis et al.,
Second, we observed that all three Natufian individuals that could be assigned to a specific haplogroup belonged to haplogroup E1b1. This is thought to have an East African origin, and a 4,500-year old individual from the Ethiopian highlands 13 belonged to it.
[...]
"Previously, the West Eurasian population known to be the best proxy for this ancestry was present-day Sardinians, who resemble Neolithic Europeans genetically.
However, our analysis shows that East African ancestry is significantly better modelled by Levantine early farmers than by Anatolian or early European farmers, implying that the spread of this ancestry to East Africa was not from the same group that spread Near Eastern ancestry into Europe (Extended 283 Data Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, section 8)" [p. 9].
Wy you keep running away, negresse?
No one but you is talking about blame, negresse. We are analyzing here, negresse.
You are the only one here on this website who takes papers in on automatic-pilot (as the ultimate truth). Since you lack the skill to verify data and connect dots, negresse!
E1b1 (E-P2)
quote:—Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim
The proto-Afro-Asiatic group carrying the E-P2 mutation may have appeared at this point in time and subsequently gave rise to the different major population groups including current speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralist populations.
[…]
Y-chromosome haplogroup tree
All the analyses in this study were done at the same resolution using the following 17 bi-allelic markers: E-M96, E-M33, E-P2, E-M2, E-M58, E-M191, E-M154, E-M329, E-M215, E-M35, E-M78, E-M81, E-M123, E-M34, E-V6, E-V16/E-M281 and E-M75.
[…]
The network cluster associated with the Eritrean Nilo-Saharan Kunama (Figure 1) may represent an expansion event following the out-of-Africa migration,31, 46 possibly close to the origin of the ancestral Y-chromosome clades.47, 48, 49 The expansion, carrying the diversified E-P2 mutation, may be responsible for the migration of male populations to different parts of the continent and henceforth the rise and spread of the bearers of the macrohaplogroup.50 These type of population movements, or demic expansions, driven by climatic change and/or spread of pastoralism and to some extent agriculture,51, 52, 53, 54 are not uncommon in human history. This scenario is more substantiated by the refining of the E-P2 (Trombetta et al35) and its two basal clades E-M2 and E-M329, which are believed to be prevalent exclusively in Western Africa and Eastern Africa, respectively.
[…]
The network result put North African populations like the Saharawi, Morocco Berbers and Arabs in a separate cluster. Given the proposed origin of Maghreb ancestors56, 57, 58, 59 in North Africa, our network dating suggested a divergence of North Western African populations from Eastern African as early as 32 000 YBP, which is close to the estimated dates to the origin of E-P2 macrohaplogroup.
Y-chromosome E haplogroups: their distribution and implication to the origin of Afro-Asiatic languages and pastoralism
EJHGOpen
European Journal of Human Genetics (2014) 22, 1387–1392; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.41; published online 26 March 2014
Something smells funny in here, is it you?
quote:M. Llorente 2015
Since we have in Mota an un-admixed African population, we can look for the origin of the West Eurasian backflow by modelling contemporary Ari as a mixture of Mota and possible source populations.
<10.1073/pnas.1313787111 quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Lazaridis never said his Basal Eurasian is not African.
Also, he's a booster of Natufian partial African ancestry.
Move beyond those qpGraphsthat show
Mbuti <--> non-African split. Please, to
patiently read Lazaridis 2013 preprint
view of Natufians on p9 and p99.
quote:
Nature mag's peer reviewed 2014 print on
p411 "censored" and replaced what Lazaridis
[2013 p9] originally said.
quote:
But with the 2016 World's First Farmers preprint
the public again gets to see what Lazaridis has to
say on the "Africanity" of both the Basal Eurasian
statistical model and the Natufian actual folks and
culture (lines 154 - 199).
quote:
I haven't seen the print version,
so I can only wonder what the
Peers did to Lazaridis this time.
While Lazaridis has no problem with any
African origin of Basal EurAsian, or any
African morphology and "tool kit" for
Natufians, the academic community
as represented by Nature's peers cling
to the "morphologically undifferentiated"
"Out of African".
quote:http://www.ifrao.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/13EveHoax.pdf
The [African] replacement hypothesis proposes that “modern humans” evolved only in sub-Saharan Africa, through a speciation event rendering them unable to breed with other hominins. They then spread throughout Africa, then to Asia, Australia and finally to Europe, replacing all other humans by exterminating or out- competing them. In this critical analysis of the replacement hypothesis it is shown that it began as a hoax, later reinforced by false paleoanthropological claims and a series of flawed genetic propositions, yet it became almost universally accepted during the 1990s and has since dominated the discipline.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
Source
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
How about "cracking" this:
quote:
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
Source
quote:"Multivariate statistical analysis of
Originally posted by xyyman:
Also surprising I found out that Villabruna man, 14000year old Italian was ancestral for black skin and had tropical body proportion. he also carried R1b!!! Baaaam! [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by DD'eDeN:
Xyyman, where can I read your stuff about "basal" Nigerian Dogs?
quote:Id like to hear the one about aDNA.
Originally posted by Swenet:
The Mboli crowd had their run. It was fun while it lasted. But the aDNA shows they're completely out of touch with reality (no offense).
Once you're familiar with craniometrics you can SEE with your own eyes who is right. Just open a physical anthropology textbook and look up a picture of the average Badarian. There is no difference between the average Badarian and ancestral Semitic speakers. Something Mboli can't explain since he's part of a tradition that denies the latter's Africanity and places the former among far less related people.
This is why there is no Mboli supporter among physical anthropologists. Why do you think that is? A coincidence? You only have Mboli supporters where you can ignore the stuff that really matters (like what the ancient people look like) and where you can bask in the stuff that is at the absolute bottom of relevance (what language they spoke out of the many African languages).
I'm not knocking your efforts but it's not for me. I'm already one leg out this community. Just have some things remaining that need to be ticked off my list.
quote:Grab a tissue. When you're done crying you can address my posts with facts and see how long you'll last this time.
Swenet is a fraud.
quote:xyyman is scared to use Amarna STRs on popaffiliator to prove that the Amarna family were transplants from South Africa or Great Lakes. I did the analysis. He rejected my analysis but was scared to redo it and prove me wrong.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Anyone with an above average understanding of genetic knows many of the post by Swenet is filled with "catch phrases " to give the impress he knows what he is talking about, Swenet is fast talking hustler. reminds of a pimp. I have come across them. But I give him credit with craniology.....maybevbecause I don't know enough in that field to filter through his "fast talking" bs.
quote:So why don't you post the link to the cached thread? DD'eden is asking your for it, isn't he? I'm not going to post it because I'm not out to embarrass you, unless provoked. But given all your alternative facts about me and Davidski, why not put your money where your mouth is for once? Why not prove the thread was deleted because he is "crazy" and you were "overwhelming" him with facts?
Originally posted by xyyman:
@Ddeden. No I did save any of my post before the thread was deleted. I usual double post stuff worth saving on ESR. Too late. But I will dig up the paper.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:So why don't you post the link to the cached thread? DD'eden is asking your for it, isn't he? I'm not going to post it because I'm not out to embarrass you, unless provoked. But given all your alternative facts about me and Davidski, why not put your money where your mouth is for once? Why not prove the thread was deleted because he is "crazy" and you were "overwhelming" him with facts?
Originally posted by xyyman:
@Ddeden. No I did save any of my post before the thread was deleted. I usual double post stuff worth saving on ESR. Too late. But I will dig up the paper.
quote:This is what I mean with the albinos. Linguist have noticed the ties to Niger Congo, Sumarian and Indo-European languages yet the Greenberg school argues that Niger Congo is much younger than the bulk OoA migrations. If Niger Congo is old enough to have a stronger genetic relationship with Afro-Asiatic languages then how relevant are oide 'sciences' and phenotypes? What difference would anthropology make?
Originally posted by Swenet:
Your order of importance of scientific disciplines makes sense if you want to know about cultural stuff. Which there is nothing wrong with that. But if we're talking about population affinity, and the population is millennia removed from the ancestral language family (i.e. if it has had plenty of opportunity to change over time), linguistics is just like Sway. It aint got the answers.
Trust your own judgment.
An individual close to the average Badarian general phenotype on the left and on the righthand side there is an example of a Badarian on the other end of the spectrum:
The lefthand 'Badarian' (Tasian) phenotype is a variation of the phenotype that dominates the Badarian sample. Only this one happens to have an atypical broadish head (which is rare) and looks a bit more 'Mechtoid'. The Badarian on the right is how Mboli and Obenga are portraying ancient Egyptians, and this general phenotype represents a minority. Strouhal says it occurs with a frequency of 6.8%, but let's say it's 10% for the sake of argument (since you think there is a conspiracy).
Below is a similar 'Badarian type' in an ancient Nubian sample (see especially the individual on the right). I post this so no one can say someone is misrepresenting Badarians by making bs "Eurocentric" drawings. The same general phenotype is obviously a regular occurrence in Nubian samples, albeit this time seemingly without the broadish head:
Source of ancient Nubian pic
Mboli is talking from a safe position where he doesn't have to deal with what he would perceive as harsh realities. Which is very unscientific. None of this is going to show up and when comparing the ancient Egyptian language with Niger-Congo languages, so he can deviate from the facts on the ground as much he wants. To debate Mboli et al you have to suspend disbelief and "play along" like all of this doesn't exist. But to each their own.
quote:Greenberg may have had outdated ideas about what the AE and other Northeast African populations (assuming by "Egyptians" he was referring to the native AE). But that very quote goes to show you that he's not trying to correlate linguistic categories with "race". If anything, the message that I take away from that quote is that he's cautioning against a simplistic equation of language with biological affinity. How can you interpret a statement like "Afrasan is spoken by both 'Negro' and 'Caucasian' people" as correlating Afrasan with either of those old racial constructs.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Greenberg on the other hand said - “Afroasiatic languages are spoken both by Caucasian and Negro peoples. The Cushites and EthiopianSemites are often classed as Caucasoids. The Egyptians, Berbers, and remaining Semitic people are indisputably Caucasian while Chad speakers are Negroid.”
This leads me to believe that he was trying to fit linguistics with dated dishonest psuedo-oide sciences.
quote:Mboli's work is not supported by comparative linguistic methods.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Come on Swenet I got 4 racks on a Joseph Greenberg vs Jean Claude Mboli debate.
The Mboli crowed would do it for free. Where are my Greenbergers? Where is Team Osiris? I got 4 racks. 2 for both $ides.Lets get it in and stop bullsh1ting.
quote:
- VI.14 Évolution grammaticale du négro-égyptien…………………… 361
VI.14.1 Grammaire du négro-égyptien archaïque ………………….. 362
VI.14.2 Grammaire du négro-égyptien pré-classique………………. 365
VI.14.3 Grammaire du négro-égyptien classique…………………… 367
VI.14.4 Grammaire du négro-égyptien post-classique........................ 370
Chapitre VII. Correspondances lexicologiques…………………… 373
quote:We're speaking a language that did not originate in Africa. It's impossible to reconstruct our population affinity by studying the language we speak. This is why we need genetics and physical anthropology. These two disciplines can supply the right information when linguistics puts us on a completely wrong course (linguistically we're English speakers).
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
This is what I mean with the albinos. Linguist have noticed the ties to Niger Congo, Sumarian and Indo-European languages yet the Greenberg school argues that Niger Congo is much younger than the bulk OoA migrations. If Niger Congo is old enough to have a stronger genetic relationship with Afro-Asiatic languages then how relevant are oide 'sciences' and phenotypes? What difference would anthropology make?
quote:Why is it "Pan Africanism" to say that genetic lineages that arose in Africa are logically called "African"? So is that it? Using the term "African" is a political agenda and evil huh? Really? But good old Eurasia can be used everywhere right? Thats cool huh?
Originally posted by Swenet:
And BTW, Keita—one of the most cited academics here—doesn't support translating pan-African ideas to genetics. Those who are doing this are on their own and putting their ignorance on display. No reputable and capable geneticist supports this. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see names.
quote:Dude how does this sentence make any logical sense:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Amazing how you skipped this part:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Yes he did.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Lazaridis never said his Basal Eurasian is not African.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/images_article/nature13673-f3.jpg
^ This is is his Lazaridis' chart. It clearly shows that the ancestor of the Basal Eurasian is not African.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers
Iosif Lazaridis, 2016
quote:
We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other. The first farmers of the southern Levant (Israel and Jordan) and Zagros
Mountains (Iran) were strongly genetically differentiated, and each descended from local hunter-gatherers. By the time of the Bronze Age, these two populations and Anatolian-related farmers had mixed with each other and with the hunter-gatherers of Europe to drastically reduce genetic differentiation. The impact of the Near Eastern farmers extended beyond the Near East: farmers related to those of Anatolia spread westward into Europe; farmers related to those of the Levant spread southward into East Africa; farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia.
no affinity of Natufians to sub-Saharan Africans is evident in our genome-wide analysis, as present-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share more alleles with Natufians than with other ancient Eurasians (Extended Data Table 1).
(We could not test for a link to present-day North Africans, who owe most of their ancestry to back-migration from Eurasia The idea of Natufians as a vector for the movement of Basal Eurasian ancestry into the Near East is also not supported by our data, as the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Natufians (44±8%) is
consistent with stemming from the same population as that in the Neolithic and Mesolithic populations of Iran, and is not greater than in those populations (Supplementary Information, section 4). Further insight into the origins and legacy of the Natufians could come from comparison to Natufians from additional sites, and to ancient DNA from north Africa.
—Lazaridis et al. (2016)
quote:--Lazaridis et al.,
Second, we observed that all three Natufian individuals that could be assigned to a specific haplogroup belonged to haplogroup E1b1. This is thought to have an East African origin, and a 4,500-year old individual from the Ethiopian highlands 13 belonged to it.
[...]
"Previously, the West Eurasian population known to be the best proxy for this ancestry was present-day Sardinians, who resemble Neolithic Europeans genetically.
However, our analysis shows that East African ancestry is significantly better modelled by Levantine early farmers than by Anatolian or early European farmers, implying that the spread of this ancestry to East Africa was not from the same group that spread Near Eastern ancestry into Europe (Extended 283 Data Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, section 8)" [p. 9].
The genetic structure of the world's first farmers, bioRxiv preprint, posted June 16, 2016, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/059311
quote:Think. If there were no other humans other than Africans before migrating to the Near East, then how could there be some "other" population for them to derive their genes from? They then reinforce that there were no other major DNA pools other than African descended DNA pools right in the same sentence. What they are saying is that half of these populations had African DNA lineages with little Neanderthal ancestry. Again, following the logic that Africans and Non Africans can be distinguished by "neanderthal" mixture, then any EARLY populations with no Neanderthal mixture in the Near East must have been African by all logical common sense. This inane hand waving and semantic posturing to justify negating the logical fact that all these DNA lineages were African at that early point in time is ridiculous.
We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other.
quote:
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
This is what I mean with the albinos. Linguist have noticed the ties to Niger Congo, Sumarian and Indo-European languages yet the Greenberg school argues that Niger Congo is much younger than the bulk OoA migrations. If Niger Congo is old enough to have a stronger genetic relationship with Afro-Asiatic languages then how relevant are oide 'sciences' and phenotypes? What difference would anthropology make?
quote:I already clarified what I meant. You try to conjure up some sort of objection every time you're confronted with data that shows deep divisions in African ancestry. You keep denying it but it's obvious. This is why you refuse to apply common conventions when its inconvenient.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Why is it "Pan Africanism" to say that genetic lineages that arose in Africa are logically called "African"? So is that it? Using the term "African" is a political agenda and evil huh? Really? But good old Eurasia can be used everywhere right? Thats cool huh?
Originally posted by Swenet:
And BTW, Keita—one of the most cited academics here—doesn't support translating pan-African ideas to genetics. Those who are doing this are on their own and putting their ignorance on display. No reputable and capable geneticist supports this. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see names.
quote:Scientists never defined "non-African" as "any human being with Neanderthal admixture". Your logic on that one is flawed and if it wasn't that is what they would be saying in the literature but they are not saying that is what separates the African form the non-African.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Dude how does this sentence make any logical sense:
quote:Again, following the logic that Africans and Non Africans can be distinguished by "neanderthal" mixture, then any EARLY populations with no Neanderthal mixture in the Near East must have been African by all logical common sense. This inane hand waving and semantic posturing to justify negating the logical fact that all these DNA lineages were African at that early point in time is ridiculous. [/QB]
We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other.
quote:
Ancient Near East
Mesopotamia (modern Iraq, southeast Turkey, southwest Iran, northeastern Syria and Kuwait), ancient Egypt, ancient Iran (Elam, Media, Parthia and Persia), Anatolia/Asia Minor and Armenian Highlands (Turkey's Eastern Anatolia Region, Armenia, northwestern Iran, southern Georgia, and western Azerbaijan),the Levant (modern Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, and Jordan), Cyprus and the Arabian Peninsula. The ancient Near East is studied in the fields of Near Eastern archaeology and ancient history.
quote:That map contradicts African history and what linguist are demonstrating. My point about pre-OOA is that linguist connect Indo-Euro and Sumerian to Niger-Congo. They did this before Greenberg. This tells me that Niger-Congo is much older than the Greenberg model which means that phenotype does not factor.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Greenberg may have had outdated ideas about what the AE and other Northeast African populations (assuming by "Egyptians" he was referring to the native AE). But that very quote goes to show you that he's not trying to correlate linguistic categories with "race". If anything, the message that I take away from that quote is that he's cautioning against a simplistic equation of language with biological affinity. How can you interpret a statement like "Afrasan is spoken by both 'Negro' and 'Caucasian' people" as correlating Afrasan with either of those old racial constructs.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Greenberg on the other hand said - “Afroasiatic languages are spoken both by Caucasian and Negro peoples. The Cushites and EthiopianSemites are often classed as Caucasoids. The Egyptians, Berbers, and remaining Semitic people are indisputably Caucasian while Chad speakers are Negroid.”
This leads me to believe that he was trying to fit linguistics with dated dishonest psuedo-oide sciences.
Swenet is in a better position than I to explain why the Afrasan model fits all the data better than this proposed pan-African lingustic phylum. But what I want to ask again is why it should matter. The proto-Afrasan cradle is still located within Africa, most probably in Northeast Africa immediately south of Egypt (e.g. the northern Sudan). Even if you take pre-OOA into account, that doesn't make it any more "Caucasian" than it is, say, "Papuan".
Come to think of it, when you consider both the geographic and chronological proximity proto-Afrasan has to AE, I think it's reasonable to suppose most AE didn't look very different from the people occupying that area at that time. If any place in Africa is an ideal candidate for the predominant AE origin spot, this sliver of the Sudanese/Ethiopian coast is it.
(Though admittedly I am assuming that the biological affinity of a given Afrasan population to the original proto-Afrasan population would increase once you got closer to the linguistic origin point, and that this pattern of affinity would fade out once you moved further away from that point. But I am open to correction on that point.)
quote:Thats like the one about a tree falling in the woods
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Fourty2Tribes. Ask yourself this question. Do you think the physical measurements that were used to describe "Caucasoid" and or "Negroid" exist in human populations?
. It depends on who is defining it. After the two brothers were said to be Negroid and Caucasoid I gave up on oid science. Then you have the 'Mechtoids'.
quote:Why? Let him tell it, he used a newer improved model.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Mboli's work is not supported by comparative linguistic methods.
quote:Can you give me an example of one connection that is true with Niger-Congo languages but not generally true with other languages?
Diop's, Parente genetique de LEgyptien Pharaonique et des Langues Negro-Africaines, is the most exhuastive study of Negro-Egyptian, and no matter what you say it does prove Niger-Congo exist because it demonstrates connections between Egyptian and Niger-Congo languages.
quote:I have some understanding. He did a six hour lecture on his methods. The best thing I could take from it was that he started from scratch and let the results shape his model.
I have not read Mboli’s entire book. But I have read summaries of his book
http://www.youscribe.com/catalogue/livres/ressources-professionnelles/efficacite-professionnelle/origine-des-langues-africaines-174246
I have also checked out the book at Google books. Google books gives numerous segments of the Mboli book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UaEFugi-awAC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=mboli+origine&source=bl&ots=JHHDToFj7p&sig=xr_gE6rLCnu7DVvypOrClHcm1hA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BEQ2U7zzHcuysQS_1YCIAw&ved=0CCs Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=mboli%20origine&f=false
If you can read French the pages at Google books gives a good understanding of what Mboli is doing in his work/book.
quote:Sounds more like he sees Coptic as an Egyptian language, just not a continuation of the most common Egyptian language ie a Delta tongue.
Diop's theory of linguistic constancy recognizes the social role language plays in African language change. Language being a variable phenomena has as much to do with a speaker's society as with the language itself. Thus social organization can influence the rate of change within languages. Meillet (1926, 17) wrote that:
“Since language is a social institution it follows that linguistics is a social science, and the only variable element to which one may appeal in order to account for a linguistic change is social change, of which language variations are but the consequences.”
The theory of linguistic continuity for African languages nullifies Mboli’s argument for stages in Negro-Egyptian. In the article above I show the changes that took place within English over a period of 900 years. There was marked differences between Ebglish 900 years ago and present day English.
I also illustrated that Mandekan terms collected by the Medieval Arabs over 500 years ago have full agreement with modern Mandekan terms. Indicating the continuity between old and modern Mandekan. If you noticed carefully, I can support my claim of African linguistic continuity based on modern lexica and Mandekan material 500 plus years old.
Mboli makes bold claims about the existence of periods when Negro-Egyptian was spoken but he has no text to support his claims for these periods accept Middle Egyptian, since he does not accept Coptic as an Egyptian language. This makes his theory invalidate and unreliable.
quote:Well Clyde you answered your own inquiry. That is how he gets his dates. This is consistent with the linguist that were saying IE came out of Niger-Congo.
Mboli is trying to make it appear that African proto-terms are identical to PIE.
It is sad to me that Mboli represents proto-Negro-Egyptian as almost identical to PIE, eventhough proto-African terms due to linguistic continuity have not changed that much in 4-5,000 years and therefore the description provide by Mboli does not reflect African linguistic reality.
quote:Thats a reach. IE being a branch of Negro Egyptian has nothing to do with where that branch went.
Much of the work in recent years that have Europeans practicing a agro-patoral civilization that included mining in addition to farming is hogwash. Proto-Europeans were nomads, nothing more.
The new PIE terms relating to anything but a nomadic existence are going to be African in origin because Africans introduced and maintained civilization in Europe until after 1000BC when I-E people invaded Europe. Asar, like most African and Afro-American researchers you have been so brainwashed that you can't believe that Europe was only recently occupied by Europeans. But Europeans have always known tha civilization in Europe originated with Africans. Dr N. Lahovary, in Dravidian Origins and the West (only recently translated from French into English) provides numerous research on the Africans in Europe.
quote:I think you are assume-reaching but at least you are making sound challenges. Are you up for a debate? At least come on my channel and chop it up.
Because Mboli's work makes Proto-Negro-Egyptian and African proto-terms generally identical to PIE makes his work appear satisfactory since it recognizes the superiority of Eurocentric views of African languages and linguistics. Eurocentrics already believe that Egypt was founded by "whites" so Mboli's findings only confirms their theories, that a group of "whites" spread civilization across Africa. That's why they ignore his claims about Negro-Egyptian being the parent of PIE.
Secondly, you can not determine stages in a language simply by looking at morphemes.
The periods Mboli claims for Negro-Egyptian grammars are myth and never existed.
quote:
- VI.14 Évolution grammaticale du négro-égyptien…………………… 361
VI.14.1 Grammaire du négro-égyptien archaïque ………………….. 362
VI.14.2 Grammaire du négro-égyptien pré-classique………………. 365
VI.14.3 Grammaire du négro-égyptien classique…………………… 367
VI.14.4 Grammaire du négro-égyptien post-classique........................ 370
Chapitre VII. Correspondances lexicologiques…………………… 373
After reading the book Mboli claims he arrived at the divisions of Negro-Egyptian grammar by looking at the morphologies of NE "base" words(See pp.361-362).
Google books gives numerous segments of the Mboli book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UaEFugi-awAC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=mboli+origine&source=bl&ots=JHHDToFj7p&sig=xr_gE6rLCnu7DVvypOrClHcm1hA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BEQ2U7zzHcuysQS_1YCIAw&ved=0CCs Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=mboli%20origine&f=false
This is impossible you can only determine periods in a language by looking at written text. Just looking at the base vocabulary can only allow you to find cognate terms. The only consecutive written text relate to the various stages in Egyptian.
You can accept what ever you wish.But you will remain ignorant of comparative linguistics until you acquire the knowledge base to determine what is junk and what is comparative linguistics.
Why do you say that Mboli only discusses PIE in the last chapter. Throughout his discussion of PNE terms under the title of Correspondances lexicologiques he compares the PNE words to PIE.
You hope to hide this reality, because most people on the forum don't read French. This can be remedied if the reader can copy the text and place it in Google translation program.
Mboli wants to make it appear that PNE was the originator of PIE, that is why he has attempted to make his PNE terms conform to PIE forms.
Eurocentrists know this. They are just waiting until African and Afro-American africologist use Mboli's text to support their work and then show how what Mboli has written, for the most part, is nonsense.
The good thing is that most Africologists never present their work to expertsat National and International Conferences where Graduate students and professors will hear their presentations, so they can pretend what ever is written by a popular Africologist is the "truth". I publish my work in journals with editors who have experts to peer review my work, and if it does not meet the standards of comparative and historical linguistics it will not be published.
The major problem is that linguists who are Afro-American Africalogist and French speaking African researchers have done considerable work detailing the morphology and lexical analogy of Egyptian to Wolof, Egyptian to Bantu and etc., but they have not reconstructed proto-terms for Bantu, Wolof and Negro-Egyptian so they don't know how to evaluate Mboli's work. [/QB]
quote:Scholars dont argue that they spoke a Niger Congo language. Some would say they spoke a Bantu language but that really doesnt say much. You just said ancestry doesnt matter. We arent English and 1st Dynastic Egyptians were not proto-Negro Egyptians. Besides every study to date... 12 dyn, Amarna, Hassan and Beyoku's 42 supports a larger more inclusive language family. I'm about to serve you a softball Swenet and you better knock it out. Later though. Time to bed gf and crash.
Originally posted by Swenet:
[QUOTE]We're speaking a language that did not originate in Africa. It's impossible to reconstruct our population affinity by studying the language we speak. This is why we need genetics and physical anthropology. These two disciplines can supply the right information when linguistics puts us on a completely wrong course (linguistically we're English speakers).
If we only study linguistics, we cannot tell if we're on the right track when it comes to reconstructing an unknown population's history. And if ancient Egyptians spoke a Niger Congo language, in a way it would be just like us speaking English or Mbuti speaking Bantu or Nilo-Saharan. In all these cases we have people who speak a language that is incongruent with their ancestry. This incongruence cannot be solved with linguistics. Linguistics only tells us what language someone speaks and whether/how it relates to other languages.
This is why it's easy for linguists to drift off into theories that are completely detached from reality.
quote:There is no such thing as an improved model of comparative linguistics. There is only one method in comparative and historical linguistics and that method is not present in Mboli's work.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Why? Let him tell it, he used a newer improved model.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Mboli's work is not supported by comparative linguistic methods.
quote:Can you give me an example of one connection that is true with Niger-Congo languages but not generally true with other languages?
Diop's, Parente genetique de LEgyptien Pharaonique et des Langues Negro-Africaines, is the most exhuastive study of Negro-Egyptian, and no matter what you say it does prove Niger-Congo exist because it demonstrates connections between Egyptian and Niger-Congo languages.
quote:I have some understanding. He did a six hour lecture on his methods. The best thing I could take from it was that he started from scratch and let the results shape his model.
I have not read Mboli’s entire book. But I have read summaries of his book
http://www.youscribe.com/catalogue/livres/ressources-professionnelles/efficacite-professionnelle/origine-des-langues-africaines-174246
I have also checked out the book at Google books. Google books gives numerous segments of the Mboli book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UaEFugi-awAC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=mboli+origine&source=bl&ots=JHHDToFj7p&sig=xr_gE6rLCnu7DVvypOrClHcm1hA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BEQ2U7zzHcuysQS_1YCIAw&ved=0CCs Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=mboli%20origine&f=false
If you can read French the pages at Google books gives a good understanding of what Mboli is doing in his work/book.
quote:Sounds more like he sees Coptic as an Egyptian language, just not a continuation of the most common Egyptian language ie a Delta tongue.
Diop's theory of linguistic constancy recognizes the social role language plays in African language change. Language being a variable phenomena has as much to do with a speaker's society as with the language itself. Thus social organization can influence the rate of change within languages. Meillet (1926, 17) wrote that:
“Since language is a social institution it follows that linguistics is a social science, and the only variable element to which one may appeal in order to account for a linguistic change is social change, of which language variations are but the consequences.”
The theory of linguistic continuity for African languages nullifies Mboli’s argument for stages in Negro-Egyptian. In the article above I show the changes that took place within English over a period of 900 years. There was marked differences between Ebglish 900 years ago and present day English.
I also illustrated that Mandekan terms collected by the Medieval Arabs over 500 years ago have full agreement with modern Mandekan terms. Indicating the continuity between old and modern Mandekan. If you noticed carefully, I can support my claim of African linguistic continuity based on modern lexica and Mandekan material 500 plus years old.
Mboli makes bold claims about the existence of periods when Negro-Egyptian was spoken but he has no text to support his claims for these periods accept Middle Egyptian, since he does not accept Coptic as an Egyptian language. This makes his theory invalidate and unreliable.
quote:Well Clyde you answered your own inquiry. That is how he gets his dates. This is consistent with the linguist that were saying IE came out of Niger-Congo.
Mboli is trying to make it appear that African proto-terms are identical to PIE.
It is sad to me that Mboli represents proto-Negro-Egyptian as almost identical to PIE, eventhough proto-African terms due to linguistic continuity have not changed that much in 4-5,000 years and therefore the description provide by Mboli does not reflect African linguistic reality.
quote:Thats a reach. IE being a branch of Negro Egyptian has nothing to do with where that branch went.
Much of the work in recent years that have Europeans practicing a agro-patoral civilization that included mining in addition to farming is hogwash. Proto-Europeans were nomads, nothing more.
The new PIE terms relating to anything but a nomadic existence are going to be African in origin because Africans introduced and maintained civilization in Europe until after 1000BC when I-E people invaded Europe. Asar, like most African and Afro-American researchers you have been so brainwashed that you can't believe that Europe was only recently occupied by Europeans. But Europeans have always known tha civilization in Europe originated with Africans. Dr N. Lahovary, in Dravidian Origins and the West (only recently translated from French into English) provides numerous research on the Africans in Europe.
quote:I think you are assume-reaching but at least you are making sound challenges. Are you up for a debate? At least come on my channel and chop it up. [/QB]
Because Mboli's work makes Proto-Negro-Egyptian and African proto-terms generally identical to PIE makes his work appear satisfactory since it recognizes the superiority of Eurocentric views of African languages and linguistics. Eurocentrics already believe that Egypt was founded by "whites" so Mboli's findings only confirms their theories, that a group of "whites" spread civilization across Africa. That's why they ignore his claims about Negro-Egyptian being the parent of PIE.
Secondly, you can not determine stages in a language simply by looking at morphemes.
The periods Mboli claims for Negro-Egyptian grammars are myth and never existed.
quote:
- VI.14 Évolution grammaticale du négro-égyptien…………………… 361
VI.14.1 Grammaire du négro-égyptien archaïque ………………….. 362
VI.14.2 Grammaire du négro-égyptien pré-classique………………. 365
VI.14.3 Grammaire du négro-égyptien classique…………………… 367
VI.14.4 Grammaire du négro-égyptien post-classique........................ 370
Chapitre VII. Correspondances lexicologiques…………………… 373
After reading the book Mboli claims he arrived at the divisions of Negro-Egyptian grammar by looking at the morphologies of NE "base" words(See pp.361-362).
Google books gives numerous segments of the Mboli book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UaEFugi-awAC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=mboli+origine&source=bl&ots=JHHDToFj7p&sig=xr_gE6rLCnu7DVvypOrClHcm1hA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BEQ2U7zzHcuysQS_1YCIAw&ved=0CCs Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=mboli%20origine&f=false
This is impossible you can only determine periods in a language by looking at written text. Just looking at the base vocabulary can only allow you to find cognate terms. The only consecutive written text relate to the various stages in Egyptian.
You can accept what ever you wish.But you will remain ignorant of comparative linguistics until you acquire the knowledge base to determine what is junk and what is comparative linguistics.
Why do you say that Mboli only discusses PIE in the last chapter. Throughout his discussion of PNE terms under the title of Correspondances lexicologiques he compares the PNE words to PIE.
You hope to hide this reality, because most people on the forum don't read French. This can be remedied if the reader can copy the text and place it in Google translation program.
Mboli wants to make it appear that PNE was the originator of PIE, that is why he has attempted to make his PNE terms conform to PIE forms.
Eurocentrists know this. They are just waiting until African and Afro-American africologist use Mboli's text to support their work and then show how what Mboli has written, for the most part, is nonsense.
The good thing is that most Africologists never present their work to expertsat National and International Conferences where Graduate students and professors will hear their presentations, so they can pretend what ever is written by a popular Africologist is the "truth". I publish my work in journals with editors who have experts to peer review my work, and if it does not meet the standards of comparative and historical linguistics it will not be published.
The major problem is that linguists who are Afro-American Africalogist and French speaking African researchers have done considerable work detailing the morphology and lexical analogy of Egyptian to Wolof, Egyptian to Bantu and etc., but they have not reconstructed proto-terms for Bantu, Wolof and Negro-Egyptian so they don't know how to evaluate Mboli's work.
quote:1.M-E : nTr nw ‘this god’
M-E : nTr nw « c'est (un) dieu » (littéralement « dieu c'est ») [is (a) god > "god is"]
Sango : nzo ní « c'est bon » (littéralement « bon c'est ») > « le bon » [what is good > "it is good"]
Zandé : ndike nyeki « la loi est dure » (littéralement « loi dure ») [the law is hard > "harsh law"]
Hausa : nagàri nē « c'est bon » (littéralement « bon c'est ») > nagarin « le
bon ». [what is good > "it is good"; Nagarin > "the good"]
quote:The problem I imagine at least, could perhaps be in assuming that a haplogroup that came from Africa means the population itself was African. For example, is it impossible for an African American to carry R1b1b2? If he does, does this mean he's a European? Are modern Italians that have E haplogroups African? This is very important with respect to Italy, Egypt, and the Levant, because they've over the years harbored a lot of inflow from different groups of people. I believe I showed that certain areas in ancient Syria had a lot of L haplogroups, but a lot of the haplogroups in Syria were also from other groups. Some L haplogroups accounted for around 1/3rd of the samples. This doesn't mean Mesopotamia was especially "African" or had "African" minority groups. It's possible these people saw themselves as the same ethnicity (IIRC they were buried in the same place). The people were probably a mixture of the many different ethnic groups reported in the study. So my question is: Is it possible for a person to be haplogroup L but otherwise be indistinguishable from people of their own ethnic group (and in the same vicinity) who're mostly J?
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Why is it "Pan Africanism" to say that genetic lineages that arose in Africa are logically called "African"?
Originally posted by Swenet:
[qb] And BTW, Keita—one of the most cited academics here—doesn't support translating pan-African ideas to genetics. Those who are doing this are on their own and putting their ignorance on display. No reputable and capable geneticist supports this. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see names.
quote:Not quite. If the falling tree is defined on whether it is still standing then its pretty clear what happened.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Thats like the one about a tree falling in the woods
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku:
[qb] @Fourty2Tribes. Ask yourself this question. Do you think the physical measurements that were used to describe "Caucasoid" and or "Negroid" exist in human populations?
quote:I did not know this. Can you post some references?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Deleted the thread on ancient connection between Nigerian dogs and Scandanavian dogs. I had about 15 post in that thread about the ancestral nature of West african dogs since many paper stated that Scandanavian dogs are north indigenous to Northern Europe. Sources cited.
Now he is deleting all my post once it does not fall in line to his belief.
Funny I did not know the connection between the dogs until the paper was posted. To my shocking surprise West African dogs carry all ancestral clades found in Asia and Europe. In addtion to their own. Even the dogs came from Africa.
Also surprising I found out that Villabruna man, 14000year old Italian was ancestral for black skin and had tropical body proportion. he also carried R1b!!! Baaaam!
quote:If that's your takeaway from what I said then you already have your mind made up and it proves that debating Mboli and people who agree with him is throwing your energy and time into a bottomless pit.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Scholars dont argue that they spoke a Niger Congo language. Some would say they spoke a Bantu language but that really doesnt say much. You just said ancestry doesnt matter. We arent English and 1st Dynastic Egyptians were not proto-Negro Egyptians. Besides every study to date... 12 dyn, Amarna, Hassan and Beyoku's 42 supports a larger more inclusive language family. I'm about to serve you a softball Swenet and you better knock it out. Later though. Time to bed gf and crash.
Originally posted by Swenet:
[QUOTE]We're speaking a language that did not originate in Africa. It's impossible to reconstruct our population affinity by studying the language we speak. This is why we need genetics and physical anthropology. These two disciplines can supply the right information when linguistics puts us on a completely wrong course (linguistically we're English speakers).
If we only study linguistics, we cannot tell if we're on the right track when it comes to reconstructing an unknown population's history. And if ancient Egyptians spoke a Niger Congo language, in a way it would be just like us speaking English or Mbuti speaking Bantu or Nilo-Saharan. In all these cases we have people who speak a language that is incongruent with their ancestry. This incongruence cannot be solved with linguistics. Linguistics only tells us what language someone speaks and whether/how it relates to other languages.
This is why it's easy for linguists to drift off into theories that are completely detached from reality.
quote:The problem I am having with the Mota specimen is that the extraction is based Neanderthal-DNA, this is how they came to "their conclusions". However, it is evidenced that the Neanderthal lived in Africa prior the homo sapiens sapiens leaving Africa via North Africa. This is found in tool industries. I have cited sources for this.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I see your point and many others being made using the same sources however I'm not sure or noone has made a clear cut connection for how it all makes sense in the first place. The east african genetic landscape will continue to be attributed to none African geneflow unless a model which challenges Lazaridis' surfaces. The reason for that is his interperation of the shared flow between some non African populations.
quote:M. Llorente 2015
Since we have in Mota an un-admixed African population, we can look for the origin of the West Eurasian backflow by modelling contemporary Ari as a mixture of Mota and possible source populations.
Mota is confirmed E-V329, Down stream clades are found on the Arabian peninsula, from the North.
10.1126/science.aad2879
^^The first principle component can be looked at as an Eurasian admixture coefficient by the way.^^
--
^10.1371/journal.pgen.1005397
Multiple methods date "Near-Eastern" gene flow into East Africa within the last 5ky. which coincides well with the geographic landscape and influences from the desert. Where is the signal that'll suggest "Basal-Eurasian-like" geneflow of any sort was evident in East Africa Mid Holocene or late LGM?
There is a possibility that a Near eastern Neolithic related group could be responsible for the OOA signals in east africa, I believe Lazaridis even looked for it too, a ghost population that I brought up earlier. But given the circumstance that there's no Basal-Eurasian pre-backmigration levels of drift in east Africa, It'd mean that this "Ghost" population would have to be AT-Least in majority be related to the Mota, or Non-OOA east African.
Whatever be the case for the origin Basal Eurasian, it's development was undoubtedly precedent in isolate of east Africa. Otherwise Basal Eurasian as a population DOES NOT EXISTS.
AND also...
-Natufians are a genetic Isolate, related to an ancestral east African population.
-Iran and Levant Neolithics received geneflow directly from east africa [which explains shared drift and higher SSA affinity]
-The aforementioned East African pop[s]^ Carried Natufian or Natufian-like ancestry & the Aari recieved flow very recently.
-Other early pre-Neolithic group[s] in isolate from East Africa [possibly from north Africa, who dafuq knows] was integrated into the later Near eastern Neolithics
-^A related group of the same origin wasn't integrated into the Levantine genome, but contributed to European Neolithic expansions.
-Xyyman was right all along. lol
- This is where Occam's razor shows up, for the biased or the rational.... But an explanation needs to be given.
quote:--Beniamino Trombetta, Fulvio Cruciani et al. (2011)
Within E-M35, there are striking parallels between two haplogroups, E-V68 and E-V257. Both contain a lineage which has been frequently observed in Africa (E-M78 and E-M81, respectively) [6], [8], [10], [13]–[16] and a group of undifferentiated chromosomes that are mostly found in southern Europe (Table S2). An expansion of E-M35 carriers, possibly from the Middle East as proposed by other Authors [14], and split into two branches separated by the geographic barrier of the Mediterranean Sea, would explain this geographic pattern. However, the absence of E-V68* and E-V257* in the Middle East (Table S2) makes a maritime spread between northern Africa and southern Europe a more plausible hypothesis. A detailed analysis of the Y chromosomal microsatellite variation associated with E-V68 and E-V257 could help in gaining a better understanding of the likely timing and place of origin of these two haplogroups.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
@Dd’eden
When I searched for - eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/03/north-european-and-west-african-dogs.html
I get
“Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.”
Papers are : A cryptic mitochondrial DNA link between North European and West African dogs -
Adeniyi C .
.
Barking up the wrong tree: Modern northern European dogs fail to explain their origin - Helena Malmström*
Someone sent me the complete studies.
quote:I see,
Originally posted by xyyman:
^Ish
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
@Dd’eden
When I searched for - eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/03/north-european-and-west-african-dogs.html
I get
“Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.”
Papers are : A cryptic mitochondrial DNA link between North European and West African dogs -
Adeniyi C .
.
Barking up the wrong tree: Modern northern European dogs fail to explain their origin - Helena Malmström*
Someone sent me the complete studies.
quote:I am not sure what you mean, since I did not cite that part. It was lioness. I responded to that post.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Dude how does this sentence make any logical sense:
quote:Think. If there were no other humans other than Africans before migrating to the Near East, then how could there be some "other" population for them to derive their genes from? They then reinforce that there were no other major DNA pools other than African descended DNA pools right in the same sentence. What they are saying is that half of these populations had African DNA lineages with little Neanderthal ancestry. Again, following the logic that Africans and Non Africans can be distinguished by "neanderthal" mixture, then any EARLY populations with no Neanderthal mixture in the Near East must have been African by all logical common sense. This inane hand waving and semantic posturing to justify negating the logical fact that all these DNA lineages were African at that early point in time is ridiculous.
We show that the earliest populations of the Near East derived around half their ancestry from a ‘Basal Eurasian’ lineage that had little if any Neanderthal admixture and that separated from other non-African lineages prior to their separation from each other.
quote:I did. I'm not seeing any SSA elements in there. A small bit of Neanderthal (6-9%) percent and maybe some greater affinity with modern East Asians than Europeans, but I don't see how that affects him being an OOA individual with broad facial features that might superficially resemble those of a "Negroid" person.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Nodnarb
The first reconstructed individual is known as Oase I and his genome has been published. You can look up his ancestry components.
quote:I believe they were from 12-9.8 kya (looking at the paper in question right now).
Originally posted by Oshun:
^^^ How old were the remains of the ppl studied?
quote:Source
The samples include Epipaleolithic Natufian hunter-gatherers from Raqefet Cave in the Levant
(12,000-9,800 BCE)
quote:TBH, I don't see a discrepancy between having little to no SSA ancestry and having broad features. After all, they are what you said they are: OOA/preOOA. A subset of early OOA groups has been described as resembling Australian Aboriginals. Seems like that variation is just built-in, along with certain other craniofacial trends.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:I did. I'm not seeing any SSA elements in there. A small bit of Neanderthal (6-9%) percent and maybe some greater affinity with modern East Asians than Europeans, but I don't see how that affects him being an OOA individual with broad facial features that might superficially resemble those of a "Negroid" person.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Nodnarb
The first reconstructed individual is known as Oase I and his genome has been published. You can look up his ancestry components.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
I assumed you were talking about later periods because it seems quite established that Egypt had SSA influences during subpluvial. There are SSA lineages in early Syrian aDNA so this is not debatable. See Oshun's thread on Fernandez 2005.
quote:Too True. What data do you think is the best representation of SSA ancestry in Egypt based on Autosomal SNP Data?
Originally posted by xyyman:
I know some of you are caught up in sensationalism. Just so you know. Going from 80% SSA ancestry to 75% SSA is also considered LESS SSA. Wait until the paper comes out...if it does. I see on some website fools are twisting the head line like you Swenet saying there was 'no" SSA in Natufians when the author clearly stated "no more SSA than"....
quote:This is the post xyyman is talking about. I never said Natufians have no SSA ancestry. I simply quoted Lazaridis saying Natufians and Eurasians are roughly equidistant to SSA groups. Which is true.
Originally posted by xyyman:
twisting the head line like you Swenet saying there was 'no" SSA in Natufians when the author clearly stated "no more SSA than"
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:http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
[P]resent-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share**** MORE*** alleles with Natufians than with other 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.
quote:http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
[P]resent-day sub-Saharan Africans do not share MORE alleles with Natufians than with other 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.
quote:Really man? You are confused by a ONE SENTENCE question? SMH. You mention Saharan-Arabia and it's connection to Maasai. That doesn't really answer the question if you don't state If massai are of Saharan extraction or if Saharan-Arabians are of Kenyan (SSA) extraction.
Originally posted by xyyman:
" What data do you think is the best representation of SSA ancestry in Egypt based on Autosomal SNP Data?". ???
I am not sure I understand your question? The few "Wholistic' data I have seen of SNP in modern Egyptians put them at 20% "foreign" . 80% Saharo-Arabian. The other 20% being West Asian ie Levantine Turks since Saharo-Arabian are indigenous to Africa and the Arabian deserts. Eg Bedouins and Yemenis. I have never seen data parsing out specific(tribal) SSA SNP ancestry. I have seen data on lineage. The SSA lineage of modern Egyptians are clearly related to Masaai. Henn et al. IIRC
quote:Hahah Swenet well if predynastic and Old Kingdom aDna shows zero links to SSA I will personally do a reenactment of that gif for every one here, I don't know what others fixations on the Natufians are I'm mostly focused on AE atm. Hoping aDna in that directon materializes by the end of the year
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Really man? You are confused by a ONE SENTENCE question? SMH. You mention Saharan-Arabia and it's connection to Maasai. That doesn't really answer the question if you don't state If massai are of Saharan extraction or if Saharan-Arabians are of Kenyan (SSA) extraction.
Originally posted by xyyman:
" What data do you think is the best representation of SSA ancestry in Egypt based on Autosomal SNP Data?". ???
I am not sure I understand your question? The few "Wholistic' data I have seen of SNP in modern Egyptians put them at 20% "foreign" . 80% Saharo-Arabian. The other 20% being West Asian ie Levantine Turks since Saharo-Arabian are indigenous to Africa and the Arabian deserts. Eg Bedouins and Yemenis. I have never seen data parsing out specific(tribal) SSA SNP ancestry. I have seen data on lineage. The SSA lineage of modern Egyptians are clearly related to Masaai. Henn et al. IIRC
quote:I believe it is the Second Intermediate Period when the Hyksos invaded. The New Kingdom came after that.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Nodnard
May I ask but why is this surprising? Didn't Fayyum have Eurasian migrants? And Absuir is in the DELTA region which is right next door to the Levant. So again how is this the worst case ? if I may ask? Its not like its Upper Egypt or anything.
Not trying to brag(since many if you CONTRIBUTED WAY MORE than me), but I kinda theorized that the samples would be somewhere near Lower Egypt. Also I think I even remember saying that the third intermediate was the period after the Hyskos invaded.
Correct me if I am reading you correctly because I just got off from work and still sleepy.
quote:I assumed modern Egyptians in general.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Nodnard
Matter fact I take back would I said. It would be surprising if all the people of Lower Egypt were predominaly Eurasian in affinity. However still the delta region is right next door to the Levant.
Yeah, one would assume that that there would be native Egyptians intermingling with them.
All I can say is the Afrocentrics(and not the moderate ones) can MAYBE breath a little easier...
When they mean SSA increase do they mean this in terms of Modern Egyptians from the Delta where the majority of the population now lives and not modern Egyptians in general?
quote:You will not find any PreOOA Near eastern-like anything, because it simply wont be detectable.. especially under Lazaridis' model... But I'll just sit im my corner and stare at the wall.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
....
I believe that the sample in this upcoming paper has near eastern ancestry.
.... I'm getting the impression that not every here does.
..... I'm addressing the unlikelihood of them stating that the samples are near Eastern when they aren't.
.... I have the same views as I did when I posted my very first comment on this page.
[...]There's no debate to be even had at the moment.
quote:Deep divisions in AFRICAN DNA. You said it yourself and made my point for me. I don't even see what you are debating.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:I already clarified what I meant. You try to conjure up some sort of objection every time you're confronted with data that shows deep divisions in African ancestry.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Why is it "Pan Africanism" to say that genetic lineages that arose in Africa are logically called "African"? So is that it? Using the term "African" is a political agenda and evil huh? Really? But good old Eurasia can be used everywhere right? Thats cool huh?
Originally posted by Swenet:
And BTW, Keita—one of the most cited academics here—doesn't support translating pan-African ideas to genetics. Those who are doing this are on their own and putting their ignorance on display. No reputable and capable geneticist supports this. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see names.
quote:Again putting words in my mouth when it suits you. I never said that. I said that labels should be used in a way that is consistent. A population of Africans migrating out of Africa don't become "Non African" one generation after leaving with no other humans in the region they settle. There needs to be a consistent way for making such distinctions.
Originally posted by Swenet:
You keep denying it but it's obvious. This is why you refuse to apply common conventions when its inconvenient.
For instance, when it comes to Europe, you insist that farmer colonists aren't European simply because they moved there.
quote:Swenet stop trying to make up straw men by pretending to speak for me. I can speak for myself. This is simply absurdity for no logical reason. What on earth does Saharan vs Sub Saharan have to do with EEF? Why is it even relevant? Why is that some "special" distinction you keep bringing up? Why is "African" not enough when you are comparing DNA from WITHIN Africa to DNA OUTSIDE of Africa? You keep saying this over and over again and no matter how much you say it, it still doesn't make sense. EEF had some African DNA lineages as part of their ancestry. Does it MATTER what part of Africa those DNA lineages came from? Is the statement not true somehow if those lineages came from a certain part of Africa? Of course not. You are simply beating a dead horse.
Originally posted by Swenet:
But when SSA groups move into the Sahara some time before EEF enter Europe, you want to pretend they're Saharan and not Sub-Saharan in ancestry and origin. Somehow, moving around the Sahara should discourage people from treating groups according to their origin. You also have a strange aversion to others describing these groups as Sub-Saharan in ancestry, even trying to get others to abandon the term. But, of course, you will keep Europe, South Asia, etc. as valid subregions within Eurasia. And of course, you'll just deny all of the above and keep asking the same questions that have nothing to do with what I said:
"Whu you mean? I can't say African?" and,
"is African a dirty word now?"
quote:The problem here is we are talking about two distinct threads of understanding. First, the question is how to label the earliest DNA lineages of populations leaving Africa before settling the rest of the planet and before any substantial Neanderthal mixture. Second is what if any African DNA was present in populations of Early European Farmers and does that African ancestry represent migration of Africans carrying a survival toolkit that laid the basis for farming. Two different populations and two different time periods. The first issue surrounds the way geneticists are labeling the DNA family tree and calling early branches of DNA that theoretically first emerged from Africa as Non African, which logically makes no sense. Second, there is the issue of trying to make up a tree of Eurasian DNA ancestry based on theoretical models working BACKWARDS from the DNA of the Early European Farmers. In so doing you get a whole bunch of confusion that is being sown here about how to identify AFRICAN DNA in all these scenarios and distinguish it from DNA that arose outside of Africa at some point in time between OOA and the EEF. Literally it is turning into a plate of spaghetti. Then to add to the mix folks keep speaking of "SSA" within all of this as if that distinction has any relevance to the discussion and if it does, not making it clear what the relevance is.
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:The problem I imagine at least, could perhaps be in assuming that a haplogroup that came from Africa means the population itself was African. For example, is it impossible for an African American to carry R1b1b2? If he does, does this mean he's a European? Are modern Italians that have E haplogroups African? This is very important with respect to Italy, Egypt, and the Levant, because they've over the years harbored a lot of inflow from different groups of people. I believe I showed that certain areas in ancient Syria had a lot of L haplogroups, but a lot of the haplogroups in Syria were also from other groups. Some L haplogroups accounted for around 1/3rd of the samples. This doesn't mean Mesopotamia was especially "African" or had "African" minority groups. It's possible these people saw themselves as the same ethnicity (IIRC they were buried in the same place). The people were probably a mixture of the many different ethnic groups reported in the study. So my question is: Is it possible for a person to be haplogroup L but otherwise be indistinguishable from people of their own ethnic group (and in the same vicinity) who're mostly J?
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Why is it "Pan Africanism" to say that genetic lineages that arose in Africa are logically called "African"?
Originally posted by Swenet:
[qb] And BTW, Keita—one of the most cited academics here—doesn't support translating pan-African ideas to genetics. Those who are doing this are on their own and putting their ignorance on display. No reputable and capable geneticist supports this. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see names.
quote:Its not saying what they think its saying...
Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
quote:
As a starting point for our model, we used the set of populations (minus Dai) from an admixture graph formulated in Mallick et al. (2016): Chimpanzee, Altai Neanderthal (Prüfer et al. 2014), Denisova (Meyer et al. 2012), Dinka, Kostenki 14 (K14, a ∼37 kya Upper Paleolithic individual from Russia belonging to the western Eurasian clade) (Seguin-Orlando et al. 2014), New Guinea, Australia, Onge (an indigenous population from the Andaman Islands), and Ami (aboriginal Taiwanese, representing East Asians). The elements of the model in Mallick et al. (2016) were mostly relatively straightforward, with no admixture events aside from those involving archaic humans. The primary finding of interest was that the Australasians (plus Onge) fit best as a clade with East Asians; incorporating a deeper “southern route” ancestry component did not improve the fit.
quote:They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
ALso I don't know why Euronuts here are celebrating and jumping to conclusion especially with only one region sampled.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/47798-Ancient-Egyptian-Mummy-Genomes/page20
quote:Its not saying what they think its saying...
Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
quote:Actually it's more like 1388 BC to 426 AD. I am curious how many of the "pre-Ptolemaic" mummies were from the New Kingdom versus later periods (i.e. Third Intermediate to Late Period). I presume the paper will answer that question when it comes out.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
ALso I don't know why Euronuts here are celebrating and jumping to conclusion especially with only one region sampled.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/47798-Ancient-Egyptian-Mummy-Genomes/page20
quote:Its not saying what they think its saying...
Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
The MtDNA shows "substantial continuity" as I predicted anyway.
quote:So yeah,
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I'ma just come out and say say what I believe might happen. Granted I only have a short-abstract to go off of, I feel like we'll see some elucidation on the Coptic cluster so often considered African. the Egyptian sample will cluster closely to their near eastern bank both Prehistoric and extant and possibly become more distinct later in history. They will also have other Eurasian components and a very very low if any SSA affinity. I don't think they'll shed much light on any other presumably North African correspondence.
I don't believe that they'll base their findings solely off of YRI DNA, I sure to god hope they don't but if they do and include other SSA populations like maybe the Maasalit, or even the Luhya we'll see this near eastern affinity pop up commensurately.
quote:...African lineages such as?
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
ALso I don't know why Euronuts here are celebrating and jumping to conclusion especially with only one region sampled.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/47798-Ancient-Egyptian-Mummy-Genomes/page20
quote:Its not saying what they think its saying...
Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
quote:But on the other hand, it would be nice to confirm that this sample (including the older specimens within it) isn't representative of the whole AE population throughout time. If any sign appears that these sampled individuals had more foreign ancestry than the average AE, it would be easier to swat the trolls aside.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Cass and the other Klannites can rejoice if similar results appear for the Predynasyic/Old Kingdom aDna. I don't see any reason to be *shook* by this or believe it to be a "worst case scenario". Especially considering this period also correlates with the onset of massive Eurasian backflow.
quote:I'm not arguing for strong Levant/south-west Asian ties, but strong regional continuity in Egypt. The PCA shows ancient Egyptians are somewhat (though not massively) distant to modern Egyptians, which is a surprise to me, however although I cannot see the PCA plot clear enough because it is a blur - the closest match to the ancient samples could be with modern Copts. If so, this study still supports strong Egyptian regional continuity since the Copts are an Egyptian sub-population. Because Copts are an ethno-religious group they might plot closer than the rest of ethnic Egyptians because of their more strict endogamy that has maintained closer biological ties to the ancients. That Copts = the closest population to resemble ancient Egyptians is what old posters like Rahotep on this forum argued here 5+ years ago and I adopted this position in 2013. Regardless, the mtDNA data/image that is not blurry shows "substantial continuity" between pre-Ptolemaic and Ptolemaic Egyptians as I predicted.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Cass and the other Klannites can rejoice if similar results appear for the Predynasyic/Old Kingdom aDna. I don't see any reason to be *shook* by this or believe it to be a "worst case scenario". Especially considering this period also correlates with the onset of massive Eurasian backflow.
quote:Indeed, it was too blurry for me. But these were lower Egyptian samples. To put into perspective the location of the samples: they were only 150 miles from Hyksos capital of Avaris. Canaanites were entering Egypt by 1800 BC and made an independent realm by 1720 BC into Faiyum. This locations is between these points of known foreign influences. So Eurocentric people are thinking an area North of the Cananite leadership in Faiyum and just 150 miles away from the century ruled Hyksos capital is going to be representative of Egypt's origins, or even the biological makeup of the rest of Egypt during the time periods of sampling???
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
ALso I don't know why Euronuts here are celebrating and jumping to conclusion especially with only one region sampled.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/47798-Ancient-Egyptian-Mummy-Genomes/page20
quote:Its not saying what they think its saying...
Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
quote:Indeed, it was too blurry for me. But these were lower Egyptian samples. To put into perspective the location of the samples: they were only 150 miles from Hyksos capital of Avaris. Canaanites were entering Egypt by 1800 BC and made an independent realm by 1720 BC into Faiyum. This locations is between these points of known foreign influences. So Eurocentric people are thinking an area North of the Cananite leadership in Faiyum and just 150 miles away from the century ruled Hyksos capital is going to be representative of Egypt's origins, or even the biological makeup of the rest of Egypt during the time periods of sampling???
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
ALso I don't know why Euronuts here are celebrating and jumping to conclusion especially with only one region sampled.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/47798-Ancient-Egyptian-Mummy-Genomes/page20
quote:Its not saying what they think its saying...
Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
quote:I myself was reminded of the late dynastic Egyptian tendency to depend on foreign mercenaries for their military. Not sure if these mercenaries would have been mummified, but they seem to have been numerous enough to eventually predominate the Egyptian forces.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I am personally for certain that these samples do not represent ethnic/native Egyptian. Again, they appear to be from the delta region that received Eurasian migrants throughout time. COULD it be possible that some of these sampled mummies descend from Hyksos migrants who came before the New Kingdom period? Either way I doubt this is representative for Upper Egyptians during the periods the study has.
Also, even if Ramesse III was not E1b1ba, he would still be E1b1b. Both which are African paternal ancestries. And Ramesse III came from a period well after the New Kingdom and IIRC was from Lower Egypt. If anything this seems to revive the dynastic race theory to SOME extent.
@Nodnard @Punos_Rey
Thoughts?
quote:Source
The XIX and XX Dynasties saw some of the most spectacular exploits of Egyptian power but also its decline, with Egypt barely able to defend its frontiers and relying heavily on mercenaries. By the middle of the 12th century sixty percent of the soldiers were non-Egyptians.
...
The resurgence of Egyptian power after the occupations of the country by Libyans, Kushites and Assyrians was mostly based on the hiring of foreign mercenaries from the east and north: Ionians and Carians, Jews, Aramaeans, Phoenicians and others. They were deployed when native forces were considered to be unreliable. Jewish contingents were stationed at Elephantine and Aramaeans at Syene after Egyptian troops had deserted and fled into Nubia.
quote:155 individuals sampled over a period of almost 2000 years is not a representative sample of anything. This is what I said in the beginning. They took a few samples from here and there and are trying to extrapolate based on a very limited data set.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Actually it's more like 1388 BC to 426 AD. I am curious how many of the "pre-Ptolemaic" mummies were from the New Kingdom versus later periods (i.e. Third Intermediate to Late Period). I presume the paper will answer that question when it comes out.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
ALso I don't know why Euronuts here are celebrating and jumping to conclusion especially with only one region sampled.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/47798-Ancient-Egyptian-Mummy-Genomes/page20
quote:Its not saying what they think its saying...
Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
quote:155 mummies over an almost 2000 year time span is certainly not a representative sample of ANYTHING. These folks are simply making absurd conclusions based on limited data. This is exactly what I was saying a few pages ago.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:Actually it's more like 1388 BC to 426 AD. I am curious how many of the "pre-Ptolemaic" mummies were from the New Kingdom versus later periods (i.e. Third Intermediate to Late Period). I presume the paper will answer that question when it comes out.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:They sampled 155 mummies from Abusir from 1388 BC to the Roman period 366 BC, about a 1000 year span. 155 mummies over that long of a time span. Right. Really tells us a lot now. It would be better to list the DNA of individual mummies at specific time frames than to lump them all together. Not that I care about "SSA" lineages. I care more about "African" lineages vs Non African lineages.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
ALso I don't know why Euronuts here are celebrating and jumping to conclusion especially with only one region sampled.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/47798-Ancient-Egyptian-Mummy-Genomes/page20
quote:Its not saying what they think its saying...
Man it feels so good to be right! I've been saying exactly this about the ancient Egyptians, for like the past 10 years now, that they were basically Fertile Crescent folks genetically. Kiss my hairy true Afro-Asiatic ass, @Charlie Bass
quote:Good post. This could also explain things too.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
quote:I myself was reminded of the late dynastic Egyptian tendency to depend on foreign mercenaries for their military. Not sure if these mercenaries would have been mummified, but they seem to have been numerous enough to eventually predominate the Egyptian forces.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
I am personally for certain that these samples do not represent ethnic/native Egyptian. Again, they appear to be from the delta region that received Eurasian migrants throughout time. COULD it be possible that some of these sampled mummies descend from Hyksos migrants who came before the New Kingdom period? Either way I doubt this is representative for Upper Egyptians during the periods the study has.
Also, even if Ramesse III was not E1b1ba, he would still be E1b1b. Both which are African paternal ancestries. And Ramesse III came from a period well after the New Kingdom and IIRC was from Lower Egypt. If anything this seems to revive the dynastic race theory to SOME extent.
@Nodnard @Punos_Rey
Thoughts?
quote:Source
The XIX and XX Dynasties saw some of the most spectacular exploits of Egyptian power but also its decline, with Egypt barely able to defend its frontiers and relying heavily on mercenaries. By the middle of the 12th century sixty percent of the soldiers were non-Egyptians.
...
The resurgence of Egyptian power after the occupations of the country by Libyans, Kushites and Assyrians was mostly based on the hiring of foreign mercenaries from the east and north: Ionians and Carians, Jews, Aramaeans, Phoenicians and others. They were deployed when native forces were considered to be unreliable. Jewish contingents were stationed at Elephantine and Aramaeans at Syene after Egyptian troops had deserted and fled into Nubia.
quote:WE dont know if they are representative of the entire AE. WE DO KNOW they are representative of AE in that time period so long as they are Ethnic Egyptians.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
WHO is ignoring the data? Nobody is CONFIRMING they are going to be different but just going off what we already know.
How do we know they are representative for the general AE population?
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
I don't see what this mystical "Collective doctrine of ES"
Beyoku is talking about. Various people on here have varying views.
Some hold to what appears to be a pristine pure black Egypt where
no outside influences appeared until Greeks, etc- while others reject
such simplistic views, or seeming views. And there are variants in-between.
What is this mystical, so-called "collective doctrine of ES"?
quote:I'm aware of this especially reading through that Forumbiodiversity thread. However, my main point is that those who are simply theorizing about these results(i.e saying they COULD be West Asian migrants and not ethnic Egyptians) shouldn't
Originally posted by beyoku:
WE dont know if they are representative of the entire AE. WE DO KNOW they are representative of AE in that time period so long as they are Ethnic Egyptians.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
Take a glance at the thread. Take a look at the folks that Poo poo the data and hypothesize how they would be if the was the EXACT opposite. A domination of L lineages to the tune of 90+%. ES collective head would explode. [/QB]
quote:Truthcentric
That's the real question imho, particularly since both Copts and Egyptian Muslims possess comparable levels of East African ancestry (~15%), which obviously didn't arrive with the Arab slave trade and last I checked the Kushites didn't overrun Egypt in the Roman era. I guess we'll have to wait for more comprehensive sampling of ancient Egyptian remains, but I have a feeling that these samples from Abusir aren't entirely representative of the ancient inhabitants of the Lower Nile Valley. We know that some ancient Egyptians had significant SSA ancestry, given the results of the Amarna mummies from Upper Egypt; DNAtribes used PopAffiliator and STRUCTURE with CODIS markers, which isn't a sufficient way to estimate exact admixture proportions, but is enough to place samples in "continental" groups.
I'd note that the earliest of these samples were dated to 1388 BC, which follows the documented influx of the "Hyksos" - likely Semitic speakers from what is now Palestine - to the eastern Delta by around 1800 - 1650 BC. These Semitic speakers were gradually "localized" but left a significant impact on Egypt, at least through their technical innovations (e.g. Horses and chariots most notably). I don't want to jump to conclusions, but the sequence is intriguing.
I am not sure if you have an opinion or a running theories?
quote:But like you said this is one of the FEW aDNA results for AE population and so we should not discard them. I agree 100% with that.
While the paper might shed more light on this once it gets published, I'd hesitate before generalizing this sample from one site in northern Egypt to the whole ancient Egyptian population across time. Especially if none of the samples are older than the New Kingdom, and most are Third Intermediate to Roman period in age.
As the original abstract acknowledged, the time period covered by the sample was a time when Egypt received increased influence and immigration from foreigners. We already know from other sources that, by the 12th century BC, foreign mercenaries already made up ~60% of the Egyptian army. I dunno whether any of these are represented in the mummy sample, but if non-Egyptians already make up the majority of your armed forces by the late New Kingdom, you've got to have plenty of them moving into your country.
And then there's this graph from a 2007 Zakrzewski study showing significant differences in cranial traits between Late Period Egyptians and predynastic through Middle Kingdom ones. The Late Period sample is clearly the outlier in this study at least:
quote:Agreed. I as a neebie been asking him this too. On ES you have a varying amount of views just like any other site.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Repost Since Beyoku seems to have missed it...
I would like to know this as well, I was going to ask but you beat me to it..
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
I don't see what this mystical "Collective doctrine of ES"
Beyoku is talking about. Various people on here have varying views.
Some hold to what appears to be a pristine pure black Egypt where
no outside influences appeared until Greeks, etc- while others reject
such simplistic views, or seeming views. And there are variants in-between.
What is this mystical, so-called "collective doctrine of ES"?
quote:Smh lol
Originally posted by beyoku:
The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
I could go on but I wil stop here.
quote:I only seen Doug M in my "black thread" doing those things.
Originally posted by beyoku:
The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
I could go on but I wil stop here.
quote:Im confused on this point can you elaborate?
Originally posted by beyoku:
The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
quote:Ok maybe when it comes to the Artwork left by the Egyptians sure, but we have'nt had any Genetic studies except on the DNA tribes stuff, As far as I know we relied heavily on Body Proportions and Linguistics.
The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
quote:Now I know you are full of sh@t because there have been threads on the fact that there are Dark Skinned Negroid(So Called) people native to Asia and the Americas who are Gentically distinct from Africans. Hell we made a thread on this topic that was deleted with counless examples of this. WTF are you talking about.
The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
quote:Yeah, you're big and bad on ForumBio Diversity mocking ES, what ever the forum is a shell of its former self.
I could go on but I wil stop here
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:I only seen Doug M in my "black thread" doing those things.
Originally posted by beyoku:
The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
I could go on but I wil stop here.
quote:It doesn't, at least not yet... however, it suffocates the Idea that there was a Non-"SSA" & Non-Eurasian-derived African population holding down the Nile for 5 millennia.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Anyway my question still stands...How is this, a population of Delta Egyptians from the 3rd Intermediate proof that A.Egypt is West Eurasian? Anyone??
quote:^^^^^Yeah but who outside of the most radical posters here uphold that, like Zarahan said that is a really simplistic view of ancient Egypt. I for one have said countless times there were Eurasians in Egypt from the Unification and beyond...
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:It doesn't, at least not yet... however, it suffocates the Idea that there was a Non-"SSA" & Non-Eurasian-derived African population holding down the Nile for 5 millennia.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Anyway my question still stands...How is this, a population of Delta Egyptians from the 3rd Intermediate proof that A.Egypt is West Eurasian? Anyone??
^...And I mean "SSA" in the most loosely way possible lol
quote:Again you are wrong most people here argued caution on using Skin Color and features as opposed to genetics as with the case for folks arguing for Olmecs and Luitza etc.
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Jari
1 - they ignored call the ancient DNA pointing out discontiuity how you couldn't apple DNA to skin color and physical features.
quote:Again what ancient DNA as far as I can tell the only thing we had was DNA tribes and Ramses III being e1b1a which is an African marker..
2 - The body proportions and linguistics told us something. But people just held on to that information and ignored ancient DNA findings.
quote:I did assume this, but considering where the population was taken from Im to too shocked.
3 - yeah most folks knew the distinctions in genetic affinity between dark skinned Africans and non Africans BUT they made the assumption that dark skinned folks in Egypt would be part of that SSA diversity. I made that assumption as well. But once Natufian popped it was quite clear of the possibility of something different. ES basically got left in the dust and now everyone is getting caught with their pants down because so far nobody has a good explanation as to why AE has far less mtdna L than Egyptians today.
quote:Whats ups man,
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:The last time we talked I wasn’t sure to what extent Basal Eurasian contributes to closeness to Africans:
Originally posted by Ceasar:
I am sort of confused about this chart. I have read papers that suggest that Basal Eurasians have no affinity to sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:I said the bolded part because the Natufian sample’s affinities made me unsure about how much Basal Eurasian contributes to closeness to SSA groups. But there is actually something else going on with the Natufian sample. Basal Eurasian does, in fact, contribute affinity to SSA groups. I will talk about this extensively some time in the near future.
Originally posted by Swenet:
The component that is introducing most of the intermediateness of modern northeast Africans is Eurasian, Basal Eurasian, Omotic, Nilo-Saharan, in that order. Basal Eurasian and Eurasian may be a tie according to some studies, I'm not sure. Dynastic AE who had more Nilo-Saharan and Omotic than Basal Eurasian, would be closer to Africans than to Eurasians.
quote:No...
Originally posted by Cass/:
Its claimed on another forum the closest PCA match is with Bedouin and seems likely if you zoom on the blurry image. There were two Bedouin samples in the study A + B. Unfortunately I don't think they used an Egyptian Copt sample.
Could the Bedouin sample closest to ancient Egyptian be Sinaitic Bedouin who also have a long-term presence in parts of the Delta? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin#In_Egypt
quote:I agree too..
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Now if the Ancient Upper Egyptians turn out to be Eurasian then...damn. It would certainly put a question on the Green Saharan theory, considering all the evidence it would be odd. Even then I dont see how this proves a Dynastic Race theory like some folks on ForumBio seem to suggest. These people could have been native Africans...I just dont see how they would be distinct from other Africans...
quote:
Originally posted by Ceasar:
quote:I agree too..
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Now if the Ancient Upper Egyptians turn out to be Eurasian then...damn. It would certainly put a question on the Green Saharan theory, considering all the evidence it would be odd. Even then I dont see how this proves a Dynastic Race theory like some folks on ForumBio seem to suggest. These people could have been native Africans...I just dont see how they would be distinct from other Africans...
The idea of pre-dynastic southern egyptians having no affinity to SSA groups doesn't make any sense.. especially concerning there craniofacial clustering. Look at the beja people they would be pretty close to the southern Egyptians..they have about 40-50% SSA genetics...
There is alot of speculation concerning ancient migration routes, natufians etc... and I have seen many different explanations concerning these findings. Mummies from the third intermediate to later are too late to describe what the core indigenous ancestry might be. This paper hasn't even come out yet. There is a lot of speculation The only thing to do is to test pre-dynastic mummies.
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Now if the Ancient Upper Egyptians turn out to be Eurasian then...damn. It would certainly put a question on the Green Saharan theory, considering all the evidence it would be odd. Even then I dont see how this proves a Dynastic Race theory like some folks on ForumBio seem to suggest. These people could have been native Africans...I just dont see how they would be distinct from other Africans...
There is no proof of any Dynastic Race theory, nor do Upper Egyptians
"turn out" to be "Eurasian" or the so-called "basal eurasian."
The idiots on the web who keep grasping for straws along these
lines remain debunked idiots, whose primary "strategy" these
days is repetition of that debunked nonsense. But even
spotting them assorted "eurasian" claims, they are STILL PITIFUL.
In any event the people closest ethnically to the Egyptians are the
Nubians- as credible scientific studies show time and time again.
Trying to "distance" Kemet from "sub-Saharan" Africa still fails
on this point, and turns out to be an exercise in irrelevance when the
dark Nubians come into view.
modern nubians LIVING TODAY IN EGYPT. Any talk about "today's"
Egyptians must include these Egyptian citizens who are already
living in Egypt now, at the present time. They are not "foreigners"-
they are Egyptian citizens just like the Arab era types that now
claim the title. They are just as much "native Egyptians" as anyone
in Egypt today claiming the title.
Native sons of today's Egypt..
Caesar says:
Mummies from the third intermediate to later are too late to describe what the core indigenous ancestry might be. This paper hasn't even come out yet. There is a lot of speculation The only thing to do is to test pre-dynastic mummies.
Whatever "speculation" others may do, the scientific data
on hand is already clear and debunks much of that bogus "speculation."
And predynastic mummies have ALREADY been tested for well nigh over
a century. They show close relationships with fellow Africans
further south. No more "testing" is "needed." The data is already in,
and has already been exhaustively documented.
Native sons of Egypt.. Ancient of modern, makes no difference..
2 - The body proportions and linguistics told us something. But people just held on to that information and ignored ancient DNA findings
Not really. ANd ancient DNA is simply one other line of evidence
that has to take its place alongside and be cross-checked against
detailed data from other lines. It would be naive to jump on aDNA
as the "last word" on anything. ANd all the old biases we see
now in modern DNA studies or cranial or skeletal studies, such as
selective sampling, or misleading labels, or "true negro" stereotypes,
would STILL be problems with aDNA. It is naive to tout aDNA
as this oh so authoritative line of data.
quote:First off nowhere have I said anything about disputing data other than how labels are used to distort what the data represents.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Doug M.
It actually IS representative of a LOT!
very Strong levantine - near Eastern signals coupled with other OOA (Iranian, Anatolian) influence and they show levels of continuity into some modern Egyptians. ...bro, it's what beyoku and I were saying all over again. Don't diss the data, apply it.
----
Also so called SSA influence (maternally) decreases during the roman period before resurfacing presumably. I don't know the significance (whether p-value or sample number) of the increase shown in from Pre-Ptolemaic to Ptolemaic samples so I don't know whether or not it's safe to assume gradual levels of mixing with natives or whatever.
I'm personally comfortable with this, Less space in between for speculation, more closer to the truth no matter how we look at this. Looking at demographic history as well as depictions, practices and relationships not only of AE but contemporous levantine populations and how they correlate with modern cultural groups IN and out of Egypt, I gotta say it's shocking but not surprising. It presents an obstacle, but a very very favorable conclusion as well.
-Nice posts Oshun
quote:Stop clowning. How does 155 individual mummies from a time period over 2000 years represent anything? Do the math. If those 155 mummies were spread equally over the span of 2000 years that gives you about 8 individuals for every 100 year span. How is that "representative" of an entire population at any given point of time. And not only that I am sure that these mummies cluster around certain time frames which means it is even less consistent over time. To do a study like this you would need to sample all mummies recovered from all time period and all locations within Egypt, royal and otherwise. This is statistically interesting but this doesn't amount to enough to generalize what the entire population of Egypt was like at any single point of time over that 2000 year period.
Originally posted by beyoku:
SMH at Doug saying the data don't represent nothing. If they were 95% L and 5% J/K/H/R what would you say to a euroclowns that said "the results don't mean anything" ? LMAO.
SMH at folks arguing this data will be different from other ancients when this is the only published genomic SNP data we have. Mutherfvcker how you know they gonna be different?
SMH at folks ignoring the data all together and posting pictures. Pictures can't help you right now.
"Don't diss the data, apply it" - Respect. LOL. On Facebook they ducking and covering.
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Ancient DNA for early dynastic and pre-dynastic Egyptians will be out in the next few years. If those results are very similar to the New Kingdom of Egypt samples we now have [assuming the New Kingdom Egyptian samples are closest to Levant Bedouin - we don't yet know because the PCA image is blurry], then a modern sort of Hamiticism is what is going to be the new scholarly consensus-
The Hamitic model = agriculture/domesticates were brought into Egypt from the Levant, sometime around 6000 BCE, with a large-scale migration of people (for sake of a better word "Hamites".) At the moment scholars acknowledge most agriculture/domesticates arrived in Egypt from the Levant, but large-scale migration of peoples is rejected for small-scale trade and commercial contact. Ancient DNA though could force scholars to adopt the large-scale migration view; this had already been in literature (Seligman etc.) during the first half of the 20th century.
These New Kingdom of Egypt samples are not only a blow or proving problematic to Afrocentrists, but the Egyptcentrists (like Brace et al, and myself since 2013) who were arguing ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians, i.e. strong genetic continuity.
I am more than prepared to revise my views in light of new genetic data and embrace a modern "Hamiticism", where Neolithic Egypt was settled by a large number of migrants from the Levant - who probably also brought with them Afroasiatic language(s). The Afrocentrists on this forum however will still be moaning at the DNA when its completely falsified their claims.
quote:Well, at least you're not lying that you "knews it alls along" like some are doing. Watch for it in ancient DNA threads. They're always present. Even when it runs counter to claims they've made elsewhere.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Hahah Swenet well if predynastic and Old Kingdom aDna shows zero links to SSA I will personally do a reenactment of that gif for every one here, I don't know what others fixations on the Natufians are I'm mostly focused on AE atm. Hoping aDna in that directon materializes by the end of the year
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:I wish people would stop putting words in my mouth and using me as a scapegoat for nonsense.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:Im confused on this point can you elaborate?
Originally posted by beyoku:
The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
quote:Ok maybe when it comes to the Artwork left by the Egyptians sure, but we have'nt had any Genetic studies except on the DNA tribes stuff, As far as I know we relied heavily on Body Proportions and Linguistics.
The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
quote:Now I know you are full of sh@t because there have been threads on the fact that there are Dark Skinned Negroid(So Called) people native to Asia and the Americas who are Gentically distinct from Africans. Hell we made a thread on this topic that was deleted with counless examples of this. WTF are you talking about.
The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
As far as the populations existing inside Africa with little to no SSA ancestry I dont think anyone outside of the hardcore Pan Africanists like Amun-ra, Doug and maybe XXY man hold to that theory. Hell I think most people here have said countless time that there is more genetic difference between African Tribes that there are between non Africans and Africans in some cases...
fk out of here...
quote:Yeah, you're big and bad on ForumBio Diversity mocking ES, what ever the forum is a shell of its former self.
I could go on but I wil stop here
quote:Here is the key point:
Originally posted by beyoku:
The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
I could go on but I wil stop here.
quote:Why are you dividing up Africans? I mean are you even serious? Why do you keep throwing up Sub Saharan Africa as a marker for what defines a true African. You folks keep making up straw men arguments for thing NOBODY has said.
dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
quote:How can anyone get me to say something I have always been saying?
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^
Lol I think that what Swenet and Beyoku have been trying to get you to say for a while now..
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:How can anyone get me to say something I have always been saying?
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^^
Lol I think that what Swenet and Beyoku have been trying to get you to say for a while now..
I have been saying this since before even joining this forum.
Again you guys need to stop putting me in your mouth for nonsensical reasons.
quote:When you read between the lines, Doug's supposedly purely skin pigmentation-based use of 'black' and his aversion to using the term 'SSA' are all part of his sneaky agenda to translate pan-African ideas to genetics. But when you call it out he starts fuming and talks about his usual distractions (e.g. "whu you mean, Swenet, the term 'African' is a dirty word now?" and "I didn't say that Basal Eurasian was mixed, Nature magazine did").
Originally posted by Swenet:
Is it me or did they botch aspects of her nose and upper face?
quote:So, let me get this right. You engaged in a 28 page discussion filled with rants, only to casually abandon everything you said you stood for? Remember what you said. You said that you acknowledge no definition of 'black' other than the one that describes a level of skin pigmentation. Someone has some 'splainin to do.
Originally posted by Doug M:
That is why the reconstruction has a strong "black African look" with a light skin tone.
quote:Oh... My... god.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:First off nowhere have I said anything about disputing data other than how labels are used to distort what the data represents.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Doug M.
It actually IS representative of a LOT!
very Strong levantine - near Eastern signals coupled with other OOA (Iranian, Anatolian) influence and they show levels of continuity into some modern Egyptians. ...bro, it's what beyoku and I were saying all over again. Don't diss the data, apply it.
----
Second. Why are you guys harping so much on this study? What is it that you expect to find that is so earth shattering? That the AE weren't Africans?
I have been asking this since the beginning of the thread and nobody has answered it.
And lastly since when is SSA a marker of "true" African anything? Why is it relevant when comparing DNA from one part of Africa to DNA from OUTSIDE of Africa?
This is stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Considering how all the data was building up towards a predominantly indigenous Northeast African (if not necessarily "SSA") origin for the AE, I for one am not ready to throw that evidence all away because one relatively young sample of mummies from one cemetery in northern Egypt appears to be of primarily Eurasian heritage. Certain people here were skeptical that the DNA Tribes MLI scores could be taken "literally" because such a literal interpretation didn't agree with the skeletal and other data from AE. If there's still a lot of anthropological data out there pointing to AE being indigenous Saharan Africans, you can't simply disregard that because one data point seems aberrant. That'd be behaving no better than the people who disregarded the AE skeletal etc. data in favor of a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes.
There's got to be a way of reconciling these specific results with all the other evidence in favor of an originally (Saharan) African AE. I would rather hear people come up with explanations for this supposed discrepancy rather than acting like that earlier data didn't exist.
quote:I sent you a PM
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Ceasar
Can you PM me an email address to address your post on? I'm going to wrap up here now that I know what the aDNA results are.
quote:I agree to, I do believe that southern pre-dynastic Egyptians will have Eurasian affinity. If if there isn't any admixture, I think that indigenous Saharan ancestry is on the borderline between SSA and Eurasian. Look at Mota, he isn't supposed to have any Eurasian and he pulls towards Eurasians somewhat. Saharan dna would pull more toward Eurasians then mota will.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
This is what Im saying, my question is who are the people/samples they are labeling SSA, are groups like the Beja and other Nubians included in these studies.
Honestly if they test predynastic Lower Egyptians I wont be surprised if they turn out with Eurasian affinity in those groups, Ive believed this to be the case for a while now and its something that some folks here might have to come to terms with, but all the evidence so far for the culture of Upper Egypt is that it and her peoples stemmed from inner Africa, their DNA being Eurasian would go against the Archaeological and Linguistic evidence we have, this isnt some Afrocentrist pipe dream, most mainstream Archaeologists uphold the Green Sahran origin for A.Egypt
quote:
Originally posted by Ceasar:
quote:I agree too..
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Now if the Ancient Upper Egyptians turn out to be Eurasian then...damn. It would certainly put a question on the Green Saharan theory, considering all the evidence it would be odd. Even then I dont see how this proves a Dynastic Race theory like some folks on ForumBio seem to suggest. These people could have been native Africans...I just dont see how they would be distinct from other Africans...
The idea of pre-dynastic southern egyptians having no affinity to SSA groups doesn't make any sense.. especially concerning there craniofacial clustering. Look at the beja people they would be pretty close to the southern Egyptians..they have about 40-50% SSA genetics...
There is alot of speculation concerning ancient migration routes, natufians etc... and I have seen many different explanations concerning these findings. Mummies from the third intermediate to later are too late to describe what the core indigenous ancestry might be. This paper hasn't even come out yet. There is a lot of speculation The only thing to do is to test pre-dynastic mummies.
quote:I already tried that. I first proposed the closest (modern) population to the New Kingdom samples in the PCA was Copts. Although not confirmed, it now seems probable it is Bedouin. So I then proposed they were Sinaitic Bedouin [some Sinaitic Bedouin tribes also have a history of settling in the adjacent Nile Delta]. Someone else though pointed out the Bedouin sample is more likely to be from Syria, or Israel.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Considering how all the data was building up towards a predominantly indigenous Northeast African (if not necessarily "SSA") origin for the AE, I for one am not ready to throw that evidence all away because one relatively young sample of mummies from one cemetery in northern Egypt appears to be of primarily Eurasian heritage. Certain people here were skeptical that the DNA Tribes MLI scores could be taken "literally" because such a literal interpretation didn't agree with the skeletal and other data from AE. If there's still a lot of anthropological data out there pointing to AE being indigenous Saharan Africans, you can't simply disregard that because one data point seems aberrant. That'd be behaving no better than the people who disregarded the AE skeletal etc. data in favor of a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes.
There's got to be a way of reconciling these specific results with all the other evidence in favor of an originally (Saharan) African AE. I would rather hear people come up with explanations for this supposed discrepancy rather than acting like that earlier data didn't exist. [/qb]
quote:Considering your admitted neo-nazi antics on this forum and others I wouldn't be one to talk.
Originally posted by Cass/:
We know most Afrocentrists despise white people on this forum, but what they got against brown Levant people?
quote:If so though, the reason would be a question of "why" we see those lineages. If we're going to say "this haplogroup means you're SSA" what would've been the historical explanation for 90% L lineages? We have an explanation for the "Near Eastern" ancestry by mainstream science. The study prefaces the results with a discussion of foreign inflow to Egypt.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:WE dont know if they are representative of the entire AE. WE DO KNOW they are representative of AE in that time period so long as they are Ethnic Egyptians.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
WHO is ignoring the data? Nobody is CONFIRMING they are going to be different but just going off what we already know.
How do we know they are representative for the general AE population?
Take a glance at the thread. Take a look at the folks that Poo poo the data and hypothesize how they would be if the was the EXACT opposite. A domination of L lineages to the tune of 90+%. ES collective head would explode.
quote:Can i see this study?
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
You can also add the old Paabo study which also determined "Sub-Saharan" Africans affiliations for the 12th Dynasty mummies.
quote:I believe his citation comes from this old Keita essay:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:Can i see this study?
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
You can also add the old Paabo study which also determined "Sub-Saharan" Africans affiliations for the 12th Dynasty mummies.
quote:
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians
Professor S.O.Y. Keita
Department of Biological Anthropology
Oxford University
Professor A. J. Boyce
University Reader in Human Population
Oxford University
What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egypt—which led to the dynastic culture—migrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?
These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.
Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.
The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.
There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.
This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.
The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.
The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (Mahmoud et al. 1987). This statement is even more true in a wider evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches extend and validate this conclusion.
In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.
References Cited:
Angel, J. L., and J. O. Kelley, Description and comparison of the skeleton. In The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton: A Late Paleolithic
Burial from Southern Egypt. E Wendorf and R. Schild. pp. 53-70. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. 1986
Brauer, G., and K. Rimbach, Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications, Journal of Human Evolution 19:789-807. 1990
Drake, St. C., Black Folk Here and There, vol 1. Los Angeles: University of California. 1987
Keita, S.O.Y., Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships. History in Africa 20:129-154. 1993
Mahmoud, L. et. al, Human blood groups in Dakhlaya. Egypt. Annuals of Human Biology. 14(6):487-493. 1987
Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study
of Ancient Egypt. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993
Petrie, W.M., F. The Making of Egypt. London: Sheldon Press. 1984
Thoma, A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khaterman. Journal of Human Evolution 13:287-296. 1984
quote:I never mentioned the word black in this thread. You guys are the one's throwing around straw men when everybody knows you are parroting this study which is using terminology like SSA. Yet you are going to sit here and try and act like it is folks on this forum that have anything do do with the contradictions that come from the folks creating those papers. But because you swear that somehow these people and papers are so "superior" in their language you will sit here and try and pretend to nit pick every word I write as if Africans and African scholars are the source of this confusion.
Originally posted by Swenet:
So, Doug, want to address why you're such a flip floppin' shape shifter?
quote:When you read between the lines, Doug's supposedly purely skin pigmentation-based use of 'black' and his aversion to using the term 'SSA' are all part of his sneaky agenda to translate pan-African ideas to genetics. But when you call it out he starts fuming and talks about his usual distractions (e.g. "whu you mean, Swenet, the term 'African' is a dirty word now?" and "I didn't say that Basal Eurasian was mixed, Nature magazine did").
Originally posted by Swenet:
Is it me or did they botch aspects of her nose and upper face?
quote:So, let me get this right. You engaged in a 28 page discussion filled with rants, only to casually abandon everything you said you stood for? Remember what you said. You said that you acknowledge no definition of 'black' other than the one that describes a level of skin pigmentation. Someone has some 'splainin to do.
Originally posted by Doug M:
That is why the reconstruction has a strong "black African look" with a light skin tone.
quote:Stop twisting my words. If you aren't going to stick to what I said stop replying to me. How many people were lived in Egypt over the course of that 1,6000 year period? Lets just say it was 1 million per a generation of 20 years. That means you are talking about 90 individuals from a total population set of 80 million. Or we can go 1 million per generation of 40 years, then it is still 90 out of 40 million. So how does 90 individuals out of 40 or 80 million represent a "representative" sample of anything. I am not saying that it doesn't MEAN anything I am saying that there isn't enough data to extrapolate to an entire population over that amount of time.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Oh... My... god.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:First off nowhere have I said anything about disputing data other than how labels are used to distort what the data represents.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Doug M.
It actually IS representative of a LOT!
very Strong levantine - near Eastern signals coupled with other OOA (Iranian, Anatolian) influence and they show levels of continuity into some modern Egyptians. ...bro, it's what beyoku and I were saying all over again. Don't diss the data, apply it.
----
Second. Why are you guys harping so much on this study? What is it that you expect to find that is so earth shattering? That the AE weren't Africans?
I have been asking this since the beginning of the thread and nobody has answered it.
And lastly since when is SSA a marker of "true" African anything? Why is it relevant when comparing DNA from one part of Africa to DNA from OUTSIDE of Africa?
This is stupid.
-90 samples over a 1,600 year period does mean something, you said it didn't, that's a lie it DOES mean something. Analyze the contemporary Egyptian sample populations typically used by these Scientists. Look at how they may be positioned in relation to the findings of this paper. Consider the scenarios and possible conclusions that can be set up by a study like this.
-Fvck what you personally think about "SSA" as a label for a second at look at how SSA is being used BY THE RESEARCHERS!!! What defines it and how does that define WHAT THE RESEARCHERS CONSIDER EURASIAN on the other hand!!
-Now knowing all of that apply all of the above to what you know or think you know about the demographic history of East Africa and more specifically the Nile Valley. Look at the Neighboring regions... where are the footprints of supposed Native Egyptians >5,000 years ago IN EAST AFRICA... Can it be detected? why or Why not
You are worried about politics and semantics... Dude. Drop it and adopt a position in alignment with what is now known.
quote:I'm pretty sure that most people here know that indigenous Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt, the Siwa Oasis Berbers and the Beja on the Red sea coast are not "Sub-Saharan" Africans (SSA) and have their own genetic markers distinct from SSA. These populations (excluding Siwa) are the founding populations of ancient Egypt. Don't these people have the closest genetic affinity to the ancient Egyptians?
Originally posted by beyoku:
The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
I could go on but I wil stop here.
quote:Predynastic genetic evidence will affirm that the ancient Egyptians were Northeast Africans like "Nubians" in Upper Egypt, the Beja of the Red sea coast and other Northeast Africans in the Horn. I can't wait until they take samples from Upper Egypt -- the region that created ancient Egypt. Upper Egypt [not the Delta] holds the keys to the origins of ancient Egypt. There will be no revival of the "Hamitic theory", so you can keep on dreaming.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Ancient DNA for early dynastic and pre-dynastic Egyptians will be out in the next few years. If those results are very similar to the New Kingdom of Egypt samples we now have [assuming the New Kingdom Egyptian samples are closest to Levant Bedouin - we don't yet know because the PCA image is blurry], then a modern sort of Hamiticism is what is going to be the new scholarly consensus-
The Hamitic model = agriculture/domesticates were brought into Egypt from the Levant, sometime around 6000 BCE, with a large-scale migration of people (for sake of a better word "Hamites".) At the moment scholars acknowledge most agriculture/domesticates arrived in Egypt from the Levant, but large-scale migration of peoples is rejected for small-scale trade and commercial contact. Ancient DNA though could force scholars to adopt the large-scale migration view; this had already been in literature (Seligman etc.) during the first half of the 20th century.
These New Kingdom of Egypt samples are not only a blow or proving problematic to Afrocentrists, but the Egyptcentrists (like Brace et al, and myself since 2013) who were arguing ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians, i.e. strong genetic continuity.
I am more than prepared to revise my views in light of new genetic data and embrace a modern "Hamiticism", where Neolithic Egypt was settled by a large number of migrants from the Levant - who probably also brought with them Afroasiatic language(s). The Afrocentrists on this forum however will still be moaning at the DNA when its completely falsified their claims.
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:I already tried that. I first proposed the closest (modern) population to the New Kingdom samples in the PCA was Copts. Although not confirmed, it now seems probable it is Bedouin. So I then proposed they were Sinaitic Bedouin [some Sinaitic Bedouin tribes also have a history of settling in the adjacent Nile Delta]. Someone else though pointed out the Bedouin sample is more likely to be from Syria, or Israel.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Considering how all the data was building up towards a predominantly indigenous Northeast African (if not necessarily "SSA") origin for the AE, I for one am not ready to throw that evidence all away because one relatively young sample of mummies from one cemetery in northern Egypt appears to be of primarily Eurasian heritage. Certain people here were skeptical that the DNA Tribes MLI scores could be taken "literally" because such a literal interpretation didn't agree with the skeletal and other data from AE. If there's still a lot of anthropological data out there pointing to AE being indigenous Saharan Africans, you can't simply disregard that because one data point seems aberrant. That'd be behaving no better than the people who disregarded the AE skeletal etc. data in favor of a literal interpretation of DNA Tribes.
There's got to be a way of reconciling these specific results with all the other evidence in favor of an originally (Saharan) African AE. I would rather hear people come up with explanations for this supposed discrepancy rather than acting like that earlier data didn't exist.
If we are actually dealing with (modern) Levant populations being closest to the New Kingdom samples, I'm not sure why folks are so hostile to "Hamiticism" anyway. Levant/east-Mediterranean people are predominantly brownish skinned, black haired, brown eyed. Its not as if the Hamitic model is proposing white people settled in Egypt. We know most Afrocentrists despise white people on this forum, but what they got against brown Levant people?
quote:It's laughable that anyone would actually assert that ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans at any point during its long history. Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and North Sudan are not "Sub-Saharan". I understand that you may get annoyed by a few posters here that absurdly assert that the ancient Egyptians were Bantu or closely related to West Africans, but most posters don't subscribe to this delusion.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Folks are still playing games.
-"Black Egypt" orthodoxy basically argues that the further we go back in time the further AE will be "Sub Saharan". Hense the promotion of DNA tribes so hard.
-It argues for an SSA gradient from Ethiopia, through Sudan and into Egypt.
-It argues for a decreased African signature through time in the Middle East as well defined by the ancient presence of E1b1b lineages.
Nobody. I mean nobody that argues the "black Egypt" orthodoxy would have guessed ancient DNA from Egypt....in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago. This would be similar to guessing all these folks are 1-3% PN2 and actually guessing correct.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
quote:For starters why don't you explain the silly view of this
Originally posted by beyoku:
Zarahan please explain how those stupid collages somehow debunk nearly 100 mummies who have very little Mtdna L. SO little in fact that the little mtdna L found in modern Egyptians greatly exceeds many of these mummies some of which are 3000 years or older?
quote:I'm just curious, do you or do you not consider Nilotes Sub-Saharan? And I notice you speak strictly of Northeast Africans, what about Chadic peoples and other Saharan peoples ties to AE?
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:It's laughable that anyone would actually assert that ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans at any point during its long history. Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and North Sudan are not "Sub-Saharan". I understand that you may get annoyed by a few posters here that absurdly assert that the ancient Egyptians were Bantu or closely related to West Africans, but most posters don't subscribe to this delusion.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Folks are still playing games.
-"Black Egypt" orthodoxy basically argues that the further we go back in time the further AE will be "Sub Saharan". Hense the promotion of DNA tribes so hard.
-It argues for an SSA gradient from Ethiopia, through Sudan and into Egypt.
-It argues for a decreased African signature through time in the Middle East as well defined by the ancient presence of E1b1b lineages.
Nobody. I mean nobody that argues the "black Egypt" orthodoxy would have guessed ancient DNA from Egypt....in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago. This would be similar to guessing all these folks are 1-3% PN2 and actually guessing correct.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
--deleted--
Not trying to incite any more butthurt verbal diarrhea from Doug. Because that is exactly what would happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:I'm just curious, do you or do you not consider Nilotes Sub-Saharan? And I notice you speak strictly of Northeast Africans, what about Chadic peoples and other Saharan peoples ties to AE?
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:It's laughable that anyone would actually assert that ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans at any point during its long history. Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and North Sudan are not "Sub-Saharan". I understand that you may get annoyed by a few posters here that absurdly assert that the ancient Egyptians were Bantu or closely related to West Africans, but most posters don't subscribe to this delusion.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Folks are still playing games.
-"Black Egypt" orthodoxy basically argues that the further we go back in time the further AE will be "Sub Saharan". Hense the promotion of DNA tribes so hard.
-It argues for an SSA gradient from Ethiopia, through Sudan and into Egypt.
-It argues for a decreased African signature through time in the Middle East as well defined by the ancient presence of E1b1b lineages.
Nobody. I mean nobody that argues the "black Egypt" orthodoxy would have guessed ancient DNA from Egypt....in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago. This would be similar to guessing all these folks are 1-3% PN2 and actually guessing correct.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
quote:Same here.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Hey Bro If your going to be leaving the Forum could you PM me your Email or a way to keep in contact.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
--deleted--
Not trying to incite any more butthurt verbal diarrhea from Doug. Because that is exactly what would happen.
quote:I'm not saying beyoku's saying this, but the insistence to prove Egypt had NO Eurasians in early times before anyone can say it was African is essentially Eurocentrics setting a bar their own haven't been able to produce. They demand a "true Negro" civilization, but will not produce a monolothic European/West Asian ancient civilization. Not saying there aren't any closer to that now, but many of them at least looked to southern Europe (or civilizations that were) while they were still developing. It also doesn't help supremacists in that European civilizations were not formed first in areas with more monolithic lineages. So how does that reconcile with suggesting European identity is basis for achievement? Wouldn't the ones with more monolithic ancestry have developed first? Why did they use the south for theirs? Greeks and Romans show mixture from the East, from Europeans and Africans. Of course many Eurocentrics will try to reconcile this by incorporating stupid lingo like "Caucasoid" or "white" to insist they were all one group all along. But even America with it's dependence on Africans and Native Americans has been classified a white civilization. white settlers learning from Native Americans how to survive of the land so that they don't die doesn't mean America wasn't a white civilization. Incorporating Native American ideas into legal custom didn't mean America wasn't a white civilization. But let Egyptians adapt Near Eastern patterns in stuff like agriculture and it's still such a riveting question of who they were, when linguistics doesn't support widespread diffusion. If the conquered North had Eurasian ancestry Egypt wasn't black. But an America that conquered lands from Native Americans is still white.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:For starters why don't you explain the silly view of this
Originally posted by beyoku:
Zarahan please explain how those stupid collages somehow debunk nearly 100 mummies who have very little Mtdna L. SO little in fact that the little mtdna L found in modern Egyptians greatly exceeds many of these mummies some of which are 3000 years or older?
alleged mystical, monolithic "collective ES narrative"
regarding various issues. As for the mummies with little
mtDNA "L", that is nothing surprising in that there has always
been gene flow and interchange with the Levant and Middle East
at some level. even in early times, and in any event there are
plenty of people without mtDNA L that can pass for, and in some
cases are dark skinned "sub-Saharan" Africans. I never subscribed
to any pristine pure theory of nothing but a "Eurasian free"
Egypt nor do many posters here, that you keep claiming, as if
there is some sort of monolithic "collective narrative"
that drives all thought.
quote:Nilotics like the Dinka, Nuer, Masai, Samburu and so on are "Sub-Saharan" Africans. I've read that some Saharan people adjacent to Egypt could have contributed to ancient Egypt but I have yet to see anything specific.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:I'm just curious, do you or do you not consider Nilotes Sub-Saharan? And I notice you speak strictly of Northeast Africans, what about Chadic peoples and other Saharan peoples ties to AE?
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:It's laughable that anyone would actually assert that ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans at any point during its long history. Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and North Sudan are not "Sub-Saharan". I understand that you may get annoyed by a few posters here that absurdly assert that the ancient Egyptians were Bantu or closely related to West Africans, but most posters don't subscribe to this delusion.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Folks are still playing games.
-"Black Egypt" orthodoxy basically argues that the further we go back in time the further AE will be "Sub Saharan". Hense the promotion of DNA tribes so hard.
-It argues for an SSA gradient from Ethiopia, through Sudan and into Egypt.
-It argues for a decreased African signature through time in the Middle East as well defined by the ancient presence of E1b1b lineages.
Nobody. I mean nobody that argues the "black Egypt" orthodoxy would have guessed ancient DNA from Egypt....in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago. This would be similar to guessing all these folks are 1-3% PN2 and actually guessing correct.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
quote:Yes this is pretty much the gist of what I have been guessing about North Africans for years now.
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
I do think there is a huge problem of people who ought to know better not realizing that not all biologically African ancestry is going to look stereotypically SSA. One would think the concept of pre-OOA African ancestry would be intuitive to anyone who thought about the ramifications of OOA theory, but instead there's this tendency to assume that all native African ancestry is SSA-affiliated and any ancestry that isn't has to be full-blown OOA. Even the label "Basal Eurasian" implies that simplistic binary (though to be fair, it was first identified in remains that were geographically Eurasian).
I would have hoped Pagani et al 2015 would have woken people up to the possibility that there is African ancestry that has a closer affinity to OOA than does other African ancestry. But if the reaction I got from Sarkoboros after commenting on his blog is any indication, there is still a lot of inertia and resistance to such a simple concept. And frankly the pan-Africanists we have here---while indisputably contributing to that resistance---aren't necessarily its loudest voice from what I can see.
quote:I did post sources on this a few times already.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Nilotics like the Dinka, Nuer, Masai, Samburu and so on are "Sub-Saharan" Africans.
I've read that some Saharan people adjacent to Egypt could have contributed to ancient Egypt but I have yet to see anything specific.
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3889100/
An interview with Dr. Magda Azab
Human malaria in Egypt also dates back to the Pharaonic times as shown by:
aDNA analysis, which identified Plasmodium falciparum in ancient Egyptian mummy tissue samples, from about 4000 years ago. Paleopathology of soft-tissue biopsies, of 16 mummifies recovered from the necropolis of Abusir el Meleq (Fayum) dating from the 3rd Intermediate Period (1064-656 BC) to the Roman period (30 BC-300 AD), substantiated the endemicity of malaria in this area due to the presence of the lake Quarun and to the particular nature of its irrigation system. The presence of malaria antigens was also confirmed in samples from the Marro's Egyptian collection of predynastic mummies (3200 BC) collected from the archeological sites of Assiut and Gebelen (located in Upper Egypt) and maintained at the anthropological and ethnographic Museum of Turin, Italy. Also ancient P. falciparum DNA was identified in mummified skeletons from Thebes-West dating from the new kingdom to the late period (1500-500 BC) and in 18th Dynasty royal mummies.
quote:This segregation / separation has been played from the start. It is the obsession with the "true negro / real African".
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I'm pretty sure that most people here know that indigenous Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt, the Siwa Oasis Berbers and the Beja on the Red sea coast are not "Sub-Saharan" Africans (SSA) and have their own genetic markers distinct from SSA. These populations (excluding Siwa) are the founding populations of ancient Egypt. Don't these people have the closest genetic affinity to the ancient Egyptians?
Originally posted by beyoku:
The "collective" ES narrative is the ignorance regarding ancient DNA and how it can be applied the findings in Africa.
The collective ES narrative focused on skin color instead of biological affinity and chose to promote skin tone over genetics when making a hypothesis about who is related to who.
The collective ES narrative ignored dark skinned non African populations around the globe and didn't account for a scenario in which dark skinned people of little or no SSA ancestry could exist INSIDE Africa......in close proximity to dark skinned populations with an abundance of SSA ancestry.
I could go on but I wil stop here.
quote:https://www.academia.edu/239671/Swimmers_in_the_Sand._On_the_Neolithic_Origins_of_Ancient_Egyptian_Mythology_and_Symbolism
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Nilotics like the Dinka, Nuer, Masai, Samburu and so on are "Sub-Saharan" Africans. I've read that some Saharan people adjacent to Egypt could have contributed to ancient Egypt but I have yet to see anything specific.
quote:—Matthias Krings, Abd-el Halim Salem et al.
To assess the extent to which the Nile River Valley has been a corridor for human migrations between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa, we analyzed mtDNA variation in 224 individuals from various locations along the river. Sequences of the first hypervariable segment (HV1) of the mtDNA control region and a polymorphic HpaI site at position 3592 allowed us to designate each mtDNA as being of “northern” or “southern” affiliation. Proportions of northern and southern mtDNA differed significantly between Egypt, Nubia, and the southern Sudan. At slowly evolving sites within HV1, northern-mtDNA diversity was highest in Egypt and lowest in the southern Sudan, and southern-mtDNA diversity was highest in the southern Sudan and lowest in Egypt, indicating that migrations had occurred bidirectionally along the Nile River Valley. Egypt and Nubia have low and similar amounts of divergence for both mtDNA types, which is consistent with historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia. Spatial autocorrelation analysis demonstrates a smooth gradient of decreasing genetic similarity of mtDNA types as geographic distance between sampling localities increases, strongly suggesting gene flow along the Nile, with no evident barriers. We conclude that these migrations probably occurred within the past few hundred to few thousand years and that the migration from north to south was either earlier or lesser in the extent of gene flow than the migration from south to north.
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:How do you know this: "in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago."
Originally posted by beyoku:
Folks are still playing games.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
Is the study out?
quote:I don't know of many poster like that on this site.
Originally posted by beyoku:
ON this site over the past 10 years ES has collectively associated Ancient Egyptians "African" Biologically affinity primarily by its connections to Sub Saharan Africans. NOT contemporary North Africans.
quote:I wonder of which poster you speak? What has been posted was that they are more related to people Sahara-Sahel regions.
Originally posted by beyoku:
In the last 10 years of ES Ancient Egyptian Cranial affinities and how they relate to "Africa" has nearly always been how they relate to Sub Saharan Africans not the Maghreb........only a few folks saw AE as its OWN distinct entity.
quote:I have never seen Zarahan make any of these homogeneous claims, but I could be wrong.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Whoever right now (zarahan) is talking about "we always knew there was going to be Eurasian geneflow " perhaps did not see the chart above because are not talking about "Influence"..........we are looking at an mtdna Profile that seems to be an outside TRANSPLANT.
quote:—Robert Morkot (2005). The Egyptians: An Introduction. pp. 12-13
"The ancient Egyptians were not 'white' in any European sense, nor were they 'Caucasian'… we can say that the earliest population of ancient Egypt included African people from the upper Nile, African people from the regions of the Sahara and modern Libya, and smaller numbers of people who had come from south-western Asia and perhaps the Arabian penisula."
quote:The region they sampled had a logical outcome. So of course that profile is coherent, since it was a South European colony.
Originally posted by beyoku:
we are looking at an mtdna Profile that seems to be an outside TRANSPLANT. I dont know of ANY population in Africa right now that has Mtdna L levels in the ZERO to THREE percent range. This is in the range of Southern Europeans. You cannot reasonably act as if these result were to be expected……act as if they are no big deal if they are ethnic Egyptians
quote:The contemporary North Africans that have been consistently associated with the ancient Egyptians by ES posters have been the "Nubians" of Upper Egypt and North Sudan and the people of the Horn. The Horn is technically part of "Sub-Saharan" Africa. Are the contemporary North Africans in the Maghreb biologically closer to the ancient Egyptians than these populations?
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:How do you know this: "in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago."
Originally posted by beyoku:
Folks are still playing games.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
Is the study out?
Are people really discussing or poo pooing the results without Seeing this image?
Yall are really playing games. ON this site over the past 10 years ES has collectively associated Ancient Egyptians "African" Biologically affinity primarily by its connections to Sub Saharan Africans. NOT contemporary North Africans.
In the last 10 years of ES Ancient Egyptian Cranial affinities and how they relate to "Africa" has nearly always been how they relate to Sub Saharan Africans not the Maghreb........only a few folks saw AE as its OWN distinct entity.
Whoever right now (zarahan) is talking about "we always knew there was going to be Eurasian geneflow " perhaps did not see the chart above because are not talking about "Influence"..........we are looking at an mtdna Profile that seems to be an outside TRANSPLANT. I dont know of ANY population in Africa right now that has Mtdna L levels in the ZERO to THREE percent range. This is in the range of Southern Europeans. You cannot reasonably act as if these result were to be expected......act as if they are no big deal if they are ethnic Egyptians - WHILE AT THE SAME TIME - Questioning if they are actually Ancient Egyptians because there is no African maternal base.
quote:NO THEY DONT! We just got DNA from "Ancient Egyptians" and from the looks of it they will not be close to these folks. They are close To Copts and Bedouin. That is the point of discussing THESE results............Instead of discussing these results ES is collectively basically saying the same thing it said last year. What separates Siwa, Upper Egyptians, Beja, Nubians and other "Black" populations VS Levantine Bedouin and Copts is all the other groups having an affinity to populations in the Horn and other areas below the Sahara. We can see these SSA signatures in Mtdna and Y-Dna and autosomal studies which we ASSUMED would represent an ancient Sub Stratum the further you go back in time. The collective "Black Egypt" narrative does NOT aruge AE was 100% "Berber Like" so folks need to cut it out.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I'm pretty sure that most people here know that indigenous Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt, the Siwa Oasis Berbers and the Beja on the Red sea coast are not "Sub-Saharan" Africans (SSA) and have their own genetic markers distinct from SSA. These populations (excluding Siwa) are the founding populations of ancient Egypt. Don't these people have the closest genetic affinity to the ancient Egyptians?
Originally posted by beyoku:
...................
I could go on but I wil stop here.
quote:—Albert Lalremruata
Abstract
Due to the presence of the lake Quarun and to the particular nature of its irrigation system, it has been speculated that the Fayum, a large depression 80 kilometers south- west of modern Cairo, was exposed to the hazards of malaria in historic times. Similarly, it has been speculated that, in the same area, also human tuberculosis might have been far more widespread in the antiquity than in its recent past. If these hypotheses were confirmed, it would imply that frequent cases of co-infection between the two pathogens might have occurred in ancient populations. To substantiate those speculations, molecular analyses were carried out on sixteen mummified heads recovered from the necropolis of Abusir el Meleq (Fayum) dating from the 3rd Intermediate Period (1064- 656 BC) to the Roman Period (30 BC- 300 AD). Soft tissue biopsies were used for DNA extractions and PCR amplifications using well-suited protocols. A partial 196-bp fragment of Plasmodium falciparum apical membrane antigen 1 gene and a 123-bp fragment of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex insertion sequence IS6110 were amplified and sequenced in six and five of the sixteen specimens, respectively. A 100% concordance rates between our sequences and those of P. falciparum and M. tuberculosis complex ones were obtained. Lastly, concomitant PCR amplification of P. falciparum and M. tuberculosis complex DNA specific fragments was obtained in four mummies, three of which are 14 C dated to the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods. Our data confirm that the hydrography of Fayum was extremely conducive to the spread of malaria. They also support the notion that the agricultural boom and dense crowding occurred in this region, especially under the Ptolemies, highly increased the probability for the manifestation and spread of tuberculosis. Here we extend back-wards to ca. 800 BC new evidence for malaria tropica and human tuberculosis co-occurrence in ancient Lower Egypt.
quote:Actually, when you start looking into it, the outcome is not strange from what we already know.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
*double post*
quote:—Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt By Susan Walker, PP24.
“The ekphora is a Greek rite, and in many respects the portraits reflect an interest in Greek culture. In the Fayum it is likely that the portraits represent members of a group of mercenaries who had fought for Alexander and the early Ptolemies and were granted land after the Fayum had been drained for agricultural use in the early years of ptolemic rule.”
quote:http://www.encaustic.ca/html/history.html
“The Fayum, a flourishing metropolitan community in ancient Egypt, consisted of Greeks, Egyptians, Syrians, Libyans, and others. A significant Greek population had settled in Egypt following its conquest by Alexander, eventually adopting the customs of the Egyptians. This included mummifying their dead. A portrait of the deceased, painted either in the prime of life or after death, was placed over the person's mummy as a memorial.”
quote:Irish JD (2006). "Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples.". Am J Phys Anthropol 129
“While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.* “
quote:—Joel D. Irish, Michael A. Schillaci et al
"Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times
quote:Nobody is accepting it. They are wishing it away and acting like its no big deal. They are also making similar arguments they did years previous as if the new data doesn't even exist. Cognitive dissonance.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Why are you trying to make it your strongest point that everyone is running away from the data? Nearly 75% of the people here accept the results...
quote:I think people have been trying to figure out the study and the outcome, since the data was lacking.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Nobody is accepting it. They are wishing it away and acting like its no big deal. They are also making similar arguments they did years previous as if the new data doesn't even exist. Cognitive dissonance.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Why are you trying to make it your strongest point that everyone is running away from the data? Nearly 75% of the people here accept the results...
Furthermore we have folks saying they are CERTAIN that the mummies sampled aint even native Egyptians. The data is THAT big of a deal.
quote:Ah, so Bedouins are closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Nubians of Upper Egypt based entirely on samples close to the Levant from the New Kingdom to the Roman period? Interesting. I wonder what samples sourced entirely from Upper Egypt close to North Sudan would say on this matter. I do not assert that the ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans. I have consistently asserted that the ancient Egyptians were closer to Northeast African populations starting from Upper Egypt down to the Horn.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:NO THEY DONT! We just got DNA from "Ancient Egyptians" and from the looks of it they will not be close to these folks. They are close To Copts and Bedouin. That is the point of discussing THESE results............Instead of discussing these results ES is collectively basically saying the same thing it said last year. What separates Siwa, Upper Egyptians, Beja, Nubians and other "Black" populations VS Levantine Bedouin and Copts is all the other groups having an affinity to populations in the Horn and other areas below the Sahara. We can see these SSA signatures in Mtdna and Y-Dna and autosomal studies which we ASSUMED would represent an ancient Sub Stratum the further you go back in time. The collective "Black Egypt" narrative does NOT aruge AE was 100% "Berber Like" so folks need to cut it out.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I'm pretty sure that most people here know that indigenous Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt, the Siwa Oasis Berbers and the Beja on the Red sea coast are not "Sub-Saharan" Africans (SSA) and have their own genetic markers distinct from SSA. These populations (excluding Siwa) are the founding populations of ancient Egypt. Don't these people have the closest genetic affinity to the ancient Egyptians?
Originally posted by beyoku:
...................
I could go on but I wil stop here.
Modern Egyptian mtdna is a somewhere around 30% See also here IN those other groups its similar or a bit higher. In the ancient Samples its so low some are making inferences that the samples are not of Native Africans at all.
quote:The next debate is going to be, who were the original Bedouins?
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Ah, so Bedouins are closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Nubians of Upper Egypt based entirely on samples close to the Levant from the New Kingdom to the Roman period? Interesting. I wonder what samples sourced entirely from Upper Egypt close to North Sudan would say on this matter. I do not assert that the ancient Egyptians were "Sub-Saharan" Africans. I have consistently asserted that the ancient Egyptians were closer to Northeast African populations starting from Upper Egypt down to the Horn.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:NO THEY DONT! We just got DNA from "Ancient Egyptians" and from the looks of it they will not be close to these folks. They are close To Copts and Bedouin. That is the point of discussing THESE results............Instead of discussing these results ES is collectively basically saying the same thing it said last year. What separates Siwa, Upper Egyptians, Beja, Nubians and other "Black" populations VS Levantine Bedouin and Copts is all the other groups having an affinity to populations in the Horn and other areas below the Sahara. We can see these SSA signatures in Mtdna and Y-Dna and autosomal studies which we ASSUMED would represent an ancient Sub Stratum the further you go back in time. The collective "Black Egypt" narrative does NOT aruge AE was 100% "Berber Like" so folks need to cut it out.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I'm pretty sure that most people here know that indigenous Upper Egyptians, "Nubians" in Upper Egypt, the Siwa Oasis Berbers and the Beja on the Red sea coast are not "Sub-Saharan" Africans (SSA) and have their own genetic markers distinct from SSA. These populations (excluding Siwa) are the founding populations of ancient Egypt. Don't these people have the closest genetic affinity to the ancient Egyptians?
Originally posted by beyoku:
...................
I could go on but I wil stop here.
Modern Egyptian mtdna is a somewhere around 30% See also here IN those other groups its similar or a bit higher. In the ancient Samples its so low some are making inferences that the samples are not of Native Africans at all.
Upper Egypt -as we all know- is where the civilization sprang from. Upper Egypt formed the overwhelming demographic majority for the bulk of ancient Egyptian history, and so any assessment that does not source samples [none] from the most important region of ancient Egypt, is not going to rewrite the narrative on the founding population of ancient Egypt.
quote:So who were they ancient Bedouins 13 Kya?
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ there is 13000 year old Levantine data that is pretty similar to Bedouins. Game over.
quote:And YET.. I've seen people like Jari himself state that they always believed Lower Egypt had Eurasian influence going back to PREDYNASTIC times.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Nobody is accepting it. They are wishing it away and acting like its no big deal. They are also making similar arguments they did years previous as if the new data doesn't even exist. Cognitive dissonance.
Furthermore we have folks saying they are CERTAIN that the mummies sampled aint even native Egyptians. The data is THAT big of a deal. [/QB]
quote:I definitely concede that these results are a little surprising, but I do want to wait for results from Upper Egypt before treating relatively late period samples from a region that has been subject to incursions from the Levant from almost the very beginning, as representative. We know that ancient Egyptian rulers struggled mightily with keeping hostile Asiatics out all throughout the dynastic period, and that incursions that started out as a drip became a far more significant stream under the aegis of the Ptolemies through to the Roman period.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
quote:Note that Abusir el Meleq is not the entire of Egypt. In fact it is lower Egypt and a Roman colony, Euronut! lol smh
Originally posted by Cass/:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8Rj6RBV0AAedck.jpg:large
lol. Note the other thread when I said most Sub-Saharan Africans are going to plot more distant to AE than Europeans because of their greater geographical distance. Afronuts protested, but look where Ethiopian Jews plot on the above. The image is blurry to work out most populations, but Ethiopian Jews are visible (grey) as outliers, centre bottom of PCA. There's no close ancient Egyptian genetic ties to East African populations.
quote:—Albert Lalremruata
To substantiate those speculations, molecular analyses were carried out on sixteen mummified heads recovered from the necropolis of Abusir el Meleq (Fayum) dating from the 3rd Intermediate Period (1064- 656 BC) to the Roman Period (30 BC- 300 AD).
Lastly, concomitant PCR amplification of P. falciparum and M. tuberculosis complex DNA specific fragments was obtained in four mummies, three of which are 14 C dated to the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods. Our data confirm that the hydrography of Fayum was extremely conducive to the spread of malaria. They also support the notion that the agricultural boom and dense crowding occurred in this region, especially under the Ptolemies, highly increased the probability for the manifestation and spread of tuberculosis.
quote:--Lazaridis et al.,
Second, we observed that all three Natufian individuals that could be assigned to a specific haplogroup belonged to haplogroup E1b1. This is thought to have an East African origin, and a 4,500-year old individual from the Ethiopian highlands 13 belonged to it.
[...]
"Previously, the West Eurasian population known to be the best proxy for this ancestry was present-day Sardinians, who resemble Neolithic Europeans genetically.
However, our analysis shows that East African ancestry is significantly better modelled by Levantine early farmers than by Anatolian or early European farmers, implying that the spread of this ancestry to East Africa was not from the same group that spread Near Eastern ancestry into Europe (Extended 283 Data Fig. 4; Supplementary Information, section 8)" [p. 9].
quote:Interesting... I would really be shocked if there's widespread symmetry both geographically and temporally - going south & back to predynastic times, but when I read the abstract most of it clicked the first time... and became very clear as I started paying more attention to extant populations as well as so called "recorded history."
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009600;p=5#000227
"Granted I only have a short-abstract to go off of, I feel like we'll see some elucidation on the Coptic cluster so often considered African. the Egyptian sample will cluster closely to their near eastern bank both Prehistoric and extant and possibly become more distinct later in history. They will also have other Eurasian components and a very very low if any SSA affinity."
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
quote:The paper represents the location of Abusir el-Meleq, a Greek-Roman colony. As we know Greeks came before Romans, and during the Roman time so-called sub Saharan African DNA increased in that region as the paper suggests. We also know that sub Saharan African were part of the Roman empire. Pre-Ptolemaic is the Greek period.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
If that the case then TBH AE is a lot less "African" that I thought, hard to admit but if the Southern Egyptians are distant from folks like Nubians and others they live proximity to then we have to rethink AE....like someone else said Ill recreate that crying scene Swenet posted.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
quote:http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ptol/hd_ptol.htm
The Arc of Egyptian and Greek Interaction in the First Millennium
Preludes to Greek presence in Egypt are seen in the land reclamation and settlement of the western Delta beginning in the Third Intermediate Period and the new prominence of that area with the capital of Dynasty 26 at Sais. From the seventh century B.C., Egyptian rulers encouraged a flourishing Mediterranean trade involving Greeks from many islands and city-states: the coastal cities Canopus and Thonis/Heracleion, with large immigrant populations, served as gateways for trade down the westernmost Canopic Nile branch to the Egyptian/Greek trade city Naukratis near Sais and onward to the great city of Memphis. Conflict with imperial powers Assyria and Persia in the Near East dominated the same centuries, and the Egyptians relied on Greek alliances and troops to help fight their expansion. After more than a century of conquest and rule by the Achaemenid Persians, Egypt shook off these overlords and independent Egyptian dynasties 28–30 ruled for sixty years, before being reconquered by the Persians in 343 B.C.
Then, when Alexander the Great of Macedon set out to dismantle the Persian empire, he took Egypt in 332 B.C., initiating the Macedonian dynasty of the Ptolemaic Period. On the death of Alexander’s last heirs, his conquests were divided among his generals: the Ptolemaic dynasty begins in 304 B.C., when one of Alexander’s generals, Ptolemy, became Ptolemy I of Egypt. Thereafter, kingship was handed down through Ptolemy’s descendants until 30 B.C., when Roman takeover followed swiftly on the defeat of Cleopatra VII (89.2.660).
Examining Egyptian art during these 300 years reveals strong continuities in its traditions but also interactions with Greek art, whose forms and styles swept the world with Alexander’s armies. The encounter of the two cultures had many aspects and phases, and is easiest to comprehend by looking first at the new ruling class, its involvements and concerns, and then at religion and the arts in the greater land of Egypt.
quote:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-25962183
Centuries old Beachy Head Lady's face revealed
An exhibition exploring the origins of ancient skeletons in Sussex, including a woman from sub-Saharan Africa buried in Roman times, has opened.
The face of the so-called Beachy Head Lady was recreated using craniofacial reconstruction.
Eastbourne Borough Council's museum service was awarded a grant of £72,000 by the Heritage Lottery Fund for the Eastbourne Ancestors project.
The aim was to identify the gender and age of each skeleton in its collection.
Detailed scientific analysis of more than 300 skeletons of people who lived in the south of England thousands of years ago has undertaken by scientists and archaeologists.
Testing of the bones and teeth has identified the national or regional origins, age, gender, state of health, diet, and in some cases, how they died.
Most of the skeletons are Anglo-Saxon, from about 1,500 years ago, but some are Neolithic and more than 4,000 years old.
The Beachy Head Lady was discovered in the East Sussex beauty spot in 1953, and she is thought to have lived around AD245.
Jo Seaman, heritage officer at Eastbourne Borough Council, said: "This is a fantastic discovery for the south coast.
"We know this lady was around 30 years old, grew up in the vicinity of what is now East Sussex, ate a good diet of fish and vegetables, her bones were without disease and her teeth were in good condition."
The Beachy Head Lady forms part of an exhibition at the Eastbourne Museum which is opens on 1 February at the Pavilion.
quote:If thats ultimately the case Beyoku/Jari then what can we even say? Might as well just let the Euronuts/Arabists/Levantine Hamites(lmfao) have AE. UNTIL then though I'm not ceding anything.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
If that the case then TBH AE is a lot less "African" that I thought, hard to admit but if the Southern Egyptians are distant from folks like Nubians and others they live proximity to then we have to rethink AE....like someone else said Ill recreate that crying scene Swenet posted.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
quote:Historically as well was bio and physical anthropology there has to be a different outcome:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I definitely concede that these results are a little surprising, but I do want to wait for results from Upper Egypt before treating relatively late period samples from a region that has been subject to incursions from the Levant from almost the very beginning, as representative. We know that ancient Egyptian rulers struggled mightily with keeping hostile Asiatics out all throughout the dynastic period, and that incursions that started out as a drip became a far more significant stream under the aegis of the Ptolemies through to the Roman period.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
Even before this period, the ancient Egyptians also naturalised Asiatics and allowed them to serve as soldiers and scribes. Asiatics formed almost two thirds of its armed force in later periods and these people would have settled closer to their point of entrance -> in or around the Delta.
I will gladly update my views when data sourced from Upper Egypt with similar results is presented to us. Upper Egypt is key. It is undoubtedly the more significant region.
quote:http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/lapd/hd_lapd.htm
Egypt in the Late Period (ca. 712–332 B.C.)
Kushite Period, or Dynasty 25 (ca. 712–664 B.C.)
From ca. 728 to 656 B.C., the Nubian kings of Dynasty 25 dominated Egypt. Like the Libyans before them, they governed as Egyptian pharaohs. Their control was strongest in the south. In the north, Tefnakht’s successor, Bakenrenef, ruled for four years (ca. 717–713 B.C.) at Sais until Piankhy’s successor, Shabaqo (ca. 712–698 B.C.), overthrew him and established Nubian control over the entire country. The accession of Shabaqo can be considered the end of the
Third Intermediate Period and the beginning of the Late Period in Egypt.
Nubian rule, which viewed itself as restoring the true traditions of Egypt, benefited Egypt economically and was accompanied by a revival in temple building and the arts that continued throughout the Late Period. At the same time, however, the country faced a growing threat from the Assyrian empire to its east. After forty years of relative security, Nubian control—and Egypt’s peace—were broken by an Assyrian invasion in ca. 671 B.C. The current pharaoh, Taharqo (ca. 690–664 B.C.), retreated south and the Assyrians established a number of local vassals to rule in their stead in the Delta. One of them, Necho I of Sais (ca. 672–664 B.C.), is recognized as the founder of the separate Dynasty 26. For the next eight years, Egypt was the battleground between Nubia and Assyria. A brutal Assyrian invasion in 663 B.C. finally ended Nubian control of the country. The last pharaoh of Dynasty 25, Tanutamani (664–653 B.C.), retreated to Napata. There, in relative isolation, he and his descendants continued to rule Nubia, eventually becoming the Meroitic civilization, which flourished in Nubia until the fourth century A.D.
[…]
quote:Once it's officially published in a journal this
The 86th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (2017)
Programs > 2017 > Podium Session > Podium Abstract
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods
VERENA J. SCHUENEMANN1,2, ALEXANDER PELTZER3,4, WOLFGANG HAAK4, STEPHAN SCHIFFELS4 and JOHANNES KRAUSE1,4.
1Archaeo- and Paleogenetics, Institute for Archaeological Sciences, University of Tuebingen, 2Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Paleoenvironment, University of Tuebingen, 3Integrative Transcriptomics, Center for Bioinformatics, University of Tuebingen, 4Department for Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
April 20, 2017 9:45, Balcony I/J
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
Particularly, in the first millennium BCE, Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population.
However, methodological problems and contamination obstacles have hitherto hampered direct investigations of ancient Egypt’s population history using ancient human DNA.
Here we present mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans from
Middle Egypt
recovered with High-throughput sequencing methods that span around
1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the
Third Intermediate to the Roman Period.
Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Eastern populations than present-day Egyptians, who admixed with Sub-Saharan populations in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and opens the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
quote:I get your point.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
@Ish
^^^
I understand this, what Im saying is...IF it comes out that Upper Egyptians, esp. predynastic Upper Egyptians are distinct from other NE Africans esp. if they are distinct from folks like Sudanese and Beja then I honestly dont know what to say, it would go against every historical and archaeological evidence. Hell You cant say these people(The Lower Egyptians sampled) evolved Eurasian DNA in Africa like Beyoku was suggesting with Basal Eurasian because the results have them distinct even from other Modern NA and the Copts who have some Minor EA ancestry that the samples seem to lack, Beyoku is right its pretty significant and interesting
Now IMO I dont think this will be the case for Upper Egypt from the fact that its so close to Sudan and Sudansese aka SSA people but if it is then...lmao....Sh@@@@t…
quote:--Godde K.
"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."
quote:--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
"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). 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."
quote:Those changes were probably in situ. Notice that plot has only 4 variables, and cranial index is known to change significantly without much, if any, gene flow; Neolithic vs. Bronze Age British:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
[QB] @ Oshun
Plus, a predominance of L lineages in any AE sample would be consistent with what the data was saying before. And (as I mentioned on the ForumBiodiversity thread), we know there is physical anthropological evidence for population change in Egypt during the period covered by the sample's time range.
quote:It will not be much different from this data:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Note that in non-metric studies (Hanihara), and dental (Irish), the "E series" from Giza plot very close to Early Dynastic samples. But all this skeletal data for strong continuity might though have to be re-interpreted if the New Kingdom and Ptolemaic Egyptian ancient DNA have them closest to Levant/Bedouin; I clearer image of the PCA has still not been posted, so I won't jump to conclusions..
quote:—Irish JD (2006). "Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples.". Am J Phys Anthropol 129
“While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations. “
quote:—Joel D. Irish, Michael A. Schillaci et al
"Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times
quote:Bedouins from the Levant:
Originally posted by Cass/:
I would love the blurry closest sample to AE, to be Copts or Sinaitic Bedouin, to reinforce my IBD model, but they are probably Levant Bedouin (from Syria or Israel).
quote:Agh. yea. But when they did a craniometric study on hundreds of Roman British skeletons only a small % closely matched Sub-Saharan African populations (most closely matched European populations: Norse, Berg, Zalavar.) So black people in Roman Britain were like 5% (if that) of the entire population. Is this even news?
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
[QB] Ps @Jari,
[QUOTE]Centuries old Beachy Head Lady's face revealed
quote:My point is that there was interaction between sub Sahara Africans and Roman empire. Greeks and Romans also only made up a small percentage at Abusir.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Agh. yea. But when they did a craniometric study on hundreds of Roman British skeletons only a small % closely matched Sub-Saharan African populations (most closely matched European populations: Norse, Berg, Zalavar.) So black people in Roman Britain were like 5% (if that) of the entire population. Is this even news?
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Ps @Jari,
Centuries old Beachy Head Lady's face revealed
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/72748000/jpg/_72748915_ancestors-7.jpg
quote:http://www.eastbournemuseums.co.uk/ancestors.aspx
Meet the Beachy Head Lady at Eastbourne Ancestors
A rare and unexpected discovery in the UK of a sub-saharan African dating back to Roman times, found at Beachy Head. Analysis shows she grew up here - what's her story?
quote:http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/?period=04®ion=eust#/Key-Events
"• 27 B.C.–14 A.D.The principate of Augustus is established. Rome is transformed into a city of marble. The Roman frontiers are expanded and semiconquered territories reinforced. Augustus reconciles with Parthia (22–19 B.C.), and his campaign against Garamantes in Africa is successful (19 B.C.). Many social and religious reforms are enacted. Gaul and its frontiers are organized (15–13 B.C.). The imperial mint at Lugdunum is founded (15–14 B.C.)."
quote:--David J. Mattingly, Martin J. Sterry & David N. Edwards (2015) The origins and development of Zuwīla, Libyan Sahara: an archaeological and historical overview of an ancient oasis town and caravan centre, Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 50:1, 27-75, DOI: 10.1080/0067270X.2014.980126
"Our work developed from a programme of research focused on an early Saharan civilisation known as the Garamantes, located in southwestern Libya (Mattingly 2006, 2011). We have previously identified two Garamantian sites as having urban characteristics, Old Jarma and Qasṛ ash-Sharrāba, and have speculated on the existence of further Saharan towns (Mattingly and Sterry 2013). In the case of Jarma, we have presented a detailed urban biography of the site (Mattingly et al. 2013: 505–544). The specific aims of this paper are to provide a fuller evaluation of what is known historically about Zuwīla and to present in detail the available archaeological data and a more precise chronology for the site. In its final section we advance a plausible sequence of development of this important Saharan oasis centre based on all the currently available evidence. A gazetteer of archaeological monuments is provided as Appendix 1 and a summary of the material dating evidence as Appendix 2.
The early medieval period has generally been considered pivotal in the extension and intensification of trans-Saharan trade and this has also been linked with the spread of Islam from the Maghrib across the Sahara (Austen 2010: 19–22). On the southern fringes of the Sahara there is firm evidence of trans-Saharan contacts in the earlier first millennium AD at sites such as Kissi in Burkina Faso and Culabel and Siouré in Senegal (MacDonald 2011; Magnavita 2013).
[...]
The Roman sources refer to kings of the Garamantes and to their metropolis at Garama (Old Jarma in the Wādī al-Ajāl, 250 km to the west of Zuwīla), strongly suggesting that Garamantian power was exercised over an extensive area (Figure 2). We have argued that there was in this period a Garamantian state that controlled the various oasis zones of Fazzān (Mattingly 2003: 76–90, 346–351, 2013: 530–534). As we shall see, there is evidence to show that Zuwīla originated as an oasis settlement in this period (contra Lewicki 1988: 287 and Levtzion and Hopkins 2000: 460) and that it had arguably grown to be a centre of above average size by the Late Garamantian period."
quote:We will have to see once the data is released.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:How do you know this: "in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago."
Originally posted by beyoku:
Folks are still playing games.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
Is the study out?
Are people really discussing or poo pooing the results without Seeing this image?
Yall are really playing games. ON this site over the past 10 years ES has collectively associated Ancient Egyptians "African" Biologically affinity primarily by its connections to Sub Saharan Africans. NOT contemporary North Africans.
In the last 10 years of ES Ancient Egyptian Cranial affinities and how they relate to "Africa" has nearly always been how they relate to Sub Saharan Africans not the Maghreb........only a few folks saw AE as its OWN distinct entity.
Whoever right now (zarahan) is talking about "we always knew there was going to be Eurasian geneflow " perhaps did not see the chart above because are not talking about "Influence"..........we are looking at an mtdna Profile that seems to be an outside TRANSPLANT. I dont know of ANY population in Africa right now that has Mtdna L levels in the ZERO to THREE percent range. This is in the range of Southern Europeans. You cannot reasonably act as if these result were to be expected......act as if they are no big deal if they are ethnic Egyptians - WHILE AT THE SAME TIME - Questioning if they are actually Ancient Egyptians because there is no African maternal base.
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:If thats ultimately the case Beyoku/Jari then what can we even say? Might as well just let the Euronuts/Arabists/Levantine Hamites(lmfao) have AE. UNTIL then though I'm not ceding anything.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
If that the case then TBH AE is a lot less "African" that I thought, hard to admit but if the Southern Egyptians are distant from folks like Nubians and others they live proximity to then we have to rethink AE....like someone else said Ill recreate that crying scene Swenet posted.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
Does it make sense that if the Northern mtdna was lacking in L the SOuthern Mtdna would ALSO have less L than then todays folks?
quote:I think that was more intended for Swenet. I agree 100 about Ebonics except for one thing. White people in the south developed aspects of Ebonics too. So even if the anthropologist arent whistling dixie and Badarian looked more ethiopioid (whatever that means) than congoloid (ditto) it does not eclipse linguistic analysis or whichever negro Egyptian model.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Anyone that tells you that linguistics can not tell a person's heritage is a liar. Anthropology and linguistics can provide keen insight into Afro-American origins. Even though we speak American English our language, Ebonics betrays our African heritage.
DNA can tells us much about family relations and the baby's daddy and mama, but using it to determine populations is problematic, because African people carry, just about every gene carried by Native Americans and Eurasians. The only differences between these genes may include some mutations, but the clades, are the same but given different names, e.g., R1 among Europeans is called V88 among Africans , and haplogroup M1 among Africans is called D4 among East Asians.
The research indicates that many Afro- Americans speak Ebonics. Ebonic speakers use an African morphology and syntax analogous to that found among Niger-Congo speaking people in West Africa, and an English vocabulary.
As a result these Afro-Americans have a different orthography, phonetic system and deep grammatical structure from Standard American English (SAE). This causes manifold Ebonic speakers to have difficulty grasping the correct SAE phonemes represented by its symbols and reading in general. This failure to match Ebonics and SAE interfers with the development of reading fluency among some speakers of SAE.
The psychological literature makes it clear that our ability to use language will determine our success in school. It is therefore language that allows us to determine strategies for problem solving, word meanings, factual knowledge and procedures for doing things.
There is an innate mechanism for learning language. Language in humans is an instinct that results from interaction between a
child and his environment, culture and ethnic origin. This process provides the child with the necessary phonemic elements to create words to name objects.
During the slave trade African slaves were brought to America from West Africa. In this area people speak the Niger-Congo languages.
During much of the slavery period African slaves were usually isolated from white Americans. But it is believed that the English spoken in the south and west counties of Britain may have been the model of English acquired by the slaves in Virginia.
Years of social separation of African Americans and whites, first during slavery, and later due to segregation led to a continuity of Niger-Congo linguistic features among many African Americans. Traditionally Ebonics is seen as a form of SAE with a transformed phonology or surface structure pursuant to the transformational theory of linguistics developed by Chomsky.
This view of Ebonics is false. Ebonic speakers use an African 1) morphology and syntax, and 2) a vocabulary that is English.
Ebonics has evidence of Niger-Congo influence in grammatical features, vocabulary survivals, consonant clustering avoidance and absent phonics. In Ebonics the word dig, is used to mean understand. This corresponds to the Wolof word "dega" 'to understand'. For example, lets compare sentences:
SAE: Do you understand English?
Ebonics: D'ya dig black talk?
Wolof: Dega nga olof?
In African languages, to acknowledge that everything is all right you would say "waw" along with the emphatic particle "kay", this would be pronounced "Wow Kay". This corresponds to the American use of the phrase "OK", to signify "all right, certainly".
Because of dialect differences Ebonics has many features unique to Afro-Americans, that point to their African origins.
Given the reality of English dialects you can now recognize that Ebonics is just another dialect among many. The major difference is that Ebonics is based on a Niger-Congo superstratum, and use an English vocabulary to provide mutual intelligibility.
This clearly indicates that Ebonics and SAE are mutually intelligible, but like German and Norwegian (which belong to the same family of languages as English) they are mutually distinct because of our African origin.
quote:Do you have a schematic of these measurements? Is it consistent over time? Is it competent? When does Mectoid begin and congoloid end, can someone be both negroid and Mediterranean?
Originally posted by beyoku:
Not quite. If the falling tree is defined on whether it is still standing then its pretty clear what happened.
It really doesn't matter who is defining it if it is NOT an abstract and based on some clear MEASUREMENTS. [/QB]
quote:I agree except for the any region part. I surmised that there were more foreign hoods even in the Predynatic period and that foreign was not always new inner African immigrants.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Folks are still playing games.
-"Black Egypt" orthodoxy basically argues that the further we go back in time the further AE will be "Sub Saharan". Hense the promotion of DNA tribes so hard.
-It argues for an SSA gradient from Ethiopia, through Sudan and into Egypt.
-It argues for a decreased African signature through time in the Middle East as well defined by the ancient presence of E1b1b lineages.
Nobody. I mean nobody that argues the "black Egypt" orthodoxy would have guessed ancient DNA from Egypt....in any region would have 1-3% mtdna L from 3000 years ago. This would be similar to guessing all these folks are 1-3% PN2 and actually guessing correct.
Stop playing. From black Egypt orthodoxy data is pretty revolutionary. Revolutionary enough for folks to assume they are not even native at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
I do think there is a huge problem of people who ought to know better not realizing that not all biologically African ancestry is going to look stereotypically SSA. One would think the concept of pre-OOA African ancestry would be intuitive to anyone who thought about the ramifications of OOA theory, but instead there's this tendency to assume that all native African ancestry is SSA-affiliated and any ancestry that isn't has to be full-blown OOA. Even the label "Basal Eurasian" implies that simplistic binary (though to be fair, it was first identified in remains that were geographically Eurasian).
I would have hoped Pagani et al 2015 would have woken people up to the possibility that there is African ancestry that has a closer affinity to OOA than does other African ancestry. But if the reaction I got from Sarkoboros after commenting on his blog is any indication, there is still a lot of inertia and resistance to such a simple concept. And frankly the pan-Africanists we have here---while indisputably contributing to that resistance---aren't necessarily its loudest voice from what I can see.
quote:In other words, some folk here make the mistake of stereotyping indigenous Africans into a genetic monolith or type in this case 'Sub-Saharan' which is exactly what Keita has been warning people against for over a decade now. From the data I've been recieving from this forum for years, I too have come to the conclusion that a good amount of genetic diversity in Africa as a whole much less 'Sub-Sahara' has been lost since the Holocene through founder effect of major population expansions so it should come as no surprise that that modern day people from the 'Great Lakes' region show little autosomal affinity with ancient Egyptians despite whatever paternal clades they may share. Also, I am unsurprised that North Africans in general share some distinction from modern sub-Saharans genetically or that there was major genetic input or influence in Southwest Asians from North Africans.
Originally posted by Swenet:
source
Bedouin A (Kuwait 2, presumably) and Bedouin B (Kuwait 3). The large Yoruba-like component in Kuwait 3 doesn't help it score much better than Mediterranean European samples in terms of affinity to Natufians. Kuwait 2, on the other hand, with a lower SSA to North African ratio, scores among the best as far as the available samples. Although you can tell by the high Fst scores that there is a lot of room for improvement (a score of 0,073 is not at all close and implies distance). **BTW, the bright green component here roughly corresponds to North African. Look how much North African there is in the Middle East today.** So you can see why I'm not fazed by the finding of so called 'Near Eastern' in ancient Egyptian samples.
quote:The fact that The Lioness was fighting over this Bedouin image actually being a Nubian slave is much telling. Click the link:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Like I said, I won't be holding my breath soon unless we get data from mummies of the older periods of Egyptian history especially from the formative periods and particularly those of Upper Egypt.
quote:http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141204/ncomms6692/full/ncomms6692.html
Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history
The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.
[...]
Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
quote:If PN2 has low margins it would be weird, since physical anthropology claimed different. But indeed it's a good question, are they deemed to be foreign when it is low? I say no, since we have people in Africa who carry A and or B and no E.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Anyone hypothesize the Y-DNA will be equally low in PN2? If it is does that mean they are foreign?
quote:--Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology) (1999, 2005, 2015)
There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas
[...]
quote:--Michael Brass
“Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general.”
quote:However, methodological problems and contamination obstacles have hitherto hampered direct investigations of ancient Egypt’s population history using ancient human DNA.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
No idea when the data'll be published
and available beyond screenshots of
a slide presentation by an attendee,
but here is the abstract for the
next conference presentation.
,quote:Once it's officially published in a journal this
The 86th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (2017)
Programs > 2017 > Podium Session > Podium Abstract
Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods
VERENA J. SCHUENEMANN1,2, ALEXANDER PELTZER3,4, WOLFGANG HAAK4, STEPHAN SCHIFFELS4 and JOHANNES KRAUSE1,4.
1Archaeo- and Paleogenetics, Institute for Archaeological Sciences, University of Tuebingen, 2Senckenberg Center for Human Evolution and Paleoenvironment, University of Tuebingen, 3Integrative Transcriptomics, Center for Bioinformatics, University of Tuebingen, 4Department for Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
April 20, 2017 9:45, Balcony I/J
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
Particularly, in the first millennium BCE, Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population.
However, methodological problems and contamination obstacles have hitherto hampered direct investigations of ancient Egypt’s population history using ancient human DNA.
Here we present mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans from
Middle Egypt
recovered with High-throughput sequencing methods that span around
1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the
Third Intermediate to the Roman Period.
Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Eastern populations than present-day Egyptians, who admixed with Sub-Saharan populations in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and opens the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.
data may help pin point origins of the folk
that africentric Chancellor Williams, and others,
long ago told us increasingly came to be the
new breed majority population of Egypt before
the Christian era.
The nationalized non-founder Egyptians from
Levantine and Arabian peninsula parentage are
pretty much known from history and are even
shown in the art as Egyptians.
I'd think most of them originate from
immigrants looking for a better life
in the then 1st World economy of
Egypt. Sure many came in a burst
during invasion or conquest but I
think most were from a continuous
trickle going back to pre-dynasty days.
AE records show them everywhere in
the social structure from slave to vizier.
Schuenemann's data may go beyond
the AE art and written docs to help ID
island and north Mediterranean input
and even Caucasus/Black Sea input.
quote:No the y DNA will not be equally as low in P-n2, and unless we are concluding that Ancient Egypt is simply a transplant of the levant, then yes they're foreign.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Anyone hypothesize the Y-DNA will be equally low in PN2? If it is does that mean they are foreign?
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
Anyone hypothesize the Y-DNA will be equally low in PN2? If it is does that mean they are foreign?
quote:Maybe beyoku was trying to see how ES would react if people told them AE had mostly L lineages. I figured if Beyoku believed the data was true, even without the computer, that data would at least offer confidence to the presence a bunch of L lineages (in Egypt's past). The irony of this, is that some still had faith in these lineages representing AE (because of their belief beyoku was being honest). But the person that posted it is now telling them to consider this as a broken collective ES narrative.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Beyoku, what happened to this study?
OK A-M13 L3f
Ok A-M13 L0a1
OK B-M150 L3d
OK E-M2 L3e5
OK E-M2 L2a1
OK E-M123 L5a1
OK E-M35 R0a
OK E-M41 L2a1
OK E-M41 L1b1a
OK E-M75 M1
OK E-M78 L4b
OK J-M267 L3i
OK R-M173 L2
OK T-M184 L0a
MK A-M13 L3x
MK E-M75 L2a1
MK E-M78 L3e5
MK E-M78 M1a
MK E-M96 L4a
MK E-V6 L3
MK B-M112 L0b
quote:Why the lack of confidence? Weren't many people probably given some confidence to theorize in that direction because of beyoku's data?
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?
quote:
Originally posted by Son of Ra:
Credit actually goes to beyoku for presenting this to everyone. And also credit to Firewall for actually PMing me this in the first place.
Anyways...This is really interesting and the fight for an African Ancient Egypt is starting to come to a close..
quote:Click on link to see what beyoku states.
OK A-M13 L3f
Ok A-M13 L0a1
OK B-M150 L3d
OK E-M2 L3e5
OK E-M2 L2a1
OK E-M123 L5a1
OK E-M35 R0a
OK E-M41 L2a1
OK E-M41 L1b1a
OK E-M75 M1
OK E-M78 L4b
OK J-M267 L3i
OK R-M173 L2
OK T-M184 L0a
MK A-M13 L3x
MK E-M75 L2a1
MK E-M78 L3e5
MK E-M78 M1a
MK E-M96 L4a
MK E-V6 L3
MK B-M112 L0b
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43154-Egyptian-Old-Kingdom-and-New-Kingdom-Ancient-DNA-results
He makes some really good points. It appears its not the full study and I think beyoku states he is not able to post the full one for some reason. [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Read what I wrote. Yall want to know where the data came from. If you knew it was on a computer, but didnt have access to the computer how COULD you get the data?
Originally posted by xyyman:
did YOU see the data? Or the your hear about it from "someone"?
I am going to leave it at that.
quote:This study only reaffirms my point even more about loss of genetic diversity through time as well as not stereotyping Africans much less 'Sub-Saharans'. Here you have the Khoisan who are a Sub-Saharan group yet their DNA profile is distinct from other more typical Sub-Saharan groups.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history
The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. [i]Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.
[...]
Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141204/ncomms6692/full/ncomms6692.html
quote:Actually I think foreign is the wrong word for people who were there before Narmer. I would rephrase it as atypical.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Anyone hypothesize the Y-DNA will be equally low in PN2? If it is does that mean they are foreign?
quote:That is exactly why I post it.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:This study only reaffirms my point even more about loss of genetic diversity through time as well as not stereotyping Africans much less 'Sub-Saharans'. Here you have the Khoisan who are a Sub-Saharan group yet their DNA profile is distinct from other more typical Sub-Saharan groups.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Khoisan hunter-gatherers have been the largest population throughout most of modern-human demographic history
The Khoisan people from Southern Africa maintained ancient lifestyles as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists up to modern times, though little else is known about their early history. Here we infer early demographic histories of modern humans using whole-genome sequences of five Khoisan individuals and one Bantu speaker. [i]Comparison with a 420 K SNP data set from worldwide individuals demonstrates that two of the Khoisan genomes from the Ju/’hoansi population contain exclusive Khoisan ancestry. Coalescent analysis shows that the Khoisan and their ancestors have been the largest populations since their split with the non-Khoisan population ~100–150 kyr ago. In contrast, the ancestors of the non-Khoisan groups, including Bantu-speakers and non-Africans, experienced population declines after the split and lost more than half of their genetic diversity. Paleoclimate records indicate that the precipitation in southern Africa increased ~80–100 kyr ago while west-central Africa became drier. We hypothesize that these climate differences might be related to the divergent-ancient histories among human populations.
[...]
Yet Khoisan populations have maintained the greatest nuclear-genetic diversity among all human populations3, 4, 5 and the most ancient Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA lineages6, 7, implying relatively larger effective population sizes for ancestral Khoisan populations.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141204/ncomms6692/full/ncomms6692.html
By the way, this study seems to support Ehret and other linguists who hypothesize an overall linguo-genetic split of click-speakers from non click-speaking peoples that took place in Africa well before initial OOA.
quote:--Jibril Hirbo, Sara Tishkoff et al.
Human genetic variation particularly in Africa is still poorly understood. This is despite a consensus on the large African effective population size compared to populations from other continents. Based on sequencing of the mitochondrial Cytochrome C Oxidase subunit II (MT-CO2), and genome wide microsatellite data we observe evidence suggesting the effective size (Ne) of humans to be larger than the current estimates, with a foci of increased genetic diversity in east Africa, and a population size of east Africans being at least 2-6 fold larger than other populations. Both phylogenetic and network analysis indicate that east Africans possess more ancestral lineages in comparison to various continental populations placing them at the root of the human evolutionary tree. Our results also affirm east Africa as the likely spot from which migration towards Asia has taken place. The study reflects the spectacular level of sequence variation within east Africans in comparison to the global sample, and appeals for further studies that may contribute towards filling the existing gaps in the database. The implication of these data to current genomic research, as well as the need to carry out defined studies of human genetic variation that includes more African populations; particularly east Africans is paramount.
quote:Further more: Brenna Henn, in this interview on population genetics and population structure, considering African populations.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
This study only reaffirms my point even more about loss of genetic diversity through time as well as not stereotyping Africans much less 'Sub-Saharans'. Here you have the Khoisan who are a Sub-Saharan group yet their DNA profile is distinct from other more typical Sub-Saharan groups.
By the way, this study seems to support Ehret and other linguists who hypothesize an overall linguo-genetic split of click-speakers from non click-speaking peoples that took place in Africa well before initial OOA.
quote:It was because of political reasons back then, as it is now with this paper.
Originally posted by Oshun:
Son of Ra got it from Beyoku, who said the data was on a computer h/she lacked access to.
quote:Why the lack of confidence? Weren't many people probably given some confidence to theorize in that direction because of beyoku's data?
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ OK but i dont think anyone would have argued those northerners would have been that little in mtdna L. No if the southerners ALSO come up that way THEN what are we going to say?quote:
Originally posted by Son of Ra:
Credit actually goes to beyoku for presenting this to everyone. And also credit to Firewall for actually PMing me this in the first place.
Anyways...This is really interesting and the fight for an African Ancient Egypt is starting to come to a close..
quote:Click on link to see what beyoku states.
OK A-M13 L3f
Ok A-M13 L0a1
OK B-M150 L3d
OK E-M2 L3e5
OK E-M2 L2a1
OK E-M123 L5a1
OK E-M35 R0a
OK E-M41 L2a1
OK E-M41 L1b1a
OK E-M75 M1
OK E-M78 L4b
OK J-M267 L3i
OK R-M173 L2
OK T-M184 L0a
MK A-M13 L3x
MK E-M75 L2a1
MK E-M78 L3e5
MK E-M78 M1a
MK E-M96 L4a
MK E-V6 L3
MK B-M112 L0b
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/43154-Egyptian-Old-Kingdom-and-New-Kingdom-Ancient-DNA-results
He makes some really good points. It appears its not the full study and I think beyoku states he is not able to post the full one for some reason.quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Read what I wrote. Yall want to know where the data came from. If you knew it was on a computer, but didnt have access to the computer how COULD you get the data?
Originally posted by xyyman:
did YOU see the data? Or the your hear about it from "someone"?
I am going to leave it at that.
quote:You have been here on and off for almost 10 years.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Zarahan. Please go ahead and post some of the photoshops you have made that talk about Egyptian cranial "African" affinity. I will wait.
quote:okay maybe I'm not properly following what you're saying, but if I've got you right you're sayin that ancient Near Easterners had African lineages. What were those lineages that we should be seeing on there?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Tic! Toc!
You people need to read and understand the words "ancient"Near East ie Natufians. Not "modern" Near East.
Also. ancient Romans , Greeks are African Natufians. I always Said that their is no genetic evidence of Greek and Romans invading Africa unless they are one and the same.
20% 'increase' in SSA not that there was 'no' SSA. So modern Egyptians are heavily SSA. Which "modern Egyptians" since they are also classifed as the most admixed of "North Africans".
''+'' 20% means an increase of 20% not that there wasn't SSA. lol. Didn't I say so. It is a play on words. Like "there wasn't MORE SSA in basal Eurasian".
Some of you vets still haven't caught on the "word games". Modern Near Easterns will align with AEians because they are not Africans but Turks that is why many researchers like Henn don't use them in studies. They use Bedouins whi are essentially Africans closely related to Natufians.
So again we have to wait un the full paper
quote:OK. Thanks to you we maybe got a heads up, no
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Note that Abusir el Meleq is not the entire of Egypt. In fact it is lower Egypt and a Roman colony, Euronut! lol smh
quote:.
To substantiate those speculations, molecular analyses were carried out on sixteen mummified heads recovered from the necropolis of Abusir el Meleq (Fayum) dating from the 3rd Intermediate Period (1064- 656 BC) to the Roman Period (30 BC- 300 AD).
—Albert Lalremruata
Molecular Identification of Falciparum Malaria and Human Tuberculosis Co-Infections in Mummies from the Fayum Depression (Lower Egypt)
quote:This is what the actual "debate" has been about. What is Eurasian. What do they call Eurasian? Many of these lineages have or may have arisen at East Africa, but are called Eurasian for convenience because they show continuation outside of Africa. However the root levels are in Africa.
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:okay maybe I'm not properly following what you're saying, but if I've got you right you're sayin that ancient Near Easterners had African lineages. What were those lineages that we should be seeing on there?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Tic! Toc!
You people need to read and understand the words "ancient"Near East ie Natufians. Not "modern" Near East.
Also. ancient Romans , Greeks are African Natufians. I always Said that their is no genetic evidence of Greek and Romans invading Africa unless they are one and the same.
20% 'increase' in SSA not that there was 'no' SSA. So modern Egyptians are heavily SSA. Which "modern Egyptians" since they are also classifed as the most admixed of "North Africans".
''+'' 20% means an increase of 20% not that there wasn't SSA. lol. Didn't I say so. It is a play on words. Like "there wasn't MORE SSA in basal Eurasian".
Some of you vets still haven't caught on the "word games". Modern Near Easterns will align with AEians because they are not Africans but Turks that is why many researchers like Henn don't use them in studies. They use Bedouins whi are essentially Africans closely related to Natufians.
So again we have to wait un the full paper
Does ones ascribed haplogroup provide insight to their admixture levels?
quote:Why deny the obvious? North Africans have a lower frequency of "Negroid" traits; their morphology is intermediate between "Negroid" and "Caucasoid" with the latter predominate in the northernmost North Africa populations, while those in the south, are visibly more towards "Negroid". Physical anthropologists have always recognised this from Blumenbach, to Seligman, to Angel.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] Speaking of reconstructions, why is it whenever a medieval or ancient African's skeletal remains are discovered in Europe, and especially if it exhibits typical "negroid" features the individual is automatically labeled "sub-Saharan". How do they know the individual in question is not "North African" instead if one were to ascribe to the divisive if not specific descriptions of North African or Sub-Saharan. This especially should be the case as obviously North Africa is closer in proximity to Europe than Sub-Sahara.
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Blumenbach, to Seligman, to Angel.
quote:Logically, since Romans took Germanic slaves to Briton and Vikings later sold Norse slaves to Briton.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Roman British crania show the strongest ties to the Norse.
quote:No, its the fact Norse is the closest geographical population sample to Roman British; the FORDISC world database has limited samples. We would expect (based on isolation-by-distance) that populations score nearest in craniometric means to geographical neighbouring populations. Williams et al. 2005 tested this for Nubians and classified only 10/42 (23.8%) with the nearest geographical neighbour in the database (Egyptians). However, Williams et al. only used 11 measurements of the standard 57 (Howells, 1973). When more measurements are used classification accuracy increases, and FORDISC can sometimes be more than 90% successful when all 57 measurements are used:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Logically, since Romans took germanic slaves to Briton and Vikings later sold Norse slaves to Briton.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Roman British crania show the strongest ties to the Norse.
It is no mystery nor mystical.
quote:There's no cranial studies showing ancient Egyptians are closely related to Sub-Saharan Africans. Nubians/north Sudanese aren't SSA's (look at a map), so you can't include them.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:You have been here on and off for almost 10 years.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Zarahan. Please go ahead and post some of the photoshops you have made that talk about Egyptian cranial "African" affinity. I will wait.
Look them up yourself and then tell me why there are
no affinities to sub-Saharan Africans. I'll wait..
Also explain this mystical ES "collective consciousness"
you keep insisting on. I'll wait for that too..
quote:Do you agree there is population structure inside Africa? If so what's the problem with trying to divide/label/categorize it for analysis? Some Afrocentrists like Zaharan and Oshun are hostile to this because they want to treat Africans as a monolithic group for their pan-African politics. If anyone points out the biological differences between say Saharan [North African] and Sub-Saharan Africans, or on a more local regional level, these Afroloons take offence and scream "racism".
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
The problem is that whites have been passing this eurocentric doctrine as the ultimate truth for centuries. And you'll except us the follow this doctrine blindly?
quote:That's funny as per this map of Sub-Saharan Africa and what you spat out
Originally posted by Cass/:
The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up. Even the intellectual blacks posters on this forum stay away from the "Egypt = SSA" theory. The people still trying to connect Egypt to SSA's are pan-Africanists - a political ideology, not science. Again, the intellectual black posters here also realise this.
quote:In the same region. When there was desertification - eastern Saharan populations (Egyptians, north Sudanese) concentrated along the Nile valley, but when the Sahara became more green, inhabitants concentrated in the open spaces (the former desert), away from the Nile valley.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
^Where were the 'to be' northern Sudanese and ancient Egyptians during the dry phase over 9000 years ago on that map, cass. Why is the Nile considered a corridor Cass?
Anything to desperately try to bring Sub-Saharan Sfrican populations into it...
quote:Ok so we're ignoring Egyptians clustering with not only Northern Sudanese, but also Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians. We're also going to ignore their ties to Nilotic peoples who range all throughout the Nile and parts of Sub-Saharan East Africa. We're ALSO going to ignore the connectons to Chadic peoples who are also partly below the current Saharan line. Cool.
Originally posted by Cass/:
North Sudan is not Sub-Saharan Africa though-
Nubians/north Sudanese show close ties to ancient Egyptians, but south Sudanese populations do not. You're moving too far away with geography by that point.
quote:"No, its the fact Norse is the closest geographical population sample to Roman British; the FORDISC world database has limited samples. "
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:No, its the fact Norse is the closest geographical population sample to Roman British; the FORDISC world database has limited samples. We would expect (based on isolation-by-distance) that populations score nearest in craniometric means to geographical neighbouring populations. Williams et al. 2005 tested this for Nubians and classified only 10/42 (23.8%) with the nearest geographical neighbour in the database (Egyptians). However, Williams et al. only used 11 measurements of the standard 57 (Howells, 1973). When more measurements are used classification accuracy increases, and FORDISC can sometimes be more than 90% successful when all 57 measurements are used:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Logically, since Romans took germanic slaves to Briton and Vikings later sold Norse slaves to Briton.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Roman British crania show the strongest ties to the Norse.
It is no mystery nor mystical.
"It is clear that the number of variables selected strongly affected the discriminatory capacity of the analysis. There was more than a 30% difference between the classifications based
on 57 variables and the ones based on 11. In the first case the mean correct classifications were always higher than 90%." (Hubbe & Neves, 2007)
Someone should have done another study on the Nubian crania using more measurements.
Do you relay want me to cite sources? quote:Of which sub Sahara Africans does this speak?
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:There's no cranial studies showing ancient Egyptians are closely related to Sub-Saharan Africans. Nubians/north Sudanese aren't SSA's (look at a map), so you can't include them.
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:You have been here on and off for almost 10 years.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Zarahan. Please go ahead and post some of the photoshops you have made that talk about Egyptian cranial "African" affinity. I will wait.
Look them up yourself and then tell me why there are
no affinities to sub-Saharan Africans. I'll wait..
Also explain this mystical ES "collective consciousness"
you keep insisting on. I'll wait for that too..
Observe distance between North Africans (including ancient Egyptians) to Sub-Saharan Africans-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12772212
Now what?
quote:You tell people to give up on something you believe?
Originally posted by Cass/:
The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up. Even the intellectual blacks posters on this forum stay away from the "Egypt = SSA" theory. The people still trying to connect Egypt to SSA's are pan-Africanists - a political ideology, not science. Again, the intellectual black posters here also realise this.
quote:--Meredith F. Small* et al.
Morphological variation of the skeletal remains of ancient Nubia has been traditionally explained as a product of multiple migrations into the Nile Valley. In contrast, various researchers have noted a continuity in craniofacial variation from Mesolithic through Neolithic times. This apparent continuity could be explained by in situ cultural evolution producing shifts in selective pressures which may act on teeth, the facial complex, and the cranial vault.
A series of 13 Mesolithic skulls from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, are compared to Nubian Neolithic remains by means of extended canonical analysis. Results support recent research which suggests consistent [b]trends of facial reduction and cranial vault expansion from Mesolithic through Neolithic times.
quote:--Michael Brass
“Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general.”
quote:Of course North Sudan is Northeast Africa. And yes they do show ties to people from further down south. Sorry to disappoint you.
Originally posted by Cass/:
North Sudan is not Sub-Saharan Africa though-
Nubians/north Sudanese show close ties to ancient Egyptians, but south Sudanese populations do not. You're moving too far away with geography by that point.
quote:--Hassan HY1, Underhill PA, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Ibrahim ME.
Haplogroup frequencies in 15 Sudanese populations are given in Figure 2 following YCC nomenclature (2002). Haplogroups A-M13 and B-M60 are present at high frequencies in Nilo-Saharan groups except Nubians, with low frequencies in Afro-Asiatic groups although notable frequencies of B-M60 were found in Hausa (15.6%) and Copts (15.2%). Haplogroup E (four different haplo- types) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan. E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations. E-M33 (5.2%) is largely confined to Fulani and Hausa, whereas E-M2 is restricted to Hausa. E-M215 was found to occur more in Nilo-Saharan rather than Afro-Asiatic speaking groups.
This cluster is defined by the predominance of the ancestral haplogroups A-M13 and B-M60, as well as the common and most widely distributed haplogroup (E-M78). The second grouping encompasses populations who are essentially speakers of languages belonging to the Afro-Asiatic family, with the exception of Nubians. The placement of the Oromo, who speak a language of the Afro-Asiatic family, in the first cluster is probably because of their possession of high frequencies of A-M13.
Both A-M13 and B-M60 are haplogroups that are deeply rooted within the human Y-chromosome tree, and they are known to be common among populations in eastern Africa (Underhill et al., 2000; Semino et al., 2002).
quote:Umm, it is you who is constantly talking the sub Sahara, perhaps you have not noticed yet. Btw Afrocentrists are also from above the sub Sahara, contrary your believes.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:In the same region. When there was desertification - eastern Saharan populations (Egyptians, north Sudanese) concentrated along the Nile valley, but when the Sahara became more green, inhabitants concentrated in the open spaces (the former desert), away from the Nile valley.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
^Where were the 'to be' northern Sudanese and ancient Egyptians during the dry phase over 9000 years ago on that map, cass. Why is the Nile considered a corridor Cass?
I'm not sure why Afrocentrists think there was some sort of migration or population replacement.
quote:--John Coleman Darnell and Deborah Darnell
Early Neolithic to Predynastic/A-Group:
"Remains in the immediate eastern foreland of Kurkur, just east of the Sinn el-Kiddab escarpment, are sparse. Numerous and widely distributed hearth mounds18 occur in the area. Pottery, though sparse, further demonstrates the association of early Nile Valley and Western Desert cultures. "
quote:--John Coleman Darnell and Deborah Darnell
”Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
[…]
Within a broad concession bounded essentially by the Girga Road to the north and the region of Aniba to the south, the Theban Desert Road Survey (TDRS) and Yale Toshka Desert Survey (YTDS) explore the caravan routes of the Western Desert, principally those connecting the Thebaïd with Kharga Oasis, the small oases of the Nubian Western Desert, and points beyond.
quote:Perhaps because of this?
Originally posted by Cass/:
I'm not sure why Afrocentrists think there was some sort of migration or population replacement. [Confused] Anything to desperately try to bring Sub-Saharan Sfrican populations into it…
quote:—A Companion to Ancient History Edited by Andrew Erskine (2009)
“The Late Period is often singled out as the time when mass immigration into Egypt altered the character of the country”
quote:—The Oxford Encyclopedia of African Thought, Volume 1 by Molefi K. Asante (2010)
“As a consequence the many invasions of ancient Egypt, the population has changed over the years. There were Hyksos (Heka Khasut) from Asia, who melted into the Delta Region around 1500 B.C.E., and then a series of invasions by the Assyrians, Persians and Greeks. With the arrival of large groups of Arabians in the seventh century C.E., the racial character of Egypt began to change.
The resultant mixtures of Africans, Arabs, Greeks and Persians were to be jointed with Turks, Russians, Albanians, British, and French to create a different population that there had been during the ancient times.
One cannot say that today's Egypt is the same as the Egypt of antiquity anymore than one can say that today's North America is the same as it was 5000 years ago.”
quote:—From A Brief History of Egypt by Jr. Goldschmidt Arthur (2007)
“With the passage of time, each wave of new immigrants has assimilated into the local mix of peoples , making modern Egypt a combination of Libyans, Nubians, Syrians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Circassians, Greeks, Italians, and Armenians, along with the descendants of the people of ancient Egypt.”
quote:—Ethnicity (Riggs, 2012)
“Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt, in 332 BCE, precipitated a period of mass immigration”
quote:—A History of Egypt: From Earliest Times to the Present by Jason Thompson (2009)
The Muslim conquerors did not attempt a mass conversion of Christianity to Islam, if only because that would have reduced the taxes non-Muslims were compelled to pay, but a number of other factors were at work. Arab “men could marry Christian women and their children would become Muslim. Large-scale Arab immigration into Egypt began during the eighth century.”
quote:
Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period.
quote:So basically:
Originally posted by Cass/:
The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up.
quote:I'm not leaving this site permanently, yet. I was talking about wrapping up here, i.e. in this thread.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Hey Bro If your going to be leaving the Forum could you PM me your Email or a way to keep in contact.
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
Perfect example of Swenet's penchant for dissembling and moving goalposts when challenged.
quote:^This is a typical butthurt reaction you can expect when discussing things of this nature on ES, so I just stopped talking about it. Now look at what has happened. This dynastic Abusir sample is, what? It can clearly be partly modeled as EEF. Shared drift highest with EEF and EEF-like groups:
Originally posted by Doug M:
No Swenet, Africans who never left Africa are not European. No matter how you try and say it. If the Basal population came from the Sahara and some of that same population became the base of later European farmers, that does not make the basal population a European Farmer. It is like saying my Grand Daddy is German if I moved to Germany and had kids with a German wife. You make no sense and it shows how your attempts at claiming a "superior" way to communicate population ancestry are blatantly bogus.
quote:Here is a good example of changing goal posts. So according to Swenet, Early European Farmers as a label is somehow a better "model" for Nile Valley populations as opposed to "African" and "Non African". Please explain. Why is it BETTER? How are labels like "African" vs "Non African" less valid? I don't understand this logic. Note NOBODY is claiming that Eurasian is less valid than EEF because EEF includes the word Eurasian. But suddenly African is no longer valid. Now understand I am not saying that there were no Eurasian genes ever in the ancient Nile Valley. What I have been saying is that there African genes always present in the Nile Valley since prehistory and even if some of those African populations branched off into "Eurasia" meaning the Levant, that doesn't mean those original parent populations DISSAPPEARED from the Nile Valley. Lumping groups of various DNA lineages under an umbrella term like EEF only MASKS the fact that EEF included SOME African DNA lineages along with NON African DNA lineages. That has been my point all along. I am saying it here again, yet you are simply trying to play mental gymnastics to try and pretend not to understand that. No matter if some of those Eurasian genes from the Levant made their way into the Nile Valley it does not make the Nile Valley into EEF because the combination of DNA is not the SAME. That is not an accurate way of modelling DNA that is African. Now if you are suggesting that the Nile Valley was replaced purely by Eurasian DNA at some time in ancient history, that is a whole different topic. You may or may not be, but I would rather stick to the terms "African" and "Non African" or "Eurasian" even on this point because it is CLEAR and to the point. EEF is not interchangeable with African.
Originally posted by Swenet:
How soon we forget. The 'black' thread you created is filled to the brim with examples of what Beyoku was talking about. But in the end, it doesn't matter. It's not Beyoku they have to worry about. Just like Henry Louis Gates, the posters in question have sidelined themselves forever in this conversation. ES is an isolated island in the larger blogosphere that no authority fears/respects anymore.
Example: anyone with basic sense could have predicted that one needs some sort of EEF-like component to be able to explain dynastic Egyptian genetics. When I said it, I caught flak. Doug's response:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
Perfect example of Swenet's penchant for dissembling and moving goalposts when challenged.quote:^This is a typical butthurt reaction you can expect when discussing things of this nature on ES, so I just stopped talking about it. Now look at what has happened.
Originally posted by Doug M:
No Swenet, Africans who never left Africa are not European. No matter how you try and say it. If the Basal population came from the Sahara and some of that same population became the base of later European farmers, that does not make the basal population a European Farmer. It is like saying my Grand Daddy is German if I moved to Germany and had kids with a German wife. You make no sense and it shows how your attempts at claiming a "superior" way to communicate population ancestry are blatantly bogus.
This dynastic Abusir sample is, what? It can clearly be partly modeled as EEF. Shared drift highest with EEF and EEf-like groups:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8RkEM-UQAA0Fj_.jpg
quote:Please Swenet stop putting my name in your mouth using straw men to justify your position. "Basal Eurasian" is no better a label than African is in Africa. I don't understand what it is with you trying to claim sanctuary when challenged purely on logical and rational grounds. You keep swearing by this "holy grail" of superior language that you believe clarifies things better than certain other terms. You haven't shown me how "Basal Eurasian" is better than "African" when it comes to labeling DNA that was present in and OUTSIDE Africa during OOA. I have already explained my logic behind why I dislike the term. It has been presented on this very thread. Yet instead of actually specifically talking about that, you simply use straw men not associated with anything I specifically stated to avoid the actual point.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Look how people here are going to explain it. They're going to say that the early dynastic Abusir population was originally a transplant from the Great Lakes and that all EEF-like affinity is the result of late dynastic migration. They're just further sidelining themselves from the conversation and isolating themselves.
quote:I already said what my disagreement with Swenet was. Stop trying to put me in a "camp". That When to use black and not to thread is sill there and anybody can read what I wrote.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
@Swenet
From what I've seen it was mostly Doug M and Xym doing that in the black thread I created. I remember me, Jari, Djehuti, Sudaniya, Nodnard being on board with what you were saying.
But what you brought up since 2013 I was not here and so I guess I didn't understand where you and Beyoku were coming from.
But I agree ES does seem very isolated. VERY isolated.
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009335;p=40#001992
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:No, I don't think that it is black people or "Afrocentrics" engaging in racial fantasies at all. Remember the whole historical context. White people will tell you that these same scientific studies prove Egypt was primarily a mixed population with blacks being the lowest rung of the ladder and the lighter skinned people on top. So the problem is they like to use "weasel words" in their scientific reports to justify this perception. Hence a term like EEF becomes a way for them to de-Africanize the entire population of the Nile Valley even before the dynastic period and likewise much of the Sahara. Thereby they can claim that during the dynastic era the AE were already mixed and hence mostly light skinned mulattoes. This is the reason we should be precise in our language on the subject and not wittingly or unwittingly fall into their traps. Nobody is saying that there was "no mixture" in ancient Egypt, rather than the mixture did occur but it didn't replace the indigenous black populations, even in Lower Egypt until much later. That is absurd.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:People like that don't seem to realise that by insisting on such racial fantasy they make it remarkably easy for their opponents to dismiss everything else of merit they may put forward.
Originally posted by Swenet:
^People who insist that typically dynastic Lower Egyptians were 100% African hurt themselves because it means that modern Egyptians, who tend to overlap strongly with these dynastic Lower Egyptians, already had a strong presence in ancient Egypt since the beginning.
Plus they just look ridiculous because typically dynastic Lower Egyptian samples (again, not all samples from the north, but those that are typically Lower Egyptian) can be discriminated from samples with an Upper Egyptian affinity with 100% accuracy in some analyses. For instance:
quote:—Zakrzewski 2002
The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the Late period group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied. Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from other Nile Valley population clusters, but not always separate from 'Africans' as a whole (Keita 1995).
This difference is explained by Zakrzewski as based on the fact that this sample is late dynastic, but this sample (E-series) doesn't differ much from earlier typically Lower Egyptian samples, so this difference should be interpreted as due to the fact that the E series is dominated by individuals with a typically Lower Egyptian affinity.
I thought Lower Egyptians were biracial like Barack Obama and would only overlap with modern Egyptians based on their common African ancestry.
Keep in mind that if Egypt was open to mixture from Africa then why isn't Greece or the Near East open to mixture from Africa? Note the contradiction here, considering the discussion of "basal Eurasian" and "EEF". In reality as already discussed, EEF and Basal Eurasian really represent African mixture and influence leading to the development of farming in the Near east. But the terminology and wording downplays that and totally erases that influence and semantically makes it a pristine "Eurasian" phenomena. Likewise, this has been known since the analysis of Natufian remains, but they have figured out a way to erase the African element in these populations not only genetically and physically but also behaviorally. The Neolithic rise of farming is directly related to patterns of subsistence that arose in Africa including grinding wild seed and tubers that went on to lead to the farming revolution. But all of this is minimized and omitted by the words and phrases being used here. Similarly this distinctly African pattern of subsistence plays an important role in the development of the distinct African pastoral tradition which is UNLIKE Eurasian patterns of cattle raising which would become the hallmark of African Neolithic farming and sustenance across the Sahara and Nile Valley. These would truly be your populations identified as "EEF" but such a term totally obliterates that fundamental distinct African pattern of subsistence and the influence of said Africans on the development of farming in the first place. In fact I can go even further on how the images of cow jumping in Minoan art could truly be an example of this influence as this is still a tradition found in parts of the Sahara and Nile Valley and the dark skinned Minoans being an example of said ancient African mixture and influence in Europe.
quote:My original post vindicated (note the dark brown shapes in Central Europe, Anatolia and Palestine [all EEF and EEF-like samples] are closer to the Abusir sample):
Originally posted by Swenet:
I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it.
quote:Man. So you are saying that "African" and "Non African" or "African" and "Eurasian" are worse than saying "African" + EEF?
Originally posted by Swenet:
My original post:
quote:My original post vindicated (note the dark brown shapes in Central Europe, Anatolia and Palestine [all EEF and EEF-like samples] are closer to the Abusir sample):
Originally posted by Swenet:
I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it.
Yet this clown still thinks he has a point. There definitely seems to be some sort of mental problem here. SMH.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
My original post:
quote:My original post vindicated (note the dark brown shapes in Central Europe, Anatolia and Palestine [all EEF and EEF-like samples] are closer to the Abusir sample):
Originally posted by Swenet:
I think that the AE can be modeled as EEF + various types of African ancestry added to it.
Yet this clown still thinks he has a point. There definitely seems to be some sort of mental problem here. SMH.
quote:Lol. The dynastic Abusir sample is closest to EEF and EEF-like groups and he's still pulling all sorts of distractions out of his ass. This clown keeps running away from the fact that he has been thoroughly debunked and reduced to a wobbly shape-shifting mess.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Have you lost your mind? Don't you see they mean the same dam thing logically? EEF is a mixture of different DNA anyway. It is not monolithic and includes various amounts of different lineages across different populations. That is why I don't like it.
quote:You just made that up. They don't cluster with Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Ok so we're ignoring Egyptians clustering with not only Northern Sudanese, but also Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians. We're also going to ignore their ties to Nilotic peoples who range all throughout the Nile and parts of Sub-Saharan East Africa. We're ALSO going to ignore the connectons to Chadic peoples who are also partly below the current Saharan line. Cool.
Originally posted by Cass/:
North Sudan is not Sub-Saharan Africa though-
Nubians/north Sudanese show close ties to ancient Egyptians, but south Sudanese populations do not. You're moving too far away with geography by that point.
What a joke.
quote:I haven't been reduced to anything. The results released so far say those mummies sampled were had a lot of EURASIAN DNA. Period. Calling it EEF doesn't change that.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Lol. The dynastic Abusir sample is closest to EEF and EEF-like groups and he's still pulling all sorts of distractions out of his ass. This clown keeps running away from the fact that he has been thoroughly debunked and reduced to a wobbly shape-shifting mess.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Have you lost your mind? Don't you see they mean the same dam thing logically? EEF is a mixture of different DNA anyway. It is not monolithic and includes various amounts of different lineages across different populations. That is why I don't like it.
quote:SSA's are not a monolithic group. As I explained to you countless times, these geographical labels/divides are arbitrary, as long as they provide useful for analysis. SSA is used relative to the Sahara/North Africa; in contrast your pan-African politics stops you from dividing Saharan and SSA's because you want to lump all Africans into a continental group, i.e. dividing them conflicts with your political interests.
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:So basically:
Originally posted by Cass/:
The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up.
What is "closest related" and what is "related enough" is going to be different and subjective. Ancient southern Egypt, regions east of the Nile and northern Sudan were at the time part of "SSA." There was little to no "distance" from southern Egypt and people south of the Sahara because southern Egypt and Northern Sudan hadn't fully become deserts. You will need to come up with some other label to divide Africa because you're applying modern geographical concepts to ancient people and land. There's nothing to "give up." I didn't make that map.
Also SSA in spite of how utterly big it is accepted as a region by the same dumb@ss using the label. It is fine to insist they are a group of related people. Oh pay no mind how much genetic diversity SSA contains or IT'S size. But nono they cannot apply the same concepts north. Even by modern terms you fools keep insisting that the coasts of southern Africa to the Sahel aren't too much distance to classify Africans as one monolithic group. But even modern Egypt to say the Sahel is just TEW FAR!
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:You just made that up. They don't cluster with Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Ok so we're ignoring Egyptians clustering with not only Northern Sudanese, but also Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians. We're also going to ignore their ties to Nilotic peoples who range all throughout the Nile and parts of Sub-Saharan East Africa. We're ALSO going to ignore the connectons to Chadic peoples who are also partly below the current Saharan line. Cool.
Originally posted by Cass/:
North Sudan is not Sub-Saharan Africa though-
Nubians/north Sudanese show close ties to ancient Egyptians, but south Sudanese populations do not. You're moving too far away with geography by that point.
What a joke.
quote:--Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim
E-M78 subclades
The distribution of E-M78 subclades among Sudanese is shown in Table 2. Only two chromosomes fell under the paragroup E-M78*. E-V65 and E-V13 were com- pletely absent in the samples analyzed, whereas the other subclades were relatively common. E-V12* accounts for 19.3% and is widely distributed among Su- danese. E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common sub- clades among Sudanese. It has the highest frequency among populations of western Sudan and Beja. E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.
[...]
The Fulani, who possess the lowest population size in this study, have an interesting genetic structure, effectively consisting of two haplogroups or founding lineages. One of the lineages is R-M173 (53.8%), and its sheer frequency suggests either a recent migration of this group to Africa and/or a restricted gene flow due to linguistic or cultural barriers. The high frequency of sub-clade E-V22, which is believed to be northeast African (Cruciani et al., 2007) and haplogroup R-M173, suggests an amalgamation of two populations/cultures that took place sometime in the past in eastern or central Africa. This is also evident from the frequency of the ‘‘T’’ allele of the lactase persistence gene that is uniquely present in considerable frequencies among the Fulani (Mulcare et al., 2004). Interestingly, Fulani language is classified in the Niger-Congo family of languages, which is more prevalent in West Africa and among Bantu speakers, yet their Y-chromosomes show very little evidence of West African genetic affiliation.
It seems, however, that the effective size of the pastorlists and nomadic pastoralists is generally much smaller than groups of sedentary agriculturalists life style. This is intriguing in the sense that one would expect nomadic tribes to be more able to admix, spread, and receive genes than their sedentary counterparts.
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:SSA's are not a monolithic group. As I explained to you countless times, these geographical labels/divides are arbitrary, as long as they provide useful for analysis. SSA is used relative to the Sahara/North Africa; in contrast your pan-African politics stops you from dividing Saharan and SSA's because you want to lump all Africans into a continental group, i.e. dividing them conflicts with your political interests.
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:So basically:
Originally posted by Cass/:
The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up.
What is "closest related" and what is "related enough" is going to be different and subjective. Ancient southern Egypt, regions east of the Nile and northern Sudan were at the time part of "SSA." There was little to no "distance" from southern Egypt and people south of the Sahara because southern Egypt and Northern Sudan hadn't fully become deserts. You will need to come up with some other label to divide Africa because you're applying modern geographical concepts to ancient people and land. There's nothing to "give up." I didn't make that map.
Also SSA in spite of how utterly big it is accepted as a region by the same dumb@ss using the label. It is fine to insist they are a group of related people. Oh pay no mind how much genetic diversity SSA contains or IT'S size. But nono they cannot apply the same concepts north. Even by modern terms you fools keep insisting that the coasts of southern Africa to the Sahel aren't too much distance to classify Africans as one monolithic group. But even modern Egypt to say the Sahel is just TEW FAR!
quote:--Eyoab I Gebremeskel1,2 and Muntaser E Ibrahim1
Y-chromosome haplogroup tree
The Y-chromosome haplogroup tree has been constructed manually following YCC 2008 nomenclature20 with some modifications.35 The tree (Supplementary Figure S1) contains the E haplogroups of Eritrean populations from this study and those reported in the literature.22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Genotyping results for E-V13, E-V12, E-V22 and E-V32 reported for Eritrean samples and elsewhere23, 27 were retracted to E-M78 haplogroup level. All the analyses in this study were done at the same resolution using the following 17 bi-allelic markers: E-M96, E-M33, E-P2, E-M2, E-M58, E-M191, E-M154, E-M329, E-M215, E-M35, E-M78, E-M81, E-M123, E-M34, E-V6, E-V16/E-M281 and E-M75.
[...]
- Median-joining (MJ) network. Network manipulated to fit the geography of the extant populations. MJ network was constructed using E haplogroup frequencies. Group represented by ITAL contains all the Italian samples pooled. Populations’ descriptions are given in Supplementary Table S1.
- NJ tree based on FST values generated from Arlequin 3.11. Population names are as given in Supplementary Table S1. Population life style: circle – agriculturalists; square – pastoralists; triangle – nomads; inverted triangle – nomadic pastoralists; diamond – agro-pastoralists. The populations are colored according to their language family: red – Afro-asiatic; blue – Nilo-Saharan; green – Niger-Kordofanian; yellow – Khoisan; black – Italic and Basque.
[...]
Interestingly, this ancestral cluster includes populations like Fulani who has previously shown to display Eastern African ancestry, common history with the Hausa who are the furthest Afro-Asiatic speakers to the west in the Sahel, with a large effective size and complex genetic background.23 The Fulani who currently speak a language classified as Niger-Kordofanian may have lost their original tongue to as sociated sedentary group similar to other cattle herders in Africa a common tendency among pastoralists. Clearly cultural trends exemplified by populations, like Hausa or Massalit, the latter who have neither strong tradition in agriculture nor animal husbandry, were established subsequent to the initial differentiation of haplogroup E. For example, the early clusters within the network also include Nilo-Saharan speakers like Kunama of Eritrea and Nilotic of Sudan who are ardent nomadic pastoralists but speak a language of non-Afro-Asiatic background the predominant linguistic family within the macrohaplogroup.
[...]
The Sahel, which extends between the Atlantic coast of Africa and the Red Sea plateau, represents one of the least sampled areas and populations in the domain of human genetics. The position of Eritrea adjacent to the Red Sea coast provides opportunities for insights regarding human migrations within and beyond the African landscape.
[...]
Indeed the trail of such historical movements are detectable by molecular signatures of markers like Y chromosome giving insights into episodes of even more regional nature, for example, the high frequency of E-V32 in Eritrea, in concordance to oral history, supports the historical ties between North East Africa (Egypt) and East Africa including Eritrea, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia.
quote:Observe distance between Somalis [63] and Egyptians [59, 60] / Nubians [61, 62] in cranial non-metric traits-
Originally posted by Cass:
You just made that up. They don't cluster with Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians.
quote:Umm, what specimen was used to collect the "data" above? From where and when? Ogaden Somali?
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Observe distance between Somalis [63] and Egyptians [59, 60] / Nubians [61, 62] in cranial non-metric traits-
Originally posted by Cass:
You just made that up. They don't cluster with Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians.
http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u431/ArchHades/Physical%20anthropology%20charts/CranialNon-metricHanihara2003.png
Now observe the distance between Somalis and Egyptians in dental metric-
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hanihara5bi2.jp
quote:—Tsunehiko Hanihara
North Africa
53. Egypt/Predynasty 17–63 Badari and Naqada, ca. 5,000–4,000 B.P. (Cambridge Univ.)
54. Egypt/12–29th Dynasty 12–176 Lisht, Cairo, Omdurman, and Gizeh (Cambridge Univ., National Museum of
Natural History)
quote:—R. J. Forshaw
Predynastic (pre-unification) adult teeth and found an incidence of caries of 2.3%. Grilletto26 found 6.14% of Predynastic teeth affected by caries, but only 4.65% of Dynastic teeth. This reduction, he suggested, was caused by improving environmental conditions in the Dynastic period, but equally so could have been due to settlement selection or methodology in sampling.
quote:—Kathryn A. Bard (STEPHEN E. THOMPSON Egyptians, physical anthropology of Physical anthropology) (1999, 2005, 2015)
There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.
In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas
[…]
Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data.
In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation.
This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography”
quote:You still have not explained yourself here:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Observe distance between Somalis [63] and Egyptians [59, 60] / Nubians [61, 62] in cranial non-metric traits-
Originally posted by Cass:
You just made that up. They don't cluster with Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians.
http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u431/ArchHades/Physical%20anthropology%20charts/CranialNon-metricHanihara2003.png
Now observe the distance between Somalis and Egyptians in dental metric-
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/hanihara5bi2.jpg
quote:--Meredith F. Small* et al.
Morphological variation of the skeletal remains of ancient Nubia has been traditionally explained as a product of multiple migrations into the Nile Valley. In contrast, various researchers have noted a continuity in craniofacial variation from Mesolithic through Neolithic times. This apparent continuity could be explained by in situ cultural evolution producing shifts in selective pressures which may act on teeth, the facial complex, and the cranial vault.
A series of 13 Mesolithic skulls from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, are compared to Nubian Neolithic remains by means of extended canonical analysis. Results support recent research which suggests consistent trends of facial reduction and cranial vault expansion from Mesolithic through Neolithic times.
quote:—Michael Brass
“Pleistocene through to the Christian periods, reveals a break in population continuity between the Pleistocene (Jebel Sahaba) and the Final Neolithic (Gebel Ramlah, dating to the first half of the fifth millennium BC) samples. The dental traits from Jebel Sahaba align more closely with modern sub-Saharan populations, while Gebel Ramlah and later align closer to Egypt specifically and to the Sahara in general.”
quote:—Michał Kobusiewicz, Jacek Kabaciński, Romuald Schild, Joel D. Irish and Fred Wendorf
During three seasons of research (in 2000, 2001 and 2003) carried out by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition at Gebel Ramlah in the southern part of the Egyptian Western Desert, three separate Final Neolithic cemeteries were discovered and excavated. Skeletal remains of 67 individuals, comprising both primary and secondary interments, were recovered from 32 discrete burial pits. Numerous grave goods were found, including lithics, pottery and ground stone objects, as well as items of personal adornment, pigments, shells and sheets of mica. Imports from distant areas prove far-reaching contacts. Analysis of the finds sheds important light on the burial rituals and social conditions of the Final Neolithic cattle keepers inhabiting Ramlah Playa. This community, dated to the mid-fifth millennium B.C. (calibrated), was composed of a phenotypically diverse population derived from both North and sub-Saharan Africa. There were no indications of social differentiation. The deteriorating climatic conditions probably forced these people to migrate toward the Nile Valley where they undoubtedly contributed to the birth of ancient Egyptian civilization.
quote:http://nelc.yale.edu/faculty-books/gebel-ramlah-final-neolithic-cemeteries-western-desert-egypt
"Gebel Ramlah, Final Neolithic Cemeteries from the Western Desert of Egypt"
quote:http://www.polacynadnilem.uw.edu.pl/sezony/2010-2011/misje-polskie-egipt/156-barget-el-sheb-playa-gebel-ramlah-playa-combined-prehistoric-expedition/
"Berget Playa el Sheb, Gebel Ramlah Playa - Combined Prehistoric Expedition Combined Prehistoric Expedition Research Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology were conducted in the 2011 season in the area of the Western Desert, approx. 150 km west of Abu Simbel. They focused in the area of two paleojezior (playa): Barget el Sheb and Gebel Ramlah Playa Playa.
In the area of El Sheb Barget continued excavations at the settlement early and
środkowoneolitycznej. In the first stage of the research in the area of Gebel Ramlah exploration work was carried out around the NE, E and S edge paleojeziora. During these meetings, N of cemeteries
późnoneolitycznych, located on the surface fragments of human skeletons. In the second part of the season the pit excavation area of 3 x 18 m, is located in the area of occurrence of bone. The result of this work was to capture a fragment of another, very large graveyard, the mid-Neolithic age. The excavation uncovered 18 graves containing the remains of 20 individuals."
quote:Even if what you're saying is true...so what? Why does the variation among black Africans matter to you so? Can you not see that your obsession with certain blacks is unhealthy?
Originally posted by Cass/:
Here's the problem with Jebel Sahaba-
"Jebel Sahaba (JSA) is widely divergent from the 13 samples... The other early sample in this study, pre-Mesolithic al Khiday, is positioned, however, within the cluster of Neolithic (GRM) and later Nubians." (Irish, 2016 "Additional insight into post-Pleistocene Nubian population history".)
So its not the case late Pleistocene and Mesolithic Nubians uniformly had large teeth (macrodonty) like Sub-Saharan Africans; Jebel Sahaba is a special case/anomaly, since the other skulls from late Pleistocene sites in north and central Sudan have small teeth (microdonty).
quote:I don't see the "problem".
Originally posted by Cass/:
Here's the problem with Jebel Sahaba-
"Jebel Sahaba (JSA) is widely divergent from the 13 samples... The other early sample in this study, pre-Mesolithic al Khiday, is positioned, however, within the cluster of Neolithic (GRM) and later Nubians." (Irish, 2016 "Additional insight into post-Pleistocene Nubian population history".)
So its not the case late Pleistocene and Mesolithic Nubians uniformly had large teeth (macrodonty) like Sub-Saharan Africans; Jebel Sahaba is a special case/anomaly, since the other skulls from late Pleistocene sites in north and central Sudan have small teeth (microdonty).
quote:—Donatella Usai
At El Barga cemetery, individuals were buried in a flexed position, mostly (43%) with the head in the NW quadrant. They are quite robust and show affinities with other populations we know of from the Nile valley, such as those of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa (Wendorf 1968; Croevecour 2012).
quote:—R. J. Forshaw
Predynastic (pre-unification) adult teeth and found an incidence of caries of 2.3%. Grilletto26 found 6.14% of Predynastic teeth affected by caries, but only 4.65% of Dynastic teeth. This reduction, he suggested, was caused by improving environmental conditions in the Dynastic period, but equally so could have been due to settlement selection or methodology in sampling.
quote:See, this is the part where it itches.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Here's the problem with Jebel Sahaba-
"Jebel Sahaba (JSA) is widely divergent from the 13 samples... The other early sample in this study, pre-Mesolithic al Khiday, is positioned, however, within the cluster of Neolithic (GRM) and later Nubians." (Irish, 2016 "Additional insight into post-Pleistocene Nubian population history".)
So its not the case late Pleistocene and Mesolithic Nubians uniformly had large teeth (macrodonty) like Sub-Saharan Africans; Jebel Sahaba is a special case/anomaly, since the other skulls from late Pleistocene sites in north and central Sudan have small teeth (microdonty).
quote:--J.D. Irisha, R. Friedman
There is no significant dental difference between the Hierakonpolis C-Group and samples originating in Nubia proper
quote:--Irish JD (2006).
“While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations. “
quote:--Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009
"Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
quote:--Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007).
”As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).
These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a \Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.
This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment."
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Cass
I don't really understand your strange infatuation with African history. Why does the history of Northeast African blacks matter to you? Are you trying to associate your people with Northeast Africans in some terribly illogical and inconceivable perverse racial block? It's always "Eurasians" this and "Eurasians" that in relation to a Northeast African civilization that was essentially a Sudanese transplant. It's sick.
You should stick to the Minoans, Greeks, Etruscans and Romans. That's your European legacy.
quote:Le sigh:
Originally posted by Cass/:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/:
[qb] North Sudan is not Sub-Saharan Africa though-
You just made that up. They don't cluster with Southern Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians.
quote:You say SSA are not monolithic but group them together as though this would be legitimate to do under your distance claims. Yes it's arbritrary, but you've insisted limitations on the arbitrary grouping of Africans because of "distance." Why is SSA "useful for analysis" if populations that should be considered "close enough" need to be of some arbitrary distances you've insisted cannot be farther than Egypt to the Sahel? In what world is the distance from the Sahel to the coasts of Southern Africa shorter than Egypt to the Sahel?
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:SSA's are not a monolithic group. As I explained to you countless times, these geographical labels/divides are arbitrary, as long as they provide useful for analysis. SSA is used relative to the Sahara/North Africa;
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:So basically:
Originally posted by Cass/:
The only populations that are closely related to ancient Egyptians (including modern Egyptians of course) are their geographical neighbours. So that excludes Sub-Saharan Africans. Give it up.
What is "closest related" and what is "related enough" is going to be different and subjective. Ancient southern Egypt, regions east of the Nile and northern Sudan were at the time part of "SSA." There was little to no "distance" from southern Egypt and people south of the Sahara because southern Egypt and Northern Sudan hadn't fully become deserts. You will need to come up with some other label to divide Africa because you're applying modern geographical concepts to ancient people and land. There's nothing to "give up." I didn't make that map.
Also SSA in spite of how utterly big it is accepted as a region by the same dumb@ss using the label. It is fine to insist they are a group of related people. Oh pay no mind how much genetic diversity SSA contains or IT'S size. But nono they cannot apply the same concepts north. Even by modern terms you fools keep insisting that the coasts of southern Africa to the Sahel aren't too much distance to classify Africans as one monolithic group. But even modern Egypt to say the Sahel is just TEW FAR!
quote:THIS, the bomb was dropped and folks are STILL like "business as usual".
Originally posted by Swenet:
I'd just be mocking people for trying to peddle their BS over the years and trying to pretend these aDNA results are "business as usual". To the outside mocking people looks unwarranted but if you weren't here during all the discussions and pretty much the whole forum siding with retards like Amun Ra you wouldn't understand why certain people are mocked. [/QB]
quote:Trust and believe if similar results come out for Predynastic/Old Kingdom Egyptians then as far as I'm concerned the Euronuts can have all of AE. I'm not even close to shaking in my boots yet and I'd dare someone to necro a post I made denying any foreign influence in AE. Find it first.
Why would i stick to that Ideology if it is untenable because of new technology. Some of these fools think Europeans of 30-40 thousand years ago have some genetic affinity to contemporary Sub Saharan Africans. [/QB]
quote:I mean, I understand there's some sort of history to this whole ordeal... But in regards to this particular unreleased study and this particular thread I don't understand the need for the banter to this level. I mean, yeah the "SSA black Egypt" doctrine is In hot water right now, however, if you have like I think you have; an above average knowledge of genetics or evolutionary biology, you'd know that that's not the only thought or theory being placed in a blender right now...
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Egyptsearch. See XYYMAN, in typical ES fashion talks about all other SSA affinities as if somehow they over-ride these 90 mummies. XYYMAN doesnt quite understand how Ramsess may NOT be E-M2 and could also be E-V22. XYYMAN doenst even understand Y-dna STR vs Y-dna SNP and he has been here for 10 years. XYYMAN still thinks Black skin is significant in its genetic context.
@Oshun.. I made it pretty clear that it was NOT "My Data". Like the Piss Dossier on Trump, it was passed to me. I let it loose in the public. By and large I ignore it and only think about it off hand to compare it to other ancient remains. YES what i release DID contribute, it was somewhat different then what ES and I expected though. THE PROBLEM IS.....all other data, published data started to make some AE ideas untenable.
Its like Ivan van sertima being debunked by 200 mummies from America going back 14,000 years. Or by Black Hebrew Isrealites being DEBUNKED by Slave Burials being genetic stand ins for Senegambians and West Central Africans.
Why would i stick to that Ideology if it is untenable because of new technology. Some of these fools think Europeans of 30-40 thousand years ago have some genetic affinity to contemporary Sub Saharan Africans.
quote:I believe I already stated my views position and prediction in regards to this, but again for the people in the back.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Ok. Here is a question. And it's not a trick question. If the African contribution to the Y-Chromosome on these mummies was 0-3% A/B/E would we still argue thy are native?
Reasons for and against?
quote:If their aDNA shows that they are mostly Eurasians and not local Northeast African then I would doubt the mummies would be native.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Ok. Here is a question. And it's not a trick question. If the African contribution to the Y-Chromosome on these mummies was 0-3% A/B/E would we still argue thy are native?
Reasons for and against?
quote:Your question requires data from the early dynastic period in order for it to be answered in full and demands questions of its own. For instance, are these incredibly low levels of African Y-Chromosomes a continuum of predynastic and or early dynastic genetic profiles of Northern Egypt? Or did they make an appearance much later in the third intermediate period? If they precede the formation of the Egyptian State and the attendant identity that it created, then they are Egyptian by virtue of time and their early participation in the development of the Egyptian State, but their genes would concurrently be foreign to Africa in recognition of the fact that their genetic profiles developed outside of Africa.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Ok. Here is a question. And it's not a trick question. If the African contribution to the Y-Chromosome on these mummies was 0-3% A/B/E would we still argue thy are native?
Reasons for and against?
quote:I predict based on geographical distance that Taureg from Libya or Algeria will be closer genetically to Europeans than Sub-Saharan Africans. Those Taureg in the Sahel (southern Niger and Mali), i.e. on the border of Sub-Saharan Africa, will be closer genetically to Sub-Saharan Africans. This does not mean I am saying these populations are European or Sub-Saharan African - North Africa is intermediate between these extremes. But northernmost North African populations tend to be closer to Europeans based on closer geographical proximity, while the more southern populations, learn towards SSA's.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
[QB] Re: Oshun
Right??? It's like this guy is seriously expecting us to believe that this Tuareg from Algeria
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
XYYMAN doesnt quite understand how Ramsess may NOT be E-M2 and could also be E-V22. XYYMAN doenst even understand Y-dna STR vs Y-dna SNP and he has been here for 10 years. XYYMAN still thinks Black skin is significant in its genetic context.
quote:stop making up stuff, thanks
Originally posted by xyyman:
Southern Europeans have as much as 80% African vs non-African per Lazaridis et al. That will never change.
quote:Why would there be an increase Increase of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Egypt?
Originally posted by beyoku:
Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes Suggest an Increase of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods
quote:.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:The next debate is going to be, who were the original Bedouins?
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
.
quote:There are several "Tuareg" ethnic groups stretching from the sub Sahara, into the Sahara into North Africa. Some of the ethnic groups indeed carry high signals of what is conciderd Eurasian, just like Hg E-M78 and others sequences have been considered "Eurasian". Heck, even E1b1b1b-M81 was considered Eurasian, and some still force this notion to be true.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:I predict based on geographical distance that Taureg from Libya or Algeria will be closer genetically to Europeans than Sub-Saharan Africans. Those Taureg in the Sahel (southern Niger and Mali), i.e. on the border of Sub-Saharan Africa, will be closer genetically to Sub-Saharan Africans. This does not mean I am saying these populations are European or Sub-Saharan African - North Africa is intermediate between these extremes. But northernmost North African populations tend to be closer to Europeans based on closer geographical proximity, while the more southern populations, learn towards SSA's.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
[QB] Re: Oshun
Right??? It's like this guy is seriously expecting us to believe that this Tuareg from Algeria
While we have little genetic data on the Taureg (and no modern cranial studies I'm aware of), I believe MtDNA roughly divides the Libyan/Algerian Taureg from Mali/Niger Taureg, so for example observe the Fst distance between [1] (Libyan Taureg) to [53] (Sahel Taureg). The former fall in the North African grouping by the analyst, but the latter with central sub-Saharan Africans.
Ottoni et al. 2009 "First Genetic Insight into Libyan Tuaregs: A Maternal Perspective".
quote:--Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al.
"In particular, the Tuareg have 50% to 80% of their paternal lineages E1b1b1b-M81 [34], [35]. The Tuareg are seminomadic pastoralist groups that are mostly spread between Libya, Algeria, Mali, and Niger. *They speak a Berber language and are believed to be the descendents of the Garamantes people of Fezzan, Libya* (500 BC - 700 CE) [34]."
quote:--Laura R. Botiguéa,1, Brenna M. Henn et al
Whereas inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g., Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers, and South Moroccans. For example, the Andalucians share many IBD segments with the Tunisians (Fig. 3), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.
[...]
Alternative models of gene flow: Migration(s) from the Near East likely have had an effect on genetic diversity between southern and northern Europe (discussed below), but do not appear to explain the gradients of African ancestry in Europe. A model of gene flow from the Near East into both Europe and North Africa, such as a strong demic wave during the Neolithic, could result in shared haplotypes between Europe and North Africa. However, we observe haplotype sharing between Europe and the Near East follows a southeast to southwest gradient, while sharing between Europe and the Maghreb follows the opposite pattern (Fig. 2); this suggests that gene flow from the Near East cannot account for the sharing with North Africa.
quote:It depends on how they describe the findings and by methodology being used. This will make it increase or decrease.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:stop making up stuff, thanks
Originally posted by xyyman:
Southern Europeans have as much as 80% African vs non-African per Lazaridis et al. That will never change.
Southern Europeans have inherited 1%–3% African ancestry
quote:You need to read this paper.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Your question requires data from the early dynastic period in order for it to be answered in full and demands questions of its own. For instance, are these incredibly low levels of African Y-Chromosomes a continuum of predynastic and or early dynastic genetic profiles of Northern Egypt? Or did they make an appearance much later in the third intermediate period? If they precede the formation of the Egyptian State and the attendant identity that it created, then they are Egyptian by virtue of time and their early participation in the development of the Egyptian State, but their genes would concurrently be foreign to Africa in recognition of the fact that their genetic profiles developed outside of Africa.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Ok. Here is a question. And it's not a trick question. If the African contribution to the Y-Chromosome on these mummies was 0-3% A/B/E would we still argue thy are native?
Reasons for and against?
If they arrived on the scene long after the formation of the Egyptian State, then they are not Egyptian in the ethnic sense -- naturalization notwithstanding.
quote:Glade to hear and see from you what has been discovered and reported.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Somebody asked about this a while
but i can't find the post to reply. Don't
laugh too hard at my %age guesses
for pre-Ptolemaic.
Slide by Schuenemann from report in press.
Can't wait? Go to her AAPA presentation on
April 20.
quote:I think it is M5 as well.
Originally posted by beyoku:
I don't think I see any M1. To me that looks like it says M5.
quote:Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity in a Sedentary Population from Egypt
Summary
The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers.
This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations.
Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population.
Gurna near Luxor (see Figure 1). Gurna individuals hold an ancient cultural oral tradition that they con- sider as coming from ancient Egypt, and the inhabitants are sedentary people and quite isolated from recent in- fluence (as opposed to those of a large metropolis).
quote:This is indeed a great question and riddle.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Ok. Here is a question. And it's not a trick question. If the African contribution to the Y-Chromosome on these mummies was 0-3% A/B/E would we still argue thy are native?
Reasons for and against?
quote:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140126134643.htm
Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
quote:This is indeed very questionable.
Originally posted by xyyman:
...
Eva Fernandez found mtDNA L in 8000year old Farmers from the Levant. 50% mtDNA L in ancient Iberians. Anatolia has an ancient presence of mtDNA L. There were SSA admixture going back 4000BC in Armenia. Sources cited.
That is why I say let us wait until the paper are FULLY released. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the AEians NOT to be Africans.
...
quote:http://central.gutenberg.org
HAPLOGROUP L2A1
Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500 - 6000 BCE.[13]
quote:http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/mushabian_culture#cite_note-13
The Mushabian culture (alternately, Mushabi or Mushabaean) is an Archaeological culture suggested to have originated east of the Levantine Rift Valley c. 14,000 BC in the Middle Epipaleolithic period.[1][2] Although the Mushabian industry was once thought to have originated in the Nile Valley it is now known to have originated in the previous lithic industries of the Levant.
[...]
Ricaut et al. (2008)[13] associate the Sub-Saharan influences detected in the Natufian samples with the migration of E1b1b lineages from East Africa to the Levant; and then into Europe.
quote:From what I understand the origin of the Levantine Bedouin lies at the Negev Bedouin.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:The next debate is going to be, who were the original Bedouins?
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
.
I dunno, but, the Israeli Bedouin A sample are the
closest to Stuttgart and would likely be sourced
from Levant_N which could've been in the east
Delta before unification. The Jordanians and
Palestinians are next in line.
Europe_N and Anatolian_N f3 is not significantly
lower than Stuttgart for Beduin A, but their Z score is way lower. Any Z< -4 shows admixture.
This is when African and EEF are references in
f3 tests against coastal N Africa, the Levant,
and Arabian Peninsula modern populations.
The others with Stuttgart related genomes are
Lebanese and Syrian
Moroccan and Libyan Jews
Saudis.
All their Z scores also point to modern Sardinia, usually much lower than Neolithic Stuttgart.
quote:Strangly R0 relates close to dark skinned populations who look like East Africans. As do many of the other Haplo types.
Originally posted by xyyman:
As I said I was not worried.
So….”assuming” what Sage posted there is correct I don’t see what the big bruhahaha is about. Lol.. First these are mtDNA haplogroups, NOT yDNA haplogroups. Also these are not autosomal STR as was released in the Amarnas and Rameses III and man E. In other words the picture does not debunk or contradict previous released data about AEians being SSA. I don’t see what the big deal is. This was another sensationalism type headline.
If you break done mtDNA haplgroup by haplogroup these are all Africans EXCEPT maybe mtDNA J. But mtDNA J is also found in Bantus in West Africa. So I don’t get it.
HV = Yemen/Sudan
H = North African
T2 = Kenya
T1= Kenya
T=Kenya
U (6) = North Africa
R0 = Sudan/Near east
R= Sudan/Near East
X=North Africa
W = North Africa
I = Kenya
N= Ethiopia/Yemen
M1 = throughout Sub Saharan Africa
L4 = Yemen and East Africa
L3 = North And SSA
L2 = Africa
L1= Africa
L0= Africa
I thought the study included TreeMix with ADMIXTURE
These are Great Lakes Africans with Yemenis mixed in!! Who we know are Africanized. So, What is the argument about again?
Now I understand what they mean by “ANCIENT” Near East and not the modern Near East.
Notice there is “no” European mtDNA H1 and H3. These are Africans!!
quote:There are two scenarios.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:If their aDNA shows that they are mostly Eurasians and not local Northeast African then I would doubt the mummies would be native.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Ok. Here is a question. And it's not a trick question. If the African contribution to the Y-Chromosome on these mummies was 0-3% A/B/E would we still argue thy are native?
Reasons for and against?
Also not carrying signature Northeast African paternal clades would also be a hint that they are not native. Just my 2 cents.
On the other hand, just because they are low in African paternal clades doesn't necessarily mean they can't be native.
quote:Let it sink in, let it marinate.
Given the phylogeny, the frequency, and the diversity patterns observed in Africa for L1b, it is likely that this haplogroup arose in West Africa, from where it moved to other African and non-African locations.
There is a subclade of L1b defined by the transition A16289G (Fig. 2) and named here L1b1a2a, which could have originated later in East Africa (represented by three divergent sequences from Ethiopia: GenBank accession numbers EU092952, EU092942, and EU092950).
L1b1a2a could have moved from East Africa to the North downstream the Nile shores toward Egypt (represented by the complete genome EU092775).
The immediate ancestral node, L1b1a2 (Fig. 2), is represented by a single mitogenome observed in Israel (the Bedouin sequence EU092672) (Behar et al. 2008).
[...]
quote:Let me ask you a question. A math test is given by a teacher and she tells students to "show their work". Below are two answers that BOTH come the same conclusion while one of them has incorrect internal calculation that gave them the conclusion. Are both answers correct if they conclude "21".
Originally posted by xyyman:
To the newbies. That is why you need to be PATIENT. I knew they were skewing the data. I just need to wait and see what data they were putting forward to draw such a impossible conclusion that the New Kingdom AEians are not related to Sub-Saharan Africans after there was indisputable proof the Amarnas from the 18th Dynasty were undoubtedly SSA.
1. They did not use YDNA haplogroups as with Rameses III and Man-E instead they used MtDNA and assumed only mtDNA L1-L3 is SubSaharan. Hwne Keyans and Sudanese carry the basal Clades of many of the mtDNA released. Even in clades found in Arabia. The “southerners” carry the basal clade
2. For the SNPs they PLAYED the same ole frequency game. Which we know is ridiculous since IBD with a African source will also reflect the same result. The decipher they need to use TreeMix which they did not do
3. There were no European or major Maghrebian type mtDNA
So in short this paper proves that these NK AEians are heavily related to populations from the south like the Great Lakes of Africa.
Sergi and Coon are proven correct again?
quote:Wish I had software to sharpen the image.
Originally posted by beyoku:
I don't think I see any M1. To me that looks like it says M5.
quote:And you personally believe no Nilotic groups originated in North Sudan? Arguing that they did.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The Maasai are not ancestral to ancient Egyptians. How in the world would you even know that the Maa people existed as a distinct group of Nilotics over 5, 000 years ago? I know Sudan and so I dismiss the notion that any of the Nilotic tribes in Sudan and their derivatives in East Africa are directly ancestral to the ancient Egyptians.
The ancient Egyptians were Afro-asiatic speakers and are ultimately derivatives of these people in North Sudan and the Horn.
quote:I know that Nilotic tribes lived in the Gezira for at least 11, 000 years but that's much further South than Egypt. I'm now aware that Nilotics contributed to ancient Egypt in pastoralism and perhaps even people... but I take issue with the assertion that the ancient Egyptians were direct derivatives of Nilotics.
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:And you personally believe no Nilotic groups originated in North Sudan? Arguing that they did.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The Maasai are not ancestral to ancient Egyptians. How in the world would you even know that the Maa people existed as a distinct group of Nilotics over 5, 000 years ago? I know Sudan and so I dismiss the notion that any of the Nilotic tribes in Sudan and their derivatives in East Africa are directly ancestral to the ancient Egyptians.
The ancient Egyptians were Afro-asiatic speakers and are ultimately derivatives of these people in North Sudan and the Horn.
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
The Maasai are not ancestral to ancient Egyptians. How in the world would you even know that the Maa people existed as a distinct group of Nilotics over 5, 000 years ago? I know Sudan and so I dismiss the notion that any of the Nilotic tribes in Sudan and their derivatives in East Africa are directly ancestral to the ancient Egyptians.
The ancient Egyptians were Afro-asiatic speakers and are ultimately derivatives of these people in North Sudan and the Horn.
quote:Oops, Fernandez 2006 has nothing on Tell Halalu.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:This is indeed very questionable.
Originally posted by xyyman:
...
Eva Fernandez found mtDNA L in 8000year old Farmers from the Levant. ...
quote:http://central.gutenberg.org
HAPLOGROUP L2A1
Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500 - 6000 BCE.[13]
—Fernández, E. et al., MtDNA analysis of ancient samples from Castellón (Spain): Diachronic variation and genetic relationships, International Congress Series, vol. 1288 (April 2006), pp. 127-129.
quote:Thanks for the additional info.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Oops, Fernandez 2006 has nothing on Tell Halalu.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:This is indeed very questionable.
Originally posted by xyyman:
...
Eva Fernandez found mtDNA L in 8000year old Farmers from the Levant. ...
quote:http://central.gutenberg.org
HAPLOGROUP L2A1
Haplogroup L2a1 was found in two specimens from the Southern Levant Pre-Pottery Neolithic B site at Tell Halula, Syria, dating from the period between ca. 9600 and ca. 8000 BP or 7500 - 6000 BCE.[13]
—Fernández, E. et al., MtDNA analysis of ancient samples from Castellón (Spain): Diachronic variation and genetic relationships, International Congress Series, vol. 1288 (April 2006), pp. 127-129.
That's that Wiki.
She writes about them in 2008 specifying two L2a
there at early levels. None recorded for the later 10
archaeological levels. Her 2005 thesis suggests L2a
been in the Near East since the Paleolithic but died.
Oops Eva how could you forget your own work and
miss reporting L2a among 8000 BCE Near Eastern
Farmers? Your exclusion of samples H37 and H43
(10% of your 2008 reported Tell Halala mtDNA) is
an example of sampling bias radically eliminating
African presence frpm where in fact they once lived.
quote:I contend that the Kivisild 2017
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Bell Beaker and Yamnaya were probably also SSAs because they carried V88.
Toomas Kivisild1 (2017).The study of human Y chromosome variation through ancient DNA. web page places V88 in ancient Europe during Beaker and Yamnaya times.This should not be surprising because the Bell Beaker culture probably began in Morocco.
Given the wide distribution of M269 in Africa, the carriers of this haplogroup were probably also Africans since the Bell Beaker people/culture originated in Morocco as noted by Turek (2012).
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:I'm not leaving this site permanently, yet. I was talking about wrapping up here, i.e. in this thread.
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Hey Bro If your going to be leaving the Forum could you PM me your Email or a way to keep in contact.
It's good I'm not posting here in this thread though. I'd just be mocking people for trying to peddle their BS over the years and trying to pretend these aDNA results are "business as usual". To the outside mocking people looks unwarranted but if you weren't here during all the discussions and pretty much the whole forum siding with retards like Amun Ra you wouldn't understand why certain people are mocked. I definitely understand where Beyoku is coming from. I'm just holding back because the outside won't understand and the people who sided with Amun Ra will lie vehemently about how they resisted certain facts that are coming to light now.
In 2013 me and Beyoku already embraced Basal Eurasian before there was a Basal Eurasian (Lazaridis popularized the concept and coined the term in 2014). There is a whole conversation on the FB group where we basically inferred it ourselves. When we came back here people would antagonize our posts and question our motives, like this is some sort of sect where you can have heretics and traitors. Now they want to hop on board and act like we're supposed to forget how they shitted on what we said. Look at an example of how people are shape shifting now:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009530;p=1#000002
^Charlie Bass always sided with Amun Ra and his pan-African politics. Now he wants to do the "knews it alls along" routine and distance himself from Amun Ra. If they'd just leave the fake routine behind I'd ignore it and say nothing. But if people are going to fake pretend then they shouldn't be surprised when Beyoku starts mocking the crap out of people. I'm definitely entertained by it and I'm not coming to anyone's defense.
Of course, you weren't here for years Jari, so you missed all of this and a lot isn't going to make sense. But I know you would see our posts back then as common sense. Because that's exactly what it is: common sense. Plus you had already publicly and formally (if not informally) moved away from the racial use of 'black' way before I did, so you always had that foundation.
quote:Kivisild (2017) noted:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
beyoku or Swenet can you go over to the other thread
"R haplogroup come to whites in Two Ways "
by Clyde Winters
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=010798;p=2
Clyde said near to the bottom of page of the thread:
quote:I contend that the Kivisild 2017
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Bell Beaker and Yamnaya were probably also SSAs because they carried V88.
Toomas Kivisild1 (2017).The study of human Y chromosome variation through ancient DNA. web page places V88 in ancient Europe during Beaker and Yamnaya times.This should not be surprising because the Bell Beaker culture probably began in Morocco.
Given the wide distribution of M269 in Africa, the carriers of this haplogroup were probably also Africans since the Bell Beaker people/culture originated in Morocco as noted by Turek (2012).
The study of human Y chromosome variation through ancient DNA
does not say or imply V88 was in ancient Europe during Beaker and Yamnaya times. I have tried to explain it to Clyde a few times
-or correct me if I am wrong
quote:This quote makes it clear the V88 sub-clade, had relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara. This would place carriers of V88 among the Yamnaya and Bell Beaker people. Given the wide distribution of M269 in Africa, the carriers of this haplogroup were probably also Africans since the Bell Beaker people/culture originated in Morocco as noted by Turek (2012).
Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 sub-clade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7).[/b]
quote:No, "had relatives"
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:This quote makes it clear the V88 sub-clade, had relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara. This would place carriers of V88 among the Yamnaya and Bell Beaker people. Given the wide distribution of M269 in Africa, the carriers of this haplogroup were probably also Africans since the Bell Beaker people/culture originated in Morocco as noted by Turek (2012).
Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 sub-clade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7).[/b]
quote:Clyde you had it wrong again and misread (intentionally?) this article is talking about a pottery tradition within Bell Beaker history that had to do with cultural communication between the regions, as is clear in the article this does not mean Bell Beakers originated in Morocco, so stop the nonsense
Conclusion
So if the question is where and when the Bell Beaker (Maritime) style originates from, than we have to state that it was in first half of the Third Millennium BC between Estramadura (peninsula, near modern Lisbon, Portugal) and Morocco, but if the question is where was the Bell Beaker phenomenon created it needs to be said that it was before the Mid-third Millennium as result of communication between the Maritime style in Portugal and the western late Corded Ware groups.
--Origin of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. The Moroccan connection191
Jan Turek
Either way, it's good to have you and DJ back to restore some of the diversity in views that used to be here.quote:—Henn et al 2012
However, the “Luhya” ancestry is present at very low proportions, below 10% at k = 6 and below 5% at k = 8 and there is also “Luhya” ancestry detectable in Maasai populations. Thus, we chose the Maasai as the best ancestral sub-Saharan population for extant Egyptians.
quote:Stop making stuff up Stupid Euronut; archaeologists recognize shared pottery as evidence of a "family"connection.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:No, "had relatives"
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:This quote makes it clear the V88 sub-clade, had relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara. This would place carriers of V88 among the Yamnaya and Bell Beaker people. Given the wide distribution of M269 in Africa, the carriers of this haplogroup were probably also Africans since the Bell Beaker people/culture originated in Morocco as noted by Turek (2012).
Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 sub-clade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7).[/b]
does not mean
"carried"
__________________
As for Turek:
quote:Clyde you had it wrong again and misread (intentionally?) this article is talking about a pottery tradition within Bell Beaker history that had to do with cultural communication between the regions, as is clear in the article this does not mean Bell Beakers originated in Morocco, so stop the nonsense
Conclusion
So if the question is where and when the Bell Beaker (Maritime) style originates from, than we have to state that it was in first half of the Third Millennium BC between Estramadura (peninsula, near modern Lisbon, Portugal) and Morocco, but if the question is where was the Bell Beaker phenomenon created it needs to be said that it was before the Mid-third Millennium as result of communication between the Maritime style in Portugal and the western late Corded Ware groups.
--Origin of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. The Moroccan connection191
Jan Turek
quote:This crusted coprolite thinks I'm "backing off" a "bs claim".
Originally posted by xyyman:
That's right. Back off your BS claim. you and Beyoku.
quote:— Christina Riggs
The corpus of material from Roman Egypt is one of the most fascinating in studying ancient Egypt’s funerary remains. However, with the exception of painted panel portraits on mummies of the period, much of this material has received little attention from academia and public alike.
The value of this publication, which condenses the author’s doctoral thesis, lies in its thorough analysis of often poorly-recorded material dispersed in museums throughout the world.
Riggs concentrates on the series of mummy cases, masks, shrouds, coffins and tomb paintings incorporating aspects of Greek and Roman art into traditional Egyptian burial forms. She analyses stylistic development in conjunction with other contemporary art forms, texts and funerary inscriptions in order to gain insight into the ethnicity, social status and religious beliefs of the populace.
Chapter One presents an overview of art and religion in Roman Egypt and an account of previous studies in the field. Riggs suggests that the amalgam of styles and motifs, formerly categorised as of mixed style and even considered degenerate by many, is due to a deliberate choice rather than any misunderstanding of Egyptian funerary art forms. She proposes that the use of more naturalistic portraiture and the depiction of contemporary clothing and hairstyles indicates a desire to perpetuate status and gender in the afterlife.
Chapter Two examines the concept of gender in funerary art and texts and relates the evidence from the Rhind Papyri, in which the deceased are associated with the funerary deities Osiris and Hathor, to groups of coffins from Kharga Oasis and Akhmim. These, too, portray the image of the deceased either idealised in Osiride form or naturalistically in contemporary dress, according to Hellenistic conventions. Despite the Hellenised mode of dress, the names of the deceased are Egyptian and derived from those of local divinities. Riggs therefore suggests that the purpose of the contemporary knotted garment worn
by females of the Akhmim Group is to ‘tie’ the image to Hathor, and that the dual styles emphasise the importance of perpetuating social status in death, as well as gender.
Chapter Three investigates this concept further in narrative scenes on a series of masks from Meir and in Funerary House 21 in the cemetery of Tuna el-Gebel, in which the deceased is similarly attired. Riggs equates the narrative to stages in the deceased’s journey through death to transfiguration.
Her analysis of the accompanying inscriptions reveals a predominance of now Greek versions of Egyptian names, implying a bilingual society. The question of cultural identity is further investigated in relation to images of the deceased in the style of orator-type portraits on the lids of wooden coffins from Abusir el-Meleq, and on the ‘Psychopomp’ shrouds from Saqqara. Riggs compares the image to contemporary commemorative sculpture and suggests that the intention may be to represent the deceased as a cult image. The Psychopomp shrouds portray the deceased within a portal, which Riggs interprets as representing the threshold between life and transfiguration.
She develops this theory in a discussion of images on tombs of the period at Akhmim and in the Dakhla Oasis where the orator-style image of the deceased alludes both to his cult status and his transition to the afterlife.
Chapter Four is dedicated to the funerary material from the Theban area, which retained its importance as a religious centre into the Roman Period. Although more conservative than art forms from other areas, the material does incorporate some new features. The traditional image of the goddess Nut is present on coffins of the Soter Group, but she is now clothed in contemporary costume and jewellery, and naturalistic portraiture is combined with traditional native imagery on mummy masks from Deir el- Bahri. Riggs’ detailed study of accompanying inscriptions and texts reveals that the deceased were members of local élites, were probably bilingual and devotees of local cults.
She concludes that in the Roman Period the concept of maintaining one’s status and gender into the afterlife became as important as the preservation of the corpse and transfiguration of the deceased. Far from being ‘degenerate’, the material manifests that patrons exercised choice as to how they wished to be depicted in death, being able to draw upon the characteristics of three artistic traditions.
The text is supplemented by numerous photographs, drawings and plates, together with an invaluable Appendix and Register of Museums. This study succeeds in placing the material in its rightful place as a fine example of what happens when three great artistic traditions meet and interact.
quote:http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/06/05/looting-egypt-abu-sir-al-maleq/
Looting Egypt: Abu Sir Al-Maleq
The state of looting in Abu Sir Al-Maleq in Beni Suef has reached an alarming level
Daily News Egypt June 5, 2013
By Monica Hanna and Salima Ikram
The looting of antiquities sites, both urban and rural, is continuing throughout Egypt, contributing to the dramatic loss of the country’s heritage. Unfortunately, with police and military presence at archaeological and urban sites still insufficient, there is no one to stop the looting.
The increase in looting is allied to the worsening economic situation in Egypt, coupled with the lack of security. People still think that pharaonic sites are filled with gold and treasures, just waiting to be dug up, so now, with no one to stop them, more people are looking for the nearest place where they can go dig for gold, then other artefacts that they can sell for immediate revenue.
This idea that gold is readily available is an old and mistaken one; few pharaonic era tombs had a lot of gold, and most of those had been robbed at least 200 years ago, if not longer.
Recently, sites in Beni Suef in particular have suffered acutely from looters; in fact, if one asks to rent a car to go to Beni Suef, the drivers casually ask, “Oh, you are going to buy antiquities. I know someone who can help you,” as we know from personal experience. Abu Sir Al-Maleq is now considered the best place to buy “coloured sarcophagi”.
In most of the public cafés in the city centre, and particularly in Al-Wasta, antiquities dealing is a common daily practice. All one has to do is to sit in a café, look like a stranger and wait to be approached by someone who has artefacts for sale. Much of this material is probably coming from two important sites in the area, namely Al-Hiba and Abu Sir Al-Maleq.
The police has reported several cases of illicit digging at both sites. The modern village of Abu Sir Al-Maleq is of approximately 20,000 inhabitants, according to the 2006 national consensus, and lies about 10 km from Meidum. The archaeological site lies right behind the village’s church and is composed of 500 acres of land that was inhabited from at least 3250 BCE until about 700 CE, containing the entire history of Egypt until just after the Arab Conquest.
The identity of the people carrying out the looting is not certain, but they seem to be from every walk of life. In addition to local looters, organised gangs from other places in the Nile Valley are also digging at the site. Once gently undulating sand, the site is now a pock-marked lunar landscape with dense scatters of mummy wrappings pulled off bodies, and huge piles of bones. Wrapped limbs and heads of people who were buried here more than 2000 years ago now lie dismembered and scattered about the site. Obviously, several artefacts have been recovered from here; the pillagers hide their loot on-site in convenient tombs and covered by desiccated reeds and maize stalks.
In addition to coloured sarcophagi and coffins that are offered for sale in the area, shabtis (funerary faience figurines), amulets, glazed ceramics, pots, bead necklaces, bead bracelets, and chunks of inscription, hacked out of the limestone walls, are on offer. Dealers of various levels are clearly coming to buy objects here, and then taking them to their stores or distribution points in both rural and urban locations. The smaller objects are of higher prices because they can be smuggled easier outside of Egypt while a complete sarcophagus with its mummy might be of a lower price due to the difficulty in its transportation.
All of the sites that are being looted are suffering, as objects are being ripped undocumented from their contexts, without which the knowledge that they can impart is greatly diminished. The case of Abu Sir Al-Maleq is particularly tragic as it has never been fully excavated. The site has connections to Osiris, god of the dead, and was of great religious significance.
One of the most ancient sections, containing the graves of the Nagada II (3250-3050 BCE) era, was excavated by Otto Rubensohn in 1902-04. He also found 18th Dynasty (1550-1070 BCE) burials as well as priestly graves of the Late Period (712-332 BCE). A black sarcophagus belonging to Pakhus, currently in the Meidum storage house, has been found in the area. In 1905-06 Georg Möller also found burials of the Second Intermediate/Hyksos period (1640-1532 BCE). The archaeology of the Hyksos period is limited, with the majority of evidence coming from the Delta. Thus, any site with evidence of the history of that era, particularly one from this part of Egypt, is a treasure.
In addition to these tombs, a temple of the 30th Dynasty was also found near the village mosque. Caliph Marwan Al-Ja’di (744-751) of the Umayyad Dynasty is also said to have died very close to the monastery of Abu Sir Al-Maleq; a vase belonging to him said to have been found in the area is currently on display in the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo. Although some archaeological work has been carried out at Abu Sir el-Melq, enormous parts of it have never been scientifically investigated and it was a site filled with potential to better understand the history of Egypt, particularly in its very early and late phases.
Egyptian state bodies, civil society organisations and citizens all need to act immediately and work together for the protection of the country’s archaeological heritage. The different stakeholders of Egyptian heritage need to get actively involved in the study, protection and preservation of this heritage. Egypt’s future lies in its past, and with its loss, lies a dim future with lesser opportunities for the coming generations.
The potential Egypt has through its palimpsest of culture is enormous; its unique assets should provide economic and nationalistic values for its citizens. Each object that goes on the antiquities market loses its context and so loses its own history and that of the period it represents. It is like losing different pieces of a massive jigsaw.
It is a tragedy that we will not know more about those who lived and died here, in Abu Sir Al-Maleq; their beliefs and their lives. Only salvage archaeology can help at this point, and should be encouraged, or we will lose all evidence of Egypt’s rich past in this area.
quote:https://www.wmf.org/project/abusir-el-malek
Abusir el-Malek
The ancient settlement of Abusir el-Malek sat on a small rise in the fertile floodplain between the Faiyum and the Nile. By 1500 B.C., it was a prosperous settlement with many temples and a vast burial ground and buildings stretching across a large area. Excavations in the early twentieth century revealed burials centered on a cult honoring Osiris, the Egyptian god of the afterlife. The earliest evidence of occupation at the site dates from around 3000 B.C., with the majority of burials beginning 1,500 years later. The cemetery continued to be used for centuries, with the earlier shaft tombs being filled with later burials from the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. Thousands of individuals were buried at the site over hundreds of years of use.
Archaeological exploration of Abusir el-Malek in the early twentieth century resulted in many artifacts being placed in museums around the world, bringing attention to the importance of the site and its history. Site work continued in the 1970s, emphasizing again the valuable information being gained from documenting Abusir el-Malek. Following the Arab Spring in 2011, when policing archaeological sites became more difficult, there was a tremendous surge in looting of heritage sites in the region. Abusir el-Malek is one of the archaeological sites that has been particularly heavily looted. The continuing destruction of sites in search of saleable antiquities has resulted in the loss of scientific evidence, artifacts, and understanding of the stratigraphy of archaeological ruins at thousands of ancient sites like Abusir el-Malek. Sadly this situation is not unique in Egypt, or elsewhere in the world. Times of crisis—poverty, conflict, or political turmoil—stretch the protection of our past, often to breaking point.
Placing Abusir el-Malek on the 2016 World Monuments Watch cannot repair the damage to the site, but it can potentially raise awareness about looting and highlight efforts worldwide to stem the tide of illicit trafficking of archaeological objects. Developing alternative sources of income for local communities and incentives for protecting heritage sites, coupled with enforcement of local, national, and international cultural property laws, is a vital challenge.
quote:They analyzed the Yamnaya and Bell Beaker DNA. They did not carry V88, end of story
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
archaeologists recognize shared pottery as evidence of a "family"connection.
quote:So before the Romans Egypt was so SSA it wan't possible to become more SSA ?
Originally posted by xyyman:
That is why I was never worried when the new paper came out about supposed SSA increase in ancestry after the Romans. I knew it was BS without even looking at the paper first hand. The data had to be skewed.
quote:Basically all of Africa had L, but probably not all, already by that time.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So before the Romans Egypt was so SSA it wan't possible to become more SSA ?
Originally posted by xyyman:
That is why I was never worried when the new paper came out about supposed SSA increase in ancestry after the Romans. I knew it was BS without even looking at the paper first hand. The data had to be skewed.
quote:
Given the phylogeny, the frequency, and the diversity patterns observed in Africa for L1b, it is likely that this haplogroup arose in West Africa, from where it moved to other African and non-African locations.
There is a subclade of L1b defined by the transition A16289G (Fig. 2) and named here L1b1a2a, which could have originated later in East Africa (represented by three divergent sequences from Ethiopia: GenBank accession numbers EU092952, EU092942, and EU092950).
L1b1a2a could have moved from East Africa to the North downstream the Nile shores toward Egypt (represented by the complete genome EU092775).
The immediate ancestral node, L1b1a2 (Fig. 2), is represented by a single mitogenome observed in Israel (the Bedouin sequence EU092672) (Behar et al. 2008).
[...]
quote:
Tell Halula [H37] 6800-6000 BC (L2a1) 16223T, 16261T, 16278T, 16294T, 16309G Fernández 2008
Tell Halula [H43] 6800-6000 BC (L2a1) Incomplete HVRI with 16261T, 16278T, 16294T, 16309G
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So before the Romans Egypt was so SSA it wan't possible to become more SSA ?
Originally posted by xyyman:
That is why I was never worried when the new paper came out about supposed SSA increase in ancestry after the Romans. I knew it was BS without even looking at the paper first hand. The data had to be skewed.
quote:16309G on the Euphrates 8000 years ago.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
.
The immediate ancestral node, L1b1a2 (Fig. 2), is represented by a single mitogenome observed in Israel (the Bedouin sequence EU092672) (Behar et al. 2008).quote:
Tell Halula [H37] 6800-6000 BC (L2a1) 16223T, 16261T, 16278T, 16294T, 16309G Fernández 2008
Tell Halula [H43] 6800-6000 BC (L2a1) Incomplete HVRI with 16261T, 16278T, 16294T, 16309G
quote:stop the avoidance
Originally posted by xyyman:
I don't debate hypotheticals. I said that so many times. No one wins and there is a million-1 "what if" scenarios. I debate the data. Do you have anything to add?
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So before the Romans Egypt was so SSA it wan't possible to become more SSA ?
Originally posted by xyyman:
That is why I was never worried when the new paper came out about supposed SSA increase in ancestry after the Romans. I knew it was BS without even looking at the paper first hand. The data had to be skewed.
quote:Thanks for the insight,
Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:16309G on the Euphrates 8000 years ago.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]
[QUOTE] .
The immediate ancestral node, L1b1a2 (Fig. 2), is represented by a single mitogenome observed in Israel (the Bedouin sequence EU092672) (Behar et al. 2008).quote:
Tell Halula [H37] 6800-6000 BC (L2a1) 16223T, 16261T, 16278T, 16294T, 16309G Fernández 2008
Tell Halula [H43] 6800-6000 BC (L2a1) Incomplete HVRI with 16261T, 16278T, 16294T, 16309G
Modern Upper Egyptians from Gurma have it at 20%.
Modern Lower Egyptians, Alexandria, have at most 2.6%.
quote:`
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:They analyzed the Yamnaya and Bell Beaker DNA. They did not carry V88, end of story
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
archaeologists recognize shared pottery as evidence of a "family"connection.
quote:LIAR. Clearly Kivisild et al says "relatives in Early Neolithic samples [of V88] from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara", means that some of the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya Neolithic people carried V88.
Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 sub-clade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7).[/b]
quote:Clyde stop lying you inserted V88. The Early Neolithic relatives were "distant relatives" but who were of a different haplogroup.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Kivisikd said:
quote:Clearly Kivisild et al says "relatives in Early Neolithic samples [of V88] from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara", means that some of the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya Neolithic people carried V88. [/QB]
Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 sub-clade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7).[/b]
quote:Clyde this is additional proof you are lying
all 7 Yamnaya males did belong to the M269 subclade18 of haplogroup R1b.
--Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe
Wolfgang Haak1*, Iosif Lazaridis
2015
quote:The basal originated in Africa, the derivative expanded outside Africa. As was showen by Fulvio Cruciani.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Clyde stop lying you inserted V88. The Early Neolithic relatives were "distant relatives" but who were of a different haplogroup.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Kivisikd said:
quote:Clearly Kivisild et al says "relatives in Early Neolithic samples [of V88] from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara", means that some of the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya Neolithic people carried V88.
Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 sub-clade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7).[/b]
quote:Clyde this is additional proof you are lying
all 7 Yamnaya males did belong to the M269 subclade18 of haplogroup R1b.
--Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe
Wolfgang Haak1*, Iosif Lazaridis
2015
Furthermore there was a time when there was no R1 and R2.
The the basal R originated outside of Africa and Europe
quote:--Fulvio Cruciani et al.
‘‘Out of Africa’’ haplogroups. All Y-clades that are not exclusively African belong to the macro-haplogroup CT, which is defined by mutations M168, M294 and P9.1 [14,31] and is subdivided into two major clades, DE and CF [1,14]. In a recent study [16], sequencing of two chromosomes belonging to haplogroups C and R, led to the identification of 25 new mutations, eleven of which were in the C-chromosome and seven in the R-chromosome. Here, the seven mutations which were found to be shared by chromosomes of haplogroups C and R [16], were also found to be present in one DE sample (sample 33 in Table S1), and positioned at the root of macro-haplogroup CT (Figure 1 and Figure S1).
[...]
Three of the seven R-specific mutations (V45, V69 and V88) were previously mapped within haplogroup R [34], whereas the remaining four mutations have been here positioned at the root of haplogroups F (V186 and V205), K (V104) and P (V231) (Figure S1) through the analysis of 12 haplogroup F samples (samples 40–51, in Table S1).
[...]
Figure S1 Structure of the macro-haplogroup CT. For details on mutations see legend to Figure 1. Dashed lines indicate putative branchings (no positive control available). The position of V248 (haplogroup C2) and V87 (haplogroup C3) compared to mutations that define internal branches was not determined. Note that mutations V45, V69 and V88 have been previously mapped (Cruciani et al. 2010; Eur J Hum Genet 18:800–807).
(TIF)
Haplogroup affiliation for 51 Y chromosomes
Table S1 analyzed in this study. (XLS)
quote:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/abs/nature14134.html
Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans
A key event in human evolution is the expansion of modern humans of African origin across Eurasia between 60 and 40 thousand years (kyr) before present (bp), replacing all other forms of hominins1. Owing to the scarcity of human fossils from this period, these ancestors of all present-day non-African modern populations remain largely enigmatic. Here we describe a partial calvaria, recently discovered at Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel) and dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr bp (arithmetic mean ± 2 standard deviations) by uranium–thorium dating, that sheds light on this crucial event. The overall shape and discrete morphological features of the Manot 1 calvaria demonstrate that this partial skull is unequivocally modern. It is similar in shape to recent African skulls as well as to European skulls from the Upper Palaeolithic period, but different from most other early anatomically modern humans in the Levant. This suggests that the Manot people could be closely related to the first modern humans who later successfully colonized Europe. Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations. Moreover, at present, Manot 1 is the only modern human specimen to provide evidence that during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic interface, both modern humans and Neanderthals contemporaneously inhabited the southern Levant, close in time to the likely interbreeding event with Neanderthals2, 3.
quote:Lying Euronut this proves nothing of the like. Kivisild et al was published this year, Haak article is from 2015.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Clyde stop lying you inserted V88. The Early Neolithic relatives were "distant relatives" but who were of a different haplogroup.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Kivisikd said:
quote:Clearly Kivisild et al says "relatives in Early Neolithic samples [of V88] from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara", means that some of the Bell Beaker and Yamnaya Neolithic people carried V88.
Interestingly, the earliest offshoot of extant haplogroup R1b-M343 variation, the V88 sub-clade, which is currently most common in Fulani speaking populations in Africa (Cruciani et al. 2010) has distant relatives in Early Neolithic samples from across wide geographic area from Iberia, Germany to Samara (Fig. 7).[/b]
quote:Clyde this is additional proof you are lying
all 7 Yamnaya males did belong to the M269 subclade18 of haplogroup R1b.
--Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe
Wolfgang Haak1*, Iosif Lazaridis
2015
Furthermore there was a time when there was no R1 and R2.
The the basal R originated outside of Africa and Europe [/QB]
quote:If the fearures of the early Europeans came from the Levant these faetures were African features as has been repearedly proven. Neolithic migrants into Europe from the Levant were also 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 who were Sub-Saharan population, along with African fauna in the area.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Neanderthal and modern humans never interbred. The author is not sold.
Quote: "Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might NOT have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations"
Quote: " close in time to the LIKELY interbreeding event with Neanderthals2'
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] Another slide from the same twitter account pointing out the same issue I called out earlier. Researchers are trying to identify when and where humans and neanderthals were interbreeding. "Basal Eurasian" is simply a theoretical framework designed to propose a DNA tree based on various hypothesis. The problem with it is it imposes a strict split between African OOA populations and so-called NON African OOA populations based on Neanderthal mixture. The problem with it is that > 95% of human genes come from Africa. So how could there be a "Non African" split? It is absurd on all levels.
quote:But if these L lineages in Europe and the Levant were responsible... why weren't samples simply L??
Originally posted by xyyman:
That is why I was never worried when the new paper came out about supposed SSA increase in ancestry after the Romans. I knew it was BS without even looking at the paper first hand. The data had to be skewed. Why I am I so convinced. It is geographically impossible to lie. Plus the Dog, Cattle and now asses is African. I just saw a paper on the pigs of Sardinia. Guess what? African pigs in "Europe". HE! He! HE!
Plus human mtDNA-L has been found in 8000yo farmers in the Levant. And other parts of Neolithic Europe. I knew this set of researchers were lying. He! He! He!
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
^ ignoring the cunt above.
@Oshun. I am not sure I understand your question. But I will take a shot. Are you assuming that mtDNA L is the ONLY African lineage? You need to understand the PhyloTree and the age of these lineages. IIRC U, is close to 35K years old, I, J H all are greater than25,000years old. This study is taken from samples less than 10,000year old. In other words the age of these lineages is much older than the INCEPTION of Agriculture and these lineages are still found in Africa today. Furthermore YOUNGER subclades is not expected to be found in Africa which what we observe. Because these mutations giving rise to those sub-clades took place OUTSIDE of Africa long after the parental clades left Africa. Eg Kenyans carry most of the BASAL clades found in the New Kingdom AEians. YOU will NOT observe young sub-clades *even less than 10,000yo* in AEians because there was never back-migration.
Wait, So you think all those subclades are going to be ANCESTRAL? You dont understand that when that study is published nearly all of them will be DERIVED downstream subclades! 
quote:Who created devisions and sideway theories?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-15tY2jmHizw/T2oNX7vOPfI/AAAAAAAAAX8/iTu1MukJcv4/s1600/5.jpg
Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] Another slide from the same twitter account pointing out the same issue I called out earlier. Researchers are trying to identify when and where humans and neanderthals were interbreeding. "Basal Eurasian" is simply a theoretical framework designed to propose a DNA tree based on various hypothesis. The problem with it is it imposes a strict split between African OOA populations and so-called NON African OOA populations based on Neanderthal mixture. The problem with it is that > 95% of human genes come from Africa. So how could there be a "Non African" split? It is absurd on all levels.
https://i2.wp.com/favehairstyles.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/long-bob-for-women-over-50.jpg?resize=474%2C647
Doug asks if these people are 95% African then why aren't they referred to as Africans?
quote:This is what I noticed from the start.
Originally posted by Doug M:
The problem with it is it imposes a strict split between African OOA populations and so-called NON African OOA populations based on Neanderthal mixture.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/abs/nature14134.html
quote:Whether they did or not, in both cases the theory is flaunted and skewed.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Neanderthal and modern humans never interbred. The author is not sold.
Quote: "Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might NOT have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations"
Quote: " close in time to the LIKELY interbreeding event with Neanderthals2'
quote:That exactly is the riddle, here. And not all at the Levent were L.
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:But if these L lineages in Europe and the Levant were responsible... why weren't samples simply L??
Originally posted by xyyman:
That is why I was never worried when the new paper came out about supposed SSA increase in ancestry after the Romans. I knew it was BS without even looking at the paper first hand. The data had to be skewed. Why I am I so convinced. It is geographically impossible to lie. Plus the Dog, Cattle and now asses is African. I just saw a paper on the pigs of Sardinia. Guess what? African pigs in "Europe". HE! He! HE!
Plus human mtDNA-L has been found in 8000yo farmers in the Levant. And other parts of Neolithic Europe. I knew this set of researchers were lying. He! He! He!
quote:--Laura R. Botiguéa,1, Brenna M. Henn et al
Whereas inferred IBD sharing does not indicate directionality, the North African samples that have highest IBD sharing with Iberian populations also tend to have the lowest proportion of the European cluster in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 1), e.g., Saharawi, Tunisian Berbers, and South Moroccans. For example, the Andalucians share many IBD segments with the Tunisians (Fig. 3), who present extremely minimal levels of European ancestry. This suggests that gene flow occurred from Africa to Europe rather than the other way around.
[...]
Alternative models of gene flow: Migration(s) from the Near East likely have had an effect on genetic diversity between southern and northern Europe (discussed below), but do not appear to explain the gradients of African ancestry in Europe. A model of gene flow from the Near East into both Europe and North Africa, such as a strong demic wave during the Neolithic, could result in shared haplotypes between Europe and North Africa. However, we observe haplotype sharing between Europe and the Near East follows a southeast to southwest gradient, while sharing between Europe and the Maghreb follows the opposite pattern (Fig. 2); this suggests that gene flow from the Near East cannot account for the sharing with North Africa.
quote:If all human DNA came from Africa then the question becomes at what point can you say that these populations became "Non African" based on new DNA lineages that arose outside of Africa. However, with the neanderthal theory of mixture they can simply say that as soon as Africans left, they started mixing with Neanderthals and hence became "Non African" due to that mixture. The problem FOR THEM is finding where the mixture with Neanderthals occurred. Because the theory they are pushing with "Basal Eurasian" and other related theories is that SOON after OOA there was large scale and widespread mixing with Neanderthals. This could only have happened between 50 and 40 KYA because Neanderthals disappeared afterwards. But they haven't been able to find exactly where or when this happened. Either way, that still technically doesn't make the OOA populations non African if > 95% of their genes come from Africa.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:This is what I noticed from the start.
Originally posted by Doug M:
The problem with it is it imposes a strict split between African OOA populations and so-called NON African OOA populations based on Neanderthal mixture.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/abs/nature14134.html
The Neanderthal and Aterian and Mousterian in North Africa
quote:Whether they did or not, in both cases the theory is flaunted and skewed.
Originally posted by xyyman:
Neanderthal and modern humans never interbred. The author is not sold.
Quote: "Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might NOT have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations"
Quote: " close in time to the LIKELY interbreeding event with Neanderthals2'
quote:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v530/n7591/full/nature16544.html
It has been shown that Neanderthals contributed genetically to modern humans outside Africa 47,000–65,000 years ago. Here we analyse the genomes of a Neanderthal and a Denisovan from the Altai Mountains in Siberia together with the sequences of chromosome 21 of two Neanderthals from Spain and Croatia. We find that a population that diverged early from other modern humans in Africa contributed genetically to the ancestors of Neanderthals from the Altai Mountains roughly 100,000 years ago. By contrast, we do not detect such a genetic contribution in the Denisovan or the two European Neanderthals. We conclude that in addition to later interbreeding events, the ancestors of Neanderthals from the Altai Mountains and early modern humans met and interbred, possibly in the Near East, many thousands of years earlier than previously thought.
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
However, with the neanderthal theory of mixture they can simply say that as soon as Africans left, they started mixing with Neanderthals and hence became "Non African" due to that mixture. The problem FOR THEM is finding where the mixture with Neanderthals occurred.
quote:—Dibble HL et al.
North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two 'industries' are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
quote:—Cremaschi, Mauro, et al. "Some Insights on the Aterian in the Libyan Sahara: Chronology,
Aterian and Mousterian in North Africa
The sites in Northern Africa in country of Libya were researched because of the multiple Aterian stone tools found in the surrounding areas. The Aterian is another specialized industry similar to the Mousterian and the Levallois found in the Middle Paleolithic. The hominid species that occupied this area (modern humans) appeared to be "modern" by the types of artifacts that they
left behind.
quote:—Israel Hershkovitz et al.
Extended Data Figure 4: Dating results for Area C.
A key event in human evolution is the expansion of modern humans of African origin across Eurasia between 60 and 40 thousand years (kyr) before present (BP), replacing all other forms of hominins1. Owing to the scarcity of human fossils from this period, these ancestors of all present-day non-African modern populations remain largely enigmatic. Here we describe a partial calvaria, recently discovered at Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel) and dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr BP (arithmetic mean ± 2 standard deviations) by uranium–thorium dating, that sheds light on this crucial event. The overall shape and discrete morphological features of the Manot 1 calvaria demonstrate that this partial skull is unequivocally modern. It is similar in shape to recent African skulls as well as to European skulls from the Upper Palaeolithic period, but different from most other early anatomically modern humans in the Levant. This suggests that the Manot people could be closely related to the first modern humans who later successfully colonized Europe. Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations. Moreover, at present, Manot 1 is the only modern human specimen to provide evidence that during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic interface, both modern humans and Neanderthals contemporaneously inhabited the southern Levant, close in time to the likely interbreeding event with Neanderthals2, 3.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/images/nature14134-st2.jpg
Extended Data Table 2 | Manot 1 calvaria morphology compared with an Upper Palaeolithic European specimen, Neanderthals and present- day humans
quote:Exactly. So you have one group of researchers who say:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
However, with the neanderthal theory of mixture they can simply say that as soon as Africans left, they started mixing with Neanderthals and hence became "Non African" due to that mixture. The problem FOR THEM is finding where the mixture with Neanderthals occurred.quote:—Dibble HL et al.
North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two 'industries' are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the Maghreb.
J Hum Evol. 2013 Mar;64(3):194-210. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.10.010. Epub 2013 Feb 9.
quote:—Cremaschi, Mauro, et al. "Some Insights on the Aterian in the Libyan Sahara: Chronology,
Aterian and Mousterian in North Africa
The sites in Northern Africa in country of Libya were researched because of the multiple Aterian stone tools found in the surrounding areas. The Aterian is another specialized industry similar to the Mousterian and the Levallois found in the Middle Paleolithic. The hominid species that occupied this area (modern humans) appeared to be "modern" by the types of artifacts that they
left behind.
Environment, and Archeology." African Archaeological, Vol. 15, No. 4. 1998.
http://www.indiana.edu/~origins/teach/P314/MSA%20reports/Aterian.pdf
quote:—Israel Hershkovitz et al.
Extended Data Figure 4: Dating results for Area C.
A key event in human evolution is the expansion of modern humans of African origin across Eurasia between 60 and 40 thousand years (kyr) before present (BP), replacing all other forms of hominins1. Owing to the scarcity of human fossils from this period, these ancestors of all present-day non-African modern populations remain largely enigmatic. Here we describe a partial calvaria, recently discovered at Manot Cave (Western Galilee, Israel) and dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr BP (arithmetic mean ± 2 standard deviations) by uranium–thorium dating, that sheds light on this crucial event. The overall shape and discrete morphological features of the Manot 1 calvaria demonstrate that this partial skull is unequivocally modern. It is similar in shape to recent African skulls as well as to European skulls from the Upper Palaeolithic period, but different from most other early anatomically modern humans in the Levant. This suggests that the Manot people could be closely related to the first modern humans who later successfully colonized Europe. Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations. Moreover, at present, Manot 1 is the only modern human specimen to provide evidence that during the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic interface, both modern humans and Neanderthals contemporaneously inhabited the southern Levant, close in time to the likely interbreeding event with Neanderthals2, 3.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/images/nature14134-st2.jpg
Extended Data Table 2 | Manot 1 calvaria morphology compared with an Upper Palaeolithic European specimen, Neanderthals and present- day humans
Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans
Nature 520, 216–219 (09 April 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14134.html?message-global=remove
quote:Keeping in mind that these "Levantine Populations" at the time depth in question are nothing but OOA populations between 50 - 60KYA. Yet this is the population they clearly refuse to label as "African" in their DNA family tree even though clearly the remains are no different from Africans (as you would expect).
Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations.
quote:That is wrong and is a straw man.
Originally posted by Doug M:
If all human DNA came from Africa then the question becomes at what point can you say that these populations became "Non African" based on new DNA lineages that arose outside of Africa. However, with the neanderthal theory of mixture they can simply say that as soon as Africans left, they started mixing with Neanderthals and hence became "Non African" due to that mixture. The problem FOR THEM is finding where the mixture with Neanderthals occurred.
quote:Human DNA is 94% identical to chimpanzees. So are we chimps pretending not to be?
Originally posted by Doug M:
The problem with it is it imposes a strict split between African OOA populations and so-called NON African OOA populations based on Neanderthal mixture. The problem with it is that > 95% of human genes come from Africa. So how could there be a "Non African" split? It is absurd on all levels.
quote:Doug's arguing earliest/early settlers in Europe and Levant (from OOA) were "African" still in phenotype/genotype since not enough time had accumulated to notice significant differences.
The concept of "non-African" is based on that fact that humans have lived outside of Africa 60,000 or even over 100,000 years ago. During that time, outside of Africa, unique mutations have occurred in their DNA and new haplogroups formed in additional to this is the evolutionary selection process which transformed the morphology of people who have lived in regions much colder than Africa for an extended period of time.
quote:Really? Is this also what Lazaridis "non-African" stage is based on?
Originally posted by lioness:
The concept of "non-African" is based on that fact that humans have lived outside of Africa 60,000 or even over 100,000 years ago. During that time, outside of Africa, unique mutations have occurred in their DNA and new haplogroups formed in additional to this is the evolutionary selection process which transformed the morphology of people who have lived in regions much colder than Africa for an extended period of time.
quote:The basis and location of Lazaridis "non-African" stage is not made clear in his article- try to find a quote.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Really? Is this also what Lazaridis "non-African" stage is based on?
Originally posted by lioness:
The concept of "non-African" is based on that fact that humans have lived outside of Africa 60,000 or even over 100,000 years ago. During that time, outside of Africa, unique mutations have occurred in their DNA and new haplogroups formed in additional to this is the evolutionary selection process which transformed the morphology of people who have lived in regions much colder than Africa for an extended period of time.
quote:For sake of argument going along with Doug's OOA model: the earliest OOA would be near identical in genotype/phenotype to Africans - say the Fst (the proportion of genetic variation due to differences among populations) is as low as 1% between the earliest Upper Palaeolithic "AMH" in Europe and and Africa.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:The basis and location of Lazaridis "non-African" stage is not made clear in his article- try to find a quote.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Really? Is this also what Lazaridis "non-African" stage is based on?
Originally posted by lioness:
The concept of "non-African" is based on that fact that humans have lived outside of Africa 60,000 or even over 100,000 years ago. During that time, outside of Africa, unique mutations have occurred in their DNA and new haplogroups formed in additional to this is the evolutionary selection process which transformed the morphology of people who have lived in regions much colder than Africa for an extended period of time.
But instead of that tangent the relevant point here is that the concept that people outside of Africa are not Africans and the genetic basis supporting this was articulated before Lazaridis wrote his article and before Neanderthal ancestry was discovered in Eurasians and Yoruba
quote:Silence!!!
Originally posted by Cass/:
The Doug loon doesn't seem to know prior to the supposed OOA movements, there was non-African mixture in Africa, including Neanderthal:
"African populations themselves have a record of adaptive introgression from divergent human groups (Hammer et al., 2011; Lachance et al., 2012) and show evidence of gene flow from archaic populations in other regions (Garrigan and Hammer, 2006). These archaic populations providing genes, including Neandertals (Wolpoff and Lee, 2012), were not isolated species-lineages." (Caspari and Wolpoff, 2013)
Wolpoff & Lee (2012) was a ground-breaking study showing "The European palaeo-deme, including Neandertals, evolved to be more similar to the descendents of Herto over time, not less similar." Obviously it will be hard for Doug to reconcile this with his pan-African politics.
quote:
We report the discovery of an African American Y chromosome that carries the ancestral state of all SNPs that defined the basal portion of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree. We sequenced ∼240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00. We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya). Remarkably, this exceeds current estimates of the mtDNA TMRCA, as well as those of the age of the oldest anatomically modern human fossils. The extremely ancient age combined with the rarity of the A00 lineage, which we also find at very low frequency in central Africa, point to the importance of considering more complex models for the origin of Y chromosome diversity. These models include ancient population structure and the possibility of archaic introgression of Y chromosomes into anatomically modern humans. The A00 lineage was discovered in a large database of consumer samples of African Americans and has not been identified in traditional hunter-gatherer populations from sub-Saharan Africa. This underscores how the stochastic nature of the genealogical process can affect inference from a single locus and warrants caution during the interpretation of the geographic location of divergent branches of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree for the elucidation of human origins.
quote:
Figure 1. Genealogy of A00, A0, and the Reference SequenceLineages on which mutations were identified and lineages that were used for placing those mutations on the genealogy are indicated with thick and thin lines, respectively. The numbers of identified mutations on a branch are indicated in italics (four mutations in A00 were not genotyped but are indicated as shared by Mbo in this tree). The time estimates (and confidence intervals) are indicated kya for three nodes: the most recent common ancestor, the common ancestor between A0 and the reference (ref), and the common ancestor of A00 chromosomes from an African American individual and the Mbo. Two sets of ages are shown: on the left are estimates (numbers in black) obtained with the mutation rate based on recent whole-genome-sequencing results as described in the main text, and on the right are estimates (numbers in gray) based on the higher mutation rate used by Cruciani et al.6
quote:
We also estimated the level of variation among nine A00 lineages (i.e., including one additional Mbo individual) by using a battery of 95 Y-STRs for which all individuals had no missing data; (Table S2). A median-joining network28 shows that the African American A00 lineage is 11 mutational steps from the nearest Mbo and that the maximum difference between any pair of Mbo is nine steps (Figure 3 and Table S2). On the basis of these levels of within- and between-group variation, we calculated a second divergence time estimate of 564–2,697 years (Table 1) by assuming a mean Y-STR mutation rate of 1.32 × 10−4 and 2.76 × 10−5 per year, respectively.29 and 30
quote:
Figure 3. Median-Joining Network of A00 HaplotypesThe network is based on haplotypes (constructed with 95 Y-STRs) of eight Mbo and an African American (AA) individual. All mutations are assumed to be single step and were given equal weight during the construction of the network. Marker names are indicated without “DYS” at the beginning.
code:Table 1. Pairwise and Average STR-Based Estimates of TMRCA for A00 Chromosomes
TMRCA (Years)
Mbo 52 Mbo 159 Mbo 160 Mbo 170 Mbo 173 Mbo 183 Mbo 186 Mbo 199 African American Average with Mboa
Mbo 52 - 80 120 159 239 159 199 120 478 154
Mbo 159 381 - 120 159 239 159 199 120 478 154
Mbo 160 572 572 - 120 199 199 239 159 439 165
Mbo 170 763 763 572 - 239 239 279 199 478 199
Mbo 173 1,144 1,144 953 1,144 - 319 359 279 399 268
Mbo 183 763 763 953 1,144 1,526 - 120 120 558 188
Mbo 186 953 953 1,144 1,335 1,716 572 - 159 598 222
Mbo 199 572 572 763 953 1,335 572 763 - 518 165
African American 2,288 2,288 2,098 2,288 1,907 2,670 2,860 2,479 - 564
Average with Mbob 736 736 790 953 1,280 899 1,062 790 2,697 -
quote:—Hammer et al.
We obtained point estimates of the TMRCA of two haplotypes by dividing the estimate of the number of mutational steps separating the haplotypes (as inferred from the network) by twice the mutational rate per STR and by the number of STRs scored in both haplotypes. Values above and below the diagonal separation correspond to estimates obtained with the high and low mutation rates, respectively (see text). The following abbreviation is used: TMRCA, time to the most recent common ancestor.
quote:And in addition
Originally posted by Cass/:
The Jebel Irhoud crania (150 kya) from North Africa likely show some Neanderthal traits via admixture-
"Smith et al. (1995) argued that the long, low, and broad cranial vaults, lambdoidal flattening, and occipital bun-like projections (or “hemi-buns”) of the Jebel Irhoud crania did, in fact, link these fossils with European Neandertals. This
led F. Smith et al. (1995) to propose that Jebel Irhoud lay at one pole of a circum-Mediterranean ring of interbreeding populations that was interrupted only by the Strait of Gibraltar." (Bruner & Pearson, 2012)
"Jebel Irhoud’s geographic location places these humans in close proximity to Western Europe, across the Strait of Gibraltar. It has been noted that other aspects of the Jebel Irhoud
morphological pattern approaches the European Neandertal condition and thus that they may well show the effects of gene flow from European archaic populations from the North (Simmons and Smith, 1991). This also may explain the presence of occipital buns in the one African Transitional Group site that might have experienced some biological interaction with European Neandertals. Certainly, this explanation cannot be ignored, particularly since the Irhoud specimens are the only ones in West Asia and Africa to exhibit occipital bunning." (Smith et al. 2005)
Today the Strait of Gibralter's narrowest point from Spain to Morocco is only 14.3 km and during the Pleistocene, it was even more narrow. I don't think the short-distance water was a big obstacle for Neanderthals crossing into North Africa from Europe (and movement vice-versa).
The Neanderthaloid traits in Jebel Irhoud, clearly contradict Doug's "pure" African model where he proposes pre-OOA's and earliest-OOA's in Europe/Levant were 100% phenotypically "African".
quote:—Katerina Harvati , Chris Stringer et al
One of the two specimens from Zhoukoudian Upper Cave (UC 101) had a more negative PC 1 score similar to that of Qafzeh 6 and Jebel Irhoud 2 (see also [8]). Iwo Eleru showed a similarly negative PC 1 score, falling closest to LH 18, Saldanha (Elandsfontein) and Spy 2 along this axis.
quote:—Tanya M. Smith et al.
Early descriptions of the hominins from Jebel Irhoud (Morocco) emphasized similarities with Neanderthals; however, recent analyses demonstrate a number of synapomorphies shared with modern humans, establishing the presence of H. sapiens sensu stricto in North Africa 130,000–190,000 years before present (ybp) (1). The juvenile individual from Jebel Irhoud (Irhoud 3) is represented by a well preserved mandible (15) that dates from just less than the geological ages of the earliest evidence for early H. sapiens in East Africa (5).
quote:—H. Valladas. et al.
Age-estimates ranging from 50 to 70 ky were obtained for the Mousterian deposits of Amud Cave in Israel from thermoluminescence measurements performed on 19 burnt flints. The late dates obtained for the stratigraphic layers bearing hominid remains confirm the evidence for the late presence of Neanderthals in the Levant. The dates enable a more effective comparison of the lithic assemblages from Amud Cave with those of other contemporaneous sites and underline the variability within Mousterian lithic industries at the end of the Middle Palaeolithic in the Levant.
quote:The fallacy
Originally posted by the lioness,:
DNA evidence of Neanderthal admixture in Eurasians and Yoruba.
quote:You don't seem to understand that the Neanderthal already lived in North Africa. So it is a bit unlike to make those claims.
Originally posted by Cass/:
The Doug loon doesn't seem to know prior to the supposed OOA movements, there was non-African mixture in Africa, including Neanderthal:
"African populations themselves have a record of adaptive introgression from divergent human groups (Hammer et al., 2011; Lachance et al., 2012) and show evidence of gene flow from archaic populations in other regions (Garrigan and Hammer, 2006). These archaic populations providing genes, including Neandertals (Wolpoff and Lee, 2012), were not isolated species-lineages." (Caspari and Wolpoff, 2013)
Wolpoff & Lee (2012) was a ground-breaking study showing "The European palaeo-deme, including Neandertals, evolved to be more similar to the descendents of Herto over time, not less similar." Obviously it will be hard for Doug to reconcile this with his pan-African politics.
quote:For the love of god,
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:For sake of argument going along with Doug's OOA model: the earliest OOA would be near identical in genotype/phenotype to Africans - say the Fst (the proportion of genetic variation due to differences among populations) is as low as 1% between the earliest Upper Palaeolithic "AMH" in Europe and and Africa.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:The basis and location of Lazaridis "non-African" stage is not made clear in his article- try to find a quote.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Really? Is this also what Lazaridis "non-African" stage is based on?
Originally posted by lioness:
The concept of "non-African" is based on that fact that humans have lived outside of Africa 60,000 or even over 100,000 years ago. During that time, outside of Africa, unique mutations have occurred in their DNA and new haplogroups formed in additional to this is the evolutionary selection process which transformed the morphology of people who have lived in regions much colder than Africa for an extended period of time.
But instead of that tangent the relevant point here is that the concept that people outside of Africa are not Africans and the genetic basis supporting this was articulated before Lazaridis wrote his article and before Neanderthal ancestry was discovered in Eurasians and Yoruba
Now observe scientists who classify different subspecies of birds when Fst is as low as 1% (0.01).
These populations however unlike humans are allopatric (hence the semantics of subspecies vs. demes/populations), but my point is scientists are distinguishing populations of animals that are near genetically identical (> 99%) so they are using geographical, behavioural and ecological criteria, not biological. That same standard should apply to humans as it does in zoology for other animals. So the earliest OOA settlers in Europe by definition cease to be "African" as soon as they moved there. It doesn't matter if they were still phenotypically "African".
quote:—Brenna M. Henna,
Colored dots indicate genetic diversity. Each new group outside of Africa represents a sampling of the genetic diversity present in its founder population. The ancestral population in Africa was sufficiently large to build up and retain substantial genetic diversity.
quote:I will read it carefully, Swenet. I will try to read far more in order to attain a greater understanding of molecular genetics. I sometimes feel that people like you should establish a bio-genetics forum exclusively catering to people that can demonstrate a firm grasp of genetics; a forum in which membership to the forum is stringent and purveyors of pseudo-science are immediately removed.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Sudaniya
Follow his advice and read Henn et al 2012. You will see that he's making it all up. You should always take his offer to read his sources because 9 times out of 10 he's misrepresenting them. Maasai were simply provisionally chosen as representative of modern Egyptians' stereotypically African component in order to perform tests. They never meant to say that the Maasai were actually involved in modern Egypt, let alone Ancient Egypt.
quote:—Henn et al 2012
However, the “Luhya” ancestry is present at very low proportions, below 10% at k = 6 and below 5% at k = 8 and there is also “Luhya” ancestry detectable in Maasai populations. Thus, we chose the Maasai as the best ancestral sub-Saharan population for extant Egyptians.
Note also that Henn et al date this Maasai-like component to very recently, not, as he claims, something that represents a straightforward continuity with the African ancestry that was present in ancient Egypt. In this sense Henn et al are fully in line with the post-Roman increase of SSA ancestry mentioned in the upcoming aDNA study. Compare that with xyyman's intention to contradict the aDNA study using Henn et al. How can one contradict something using a source that says the same thing as something one criticizes? Don't even try to answer. It only makes sense to people like him.
quote:Yet you(an admitted and proud racist) somehow classify AE as Levantine Hamitics despite all the evidence in weight of their origin in Africa(including the Lower Egyptians) and impose a definition of black with so many arbitrary loopholes as to guarantee their exclusion and still claim to be an objective observer out to debunk Afrocentrists.
Originally posted by Cass/:
These populations however unlike humans are allopatric (hence the semantics of subspecies vs. demes/populations), but my point is scientists are distinguishing populations of animals that are near genetically identical (> 99%) so they are using geographical, behavioural and ecological criteria, not biological. That same standard should apply to humans as it does in zoology for other animals. So the earliest OOA settlers in Europe by definition cease to be "African" as soon as they moved there. It doesn't matter if they were still phenotypically "African".
quote:You've never read my posts properly. I argue ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians, not Levantines. What I though said is if DNA comes back showing big Levant gene flow, I wouldn't have a problem embracing Hamiticism, unlike the Afrocentrists here who would put their fingers in their ears or dispute/deny the DNA. (DNA is a white supremacist science...
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Yet you(an admitted and proud racist) somehow classify AE as Levantine Hamitics despite all the evidence in weight of their origin in Africa(including the Lower Egyptians) and impose a definition of black with so many arbitrary loopholes as to guarantee their exclusion and still claim to be an objective observer out to debunk Afrocentrists.
Originally posted by Cass/:
These populations however unlike humans are allopatric (hence the semantics of subspecies vs. demes/populations), but my point is scientists are distinguishing populations of animals that are near genetically identical (> 99%) so they are using geographical, behavioural and ecological criteria, not biological. That same standard should apply to humans as it does in zoology for other animals. So the earliest OOA settlers in Europe by definition cease to be "African" as soon as they moved there. It doesn't matter if they were still phenotypically "African".
Right.
). quote:What you don't understand is that most diversity was already in Africa. They simplefied it with the color dots. If not they would have made most colors dots outside odd Africa.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ what you don't understand is that the OOA lost diversity as compared to all the African population but at the same time they later underwent unique mutations that occurred outside Africa.
So they are the result of these mutations and less diverse than Africans at the same time. There is no contradiction.
An example of this is the author Brenna Henn's other article Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations.
So your assumption that loss of diversity of the OOA populations means no new haplogroups formed outside of Africa at the same time is false. That is simplistic. The reality is that both things happened at once
quote:--Dr Spencer Wells,
As we'll see, other genetic data corroborates the mitochondrial results, placing the root of the human family tree - our most recent common ancestor- in Africa within the past few hundred thousand years. Consistent with this result, all of the genetic data shows the greatest number of polymorphisms in Africa - there is simply far more variation in that continent than anywhere else. You are more likely to sample extremely divergent genetic lineages within a single African village than you are in whole of the rest of the world. The majority of the genetic polymorphisms found in our species are found uniquely in Africans - Europeans, Asians and Native Americans carry only a small sample of the extraordinary diversity that can be found in any African village.
Why does diversity indicate greater age? Thinking back to our hypothetical Provencal village, why do the bouillabaisse recipes change? Because in each generation, a daughter decides to modify her soup in a minor way. Over time, these small variations add up to an extraordinary amount of diversity in the village's kitchens. And - critically - the longer the village has been accumulating these changes, the more diverse it is. It is like a clock, ticking away in units of rosemary and thyme - the longer it has been ticking, the more differences we see. It is the same phenomenon Emile Zuckerkandl noted in his proteins - more time equals more change. So, when we see greater genetic diversity in a particular population, we can infer that the population is older - and this makes Africa the oldest of all.
quote:--Michael C. Campbell1 and Sarah A. Tishkoff
Africa not only has the highest levels of human genetic variation in the world but also contains a considerable amount of linguistic, environmental and cultural diversity. For example, more than 2,000 distinct ethno-linguistic groups, representing nearly a third of the world’s languages, currently exist in Africa
Comparative studies of ethnically diverse human populations, particularly in Africa, are important for reconstructing human evolutionary history and for understanding the genetic basis of phenotypic adaptation and complex disease. African populations are characterized by greater levels of genetic diversity, extensive population substructure, and less linkage disequilibrium (LD) among loci compared to non-African populations. Africans also possess a number of genetic adaptations that have evolved in response to diverse climates and diets, as well as exposure to infectious disease. This review summarizes patterns and the evolutionary origins of genetic diversity present in African populations, as well as their implications for the mapping of complex traits, including disease susceptibility.
[…]
Africa is an important region to study human genetic diversity because of its complex population history and the dramatic variation in climate, diet, and exposure to infectious disease, which result in high levels of genetic and phenotypic variation in African populations. A better understanding of levels and patterns of variation in African genomes, together with phenotype data on variable traits, including susceptibility to disease and drug response, will be critical for reconstructing modern human origins, the genetic basis of adaptation to diverse environments, and the development of more effective vaccines and other therapeutic treatments for disease. This information will also be important for identifying variants that play a role in susceptibility to a number of complex diseases in people of recent African ancestry (172, 187, 208).
quote:Shut up with that Coon nazi crap and his goddam classifications, it is not accepted!!!
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:You've never read my posts properly. I argue ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians, not Levantines. What I though said is if DNA comes back showing big Levant gene flow, I wouldn't have a problem embracing Hamiticism, unlike the Afrocentrists here who would put their fingers in their ears or dispute/deny the DNA. (DNA is a white supremacist science...
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Yet you(an admitted and proud racist) somehow classify AE as Levantine Hamitics despite all the evidence in weight of their origin in Africa(including the Lower Egyptians) and impose a definition of black with so many arbitrary loopholes as to guarantee their exclusion and still claim to be an objective observer out to debunk Afrocentrists.
Originally posted by Cass/:
These populations however unlike humans are allopatric (hence the semantics of subspecies vs. demes/populations), but my point is scientists are distinguishing populations of animals that are near genetically identical (> 99%) so they are using geographical, behavioural and ecological criteria, not biological. That same standard should apply to humans as it does in zoology for other animals. So the earliest OOA settlers in Europe by definition cease to be "African" as soon as they moved there. It doesn't matter if they were still phenotypically "African".
Right.
My point about non-biological criteria: geography, behaviour (culture for humans) and ecology still stands e.g. Coon et al. 1950 classify "North American Coloureds" (African-Americans) as a separate geographical race to West Sub-Saharan Africans, yet AA's derive most their ancestry from West Africans. Coon et al's main criteria was geography, not biology. Similarly, "North American Whites" are a separate race to North-West Europeans, despite Coon et al. 1950 acknowledge that the largest component of ancestry of NAW's is North-West European. This was my point I was making to Doug, I am dealing with classification and its semantics. Scientific analysts of course will still continue to discuss the affinity AA's have to West Africans, but AA's are not labelled/classified as West African. For the same reason working with Doug's OOA model: the earliest OOA settlers in Europe and Levant would cease to be called African based on their geography and other non-biological factors. Also I said I don't even believe in OOA (which to me is heavily politicalized)- I just noted I was working with Doug's Out of Africa model to make this point.
My definition of who is "black" is far less arbitrary that anyone else here. My definition is based on the tropics- measurable as the latitude boundary that has the highest solar radiation. I've backed this up with reflectance spectroscopy.
quote:--Robert A. Foley er al.
Originally, the Aterian was considered to be the final phase of the local Mousterian/Middle Palaeolithic tradition, and thus mostly younger than 40 ka. Current data support a more asynchronous view. Integrating new dates for the sites of El Harhoura and El Mnasra with those from other sites published recently (Barton et al., 2009; Richter et al., 2010; Schwenninger et al., 2010; Jacobs et al., 2011) suggest an older chronology, with a range of between 112 and 50 ka. Sub-divisions within the Aterian have been also recognized for some time, but based entirely on typology (Ruhlmann, 1945; Antoine, 1950a, b; Balout, 1955; Roche, 1969). Recently, Jacobs et al. (2012) proposed four phases to the MP/Aterian history in the Maghreb:
The traditional interpretation has been that the Aterian represents a local facies of the North African Mousterian, sometimes described as an ‘evolved Mousterian’ (Tixier, 1959; Balout, 1965), or as an ‘Epi- Mousterian’ (Bordes, 1961). From a technological perspective, the characterization of the generalized North African MP/MSA is not simple. Techno-typological definitions of the non-Aterian MP/MSA industries in the Maghreb are unclear: Aumassip (2001) suggests a relative rarity of retouched tools and a relatively high frequency of sidescrapers, while for others abundant and diversified side- scrapers mainly produced on Levallois blanks are what characterize non-Aterian MP/MSA assemblages in the area (Wengler, 2010: 68). However, non-Aterian regional variation in the MSA is high. Aumassip (2004) identifies a number of traditions within a scheme of Mousterian variation very similar to European Mousterian facies e (a) Mousterian of Acheulean tradition, rich in small bifaces and Levallois debitage, frequent in Morocco and the Maghrebian Sahara; (b) Denticulate Mousterian in Egypt and the Maghreb, rich in denticulates and notches; (c) Typical Mousterian across North Africa; (d) Ferrassie-type Mousterian in the Maghreb, rich in scrapers and points and without bifaces; (e) Nubian Mousterian in Egypt and Sudan, characterized by the Levallois production of Nubian points, as well as (f) the Khormusan, a distinct facies of the Sudanese record (Marks, 1968; Goder-Goldeger, 2013). However, Aumassip’s classification of the non-Aterian MP/MSA of North Africa has been criticized on the grounds that it uses a European rather than African framework, and specifically excludes a number of sites from this North African ‘Mousterian’ variation e those described by Clark and others as ‘Middle Stone Age’ in Niger and Mali, and a set of very localized industries, such as those from M’zab and Dede in Algeria. To these, one could add the Pre-Aurignacian of Cyrenaica (McBurney, 1967). This highlights the point made earlier, that to understand the Aterian and its relationship to the MSA requires a broader comparative approach to technology, and that comparative framework must be Africa.
Aterian origins have usually been thought to lie in the Maghreb (Debènath et al., 1986; Pasty, 1997), although this view has been strongly criticized (Kleindienst, 1998: 8). Alternative origins have been suggested in sub-Saharan Africa, pointing to affinities with industries with foliates, such as the Lupemban and Sangoan (Caton- Thompson, 1946; Clark, 1982, 2008; Kleindienst, 1998; Wengler, 2010; Garcea, 2012). Sub-Saharan links are pertinent, since all human fossil remains found in association with the Aterian are those of H. sapiens, thus representing one of the main regional early human populations of Africa prior to the colonization of Eurasia.
We would argue that the Central Sahara occupies a pivotal place in the origins and dispersals of modern humans, and that the MSA of Africa is the context in which we should be developing hypotheses. Following the re-dating of key Maghrebian sites, the recognition of the North African MSA diversity, and of its place within a broader complex of Mode 3 African industries, the Aterian could be considered as one among several MSA traditions that may have existed in North Africa.
Although these need chronological definition, MSA-making hominins could have occupied North Africa and the Sahara during several wet phases, both before and after MIS5, while the expansion of the Aterian during this latter period is consistent with the expansion of modern humans, and MSA sites and traditions, throughout Africa. Furthermore, Aterian and non-Aterian MSA assemblages are temporally interstratified at certain sites as Ifri N’Ammar in Morocco (Mikdad and Eiwanger, 2000; Jacobs et al., 2011) or El Guettar in Tunisia (Aouadi- Abdeljaouad and Belhouchet, 2008, 2012). Such dynamic demographic responses to changes in socio-ecological environments have been mapped in other MSA traditions of Africa, such as the Howieson’s Poort (Jacobs et al., 2008).
quote:You're right and wrong. You are aware of the effects of sampling bottlenecks, but new mutations become wide spread from anywhere at any time. the novel european SLC45a2 is not found in africa, so whatever effect that has on skin color is exclusive to europe and european descendants for example.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:What you don't understand is that most diversity was already in Africa. If not they would have made most colors dots outside odd Africa.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ what you don't understand is that the OOA lost diversity as compared to all the African population but at the same time they later underwent unique mutations that occurred outside Africa.
So they are the result of these mutations and less diverse than Africans at the same time. There is no contradiction.
An example of this is the author Brenna Henn's other article Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations.
So your assumption that loss of diversity of the OOA populations means no new haplogroups formed outside of Africa at the same time is false. That is simplistic. The reality is that both things happened at once
What we see outside of Africa are DERIVATIVES.
quote:Very well,
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:You're right and wrong. You are aware of the effects of sampling bottlenecks, but new mutations become wide spread from anywhere at any time. the novel european SLC45a2 is not found in africa, so whatever effect that has on skin color is exclusive to europe and european descendants for example.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:What you don't understand is that most diversity was already in Africa. If not they would have made most colors dots outside odd Africa.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ what you don't understand is that the OOA lost diversity as compared to all the African population but at the same time they later underwent unique mutations that occurred outside Africa.
So they are the result of these mutations and less diverse than Africans at the same time. There is no contradiction.
An example of this is the author Brenna Henn's other article Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations.
So your assumption that loss of diversity of the OOA populations means no new haplogroups formed outside of Africa at the same time is false. That is simplistic. The reality is that both things happened at once
What we see outside of Africa are DERIVATIVES.
Cass, so Modern Egyptians = AE, and that's you're final answer?
In light of what this Abusir sample show's you're willing to stick that conclusion?
In light of what other even more later foreign imprints left on the Modern Egyptian genome, we're going with Modern Egyptians = A.Egyptians.
OK, Bet.
quote:--Carles Lalueza-Fox
This suggests a remarkable genetic uniformity and little phylogeographic structure over a large geographic area of the pre-Neolithic populations. Using Approximate Bayesian Computation, a model of genetic continuity from Mesolithic to Neolithic populations is poorly supported. Furthermore, analyses of 1.34% and 0.53% of their nuclear genomes, containing about 50,000 and 20,000 ancestry informative SNPs, respectively, show that these two Mesolithic individuals are not related to current populations from either the Iberian Peninsula or Southern Europe.
[...]
Indicate that La Bran ̃ a specimens (Figure 1) belong to the U5b haplotype (16192T-16270T).
Figure 2 | Ancestral variants around the SLC45A2 (rs16891982, above) and SLC24A5 (rs1426654, below) pigmentation genes in the Mesolithic genome.
The SNPs around the two diagnostic variants (red arrows) in these two genes were analysed. The resulting haplotype comprises neighbouring SNPs that are also absent in modern Europeans (CEU) (n = 112) but present in Yorubans (YRI) (n = 113). This pattern confirms that the La Braña 1 sample is older than the positive-selection event in these regions. Blue, ancestral; red, derived.
quote:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140126134643.htm
Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
Hmmm, IDK if your conceding, agreeing with me or the opposite.quote:Very well,
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
mut - rs16891982 (slc45a2) isn't found in africa (Native) Cuz it's a relatively new European mutation.
quote:Near Fixation of 374l Allele Frequencies of the Skin Pigmentation Gene SLC45A2 in Africa
"Frequencies display strong population differentiation, with the derived light skin pigmentation allele (A111T) fixed or nearly so in all European populations and the ancestral allele predominant in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia (Lamason et al. 2005; Norton et al. 2007)."
[...]
The L374F polymorphism of the SLC45A2 gene, encoding the membrane-associated transporter protein that plays an important role in melanin synthesis, has been suggested to be associated with skin color in human populations. In this study, the detailed distribution of the 374f and 374l alleles has been investigated in 2,581 unrelated subjects from 36 North, East, West, and Central African populations. We found once more the highly significant (p 0.001) correlation coefficient (r = 0.957) cline of 374f frequencies with degrees of latitude in European and North African populations. Almost all the African populations located below 16° of latitude are fixed for the 374l allele. Peul, Toucouleur, and Soninké populations have 374l allele frequencies of 0.06, 0.03, and 0.03, respectively.
quote:--Soejima M, Koda Y, Population differences of two coding SNPs in pigmentation-related genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2.
The two genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 were recently identified as major determinants of pigmentation in humans and in other vertebrates. The allele p.A111T in the former gene and the allele p.L374F in the latter gene are both nearly fixed in light-skinned Europeans, and can therefore be considered ancestry informative marker (AIMs). AIMs are becoming useful for forensic identification of the phenotype from a DNA profile sampled, for example, from a crime scene. Here, we generate new allelic data for these two genes from samples of Chinese, Uygurs, Ghanaians, South African Xhosa, South African Europeans, and Sri Lankans (Tamils and Sinhalese). Our data confirm the earlier results and furthermore demonstrate that the SLC45A2 allele is a more specific AIM than the SLC24A5 allele because the former clearly distinguishes the Sri Lankans from the Europeans.
quote:Look at the data I've already posted: dental, cranial non-metric & craniometric [providing a large number of measurements are used] show south Sudanese and Horn Sub-Saharan Africans are not closely related to ancient Egyptians. This is explained by geographical distance. Of course south Sudanese and Horners are closer to AE than more distant populations in SSA, like Zulus. Geographical distance = cranial/genetic distance. The closest match to ancient Egyptians (dental, cranial non-metric & craniometric and to that can be added blood groups, and dermatoglyphics) will be modern Egyptians, followed most closely by their neighbours: north Sudanese (Nubians) in the south and south Levant in the north. Those affinities are particularly apparent if you look at Lower Egypt who show ties to south Levant and Upper Egypt who show ties to Nubians based on their neighbouring geography. This also shows with the post-cranial data, e.g. Lower Egyptians tend e closer to Mediterranean populations than Nubians (see below). The whole thing is a cline, I'm not sure why people deny this: "The geographic proximity of Lower Egyptians to the Mediterranean Sea and of Upper Egyptians to Nubia likely explains the phenotypic and genotypic differences between the two areas." (Klases, 2014)
Originally posted by sudaniya:
What does potential Levantine influence in Lower Egypt in the later period have to do with the untenable "Hamiticism"? How on earth will it revive it? Ancient Egyptian civilization did not start in the North next to the Levant... it was created in the South by predynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and "Nubia" -- cultures that were virtually indistinguishable. The modern Egyptians that are the best representatives of the ancient are in Upper Egypt, not cosmopolitan Cairo and Alexandria.
People in Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt do not suddenly become unrelated to other Northeast Africans based entirely on their position in the tropics. The people in Sudan and the horn were the very people that moved up into Upper Egypt and created that civilization. Genetics, anthropology, linguistics and culture are far better means of determining biological affinities.
quote:Eurocentrism is a funny chapter in the history of humanity. This is how it will be remembered.
Originally posted by Cass/:
"The smallest indices in both Lower Egyptian males and females is expected since Lower Egyptians occupied the northern most area of the region, closest to the more temperate climate of the Mediterranean Sea. Lower Egyptians were also geographically farther from Sub-Saharan Africa and thus would have had less opportunity for gene flow with Sub-Saharan groups. These results thus support the hypothesis that northern Egyptians possess less tropical body proportions due to their more northern geographical position." (Raxter, 2011).
quote:-- Michelle H. Raxter (2011)
Cranial and dental evidence then tends to support a scenario of biological continuity in Egypt.
[...]
The main skeletal sample consisted of 492 males and 528 females, all adults from the Predynastic and Dynastic Periods, a time spanning c. 5500 BCE-600 CE.
Egyptian body dimensions were compared to Nubian groups, as well as to modern Egyptians and other higher and lower latitude populations.
The present study found a downward trend in ancient Egyptian stature for both sexes through time, as well as decreased sexual dimorphism in stature. The decreases may be associated with dietary and social stress with the intensification of agriculture and increased societal complexity.
Modern Egyptians in the study’s sample are generally taller and heavier than their predecessors; however, modern Egyptians exhibit relatively lower sexual dimorphism in stature.
Ancient Egyptians have more tropically adapted limbs in comparison to body breadths, which tend to be intermediate when plotted against higher and lower latitude populations.
These results may reflect the greater plasticity of limb lengths compared to body breadth.
The results might also suggest early Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern influence in Northeast Africa.
[…]
These results for Lower Egyptians are not wholly unexpected since Lower Egyptians occupied a middle latitude in the northernmost section of Northeast Africa, and inhabited a relatively more temperate climate compared to groups situated farther south.
[…]
For crural indices, all Nubian groups, as well as Upper Egyptians of both sexes, have significantly longer tibiae relative to their femora compared to Northern and Southern Europeans. This is expected since Upper Egyptians and Nubians are the groups in the Northeast African region that are geographically closest to Sub-Saharan Africa. Lower Egyptian females are not significantly different from either Northern or Southern Europeans and Lower Egyptian males are only significantly different from Northern Europeans (Table 28). These results for Lower Egyptians are not wholly unexpected since Lower Egyptians occupied a middle latitude in the northernmost section of Northeast Africa, and inhabited a relatively more temperate climate compared to groups situated farther south.
quote:I guess Amenhotep III was of Nubian extraction then??
Originally posted by Cass/:
There's more than one definition of tropics. I'm using the Tropic of Cancer to Tropic of Capricorn as the definition in this context of latitude.
Populations native between the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn on average have dark brown ('black') skin.
Ancient Egypt sat above the Tropic of Cancer; they weren't dark brown, but lighter brown pigmentation shades, like all the other populations at the same latitude. If ancient Egyptians are somehow black, are south Chinese and north Indians who are at same latitude? No one however calls south Chinese or north Indians as black, so why should Egyptians be a special case?
quote:And yet independent observers from different cultures are all saying exactly what I posted.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB] ^ridiculous smh
quote:Hilarious, euronuts are obviously in denial.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:And yet independent observers from different cultures are all saying exactly what I posted.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
^ridiculous smh
For Arabs, "the lands of the blacks" was only applied to territories below Egypt like Sudan.
Early Christian writers nearly always distinguished between ancient Egyptian pigmentation and Aethiopian - a term also applied by ancient Roman and Greeks to sub-Egyptians [populations below Egypt], virtually never Egypt.
All of this is based on the simple observation that ancient Egyptians had light to medium brown skin like their modern descendants, not dark brown.
Egyptian football team (not black)-
Now compare to Sudan football team who are black:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-le63TyPl0nE/V0QTk5R9X0I/AAAAAAAABA0/EL3iK4yyjPc93SWtduzZvZ1KT15TvUcJwCK4B/s1600/LinkDev.ImagesGallery-1033-799c74bd-b5a1-42c3-9ec2-569021d999b8.JPG
Hilarious how afrocentrists will deny the obvious.
quote:Hilarious, euronuts are obviously in denial 2.0.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:And yet independent observers from different cultures are all saying exactly what I posted.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB] ^ridiculous smh
For Arabs, "the lands of the blacks" was only applied to territories below Egypt like Sudan.
Early Christian writers nearly always distinguished between ancient Egyptian pigmentation and Aethiopian - a term also applied by ancient Roman and Greeks to sub-Egyptians [populations below Egypt], virtually never Egypt.
All of this is based on the simple observation that ancient Egyptians had light to medium brown skin like their modern descendants, not dark brown.
Egyptian football team (not black)-
Now compare to Sudan football team who are black:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-le63TyPl0nE/V0QTk5R9X0I/AAAAAAAABA0/EL3iK4yyjPc93SWtduzZvZ1KT15TvUcJwCK4B/s1600/LinkDev.ImagesGallery-1033-799c74bd-b5a1-42c3-9ec2-569021d999b8.JPG
Hilarious how afrocentrists will deny the obvious.
quote:Level of denial is through the roof. On sum "don't worry I got this, Maggie" ish:
Originally posted by beyoku:
SMH at ES members still talking about skin color.
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
There's more than one definition of tropics. I'm using the Tropic of Cancer to Tropic of Capricorn as the definition in this context of latitude.
Populations native between the Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn on average have dark brown ('black') skin.
Ancient Egypt sat above the Tropic of Cancer; they weren't dark brown, but lighter brown pigmentation shades, like all the other populations at the same latitude. If ancient Egyptians are somehow black, are south Chinese and north Indians who are at same latitude? No one however calls south Chinese or north Indians as black, so why should Egyptians be a special case?
quote:And yet those Sudanese players look more like the ancient Egyptians:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:And yet independent observers from different cultures are all saying exactly what I posted.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[QB] ^ridiculous smh
For Arabs, "the lands of the blacks" was only applied to territories below Egypt like Sudan.
Early Christian writers nearly always distinguished between ancient Egyptian pigmentation and Aethiopian - a term also applied by ancient Roman and Greeks to sub-Egyptians [populations below Egypt], virtually never Egypt.
All of this is based on the simple observation that ancient Egyptians had light to medium brown skin like their modern descendants, not dark brown.
Egyptian football team (not black)-
Now compare to Sudan football team who are black:
[img]
Hilarious how afrocentrists will deny the obvious.
quote:It doesn't. Afroloons just cherry-pick the darkest they can find on google images.
Why does 90% of ancient Egyptians art all over Egypt looks like to following?
quote:I am asking you a question do not derail with stupidity. Have you actual been to Egypt? smh
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:It doesn't. Afroloons just cherry-pick the darkest they can find on google images.
Why does 90% of ancient Egyptians art all over Egypt looks like to following?
quote:Dude what are you trying to proof?
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:True as well.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Wait so the Sudanese in general are black now? I thought that was only Southern Sudanese below the Saharan line. Didn't you first say that the AE and Northern Sudanese both were not blacks???
Make up your goddamned mind
quote:I like to get an answer. Btw most African people are brown with reddish hue.
Originally posted by Cass/:
I'm not into silly picture spams. I've already seen in person something like 1000+ depictions of ancient Egyptians from the British Museum. This included artwork and statues not even on display since I did work-experience there in 2011 and I worked in the storage/collections management. Here's pretty much what the average AE pigmentation looks like and what the BM chose to display on one of their advertisements-
This complexion is not black. Also, I acknowledge there are both darker and lighter shades than this, they're not though typical. Like the atypical chocolate/darkest images Afrocentrists cherry-pick, you can find Egyptian art as light as southern European pigmentation, i.e. a faint light brown (the below example of this is from the BM and I've seen it up close)-
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=117639&partId=1
I can tell - you Afroloons who go to the BM thinking most Egyptian art is going to show dark chocolate brown type skin (like you spam here) is going are be in for a shock.
quote:How does this help you? Look at the phenotype. smh
Originally posted by Cass/:
a shock.
quote:I'm not inclined to believe any of this experience that you're boasting about. Europeans have been lying about African history for centuries, and you're no different. Ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant and it is beyond dispute that Upper Egyptians and Lower "Nubians" were physically virtually identical, and since they formed the demographic majority, most ancient Egyptians would have looked a lot more like the people of modern Upper Egypt from Luxor to Aswan.
Originally posted by Cass/:
I'm not into silly picture spams. I've already seen in person something like 1000+ depictions of ancient Egyptians from the British Museum. This included artwork and statues not even on display since I did work-experience there in 2011 and I worked in the storage/collections management. Here's pretty much what the average AE pigmentation looks like and what the BM chose to display on one of their advertisements-
This complexion is not black. Also, I acknowledge there are both darker and lighter shades than this, they're not though typical. Like the atypical chocolate/darkest images Afrocentrists cherry-pick, you can find Egyptian art as light as southern European pigmentation, i.e. a faint light brown (the below example of this is from the BM and I've seen it up close)-
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=117639&partId=1
I can tell - you Afroloons who go to the BM thinking most Egyptian art is going to show dark chocolate brown type skin (like you spam here) is going are be in for a shock.
quote:The shock value is in it, that these images exist and can be found all over Egypt. And you can't explain why. That is the shock here. Because according to your theory this is not possible. However 90% all over Egypt shows images like this!
Originally posted by Cass/:
are be in for a shock.
quote:Any words on this Cas?
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:I'm not inclined to believe any of this experience that you're boasting about. Europeans have been lying about African history for centuries, and you're no different. Ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant and it is beyond dispute that Upper Egyptians and Lower "Nubians" were physically virtually identical, and since they formed the demographic majority, most ancient Egyptians would have looked a lot more like the people of modern Upper Egypt from Luxor to Aswan.
Originally posted by Cass/:
I'm not into silly picture spams. I've already seen in person something like 1000+ depictions of ancient Egyptians from the British Museum. This included artwork and statues not even on display since I did work-experience there in 2011 and I worked in the storage/collections management. Here's pretty much what the average AE pigmentation looks like and what the BM chose to display on one of their advertisements-
This complexion is not black. Also, I acknowledge there are both darker and lighter shades than this, they're not though typical. Like the atypical chocolate/darkest images Afrocentrists cherry-pick, you can find Egyptian art as light as southern European pigmentation, i.e. a faint light brown (the below example of this is from the BM and I've seen it up close)-
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=117639&partId=1
I can tell - you Afroloons who go to the BM thinking most Egyptian art is going to show dark chocolate brown type skin (like you spam here) is going are be in for a shock.
quote:Perhaps you mean this?
Originally posted by Oshun:
Hey wasn't there a study that said 1k BC there was migration that reached Ethiopia or somewhere like that? Anyone have the study? And if this is true, wouldn't it be fair to assume admixture also happened in Upper Egypt by 1k BC? Probably not as much as Lower Egypt but still.
P.S: If there WAS an admixture event 1k BC, why aren't all these populations regarded as mulatto? Why are they considered "SSA" or "black?" Why do so many have SSA affinities? The Bantu migration seems to seem as though it's the go-to Eurocentric explanation. But under that theory still... didn't those start 3,500 BC? Wouldn't that just be added genetic input from the same populations that were there from the start? And if there was not major Bantu migration, where did the added "SSA" data come from?
Also, what genetic data helps us to know whether there was a Near Eastern component to other Africans who carry L? If we know L was in the Middle East, how do we know that it didn't affect L lineages we assume had no significant contact?
quote:--Ahmed Ibrahim Awale
This book contains convincing evidence and persuasive arguments to cause a stir among historians - Egyptologists in particular - as it will expose archaeological findings excavated in an area that has never been thought to have historical significance. This is no place other than Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland, and surrounding areas. While the ground-breaking information contained in this book is hoped to bring the long standing argument on the location of the mysterious Land of Punt almost to a close, it will also shed a new light on the race controversy surrounding ancient Egyptian
quote:The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Ian Shaw, p. 317, 2003:
"There is still some debate regarding the precise location of Punt, which was once identified with the region of modern Somalia. A strong argument has now been made for its location in either southern Sudan or the Eritrean region of Ethiopia, where the indigenous plants and animals equate most closely with those depicted in the Egyptian reliefs and paintings.
quote:-- 31 July - 6 August 2003
"In the process of cleaning the walls between the tomb's inner and outer chambers they stumbled upon an inscription believed to be the first evidence of a huge attack from the south on Elkab and Egypt by the Kingdom of Kush and its allies from the land of Punt, during the 17th dynasty (1575-1525 BC). "
quote:http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150644/
For thousands of years, several native tree species have provided the raw materials for some of the Horn of Africa’s most important commodities, including frankincense (from Boswellia sacra in Somalia, Yemen and Oman, and B. frereana in Somalia), myrrh (from the widespread Commiphor myrrha and C. guidottii in Somalia and eastern Ethiopia) and dragon’s blood or cinnabar (from Dracaena cinnabari, EN found on Socotra). All three are gum-resins obtained from these trees. Dragon’s blood, is used as a medicine and dye. The production of frankincense and myrrh is still a major economic activity in Somalia and, to some extent, in Ethiopia and northern Kenya.
quote:--Scientists zero in on ancient Land of Punt
At a recent meeting in Oakland of the American Research Center in Egypt three scientists announced with confidence they had ruled out all of those five locations, and there was no disagreement from the 300 archaeologists there.
The Land of Punt, the scientist said, must have existed in eastern North Africa - either in the region where Ethiopia and Eritrea confront each other, or east of the Upper Nile in a lowland area of eastern Sudan.
quote:All populations in the tropics have dark brown skin and are 'black'. I never denied close biological connection between Egyptians and their geographical neighbours including northern Sudanese (Nubians). South Sudanese are not Egyptian neighbours, only North Sudanese are. The problem is you don't understand/comprehend what I've posted. Throughout the thread you've either misinterpreted or misread what I've said. There's a skin colour cline running through the Nile valley from Lower Egypt to Upper Egypt and Nubia. Unlike Afrocentrists I don't say this entire cline is "black". Instead I recognise Lower/Middle Egyptians are light brown pigmentation, Upper Egyptians a medium brown and Nubians dark brown.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Wait so the Sudanese in general are black now? I thought that was only Southern Sudanese below the Saharan line. Didn't you first say that the AE and Northern Sudanese both were not blacks???
Make up your goddamned mind
quote:Eurasians would have had the greatest influence in Lower Egypt, but that still leaves the most important region [Upper Egypt] ethnically closer to "Nubians" in Egypt and Sudan since the predynastic period. It all starts in Upper Egypt, and so I think whatever transpired in Lower Egypt has very little bearing on this fact. There is yet no evidence that Eurasians (dark or light) created the ancient Egyptian civilization.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Skin color is useful in this context when the underlying assumption that early Eurasians in the Med Basin were light skinned, can be established. Aboriginal Levantine and European populations would have had dark skin early on, potentially masking Eurasian influences on AE pigmentation levels by dynastic times. Rural Somalis with some Eurasian influences are darker skinned than many Bantu speakers. The recently sampled Natufians were a hybrid population, but still would likely have had dark skin.
How do you respond to that, Ish?
quote:"South Sudanese are not Egyptian neighbours"
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:All populations in the tropics have dark brown skin and are 'black'. I never denied close biological connection between Egyptians and their geographical neighbours including northern Sudanese (Nubians). South Sudanese are not Egyptian neighbours, only North Sudanese are. The problem is you don't understand/comprehend what I've posted. Throughout the thread you've either misinterpreted or misread what I've said. There's a skin colour cline running through the Nile valley from Lower Egypt to Upper Egypt and Nubia. Unlike Afrocentrists I don't say this entire cline is "black". Instead I recognise Lower/Middle Egyptians are light brown pigmentation, Upper Egyptians a medium brown and Nubians dark brown.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Wait so the Sudanese in general are black now? I thought that was only Southern Sudanese below the Saharan line. Didn't you first say that the AE and Northern Sudanese both were not blacks???
Make up your goddamned mind
"On the average, between the Delta in northern Egypt and the Sudan of the Upper Nile, skin color tends to darken from light brown to what appears to the eye as bluish black." (Trigger, B. [1978]. “Nubian, Negro, Black, Nilotic?”. Wenig, Steffen (ed.). In: Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. Brooklyn Museum, New York.)
The reason Afrocentrists want to categorize light brown shades as black is for their own agenda/pan-Africanist politics. All Africans have to be "black" for their politics. If someone tries to divide Africans, this conflicts with their interests.
quote:Do you agree that Southern Sudans are Northern Sudanese neighbors?
Originally posted by Cass/:
South Sudanese are not Egyptian neighbours, only North Sudanese are.
quote:Umm, the reason is because that color complexion exists amongst us. It is not ALIEN TO US!
Originally posted by Cass/:
The reason Afrocentrists want to categorize light brown shades as black is for their own agenda/pan-Africanist politics.
quote:Most ancient Egyptians were just brown to dark brown - not light brown. Ancient Egypt was a thoroughly African civilization, and so there is no use pretending that it just materialised out of the blue with zero affinities with other Africans. You are constantly trying to link ancient Egypt with Eurasians.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:All populations in the tropics have dark brown skin and are 'black'. I never denied close biological connection between Egyptians and their geographical neighbours including northern Sudanese (Nubians). South Sudanese are not Egyptian neighbours, only North Sudanese are. The problem is you don't understand/comprehend what I've posted. Throughout the thread you've either misinterpreted or misread what I've said. There's a skin colour cline running through the Nile valley from Lower Egypt to Upper Egypt and Nubia. Unlike Afrocentrists I don't say this entire cline is "black". Instead I recognise Lower/Middle Egyptians are light brown pigmentation, Upper Egyptians a medium brown and Nubians dark brown.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Wait so the Sudanese in general are black now? I thought that was only Southern Sudanese below the Saharan line. Didn't you first say that the AE and Northern Sudanese both were not blacks???
Make up your goddamned mind
"On the average, between the Delta in northern Egypt and the Sudan of the Upper Nile, skin color tends to darken from light brown to what appears to the eye as bluish black." (Trigger, B. [1978]. “Nubian, Negro, Black, Nilotic?”. Wenig, Steffen (ed.). In: Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. Brooklyn Museum, New York.)
The reason Afrocentrists want to categorize light brown shades as black is for their own agenda/pan-Africanist politics. All Africans have to be "black" for their politics. If someone tries to divide Africans, this conflicts with their interests.
quote:I am still waiting for you to answer, but at this point you are getting silly and pathetic. Especially because I've posted avocet Syrian depictions, so I am starting to get the feeling that you are just a retarded eurocentric clown.
Originally posted by Cass/:
lol @ afronuts still running away from the Great Hymn to the Aten.
So, we're expected to believe by these afrocentric clowns that Egyptians and Nubians were virtually identical in skin pigmentation, when the Egyptians distinguished themselves to the Nubians in skin colour:
"The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt,Thou settest every man in his place,Thou suppliest their necessities:Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.Their tongues are separate in speech,And their natures as well; Their skins are distinguished."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten
quote:If that is true it makes it even more terrible for to eurocentric agenda.
Originally posted by Swenet:
^Those are Canaanites, not Egyptians. Which brings us back to how shaky skin pigmentation can be when used carelessly.
quote:There was no country called "Nubia" in dynastic Egypt. Lower "Nubians" and Puntites from Northeast Sudan or Eritrea closely resembled the ancient Egyptians more so than "Nubians" further afield. The "Nubians" were ethnically the closest people to the ancient Egyptians and stem from a common origin.
Originally posted by Cass/:
lol @ afronuts still running away from the Great Hymn to the Aten.
So, we're expected to believe by these afrocentric clowns that Egyptians and Nubians were virtually identical in skin pigmentation, when the Egyptians distinguished themselves to the Nubians in skin colour:
"The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt,Thou settest every man in his place,Thou suppliest their necessities:Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.Their tongues are separate in speech,And their natures as well; Their skins are distinguished."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten
quote:Have they established that these mummies are of ethnic Egyptian extraction? If, so, this is going to force a re-think on the biological affinities of Lower Egypt. They still need to get samples from Upper Egypt in order for all of this contention to come to a close. I really expected more Northeast African genes in Lower Egyptians. Do you think that these late dynastic samples results are a continuum of predynastic to early dynastic Lower Egyptian genetic profiles?
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Sudaniya
If the Abusir mummies generally looked like the mummy in the link below, they likely weren't light skinned:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8RhjMQVwAAKyZg.jpg:large
Another clue also indicates that they weren't light skinned: they have affinity with farmer groups around the Mediterranean. Despite this clues of possibly dark(er) skin, their mtDNA profile is largely Eurasian.
I guess we'll have to wait and see for more details.
quote:It is funny how you mentioned running, yet still haven't answer day question. Sound like running to me. lol
Originally posted by Cass/:
lol @ afronuts still running away from the Great Hymn to the Aten.
So, we're expected to believe by these afrocentric clowns that Egyptians and Nubians were virtually identical in skin pigmentation, when the Egyptians distinguished themselves to the Nubians in skin colour:
"The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt,Thou settest every man in his place,Thou suppliest their necessities:Everyone has his food, and his time of life is reckoned.Their tongues are separate in speech,And their natures as well; Their skins are distinguished."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten
quote:Northern Sudanese (Nubians) are closely related to ancient Egyptians, Southern Sudanese, are not. Anyone denying this is ignoring dental, non-metric & metric cranial, blood group, dermatoglyphics and so on. I've already shown all this data. Here's basically who is close to AE:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Do you agree that Southern Sudans are Northern Sudanese neighbors?
Originally posted by Cass/:
South Sudanese are not Egyptian neighbours, only North Sudanese are.
If that were true we would see close ties to AE's to Sub-Saharan African populations including Southern Sudanese. None of this shows though in the data. Of course though SSA populations more near geographically to Egypt than others will be closer genetically than more distant populations in relative terms, e.g. Somalis are going to plot closer to an Egyptian than a Zulu. The whole thing is best explained by IBD (isolation-by-distance).
quote:What you're saying about Nubian and most dynastic Upper Egyptians can still be true. I, for one, still think it is, but that's only based on craniometric analysis, not based on skin pigmentation. If skin pigmentation doesn't match the increased heterogeneity we see in dynastic Egypt (i.e. if AE don't become lighter skinned to the same degree as their increased heterogeneity), skin pigmentation becomes a poor marker of ancestry.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Have they established that these mummies are of ethnic Egyptian extraction? If, so, this is going to force a re-think on the biological affinities of Lower Egypt. They still need to get samples from Upper Egypt in order for all of this contention to come to a close.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Sudaniya
If the Abusir mummies generally looked like the mummy in the link below, they likely weren't light skinned:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8RhjMQVwAAKyZg.jpg:large
Another clue also indicates that they weren't light skinned: they have affinity with farmer groups around the Mediterranean. Despite this clues of possibly dark(er) skin, their mtDNA profile is largely Eurasian.
I guess we'll have to wait and see for more details.
quote:I am still waiting for you to explain yourself on you hilarious latitude Capricorn theory.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Northern Sudanese (Nubians) are closely related to ancient Egyptians, Southern Sudanese, are not. Anyone denying this is ignoring dental, non-metric & metric cranial, blood group, dermatoglyphics and so on. I've already shown all this data. Here's basically who is close to AE:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Do you agree that Southern Sudans are Northern Sudanese neighbors?
Originally posted by Cass/:
South Sudanese are not Egyptian neighbours, only North Sudanese are.
The closest ties though to ancient Egyptians are modern Egyptians (this shows in all the aforementioned data), so despite the closeness of Nubians and south Levantines to Egyptians [the former to Upper Egyptians, the latter to Lower Egyptians], we should expect some differences to the extent the ancient Egyptians visibly recognised south Levantines and Nubians had different skin colouring to them. The Nubians were darker, while the south Levant peoples, lighter (expected for the clinal/latitutidal patterning of human skin pigmentation.)
Please explain why you think people more distant peoples, including those living thousands of miles away from Egypt (outside the zone I highlighted) will still be closely related to Egyptians even though they aren't geographical neighbours
quote:Very good point. Thanks, Swenet.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:What you're saying about Nubian and most dynastic Upper Egyptians can still be true. I, for one, still think it is, but that's only based on craniometric analysis, not based on skin pigmentation. If skin pigmentation doesn't match the increased heterogeneity we see in dynastic Egypt (i.e. if AE don't become lighter skinned to the same degree as their increased heterogeneity), skin pigmentation becomes a poor marker of ancestry.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Have they established that these mummies are of ethnic Egyptian extraction? If, so, this is going to force a re-think on the biological affinities of Lower Egypt. They still need to get samples from Upper Egypt in order for all of this contention to come to a close.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Sudaniya
If the Abusir mummies generally looked like the mummy in the link below, they likely weren't light skinned:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8RhjMQVwAAKyZg.jpg:large
Another clue also indicates that they weren't light skinned: they have affinity with farmer groups around the Mediterranean. Despite this clues of possibly dark(er) skin, their mtDNA profile is largely Eurasian.
I guess we'll have to wait and see for more details.
Google pictures of Malagasy (people from Madagascar). Skin pigmentation is of little use when trying to find out how African they are. This is because the incoming Asians weren't pale skinned.
quote:In case your dumbass doesn't get it, it was sarcasm on your stupidity.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Northern Sudanese (Nubians) are closely related to ancient Egyptians, Southern Sudanese, are not. Anyone denying this is ignoring dental, non-metric & metric cranial, blood group, dermatoglyphics and so on. I've already shown all this data. Here's basically who is close to AE:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Do you agree that Southern Sudans are Northern Sudanese neighbors?
Originally posted by Cass/:
South Sudanese are not Egyptian neighbours, only North Sudanese are.
http://i.imgur.com/OF96Asj.png
.
quote:--Hisham Y. Hassan,1 Peter A. Underhill,2 Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza,2 and Muntaser E. Ibrahim1*
Haplogroup E (four different haplo types) accounts for the majority (34.4%) of the chromosome and is widespread in the Sudan. E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations. E-M33 (5.2%) is largely confined to Fulani and Hausa, whereas E-M2 is restricted to Hausa."
quote:Actually this is the Upper Egyptians, with Lower Egyptians to a lesser extent. Logically since all the admixture from abroad mostly happened there at Lower Egypt.
Originally posted by Cass/:
The closest ties though to ancient Egyptians are modern Egyptians
quote:^Just because of their Geographic distribution? This is some amazing science. I wonder if you're aware of how many pigment related polymorphisms SSA's carry... I'm expecting a thorough explanation of how that works under IBD.
Originally posted by Cass/:
I predict with ancient DNA in the next few years that ancient Egyptians will be proven to carry 2 or 3 of the 5 derived light skin alleles (rs1426654, rs16891982, rs1042602, rs642742, rs2424984, are there even more?) to explain their pigmentation as roughly intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:.
Originally posted by Swenet:
^Those are Canaanites, not Egyptians. Which brings us back to how shaky skin pigmentation can be when used carelessly.
quote:Because doing that has very little to no utility. Looking at the Luscan scale, the extreme end would be # 35-36, which is almost a true black.
I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
quote:I said shut the **** up with that carton coon nazi ****! It is not accepted!
Originally posted by Cass/:
Egypt (or a significant portion of it) isn't in a high-UV radiation zone (see the map in Jablonki & Chaplin, 2000 - "The evolution of human skin coloration") therefore (like the northern Maghreb) light[er] skin pigmentation was selected there. This is a problem for Afrocentrists who want all autochthonous African populations to be "black" (i.e. dark brown skinned) to fit their politics. But what if there were native non-blacks of northernmost Africa? This was actually hypothesized by Carleton Coon.
I predict with ancient DNA in the next few years that ancient Egyptians will be proven to carry 2 or 3 of the 5 derived light skin alleles (rs1426654, rs16891982, rs1042602, rs642742, rs2424984, are there even more?) to explain their pigmentation as roughly intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:Eugenist Coon doesn't mean ****, completely irrelevant and meaningless to us.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Because doing that has very little to no utility. Looking at the Luscan scale, the extreme end would be # 35-36, which is almost a true black.
I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
No anthropologist would make a division/classification of using only 2 tile numbers (e.g. # 35-36) on the Luscan Scale. At the opposite extreme of foolishness: Afrocentrists want to label "black" as broad as possible (as many as 20 tile numbers # 16-36) so they can pool together the diverse variation of skin colours observed in African populations to match their pan-African politics.
What I've clung to is the textbook anthropology divisions such as Coon who defines # 29-36 as black (or what he calls the "chocolate brown class" which is the darkest), these provide most useful since they are neither too broad, nor narrow. Unlike the Afroloons here, I'm not following some sort of "pan" political ideology. So for example when it comes to Europe, I don't classify Northern European pigmentation with Southern European pigmentation.
quote:LOL LOL LOL Eurocentric nutjob bob-head, still can't answer the question like a man, so he runs like a little child. Trying to derail the topic will get you nowhere.
Originally posted by Cass/:
LOL LOL LOL LOL.
Crony & crackpot pa-Africanist associate of Carlos Coke, Tristan Samuels is accusing Krause of racism and "using 19th century anthropological concepts that were used to deny the fact that Ancient Egyptians were African people."
No doubt behind the scenes, Coke is doing the same.
https://twitter.com/TS_Africology/status/851184803474939905
quote:Scribe close up, profile :
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
I mean you nazi types absolutely crack me up. you play stunts like posting altered artifacts like this to *prove* the strict distinction between Egyptians and Nubians
Which people too stupid as to actually do some follow up take as the real thing,
*adding that both the Egyptians and Kushites in this relief have the exact same dark brown paint that falls well within your preferred range for "black" people(or the "chocolate brown class" as you so eloquently quoted)*
And accuse everyone ELSE of shenanigans. The nerve!
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Because doing that has very little to no utility. Looking at the Luscan scale, the extreme end would be # 35-36, which is almost a true black.
I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
quote:So what's the point?
Originally posted by Cass/:
I've already addressed your points. I said there are lighter and darker ancient Egyptians to the average I posted. I'm not though interested in atypical examples of lighter/darker skinned Egyptians because they aren't common. I don't do picture spams. For each chocolate brown Egyptian you can find, I can find a very light brown example. So what's the point?
Katep and Hetepheres-
quote:It makes no difference unless someone is tanned.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB] That chart is fake. Numbers 4 5 & 6 give it away.
Not only that, von Luschan designed his glass
tiles for eyeball examination against protected
skin like the inside upper arm.
quote:If an average was truly what you were going for then something like this would've been a much more honest course.
Originally posted by Cass/:
I've already addressed your points. I said there are lighter and darker ancient Egyptians to the average I posted. I'm not though interested in atypical examples of lighter/darker skinned Egyptians because they aren't common. I don't do picture spams. For each chocolate brown Egyptian you can find, I can find a very light brown example. So what's the point?
Katep and Hetepheres-
quote:What do you think about EEF being almost fixed for the derived solute carrier gene responsible for the greatest amount of difference in skin color between non-EastAsian populations, and what does that suggest about the Abusir Mummies... Or even basal Eurasian for that matter.
Originally posted by beyoku:
This is what we mean by "Business as usual". They just released mtdna and autosomal data on over 90 mummies and somehow ES members are posting the same thing they have been posting for the last 10 years.....and dumbing everything down to to skin color.
Welp.
quote:^^^ Looking at the nuances here, 2 is darker than 3
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Because doing that has very little to no utility. Looking at the Luscan scale, the extreme end would be # 35-36, which is almost a true black.
I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
No anthropologist would make a division/classification of using only 2 tile numbers (e.g. # 35-36) on the Luscan Scale. At the opposite extreme of foolishness: Afrocentrists want to label "black" as broad as possible (as many as 20 tile numbers # 16-36) so they can pool together the diverse variation of skin colours observed in African populations to match their pan-African politics.
What I've clung to is the textbook anthropology divisions such as Coon who defines # 29-36 as black (or what he calls the "chocolate brown class" which is the darkest), these provide most useful since they are neither too broad, nor narrow. Unlike the Afroloons here, I'm not following some sort of "pan" political ideology. So for example when it comes to Europe, I don't classify Northern European pigmentation with Southern European pigmentation.
quote:^^^ Looking at the nuances here, 6 is a lot darker than 7, 8 and 9 and continues to be darker than anything until 15 which is similar.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The 4 5 6 anomaly proves your chart
is an inaccurate manipulation designed
for Euro self interest. My chart, bricks,
and tiles present the anomaly that
yours covers up.
I am not here to go back and forth
with you. You have been corrected.
The chart you posted is a fake.
For anybody interested here are
some of the glass tiles to go along
with my bricks and my 'paper' repros
Authenticity assured!
Of course everybody's free to Google von
Luschan or skin spectrometry to see for
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23633083
themselves. The lazy ones won't do it
and that's what a certain set of posters
rely on. It helps them get over.
quote:I read that Carleton Coon wanted No. 6 eliminated
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Ttbomk von Luschan never intended
strict gradation. Others, wanted to
see a Euro gradient revealed in the
lower numbers.
Please Google von Luschan's chart.
You'll find what's noticed about the
anomaly, no. 6 in particular.
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Ttbomk von Luschan never intended
strict gradation. Others, wanted to
see a Euro gradient revealed in the
lower numbers.
Please Google von Luschan's chart.
You'll find what's noticed about the
anomaly, no. 6 in particular.
quote:It's obvious you are too dumb to see how you are contradicting yourself continuously.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Because doing that has very little to no utility. Looking at the Luscan scale, the extreme end would be # 35-36, which is almost a true black.
I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
No anthropologist would make a division/classification of using only 2 tile numbers (e.g. # 35-36) on the Luscan Scale. At the opposite extreme of foolishness: Afrocentrists want to label "black" as broad as possible (as many as 20 tile numbers # 16-36) so they can pool together the diverse variation of skin colours observed in African populations to match their pan-African politics.
What I've clung to is the textbook anthropology divisions such as Coon who defines # 29-36 as black (or what he calls the "chocolate brown class" which is the darkest), these provide most useful since they are neither too broad, nor narrow. Unlike the Afroloons here, I'm not following some sort of "pan" political ideology. So for example when it comes to Europe, I don't classify Northern European pigmentation with Southern European pigmentation.
quote:It's funny how you keep posting a white supremacist, eugenicist like Carleton Coon, yet accuse people of being Afrocentric (Africa-Centered) as if that is a bad thing.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:It makes no difference unless someone is tanned.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB] That chart is fake. Numbers 4 5 & 6 give it away.
Not only that, von Luschan designed his glass
tiles for eyeball examination against protected
skin like the inside upper arm.
And the 4, 5, 6 anomaly was always there apparently-
"Nos. 4, 5, and 6, interrupting the pinkish to brunette white sequence. The scale does not match all skin colors very closely, primarily because lozenges are glossy." - Coon, 1965
Coon (Ibid.) also provides some useful data on reflectance spectroscopy: "Bushmen skin reflects 43% of light, as compared to 24% in the case of Yoruba Negroes in Nigeria, and 64% in the case of Europeans."
North Africans reflect 50-60%.
Algeria (Aures): 58%
Tunisia: 56%
Morrocco: 55%
Libya (Tripoli): 54%
- Jablonski % Chaplin (2000)
I predict this same range for ancient Egyptians since they're at the same latitude. Europeans are 60-70.
So are Afrocentrists proposing 'black' should cover from 20 to 60% reflectance? That leaves non-black to only 60 to 70%.
quote:Actually it is a Cas his obsession. He ignores the fact that ancient Egyptian had or could have had dark skin tones because of his latitude Capricorn theory. So he has to be confronted. And I'm not sure if lioness comes first or second.
Originally posted by beyoku:
This is what we mean by "Business as usual". They just released mtdna and autosomal data on over 90 mummies and somehow ES members are posting the same thing they have been posting for the last 10 years.....and dumbing everything down to to skin color.
Welp.
quote:On that note:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:I read that Carleton Coon wanted No. 6 eliminated
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Ttbomk von Luschan never intended
strict gradation. Others, wanted to
see a Euro gradient revealed in the
lower numbers.
Please Google von Luschan's chart.
You'll find what's noticed about the
anomaly, no. 6 in particular.
quote:Interesting post Tukuler. This scale methodology has an interesting history.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The 4 5 6 anomaly proves your chart
is an inaccurate manipulation designed
for Euro self interest. My chart, bricks,
and tiles present the anomaly that
yours covers up.
I am not here to go back and forth
with you. You have been corrected.
The chart you posted is a fake.
For anybody interested here are
some of the glass tiles to go along
with my bricks and my 'paper' repros
Authenticity assured!
Of course everybody's free to Google von
Luschan or skin spectrometry to see for
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23633083
themselves. The lazy ones won't do it
and that's what a certain set of posters
rely on. It helps them get over.
quote:http://www.reed.edu/art/ondrizek/exhibitions/shades-of-white/
Although I have done similar genetic research-based projects, I have not previously taken on such racially controversial material. is project exposes the genetic dis- crimination at play in the United States beginning in 1900 and links it to the practice of eugenics aimed at achieving racial hygiene in Nazi Germany. As Stern points out in Eugenic Nation, the top eugenicists in the U. S. collaborated with and followed the same practices as their Nazi counterparts in 1930s Germany. In fact the “Gates Skin Color Chart” is based on a similar chart dating to 1905 created by Felix von Luschan, which the German Society for Racial Hygiene utilized in selecting the victims of the forced sterilizations performed in that country.
quote:You don't get it, do you? "Blacks" carry the dominant and recessive.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Egypt (or a significant portion of it) isn't in a high-UV radiation zone (see the map in Jablonki & Chaplin, 2000 - "The evolution of human skin coloration") therefore (like the northern Maghreb) light[er] skin pigmentation was selected there. This is a problem for Afrocentrists who want all autochthonous African populations to be "black" (i.e. dark brown skinned) to fit their politics. But what if there were native non-blacks of northernmost Africa? This was actually hypothesized by Carleton Coon.
I predict with ancient DNA in the next few years that ancient Egyptians will be proven to carry 2 or 3 of the 5 derived light skin alleles (rs1426654, rs16891982, rs1042602, rs642742, rs2424984, are there even more?) to explain their pigmentation as roughly intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans.
quote:--Carles Lalueza-Fox
This suggests a remarkable genetic uniformity and little phylogeographic structure over a large geographic area of the pre-Neolithic populations. Using Approximate Bayesian Computation, a model of genetic continuity from Mesolithic to Neolithic populations is poorly supported. Furthermore, analyses of 1.34% and 0.53% of their nuclear genomes, containing about 50,000 and 20,000 ancestry informative SNPs, respectively, show that these two Mesolithic individuals are not related to current populations from either the Iberian Peninsula or Southern Europe.
[...]
Indicate that La Bran ̃ a specimens (Figure 1) belong to the U5b haplotype (16192T-16270T).
Figure 2 | Ancestral variants around the SLC45A2 (rs16891982, above) and SLC24A5 (rs1426654, below) pigmentation genes in the Mesolithic genome.
The SNPs around the two diagnostic variants (red arrows) in these two genes were analysed. The resulting haplotype comprises neighbouring SNPs that are also absent in modern Europeans (CEU) (n = 112) but present in Yorubans (YRI) (n = 113). This pattern confirms that the La Braña 1 sample is older than the positive-selection event in these regions. Blue, ancestral; red, derived.
quote:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140126134643.htm
Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."
quote:Funny how you left out box 7. Funny you now alter the color boxes into black-white? How is that going to change the narrative, negresse?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Ttbomk von Luschan never intended
strict gradation. Others, wanted to
see a Euro gradient revealed in the
lower numbers.
Please Google von Luschan's chart.
You'll find what's noticed about the
anomaly, no. 6 in particular.
If you look at any two squares next to each other in just 6 parts you can just barely notice the difference.
Which is the Black range?
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
This is what we mean by "Business as usual". They just released mtdna and autosomal data on over 90 mummies and somehow ES members are posting the same thing they have been posting for the last 10 years.....and dumbing everything down to to skin color.
Welp.
quote:Most people in Africa do not have the complexion of these South Sudanese. These South Sudanese make up only about 11,3 million (and these are different ethnic groups combined). Africa has a pop about 1 billion +.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
"All populations in the tropics have dark brown skin and are 'black'."
Ok so for a recap.
Sahelians, not black:
Southern Chadians, not black:
South Africans, not black(non-Khoisan or Afrikaaner):
Many African Americans, not black:
Got it.
Playing by Cass' rules though, why stop here? There are numerous Africans even darker than dark brown and in that same tropical apartheid zone, being near pitch black.
https://www.oikoumene.org/en/press-centre/news/201cwe-need-support-for-the-people-of-south-sudan-and-just-peace201d/image
I mean if we're going to be objective to the absolute letter and only count the absolute darkest pigmentation possible as black then why not just count the subset of Africans at the extreme end of dark pigment???
We already have precedent for this from Ptolemy's Geographia
Per Martin Bernal's Black Athena
"The people inhabiting the regions around Meroë, on the other hand, were deeply black in color and were pure Ethiopians (Ptolemy Geography 1.9).
quote:Colony in Egypt and based in Faiyum? Isn't Canaan in the Levant?
Originally posted by Oshun:
^^^
you posted an interesting link in another thread:
http://www.academia.edu/8826399/Southern_Canaan_as_an_Egyptian_Protodynastic_Colony
So the Canaan was a colony in Egypt from predynastic times and absorbed much of the culture of Egypt by the predynastic era? So then... by the time Canan establishes it's independence and is based in Faiyum, how distinguishable would they have even been culturally?
quote:The thing is........I dont care about skin color. I put its importance in the same league as genetic variants for Hair curl.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:What do you think about EEF being almost fixed for the derived solute carrier gene responsible for the greatest amount of difference in skin color between non-EastAsian populations, and what does that suggest about the Abusir Mummies... Or even basal Eurasian for that matter.
Originally posted by beyoku:
This is what we mean by "Business as usual". They just released mtdna and autosomal data on over 90 mummies and somehow ES members are posting the same thing they have been posting for the last 10 years.....and dumbing everything down to to skin color.
Welp.
Its getting cold in my snowy corner, help a brother out.
Look Above^ ..it's not just mindless spam y'know
quote:Here are a few issue with that.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
quote:Colony in Egypt and based in Faiyum? Isn't Canaan in the Levant?
Originally posted by Oshun:
^^^
you posted an interesting link in another thread:
http://www.academia.edu/8826399/Southern_Canaan_as_an_Egyptian_Protodynastic_Colony
So the Canaan was a colony in Egypt from predynastic times and absorbed much of the culture of Egypt by the predynastic era? So then... by the time Canan establishes it's independence and is based in Faiyum, how distinguishable would they have even been culturally?
On another note just some more thoughts I've been having about the abstract. I believe a poster mentioned one of the beliefs here that the AE being seen as an increasingly less SSA population over time being challenged by this data. Well thinking about it why not opt for more of a flux in SSA ancestry over time and by location. Abusir is basically right at the neck of the Delta, which is also the immediate point of contact between Egypt, the Levant, and the Mediterranean. So I see no reason why one wouldn't expect less SSA ancestry at this location especially considering the admixture we know happened. As to why there was a post-Roman increase in SSA ancestry, thats could be explained by the Saharan Slave Trade where large numbers of SSA slaves were sold into slavery in Northern Africa including Egypt and resulting in an increase.(compared to much smaller movements prevjously and no different from the Barbary Slave Trade where Europeans were sold into slavery into North Africa)
Maybe this has been brought up already and I'm just rambling. Just a thought.
quote:The why and why nots ofwriting: Literacy and illiteracy in the southern Levant during the Bronze Ages:
The Early Bronze Age
The Early Bronze Age I represents the proto-urban period in the southern Levant, which led to the urban revolution that occurred during the Early Bronze Age II (Mazar 1990, 93-94). The proto-urban society was already exposed to Egyptian society and culture, when Egypt established colonial relations with Canaan (e.g. de Miroschedji 2002). The urbanization of Canaan was a secondary process, affected directly by the Egyptian presence and withdrawal in the south of Canaan (Beck 2002, 21; Levy and van den Brink 2002, 18-21). During the Early Bronze Age II-III, settlements grew to cities, taking on public building activities such as fortifications and temples. There are clear indications of the abandonment of small settlements in favor of fortified cities (e.g., the growth of the city of Yarmuth and the abandonment of the neighboring site Hartuv – Mazar _ Miroschedji 1996; for the same process in the Madaba Plains, see Harrison 1997). Signs of organized administration can be seen in town planning, the centralized production of pottery (Greenberg 2001, 195), and redistribution of food as attested to by the granary building at Bet Yerah (Mazar 2002). To date, no evidence for writing in the southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age has been found (Greenberg 2002; Levy _ van den Brink 2002). Nevertheless, writing was used by Mesopotamians and Egyptians, cultures with which Canaan was in contact during this period (Mazar 1990, 135-138). Cultural contact with Mesopotamia is evidenced in finds such as cylinder seals (Ben-Tor 1995), and a stele found in Arad (Amiran 1972). The stele features a schematic figure interpreted as a representation of the death and reincarnation of a fertility god (Amiran 1972, 86-88). Mazar suggests this figure correlates with the Mesopotamian myth of Dumuzi (Mazar 1990, 137). Joffe takes this assumption further, suggesting that “an underlying matrix of pan-western Asian beliefs provided a similar background for religious iconography in Mesopotamia and the southern Levant” (Joffe 2001, 368). Utilization of the Mesopotamian cubit in the Early Bronze Age temples at Megiddo (Milson 1988), is another aspect of this influence. There is abundant evidence of interrelations between Egypt and Canaan, as well as for direct Egyptian presence in the region (Ben-Tor 1982; Braun et al. 2001; Levy et al. 2001; Beit-Arieh 2002). Evidence of these cultural contacts and finds with Egyptian writing make it clear that at least the Canaanite rulers were familiar with writing (e.g. 'En Besor – Schulman 1976; Horvat 'Illin – Braun et al. 2001; Lod – Braun et al. 2001; Nahal Tillah – Levy et al. 1997; Arad – Amiran 1974; Tel Erani – Yeivin 1960; Brandl 1989; Gezer – Brandl 1992, 410 and see Levy et al. 2001, Fig. 22.14 for a summary of Serekh signs from Canaan). They did not need to invent it, therefore, but would only have had to adopt or embrace an existing script. It is interesting to note that petrographic analysis has shown that the bullae from 'En Besor were produced locally, meaning that the Egyptian administrative system was physically located at the site (Schulman 1992, 410). The nature of Egypto-Canaanite relations during the Early Bronze Age I is not agreed upon. While some argue that the Egyptian presence should be interpreted as colonial (e.g. Brandl 1992), others see it as an empirical presence established by military means (e.g. Gophna 1976). In the Early Bronze Age II, the nature of Egypto-Canaanite relations changes (Mazar 1990, 135-136). Evidence for Canaanite export to Egypt is attested to by the numerous “Abydos” storage vessels found in
Literacy and Illiteracy in the Southern Levant during the Bronze Ages 69 Egypt (Hennessey 1967, 49-61). The imports from Egypt to Canaan are very limited, indicating the unilateral exchange, from Canaan to Egypt. At the end of the Early Bronze Age II, material from Canaan ceased to appear in Egypt (Levy _ van den Brink 2002, 20-21). The reason behind this change is most likely the establishment of the “Byblos Run”, passing over Canaan (Stager 1992, 40-41). There is little evidence for interaction between Egypt and Canaan during the Early Bronze Age III (e.g. Miroschedji 2002, 46-47). Regardless of the role of Egypt in Canaan, what is important to the current discussion is that there was interaction between the two, and that interaction was not of two equal partners, rather of a core-periphery relationship.
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
There's no concrete evidence for an Egyptian colony in south Levant. Even the article these Afroloons are posting notes the hypothetical colony is denied by a competing commerce/trade model.
quote:
The nature and dynamics of Egyptian-Canaanite interaction during the second half of the fourth millennium B.C. can be categorized by four primary theories/models, none of which necessarily excludes one or more of the others, as they might seem to at first perusal. Rather, these four theories (Andelkovic 1995: 67-72) bring into focus different aspects: - a) naked force, b) economic exploitation, c) colonial presence and d) the exerciseof socio-political power; - of one and the same phenomenon, the Egyptian Protodynastic colony in southern Canaan.
quote:This (as in quote below) is saying occupation was 250-150 years, and that southern Canaan was left highly Egyptianized throughout the contact.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Anyway, the hypothetical colony only lasted a century-
"[T]he establishment of an Egyptian colony that had functioned for approximately a century [c. 3150 - 3050 BCE]." ( Yekutieli, 2004)
The colony is denied by some archaeologists because it lasted for only around 100 years. So it seems more likely this was just a trading post. Even if this brief colony did exist, it wouldn't have had a big genetic/cultural impact in the south Levant. Those archaeologists arguing for the colony estimate the colony was no greater than 40 km.
quote:
Several scholars have characterized the Egyptian presence in southern Canaan by the terms “colony”, “colonization”, “colonial system”, “colonial elite” etc., but these terms are hardly ever precisely defined. Moreover, the terms are often qualified by quotation marks or employed to signify some other meaning such as “trading colony” or “mercantile colony”. In order to fill a need for a more precise meaning, after reviewing several colony definitions, the term colony par excellence, was introduced (Andelkovic 1995: 71-72). It denotes a non-self-governing, continuous and compact territory in southern Canaan, controlled by the Egyptian, Dynasty 0, Crown during Naqada IIIa1-c1 ca. 3300/3200-3100/3050 B.C (i.e. the end of early, middle, and late phases of EB IB, in terms of Canaanite chronology). During the period southern Canaan was, as Gophna (1995: 265) has noted, ”highly Egyptianized”, or as Porat has suggested (1986/87: 118) “an extension of Egypt and not just under Egyptian influence”.
quote:Funny, since it was euro-academics who have stated this to be true. .smh You wrote: "denied by some archaeologists", which indicates that the majority of them doesn't.
Originally posted by Cass/:
There's no concrete evidence for an Egyptian colony in south Levant. Even the article these Afroloons are posting notes the hypothetical colony is denied by a competing commerce/trade model. Anyway, the hypothetical colony only lasted a century-
"[T]he establishment of an Egyptian colony that had functioned for approximately a century [c. 3150 - 3050 BCE]." ( Yekutieli, 2004)
The colony is denied by some archaeologists because it lasted for only around 100 years. So it seems more likely this was just a trading post. Even if this brief colony did exist, it wouldn't have had a big genetic/cultural impact in the south Levant. Those archaeologists arguing for the colony estimate the colony was no greater than 40 km.
quote:—Eliot Braun
New information from almost half a century of excavation and study suggests more detailed and revised correlations for the southern Levant with the Predynastic, Protodynastic and Early Dynastic periods and their Naqada equivalents in Egypt (Kaiser 1957; Dreyer 1998; Hendrickx 1996; 2006; Midant-Reynes 2003).
[…]
Arad, always far off the beaten path, seems especially so during the lifetime of Stratum IV, particularly as that poor village was an unlikely attraction for Egyptians presumably bent on establishing some form of economically-based relationship. However, Arad III—a Late EB I nascent forti ed town—is a much more likely venue for the appearance of Egyptian jars, one of them bearing a royal insignia, especially as it dates to a period which witnessed the most intense Egyptian interaction with the southern Levant (Braun 2003; 2004b; 2004c; van den Brink 2002; van den Brink and Braun 2002; 2004). Its signi cant population would have had considerably more to offer visitors from the Nile Valley, or perhaps Egyptian colonists from Tell es-Sakan (de Miroschedji 2001). Notably, signi cantly more substantial communities than Arad IV—such as Palmahim Quarry, Tel Dalit and Tel Aphek on the Mediterranean Littoral of the southern region—which saw the thrust of that interaction, have yielded little, if any evidence of Egyptian pottery (Braun 2002; 2004c).
quote:I agree with this, but with folks like the lioness and/ or Cas?
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:The thing is........I dont care about skin color. I put its importance in the same league as genetic variants for Hair curl.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:What do you think about EEF being almost fixed for the derived solute carrier gene responsible for the greatest amount of difference in skin color between non-EastAsian populations, and what does that suggest about the Abusir Mummies... Or even basal Eurasian for that matter.
Originally posted by beyoku:
This is what we mean by "Business as usual". They just released mtdna and autosomal data on over 90 mummies and somehow ES members are posting the same thing they have been posting for the last 10 years.....and dumbing everything down to to skin color.
Welp.
Its getting cold in my snowy corner, help a brother out.
Look Above^ ..it's not just mindless spam y'know
quote:Confirmation bias, is where you ignore dark skinned (ancient and modern) Egyptians as native to the region. Not only do you suffer from Confirmation bias, but also Cognitive Dissonance (because deep in your little cowardice heard you know you're wrong.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Also note the Afroloons confirmation bias.
There are hypothetical Canaanite/south Levantine colonies in Egypt. But Afrocentrists won't post those as they conflict with their interests-
"Ghassulian influence have recently been suggested for the painted pottery and clay figurs from Maadi (Tutundzic, 1996; 2001; 2002), and at Buto, in the Western Nile Delta, a Canaanite population living within the Egyptian settlement is well attested (e.g. Faltings & Kohler, 1996; Faltings, 2002). It is striking, that the only two settlements in Lower Egypt where remains of this period have been uncovered so far yielded evidence for connections with Chalcolithic Palestine. But if trade is not the reasons for these relations, then we should consider that groups of Canaanites immigrated into Lower Egypt during the late Chalcolithic." (Hartung, 2004)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
quote:It says "several scholars" support that theory, denied by other archaeologists as I've shown. What you just quoted is disputed and pretty much falsified by the 1986 scholar I posted (can you rebut his argument?) Confirmation bias just has you choose certain sources over the others, without even looking at the latter. That's why Afrocentrism is a pseudo-history, you don't even engage sources with different (counter) arguments or views that conflict with your own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
There's no concrete evidence for an Egyptian colony in south Levant. Even the article these Afroloons are posting notes the hypothetical colony is denied by a competing commerce/trade model.quote:
The nature and dynamics of Egyptian-Canaanite interaction during the second half of the fourth millennium B.C. can be categorized by four primary theories/models, none of which necessarily excludes one or more of the others, as they might seem to at first perusal. Rather, these four theories (Andelkovic 1995: 67-72) bring into focus different aspects: - a) naked force, b) economic exploitation, c) colonial presence and d) the exerciseof socio-political power; - of one and the same phenomenon, the Egyptian Protodynastic colony in southern Canaan.quote:This (as in quote below) is saying occupation was 250-150 years, and that southern Canaan was left highly Egyptianized throughout the contact.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Anyway, the hypothetical colony only lasted a century-
"[T]he establishment of an Egyptian colony that had functioned for approximately a century [c. 3150 - 3050 BCE]." ( Yekutieli, 2004)
The colony is denied by some archaeologists because it lasted for only around 100 years. So it seems more likely this was just a trading post. Even if this brief colony did exist, it wouldn't have had a big genetic/cultural impact in the south Levant. Those archaeologists arguing for the colony estimate the colony was no greater than 40 km.
quote:
Several scholars have characterized the Egyptian presence in southern Canaan by the terms “colony”, “colonization”, “colonial system”, “colonial elite” etc., but these terms are hardly ever precisely defined. Moreover, the terms are often qualified by quotation marks or employed to signify some other meaning such as “trading colony” or “mercantile colony”. In order to fill a need for a more precise meaning, after reviewing several colony definitions, the term colony par excellence, was introduced (Andelkovic 1995: 71-72). It denotes a non-self-governing, continuous and compact territory in southern Canaan, controlled by the Egyptian, Dynasty 0, Crown during Naqada IIIa1-c1 ca. 3300/3200-3100/3050 B.C (i.e. the end of early, middle, and late phases of EB IB, in terms of Canaanite chronology). During the period southern Canaan was, as Gophna (1995: 265) has noted, ”highly Egyptianized”, or as Porat has suggested (1986/87: 118) “an extension of Egypt and not just under Egyptian influence”.
quote:No, that's just a straw man. I never said dark/choclate brown native Egyptians didn't exist - what I said is they are the minority. These don't interest me, only the average/typical does.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Confirmation bias, is where you ignore dark skinned (ancient and modern) Egyptians as native to the region.
quote:What about the fact that millions of blacks in America and Europe are as "light" as this king?
Originally posted by Cass/:
- Not chocolate brown, but a lighter reddish-brown.
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
difficult to explain the independence of the Canaanite copper-mining colonies in southern Sinai in this period."
quote:
Originally posted by Nehesy:
Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times
Donald B. Redford
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/5036.html
The Ancient Near East:
An Anthology of Texts and Pictures
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9293.html
Here is one Picture from Donald B Redford’s book : “Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times Donald B. Redford”, page 200, that I posted years ago in Rastalivewire website : Two canaanites (1400 BC) HEADMEN and they are obviously black : http://tinypic.com/20ich39.jp
I'll scan Pritchard's picture (plate # 200) asap.
http://tinypic.com/20ich39.jp
quote:Piece of trash, you lose again. Euroloon born loser. Posting alternative facts and faded / filtered images. lol TYPICAL eurocentric-clown!
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:No, that's just a straw man. I never said dark/choclate brown native Egyptians didn't exist - what I said is they are the minority. These don't interest me, only the average/typical does.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Confirmation bias, is where you ignore dark skinned (ancient and modern) Egyptians as native to the region.
An example of Afroloon deception is you spamming a single art piece of chocolate brown Amenhotep III-
Now observe the art of Amenhotep III that Afronuts don't spam (why? because they're all lighter):
- Not chocolate brown, but a lighter reddish-brown.
Another lighter brown (not chocolate brown)
Other examples on google include even lighter than these two.
quote:http://guardians.net/egypt/amenhtp3.htm
One of Amenhotep III’s greatest building achievements was the Temple of Amun, now in modern day Luxor.
quote:If you want Coon worship go to a silly place like Anthroscape, where they treat his work as infallible. I merely quote Coon where his work has proven to be reliable, not all of it obviously is. He made mistakes and got things wrong, other things though he's still considered a good source for information. Howells (1989) wrote Coon's work is "still regarded as a valuable source of data"; his work is especially considered useful for his studies on human adaptation and his 1965 and 1982 books are informative for things like skin colour, hair texture etc., I still quote them. You still find those books cited/referenced in modern physical anthropology studies.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
It's funny how you keep posting a white supremacist, eugenicist like Carleton Coon, yet accuse people of being Afrocentric (Africa-Centered) as if that is a bad thing.
quote:Show me what falsifies the argument made by the 1986 scholar I quoted. So Egyptians had mass influence or even control of the south Levant with a military colony with a large number of settlers, but not the Sinai? Makes no sense. Furthermore you missed the other (more recent source) I posted arguing for a Canaanite migration/colonisation into Lower Egypt during the Chalcolithic... Should we take that seriously too? Funny how Afrocentrists will ignore the latter, but support an Egyptian colony in Levant. A Canaanite colony in Egypt isn't in their interests/politics, so they ignore it, but they support an Egyptian colony in south Levant - with no/flimsy evidence.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
"That's why Afrocentrism is a pseudo-history, you don't even engage sources with different (counter) arguments or views that conflict with your own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias"
Coming from the same person who digs his head in the sand and clings to a 1986 study when directly contradicted by archaeological evidence and newer studies (i.e. the real meaning of falsification which you blundered earlier) that is rich!
quote:You are so stupid it is sad and funny at the same time! Coon is RUBBISH!!! All you get from him is fragmentation. I clearly showed that his sources are unreliable.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:If you want Coon worship go to a silly place like Anthroscape, where they treat his work as infallible. I merely quote Coon where his work has proven to be reliable, not all of it obviously is. He made mistakes and got things wrong, other things though he's still considered a good source for information. Howells (1989) wrote Coon's work is "still regarded as a valuable source of data"; his work is especially considered useful for his studies on human adaptation and his 1965 and 1982 books are informative for things like skin colour, hair texture etc., I still quote them. You still find those books cited/referenced in modern physical anthropology studies.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
It's funny how you keep posting a white supremacist, eugenicist like Carleton Coon, yet accuse people of being Afrocentric (Africa-Centered) as if that is a bad thing.
quote:Furthermore you missed the other (more recent source) I posted arguing for a Canaanite. (2009, 2010).
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Show me what falsifies the argument made by the 1986 scholar I quoted. So Egyptians had mass influence or even control of the south Levant with a military colony with a large number of settlers, but not the Sinai? Makes no sense. Furthermore you missed the other (more recent source) I posted arguing for a Canaanite migration/colonisation into Lower Egypt during the Chalcolithic... Should we take that seriously too? Funny how Afrocentrists will ignore the latter, but support an Egyptian colony in Levant. A Canaanite colony in Egypt isn't in their interests/politics, so they ignore it, but they support an Egyptian colony in south Levant - with no/flimsy evidence.
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
"That's why Afrocentrism is a pseudo-history, you don't even engage sources with different (counter) arguments or views that conflict with your own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias"
Coming from the same person who digs his head in the sand and clings to a 1986 study when directly contradicted by archaeological evidence and newer studies (i.e. the real meaning of falsification which you blundered earlier) that is rich!
quote:Been there, done that. You are many steps behind, negresse.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Now Ish Gebor is going to cherry pick broad featured Asiatics, watch
quote:I already debunked Oshun on this. There is no such thing as "Eurocentrism". Afrocentrism is a recognised pseudo-history/pseudo-science, but "Eurocentrism" isn't. When Afrocentrists call people "Eurocentrists" they're like Christian fundamentalists who turn around and call Atheists religious. Do you know how stupid you look?
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
You are so stupid it is sad and funny at the same time, Eurocentric hog! Coon is RUBBISH AND SO ARE YOU!!!
quote:This one is comedy central, please keep entertaining:
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:I already debunked Oshun on this. There is no such thing as "Eurocentrism". Afrocentrism is a recognised pseudo-history/pseudo-science, but "Eurocentrism" isn't. When Afrocentrists call people "Eurocentrists" they're like Christian fundamentalists who turn around and call Atheists religious. Do you know how stupid you look?
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
You are so stupid it is sad and funny at the same time, Eurocentric hog! Coon is RUBBISH AND SO ARE YOU!!!
No one has ever said Europeans founded AE civilization, nor has anyone describe the average AE as white [Doug loves though to set up this straw man]. So who exactly is a "Eurocentrist"? Europe has never entered the discussion about AE culture, archaeology, bio-anthropology etc. So I'm this magical "Eurocentrist" who is not even talking about Europe. Ok.
quote:https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Eurocentric
: centered on Europe or the Europeans; especially : reflecting a tendency to interpret the world in terms of European or Anglo-American values and experiences
quote:--Syed Farid Aqlatas
Eurocentrism is a particular case of the more general phenomenon of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism refers to the regard of one's own ethnic group or society as superior to others. Other groups are assessed and judged in terms of the categories and standards of evaluation of one's own group. Eurocentrism, therefore, is defined as a thought style in which the assessment and evaluation of non-European societies is couched in terms of the cultural assumptions and biases of Europeans and, by extension, the West. Eurocentrism is a modern phenomenon and cannot be dissociated from the political economic and cultural domination of Europe and, later, the United States. It may be more accurate to refer to the phenomenon under consideration as Euroamericocentrism. Eurocentrism is an important dimension of the ideology of modern capitalism ( Amin 1989 ) and is manifested in both the daily life of lay people and the professional lives and thought of sociologists and other social scientists. Furthermore, although Eurocentrism originates in Europe, as a thought style it is not confined to Europeans or those in the West. Eurocentrism in sociology is defined as the assessment and evaluation of European and other societies from a decidedly European (read also American) point of view. The European point of view is founded on concepts derived from European philosophical traditions and popular discourse ...
quote:--Dr. Antoon De Baets
EUROCENTRISM (Western Colonialism)
By: Dr. Antoon De Baets
During most of the last two centuries,the prevailing popular view of world history held that a mainstream of facts could be identified in the flood of events taking place since the dawn of humanity. Essentially, this mainstream coincided with the history of Europe and its antecedents and successors—all the heirs and transmitters of civilization. The source of this stream of facts was located in Egypt and the Near East, and via Greece and Rome it slowly flowed westward to medieval western Europe. In the course of two colonization waves—the first starting in 1450, the second in 1870—it finally came to encompass the whole planet.
[...]
FIVE LEVELS OF EUROCENTRISM
The mainstream principle reveals a broader tendency— namely, to perceive one’s own culture as the center of everything and other cultures as its periphery. This tendency is called ethnocentrism.
[...]
quote:I have enough self control to simply not reply to their posts. Neither of them are saying anything NEW based on the screenshots of the new data. They are only repeating the same thing that has been seen here for the past 10 years. If I want to talk about the same stuff we have been going over since 2007 I would have done so in a different thread. You and Lioness are like 2 peas in a pod. Every time she post, you post.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:I agree with this, but with folks like the lioness and/ or Cas?
quote:You've heard of the movie Exodus,
Originally posted by Cass/:
No one has ever said Europeans founded AE civilization, nor has anyone describe the average AE as white [Doug loves though to set up this straw man]. So who exactly is a "Eurocentrist"? Europe has never entered the discussion about AE culture, archaeology, bio-anthropology etc. So I'm this magical "Eurocentrist" who is not even talking about Europe. Ok.
quote:@ XYYMAN - My question still stands. You are calling these lineages "African" based off the idea that they are ancestral/basal mtdna lineages. Will your stands be reevaluated when the lineages are extremely downstream?
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
^ ignoring the cunt above.
@Oshun. I am not sure I understand your question. But I will take a shot. Are you assuming that mtDNA L is the ONLY African lineage? You need to understand the PhyloTree and the age of these lineages. IIRC U, is close to 35K years old, I, J H all are greater than25,000years old. This study is taken from samples less than 10,000year old. In other words the age of these lineages is much older than the INCEPTION of Agriculture and these lineages are still found in Africa today. Furthermore YOUNGER subclades is not expected to be found in Africa which what we observe. Because these mutations giving rise to those sub-clades took place OUTSIDE of Africa long after the parental clades left Africa. Eg Kenyans carry most of the BASAL clades found in the New Kingdom AEians. YOU will NOT observe young sub-clades *even less than 10,000yo* in AEians because there was never back-migration.
Let me guess...you think this DNA from Sudan is from Actual remains that are ANCESTRAL for DE* and F*
You dont even know how this "DNA THING" WORKS! SMFH
YOu think MOTA was just plain old ancestral E1B1* ?
quote:You are right, and I know I should not respond to them.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:I have enough self control to simply not reply to their posts. Neither of them are saying anything NEW based on the screenshots of the new data. They are only repeating the same thing that has been seen here for the past 10 years. If I want to talk about the same stuff we have been going over since 2007 I would have done so in a different thread. You and Lioness are like 2 peas in a pod. Every time she post, you post.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:I agree with this, but with folks like the lioness and/ or Cas?
quote:you are not very sharp are you?
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:I have enough self control to simply not reply to their posts. Neither of them are saying anything NEW based on the screenshots of the new data. They are only repeating the same thing that has been seen here for the past 10 years. If I want to talk about the same stuff we have been going over since 2007 I would have done so in a different thread. You and Lioness are like 2 peas in a pod. Every time she post, you post.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:I agree with this, but with folks like the lioness and/ or Cas?
quote:Except the Dynastic Race Theory and Hamiticism does not concern Europe, but south-west Asia. In fact, if you read the old anthropologists and archaeologists who supported Hamiticism like Seligman, they argued proto-Hamites spread from a homeland either in Arabia or southern Levant into Africa, not even the north like Anatolia.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:You've heard of the movie Exodus,
Originally posted by Cass/:
No one has ever said Europeans founded AE civilization, nor has anyone describe the average AE as white [Doug loves though to set up this straw man]. So who exactly is a "Eurocentrist"? Europe has never entered the discussion about AE culture, archaeology, bio-anthropology etc. So I'm this magical "Eurocentrist" who is not even talking about Europe. Ok.
Ten Commandments, Cleopatra, etc etc ??
The perception suggested is that a Dynastic "Race" founded Egypt and they resembled tanned Europeans [/QB]
quote:Do you want us to dig up your eurocentric loon claims on Mansa Musa etc?
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Except the Dynastic Race Theory and Hamiticism does not concern Europe, but south-west Asia. In fact, if you read the old anthropologists and archaeologists who supported Hamiticism like Seligman, they argued proto-Hamites spread from a homeland either in Arabia or southern Levant into Africa, not even the north like Anatolia.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:You've heard of the movie Exodus,
Originally posted by Cass/:
No one has ever said Europeans founded AE civilization, nor has anyone describe the average AE as white [Doug loves though to set up this straw man]. So who exactly is a "Eurocentrist"? Europe has never entered the discussion about AE culture, archaeology, bio-anthropology etc. So I'm this magical "Eurocentrist" who is not even talking about Europe. Ok.
Ten Commandments, Cleopatra, etc etc ??
The perception suggested is that a Dynastic "Race" founded Egypt and they resembled tanned Europeans
So how is the Dynastic Race Theory or Hamiticism "Eurocentric" when its arguing ancient Egyptian civilization was built by Egypt's closest geographical neighbours who were predominantly dark haired, brown skinned etc. Hardly a "Eurocentric" or "white supremacist" theory. lol.
quote:The suggestion is that Africans are incapable of producing an "advanced" civilization and that it came about from near eastern forebears who resembled Europeans in hair and features but just had a suntan
Originally posted by Cass/:
So how is the Dynastic Race Theory or Hamiticism "Eurocentric" when its arguing ancient Egyptian civilization was built by Egypt's closest geographical neighbours who were predominantly dark haired, brown skinned etc. Hardly a "Eurocentric" or "white supremacist" theory. lol.
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:The hell are you talking about???? Egypt long had active interests in Sinai since the early stages of the Old Kingdom if not even before that.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Show me what falsifies the argument made by the 1986 scholar I quoted. So Egyptians had mass influence or even control of the south Levant with a military colony with a large number of settlers, but not the Sinai? Makes no sense. Furthermore you missed the other (more recent source) I posted arguing for a Canaanite migration/colonisation into Lower Egypt during the Chalcolithic... Should we take that seriously too? Funny how Afrocentrists will ignore the latter, but support an Egyptian colony in Levant. A Canaanite colony in Egypt isn't in their interests/politics, so they ignore it, but they support an Egyptian colony in south Levant - with no/flimsy evidence.
quote:https://www.egyptsites.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/wadi-maghara/
Although there is evidence for sporadic Egyptian involvement in exploiting the minerals of Sinai since Predynastic times, the earliest king attested at Wadi Maghara is the Dynasty III ruler, Djoser Netjerikhet, owner of the Step Pyramid at Saqqara. A relief found at Wadi Maghara depicts the king standing beside a goddess. His organised mining activity there is considered to be one of most significant developments of the king’s reign. Djoser’s successor Sekhemkhet continued the expeditions to Sinai and a famous rock-cut inscription found on a cliff above the valley shows the king wearing a white crown and smiting a Bedouin captive. This inscription was originally attributed to Semerkhet of Dynasty I, but later found to be that of Sekhemkhet after his pyramid was found at Saqqara in the 1950s. The inscription was first discovered by the British explorer Palmer in 1868. When WM Flinders Petrie visited Sinai in 1904-5 he found no fewer than twelve reliefs in the Wadi Maghara.
Another king to leave evidence at Wadi Maghara was Sanakht, whose position in Dynasty III is still unclear. Relatively little is known about Sanakht, except that he seems to have been buried in a large mud-brick tomb at Beit Khallaf, north of Abydos in Upper Egypt. The most significant monument attributable to Sanakht is the pair of rock-cut inscriptions here – one showing the king wearing the white crown preceded by the standard of Wepwewet and in the other the king wears a red crown and stands in the pose of smiting a captive (now lost). The king’s Horus name is depicted in a serekh and a fragment of vertical inscription accompanying the scene contains the oldest known reference to Turquoise (mefkat).
The name given to the Wadi Maghara in later inscriptions is ‘the turquoise terraces’. The main seam of turquoise-bearing rock lay about half-way up the cliff and the workings consisted of galleries with a small opening on the cliff face. Other Old Kingdom rulers whose names appear in the wadi are: Khufu, described as “smiting the tribesmen” as he
accompanies the deities Wepwawet and Thoth; Snefru; Sahure who is described as “smiting the Mentju and all foreign lands”; two of Nyuserre with mentions of Horus and Thoth; and Menkauhor as well as three texts of Djedkare-Isesi, one which records an expedition’s arrival at the “Terraces of the Turquoise” during the year after the third cattle census. A Dynasty VI tablet contains a text of Pepi I, dating to the year after the eighteenth cattle census, and an inscription of Pepi II which dates to the year of the second cattle census. There are also several Old Kingdom Grafitti by officials and administrators of the mines.
Three inscriptions of the Middle Kingdom ruler Amenemhet III, who contributed to the construction of the temple at Serabit el-Khadim can also be found here which mention expeditions in Year 2 of his reign with the opening of new turquoise galleries. The King is depicted before Hathor and Thoth and numerous expedition members are listed, giving their names and titles. Three more texts date to year 6 of Amenemhat IV, while the remaining Middle Kingdom inscriptions include several hieroglyphic texts and hieratic graffiti. A Dynasty XII stela (no. 500) is situated to the north of Maghara. From the New Kingdom there is evidence of an expedition sent by Tuthmose III.
The main Old Kingdom settlement at Maghara lay on the summit of a small hill in Wadi Iqna, where 125 roughly constructed stone structures were found, together with the presence large amounts of wood ash, Old Kingdom potsherds and a copper-boring tool. In 1987 Chartier-Raymond excavated a six-roomed house and found pottery-sherds dating from the Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period. The fortified settlement was accessed by a stone staircase on the northern side of the hill and a long stone wall probably formed a defense against the hostile bedouins depicted in the smiting scenes. At the the western foot of the hill numerous Old Kingdom
pottery sherds were found. To the west of this area there are some well-built stone structures with smoothed walls, which were found to contain some turquiose as well as large quantities of copper slag and smelting waste. Crucible fragments, hammerstones, used for crushing ores, a broken ingot mold, as well as numerous Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom pottery fragments were also found.
The history of Wadi Maghara goes right back to prehistoric times, but the place is most important to us today for its documentation of the Pharaonic mining expeditions dispatched by the early rulers to this ‘foreign’ land. Not only the agents of the kings, but the mining chiefs and even the labourers were eager to write stories of their victories and their hardships on the rocks. Some of the reliefs remain on the rocks of the wadi, others are now in various museums but many have been damaged by later attempts at mining.
quote:I posted something around 5 years ago on it. If I remember correctly, what I said is Malian state religion was Islam, but this obviously was not an indigenous faith to Mali, but brought in by Arabs. I then said, a 14th and 15th century Manuscript, seems to depict Mansa Musa (and another king) as an Arab. He don't look black African, nor do some of the other kings.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Do you want us to dig up your eurocentric loon claims on Mansa Musa etc?
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
Who can deny this? Do these look black to you?
Kankan Moussa, King of Mali
Source: Mecia de Villadeste, map from a Catalonian atlas, 1413.
Musa I of Mali, King of Mali
Source: Catalan Atlas of the known world, drawn by Abraham Cresques, 1375.
quote:http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Hamitic_hypothesis
Later scholars expanded on these ideas; the most influential was the Italian race theorist Giuseppe Sergi. In his book The Mediterranean Race (1901) Sergi argued that there was a distinct Hamitic racial group which could be divided into two sub-groups: the northern Hamites, which comprised Berbers, Toubou, Fulani and the Guanches; the Eastern branch, which comprised Egyptians, Nubians, Ethiopians, Oromo, Somali, and Tutsis. Some of these groups had "lost their language" and so had to be identified by physical characteristics. In Sergi's theory, the Mediterraneans were the "greatest race in the world", and had expanded north and south from the Horn of Africa, creating superior civilizations.Sergi described the original European peoples as "Eurafricans". The ancient Greeks and Italians were born from "Afro-Mediterraneans" who migrated from western Asia and had originally spoken a Hamitic language before the advent of Indo-European languages
quote:Imagine how Barack Obama would look given his black father same as Bilal had but if he also had an Arab mother, perhaps brown skinned as you have been talking about like Bilal did.
Originally posted by Cass/:
lol.
You do realise Mali Kings themselves claimed descent from Arabs?
"Through the oral tradition of Griots, The Keita dynasty from which nearly every Mali emperor came traces its lineage back from Lawalo, one of the sons of Bilal, the faithful muezzin of Islam's prophet Muhammad, which was said to have migrated into Mali and his descendants establishing the ruling Keita Dynasty through Maghan Kon Fatta, father of Sundiata Keita."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire#Pre-Imperial_Mali
quote:Mansa Musa was from an empire of Mande people. Mande and Ibo have a historical record in the west of being noteworthy in that they can produce lighter skin. Whether his skin color was that or not, it doesn't matter. Please let's not get into skin color debates again.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:I posted something around 5 years ago on it. If I remember correctly, what I said is Malian state religion was Islam, but this obviously was not an indigenous faith to Mali, but brought in by Arabs. I then said, a 14th and 15th century Manuscript, seems to depict Mansa Musa (and another king) as an Arab. He don't look black African, nor do some of the other kings.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Do you want us to dig up your eurocentric loon claims on Mansa Musa etc?
Who can deny this? Do these look black to you?
Kankan Moussa, King of Mali
Source: Mecia de Villadeste, map from a Catalonian atlas, 1413.
Musa I of Mali, King of Mali
Source: Catalan Atlas of the known world, drawn by Abraham Cresques, 1375.
Whatever the case, I never said these were Europeans, but possibly Arabs.
quote:You do realize there are SSA that claim to have directly descended from Egypt, but migrated out of the Nile Valley?
Originally posted by Cass/:
lol.
You do realise Mali Kings themselves claimed descent from Arabs?
quote:Old typology, but you can see the resemblance, almond-shaped eyes, long nose with fleshy-tip (also looks somewhat aquiline). The facial hair , slight beard rufosity (faint red) and lighter skin etc. That image doesn't look like a native to Mali at all, but looks like an Arab. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabid_race
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
This is an "Arab looking" king to you??
Just what is the "Arab" look??
quote:1) You have know understanding on phenotypes in Mali.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:I posted something around 5 years ago on it. If I remember correctly, what I said is Malian state religion was Islam, but this obviously was not an indigenous faith to Mali, but brought in by Arabs. I then said, a 14th and 15th century Manuscript, seems to depict Mansa Musa (and another king) as an Arab. He don't look black African, nor do some of the other kings.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Do you want us to dig up your eurocentric loon claims on Mansa Musa etc?
Who can deny this? Do these look black to you?
Kankan Moussa, King of Mali
Source: Mecia de Villadeste, map from a Catalonian atlas, 1413.
Musa I of Mali, King of Mali
Source: Catalan Atlas of the known world, drawn by Abraham Cresques, 1375.
Whatever the case, I never said these were Europeans, but possibly Arabs.
quote:http://spice.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/the_spread_of_islam_in_west_africa_containment_mixing_and_reform_from_the_eighth_to_the_twentieth_century
Although modern Ghana is unrelated to the ancient kingdom of Ghana, modern Ghana chose the name as a way of honoring early African history. The boundaries of the ancient Kingdom encompassed the Middle Niger Delta region, which consists of modern-day Mali and parts of present-day Mauritania and Senegal. This region has historically been home to the Soninken Malinke, Wa’kuri and Wangari peoples. Fulanis and the Southern Saharan Sanhaja Berbers also played a prominent role in the spread of Islam in the Niger Delta region. Large towns emerged in the Niger Delta region around 300 A.D. Around the eighth century, Arab documents mentioned ancient Ghana and that Muslims crossed the Sahara into West Africa for trade. North African and Saharan merchants traded salt, horses, dates, and camels from the north with gold, timber, and foodstuff from regions south of the Sahara. Ghana kings, however, did not permit North African and Saharan merchants to stay overnight in the city. This gave rise to one of the major features of Ghana—the dual city; Ghana Kings benefited from Muslim traders, but kept them outside centers of power.
[…]
The Songhay state patronized Islamic institutions and sponsored public buildings, mosques and libraries. One notable example is the Great Mosque of Jenne, which was built in the 12th or 13th century. The Great Mosque of Jenne remains the largest earthen building in the world. By the 16th century there were several centers of trade and Islamic learning in the Niger Bend region, most notably the famed Timbuktu. Arab chroniclers tell us that the pastoral nomadic Tuareg founded Timbuktu as a trading outpost. The city’s multicultural population, regional trade, and Islamic scholarship fostered a cosmopolitan environment. In 1325, the city’s population was around 10,000. At its apex, in the 16th century, the population is estimated to have been between 30,000 and 50,000. Timbuktu attracted scholars from throughout the Muslim world.
quote:Your point is empty, hollow, zero in existence.
Originally posted by Cass/:
My point is Arab merchants/travellers brought Islam to Mali, sometime around the 10th-11th century:
"Gao is mentioned as an important trade center by the ninth-century Arabic chronicler al-Yaʿqubī (d. 897), and there is archaeological and epigraphic evidence of a Muslim presence in Gao by the eleventh century [Arabic Medieval Inscriptions from the Repulic of Mali, 2003, Oxford University Press]." (Hall, 2011)
I've never argued for large-scale mixture, but some Arabs did admix with the locals and those locals were not commoners, but the elites:
"Islam remained for centuries a minority religion closely tied to the professional identity and elite status of urban families of traders and scholars. A notable illustration of this uneven distribution of Islam is the situation in the 13th and 14th century polity of Mali: the rulers of Mali, as well as their families, had formally converted to Islam. Yet the majority of the (rural) population continued to be attached to conventional fertility rites and the worship of ancestors and other incarnations of supernatural power." - Schulz, Dorothea. (2012). Culture and Customs of Mali, pp. 27-28
So the fact the Mali royals/kings claimed descent from Arabs doesn't seem at all like a dubious claim or wild speculation; the 14th-15th manuscripts do show Arab-looking kings.
quote:Old typology? Dude you are SICK in the HEAD!
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Old typology, but you can see the resemblance, almond-shaped eyes, long nose with fleshy-tip (also looks somewhat aquiline). The facial hair , slight beard rufosity (faint red) and lighter skin etc. That image doesn't look like a native to Mali at all, but looks like an Arab. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabid_race
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
This is an "Arab looking" king to you??
Just what is the "Arab" look??
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Lioness, you're right, but other manuscript editions have the lighter skinned Mansa Musa.
Here I show, another map showing not only Mansa Musa as light brown skinned, but even with straight hair. lol. This don't look like anything like a native Mali.
Source: British Library Add. MS 31318 B (Detail showing Mansa Musa)
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/themes/hajj/the_journey/routes/the_african_route/west_africa.aspx
quote:http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/themes/hajj/the_journey/routes/the_african_route/west_africa.aspx
Before the 19th century, pilgrimage from Africa was principally associated with routes across the Sahara. Islam first came to West Africa by means of the Saharan routes through the commencement of trade with the Islamic world and it was by way of these routes that the first pilgrims made their way to Mecca on the Hajj. During the Mamluk era (1250-1517), the main gathering point for pilgrims from West Africa was Timbuktu, the great medieval city of learning. The main route from Cairo took them across the arduous terrain of the Sinai Desert to ‘Aqaba then down the Red Sea. The town of Tadmekka in northern Mali is widely recognized as one of the first important trading places of the Islamic trans-Saharan trade. The meaning of its name – ‘resemblance to Mecca’ – testifies to its importance as both a locality on the pilgrimage route and as a centre of early Islam in West Africa.
[…]
Mamma Haidara Library, Timbuktu
Timbuktu was an important centre of learning in medieval times. It had a university and a tradition of producing manuscripts on subjects such as science, law, medicine, history and religion. The Hajj was key to this transfer of knowledge. Returning pilgrims contributed both ideas and travel accounts, which were copied and stored in libraries. The manuscripts are unbound and copied in black and red inks in the scripts typical of West Africa.
‘Umar ibn Sa‘id al-Futi (d. 1864) was a renowned scholar, social activist and sheikh in the Tijani Sufi order, known as al-Hajj ‘Umar Tal. This is an account of his Hajj, which he undertook with his family in 1827. It is written in Sudani script and dated 1279/1863. On his return from Mecca,’ Umar ibn Sa‘id al-Futi visited Jerusalem, Syria and Egypt, earning a reputation for piety and learning. He is said to have led the prayer in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, cured the son of a sultan from madness in Syria, and astonished scholars in Cairo by his vast erudition. On his return through Fazan, his wife Maryam and brother fell ill and died. During this time’ Umar ibn Sa‘id al-Futi successfully mediated between the warring kingdoms of Bornu and Satku.
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
So we should take this depiction as the real one because you say so?
quote:http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/themes/hajj/the_journey/routes/the_african_route/west_africa.aspx
Though all but the fictitious Christian ruler Prester John are generalized here, the Catalan Atlas identifies one of the kings as Mansa Musa of Mali (see detail).
quote:Explain the images, the Mali king(s) don't look like natives to Mali. Anyway, i'm not even really interested in this. You brought it up; I created one thread on these images- 5 years ago. I even posted it in the less serious section of this forum where Mike etc. spams his albino nonsense. I don't claim the Arab mixture in Mali elites/royals theory as absolute fact, I'm just open to it since these images don't resemble natives of Mali, there's archaeological evidence of Arab merchants/traders in the region and the Mali royalty even claimed descent from Arabs. If i'm not mistaken the scholar Robert Gayre detailed more theories and details on all this since he also proposed Arabs or Semites had some involvement with Great Zimbabwe.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
1) You have know understanding on phenotypes in Mali.
Mali is partly Sahara partly Sahel, at that time Mali was under the rule of Greater Ghana.
Your delusion concept of how a black person is supposed to look like is merely laughable.
2) All classic Mali manuscripts are written in local language and passed on by locals from generation to generation.
3) You have no concept of what Arabs look like, with whom people from the Sahel had contact with.
4 Explain why Mansa Musa spend amounts of gold in Egypt, destabilizing the Egyptian economy for many years. After he saw the statues and murals, he felt so proud of the accomplishments. This was during the Hajj to Mecca. lol
5) Explain what the words MANSA MUSA MEAN! LOL
6) The religion was in east Africa long before Mansa Musa came into existence.
7) Islam was not spread by Arabs in Greater Ghana, West Sudan. lol
8) In Islam it is forbidden to have actual depictions of a persons. Africas Islamic stream in origin is Maliki. Thus it explains why that depiction was not made by local people. But by foreign people like Mecia de Villadeste, map from a Catalonian atlas, 1413. And Catalan Atlas of the known world, drawn by Abraham Cresques, 1375.
9) Explain the Keita Dynasty. lol
10) Explain why the building of the Great Mosque is a communal event?
Ps, I am just starting to ridicule you in front of the entire world, yet again.
And after five years you are still stuck on stupid. lol
quote:Was already explained, you numbskull. Point 8.
Originally posted by Cass/:
Explain the images, the Mali king(s) don't look like natives to Mali.
quote:Then why bother, and keep posting a eurocentric doctrine? You are dealing with African history.
Originally posted by Cass/: Anyway, i'm not even really interested in this.
quote:It is eurocentrism, one of the many cases in history. The same is going on with Egyptology.
Originally posted by Cass/: You brought it up; I created one thread on these images- 5 years ago
quote:Stop derailing, for my knowledge, if I remember it correctly it was a dedicated thread. Btw, Mike is basing his doctrine on Western Academia,
Originally posted by Cass/:
"I even posted it in the less serious section of this forum where Mike etc. spams his albino nonsense."
quote:It is complete rubbish, and again you don't know what Mali people look like in variation. And yes, admixture likely happened after many centuries. This however still doesn't change the narrative of Royal people being natives.
Originally posted by Cass/:
"I don't claim the Arab mixture in Mali elites/royals theory as absolute fact, I'm just open to it since these images don't resemble natives of Mali, there's archaeological evidence of Arab merchants/traders in the region and the Mali royalty even claimed descent from Arabs."
quote:It is called being Arabized, many people in Islam in Africa will claim Arab descent.
Originally posted by Cass/:
"there's archaeological evidence of Arab merchants/traders in the region and the Mali royalty even claimed descent from Arabs"
quote:Great Zimbabwe, existed before Arabs arrived. But then again, that is eurocentrism at it's finest.
Originally posted by Cass/:
"If i'm not mistaken the scholar Robert Gayre detailed more theories and details on all this since he also proposed Arabs or Semites had some involvement with Great Zimbabwe."
quote:But it's not eurocentric doctrine. lol
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
"If i'm not mistaken the scholar Robert Gayre detailed more theories and details on all this since he also proposed Arabs or Semites had some involvement with Great Zimbabwe."
Ah. I see how it is now. This is the old bull about "Negroids" being incapable of any independent civilization on their own. An idea that as been trounced repeatedly. What a joke.
quote:We're talking about a relatively recent time-frame, well within the last millennia. I don't propose any large-scale mixture events, but am open to small-scale mixture and cultural influences; the Lemba are probably a good example-
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
"If i'm not mistaken the scholar Robert Gayre detailed more theories and details on all this since he also proposed Arabs or Semites had some involvement with Great Zimbabwe."
Ah. I see how it is now. This is the old bull about "Negroids" being incapable of any independent civilization on their own. An idea that as been trounced repeatedly. What a joke.
quote:"The Lemba have an oral tradition that their male ancestry originally comprised "white people from over the sea” who came to southeast Africa "
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:We're talking about a relatively recent time-frame, well within the last millennia. I don't propose any large-scale mixture events, but am open to small-scale mixture and cultural influences; the Lemba are probably a good example-
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
"If i'm not mistaken the scholar Robert Gayre detailed more theories and details on all this since he also proposed Arabs or Semites had some involvement with Great Zimbabwe."
Ah. I see how it is now. This is the old bull about "Negroids" being incapable of any independent civilization on their own. An idea that as been trounced repeatedly. What a joke.
"The Lemba have an oral tradition that their male ancestry originally comprised "white people from over the sea” who came to southeast Africa – from a country which boasted large cities – in order to obtain gold (van Warmelo, 1966, pp. 281-282; Hammond Tooke, 1937; Junod, 1927; le Roux, 2003, pp. 210-224). That oral tradition has been supported by genetic analyses." http://www.dlmcn.com/anczimb.html
"When blood groups and scrum protein markers were used, the Lemba were indistinguishable from the neighbors among whom they lived; the same was true for mitochondrial DNA which represented the input of females in their gene pool. However, the Y chromosomes, which represented their history through male contributions, showed the link to non-African ancestors. When trying to elucidate the most likely geographic region of origin of the non-African Y chromosomes in the Lemba, the best that could be done was to narrow it to the Middle Eastern region." (Soodyall et al. 2016)
quote:—…?
The majority of NRY haplotypes in Soqotra belong to haplogroup J (85.7%)
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Lioness, you're right, but other manuscript editions have the lighter skinned Mansa Musa.
Here I show, another map showing not only Mansa Musa as light brown skinned, but even with straight hair. lol. This don't look like anything like a native Mali.
Source: British Library Add. MS 31318 B (Detail showing Mansa Musa)
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/themes/hajj/the_journey/routes/the_african_route/west_africa.aspx
quote:https://muse.jhu.edu/article/187892#REF16
"Eighteenth-century ads in Charlestown newpapers for runaways tell us that slaves from the Senegambia (and Guinea) were the tallest and (along [End Page 326] with the Ibo) lighter-skinned. Many runaways spoke foreign languages, implying mobility in Africa, and played musical instruments, including the violin. Senegambians appeared perhaps less often in ads as runaways because they seem to have been used more as house servants with less chance of running away than a field hand. Slightly more than half the African names in the South Carolina Gazette from 1732 to 1775 seem to have been Tshiluba names, implying a Bantu heritage, but names from Angola and Gambia were significant. However, figuring out the ethnic heritage of African names requires linguistic sophistication. When Pollitzer points out that the name Keta is a common name in Yoruba, Hausa, and Bambara, and written by a Southern owner as Cato, I would speculate this is very likely a reference to Keita, the name well-known to Mande Africans of the highly-influential ruling clan of ancient Mali. As if referring to a veritable incubator and laboratory for jazz, in 1886 George Washington Cable fancifully described the Place Congo in New Orleans as the scene of exuberant music, dance, and singing by a variety of a dozen identifiable ethnic groups, including tall, well-built Senegalese and Gambia River Mandingo, who were slightly less well-built but cunning and lighter-skinned"
quote:^^ why go by this The Catalan Map circa 1525
Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Lioness, you're right, but other manuscript editions have the lighter skinned Mansa Musa.
Here I show, another map showing not only Mansa Musa as light brown skinned, but even with straight hair. lol. This don't look like anything like a native Mali.
Source: British Library Add. MS 31318 B (Detail showing Mansa Musa)
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/themes/hajj/the_journey/routes/the_african_route/west_africa.aspx
. This don't look like anything like a native Mali.
quote:https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/anthropology-and-apartheid-rise-military-ethnology-south
Many enthusiastically did, participating in activities ranging from Carleton Coon's OSS (Office of Strategic Services) spy missions to developing etiquette guides or advising on counterinsurgency. It was no coincidence that the Society for Applied Anthropology was founded in 1941. Anthropologists like Max Gluckman who, as a conscientious objector refused to serve, were indeed rarities. The truth is that wars, and especially (neo)colonial wars, have been good for the business of anthropology.
quote:Understanding the mindset:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Cass has done nothing to dispute the simple fact that ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant; Upper Egyptians did not materialise out of a vacuum in their current location and are certainly not "Eurasians" from the Levant or anywhere else in "Eurasia". The Badarians, Naqadan and "Nubian" predynastic cultures stem from a common origin and were virtually identical and have no association with "Eurasians".
Ancient Upper Egyptians (the demographic majority) resembled -still do- other Northeast Africans. Cass tries to associate Europeans with Northeast Africans by laughably asserting that the ancient Egyptians had the same skin tone as Greeks and Italians -- "light brown" - a colour designation that does not fit the olive skin people of that region.
The San are light brown, so maybe Cass should be arguing that Lower "Nubians" and ancient Egyptians were just indigenous Northeast Africans with a lighter shade of brown to most Africans, but that would deprive him of his desperate campaign to associate Northeast Africans with Europeans of the South.
Mahogany brown was the average and is well within the range of Africans in general, and so there is no argument to be had.
quote:http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon
Coon matriculated to Harvard University, where he was attracted to the relatively new field of anthropology by Earnest Hooton and he graduated magna cum laude in 1925. He became the Curator of Ethnology at the University Museum of Philadelphia.[3][4] Coon continued with coursework at Harvard.
quote:http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Earnest_Hooton
Earnest Albert Hooton (November 20, 1887 – May 3, 1954) was a U.S. physical anthropologist known for his work on racial classification and his popular writings such as the book Up From The Ape. Hooton sat on the Committee on the Negro, a group that "focused on the anatomy of blacks and reflected the racism of the time."[2]
[...]
In 1926, the American Association of Physical Anthropology and the National Research Council organized a Committee on the Negro, which focused on the anatomy of blacks. Among those appointed to the Committee on the Negro were Aleš Hrdlička, Earnest Hooton and eugenist Charles Davenport. In 1927, the committee endorsed a comparison of African babies with young apes. Ten years later, the group published findings in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology to "prove that the negro race is phylogenetically a closer approach to primitive man than the white race." Hooton played a key part in establishing the racial stereotypes about black athleticism and black criminality of his day in terms of an anthropological framework.[2] Hooton was one of the first to attempt to develop mathematically rigorous criteria for race typology.[8]
[...]
In 1932, Hooton wrote an article titled "Is the Negro Inferior". It was published by the Crisis magazine. He brought up the discussion of racial differences and claimed that it existed in the United States. Hooton first defined race as a matter of inheritance. As we grow up we observe that a group of people with different physical appearances also have different manners or culture than ourselves
quote:Let's follow more of Cas his euroloon logic in disputing Mansa Munsa as a Mali native.
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:Old typology, but you can see the resemblance, almond-shaped eyes, long nose with fleshy-tip (also looks somewhat aquiline). The facial hair , slight beard rufosity (faint red) and lighter skin etc. That image doesn't look like a native to Mali at all, but looks like an Arab. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabid_race
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
This is an "Arab looking" king to you??
Just what is the "Arab" look??
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Cheeze us.
Like Musa posed for either.
Anyway Mr Mali himself -- Salif Keita
quote:You're saying AE came from further south, exactly when? What is your explanation for the Nazlet Khater skeleton and stone-age tool-making in Egypt? Why is it problematic to see regional continuity in Egypt as far back as this time, if not earlier? I'm aware of some archaeology linking north Sudan to Egypt since the late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic through to Neolithic, but where does a "transplant" come from? Secondly, its inaccurate to say Sudan (and not specify the north), since south Sudanese had no close ties to Egypt. You're desperately tying to connect Egypt to SSA's (hence also your reference to Horn Africans.) I showed with dental and cranial non-metric/metric data that Somalis do not plot close to ancient Egyptians - only north Sudanese do (alongside southern Levant).
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Cass has done nothing to dispute the simple fact that ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant; Upper Egyptians did not materialise out of a vacuum in their current location and are certainly not "Eurasians" from the Levant or anywhere else in "Eurasia". The Badarians, Naqadan and "Nubian" predynastic cultures stem from a common origin and were virtually identical and have no association with "Eurasians".
Ancient Upper Egyptians (the demographic majority) resembled -still do- other Northeast Africans. Cass tries to associate Europeans with Northeast Africans by laughably asserting that the ancient Egyptians had the same skin tone as Greeks and Italians -- "light brown" - a colour designation that does not fit the olive skin people of that region.
The San are light brown, so maybe Cass should be arguing that Lower "Nubians" and ancient Egyptians were just indigenous Northeast Africans with a lighter shade of brown to most Africans, but that would deprive him of his desperate campaign to associate Northeast Africans with Europeans of the South.
Mahogany brown was the average and is well within the range of Africans in general, and so there is no argument to be had.
quote:lol smh
Originally posted by Cass/:
quote:You're saying AE came from further south, exactly when? What is your explanation for the Nazlet Khater skeleton and stone-age tool-making in Egypt? Why is it problematic to see regional continuity in Egypt as far back as this time, if not earlier? I'm aware of some archaeology linking north Sudan to Egypt since the late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic through to Neolithic, but where does a "transplant" come from? Secondly, its inaccurate to say Sudan (and not specify the north), since south Sudanese had no close ties to Egypt. You're desperately tying to connect Egypt to SSA's (hence also your reference to Horn Africans.) I showed with dental and cranial non-metric/metric data that Somalis do not plot close to ancient Egyptians - only north Sudanese do (alongside southern Levant).
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Cass has done nothing to dispute the simple fact that ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant; Upper Egyptians did not materialise out of a vacuum in their current location and are certainly not "Eurasians" from the Levant or anywhere else in "Eurasia". The Badarians, Naqadan and "Nubian" predynastic cultures stem from a common origin and were virtually identical and have no association with "Eurasians".
Ancient Upper Egyptians (the demographic majority) resembled -still do- other Northeast Africans. Cass tries to associate Europeans with Northeast Africans by laughably asserting that the ancient Egyptians had the same skin tone as Greeks and Italians -- "light brown" - a colour designation that does not fit the olive skin people of that region.
The San are light brown, so maybe Cass should be arguing that Lower "Nubians" and ancient Egyptians were just indigenous Northeast Africans with a lighter shade of brown to most Africans, but that would deprive him of his desperate campaign to associate Northeast Africans with Europeans of the South.
Mahogany brown was the average and is well within the range of Africans in general, and so there is no argument to be had.
quote:http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/wadi/hd_wadi.htm
Wadi Kubbaniya (ca. 17,000–15,000 B.C.)
In Egypt, the earliest evidence of humans can be recognized only from tools found scattered over an ancient surface, sometimes with hearths nearby. In Wadi Kubbaniya, a dried-up streambed cutting through the Western Desert to the floodplain northwest of Aswan in Upper Egypt, some interesting sites of the kind described above have been recorded. A cluster of Late Paleolithic camps was located in two different topographic zones: on the tops of dunes and the floor of the wadi (streambed) where it enters the valley. Although no signs of houses were found, diverse and sophisticated stone implements for hunting, fishing, and collecting and processing plants were discovered around hearths. Most tools were bladelets made from a local stone called chert that is widely used in tool fabrication. The bones of wild cattle, hartebeest, many types of fish and birds, as well as the occasional hippopotamus have been identified in the occupation layers. Charred remains of plants that the inhabitants consumed, especially tubers, have also been found.
It appears from the zoological and botanical remains at the various sites in this wadi that the two environmental zones were exploited at different times. We know that the dune sites were occupied when the Nile River flooded the wadi because large numbers of fish and migratory bird bones were found at this location. When the water receded, people then moved down onto the silt left behind on the wadi floor and the floodplain, probably following large animals that looked for water there in the dry season. Paleolithic peoples lived at Wadi Kubbaniya for about 2,000 years, exploiting the different environments as the seasons changed. Other ancient camps have been discovered along the Nile from Sudan to the Mediterranean, yielding similar tools and food remains. These sites demonstrate that the early inhabitants of the Nile valley and its nearby deserts had learned how to exploit local environments, developing economic strategies that were maintained in later cultural traditions of pharaonic Egypt.
quote:http://www.kerma.ch/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&lang=en&id=15
El-Barga reveals one of the most important necropoleis of the early Holocene in Africa.
This site was discovered in 2001 during a survey concentrating on the zones bordering the alluvial plain. The name el-Barga is borrowed from a nearby mountain. The site is located on an elevation formed by an outcrop of bedrock (Nubian sandstone) less than 15 km from the Nile, as the crow flies. It includes a settlement area dated to circa 7500 B.C. and cemeteries belonging to two distinct periods.
The habitation is a circular hut slightly less than five metres in diameter, its maximum depth exceeding 50 centimetres. This semi-subterranean structure contained a wealth of artefacts resulting from the site’s occupation (ceramics, grinding tools, flint objects, ostrich eggshell beads, a mother-of-pearl pendant, bone tools, faunal remains, shells). The abundance of artefacts discovered suggests a marked inclination towards a sedentary lifestyle, even though certain activities (fishing and hunting) necessitate seasonal migration.
North of this habitation, about forty burials were dated to the Epipalaeolithic (7700-7000 B.C.) and generally do not contain any furnishings. On the other hand, the Neolithic cemetery (6000-5500 B.C.) located further south comprises about a hundred burials often containing artefacts (adornment, ceramics, flint or bone objects).
quote:Menschliche Skelettreste aus dem Wadi Howar (Sudan) – vorläufige anthropologische Befunde (2002)
Originally posted by Cass/:
You're saying AE came from further south, exactly when? What is your explanation for the Nazlet Khater skeleton and stone-age tool-making in Egypt? Why is it problematic to see regional continuity in Egypt as far back as this time, if not earlier? I'm aware of some archaeology linking north Sudan to Egypt since the late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic through to Neolithic, but where does a "transplant" come from? Secondly, its inaccurate to say Sudan (and not specify the north), since south Sudanese had no close ties to Egypt. You're desperately tying to connect Egypt to SSA's (hence also your reference to Horn Africans.) I showed with dental and cranial non-metric/metric data that Somalis do not plot close to ancient Egyptians - only north Sudanese do (alongside southern Levant).
quote:—Olaf Bubenzer, Heiko Riemer
Supraregional investigations of the Holocene occupational history of the eastern Sahara west of the Nile combined with the study of climatic, environmental, and geomorphological archives were carried out in contrasting desert regions from the Mediterranean coast strip to Wadi Howar in Sudan. The research areas are located far away from groundwater influence and are therefore capable of indicating environmental changes. Climatic development in accordance with nearly 500 14C dates from archaeological sites indicates a Holocene optimum lasting from approximately 9500 B.P. till the beginning of the drying trend that set in about 6300 B.P. (9000–5300 cal. B.C.). Although the faunal and floral remains are arid types, they indicate slightly wetter conditions than today. Surface water was the key factor that influenced the adaptation strategies of the mobile hunter-gatherers (and in some parts, the pastoralists) in the desert regions. Large episodic camp sites agglomerated at favorable drainage systems and water pools, and settlement patterns strongly correlate with the paleohydrological factors examined with remote sensing cartography, geomorphological work, and the analysis of digital elevation models.
quote:http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1951/
Wadi Howar is one of the most remarkable natural features of the south Eastern Sahars. It was proclaimed on the 18th of July 2001, with an area of 100 thousand km sq. as one of the largest national park in the world, with diverse flora and outstanding geological features including the volcanic and crater landscape of Meidob Hills, Jebel Rahib complex .... etc. Numerous paleo lakes and large active barachen done fields also exist. Dorcas gazelle, barberg shepp, ostrich and others also exist. The wadi was the largest Nile's tributary from the Sahara between 9500 -3000 years before present.
quote:Paleoclimate and archaeological evidence tells us that, 11,000-5,000 years ago, the Earth's slow orbital 'wobble' transformed today's Sahara desert to a land covered with vegetation and lakes.
Figure 1: Images of North African prehistoric rock and cave paintings.
From (a, b) Swimmer’s Cave (Wadi Sura, southern Egypt), (c) the Ennedi massif (northeastern Chad) and (d) Zolat el Hammad, Wadi Howar (northern Sudan).
Evidence for the African Humid Period
The Early Holocene AHP is one of the most thoroughly documented and well-dated climate change events in the geologic record, and the number and diversity of paleoclimate records is remarkable (COHMAP Members, 1988; deMenocal et al., 2000; Gasse, 2000; Hoelzmann et al., 1998; Jolly, 1998; Kroepelin, 2008; Kuper and Kröpelin, 2006). Through these terrestrial and marine records we can document both the timing and extent of the humid interval.
Geological evidence for past lake basins in the Sahara are commonly found near interdune depressions and other low-lying regions, where ancient lake bed sediment outcrops and shoreline deposits are exposed. Most of the early Holocene paleolakes were small, but numerous and widespread (Figure 2b). Some lake basins in North Africa were exceptionally large, as large as the Caspian Sea today. These so-called megalakes occurred in the North (Megalake Fezzan, Libya), South (Megalake Chad, Chad/Niger/Nigeria), West (Chotts Megalakes, Algeria) and East (Megalakes Turkana and Kenya) (Drake and Bristow, 2006). Based on their stratigraphic records, these must have been permanent, open-basin lakes, indicating that annual moisture supply exceeded evaporation for many millennia during the AHP, even in the driest regions of the modern-day Sahara.
A continent-wide compilation of past lake-level reconstructions (the Oxford Lake Level Database (OLLD) (COHMAP Members, 1988; Street-Perrott et al., 1989)) updated with lake-level reconstructions published in the last twenty years (Tierney et al., 2011) chronicles the changes in lake levels that occurred across Africa as a result of the African Humid Period (Figure 2b). This database classifies lakes as "low" (lake is within 0–15% of its potential volume or dry), "intermediate" (lake is within 15–70% of its potential volume) or "high" (lake is within 70–100% of its potential volume or overflowing) every 1000 years during the late-glacial period and the Holocene. The difference in lake levels at 9000 years — the height of the African Humid Period — relative to the conditions today shows that the extent of the AHP across the continent was vast — extending from the far northern Sahara to as far south as 10˚S in East Africa (Figure 3).
quote:For fun I took a pic of my own skin (arm), for comparison.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Interesting post Tukuler. This scale methodology has an interesting history.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The 4 5 6 anomaly proves your chart
is an inaccurate manipulation designed
for Euro self interest. My chart, bricks,
and tiles present the anomaly that
yours covers up.
I am not here to go back and forth
with you. You have been corrected.
The chart you posted is a fake.
For anybody interested here are
some of the glass tiles to go along
with my bricks and my 'paper' repros
Authenticity assured!
Of course everybody's free to Google von
Luschan or skin spectrometry to see for
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23633083
themselves. The lazy ones won't do it
and that's what a certain set of posters
rely on. It helps them get over.
quote:http://www.reed.edu/art/ondrizek/exhibitions/shades-of-white/
Although I have done similar genetic research-based projects, I have not previously taken on such racially controversial material. is project exposes the genetic discrimination at play in the United States beginning in 1900 and links it to the practice of eugenics aimed at achieving racial hygiene in Nazi Germany. As Stern points out in Eugenic Nation, the top eugenicists in the U. S. collaborated with and followed the same practices as their Nazi counterparts in 1930s Germany. In fact the “Gates Skin Color Chart” is based on a similar chart dating to 1905 created by Felix von Luschan, which the German Society for Racial Hygiene utilized in selecting the victims of the forced sterilizations performed in that country.
quote:.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
For fun I took a pic of my own skin (arm), for comparison.
quote:This is crazy, I'm dark brown not Black ???
Wow, you scored 17 out of 36, intermediate
.
.
Fitzpatrick type von Luschan scale
I) 0–6 Very light or white, "Celtic" type
II) 7–13 Light or light-skinned European
III) 14–20 Light intermediate, or dark-skinned European
IV) 21–27 Dark intermediate or "olive skin"
V) 28–34 Dark or "brown" type
VI) 35–36 Very dark or "black" type
quote:The term black is metaphorical. I thought you knew as an African American woman. lol
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:.
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
For fun I took a pic of my own skin (arm), for comparison.
.
quote:This is crazy, I'm dark brown not Black ???
Wow, you scored 17 out of 36, intermediate
.
.
Fitzpatrick type von Luschan scale
I) 0–6 Very light or white, "Celtic" type
II) 7–13 Light or light-skinned European
III) 14–20 Light intermediate, or dark-skinned European
IV) 21–27 Dark intermediate or "olive skin"
V) 28–34 Dark or "brown" type
VI) 35–36 Very dark or "black" type
I guess Doug was right it goes strictly by color not by African ancestry, so much for blackness as a basis for unity
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
My question was to be … [b]why was YRI choosen as a proxy for SSA when Kenyans MKK and LWK are better representatives for SSA than the distant YRI who are 4000miles away.
quote:Aren't Kenyans African component are going to be similar to Mota ?
Originally posted by xyyman:
LOOK AT THE CHART!!!!! Mota is not SSA…
quote:No, I doubt the overall result would be much different, but I think it was lazy to leave out East African references. Also I would have liked to see some analysis of the Abusir Egyptians as contributors to East Africa, but I suspect they were too recent and Middle East-shifted to work anyway.
Originally posted by xyyman:
If they have chosen markers primarily found in ...say Mota, the Headline would have been. "SSA ancestry decreases in Abusir AFTER the Roman Empire".
But them you knew that don't you?
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:No, I doubt the overall result would be much different, but I think it was lazy to leave out East African references. Also I would have liked to see some analysis of the Abusir Egyptians as contributors to East Africa, but I suspect they were too recent and Middle East-shifted to work anyway.
Originally posted by xyyman:
If they have chosen markers primarily found in ...say Mota, the Headline would have been. "SSA ancestry decreases in Abusir AFTER the Roman Empire".
But them you knew that don't you?
quote:Yes, we have discussed the fact that the current methodologies used by most DNA researchers is to use pre-existing repositories of DNA when doing their analyses. They arnen't going to go and sample all populations all over the planet whenever they want to do a comparison to some new DNA data they have retrieved. However, when you compare the way they do DNA analysis of Europe vs DNA analysis of Africa hardly ever would you see them using such far away populations as those of Murmansk in Russia as proxies for "North Eurasian" compared to Southern European populations in Spain and Italy. Yet in Africa they do this all the time which means that because of the thousands of miles of distance between the populations being compared, it creates a false dichotomy or false spatial and genetic relationship between the two. Case in point, the populations of Sudan are no closer to YRI than the populations of Upper Egypt. So to claim that Yoruban DNA is a proxy for African "indigenous" DNA is ridiculous.
Originally posted by xyyman:
As I said they used some obscure component found at high frequency in YRI to represent SSA. But the deceptive fools did not notice that this same component was ALREADY in Ancient Europe. SMH. That is why you people need to look at the data very carefully. It is impossible for the Abusir to be anything BUT pure Africans.
How did this component get to pre-Roman Europe by bypassing the Abusir? Tsk! Tsk!
quote:You have no idea Doug. It is totally normal to model South Europeans as a mix of early farmers from Iran, Turkey, and Jordan with hunter-gatherers from Belgium, Russia, and Georgia, throwing in Andamanese negritos, Taiwanese aborigines, reindeer herders from northern Siberia, south Nigerians, etc. "Ancestral North Eurasian" is represented by Ice Age hunters from north of Mongolia. Using distant populations rather than nearby ones avoids the confounding effect of reciprocal gene flow.
Originally posted by Doug M:
However, when you compare the way they do DNA analysis of Europe vs DNA analysis of Africa hardly ever would you see them using such far away populations as those of Murmansk in Russia as proxies for "North Eurasian" compared to Southern European populations in Spain and Italy. Yet in Africa they do this all the time....
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
[Q]quote:It is totally normal????to model South Europeans as a mix of early farmers from Iran, Turkey, and Jordan with hunter-gatherers from Belgium, Russia, and Georgia, throwing in Andamanese negritos, Taiwanese aborigines, reindeer herders from northern Siberia, south Nigerians, etc. "Ancestral North Eurasian" is represented by Ice Age hunters from north of Mongolia. Using distant populations rather than nearby ones avoids the confounding effect of reciprocal gene flow. [/Q]
Originally posted :
[q] ..[/q]
quote:That wasn't the point being made though. The point was that nobody claims that because the South Europeans had more mixture with Iran and Turkey they were less "Eurasian" than the folks from Murmansk because of a lack of genetic closeness.
Originally posted by capra:
quote:You have no idea Doug. It is totally normal to model South Europeans as a mix of early farmers from Iran, Turkey, and Jordan with hunter-gatherers from Belgium, Russia, and Georgia, throwing in Andamanese negritos, Taiwanese aborigines, reindeer herders from northern Siberia, south Nigerians, etc. "Ancestral North Eurasian" is represented by Ice Age hunters from north of Mongolia. Using distant populations rather than nearby ones avoids the confounding effect of reciprocal gene flow.
Originally posted by Doug M:
However, when you compare the way they do DNA analysis of Europe vs DNA analysis of Africa hardly ever would you see them using such far away populations as those of Murmansk in Russia as proxies for "North Eurasian" compared to Southern European populations in Spain and Italy. Yet in Africa they do this all the time....
quote:
It is important to include a reference to "Ibadan, Nigeria" when describing the source of these samples. Including the name of the city and the country where these samples were collected reinforces the point that the sample set, while not genetically "atypical", does not necessarily represent all Yoruba people, whose population history is complex. The population should not be described merely as "African", "Sub-Saharan African", "West African", or "Nigerian", since each of those designators encompasses many populations with different geographic ancestries.
After the complete descriptor "Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria" has been provided, it is acceptable to use the shorthand label "Yoruba" or the abbreviation "YRI" in the remainder of the article or presentation. However, the full descriptor for each population should be provided before the shorthand labels are used; this will help to avoid the risks associated with over-generalization of findings.
quote:x
Originally posted by Oshun:
[Q] What populations (specific ethnic groups please) should they have included that they didn't? [/Q]
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
[Q] The whole notion that sampling affects results to the point where the use of another broadly related sample would have given a radically different result is wrong.
[/Q]
quote:We've been over this way too many times. Don't know why I bothered to respond in my first post. But if you still want to think Abusir is 100% African and that all they have to do is just find the right African reference population that will make the unsettling Abusir results go away
Originally posted by xyyman:
A Big.WRONG!!!!!!!!!!You still don't understand the manipulation of SUPERVISED testing
, suit yourself.
quote:But here is the catch. What if the Upper Egyptians and so called Nubians had similar profiles to those of Abusir. Then what? Sudan isn't "sub Saharan" and neither is Upper Egypt. So if there is a truly "unique" set of lineages that can be called indigenous "North African" and not "Eurasian" what would those lineages look like? Otherwise, again, the only "indigenous" lineages in Africa are "sub saharan". Which is false.
By comparing ancient individuals from Abusir el-Meleq with modern Egyptian reference populations, we found an influx of sub-Saharan African ancestry after the Roman Period, which corroborates the findings by Henn and colleagues16. Further investigation would be needed to link this influx to particular historic processes. Possible causal factors include increased mobility down the Nile and increased long-distance commerce between sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt49. Trans-Saharan slave trade may have been particularly important as it moved between 6 and 7 million sub-Saharan slaves to Northern Africa over a span of some 1,250 years, reaching its high point in the nineteenth century50. However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa51,52,53. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.
quote:You really are missing the point. I don't know what a "egyptsearch style black berber is".
Originally posted by Swenet:
My only disagreement is with the notion that better sampling among living populations solves issues. Better sampling doesn't solve anything. You can search the Sahel and inner Sahara for "black Berbers" to use as better proxies, but the populations you will find there are just mixtures of populations north and south of them. And so you won't be moving the conversation forward in a productive direction because geneticists are just going to say the supposedly 'missing links' you're talking about are mixtures of the reference samples they're already using. They're going to say that what you think is a solution, isn't helping and that their reference samples already cover (broadly) the known ancestry types. Unless you can point me to these ancestral "black Berber" reference populations that are the sources of modern day coastal North Africans. Then I will shut up and admit I was wrong.
There are no Egyptsearch-style "black Berbers" in North Africa. There was a big discussion about this months ago. So why try to revive the conversation and start from scratch like the objections that were raised back then are not valid anymore?
quote:does that sound right to you?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Quote:
"Supplementary Notes
Note 1: f4-ratio based estimation of African ancestry in present-day and ancient Egyptians
Chuanchao Wang
The present-day Egyptians are suggested to have about 14% to 21% African ancestry
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:does that sound right to you?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Quote:
"Supplementary Notes
Note 1: f4-ratio based estimation of African ancestry in present-day and ancient Egyptians
Chuanchao Wang
The present-day Egyptians are suggested to have about 14% to 21% African ancestry
quote:Remind me again, where was the Abusir el-Meleq data originally hosted?
Originally posted by xyyman:
yep! Looks like the Abusir dataset is gone!!!!!! Maybe they missed something before they cleaned out the BAM files...now they have to pull them off the shelf. lol! SMH
If you guys downloaded the free BAM files of the Abusir....back them up on your computer!!!!
Hold on to the files if you downloaded them. Looks like there is software coming out that can pinpoint the Sub-Saharan African group that has close affinity to the Abusir. I told you so!!
----
--------
Quote from the Abusir paper
"Dating gene flow from Africans into present-day Egyptians
We caution that the date estimates might not reflect the initial African admixture in present-day Egyptians; instead, it is an average date of population mixture. If the admixture did not happen immediately when two populations met, or occurred many times over an extended period, the true start of mixture would be more ancient."
" Note 5: Frequency based mitochondrial analysis
Alexander Peltzer, Wolfgang Haak, Kay Nieselt
Test of population continuity
We followed an approach first used and defined by Brandt et al. (29) by first generating counts of 22 haplogroups determined manually to be most descriptive for our three ancient populations."
" For modern Egyptians, [b]neither a significant value supporting discontinuity nor continuity was observed (see Supplementary Data 5)."
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
uh, could you link us to the page with the missing Abusir BAM files, xyyman?
quote:Sounds nice in theory, but has no added value when comes to results. You can't draw out North African ancestry using Sub-Saharan samples (unless they're mixed with North African ancestry). Trying to use regions (e.g. Sahel) does work either because these regions are mixtures of north and south, not ancestral.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Like I mentioned to you years ago, regions within Africa are better models for DNA flow other than "Sub Saharan" vs "North African". There is no such model of Eurasian DNA. There are multiple regional models of Eurasian DNA not a simple North Erasian vs South Eurasian model. Only in Africa are they trying to model the entire history of Africa into a North African vs Sub Saharan model which is totally nonsensical.
quote:"If the downloader app doesn't open, please try using Firefox to launch it".
Originally posted by xyyman:
Well. It is not showing up or downloading in IE, neither Chrome. Does not look like a firewall issue? Firefox?
quote:So Egyptians are 80% Eurasian but according to xyyman doctrine Europeans are 80% African ???
Originally posted by xyyman:
1. Title : Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations - Nina Hollfelder, Published: August 24, 2017
Authors summary
This admixture process largely coincides with the time of the Arab(eh Turkish) conquest, spreading in a southbound direction along the Nile and the Blue Nile. Nilotic populations occupying the region around the
White Nile show long-term continuity, genetic isolation and genetic links to ancestral East African people. Compared to current times, groups that are ancestral to the current day.
2. Post DNATribes map showing modern Egyptians are 20% African
3. Post that Pagani paper showing that Modern Egyptians are 20% African
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:does that sound right to you?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Quote:
"Supplementary Notes
Note 1: f4-ratio based estimation of African ancestry in present-day and ancient Egyptians
Chuanchao Wang
The present-day Egyptians are suggested to have about 14% to 21% African ancestry
quote:You can't be talking to me. I am not trying to draw out anything other than "African" DNA lineages through history. What I said is you should compare DNA from populations near each other to see if there is a gap or major break in ancestry between the groups. That is if you are trying to determine how "African" a specific population is. This isn't about trying to identify how "North African" a population is because we don't have a clearly defined "indigenous" set of North African DNA lineages that are not Eurasian in origin (according to most scientific papers on the topic). So again, if we assume all North East populations have some amount of so called "Eurasian" mixture, then using the presence of "Eurasian" lineages in any of these populations to call it out as being an OUTLIER is a false dichotomy. Yet this is exactly what most papers on North Africa and AE are doing.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Sounds nice in theory, but has no added value when comes to results. You can't draw out North African ancestry using Sub-Saharan samples (unless they're mixed with North African ancestry). Trying to use regions (e.g. Sahel) does work either because these regions are mixtures of north and south, not ancestral.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Like I mentioned to you years ago, regions within Africa are better models for DNA flow other than "Sub Saharan" vs "North African". There is no such model of Eurasian DNA. There are multiple regional models of Eurasian DNA not a simple North Erasian vs South Eurasian model. Only in Africa are they trying to model the entire history of Africa into a North African vs Sub Saharan model which is totally nonsensical.
Case in point: Tibbou populations whose genomes were finally published in 2016. If what you say is valid, then the Tibbou genomes should reveal new fundamental things about coastal North African DNA. They don't. The only thing we see is that coastal North Africans reveal something about Tibbou genomes since the latter is mixed with the former. Trying to sample Tibbou adds nothing new to our understanding of how coastal North Africans formed.
You insisted on samples from the Sahel. Now we have them. We can't use them to establish an ancestral link with North African ancestry. Such Sahelian samples have never been found and, from the looks of it, they will never be found because they don't exist. Time to move on.
quote:Perhaps it's the other way around. How else will you explain OoA MIGRATIONS and genetic drifts?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So Egyptians are 80% Eurasian but according to xyyman doctrine Europeans are 80% African ???
Originally posted by xyyman:
1. Title : Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations - Nina Hollfelder, Published: August 24, 2017
Authors summary
This admixture process largely coincides with the time of the Arab(eh Turkish) conquest, spreading in a southbound direction along the Nile and the Blue Nile. Nilotic populations occupying the region around the
White Nile show long-term continuity, genetic isolation and genetic links to ancestral East African people. Compared to current times, groups that are ancestral to the current day.
2. Post DNATribes map showing modern Egyptians are 20% African
3. Post that Pagani paper showing that Modern Egyptians are 20% African
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:does that sound right to you?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Quote:
"Supplementary Notes
Note 1: f4-ratio based estimation of African ancestry in present-day and ancient Egyptians
Chuanchao Wang
The present-day Egyptians are suggested to have about 14% to 21% African ancestry
quote:--Holliday TW, Hilton CE.
In fact, in terms of body shape, the European and the Inuit samples tend to be cold-adapted and tend to be separated in multivariate space from the more tropically adapted Africans, especially those groups from south of the Sahara.
quote:--Holliday TW
"What we can say, however, is that in the Holocene, humans from southwest Asia do not exhibit tropically adapted body shape (Crognier 1981; Eveleth and Tanner 1976; Schreider 1975).... "
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So Egyptians are 80% Eurasian but according to xyyman doctrine Europeans are 80% African ???
Originally posted by xyyman:
1. Title : Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations - Nina Hollfelder, Published: August 24, 2017
Authors summary
This admixture process largely coincides with the time of the Arab(eh Turkish) conquest, spreading in a southbound direction along the Nile and the Blue Nile. Nilotic populations occupying the region around the
White Nile show long-term continuity, genetic isolation and genetic links to ancestral East African people. Compared to current times, groups that are ancestral to the current day.
2. Post DNATribes map showing modern Egyptians are 20% African
3. Post that Pagani paper showing that Modern Egyptians are 20% African
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:does that sound right to you?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Quote:
"Supplementary Notes
Note 1: f4-ratio based estimation of African ancestry in present-day and ancient Egyptians
Chuanchao Wang
The present-day Egyptians are suggested to have about 14% to 21% African ancestry
Europeans are more African than Turks ???
quote:So Modern Egyptians are 80% Eurasian but according to xyyman doctrine Europeans are 80% African ???
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Ha! Ha! Ha! Now you get it. The SNP data can be manipulated to give you whatever results you want. That is what SUPERVISED analysis does. At K2 Both Europeans and Turks and Levantines will be more African than non-African. At the high Ks separations occurs. In addition SNPs can be isolated or "targeted" to infer relationships. That is why it is meaningless if not done the correct way or using the correct software tool.
The CODIS/Forensic STR resolves all that. That is why the Amarnas were showed NOT to be related to modern Egyptians, Levantines or Berbers. STRs were used to make that determination. That is one of the few DIRECT methods of analysis.
quote:Perhaps it's the other way around. How else will you explain OoA MIGRATIONS and genetic drifts? One or the other is true.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So Modern Egyptians are 80% Eurasian but according to xyyman doctrine Europeans are 80% African ???
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Ha! Ha! Ha! Now you get it. The SNP data can be manipulated to give you whatever results you want. That is what SUPERVISED analysis does. At K2 Both Europeans and Turks and Levantines will be more African than non-African. At the high Ks separations occurs. In addition SNPs can be isolated or "targeted" to infer relationships. That is why it is meaningless if not done the correct way or using the correct software tool.
The CODIS/Forensic STR resolves all that. That is why the Amarnas were showed NOT to be related to modern Egyptians, Levantines or Berbers. STRs were used to make that determination. That is one of the few DIRECT methods of analysis.
quote:Everything you say here has already been addressed. But when I address it, you say it has nothing to do with your argument.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:You can't be talking to me. I am not trying to draw out anything other than "African" DNA lineages through history. What I said is you should compare DNA from populations near each other to see if there is a gap or major break in ancestry between the groups. That is if you are trying to determine how "African" a specific population is. This isn't about trying to identify how "North African" a population is because we don't have a clearly defined "indigenous" set of North African DNA lineages that are not Eurasian in origin (according to most scientific papers on the topic). So again, if we assume all North East populations have some amount of so called "Eurasian" mixture, then using the presence of "Eurasian" lineages in any of these populations to call it out as being an OUTLIER is a false dichotomy. Yet this is exactly what most papers on North Africa and AE are doing.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Sounds nice in theory, but has no added value when comes to results. You can't draw out North African ancestry using Sub-Saharan samples (unless they're mixed with North African ancestry). Trying to use regions (e.g. Sahel) does work either because these regions are mixtures of north and south, not ancestral.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Like I mentioned to you years ago, regions within Africa are better models for DNA flow other than "Sub Saharan" vs "North African". There is no such model of Eurasian DNA. There are multiple regional models of Eurasian DNA not a simple North Erasian vs South Eurasian model. Only in Africa are they trying to model the entire history of Africa into a North African vs Sub Saharan model which is totally nonsensical.
Case in point: Tibbou populations whose genomes were finally published in 2016. If what you say is valid, then the Tibbou genomes should reveal new fundamental things about coastal North African DNA. They don't. The only thing we see is that coastal North Africans reveal something about Tibbou genomes since the latter is mixed with the former. Trying to sample Tibbou adds nothing new to our understanding of how coastal North Africans formed.
You insisted on samples from the Sahel. Now we have them. We can't use them to establish an ancestral link with North African ancestry. Such Sahelian samples have never been found and, from the looks of it, they will never be found because they don't exist. Time to move on.
As for the Sahara, the question is what is the specific relationships between regions of the Sahara and other regions in Africa. Again, I don't care about a "north African" vs "Sub Saharan" model because that is irrelevant when talking about the entirety of African DNA history. Ancient DNA from the central Sahara is going to be closer to populations further South as logic would assume. Similarly populations from the Eastern Sahara will have a closer relationship to populations along the Nile. Just as coastal North Africans depending on the time period will have more "Eurasian" gene flow than those further South. That is more meaningful and reflects cline not "North African" vs "Sub Saharan". I would use the Tibbou as an example of regional DNA variation across the Sahara. But the way most papers do their analysis, they don't even include the Tibbou or Central and southern Saharan populations like those in Mali or Niger as part of "North Africa". The only proxies they use is "Coastal North Africans" as representative of all of North Africa. So they are playing games.
quote:And this would somehow not involve a dichotomy of SSA and North African ancestry? All I see here is that you dispute that by evoking admixture. But admixture still maintains the SSA/North African dichotomy.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Ancient DNA from the central Sahara is going to be closer to populations further South as logic would assume. Similarly populations from the Eastern Sahara will have a closer relationship to populations along the Nile. Just as coastal North Africans depending on the time period will have more "Eurasian" gene flow than those further South. That is more meaningful and reflects cline not "North African" vs "Sub Saharan".
quote:http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002397
A single Egyptian individual is presented for ancestry assuming k = 4 source populations: Saharawi [SAH], Nilotic-speaking Maasai [MKK], Spanish Basque [BAS] and Arabic Qatari [QAT]. Maasai segments (which were inferred from k = 3 and were highly diverged from the SAH, QAT, BAS segments) are layered on top of the inferred Maghrebi/Qatari/Basque ancestral karyogram, for k = 4 putative source populations.
quote:It only reinforces it if that is what you are looking for. If that is not what you are looking for it cant reinforce it. If I am looking at how Africans have moved around in Africa for the last 100,000 years, then North African vs Sub Saharan is absolutely an irrelevant distinction because I assume that movements within Africa between far flung locations have happened multiple times over that time period. Again, modeling African DNA history over 300,000 years as simply a model of "North African" vs "Sub Saharan" is the problem and most of these DNA studies are reinforcing that pattern by explicitly tying all their research to populations they can use to reinforce that pattern. There is a cline of relationships between all populations in Africa over history. It isn't simply a case of "North African" vs "Sub Saharans". You never see Greece modeled as a case of South European vs North European where mixture in Greece with Africans and Near Easterners takes Greece out of Eurasia. Yet that is what is going on here. And the overall point of making this distinction is to place "North Africa" as a proxy for "Eurasia". Its purpose is not to explain or provide understanding of "African" DNA movement within Africa.....
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Everything you say here has already been addressed. But when I address it, you say it has nothing to do with your argument.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:You can't be talking to me. I am not trying to draw out anything other than "African" DNA lineages through history. What I said is you should compare DNA from populations near each other to see if there is a gap or major break in ancestry between the groups. That is if you are trying to determine how "African" a specific population is. This isn't about trying to identify how "North African" a population is because we don't have a clearly defined "indigenous" set of North African DNA lineages that are not Eurasian in origin (according to most scientific papers on the topic). So again, if we assume all North East populations have some amount of so called "Eurasian" mixture, then using the presence of "Eurasian" lineages in any of these populations to call it out as being an OUTLIER is a false dichotomy. Yet this is exactly what most papers on North Africa and AE are doing.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Sounds nice in theory, but has no added value when comes to results. You can't draw out North African ancestry using Sub-Saharan samples (unless they're mixed with North African ancestry). Trying to use regions (e.g. Sahel) does work either because these regions are mixtures of north and south, not ancestral.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Like I mentioned to you years ago, regions within Africa are better models for DNA flow other than "Sub Saharan" vs "North African". There is no such model of Eurasian DNA. There are multiple regional models of Eurasian DNA not a simple North Erasian vs South Eurasian model. Only in Africa are they trying to model the entire history of Africa into a North African vs Sub Saharan model which is totally nonsensical.
Case in point: Tibbou populations whose genomes were finally published in 2016. If what you say is valid, then the Tibbou genomes should reveal new fundamental things about coastal North African DNA. They don't. The only thing we see is that coastal North Africans reveal something about Tibbou genomes since the latter is mixed with the former. Trying to sample Tibbou adds nothing new to our understanding of how coastal North Africans formed.
You insisted on samples from the Sahel. Now we have them. We can't use them to establish an ancestral link with North African ancestry. Such Sahelian samples have never been found and, from the looks of it, they will never be found because they don't exist. Time to move on.
As for the Sahara, the question is what is the specific relationships between regions of the Sahara and other regions in Africa. Again, I don't care about a "north African" vs "Sub Saharan" model because that is irrelevant when talking about the entirety of African DNA history. Ancient DNA from the central Sahara is going to be closer to populations further South as logic would assume. Similarly populations from the Eastern Sahara will have a closer relationship to populations along the Nile. Just as coastal North Africans depending on the time period will have more "Eurasian" gene flow than those further South. That is more meaningful and reflects cline not "North African" vs "Sub Saharan". I would use the Tibbou as an example of regional DNA variation across the Sahara. But the way most papers do their analysis, they don't even include the Tibbou or Central and southern Saharan populations like those in Mali or Niger as part of "North Africa". The only proxies they use is "Coastal North Africans" as representative of all of North Africa. So they are playing games.
quote:And this would not involve a dichotomy of SSA and North African ancestry? All I see here is that you dispute that by evoking admixture. But admixture still maintains the SSA/North African dichotomy.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Ancient DNA from the central Sahara is going to be closer to populations further South as logic would assume. Similarly populations from the Eastern Sahara will have a closer relationship to populations along the Nile. Just as coastal North Africans depending on the time period will have more "Eurasian" gene flow than those further South. That is more meaningful and reflects cline not "North African" vs "Sub Saharan".
quote:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929716304487
Understanding human genetic diversity in Africa is important for interpreting the evolution of all humans, yet vast regions in Africa, such as Chad, remain genetically poorly investigated. Here, we use genotype data from 480 samples from Chad, the Near East, and southern Europe, as well as whole-genome sequencing from 19 of them, to show that many populations today derive their genomes from ancient African-Eurasian admixtures. We found evidence of early Eurasian backflow to Africa in people speaking the unclassified isolate Laal language in southern Chad and estimate from linkage-disequilibrium decay that this occurred 4,750–7,200 years ago. It brought to Africa a Y chromosome lineage (R1b-V88) whose closest relatives are widespread in present-day Eurasia; we estimate from sequence data that the Chad R1b-V88 Y chromosomes coalesced 5,700–7,300 years ago. This migration could thus have originated among Near Eastern farmers during the African Humid Period. We also found that the previously documented Eurasian backflow into Africa, which occurred ∼3,000 years ago and was thought to be mostly limited to East Africa, had a more westward impact affecting populations in northern Chad, such as the Toubou, who have 20%–30% Eurasian ancestry today. We observed a decline in heterozygosity in admixed Africans and found that the Eurasian admixture can bias inferences on their coalescent history and confound genetic signals from adaptation and archaic introgression.
quote:http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006976
Northeast Africa has a long history of human habitation, with fossil-finds from the earliest
anatomically modern humans, and housing ancient civilizations. The region is also the gate-way out of Africa, as well as a portal for migration into Africa from Eurasia via the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula. We investigate the population history of northeast Africa by genotyping ~3.9 million SNPs in 221 individuals from 18 populations sampled in Sudan and South Sudan and combine this data with published genome-wide data from surrounding areas. We find a strong genetic divide between the populations from the northeastern parts of the region (Nubians, central Arab populations, and the Beja) and populations towards the west and south (Nilotes, Darfur and Kordofan populations). This differentiation is mainly caused by a large Eurasian ancestry component of the northeast populations likely driven by migration of Middle Eastern groups followed by admixture that affected the local populations in a north-to-south succession of events.
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:So Modern Egyptians are 80% Eurasian but according to xyyman doctrine Europeans are 80% African ???
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Ha! Ha! Ha! Now you get it. The SNP data can be manipulated to give you whatever results you want. That is what SUPERVISED analysis does. At K2 Both Europeans and Turks and Levantines will be more African than non-African. At the high Ks separations occurs. In addition SNPs can be isolated or "targeted" to infer relationships. That is why it is meaningless if not done the correct way or using the correct software tool.
The CODIS/Forensic STR resolves all that. That is why the Amarnas were showed NOT to be related to modern Egyptians, Levantines or Berbers. STRs were used to make that determination. That is one of the few DIRECT methods of analysis.
quote:Title of the paper Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Everything you say here has already been addressed. But when I address it, you say it has nothing to do with your argument.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:You can't be talking to me. I am not trying to draw out anything other than "African" DNA lineages through history. What I said is you should compare DNA from populations near each other to see if there is a gap or major break in ancestry between the groups. That is if you are trying to determine how "African" a specific population is. This isn't about trying to identify how "North African" a population is because we don't have a clearly defined "indigenous" set of North African DNA lineages that are not Eurasian in origin (according to most scientific papers on the topic). So again, if we assume all North East populations have some amount of so called "Eurasian" mixture, then using the presence of "Eurasian" lineages in any of these populations to call it out as being an OUTLIER is a false dichotomy. Yet this is exactly what most papers on North Africa and AE are doing.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Sounds nice in theory, but has no added value when comes to results. You can't draw out North African ancestry using Sub-Saharan samples (unless they're mixed with North African ancestry). Trying to use regions (e.g. Sahel) does work either because these regions are mixtures of north and south, not ancestral.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Like I mentioned to you years ago, regions within Africa are better models for DNA flow other than "Sub Saharan" vs "North African". There is no such model of Eurasian DNA. There are multiple regional models of Eurasian DNA not a simple North Erasian vs South Eurasian model. Only in Africa are they trying to model the entire history of Africa into a North African vs Sub Saharan model which is totally nonsensical.
Case in point: Tibbou populations whose genomes were finally published in 2016. If what you say is valid, then the Tibbou genomes should reveal new fundamental things about coastal North African DNA. They don't. The only thing we see is that coastal North Africans reveal something about Tibbou genomes since the latter is mixed with the former. Trying to sample Tibbou adds nothing new to our understanding of how coastal North Africans formed.
You insisted on samples from the Sahel. Now we have them. We can't use them to establish an ancestral link with North African ancestry. Such Sahelian samples have never been found and, from the looks of it, they will never be found because they don't exist. Time to move on.
As for the Sahara, the question is what is the specific relationships between regions of the Sahara and other regions in Africa. Again, I don't care about a "north African" vs "Sub Saharan" model because that is irrelevant when talking about the entirety of African DNA history. Ancient DNA from the central Sahara is going to be closer to populations further South as logic would assume. Similarly populations from the Eastern Sahara will have a closer relationship to populations along the Nile. Just as coastal North Africans depending on the time period will have more "Eurasian" gene flow than those further South. That is more meaningful and reflects cline not "North African" vs "Sub Saharan". I would use the Tibbou as an example of regional DNA variation across the Sahara. But the way most papers do their analysis, they don't even include the Tibbou or Central and southern Saharan populations like those in Mali or Niger as part of "North Africa". The only proxies they use is "Coastal North Africans" as representative of all of North Africa. So they are playing games.
quote:And this would somehow not involve a dichotomy of SSA and North African ancestry? All I see here is that you dispute that by evoking admixture. But admixture still maintains the SSA/North African dichotomy.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Ancient DNA from the central Sahara is going to be closer to populations further South as logic would assume. Similarly populations from the Eastern Sahara will have a closer relationship to populations along the Nile. Just as coastal North Africans depending on the time period will have more "Eurasian" gene flow than those further South. That is more meaningful and reflects cline not "North African" vs "Sub Saharan".
https://snag.gy/c0Gkdg.jpg
Image Resized //MOD
quote:http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002397
A single Egyptian individual is presented for ancestry assuming k = 4 source populations: Saharawi [SAH], Nilotic-speaking Maasai [MKK], Spanish Basque [BAS] and Arabic Qatari [QAT]. Maasai segments (which were inferred from k = 3 and were highly diverged from the SAH, QAT, BAS segments) are layered on top of the inferred Maghrebi/Qatari/Basque ancestral karyogram, for k = 4 putative source populations.
Admixed Egyptian's genome still shows evidence of North African/SSA dichotomy.
quote:According to all these papers North African ancestry originated in Eurasia. So they are not trying to "find" it. They are only reinforcing that "North African" DNA originated in Eurasia.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Everything you say here has already been addressed. But when I address it, you say it has nothing to do with your argument.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:You can't be talking to me. I am not trying to draw out anything other than "African" DNA lineages through history. What I said is you should compare DNA from populations near each other to see if there is a gap or major break in ancestry between the groups. That is if you are trying to determine how "African" a specific population is. This isn't about trying to identify how "North African" a population is because we don't have a clearly defined "indigenous" set of North African DNA lineages that are not Eurasian in origin (according to most scientific papers on the topic). So again, if we assume all North East populations have some amount of so called "Eurasian" mixture, then using the presence of "Eurasian" lineages in any of these populations to call it out as being an OUTLIER is a false dichotomy. Yet this is exactly what most papers on North Africa and AE are doing.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Sounds nice in theory, but has no added value when comes to results. You can't draw out North African ancestry using Sub-Saharan samples (unless they're mixed with North African ancestry). Trying to use regions (e.g. Sahel) does work either because these regions are mixtures of north and south, not ancestral.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Like I mentioned to you years ago, regions within Africa are better models for DNA flow other than "Sub Saharan" vs "North African". There is no such model of Eurasian DNA. There are multiple regional models of Eurasian DNA not a simple North Erasian vs South Eurasian model. Only in Africa are they trying to model the entire history of Africa into a North African vs Sub Saharan model which is totally nonsensical.
Case in point: Tibbou populations whose genomes were finally published in 2016. If what you say is valid, then the Tibbou genomes should reveal new fundamental things about coastal North African DNA. They don't. The only thing we see is that coastal North Africans reveal something about Tibbou genomes since the latter is mixed with the former. Trying to sample Tibbou adds nothing new to our understanding of how coastal North Africans formed.
You insisted on samples from the Sahel. Now we have them. We can't use them to establish an ancestral link with North African ancestry. Such Sahelian samples have never been found and, from the looks of it, they will never be found because they don't exist. Time to move on.
As for the Sahara, the question is what is the specific relationships between regions of the Sahara and other regions in Africa. Again, I don't care about a "north African" vs "Sub Saharan" model because that is irrelevant when talking about the entirety of African DNA history. Ancient DNA from the central Sahara is going to be closer to populations further South as logic would assume. Similarly populations from the Eastern Sahara will have a closer relationship to populations along the Nile. Just as coastal North Africans depending on the time period will have more "Eurasian" gene flow than those further South. That is more meaningful and reflects cline not "North African" vs "Sub Saharan". I would use the Tibbou as an example of regional DNA variation across the Sahara. But the way most papers do their analysis, they don't even include the Tibbou or Central and southern Saharan populations like those in Mali or Niger as part of "North Africa". The only proxies they use is "Coastal North Africans" as representative of all of North Africa. So they are playing games.
quote:And this would somehow not involve a dichotomy of SSA and North African ancestry? All I see here is that you dispute that by evoking admixture. But admixture still maintains the SSA/North African dichotomy.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Ancient DNA from the central Sahara is going to be closer to populations further South as logic would assume. Similarly populations from the Eastern Sahara will have a closer relationship to populations along the Nile. Just as coastal North Africans depending on the time period will have more "Eurasian" gene flow than those further South. That is more meaningful and reflects cline not "North African" vs "Sub Saharan".
https://snag.gy/c0Gkdg.jpg
Image Resized //MOD
quote:http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002397
A single Egyptian individual is presented for ancestry assuming k = 4 source populations: Saharawi [SAH], Nilotic-speaking Maasai [MKK], Spanish Basque [BAS] and Arabic Qatari [QAT]. Maasai segments (which were inferred from k = 3 and were highly diverged from the SAH, QAT, BAS segments) are layered on top of the inferred Maghrebi/Qatari/Basque ancestral karyogram, for k = 4 putative source populations.
Admixed Egyptian's genome still shows evidence of North African/SSA dichotomy. Masai segments were highly divergent from the North African segments. You're trying to change the conversation now, but the Sahel doesn't have populations with that blue component independent of admixture or migration from North Africa. So trying to map out the genetics of the entire Sahel (as you're demanding from geneticists) would tell us nothing about how North African ancestry originated.
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
xyyman, how exactly do you think STRs are associated with geographic origins if not through frequency?
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
state of the art in 2007 sure is relevant.
by what means can STRs determine geographic affinity, xyyman? come on, surely you can explain.
quote:This isn't entirely true. The consensus and everything modeled after operates on the Assumption that modern SSA after Khoisan sits ancestral to all other populations. the Partition was drawn between Nilotes and everything on the other side became OOA. Habers study was extremely self contained and to an extent doug is right, He looked for what he wanted to look for. Till this day the chadic populations haven't gone through any worthy Autosomal analysis.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Sounds nice in theory, but has no added value when comes to results. You can't draw out North African ancestry using Sub-Saharan samples (unless they're mixed with North African ancestry). Trying to use regions (e.g. Sahel) does work either because these regions are mixtures of north and south, not ancestral.
Case in point: Tibbou populations whose genomes were finally published in 2016. If what you say is valid, then the Tibbou genomes should reveal new fundamental things about coastal North African ancestry. They don't. The only thing we see is that coastal North Africans reveal something about Tibbou genomes since the latter is mixed with the former. Trying to sample Tibbou adds nothing new to our understanding of how coastal North African ancestry formed.
https://snag.gy/tzkQnW.jpg
Chad Genetic Diversity Reveals an African History Marked by Multiple Holocene Eurasian Migrations
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929716304487#fig3
You insisted on samples from the Sahel. Now we have them. We can't use them to establish an ancestral link with North African ancestry. Such modern Sahelian samples have never been found and, from the looks of it, they will never be found because they don't exist. Time to move on. [/QB]
quote:Wishfull thinking... The Abusir mummies will never be groups with SSAs. Str or snps... You're talking shit because you know for a fact we cant get microsatilites from these worn out ancient samples. just fluff and fairytales from you.
Originally posted by xyyman:
And stop trying to confuse readers talking about frequency of STRs vs frequency of SNP. STRs are transmitted in block ie intact ie LD. SNPs aren't so you cannot compare the two. SMH! You Europeans!
https://s14.postimg.cc/adjqgi2v5/STRvs_SNP.jpg
If the Amarnas SNP were disclosed they may be grouped with "Eurasians" but STr groups them with Sub-Saharan Africans an when the STRs of the Abusir are disclosed the same will be observed
Because ..SNPs cannot infer geographic affinity but STRs can that is why STRs is still used by professional organizations and SNP hasn't not replaced it!!!!.
quote:Wishfull thinking... The Abusir mummies will never be groups with SSAs. Str or snps... You're talking shit because you know for a fact we cant get microsatilites from these worn out ancient samples. just fluff and fairytales from you. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[Q] [QUOE]Originally posted by xyyman:
[q] And stop trying to confuse readers talking about frequency of STRs vs frequency of SNP. STRs are transmitted in block ie intact ie LD. SNPs aren't so you cannot compare the two. SMH! You Europeans!
https://s14.postimg.cc/adjqgi2v5/STRvs_SNP.jpg
If the Amarnas SNP were disclosed they may be grouped with "Eurasians" but STr groups them with Sub-Saharan Africans an when the STRs of the Abusir are disclosed the same will be observed
Because ..SNPs cannot infer geographic affinity but STRs can that is why STRs is still used by professional organizations and SNP hasn't not replaced it!!!!. [/q]
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
I doubt he even knows what a STR is, or why the image he just posted says "requires intact DNA".
quote:There was never any discussion of the details of the Haber paper. Doug talking to himself and taking issue with Haber and Henn doesn't involve me. I never vouched for anything they said other than what I bolded or pointed out.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:This isn't entirely true. The consensus and everything modeled after operates on the Assumption that modern SSA after Khoisan sits ancestral to all other populations. the Partition was drawn between Nilotes and everything on the other side became OOA. Habers study was extremely self contained and to an extent doug is right, He looked for what he wanted to look for. Till this day the chadic populations haven't gone through any worthy Autosomal analysis.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Sounds nice in theory, but has no added value when comes to results. You can't draw out North African ancestry using Sub-Saharan samples (unless they're mixed with North African ancestry). Trying to use regions (e.g. Sahel) does work either because these regions are mixtures of north and south, not ancestral.
Case in point: Tibbou populations whose genomes were finally published in 2016. If what you say is valid, then the Tibbou genomes should reveal new fundamental things about coastal North African ancestry. They don't. The only thing we see is that coastal North Africans reveal something about Tibbou genomes since the latter is mixed with the former. Trying to sample Tibbou adds nothing new to our understanding of how coastal North African ancestry formed.
https://snag.gy/tzkQnW.jpg
Chad Genetic Diversity Reveals an African History Marked by Multiple Holocene Eurasian Migrations
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929716304487#fig3
You insisted on samples from the Sahel. Now we have them. We can't use them to establish an ancestral link with North African ancestry. Such modern Sahelian samples have never been found and, from the looks of it, they will never be found because they don't exist. Time to move on.
There's a few problems or scenarios that are missed with how things have been studied. Under the general consensus, the San > SSA > OOA dichitomy, We couldn't see an indigenous North African subgroup, in theory it should be between SSA and OOA right? if So Non OOA (including North African) affiliation should be adequately modeled by SSAs ...like Yorubans for example. but we know that isn't the case. So everything that isn't notably SSA is attributed to Backmigration.
Look at this; The chadic populations in Habers study seem to have comparable drift to that of known admixed east Africans (Amhara), despite having entirely different histories. We know that ancient European Admixture is present in Chad. But we should also know the conclusion that the Toubou and Saras non SSA affinity is entirely due to that ancient European population (V88) is false. Why doesn't Haber know that or even suggested north African geneflow prior to 200ya?
In Africa all Non SSA correspondence are conflated to singular Eurasian Admixture events. It happened in East Africans with the Hadereb and the Horners, it happened with the Fulani in West Africa and it happened with Haber 2016. However even the Fulani under low coverage reveals North African substructure (before they form their own cluster). [/QB]
quote:So, basically, you're back to your old position that there is no North African ancestry?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro:
We can only imagine what a structure run will reveal if it included more Sahelian populations. Native North African and SSA might be more paralogous than it seems, a solution that isn't even a thought due to most people adhering to the linear SSA ---> OOA model.
quote:Why are Bedouins more East African than the Abusir mummies?
Originally posted by xyyman:
Ahem! The relationship of the Abusir and some East Africans(not Sudan) have been established. Forest for the trees. Agreed, YRI was used as a proxy for DECEPTION. But MOTA has the large % of brown component same as the modern Somalis.
The brown component is the largest component found in the Abusir. Mota is dated as how old...4000year old? This can be interpreted two ways. Inner Africans travelling North or Outsiders migrating south. How do you determine which? Plus we know from subsequent papers that "Sardinian" existed further South in Malawi_Hora-8100BP and Luxmanda -3200BP ....long before the Abusir existed. If I am a betting man......If I am a rational man....If I am a logical man....If I am a smart man....choose your words.
quote:How do you jump to that? ...the irony is, that the reason why I previously thought there were no native North African ancestry runs counter to my previous post. It's virtually impossible to discover with Modern SSAs sitting basal to all Eurasians and Native North Africans sitting in between.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:So, basically, you're back to your old position that there is no North African ancestry?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
We can only imagine what a structure run will reveal if it included more Sahelian populations. Native North African and SSA might be more paralogous than it seems, a solution that isn't even a thought due to most people adhering to the linear SSA ---> OOA model.
quote:Can you explain what you mean with the two bolded parts?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
We can only imagine what a structure run will reveal if it included more Sahelian populations. Native North African and SSA might be more paralogous than it seems, a solution that isn't even a thought due to most people adhering to the linear SSA ---> OOA model.
quote:Also, looking at their own charts the Masai do not cluster with the Yoruba and likewise do not cluster with the coastal North African samples. And if Sudanese were on this plot, they would plot closer to the coastal North Africans. This is absurd silliness at its finest. Closenes to Masai does not define "African" and neither does closeness to Yoruba. Sudan samples would cluster closer to the coastal samples and away from both Masai and Yoruba. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous. Similarly the Toubou would also cluster closer to the coastal North Africans and Sudanese, along wit the central Saharans and Northern Nigerans. Therefore the Masai and Yorubans are not "proxies" for "all African" genetic distances to coastal North Africa. If Masai were a valid proxy for "All Africa" Sudanese, Nigerians, Nigerans, Toubbou, Somali, East Africans, San and South Africans would all cluster together and they don't.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:According to all these papers North African ancestry originated in Eurasia. So they are not trying to "find" it. They are only reinforcing that "North African" DNA originated in Eurasia.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Everything you say here has already been addressed. But when I address it, you say it has nothing to do with your argument.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:You can't be talking to me. I am not trying to draw out anything other than "African" DNA lineages through history. What I said is you should compare DNA from populations near each other to see if there is a gap or major break in ancestry between the groups. That is if you are trying to determine how "African" a specific population is. This isn't about trying to identify how "North African" a population is because we don't have a clearly defined "indigenous" set of North African DNA lineages that are not Eurasian in origin (according to most scientific papers on the topic). So again, if we assume all North East populations have some amount of so called "Eurasian" mixture, then using the presence of "Eurasian" lineages in any of these populations to call it out as being an OUTLIER is a false dichotomy. Yet this is exactly what most papers on North Africa and AE are doing.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Sounds nice in theory, but has no added value when comes to results. You can't draw out North African ancestry using Sub-Saharan samples (unless they're mixed with North African ancestry). Trying to use regions (e.g. Sahel) does work either because these regions are mixtures of north and south, not ancestral.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Like I mentioned to you years ago, regions within Africa are better models for DNA flow other than "Sub Saharan" vs "North African". There is no such model of Eurasian DNA. There are multiple regional models of Eurasian DNA not a simple North Erasian vs South Eurasian model. Only in Africa are they trying to model the entire history of Africa into a North African vs Sub Saharan model which is totally nonsensical.
Case in point: Tibbou populations whose genomes were finally published in 2016. If what you say is valid, then the Tibbou genomes should reveal new fundamental things about coastal North African DNA. They don't. The only thing we see is that coastal North Africans reveal something about Tibbou genomes since the latter is mixed with the former. Trying to sample Tibbou adds nothing new to our understanding of how coastal North Africans formed.
You insisted on samples from the Sahel. Now we have them. We can't use them to establish an ancestral link with North African ancestry. Such Sahelian samples have never been found and, from the looks of it, they will never be found because they don't exist. Time to move on.
As for the Sahara, the question is what is the specific relationships between regions of the Sahara and other regions in Africa. Again, I don't care about a "north African" vs "Sub Saharan" model because that is irrelevant when talking about the entirety of African DNA history. Ancient DNA from the central Sahara is going to be closer to populations further South as logic would assume. Similarly populations from the Eastern Sahara will have a closer relationship to populations along the Nile. Just as coastal North Africans depending on the time period will have more "Eurasian" gene flow than those further South. That is more meaningful and reflects cline not "North African" vs "Sub Saharan". I would use the Tibbou as an example of regional DNA variation across the Sahara. But the way most papers do their analysis, they don't even include the Tibbou or Central and southern Saharan populations like those in Mali or Niger as part of "North Africa". The only proxies they use is "Coastal North Africans" as representative of all of North Africa. So they are playing games.
quote:And this would somehow not involve a dichotomy of SSA and North African ancestry? All I see here is that you dispute that by evoking admixture. But admixture still maintains the SSA/North African dichotomy.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Ancient DNA from the central Sahara is going to be closer to populations further South as logic would assume. Similarly populations from the Eastern Sahara will have a closer relationship to populations along the Nile. Just as coastal North Africans depending on the time period will have more "Eurasian" gene flow than those further South. That is more meaningful and reflects cline not "North African" vs "Sub Saharan".
https://snag.gy/c0Gkdg.jpg
Image Resized //MOD
quote:http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1002397
A single Egyptian individual is presented for ancestry assuming k = 4 source populations: Saharawi [SAH], Nilotic-speaking Maasai [MKK], Spanish Basque [BAS] and Arabic Qatari [QAT]. Maasai segments (which were inferred from k = 3 and were highly diverged from the SAH, QAT, BAS segments) are layered on top of the inferred Maghrebi/Qatari/Basque ancestral karyogram, for k = 4 putative source populations.
Admixed Egyptian's genome still shows evidence of North African/SSA dichotomy. Masai segments were highly divergent from the North African segments. You're trying to change the conversation now, but the Sahel doesn't have populations with that blue component independent of admixture or migration from North Africa. So trying to map out the genetics of the entire Sahel (as you're demanding from geneticists) would tell us nothing about how North African ancestry originated.
If you want to show the "African" relationships in the Nile Valley, Sudan is more than sufficient as both have similar amounts of 'Eurasian' ancestry reflecting a clinal relationship with Eurasia. Using populations far away only creates a false "African/Non African" dichotomy where North Africa is a proxy for 'non African'. And Masai are not a proxy for Sudanese either. So if they were, then Sudan and Masai would have a close DNA relationship but they don't and neither do Toubbou and Masai. If you wanted to understand African DNA relationships in North Africa you would compare regional groups of North Africans like Toubbou, North Sudanese, Norhtern Nigerans, Central Saharans, Northern Malians, Northern Mauritanians along with Coastal populations in North Africa. The point is they don't all cleanly group together closely. Thre is a cline of relationships between all of these groups that is not understood as simply "North African" vs "Sub Saharan". And no one population is a good proxy for all the rest.
quote:remember when You were talking to Tyrranhotep about Whether the Aegyptians where subSaharan or Saharan? I thought the whole premise was silly until he posted a brilliant image of what was on his mind... It was a triangle with SSA Saharan and OOA in their own corners. That's when I figured we (you him and I) where probably on the same page. That it isn't SSA -> Saharan --> Non African. But that it's more 3Dimensional than that. and extensive geneflow between groups shifted the genetic landscape into a more linear one today where we can see a steady cline of Africans from west to East to North to the Levant. And probably that, originally, North Africans weren't a subset of SubSahran Africans.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Can you explain what you mean with the two bolded parts?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
We can only imagine what a structure run will reveal if it included more Sahelian populations. Native North African and SSA might be more paralogous than it seems, a solution that isn't even a thought due to most people adhering to the linear SSA ---> OOA model.
quote:Explain...
Originally posted by xyyman:
Are you making the same mistake. Assuming SSA=Nigerian? Because what you said there makes no sense if SSA are Great Lakes African.
quote:Lazaridis Patterson Reich used African admixture
... they excluded the "African" component when identifying EEF in Europe.
quote:That triangle was just a graphical representation of the proportions of ancestry a population has. It's not a graphical representation of the relationships of the ancestry types he depicted (which is a completely different conversation). I fail to see what geneflow of the type you, Doug and Clyde are talking about has to do with the fact that North African is primarily the post-MSA ancestry that settled North African first. Lol. What does the fact of later migration from SSA have to do with that?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:remember when You were talking to Tyrranhotep about Whether the Aegyptians where subSaharan or Saharan? I thought the whole premise was silly until he posted a brilliant image of what was on his mind... It was a triangle with SSA Saharan and OOA in their own corners. That's when I figured we (you him and I) where probably on the same page. That it isn't SSA -> Saharan --> Non African. But that it's more 3Dimensional than that. and extensive geneflow between groups shifted the genetic landscape into a more linear one today where we can see a steady cline of Africans from west to East to North to the Levant. And probably that, originally, North Africans weren't a subset of SubSahran Africans.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Can you explain what you mean with the two bolded parts?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
We can only imagine what a structure run will reveal if it included more Sahelian populations. Native North African and SSA might be more paralogous than it seems, a solution that isn't even a thought due to most people adhering to the linear SSA ---> OOA model.
What if clyde is 100% right in his assessment above?
With Basal Eurasian statisically splitting 80. thousand. years. ago, how can one not consider Clyde being right all along in this case.
quote:Uh ...huh.
Originally posted by Swenet:
That triangle was just a graphical representation of the proportions of ancestry a population has. It's not a graphical representation of the relationships of the ancestry types he depicted (which is a completely different conversation). I fail to see what geneflow of the type you, Doug and Clyde are talking about has to do with the fact that North African is simply the post-MSA ancestry that settled North African first. Lol. What does the fact of later migration from SSA have to do with that?
And what does Basal Eurasian being 80ky old have to do with anything? Fishing for reasons to disagree with the reality of North African ancestry doesn't mean you have valid points. I see a lot of fishing for reasons to downplay and defy the data. It's clear you guys are making political arguments and trying to package them as scientific. Lol. [/QB]
quote:Is there a sub-Saharan population you can name that has a particularly close genetic affinity to Basal Eurasian and OOA---without back-migrant admixture?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The ball is in your court for an explanation as to why SSAs dont make a good proxy for Native north African after all these years.
quote:The promising candidates that we have autosomal data for all have OOA admixture that gets conflated with whatever Ancient north African correspondence they might have. this includes north east Africans and Horners who show a strong so called "Natufian" component, despite their sources of OOA admixture being everything but, from European to Arabian. I was hoping that we can get around that issue with a good look at some unadmixted Chadic populations possibly along with ancient samples.
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Is there a sub-Saharan population you can name that has a particularly close genetic affinity to Basal Eurasian and OOA---without back-migrant admixture?
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
The ball is in your court for an explanation as to why SSAs dont make a good proxy for Native north African after all these years.[/qb]
quote:You sound like one of the troll whities with such false equivalencies. what you mean "M and N cant be modeled as SSA" ...in comparison to what? (they encompass all non Africans dude.) Regardless, can't the Khoisan and YRI serve as good stand ins for all East Asian Admixture in West Eurasians and vice-Versa (F3)? It's testament to their phylogenetic relationship. So I take it that you are just talking to talk... Why can't SSAs serve as a good stand in for Native north African ancestry if North Africans were intermediate to OOAs?
Originally posted by Swenet:
Your arguments and questions make no sense. Might as well ask me why M and N-linked Eurasian ancestry can't be modeled as SSA since it too is mtDNA L3-linked and ultimately SSA. If you don't understand any of this by now after all the discussions on this topic, then yeah, I'm blaming you guys' politics.
quote:You're contracting yourself.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
what you mean "M and N cant be modeled as SSA" ...in comparison to what? (they encompass all non Africans dude.)
quote:And this tells me that, despite all your posturing, you have no idea what you're talking about. YRI have plenty of lineages that split off prior to 80ky ago. Various mtDNA L1 and L2 being examples that come to mind. So, again, the issues you raise are not bombshell revelations that urgently need answers on my part. But the fact that you keep bringing YRI and BE up out of nowhere and demand answers to non-existing problems tells me that debating you on matters that fly over your head is a big waste of time.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
& whether or not BE is 80kya doesn't matter when Mbuti and crown Eurasian have their dates adjusted using the same method. You can still enlighten us as to when Yorubans jumped off the AMH train in this model.
quote:I have to agree. I wasn't even sure "paralogous" was a real word, although apparently it is according to Google's dictionary:
Originally posted by Swenet:
BTW, I literally have no idea what you're saying half of the time. Sometimes I pick up bits and pieces, like your support for Doug's and Clyde's claim that migration from the south invalidates the dichotomy between North African and SSA ancestry, but other times it's all jibberish to me. "Paralogous", "3D", "linear", the relevance of YRI, Khoisan and 80ky old BE. Very difficult to follow what you're saying.
quote:
paralogous
adjective
relating to genes that are descended from the same ancestral gene by gene duplication in the course of evolution, especially when present in different species that have diverged after the duplication.
quote:Original North Africans not being a subset of SSA africans (the ones we know are SSA today). = Eurasians Are Africans to you?
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:You're contracting yourself.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
what you mean "M and N cant be modeled as SSA" ...in comparison to what? (they encompass all non Africans dude.)
And probably that, originally, North Africans weren't a subset of SubSahran Africans.
—elMaestro
How are North Africans not a subset of SSA, but Eurasians are?
My point, which seems lost on you, is that it makes no sense to question me on why SSA ancestry can't serve as a proxy for North African ancestry when other non-SSA components (e.g. Eurasian) have the exact some properties. There is nothing special or remarkable about that to warrant turning it into a bombshell revelation that needs explaining.
BTW, I literally have no idea what you're saying half of the time. Sometimes I pick up bits and pieces, like your support for Doug's and Clyde's claim that migration from the south invalidates the dichotomy between North African and SSA ancestry, but other times it's all jibberish to me. "Paralogous", "3D", "linear", the relevance of YRI, Khoisan and 80ky old BE. Very difficult to follow what you're saying.
lol
quote:Of course I did not say Yoruba represent >80ky of unbroken continuity. I just told you these autosomal split times aren't real historical events. You're the only one here who thinks they're real events. That's why you keep comparing BE split times with YRI hgs, demanding answers for problems that don't exist. But keep making a fool of yourself thinking a man named Basal Eurasian was born 80ky ago and that a man named Yoruba was born after 50ky ago based on Pn2's age.
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
No goal poast has been changed, you literally just attempted to suggest without actually saying that yorubans autosomally are represntative of over 80,000 years of continuity. Me pointing out two haplogroups was just to highlight how petty your initial premise was (that L1-L2 bullshit). Now you're mentioning other methods of dating split times when I approach you with a simple question as it relates to Kamm's 2018 methods specifically. You still can't answer the question.
quote:Here we go...
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Lmao Try #101: In Kamms model with mbuti splitting 96kya and crown Eurasian 45kya.... when did the Yoruban Autosome jump off the AMH train? Adjust it for Pygmy admixture, ghost admixture and the obvious later admixture however which way you want.... lol.
We can pretend that I believe that this statistical model is literal (even though my point as it relates to BE clearly suggests otherwise,) for the time being if it gets you to stop pulling that strawman out your ass, and answer the question.
quote:http://www.ashg.org/2013meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f130123045.htm
In this study, we focus on two aspects of African population genetics, 1. the nature of population structure in Africa going back in time and 2. the timing of the Out-of-Africa event. To address these questions, we assembled a dataset with whole genome sequences from 162 individuals using both in-house sequencing and publicly available sources. These samples span 22 populations worldwide. These include eleven African populations which we use to dissect the population substructure in Africa. In addition, we also have 2 Middle Eastern, 5 European and 4 East/Central Asian populations which inform the population split time estimates for the Out-of-Africa event and the European-Asian split.
We find extensive population structure in Africa extending back to before the Out-of-Africa event. The Ethiopian populations, Amhara and Oromo, show evidence of mixing beyond 15 kya. The Maasai and Luhye merge with the Ethiopian populations to form a panmictic East African population ~40kya. We find evidence for extensive mixing between east and west African populations before 50kya. Among the pygmy populations, we see recent gene flow between the Batwa and Mbuti. All African populations except the San merge into a single population around 110 kya. The San exchange migrants with the other African populations beginning ~120 kya. We estimate the Out-of-Africa event to have occurred ~75kya and the European-Asian split to ~25kya.
quote:
Lmao Try #103: In Kamms model with mbuti splitting 96kya and crown Eurasian 45kya.... when did the Yoruban Autosome jump off the AMH train? Adjust it for Pygmy admixture, ghost admixture and the obvious later admixture however which way you want.... lol.
We can pretend that I believe that this statistical model is literal (even though my point as it relates to BE clearly suggests otherwise,) for the time being if it gets you to stop pulling that strawman out your ass, and answer the question.
quote:^^ All cool we done here, but would you mind editing your post so that you're also mentioning something on-topic. I don't wanna look biased for not deleting irrelevant junk ...Please and thanks
elMaestro, enjoy your posturing on ES all you want. You know as soon as you log in to ABF or elsewhere your posts are not respected. You get the silent treatment there. But like I said, keep posturing on ES with your gibberish. It seems to be working for you here. As long as you and I know.
I've said what I have to say.
quote:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03014460.2017.1413133
Despite the amount of knowledge about North African populations obtained from palaeoarchaeological data, more studies are needed to investigate the recent history of this region (Arauna et al., 2017 Arauna LR, Mendoza-Revilla J, Mas-Sandoval A, Izaabel H, Bekada A, Benhamamouch S, Fadhlaoui-Zid K, et al. 2017. Recent historical migrations have shaped the gene pool of Arabs and Berbers in North Africa. Mol Biol Evol 34:318–329.[PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Indeed, genetic studies point out that modern North Africans constitute a heterogeneous group, whose ancestry is a result of at least three admixture events from populations outside Africa: a “back-to-Africa” gene flow (12,000 ya), a Near East gene flow (1400 ya) and migrations from south-Saharan Africa resulting from the slave trade (1200 ya) (Arauna et al., 2017 Arauna LR, Mendoza-Revilla J, Mas-Sandoval A, Izaabel H, Bekada A, Benhamamouch S, Fadhlaoui-Zid K, et al. 2017. Recent historical migrations have shaped the gene pool of Arabs and Berbers in North Africa. Mol Biol Evol 34:318–329.[PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]; Henn et al., 2012 Henn BM, Botigué LR, Gravel S, Wang W, Brisbin A, Byrnes JK, Fadhlaoui-Zid K, et al. 2012. Genomic ancestry of North Africans supports back-to-Africa migrations. PLoS Genet 8:e1002397.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Genome-wide autosomal studies reveal a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that is reduced from West to East and an opposite cline of Near East ancestry with a westward decrease (Henn et al., 2012 Henn BM, Botigué LR, Gravel S, Wang W, Brisbin A, Byrnes JK, Fadhlaoui-Zid K, et al. 2012. Genomic ancestry of North Africans supports back-to-Africa migrations. PLoS Genet 8:e1002397.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). However, geographic distance and genetic diversity were not found to be correlated in North African populations, probably because of heterogeneous or unbalanced admixture (Arauna et al., 2017 Arauna LR, Mendoza-Revilla J, Mas-Sandoval A, Izaabel H, Bekada A, Benhamamouch S, Fadhlaoui-Zid K, et al. 2017. Recent historical migrations have shaped the gene pool of Arabs and Berbers in North Africa. Mol Biol Evol 34:318–329.[PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). Y-chromosome data show an east–west cline from the Near East compatible with a Neolithic demic expansion (Arredi et al., 2004 Arredi B, Poloni ES, Paracchini S, Zerjal T, Fathallah DM, Makrelouf M, Pascali VL, et al. 2004. A predominantly neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variation in North Africa. Am J Hum Genet 75:338–345.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]), as well as a bidirectional gene flow from North Africa to Iberia (Bosch et al., 2001 Bosch E, Calafell F, Comas D, Oefner PJ, Underhill PA, Bertranpetit J. 2001. High-resolution analysis of human Y-Chromosome variation shows a sharp discontinuity and limited gene flow between Northwestern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. Am J Hum Genet 68:1019–1029.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]).
quote:
Originally posted by [Q]quote:Is there a sub-Saharan population you can name that has a particularly close genetic affinity to Basal Eurasian and OOA---without back-migrant admixture? [/Q]
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[q]The ball is in your court for an explanation as to why SSAs dont make a good proxy for Native north African after all these years.[/q]
quote:EDIT: This more recent paper estimates the West African/non-African split as taking place 70-80 kya:
In the second paragraph of the subsection entitled 'African and non-African split' in this article, both instances of the range '60,000–120,000 years ago' were incorrectly written as '120,000–160,000 years ago'. The editors apologize for this mistake.
quote:
We inferred that the separation between hunter-gather populations and other populations happened around 120,000 to 140,000 years ago with gene flow continuing until 30,000 to 40,000 years ago; separation between west African and out of African populations happened around 70,000 to 80,000 years ago, while the separation between Maasai and out of African populations happened around 50,000 years ago.
quote:-----------------
Originally posted by Elmaestro:
[Q] For the lurkers and those in the stands.
El-Maestros point.
-Kamms BE split times shows them to be Africans (W/o a question)
-However BE might not be representative a single population
-North Africans probably weren't a subset off Subsaharan WestAfricans.
-unadmixed Saharan/Sahelian Populations might highlight all of the above when analyzed with aDNA.
H [/Q]
quote:Oromos and Somalis ffs
Originally posted by xyyman:
But Fig 2A has Taforalt in between West Africans and Europeans and notice East Africans are not included in Fig 2A
quote:If Yoruba and Mende are completely purple how are you so sure that the purple component elsewhere is indicative of Iwo Eleru-type admixture?
Originally posted by xyyman:
[QB] Hey man! you stealing my thunder. Agree on all points. Just want to add that west Africans-Iwo eleru?
Notice in that chart above that Canary Islanders carry traces of the Iwo Eleru? Purple. If these are ancient Canary Islanders and not modern, author did not specify, that would be a bombshell. Now I see why they would not include Southern Europeans in the mix. lol! They will also carry heavy doses of PURPLE. SMH! Data manipulation of crocked researchers?!
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
quote:Oromos and Somalis ffs
Originally posted by xyyman:
But Fig 2A has Taforalt in between West Africans and Europeans and notice East Africans are not included in Fig 2A
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
if you need me to explain where well-known African peoples are from i can help you with that. if you want to run ADMIXTURE you are on your own.
quote:
Originally posted by xyyman:
He! He! You got me! I am lazy like that. I need to really spend time digging into these software and start posting. Problem is most run off Ubuntu /Unix and Mac’s. Most of my college coding was Windows based.
Anyways to T-Rex/Swenet’s point. The separation cannot be that old > 50,000years. Why? The direct sampling of aDNA confirms this. Eg mtDNA-H is at significant levels up to 6000 years ago in Europe. SLC24A5 is absent in Western Europe up to about 6000years ago. Etc etc Direct testing of aDNA put the separation much more recent than we thought. Keep in mind HBs/sickle Cell and its age and origin. Clearly there was a second MAJOR migration within the last 8000years.
Look at all lines of evidence…unlike the researchers. LoL!
quote:
Originally posted by capra:
if you need me to explain where well-known African peoples are from i can help you with that. if you want to run ADMIXTURE you are on your own.
quote:I think the YRI-OOA split times are relatively recent in the 2nd paper because of sampling bias. West Eurasians are mixed with Basal Eurasian and so split times derived from them are unreliable. This becomes very clear when Asians are included. The paper below includes relatively unmixed Asians ("relatively unmixed" meaning less post-OOA African ancestry), and the results are much more realistic:
Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Swenet
I'm not able to access the text of this paper. But it reports the SSA/non-SSA split as taking place anywhere between 60 and 120 kya. But it is from 2012, so maybe more recent findings have revised the date.
Revising the human mutation rate: implications for understanding human evolution
quote:EDIT: This more recent paper estimates the West African/non-African split as taking place 70-80 kya:
In the second paragraph of the subsection entitled 'African and non-African split' in this article, both instances of the range '60,000–120,000 years ago' were incorrectly written as '120,000–160,000 years ago'. The editors apologize for this mistake.
Modeling Human Population Separation History Using Physically Phased Genomes
quote:
We inferred that the separation between hunter-gather populations and other populations happened around 120,000 to 140,000 years ago with gene flow continuing until 30,000 to 40,000 years ago; separation between west African and out of African populations happened around 70,000 to 80,000 years ago, while the separation between Maasai and out of African populations happened around 50,000 years ago.
quote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4636834/
The average separation times from the East African populations, i.e., those located in the most plausible site of departure of AMH expansions [26] (Table 1), are distributed along a range spanning from 60K to 100K years ago. Extreme divergence values were observed for Europe and Caucasus on the one hand, and for Australia and New Guinea on the other, respectively, at the lower and the upper tails of the distribution. Even considering the full range of uncertainty around these estimates (95 % of the confidence interval), we observed no overlap, with Europe having an upper confidence limit 77K/71K years ago (depending on the LD measure used, respectively, the r2 and σ2 statistic) and Australia having a lower confidence limit 88K/80K years ago.
quote:lmao you accidentally typed in your PornHub search in place of math there.
Originally posted by xyyman:
"We estimate that African populations contributed approximately 1.2% of the UK gene pool and did so approximately 400 years ago...."
It is not really 400 years that would imply there was an orgy between Africans and the British 400years ago. eThat would mean most white women were having balck babies.
quote:lmao you accidentally typed in your PornHub search in place of math there. [/Q][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by capra:
[Q] [QUTE]Originally posted by xyyman:
"We estimate that African populations contributed approximately 1.2% of the UK gene pool and did so approximately 400 years ago...."
It is not really 400 years that would imply there was an orgy between Africans and the British 400years ago. eThat would mean most white women were having balck babies.
quote:The pattern errs in which direction?
Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] I would be careful with that Schlebusch et al graphic. I was hesitant in posting it because the dates are unrealistic. I like to think that modern-day Africans are far more distantly removed from Neanderthals and closer to each other than those dates (e.g. human-Neanderthal 545kya, human-human 336kya) are suggesting.
quote:Neanderthals split from Africans ~1mya, based on valid data. But when you look at autosomal split time estimates provided by most papers, they put it at around 700-600kya. Since the valid, historical split time of Neanderthals is ~1mya, there is a discrepancy of ~300-400ky that causes them to appear closer to Africans than they phylogenetically are. Recently a paper dropped the bombshell that Neanderthal autosomal split times are not historical (i.e. they describe a fake event) because they've been lowered due to very ancient African AMH admixture.
Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:The pattern errs in which direction?
Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB] I would be careful with that Schlebusch et al graphic. I was hesitant in posting it because the dates are unrealistic. I like to think that modern-day Africans are far more distantly removed from Neanderthals and closer to each other than those dates (e.g. human-Neanderthal 545kya, human-human 336kya) are suggesting.
quote:Tuaregs have different genetics depending on where they're sampled. They tend to gravitate somewhat to whatever their neighbours are like. Pereira et al 2010 had several Tuareg samples and their mtDNAs clustered near all sorts of populations.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I was under the impression that the Tuaregs, Zenata, Masmuda and the Sanhaja were that colour due to the apparent origin of the Berber language in Northeast Africa -- like Sudan.
It was theorized that the Beja and the Tuaregs share a common origin.
quote:Interestingly the Libyan Tuareg who have the highest frequencies
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Tuaregs have different genetics depending on where they're sampled. They tend to gravitate somewhat to whatever their neighbours are like. Pereira et al 2010 had several Tuareg samples and their mtDNAs clustered near all sorts of populations.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I was under the impression that the Tuaregs, Zenata, Masmuda and the Sanhaja were that colour due to the apparent origin of the Berber language in Northeast Africa -- like Sudan.
It was theorized that the Beja and the Tuaregs share a common origin.
Which of these Tuareg samples is more authentically Berber? If you say the one with the most African lineages (and therefore, with the darkest skin) then you'll end up with the Tuareg sample with the least North African ancestry and with the most non-Tuareg and non-Berber ancestry. This is the sample from Niger with 80% L lineages.
This irony of more African ancestry not being accompanied by more Berber ancestry applies to all dark skinned Berber speakers I've seen in genetics papers. They have little that can be thought of as potentially Berber on their African side. Most of their African side is West/Central African (mtDNA) or it was already in the Maghreb way before Berbers (Y-DNA: E-L19).
There is very little Berber or Neolithic northeast African in the Maghreb. This also means that most dark skin in the region doesn't come from Berbers.
quote:Swenet stop telling me what I think. Humans have been in North Africa for upwards of 300,000 years. Eurasians have only existed for maybe 60-80 thousand. You aren't going to sit here and tell me that you want to understand the DNA history of North Africa and START with Eurasians. Nobody on earth with a brain can tell me how that makes any sense. Now if all you care about is what happened in Africa AFTER Eurasians came on the scene then fine. But there is more to human DNA history than Eurasians. And this is the problem. Maybe you cannot fathom understanding African DNA history going back 300,000 years without including Eurasians in it.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Somewhere you know you're wrong, Doug. That's why you do hit and runs. First you demand geneticists must scour every inch of the Sahel for sources of North African ancestry. When I address that you say it isn't really what you mean, and you try to set up shop to another completely unrelated position.
The "black North Africans" have failed to deliver one by one in genome-wide studies. Their dark skin is constantly replenished from the south. That's a big part in why they're as dark and not as light-skinned as coastal North Africans. They don't look the way they do because they carriers of relict ancestral NA ancestry of their own. If I'm wrong, post specific examples of populations. Hit and runs and retreating to sermons complaining about Europeans won't do.
quote:Berber is a language and culture not a skin color and not a Genetic lineage. Berber languages are thought to have originated in East Africa maybe 7-12 thousand years ago with linguists like Christopher Ehret who proposed this model. They did not originate in Eurasia. Now unless Eurasians introduced Berber language and culture into Africa it originated with the indigenous black Africans of Africa. The reason why there are so many complexions among North Africans is due to historic mixture with Eurasians. But that mixture is not the basis of or origin of Berber language and culture. And today's Berber culture is a fusion of foreign elements on top of a older indigenous African substratum.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I was under the impression that the Tuaregs, Zenata, Masmuda and the Sanhaja were that colour due to the apparent origin of the Berber language in Northeast Africa -- like Sudan.
It was theorized that the Beja and the Tuaregs share a common origin.
quote:The title of the paper is somewhat misleading. It is following a model of Eurasia first in North Africa. But the data doesn't really support that model. The data doesn't say that the ancient Iberomaurisans were in touch with modern West Africans. What it says is there was an ancestral population somewhere between West Africa and Morocco from which the Iberomaurisans derived their genes from. And to find that ancient population you need to look in Central North Africa and the Sahara. Likewise, the relationship to the Natufians is not direct but through a population ancestral to both Natufians and Iberomaurisans. A population that was likely also African or as they call it "North African", but that is just African. So what was that population and what genes would they have carried? You need ancient genes from within all parts of North Africa to find that. You arn't going to find that population, especially during a time of Saharan desertification and impacts on human migration by looking at Eurasian DNA, Coastal North Africans and West Africans. YOU need Saharan populations.
North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans from Morocco, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans into Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.
quote:No matter how many times repeated that's not factual.
Originally posted by Doug M:
This is why I called [Swenet] out before on EEF because fundamentally this model was based around understanding Eurasian DNA history not African, yet folks were trying to use EEF as a "proxy" to understand African DNA history which is a contradiction in terms, because the model filtered out much of the African DNA to begin with.
quote:I haven't looked into this for a long time. I mostly go by intuition by comparing the autosomal split times with full uniparental profiles and archaeological data and looking for discrepancies. Autosomal split times should broadly follow the latter. If not then that's a red flag. For instance, the last common ancestors of West Africans with West Eurasians is >80ky paternally (Y-DNA CT) and 70ky maternally (mtDNA L3). This means that the split times of West Africans should be closer to the date implied in Kamm et al, and younger than the date implied in Schlebusch et al. However, West Africans also have autosomal ancestry linked to uniparentals like L1 and L2, which are much more distant from OOA populations. This means that the correct split time (as far as split times can be correct) of West Africans is older than implied in Kamm et al. When you look at the full uniparental profiles of West Africans the estimated split time should be somewhere in between Kamm et al and Schlebusch et al.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
[QB] @ Swenet
I ask for clarity and expansion on the chart dates.
I think you said its not what you expect. And that's OK by me.
I don't know but it looks like its dates
are not at odds with A00, Jebel Irhoud,
and Skuhl dates.
Seems you looked into this already and I 'd
rather learn more and build up my perspective
than dismiss offhand because I may disagree.
quote:Prove this is not another one of your trademark sermons. Who here is beginning NA history with Eurasians? Name names and give examples.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Swenet stop telling me what I think. Humans have been in North Africa for upwards of 300,000 years. Eurasians have only existed for maybe 60-80 thousand. You aren't going to sit here and tell me that you want to understand the DNA history of North Africa and START with Eurasians. Nobody on earth with a brain can tell me how that makes any sense. Now if all you care about is what happened in Africa AFTER Eurasians came on the scene then fine. But there is more to human DNA history than Eurasians. And this is the problem. Maybe you cannot fathom understanding African DNA history going back 300,000 years without including Eurasians in it.
quote:I forgot about the Y-DNA situation of the Tuareg from Niger. Thanks for reminding me. But E-M81 is a derived form of E-L19. E-L19 is likely pre-Berber in the Maghreb.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Interestingly the Libyan Tuareg who have the highest frequencies
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Tuaregs have different genetics depending on where they're sampled. They tend to gravitate somewhat to whatever their neighbours are like. Pereira et al 2010 had several Tuareg samples and their mtDNAs clustered near all sorts of populations.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I was under the impression that the Tuaregs, Zenata, Masmuda and the Sanhaja were that colour due to the apparent origin of the Berber language in Northeast Africa -- like Sudan.
It was theorized that the Beja and the Tuaregs share a common origin. [/qb]
Which of these Tuareg samples is more authentically Berber? If you say the one with the most African lineages (and therefore, with the darkest skin) then you'll end up with the Tuareg sample with the least North African ancestry and with the most non-Tuareg and non-Berber ancestry. This is the sample from Niger with 80% L lineages.
This irony of more African ancestry not being accompanied by more Berber ancestry applies to all dark skinned Berber speakers I've seen in genetics papers. They have little that can be thought of as potentially Berber on their African side. Most of their African side is West/Central African (mtDNA) or it was already in the Maghreb way before Berbers (Y-DNA: E-L19).
There is very little Berber or Neolithic northeast African in the Maghreb. This also means that most dark skin in the region doesn't come from Berbers.
of H in the world (but low diversity) are less similar to the Niger Tuaregs (much larger population of Tuaregs, largest in the world) who have higher L frequencies
but on the paternal side they have very similar frequencies of E1b1a around 40%
However E-M81 (E1b1b1) the so called berber marker was reported by Ottoni at 49% Libyan Tuaregs
but in Niger Tuaregs Pereira reported 11.1%
quote:There will be a parent clade of M81 that will be older than the berbers. That seems like an obvious point
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:I forgot about the Y-DNA situation of the Tuareg from Niger. Thanks for reminding me. But E-M81 is a derived form of E-L19. E-L19 is likely pre-Berber in the Maghreb.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
nterestingly the Libyan Tuareg who have the highest frequencies
of H in the world (but low diversity) are less similar to the Niger Tuaregs (much larger population of Tuaregs, largest in the world) who have higher L frequencies
but on the paternal side they have very similar frequencies of E1b1a around 40%
However E-M81 (E1b1b1) the so called berber marker was reported by Ottoni at 49% Libyan Tuaregs
but in Niger Tuaregs Pereira reported 11.1%
The branch on which E-M81 would later form is 14ky old, so it's unlikely to be Berber if Berber is understood as Neolithic northeast African.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M81/
quote:I think you're missing the point. At some point people from the east introduced cattle to the Capsians and areas further south.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
There will be a parent clade of M81 that will be older than the berbers. That seems like an obvious point
That doesn't change the fact that M81 is fairly unique to the berbers
wiki
Ifri Amr U Mussa is an archaeological site located on Zemmour Plateau in the rural commune of Ait Siberne (province of Khemisset), along the national road number 6 which leads to Meknes.[1]
Human fossils excavated in the area have been radiocarbon-dated to the Early Neolithic, around 5,000 BCE. Ancient DNA analysis of these specimens indicates that they carried paternal haplotypes related to the E1b1b1b1a (E-M81) subclade and the maternal haplogroups U6a and M1, all of which are frequent among present-day communities in the Tamazgha. These ancient individuals also bore an autochthonous North African genomic component that peaks among modern Berbers, indicating that they were ancestral to populations in the area. Of the old samples that the Early Neolithic Ifri n'Amr or Moussa skeletons were compared with, they were most closely related to fossils from the Late Neolithic Kelif el Boroud site near Rabat. They likewise showed ties with ancient specimens from the Mesolithic Natufian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic cultures of the Levant. These affinities had already been gleaned from the similarity in mortuary practices between Ifri n'Amr or Moussa and Pre-Pottery Neolithic B sites in Cyprus [/qb]
quote:https://books.google.nl/books?id=esFy3Po57A8C&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=Blench+Proto-Berber+expansion+Afroasiatic+pastoralist+capsian&source=bl&ots=6hMQ2EYXuC&sig=UJAWYTKyDJUc5JJoLIR6CNf qGfE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbxs3NuNfaAhWQaFAKHRGsDD0Q6AEIWjAJ#v=onepage&q=Blench%20Proto-Berber%20expansion%20Afroasiatic%20pastoralist%20capsian&f=false
There is good evidence for the ‘Capsian Neolithic’ expanding from N. Africa from 6000 bp onwards, reaching Dhraina, near Nouakchott in Mauritania at 3980 bp (Vernet 1993:214, 217, 232) and it seems reasonable to identify this as the Berber expansion.
quote:Core area of the Capsian culture
Originally posted by the lioness,:
How do they get Capsians in Mauritania? I though they were in Tunisia and Algeria
quote:Berbers originated in West Africa--not East Africa. The contemporary Berbers or Amazigh are all in the West.
Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Berber is a language and culture not a skin color and not a Genetic lineage. Berber languages are thought to have originated in East Africa maybe 7-12 thousand years ago with linguists like Christopher Ehret who proposed this model. They did not originate in Eurasia. Now unless Eurasians introduced Berber language and culture into Africa it originated with the indigenous black Africans of Africa. The reason why there are so many complexions among North Africans is due to historic mixture with Eurasians. But that mixture is not the basis of or origin of Berber language and culture. And today's Berber culture is a fusion of foreign elements on top of a older indigenous African substratum.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I was under the impression that the Tuaregs, Zenata, Masmuda and the Sanhaja were that colour due to the apparent origin of the Berber language in Northeast Africa -- like Sudan.
It was theorized that the Beja and the Tuaregs share a common origin.
We did discuss this before and there was a paper tying the Tuareg and Beja and I don't have time right now to dig it up.
DNA wise, the Berbers are associated with U6 and E-M81. U6 is far too old to have anything to do with the origin and spread of Berber languages. Therefore the most likely canditate is E-M81 which is a branch off of E lineages in East Africa. If Berber languages did originate in East Africa 7000 years ago or so then this would be a good candidate or lineages related to it.
quote:Swenet, I am talking about the folks writing the papers. I said they are Eurasians studying Eurasian DNA with the benefit of better preserved ancient DNA from Eurasia. As a result, most African DNA papers are written relative to Eurasian DNA. EEF is not about understanding African DNA history. However, it does provide some possible glimpses to some aspects of African DNA history but that is about it.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Prove this is not another one of your trademark sermons. Who here is beginning NA history with Eurasians? Name names and give examples.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Swenet stop telling me what I think. Humans have been in North Africa for upwards of 300,000 years. Eurasians have only existed for maybe 60-80 thousand. You aren't going to sit here and tell me that you want to understand the DNA history of North Africa and START with Eurasians. Nobody on earth with a brain can tell me how that makes any sense. Now if all you care about is what happened in Africa AFTER Eurasians came on the scene then fine. But there is more to human DNA history than Eurasians. And this is the problem. Maybe you cannot fathom understanding African DNA history going back 300,000 years without including Eurasians in it.
Not that this is not another attempt at running away from your original claim that that the Sahel must be turned upside down to find the legendary "real North Africans". Genetics is not an RPG mission quest in search of mythical things. You have no reason for assuming these mythical North Africans exist today in the Sahel. So why are you issuing demands to geneticists that they must find them "or else". You're basically starting your hypothesis with wishful thinking, not with any evidence that these people exist today.
quote:As this paper shows such a population is not mythology, the question is whether that population came from Eurasia or whether it came from within Africa. The only way to answer that question is to get ancient DNA from around the Sahara and Sahel along with ancient DNA from coastal North Africa and the Levant. And this paper also shows that you cant calculate and model the past with any degree of accuracy in a vacuum. You can't. It is not going to be accurate. You need data from the regions and populations involved. Without the ancient DNA from Tarofalt, you wouldn't have this paper. And that DNA contradicts the Eurasian first model of North African history. Point blank this paper disproves the model of ancient North Africa as separate from the rest of Africa as implied by a "North African" vs "Sub Saharan" false dichotomy.
North Africa is a key region for understanding human history, but the genetic history of its people is largely unknown. We present genomic data from seven 15,000-year-old modern humans from Morocco, attributed to the Iberomaurusian culture. We find a genetic affinity with early Holocene Near Easterners, best represented by Levantine Natufians, suggesting a pre-agricultural connection between Africa and the Near East. We do not find evidence for gene flow from Paleolithic Europeans into Late Pleistocene North Africans. The Taforalt individuals derive one third of their ancestry from sub-Saharan Africans, best approximated by a mixture of genetic components preserved in present-day West and East Africans. Thus, we provide direct evidence for genetic interactions between modern humans across Africa and Eurasia in the Pleistocene.
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M.
In fact EEF is a "mythical" population but you didn't see them using African DNA to find it. They filtered out most African DNA and focused exclusively on Europe.
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb] How do they get Capsians in Mauritania? I though they were in Tunisia and Algeria
quote:Looks like you missed a spot. From the same book:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 1
quote:This old book is not a substitute for Blench's source, though. You should start there.
In any
event the Neolithic of Capsian Tradition, even in the Sahara, appears
to be more recent than the Saharan-Sudanese Neolithic to the south
or the Mediterranean Neolithic to the north. To the east and west, other
cultures with different origins border on the Neolithic of Capsian
Tradition and have undoubtedly influenced it. These are the Mauritania Neolithic in which are combined traits of varying origins (Mediterranean-
Atlantic, Saharan—Sudanese and, perhaps, Guinean as well as some
Neolithic of Capsian Tradition) and, to the east the Te'ne'rean, one of the
most beautiful lithic industries of the Old World which, while it may
not be Egyptian in origin, is at least very closely related to the Egyptian
Neolithic.
quote:Thanks for these links.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Core area of the Capsian culture
Originally posted by the lioness,:
How do they get Capsians in Mauritania? I though they were in Tunisia and Algeria
Neolithic of Capsian tradition
quote:It will probably do you no good to try discussing scientific falsifiability and burdens of proof. It hasn't worked yet and I'd rather not see discourse move in a similar direction for three pages when you probably won't get anything out of it.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug
Okay, but how are you relating "starting with Eurasians"`to anything I said?
I'm saying you're looking for unicorns in the Sahel and your comeback is that people are "starting with Eurasians"? How does that make sense?
quote:I wasn't talking about you unless you are the Europeans who created these models and write the papers. What part of that do you not get?
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug
Okay, but how are you relating "starting with Eurasians"`to anything I said?
I'm saying you're looking for unicorns in the Sahel and your comeback is that people are "starting with Eurasians"? How does that make sense?
quote:The point of EEF was to identify the geographic origin of some DNA components in ancient Europe. It wasn't simply based on just raw ancient DNA. In order to uncover the ancestry of the DNA in ancient Europe associated with the Neolithic they ran a very complex set of filters to remove any modern contamination from populations like some Africans.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Why would they need African DNA to find EEF
when EEF data is direct from dead folks bones?
You keep ignoring this but EEF is not mythical.
EEF is Stuttgart, the Tyrolean Iceman, and a
southern Swedish farmer.
The African component of Beduin B was used to
determine the amount of Near Eastern farmer in
the Stuttgart and it applies to all EEF and
Mediterranean Europeans.
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M.
In fact EEF is a "mythical" population but you didn't see them using African DNA to find it. They filtered out most African DNA and focused exclusively on Europe.
quote:http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2016/06/02/1523951113.DCSupplemental/pnas.1523951113.sapp.pdf
For each allele-matching analysis (A) and (B), we performed the following four mixture model
analyses (though here “modern” groups exclude
ALT,DEN
, who are not used as surrogates for
reasons described above):
(I) “all moderns” – form each ancient and modern genome using all modern groups as surrogates
(II) “all moderns + ancients” – form each ancient and modern genome using all modern+ancient
groups as surrogates
(III) “ancients + Yoruba” – form each ancient and modern genome using all other ancient genomes,
plus the modern Yoruba, as surrogates
(IV) “ancients (excluding
BR
) + Yoruba” – form each ancient and modern group using the modern Yoruba and all other ancient genomes except BR2 as surrogates
In each case, a group cannot use itself as a surrogate or else it would match itself exactly. Under allele-matching analysis (B), the same groups we disallow as donors are also disallowed as surrogates for mixture model analyses (I) and (II). For analyses (III) and (IV), we were interested in how modern and ancient groups relate ancestrally to different sets of ancient genomes. We also included
the Yoruba as a surrogate in (III) and (IV), since our ancient samples contain no proxies for sub-
Saharan Africa and e.g. several West Eurasian groups we use here have been shown to have recent
African admixture [121].
r analyses (I) and (II), if the final inferrence included more than ten surrogate groups with
β r s > 0, we did an altered procedure to mitigate effects of over-fitting. In particular we sequentially included surrogates that improved the total variation distance (TVD) measure (e.g. used in [148]) between f r, the inferred allele matching profile of recipient group r based on the inferred best fit to equation(5), and f r, the actual allele matching profile of recipient group r. To do so, we measure TVD comparing two profiles x,y using
quote:SO my point was why don't they do the same thing to filter out recent Eurasian mixture from ancient African DNA models?
To better characterize this inferred migration, we modeled ancient and modern genomes as mixtures of DNA from other ancient and/or modern genomes, a flexible approach that characterizes the amount of ancestry sharing among multiple groups simultaneously
quote:Yeah I'm going to stop here. Thanks for helping me conserve another 15m of my life trying to understand the mysterious inner workings of Doug's mind.
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:It will probably do you no good to try discussing scientific falsifiability and burdens of proof. It hasn't worked yet and I'd rather not see discourse move in a similar direction for three pages when you probably won't get anything out of it.
Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug
Okay, but how are you relating "starting with Eurasians"`to anything I said?
I'm saying you're looking for unicorns in the Sahel and your comeback is that people are "starting with Eurasians"? How does that make sense?
quote:That doesn't change the fact that M81 is fairly unique to the berbers
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Looks like you missed a spot. From the same book:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 1
quote:This old book is not a substitute for Blench's source, though. You should start there.
In any
event the Neolithic of Capsian Tradition, even in the Sahara, appears
to be more recent than the Saharan-Sudanese Neolithic to the south
or the Mediterranean Neolithic to the north. To the east and west, other
cultures with different origins border on the Neolithic of Capsian
Tradition and have undoubtedly influenced it. These are the Mauritania Neolithic in which are combined traits of varying origins (Mediterranean-
Atlantic, Saharan—Sudanese and, perhaps, Guinean as well as some
Neolithic of Capsian Tradition) and, to the east the Te'ne'rean, one of the
most beautiful lithic industries of the Old World which, while it may
not be Egyptian in origin, is at least very closely related to the Egyptian
Neolithic.
quote:The point was if they had ancient DNA from Anatolia and other populations in Europe all they had to do was directly do analysis on those ancient samples to determine a relationship.
Originally posted by Tukuler:
😱 OMG
Direct word of the inventors mean nothing to ideologues' rhetoric.
I gotta believe Lazaridis Patterson Reich
meant it when they said a Roman era N & SSA
represents a possible 4th wave of modern Euro
ancestry.
And more importantly actual EEF Stuttgart tooth
aDNA was tested against YRI to prove the Swedish
Farmer girl had Near Eastern Farmer ancestry.
Yet these two facts still go denied
masqued by incredible contortion.
quote:Also, note that even with all that filtering and processing of the data they still don't have the whole picture of Neolithic DNA transmission and there are other notable finds as well. That is why the title says European farmers descend from the Northern Aegean and Anatolia not from the fertile crescent. So in that sense this is like a "unicorn" as it doesn't represent direct contributions of DNA from populations who started the Neolithic tradition.
One of the most enduring and widely debated questions in prehistoric archaeology concerns the origins of Europe’s earliest farmers: Were they the descendants of local hunter-gatherers, or did they migrate from southwestern Asia, where farming began? We recover genome-wide DNA sequences from early farmers on both the European and Asian sides of the Aegean to reveal an unbroken chain of ancestry leading from central and southwestern Europe back to Greece and northwestern Anatolia. Our study provides the coup de grâce to the notion that farming spread into and across Europe via the dissemination of ideas but without, or with only a limited, migration of people.
quote:But none of this has anything to do with understanding African DNA history. So when it comes to ancient North Africa the point is you would need similar amounts of ancient DNA from across Northern Africa and similar filters and forms of analysis to narrow down and identify specific population movements within Africa in the time frames leading up to and after OOA, removing Eurasian genes as "recent mixture". The question being how much ancient migration from Eurasia took place in North Africa or was it primarily African during various time periods before, during and after OOA, including the Neolithic.
A key remaining question is whether this unbroken trail of ancestry and migration extends all the way back to southeastern Anatolia and the Fertile Crescent, where the earliest Neolithic sites in the world are found. Regardless of whether the Aegean early farmers ultimately descended from western or central Anatolian, or even Levantine hunter-gatherers, the differences between the ancient genomes presented here and those from the Caucasus (20) indicate that there was considerable structuring of forager populations in southwestern Asia before the transition to farming. The dissimilarity and lack of continuity of the Early Neolithic Aegean genomes to most modern Turkish and Levantine populations, in contrast to those of early central and southwestern European farmers and modern Mediterraneans, is best explained by subsequent gene flow into Anatolia from still unknown sources.
quote:Where did you look?
Originally posted by xyyman:
huh!? Is this what they said? Where
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
So you too didn't bother to read the photocopies
I posted from Lazaridis 2014 and supplement. I
should roll my eyes like a bitch.
It's what the inventors had published. It's not
them that's talking bullshit out their ass.
They a 100% straight up about
• YRI to find NEF in EEF
• NA+SSA ≈ 4th Euro ancestral component
I tried 3X to get S13 the same size as
title page and S12 but despite pixel
width it still came out smaller so
just zoom or read your own copy of
the letter and its supplements.
quote:He he he. Exactly.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Hope you know who you're quoting.
quote:http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=41569
Originally posted by xyyman:
Why don't you tell me? HE! HE! HE!
I know we are kinda slow........
