quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
I still prefer to see ancient Egypt as fundamentally a Black African civilization. And by that I mean an indigenous African civilization built by predominantly dark-skinned indigenous Africans. If you were to ask me about their biological affinities today, I would say they were predominantly an indigenous Eastern Saharan population with some Sudanic and Mediterranean/Middle Eastern admixture, to varying degrees depending on time and region. I imagine the majority of them had dark mahogany-brown skin that graded to even darker shades towards the south of Upper Egypt, and maybe lighter shades (i.e. caramel) in the northern Delta.

I admit that, on a purely emotionally level, I would prefer them to have had stronger "sub-Saharan" affinities, but I cannot dispute the evidence for a major pre-OOA affinity instead (as the whole concept of pre-OOA/Basal Eurasian is, frankly, a logical consequence of the OOA model of AMH origins). So I have no choice but to acknowledge that reality.

Unfortunately it seems a large chunk of this community can't even be bothered to do that. And this was probably always the case, going back to when ausar was still active (and lying about his background to win arguments about the topic). Time and time again in the last few years, I have seen posters whom I used to look up to let me down by refusing to recognize certain realities that contradicted their preferred narratives. Now I can understand having a bias to begin with, since we all have them. I myself got involved in this topic to begin with because I wanted to rebut to the white supremacist narrative that Africans are inherently incapable of civilization and that all great civilizations in Africa required "Caucasoid" back-migrants. But we should not let our emotional biases interfere with our evaluation of reality. And the fact that so many people in this community allow that to happen depresses me.

We should be better than the Eurocentric white supremacists who want to de-Africanize ancient Egypt. We should reach for the moral and intellectual higher ground compared to those racist asswipes. But so many people here haven't climbed to that higher ground at all, not even the ones I used to admire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansamusa:


Who says that Ancient Egyptians were West Africans?

---

Akachi LOL
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
If there is one takeaway from all the recent threads is that they're just going to deny it. Hope you're not expecting the outcome of this thread to be anyone coming clean.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
@ Punos_Rey

I do find Cass and others like him to be a real pain in the ass. But people are ignoring him precisely because they don't think he's worth debating at all. Although, I will admit the debates with the "Afrocentric" extremists are every bit as fruitless. It probably would be better if all these idiots were simply ignored.

@ Mansamusa

There are some posters like Charlie Bass and xyyman who still seem to maintain that AE ancestry would predominantly belong in some (exclusive) pan-African cluster, rather than considering that Saharan Africans might show a stronger affinity to OOA populations than other Africans simply because OOA branched off these Saharans (a point best illustrated in this graph):



And from another study:

quote:

---

A classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
If you accept indigenous north Africans as "black" or even related (however distantly) to other Africans further south, I don't see the SSA content in AE's mattering at all.

It's really wearing on my patience seeing supposed Afrocentrists being taken to task (in some instances rightfuly so). Yet an open white nationalist on record for hating blacks doesn't get harpooned unless its by one of those very same "afrocentrists". Why does he get an automatic presumption of objectivity/validity to his posts??? If you're going to hold people to account for rigor and accuracy, hold *all* people to account.

AE not being predominately West African(which seems to be what some of you mean when you say "SSA" or even worse, "Bantu") means absolutely nothing to me and I've never rested an argument on that. Africans can form distinct groups while still sharing ties to each other (the closer they are the stronger they'll be). Yet don't shift the parameters of the discussion as convenient as the aforementioned poster does every single time. And don't pose an inherently arbitrary distinction ("black") as objective when you define it the way you want to to suit your agenda (and by you obviously I'm referring to someone in particular). There is no credible possible way you can define a group such as the Nubians as *definitely black* and not the Aegyptians who are most related to them. Yet certain people draw their color line and shift and contort it whenever challenged.

Let's just say there's a lot of room for improvement and that's not just on the part of black posters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:


You're not saying that the ancient Egyptians were Niger-Congo speakers, and you have made it clear that this is not a necessary requirement in order for Africans to identify with ancient Egypt the same way that it hasn't been necessary for the ancient Greeks to be "Nordics" for all Europeans to identify with ancient Greece and valorize it to the extent that it pervades every facet of Western life. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Punos_Rey

I do find Cass and others like him to be a real pain in the ass. But people are ignoring him precisely because they don't think he's worth debating at all. Although, I will admit the debates with the "Afrocentric" extremists are every bit as fruitless. It probably would be better if all these idiots were simply ignored.

@ Mansamusa

There are some posters like Charlie Bass and xyyman who still seem to maintain that AE ancestry would predominantly belong in some (exclusive) pan-African cluster, rather than considering that Saharan Africans might show a stronger affinity to OOA populations than other Africans simply because OOA branched off these Saharans (a point best illustrated in this graph):



And from another study:

quote:

---

A classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population.

---

---Long et al 2009

Yet suggesting to some people that Saharan Africans might have a particular affinity to OOA that other Africans wouldn't have seems to have riled up even many "veteran" ES posters over the last few years. They don't seem to understand that this is little more than an inevitable consequence of OOA theory and that it still doesn't make Saharans like the AE non-African to begin with.

@ Swenet

No, I don't expect any of those individuals to "come clean" in this thread. This is mostly a personal vent thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I'm not sure Europeans valorize the Greeks to the extent that it pervades every facet of Western life. You will have to make the case but maybe. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I'm not sure Europeans valorize the Greeks to the extent that it pervades every facet of Western life. You will have to make the case but maybe.

---

Who are you kidding?? I know how much you guys hate Afrocentrists(real or imagined) but to pretend Greece and Rome aren't considered the very LYNCHPIN upon which Western Civilization rests is hysterical. Greco-Romanism permeates the western way of life at every turn, from our modern judicial system, our philosophical concepts, much of our architecture, our speculative arts, our popular stories/myths and so on. Universities all over have departments exclusively dedicated to Greece and Rome (and such departments are typically referred to as *CLASSICS*, not Greco-Roman or Southern European studies,nor even European Classics but *the* Classics). I have yet to have ONE history/philosophy/anthropology course that didn't refer to Greece and Rome, even my courses abroad in China made mention of Greek/Roman philosophers and their importance to the foundation of the west.

Seriously, don't. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
If you're arguing AE's were Saharans and not SSA's why are you still arguing they were 'black'? You need to give up the pan-African politics completely. Despite changing his views from SSA to Saharan origin of AE, Tyrannohotep is still politicalizing 'black' to try to cover the whole continent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
If you're arguing AE's were Saharans and not SSA's why are you still arguing they were 'black'? You need to give up the pan-African politics completely. Despite changing his views from SSA to Saharan origin of AE, Tyrannohotep is still politicalizing 'black' to try to cover the whole continent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Why are you using black at all? It doesn't stop being politicalizing just because you move the term further south. If we need to stop politicalizing black, that includes you.

Try again d!psh!t nazi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Referring to Sub-Saharan Africa (or Tropical Africa in which you make sure to exclude tropical southern Egypt) as the "Black Africa" is not politicalizing a broad group to match a modern political ideology??? Saying how much you hate "blacks" is not policalizing skin color to match your ideology??

F*** You.

---

No clown. My model is simply based on empirical data like UV-index. Why is the whole tropics the same UV-index, clown?



UV index is political?
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Referring to Sub-Saharan Africa (or Tropical Africa in which you make sure to exclude tropical southern Egypt) as the "Black Africa" is not politicalizing a broad group to match a modern political ideology??? Saying how much you hate "blacks" is not policalizing skin color to match your ideology??

F*** You.

---

No clown. My model is simply based on empirical data like UV-index. Why is the whole tropics the same UV-index, clown?



UV index is political?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Off hand I would say 20-40% of African American tribes trace their history to the Sudan and a 20-40% of that Egypt/Asia. Nobody seems to have an issue with that except maybe sudaniya.

---

Absolute fantasy. Where did you get these percentages from? Sudan was not subject to the Trans-Atlantic tragedy, so we did not genetically contribute to the African-American population.
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
@ Punos_Rey

Egypt actually can get some very high UV depending on the time of year. It may fluctuate more than the equatorial regions over the year for sure, but during the Northern Hemisphere summer it can still get extremely high. So retaining ancestral "black" skin in that kind of environment would still be preferable to the kind of depigmentation that Casshole wants.

This is the UV index in Africa as of today:


BTW this is the maximum amount of UV that different places around the world can receive:

 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:


You're not saying that the ancient Egyptians were Niger-Congo speakers, and you have made it clear that this is not a necessary requirement in order for Africans to identify with ancient Egypt the same way that it hasn't been necessary for the ancient Greeks to be "Nordics" for all Europeans to identify with ancient Greece and valorize it to the extent that it pervades every facet of Western life.

---

I'm not sure Europeans valorize the Greeks to the extent that it pervades every facet of Western life. You will have to make the case but maybe. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
If you're arguing AE's were Saharans and not SSA's why are you still arguing they were 'black'? You need to give up the pan-African politics completely. Despite changing his views from SSA to Saharan origin of AE, Tyrannohotep is still politicalizing 'black' to try to cover the whole continent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
Absolute fantasy. Where did you get these percentages from? Sudan was not subject to the Trans-Atlantic tragedy, so we did not genetically contribute to the African-American population.

---

quote:

---

I'm probably more Balanta than anything. Still waiting on an SNP test. But so far more Balanta than anything. Balanta, Ovambo, Fang, Ashanti.

So lets say I study the Balanta's origins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanta_people
quote:
Oral tradition amongst the Balanta has it that they migrated westward from the area that is now Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia to escape drought and wars.
I could also do this with the Ashanti.

http://documentslide.com/documents/the-law-of-primitive-man-a-study-in-comparative-legal-dynamics.html
quote:
Originally the Ashanti lived in the grasslands of the western Sudan where presumably they were sedentary gardeners. This we know only from their oral traditions.
Dnatribes and Tukuler's PopSTR both cased that I'm more related to damn near everyone than I am Yoruba however I have read that most African Americans are related to Yoruba who also trace their history to the Sudan.

Look at both of Oprah'stribes
Also from Wikipedia
Kpelle
quote:
The Kpelle or Guerze lived in North Sudan during the sixteenth century, before fleeing to other parts of north west Africa into what is now Mali.[2] Their flight was due to internal conflicts between the tribes from the crumbling Sudanic empire.[2] Some migrated to Liberia, Mauritania, and Chad.[2] They still maintained their traditional and cultural heritage despite their migration. A handful are still of Kpelle origin in North Sudan. They are mixed with the Nubians of the North Sudan where they remain a large minority.
Bamileke
quote:
The Cameroon-Bamileke Bantu people cluster encompasses multiple Bantu ethnic groups primarily found in Cameroon, the largest of which is the Bamileke. The Bamileke, whose origins trace to Egypt, migrated to what is now northern Cameroon between the 11th and 14th centuries.

---

I studied the origins of most of the major tribes in Africa. The 20-40% was about what I remembered and that is on a sort of per capita estimate because the larger tribes were more likely.
 

---

Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 
What I want to know is what are so many people North African-centric these days.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
~As I told you the ancient southern boundary of Egypt was 200km north than it is today. So the whole of ancient Egypt was outside of the tropics. This is why the ancient Egyptians distinguished their skin colour to the Nubians:

"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, As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten

The average Nubians was dark brown ('black'), while the Egyptian a light (Lower/Middle Egyptian) to medium (Upper Egyptian) brown shade:

"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)

Afrocentristcs ignore this variation and cline, and want to categorize light and medium brown pigmentation with dark brown as "black" to fit their modern pan-African politics, where all Africans are "blacks".
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
You say the average Nubian was dark brown, Upper Egyptians medium brown, and lower Egyptians light brown. Right after that you cite Snowden who says Southern/Upper Egyptians were dark brown. So since dark brown = black per Cassdom, Upper Egyptians were black? Seems like we've finally come full circle.


I guess also since many Africans in SSA have light to medium brown skin then maybe you should stop calling SSA "black Africa" as there's plenty of SSAfricans that don't have dark brown or near black skin (Type VI)

Nice try on the distinguishing skin colors scthick btw, it conveniently ignores the trove of pieces that showed Egyptians and Nubians could overlap. I'll just repost the same artpiece I did last time you pulled this.



I'm going to eat you alive, Nazi.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
~As I told you the ancient southern boundary of Egypt was 200km north than it is today. So the whole of ancient Egypt was outside of the tropics. This is why the ancient Egyptians distinguished their skin colour to the Nubians:

"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, As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten

The average Nubians was dark brown ('black'), while the Egyptian a light (Lower/Middle Egyptian) to medium (Upper Egyptian) brown shade:

"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)

Afrocentristcs ignore this variation and cline, and want to categorize light and medium brown pigmentation with dark brown as "black" to fit their modern pan-African politics, where all Africans are "blacks".

---

Two can play at the game of just repeating things over and over again. It's no skin off my nose:



The above is a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.

There was no kingdom or entity called "Nubia" in ancient times. There were no people (s) called "Nubians". These "Nubians" spoke different languages (belonging to different linguistic groups) and had markedly different physical appearances.


The ancient Egyptians specified the various kingdoms and people of the South and used terms like Kush, Setjau, Wawat, Medjay, Irem, Kaau and so on; some of these people exactly resembled the ancient Egyptians while others looked like the pitch-black Dinka or the Nuba of Kordofan.

Some of Egypt's Southern neighbours [those to the immediate South] very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians. Those further South did not.


"Nubia" is a corruption of the ancient Egyptian word Nubt -- a word for gold. There was a city in Upper Egypt called Nubti, which would have been the original Nubia.


Lower "Nubians" and Puntites from Northeast Sudan or Eritrea were identical to the ancient Egyptians and were both distinct from the "Nubians" much further afield. The "Nubians" in Upper Egypt and Northeast Sudan were ethnically the closest people to the ancient Egyptians in or outside Africa.

These are the people of Punt (modern day Northeast Sudan or the Horn) and they resemble the ancient Egyptians:







And these are ancient Egyptian soldiers and sailors








Upper Egypt has had shared affinities with specific people in 'Nubia' for tens of thousands of years, and this is why specialists understand that 'Nubians' were ethnically the closest people to the ancient Egyptians since the predynastic period.

Eurocentrics [ignorant, dishonest cretins] insist on creating an artificial dichotomy between the people of the South and the ancient Egyptians by presenting the pitch-black ancestors of the "Nuba" and the Dinka as the quintessential "Nubians" while ignoring people that so very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians.


Here's a picture of a black man from Swaziland standing next to a Hematite mine and his skin tone matches the red ochre that we see used to represent the ancient Egyptians. Contrast him to a Dinka, and what he's not black anymore?




There is no evidence that Lower "Nubians" were ever distinguished from Upper Egyptians.


Diodorus Siculus: "The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent."


Which is in line with this:

"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. "(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )

Pseudo Aristotle: "Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two." [/QB] [/QB]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
The people to the immediate South had the same skin tone as the ancient Egyptians but those further afield did not.

Ethnic Egyptian soldiers:



[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/2427222727_2b968b30a72.jpg.html]


Lower "Nubians" as portrayed by ancient Egyptians:



Kushites portraying themselves











The ancient Egyptians stem from a common origin with the people of the immediate South - people in Upper Egypt and North Sudan. [/QB] [/QB]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Hymn to Aten you say?

So Akhenaten pressumably employed the services of a scribe to let us all know that ancient Egyptians had a different skin tone to both his father and mother. You just went full retard. Never go full retard.

Queen Tiye



Amenhotep III








Akhenaten


 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Even today Modern Egyptians are mostly Type IV and V despite all the admixture. I'd be willing to bet in the ancient times they were mostly type V and Type VI with Lower Egyptians in the tip of the Delta being on the lighter side of type V, which btw Southern Europeans are typically type III. Keep trying Nazi.

quote:

---

Melasma is a common disorder of facial hyperpigmentation that can be resistant to treatment. Our purpose is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the different available modalities of treatment of melasma among Egyptian patients who have mostly skin types IV-V under a sunny climate.
....

CONCLUSION:
Topical hydroquinone remains the most effective agent for the treatment of melasma in dark-skinned people with rare side effects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
~As I told you the ancient southern boundary of Egypt was 200km north than it is today. So the whole of ancient Egypt was outside of the tropics. This is why the ancient Egyptians distinguished their skin colour to the Nubians:

"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, As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten

The average Nubians was dark brown ('black'), while the Egyptian a light (Lower/Middle Egyptian) to medium (Upper Egyptian) brown shade:

"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)

Afrocentristcs ignore this variation and cline, and want to categorize light and medium brown pigmentation with dark brown as "black" to fit their modern pan-African politics, where all Africans are "blacks".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
And yet indigenous black Saharan populations exist in opposition to your self vaunted "empirical" data.

---

quote:

---

Now, you're required to muster up the courage to explain why the aforementioned populations are present as far North as the Coast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
And yet indigenous black Saharan populations exist in opposition to your self vaunted "empirical" data.

---

Yea, but those are from the tropics. Ancient Egypt was isn't in the tropics. Been over this 100 times.

quote:

---

Now, you're required to muster up the courage to explain why the aforementioned populations are present as far North as the Coast.

---

Who? These populations don't exist. No doubt you will come back spamming individuals, when I'm only interested in populations (as averages/means).

---

Ah, yes, the Nafusa on the Libyan Coast don't exist.
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
No no no don't throw a monkey wrench, this white nationalist is the only objective poster around.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
And yet indigenous black Saharan populations exist in opposition to your self vaunted "empirical" data.

---

Yea, but those are from the tropics. Ancient Egypt was isn't in the tropics. Been over this 100 times.

---

Wait wait wait. This is goalpost moving. First you're evaluating them on whether or not they lived in the desert, and when "black" is in the desert "oh well that's just tropical."

...People with tropical adaptations live in the Sahara and always have. Tropical adaptations are often still fair adaptive features to nearby subtropical areas. Egyptian culture was also the daughter of Sudan which is in the tropics. Egypt had a lengthy relationship to people in Sudan. Southern Egypt is in the tropics.




Even your map has nearly half of Egypt with a UV index of 10 to 11. OMG so it's a 10 not an 11! I suppose they could NEEVER have darker skin now!
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

Tell us that the light-skin Berbers precede the black Berber tribes that inhabit the Maghreb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
~As I told you the ancient southern boundary of Egypt was 200km north than it is today. So the whole of ancient Egypt was outside of the tropics. This is why the ancient Egyptians distinguished their skin colour to the Nubians:

"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, As thou distinguishest the foreign peoples."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hymn_to_the_Aten

The average Nubians was dark brown ('black'), while the Egyptian a light (Lower/Middle Egyptian) to medium (Upper Egyptian) brown shade:

"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)

Afrocentristcs ignore this variation and cline, and want to categorize light and medium brown pigmentation with dark brown as "black" to fit their modern pan-African politics, where all Africans are "blacks".

---

quote:

---

Large-scale climate change forms the backdrop to the beginnings of food production in northeastern Africa (Kröpelin et al. 2008).[ Hunter-gatherer communities deserted most of the northern interior of the continent during the arid glacial maximum and took refuge along the North African coast, the Nile Valley, and the southern fringes of the Sahara (Barich and Garcea 2008; Garcea 2006; Kuper and Kröpelin 2006). During the subsequent Early Holocene African humid phase, from the mid-eleventh to the early ninth millennium cal BP, ceramic-using hunter-gatherers took advantage of more favorable savanna conditions to resettle much of northeastern Africa (Holl 2005; Kuper and Kröpelin 2006). Evidence of domestic animals first appeared in sites in the Western Desert of Egypt, the Khartoum region of the Nile, northern Niger, the Acacus Mountains of Libya, and Wadi Howar (Garcea 2004, 2006; Pöllath and Peters 2007; fig. 1).

---

quote:

---

"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:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
And yet indigenous black Saharan populations exist in opposition to your self vaunted "empirical" data.

---

Yea, but those are from the tropics. Ancient Egypt was isn't in the tropics. Been over this 100 times.

quote:

---

Now, you're required to muster up the courage to explain why the aforementioned populations are present as far North as the Coast.

---

Who? These populations don't exist. No doubt you will come back spamming individuals, when I'm only interested in populations (as averages/means).

---

Been over this 100 times the fact that the people originated from the South, in the TROPICS.





These two reasons - navigation obstacles and restricted floodplain - are the most important reasons why this part of the Nile is thinly populated and why the historic border between Egypt in the north and Nubia or Sudan in the south is the First Cataract at Aswan.


https://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/nile/cataracts.html


Clueless eurploon clown.
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
The Kpelle or Guerze lived in North Sudan during the sixteenth century, before fleeing to other parts of north west Africa into what is now Mali.[2] Their flight was due to internal conflicts between the tribes from the crumbling Sudanic empire.[2] Some migrated to Liberia, Mauritania, and Chad.[2] They still maintained their traditional and cultural heritage despite their migration. A handful are still of Kpelle origin in North Sudan. They are mixed with the Nubians of the North Sudan where they remain a large minority.
Bamileke
quote:
The Cameroon-Bamileke Bantu people cluster encompasses multiple Bantu ethnic groups primarily found in Cameroon, the largest of which is the Bamileke. The Bamileke, whose origins trace to Egypt, migrated to what is now northern Cameroon between the 11th and 14th centuries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Even today Modern Egyptians are mostly Type IV and V despite all the admixture. I'd be willing to bet in the ancient times they were mostly type V and Type VI with Lower Egyptians in the tip of the Delta being on the lighter side of type V, which btw Southern Europeans are typically type III. Keep trying Nazi.

quote:

---

Melasma is a common disorder of facial hyperpigmentation that can be resistant to treatment. Our purpose is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the different available modalities of treatment of melasma among Egyptian patients who have mostly skin types IV-V under a sunny climate.
....

CONCLUSION:
Topical hydroquinone remains the most effective agent for the treatment of melasma in dark-skinned people with rare side effects.

---

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19340686

---

The clown never obviously looked at what those Egyptian patients looked like in this study.


These are black skinned?! lol.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Even today Modern Egyptians are mostly Type IV and V despite all the admixture. I'd be willing to bet in the ancient times they were mostly type V and Type VI with Lower Egyptians in the tip of the Delta being on the lighter side of type V, which btw Southern Europeans are typically type III. Keep trying Nazi.

quote:

---

Melasma is a common disorder of facial hyperpigmentation that can be resistant to treatment. Our purpose is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the different available modalities of treatment of melasma among Egyptian patients who have mostly skin types IV-V under a sunny climate.
....

CONCLUSION:
Topical hydroquinone remains the most effective agent for the treatment of melasma in dark-skinned people with rare side effects.

---

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19340686

---

The clown never obviously looked at what those Egyptian patients looked like in this study.


These are black skinned?! lol.

---

LOL What does that prove? LOL Do you know their ancestry?


Melanin Dosage Tests: Ancient Egyptians




Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues

-- A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2 Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"
Materials and Methods

https://www.academia.edu/8742479/Melanin_Dosage_Tests_Ancient_Egyptians_DRAFT_


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10520290500051146
















 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
When you guys talk tropical what do you mean?
Climate or astronomical latitude?
Which applies to body plans?
Is there an arid body plan?
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
When you guys talk tropical what do you mean?
Climate or astronomical latitude?
Which applies to body plans?
Is there an arid body plan?

---

The dude doesn't know what he is talking about.

On a few occasions westerns have been warn by travel agencies not to go to Egypt because of temperature rise. During the day the Desert (Sahara) region is hot and at night it get's ice-cold.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Please, not about Cass.

About the nuanced meanings of tropical.
About the types of body plans.

Thx!


When you guys talk tropical what do you mean?
Climate or astronomical latitude?
Which applies to body plans?
Is there an arid body plan?
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Any one able to help me get access to the article? The abstract cited 45 patients, so I'm quite curious why the Nazi only showed three.

Btw I can show you Afams who are called black that are of similar pigment as those three. But even if we play that game, these people below are black by your own antics

Libyans




Egyptians&Nubians:






 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
The Kpelle or Guerze lived in North Sudan during the sixteenth century, before fleeing to other parts of north west Africa into what is now Mali.[2] Their flight was due to internal conflicts between the tribes from the crumbling Sudanic empire.[2] Some migrated to Liberia, Mauritania, and Chad.[2] They still maintained their traditional and cultural heritage despite their migration. A handful are still of Kpelle origin in North Sudan. They are mixed with the Nubians of the North Sudan where they remain a large minority.
Bamileke
quote:
The Cameroon-Bamileke Bantu people cluster encompasses multiple Bantu ethnic groups primarily found in Cameroon, the largest of which is the Bamileke. The Bamileke, whose origins trace to Egypt, migrated to what is now northern Cameroon between the 11th and 14th centuries.

---

I find all this kind of thing very hard to believe. Is there really a large Kpelle minority in Sudan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Any one able to help me get access to the article? The abstract cited 45 patients, so I'm quite curious why the Nazi only showed three.

Btw I can show you Afams who are called black that are of similar pigment as those three. But even if we play that game, these people below are black by your own antics

Libyans




Egyptians&Nubians:

---

Scribe close up, profile :


 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
- Ancient Egyptians weren't tropically adapted in body-breadths.

"Body breadth and body mass relative to stature in ancient Egyptians were intermediate between high- and low-latitude groups (Raxter, 2011)." (Bleuze et al. 2014)

Try again.

---

quote:

---

Cranial and dental evidence then tends to support a scenario of biological continuity in Egypt.

[…]

The fact that limb proportions in ancient Egyptians are somewhat more “tropical” may reflect the greater lability of limb length compared to body breadth.

[…]

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.

---

quote:

---

Tropically adapted groups also have relatively longer distal limb elements (tibia and radius, as compared to femur and humerus) than groups in colder climates.

---

quote:

---

"As with all the other limb/trunk indices, the recent Europeans evince lower indices, reflective of shorter tibiae, and the recent sub-Saharan Africans have higher indices, reflective of their long tibiae… The Dolno Vestonice and Pavlov humans… have body proportions similar to those of other Gravettian specimens. Specifically, they are characterized by high bracial and cural indices, indicative of distal limb segment elongation…" 

---

quote:

---

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:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Do you realize that West Africa was considered west of Sudan, before colonial times.

---

quote:

---

Also, do you realize that many West Africans moved through Africa to go to Mecca to do Haji. This likely never popped in your head.
I can explain why. Because you have very little to do with the history and the cultures, let along the ethnography.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Do you realize that West Africa was considered west of Sudan, before colonial times.

---

I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that it was considered the West Sudan (with a 'the'). However, the article says they mixed with Nubians. A cynic might suspect that someone confused "the Sudan" with "Sudan" and then made some **** up to go with that, but I'm asking rather than cynically assuming, you see.

quote:

---

Also, do you realize that many West Africans moved through Africa to go to Mecca to do Haji. This likely never popped in your head.
I can explain why. Because you have very little to do with the history and the cultures, let along the ethnography.

---

Actually, Ish Gebor, I don't know much about African history or ethnography; but I do know about the frigging Hajj, man. Come on.

The question was whether there is really a large Kpelle minority in Sudan. Do you have an answer for the actual question this time? For once?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Any one able to help me get access to the article? The abstract cited 45 patients, so I'm quite curious why the Nazi only showed three.

Btw I can show you Afams who are called black that are of similar pigment as those three. But even if we play that game, these people below are black by your own antics

Libyans




Egyptians&Nubians:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
So, Ish Gebor, you don't actually know the answer? You are just wasting my time telling me stuff I already know?

To clarify, the part that's very hard to believe isn't that there could be Kpelle in Sudan. It's that the Kpelle and the Bamileke and whoever else are all supposed to have migrated from Egypt or Sudan to West Africa *less than a thousand years ago*.

---

quote:

---

Trans-Saharan Trade
The importance that contact with the Islamic world held for these empires cannot be understated. While extensive trading networks undoubtedly predated Arabic involvement, the development of trans-Saharan commerce in the seventh century by Arabs and Berbers intensified and expanded the trading networks that made the empires of the western Sudan possible. The savanna region is naturally hospitable to both agriculture and livestock breeding and is ideally situated for trade. An easily traversed region separating radically different environments, each possessing resources and products badly needed by the other, it is likely that the savanna was an important trading arena long before the first camel caravans arrived from northern Africa (third to fourth century A.D.).

Although a rich diversity of goods were exchanged, all the empires of the western Sudan were primarily based upon control of the lucrative trans-Saharan trade in gold and salt. Gold, mined predominantly in southern West Africa, was much sought after by both African rulers and traders bound for northern Africa and Europe. Salt was essential in the regions south of the Sahara both as a dietary supplement and a preservative. Strategically located between southern gold-producing regions and Saharan salt mines like Taghaza, the kingdoms of the western Sudan were well positioned to amass great wealth through the taxation of imports and exports.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
[/qb]I can't be the only one who notices that, in the third image (from the tomb of Horemheb), the Egyptian and Kushite characters are painted similar shades of brown. [/QB]

---

You may also remember that people like Cass tend to post *this* picture



To "prove" the Aegyptians weren't black and infact had antiblack race prejudice. The one I posted is the *real* version of that badly photoshopped image.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
I still prefer to see ancient Egypt as fundamentally a Black African civilization. And by that I mean an indigenous African civilization built by predominantly dark-skinned indigenous Africans. If you were to ask me about their biological affinities today, I would say they were predominantly an indigenous Eastern Saharan population with some Sudanic and Mediterranean/Middle Eastern admixture, to varying degrees depending on time and region. I imagine the majority of them had dark mahogany-brown skin that graded to even darker shades towards the south of Upper Egypt, and maybe lighter shades (i.e. caramel) in the northern Delta.

I admit that, on a purely emotionally level, I would prefer them to have had stronger "sub-Saharan" affinities, but I cannot dispute the evidence for a major pre-OOA affinity instead (as the whole concept of pre-OOA/Basal Eurasian is, frankly, a logical consequence of the OOA model of AMH origins). So I have no choice but to acknowledge that reality.

Unfortunately it seems a large chunk of this community can't even be bothered to do that. And this was probably always the case, going back to when ausar was still active (and lying about his background to win arguments about the topic). Time and time again in the last few years, I have seen posters whom I used to look up to let me down by refusing to recognize certain realities that contradicted their preferred narratives. Now I can understand having a bias to begin with, since we all have them. I myself got involved in this topic to begin with because I wanted to rebut to the white supremacist narrative that Africans are inherently incapable of civilization and that all great civilizations in Africa required "Caucasoid" back-migrants. But we should not let our emotional biases interfere with our evaluation of reality. And the fact that so many people in this community allow that to happen depresses me.

We should be better than the Eurocentric white supremacists who want to de-Africanize ancient Egypt. We should reach for the moral and intellectual higher ground compared to those racist asswipes. But so many people here haven't climbed to that higher ground at all, not even the ones I used to admire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
If you accept indigenous north Africans as "black" or even related (however distantly) to other Africans further south, I don't see the SSA content in AE's mattering at all.

It's really wearing on my patience seeing supposed Afrocentrists being taken to task (in some instances rightfuly so). Yet an open white nationalist on record for hating blacks doesn't get harpooned unless its by one of those very same "afrocentrists". Why does he get an automatic presumption of objectivity/validity to his posts??? If you're going to hold people to account for rigor and accuracy, hold *all* people to account.

AE not being predominately West African(which seems to be what some of you mean when you say "SSA" or even worse, "Bantu") means absolutely nothing to me and I've never rested an argument on that. Africans can form distinct groups while still sharing ties to each other (the closer they are the stronger they'll be). Yet don't shift the parameters of the discussion as convenient as the aforementioned poster does every single time. And don't pose an inherently arbitrary distinction ("black") as objective when you define it the way you want to to suit your agenda (and by you obviously I'm referring to someone in particular). There is no credible possible way you can define a group such as the Nubians as *definitely black* and not the Aegyptians who are most related to them. Yet certain people draw their color line and shift and contort it whenever challenged.

Let's just say there's a lot of room for improvement and that's not just on the part of black posters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
I can't be the only one who notices that, in the third image (from the tomb of Horemheb), the Egyptian and Kushite characters are painted similar shades of brown.

---

You may also remember that people like Cass tend to post *this* picture



To "prove" the Aegyptians weren't black and infact had antiblack race prejudice. The one I posted is the *real* version of that badly photoshopped image.

---

It's weird, because they claim that these are the true negroes, enslaved in Egypt. However, they have no remains of these true negroes? At least that is what they suggest.


This is the eurocentrick wet dream:







This is the "real" Tomb KV57 at Abu Simbel.

quote:

---

Rilievi con prigionieri Nubiani controllati da soldati egiziani XVIII dinastia, regno di Tutankhamon (1333 – 1323 a.C.) Calcare Saqqara, Tomba di Horemheb. Collezione Palagi, già Nizzoli Museo Civico Archeologico, Bologna, inv. EG 1869 = 1887 Altezza: 62,5cm, larghezza: 85cm©

---

quote:

---

Reliefs with Nubians prisoners controlled by Egyptian soldiers Eighteenth Dynasty , reign of Tutankhamun (1333 - 1323 BC ) Limestone Saqqara , Tomb of Horemheb . Palagi collection , already Nizzoli Museo Civico Archeologico , Bologna , cat. EG 1869 = 1887 Height : 62,5cm , width: 85cm ©

---

The thing that makes it ironic is that the Abu Simbel temple was relocated. Meaning the construction was deconstructed, and reconstructed.


A film on the archaeological significance of the huge Egyptian temples of Abu Simbel and their dissection and removal, stone by stone, to higher grounds out of the reach of the waters of t

http://www.unesco.org/archives/multimedia/?s=films_details&pg=33&id=67


Considering the type of art during that time, one can have doubts and considerations wether this is a real autentic piece from ancient Egypt.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Abu Simbel Temples: Relocation due to Aswan Dam

In professor Watrall’s lectures last week, he mentioned that modern Egypt built the Aswan Dam in an attempt to try to contain and minimize the impacts of the annual rising and falling of the water levels of the Nile that for centuries has caused fluctuations in the productivity of agriculture on the flood lands along the river. Due to the construction of the dam, many archaeological sites we threaten by the flooding that would result from the construction of the dam. One of the most famous sites that were threatened was the Abu Simbel temples located in Nubia. For those who are not familiar with the temples, the temples are located on the west bank of the Nile, just southwest of Aswan and were originally constructed during the time period of the Pharaoh Ramses II (around 1257 BCE).

abu simbel temples

The Abe Simbel temples are spectacular! In the past I had read about them and have grown quite fond of the temples themselves. The temples were discovered in 1813 and were explored in 1817 by Giovanni Battista Belzoni. The temples themselves were actually carved into a face of a cliff, much like our very own Mount Rushmore here in the United States. Instead of 5 faces of past presidents, the Abu Simbel temples’ front face shows four colossal seated figures of Ramses himself, all about 67 feet in height. It has been said that the construction of the temple took about 20 years to complete.

When the proposal of the construction of the Aswan Dam begun and discussions about the area at which would most likely flood started, it became imperative to move the Abel Simbel temples to a location that they would be safe from the rising water levels of Lake Nassar. So in 1959, an international donations campaign to save the monument began. According to one resource, the actual saving and reconstruction act for the temples required 5 years of time and approximately $40 million dollars. On Nov. 16,1963, the disassembling of the temples began. With the help of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Egyptian government, the temples were successfully moved and reconstructed on top of a cliff another 200 feet above the original site.

During my search, I ran across a link for a video that discussed some of the tactics used to disassemble the temples. I thought it was extremely interesting and entertaining so I thought I would share it with you.

Moving the Abu Simbel Temples

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
I can't be the only one who notices that, in the third image (from the tomb of Horemheb), the Egyptian and Kushite characters are painted similar shades of brown.

---

You may also remember that people like Cass tend to post *this* picture



To "prove" the Aegyptians weren't black and infact had antiblack race prejudice. The one I posted is the *real* version of that badly photoshopped image.

---

quote:

---

Istituto Superiore d'Arte Venturi - esperienze didattiche - Visita al Museo Civico Archeologico di Bologna, Sezione Egizia

L'esperienza di visita al museo egizio è nata dalla necessità di far vedere agli alunni manufatti simili a quelli studiati, per tradurre l’esperienza astratta della lezione in classe a quella piu’ concreta dell’esperienza diretta.

La visita, realizzata nel dicembre 2012, è stata pensata a conclusione di un percorso di studio fatto sull’arte e sulla civiltà egizia.

La sezione egiziana del Museo Archeologico di Bologna, che comprende circa 3500 oggetti, è una delle più significative d’Italia e d'Europa. Essa è costituita in gran parte dai materiali raccolti dal pittore Pelagio Palagi, ceduti al Municipio di Bologna nel 1861, dopo la sua morte. Questa raccolta si arricchisce nel 1881 di un centinaio di oggetti provenienti dal Regio Museo dell’Università e, negli anni successivi, di altre collezioni minori o saltuarie acquisizioni. L’intera collezione è stata riallestita nel 1994 secondo nuovi criteri espositivi. La sezione è suddivisa in tre settori: il primo comprende i rilievi della necropoli di Saqqàra, il secondo espone i materiali in ordine cronologico a partire dalle origini della storia egiziana fino all’epoca romana, il terzo illustra alcuni aspetti fondamentali della società faraonica, come la scrittura, il culto funerario e la magia.

Video-presentazione:
Vittoria Maiocco, docente di storia dell’arte
classe 1D dell'ISA Venturi di Modena
foto di Lia Ferracini, 1D

---

quote:

---

Civic Museum of Bologna - Egyptian Section
Visit the 1D

December 2012
Civic Archaeological Museum of Bologna, Egyptian Section
Via dell'Archiginnasio 2

The 1D visit the Egyptian Museum of Bologna - Collection Pelagio Palagi

The experience of visiting the Egyptian museum was born from the need to show pupils similar articles to those studied, to translate the abstract experience of the lesson in the classroom to the more 'concrete experience direct.

The visit, conducted in December 2012, was conceived at the conclusion of a study done on art and Egyptian civilization.

The Egyptian section of the Archaeological Museum of Bologna, which includes about 3,500 items, is one of the most important in Italy and Europe. It is made largely from material collected by the painter Pelagio Palagi, transferred to the Municipality of Bologna in 1861, after his death. This collection is enriched in 1881 with a hundred objects from the Royal Museum of the University and, in subsequent years, other smaller collections or occasional acquisitions. The entire collection has been set up again in 1994 according to new exhibition criteria. The section is divided into three sections: the first includes the findings of the necropolis of Saqqara, the second presents the material in chronological order starting from the origins of Egyptian history until Roman times, the third illustrates some fundamental aspects of pharaonic society, as writing, the funeral cult and magic.

Video presentation:
Maiocco victory, art history teacher
Class 1D ISA Venturi in Modena
photos of Lia Ferracini, 1D

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
What I stated was meant in broader terms of interaction between groups. I have explained why it is not a strange possibility. That is the answer, but it doesn't sit well with you, obviously. Despite your lack on ethnography and history of Africa. The Kpelle is not even of my concern here.

---

quote:

---

The Hausa are culturally and historically closest to the Fulani, the Zarma and Songhai (in Tillabery, Tahoua and Dosso in Niger) the Kanuri and Shuwa Arab (in Chad, Sudan and northeastern Nigeria); Tuareg (in Agadez, Maradi and Zinder); the Gur and Gonja (northeastern Ghana, northern Togo and upper Benin); Gwari (in central Nigeria), and Mandinka and Soninke who border them to the west of their traditional areas, in Mali, Senegal, Gambia, Ivory Coast and Guinea. Migrants from these areas were introducing Islam to many of the Hausa by the 14th century, although Islam itself has had a presence in Hausaland as early as the 11th century. [14] [15]

All of these groups live in the Sahel, Saharan and Sudanian regions, and as a result have influenced each other's cultures to varying degrees.

---

quote:

---

The Bassa people have a Kemetic origin, are people who likely left Egypt in early medieval era and migrated south then west, sometime after the collapse of Adbassa Empire and the invasion of the Persians in 6th-century.[8] Some of them reached coastal West Africa and other parts including Liberia, Sierra Leone, Togo and Nigeria, Senegal while others settled in central African region of Cameroon and Congo.

---

quote:

---

According to the oral and documented history of the Tikar people, they originated in present-day Sudan. It is believed that when they inhabited Sudan, they lived adjacent to two groups. The first group comprised of iron-makers/blacksmiths and carpenters in the Meroe Kindgom; this group (ancestors of the Mende people) later left the Sudan and moved west towards Lake Chad. They eventually traveled to the Mali Empire, and along with the town Fulani and Mande, founded the Kingdom of Mani. The second group - ancestors of the Fulani - arrived in the Sudan from Egypt and Ethiopia. These cattle and goat herders moved west to Lake Chad near present-day Cameroon, Niger, and Nigeria before traveling across West Africa. It is believed that when the ancestors of the Tikar were in the Sudan, they lived along the Nile River. There, they developed their cattle grazing, iron-making, horse riding, and fighting skills.

---

quote:

---

The Dan originally came from the western Sudan region to the north, part of present-day Mali and Guinea. The location and movements of the Dan, Mano, and We can be reconstructed from as early as the 8th century , at which time the Dan and Mano were located in the savanna region of the northern Ivory Coast.[1] In the tenth century, political turmoil, population growth and land depletion caused the Dan to migrate south of the Nimba range and into the high forests.[2]

---

quote:

---

Oral traditions of the ruling Abrade (Aduana) Clan relate that they originated from ancient Ghana. They migrated from the north, they went through Egypt and settled in Nubia (Sudan). Around 500AD (5th century), due to the pressure exerted on Nubia by Axumite kingdom of Ethiopia, Nubia was shattered, and the Akan people moved west and established small trading kingdoms.

---

I give credence to the fact that most to all of these tribes practice the same old African forms of circumcision.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
@Tyrannohotep

I've always said that my gripes with the term were never meant to dissuade people from using that term. But I have called out people who are using the term as a trojan horse. Although I think it might be better to fall back on that. Time is going to deal with people. Folks are walking around with an expiration date timer above their heads. They just don't know it.

https://youtu.be/PHVeyo4W18U?t=13s
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Here we go again. Black skin isn't black because it is not 'biologically' scientific enough.

Really?

So where does skin color come from if not biology?

People and their silly nonsense.

MTDNA and Haplogroups don't tell you skin color. That doesn't mean that skin color isn't a biological scientific fact of human nature. It is just harder to determine from ancient skeletons. So scientists make rough approximations based on multidisciplinary approaches. That doesn't mean that skin doesn't have color and cannot be described using standard color names.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Doug

After spending MONTHS convincing people that 'black' is EXCLUSIVELY about skin pigmentation, you revealed your true colors by using the term in a racial sense you said doesn't exist

You know very well what you're doing. And I'm definitely not going to entertain you on this topic again. Not after that slip up.


 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Ancient Greek skin pigmentation categorization recognised two divisions on each continent (Africa, Europe), not just one. Instead Afro-loons want only "white" for Europe and "black" for Africa to match their pan-African politics. For the Greeks, white skin was restricted to northern Europe, while black skin to tropical Africa. Egyptians were not black, just like the Greeks did not regard themselves as white.
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Yet didn't you earlier say there in fact were Black Egyptians???? Get your stories straight you nazi hick.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Afaicmo
Kpelle are a peripheral Mande group
in Guinea, Liberia, and Cote d'Ivoire.

Cultural-linguistically the Kpelle cluster with
some Mande like the Vai, Dan, and Mende.

These Mande could've moved from the Niger
Basin before the Mali Empire eschewing the
kind of political submission kingdoms and
empires entail.

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
What I stated was meant in broader terms of interaction between groups. I have explained why it is not a strange possibility. That is the answer, but it doesn't sit well with you, obviously. Despite your lack on ethnography and history of Africa. The Kpelle is not even of my concern here.

---

Dude, I know there are West African immigrants in Sudan, that's why I asked whether it was really true. But here we are however many posts later and you haven't answered the question. If you don't know the answer just say so.

Heck, it doesn't even matter at all, I was just curious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Tyrannohotep

I've always said that my gripes with the term were never meant to dissuade people from using that term. But I have called out people who are using the term as a trojan horse. Although I think it might be better to fall back on that. Time is going to deal with people. Folks are walking around with an expiration date timer above their heads. They just don't know it.

https://youtu.be/PHVeyo4W18U?t=13s

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Tyrannohotep

I've always said that my gripes with the term were never meant to dissuade people from using that term. But I have called out people who are using the term as a trojan horse. Although I think it might be better to fall back on that. Time is going to deal with people. Folks are walking around with an expiration date timer above their heads. They just don't know it.

https://youtu.be/PHVeyo4W18U?t=13s

---

The way I see it, if anyone wants to use the dark skin and native African heritage of AEs in order to imply that they were completely coextensive in affinity with, say, Bakongo, they'd be arguing a a non-sequitur anyway. It'd be tantamount to saying Papuans would be biologically coextensive with either AE or Bakongo since they're also dark-skinned. In the end, the biological affinities of these populations are what they are. Saying the AE were black-skinned Africans is a separate animal from saying all Africans have to belong to one exclusive clade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Here we go again. Black skin isn't black because it is not 'biologically' scientific enough.

Really?

So where does skin color come from if not biology?

People and their silly nonsense.

MTDNA and Haplogroups don't tell you skin color. That doesn't mean that skin color isn't a biological scientific fact of human nature. It is just harder to determine from ancient skeletons. So scientists make rough approximations based on multidisciplinary approaches. That doesn't mean that skin doesn't have color and cannot be described using standard color names.

---

the scientific name for this color is brown, stop playin
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
^^ When I looked at the history of the major tribes I was just looking at plausibility. If they said it I marked it down. The only thing that gave me pause were people tracking their history to Egypt so they could be the Jews of the Bible. I didnt see much of that though.

I found no trace of Kpelle in the Sudan today so it could all be smoke but the thing is, its a lot of smoke.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Yet didn't you earlier say there in fact were Black Egyptians???? Get your stories straight you nazi hick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
@ Punos_Rey

Egypt actually can get some very high UV depending on the time of year. It may fluctuate more than the equatorial regions over the year for sure, but during the Northern Hemisphere summer it can still get extremely high. So retaining ancestral "black" skin in that kind of environment would still be preferable to the kind of depigmentation that Casshole wants.

This is the UV index in Africa as of today:


BTW this is the maximum amount of UV that different places around the world can receive:

---

quote:

---

The UV index does not exceed 8 in the UK (8 is rare; 7 may occur on exceptional days, mostly in the two weeks towards the end of June).

UV index
1-2 Low
3-5 Moderate
6-7 High
8-10 Very high
11 Extreme

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
...People with tropical adaptations live in the Sahara and always have. Tropical adaptations are often still fair adaptive features to nearby subtropical areas. Egyptian culture was also the daughter of Sudan which is in the tropics. Egypt had a lengthy relationship to people in Sudan. Southern Egypt is in the tropics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
BTW, I called the AE Black African in my OP because I wanted to use a recognizable term that conveyed not only their indigenous African heritage but also their dark skin. I understand why some posters like Swenet have chosen to abscond it entirely and respect their decision, and I additionally agree with Punos_Rey that the goalposts for blackness tend to get shifted in these arguments. On the other hand, I can tell that the objection people like Casshole have to characterizing AEs as black goes beyond mere semantic implications since they deny AE were darker-skinned to begin with. In the end, whatever language you want to use, I see AEs as (predominantly) dark-skinned native Africans.

---

So why have many archaeologists, classicists and anthropologists come to the same conclusion that ancient Egyptians were on average light brown, with a darker (medium-brown) shade towards the border of Nubia? See the Snowden (1997) quote on the other page.

Do you remember when your buddy (EgalitarianJay) contacted Joseph Graves? He was expecting him to say AE's were on average black in pigmentation, instead he said they weren't.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Carleton Coon on AE pigmentation:

quote:

---

The pigmentation of the Egyptians was usually a brunet white; in the conventional figures the men are represented as red, the women often as lighter, and even white. Although the hair is almost inevitably black or dark brown, and the eyes brown.

---

quote:

---

The Mediterranean pigmentation of the Egyptians has probably not greatly changed during the last five thousand years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
What I stated was meant in broader terms of interaction between groups. I have explained why it is not a strange possibility. That is the answer, but it doesn't sit well with you, obviously. Despite your lack on ethnography and history of Africa. The Kpelle is not even of my concern here.

---

Dude, I know there are West African immigrants in Sudan, that's why I asked whether it was really true. But here we are however many posts later and you haven't answered the question. If you don't know the answer just say so.

Heck, it doesn't even matter at all, I was just curious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:


Sudan is genetically distinct from West Africa, and yet also very diverse, not like the genetically West African people only would leave and the rest remain. And in terms of languages you'd need pretty much the entire population of West Africa to be wholesale recent arrivals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Ish I posted the complete image WITH the adjacent panels that still have remnants of the paint on them. Your image only shows the small subset where its already gone. Try scrolling up. There's a reason they either show the photoshop or the colorless panel and not the rest of that wall.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
BTW, I called the AE Black African in my OP because I wanted to use a recognizable term that conveyed not only their indigenous African heritage but also their dark skin. I understand why some posters like Swenet have chosen to abscond it entirely and respect their decision, and I additionally agree with Punos_Rey that the goalposts for blackness tend to get shifted in these arguments. On the other hand, I can tell that the objection people like Casshole have to characterizing AEs as black goes beyond mere semantic implications since they deny AE were darker-skinned to begin with. In the end, whatever language you want to use, I see AEs as (predominantly) dark-skinned native Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
^^ When I looked at the history of the major tribes I was just looking at plausibility. If they said it I marked it down. The only thing that gave me pause were people tracking their history to Egypt so they could be the Jews of the Bible. I didnt see much of that though.

I found no trace of Kpelle in the Sudan today so it could all be smoke but the thing is, its a lot of smoke.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausa_people

quote:

---

The Hausa are culturally and historically closest to the Fulani, the Zarma and Songhai (in Tillabery, Tahoua and Dosso in Niger) the Kanuri and Shuwa Arab (in Chad, Sudan and northeastern Nigeria); Tuareg (in Agadez, Maradi and Zinder); the Gur and Gonja (northeastern Ghana, northern Togo and upper Benin); Gwari (in central Nigeria), and Mandinka and Soninke who border them to the west of their traditional areas, in Mali, Senegal, Gambia, Ivory Coast and Guinea. Migrants from these areas were introducing Islam to many of the Hausa by the 14th century, although Islam itself has had a presence in Hausaland as early as the 11th century. [14] [15]

All of these groups live in the Sahel, Saharan and Sudanian regions, and as a result have influenced each other's cultures to varying degrees.

---

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassa_people_(Liberia)

quote:

---

The Bassa people have a Kemetic origin, are people who likely left Egypt in early medieval era and migrated south then west, sometime after the collapse of Adbassa Empire and the invasion of the Persians in 6th-century.[8] Some of them reached coastal West Africa and other parts including Liberia, Sierra Leone, Togo and Nigeria, Senegal while others settled in central African region of Cameroon and Congo.

---

rootsrevealed.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-tikar-people-of-cameroon.

quote:

---

According to the oral and documented history of the Tikar people, they originated in present-day Sudan. It is believed that when they inhabited Sudan, they lived adjacent to two groups. The first group comprised of iron-makers/blacksmiths and carpenters in the Meroe Kindgom; this group (ancestors of the Mende people) later left the Sudan and moved west towards Lake Chad. They eventually traveled to the Mali Empire, and along with the town Fulani and Mande, founded the Kingdom of Mani. The second group - ancestors of the Fulani - arrived in the Sudan from Egypt and Ethiopia. These cattle and goat herders moved west to Lake Chad near present-day Cameroon, Niger, and Nigeria before traveling across West Africa. It is believed that when the ancestors of the Tikar were in the Sudan, they lived along the Nile River. There, they developed their cattle grazing, iron-making, horse riding, and fighting skills.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gio_people

quote:

---

The Dan originally came from the western Sudan region to the north, part of present-day Mali and Guinea. The location and movements of the Dan, Mano, and We can be reconstructed from as early as the 8th century , at which time the Dan and Mano were located in the savanna region of the northern Ivory Coast.[1] In the tenth century, political turmoil, population growth and land depletion caused the Dan to migrate south of the Nimba range and into the high forests.[2]

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akan_people

quote:

---

Oral traditions of the ruling Abrade (Aduana) Clan relate that they originated from ancient Ghana. They migrated from the north, they went through Egypt and settled in Nubia (Sudan). Around 500AD (5th century), due to the pressure exerted on Nubia by Axumite kingdom of Ethiopia, Nubia was shattered, and the Akan people moved west and established small trading kingdoms.

---

I give credence to the fact that most to all of these tribes practice the same old African forms of circumcision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Ancient Greek skin pigmentation categorization recognised two divisions on each continent (Africa, Europe), not just one. Instead Afro-loons want only "white" for Europe and "black" for Africa to match their pan-African politics. For the Greeks, white skin was restricted to northern Europe, while black skin to tropical Africa. Egyptians were not black, just like the Greeks did not regard themselves as white.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Yet didn't you earlier say there in fact were Black Egyptians???? Get your stories straight you nazi hick.

---

True. He stated something like: "Southern Egyptian relate more to Southen people and North (upper) more to non-African.".

The dude is bat-**** crazy, constantly contradicting himself.

When eventually cornered, he than tries to claim Sahara populations as non-black. Which is of course hilarious.


Source after source tells us the origin lies at Central Sudan. Than North Sudan, than eventually Sourth Egypt into the North.





These two reasons - navigation obstacles and restricted floodplain - are the most important reasons why this part of the Nile is thinly populated and why the historic border between Egypt in the north and Nubia or Sudan in the south is the First Cataract at Aswan.


https://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/nile/cataracts.html


It even shows centered directions:

https://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/nile/hydro.map

https://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/nile/CataractEye.html
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Simpletons.

I posted this:


"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)

Punos misread it, like you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
So since dark brown = black per Cassdom, Upper Egyptians were black? Seems like we've finally come full circle.

---

What Snowden says is "a darker brown", not "dark brown" (black). I never contradicted myself, its just you Afro-loons cannot read; Snowden describes southern Egyptians as medium brown, not dark brown.

Was Frank Snowden a Nazi?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_M._Snowden_Jr.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Simpletons.

I posted this:


"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)

Punos misread it, like you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
So since dark brown = black per Cassdom, Upper Egyptians were black? Seems like we've finally come full circle.

---

What Snowden says is "a darker brown", not "dark brown" (black). I never contradicted myself, its just you Afro-loons cannot read; Snowden describes southern Egyptians as medium brown, not dark brown.

Was Frank Snowden a Nazi?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_M._Snowden_Jr.

---

He wasn't a Nazi, but what was he? LOL You tell me,... what was he?

Did he ever set his foot on African soil? Did he know the origins of Egypt is at the South, Central Sudan, North Sudan, Southern Egypt?


Show me his testimonies on this euroloon.



 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
"As to the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, both iconographie and written evidence differentiated between the physical traits of Egyptians and the populations south of Egypt. The art of ancient Egypt frequently painted Egyptian men as reddish brown, women as yellow, and people to the south as black."
- Snowden, 1997
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
"As to the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, both iconographie and written evidence differentiated between the physical traits of Egyptians and the populations south of Egypt. The art of ancient Egypt frequently painted Egyptian men as reddish brown, women as yellow, and people to the south as black."
- Snowden, 1997

---

Still running from the questions I see. lol Why, euronut?


Anyway, how come these depictions look similair to the modern day population from the South? A population who describes themselves as black.


Sheikh Abd El Qurnah Necropolis

quote:

---

"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:

---

The study on the partial calvarium discovered at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel (dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr BP, Hershkovitz et al. 2015), revealed close morphological affinity with recent African skulls as well as with early Upper Paleolithic European skulls, but less so with earlier anatomically modern humans from the Levant (e.g., Skhul). The ongoing fieldwork at the Manot Cave has resulted in the discovery of several new hominin teeth. These include a lower incisor (I1), a right lower first deciduous molar (dm1), a left upper first deciduous molar (dm1) and an upper second molar (M2) all from area C (>32 kyr) and a right upper second molar (M2) from area E (>36 kyr). The current study presents metric and morphological data on the new Manot Cave teeth. These new data combined with our already existing knowledge on the Manot skull may provide an important insight on the Upper Paleolithic population of the Levant, its origin and dietary habits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
"As to the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, both iconographie and written evidence differentiated between the physical traits of Egyptians and the populations south of Egypt. The art of ancient Egypt frequently painted Egyptian men as reddish brown, women as yellow, and people to the south as black."
- Snowden, 1997

---

I'm going to keep posting the brown Nubians and brown Ramses 2 and sons until it sticks through to your Nazi skull



But I guess we're to believe all Egyptian men were literally red, all egyptian women were yellow chickens, and everyone southwards pitch black. We'll just ignore all the art that shows brown Egyptian women, Brown Libyans, Pitch black Egyptian men, and Red/Yellow Nubians.

And you can always find a steppinfetchit that'll do anything to cater to a Eurocentric worldview for acceptance. I'm supposed to be impressed that Snowden was black? Him being black makes his statements unassailable because they back you up? Please. Who next? Clarence Walker?
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
"As to the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, both iconographie and written evidence differentiated between the physical traits of Egyptians and the populations south of Egypt. The art of ancient Egypt frequently painted Egyptian men as reddish brown, women as yellow, and people to the south as black."
- Snowden, 1997

---

I'm going to keep posting the brown Nubians and brown Ramses 2 and sons until it sticks through to your Nazi skull

https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/ramesses-ii-in-battle-ricardmn-photography.jpg

But I guess we're to believe all Egyptian men were literally red, all egyptian women were yellow chickens, and everyone southwards pitch black. We'll just ignore all the art that shows brown Egyptian women, Brown Libyans, Pitch black Egyptian men, and Red/Yellow Nubians.

And you can always find a steppinfetchit that'll do anything to cater to a Eurocentric worldview for acceptance. I'm supposed to be impressed that Snowden was black? Him being black makes his statements unassailable because they back you up? Please. Who next? Clarence Walker?

---

If supposed Arabs; as he claims mixed with people in the South thousands of years before, this destroys his euronut narrative once again. The more he post the funnier it becomes. It's because he lack critical thinking skills.


I wonder how King Seti I for example is described?


 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Doug

After spending MONTHS convincing people that 'black' is EXCLUSIVELY about skin pigmentation, you revealed your true colors by using the term in a racial sense you said doesn't exist

You know very well what you're doing. And I'm definitely not going to entertain you on this topic again. Not after that slip up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Doug

After spending MONTHS convincing people that 'black' is EXCLUSIVELY about skin pigmentation, you revealed your true colors by using the term in a racial sense you said doesn't exist

You know very well what you're doing. And I'm definitely not going to entertain you on this topic again. Not after that slip up.

---

Why not address what I said instead of trying to divert to your own straw man arguments? I said that skin color is as much a biological trait as any other. Therefore to claim that characterizing and describing skin color as not part of valid scientific investigation is false. And doing such an investigation does not imply that skin color equals race because it doesn't, no more than arm hair length determines race.

Why don't you focus on that instead of trying to spin your way out of it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Doug

After spending MONTHS convincing people that 'black' is EXCLUSIVELY about skin pigmentation, you revealed your true colors by using the term in a racial sense you said doesn't exist

You know very well what you're doing. And I'm definitely not going to entertain you on this topic again. Not after that slip up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
[qb] "As to the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, both iconographie and written evidence differentiated between the physical traits of Egyptians and the populations south of Egypt. The art of ancient Egypt frequently painted Egyptian men as reddish brown, women as yellow, and people to the south as black."
- Snowden, 1997

---

I'm going to keep posting the brown Nubians and brown Ramses 2 and sons until it sticks through to your Nazi skull

---

You're just cherry-picking. Why is it if you search for ancient depictions of Nubians, the vast majority don't show the lighter brown colours?


Syrian (left), Nubian (right)



Over 50 Nubians being run-over and killed by Tut, why are none of them lighter brown?


Kemsit, the Nubian queen of the Egyptian King Mentuhotep II B.C.), and her Egyptian servants:

[google]


Nubian (second from left)
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
So the only "black" tropical skin tones now are jet black? They weren't a culture that's origins came from Sudan? They hadn't maintained biological continuity with these "Nubians?" Oh I forgot a UV index of 10 and not 11 is all you need to blow your lid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
What Snowden says is "a darker brown", not "dark brown" (black). I never contradicted myself, its just you Afro-loons cannot read; Snowden describes southern Egyptians as medium brown, not dark brown.

Was Frank Snowden a Nazi?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_M._Snowden_Jr.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
So the only "black" tropical skin tones now are jet black? They weren't a culture that's origins came from Sudan? They hadn't maintained biological continuity with these "Nubians?" Oh I forgot a UV index of 10 and not 11 is all you need to blow your lid.

---

I have repeated to the troll that those jet black people are most likely the ancestors of the Nuba and/or the Dinka and Nuer.

They obviously don't resemble the Lower "Nubians"-Upper Egyptians - a population with mahogany-brown skin.

Tut's family:

Queen Tiye



Amenhotep III








Akhenaten

[/QB][/QUOTE]
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
And you can always find a steppinfetchit that'll do anything to cater to a Eurocentric worldview for acceptance. I'm supposed to be impressed that Snowden was black? Him being black makes his statements unassailable because they back you up? Please. Who next? Clarence Walker?

---

In fairness, I believe Snowden's big academic contribution was to argue that the ancient Greeks and Romans did not look down upon (Black) African people and actually assimilated some into their empires. He might have overstepped his authority when commenting on how the AE would have looked (he had no biological anthropological credentials AFAIK), and maybe he had a bias towards being taken seriously by the white classicist establishment. But even if he was wrong and unqualified to speak on this one issue, I don't think he was a (total) "steppinfetchit".
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
You never looked more closely.



They're not only jet-black, but lighter shades. Those colours however are still a dark brown (more specifically chocolate-brown). Above you can see these two dark brown shades: chocolate-brown and jet black. The light brown are the Egyptians killing the Nubians.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Again, note the Afroloons cherry-picking the darkest they can find. If you just Google image search Amenhotep III you find plenty like the following, and even lighter-



No Afrocentric of course will spam this, instead they only spam the image Sudaniya posts because its chocolate-brown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Again, note the Afroloons cherry-picking the darkest they can find. If you just Google image search Amenhotep III you find plenty like the following, and even lighter-



No Afrocentric of course will spam this, instead they only spam the image Sudaniya posts because its chocolate-brown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

---

Amenhotep III was a North African black man and that particular portrayal is not different to these:

Kushites portraying themselves











The ancient Egyptians stem from a common origin with the people of the immediate South - people in Upper Egypt and North Sudan. [/QB] [/QB] [/QB]

Lower "Nubians"-Upper Egyptians were/ are black and are indigenous to the continent and are not "Eurasians", so stop this nonsensical campaign.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
You never looked more closely.



They're not only jet-black, but lighter shades. Those colours however are still a dark brown (more specifically chocolate-brown). Above you can see these two dark brown shades: chocolate-brown and jet black. The light brown are the Egyptians killing the Nubians.

---

Follow your own advise. Some are jet black while others have the same skin tone as Tut's family.

Tut's family:

Queen Tiye



Amenhotep III








Akhenaten

[/QB][/QUOTE] [/QB]
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
lol. If light brown is 'black', then are southern Europeans, black? Apparently you never looked at Mycenaean and Minoan artwork.

Mycenaean-era Greek warriors:


Of course though this doesn't fit your pan-African politics.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
lol. If light brown is 'black', then are southern Europeans, black? Apparently you never looked at Mycenaean and Minoan artwork.

Mycenaean-era Greek warriors:


Of course though this doesn't fit your pan-African politics.

---

So basically if you find a painting the same or similar light brown colour as above in Egypt it is "black", but if in Greece, it is "white". These Afro-loons are just politicalizing colours to fit their racial politics, its beyond ridiculous.
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
And you aren't cherry picking the darkest Nubians you can find??? LMAO.

What about this golden Kushite??



I guess the Nubians had people with solid gold skin prancing around all them pitch black naggers you hate so much.

Oh wait.



There's a pitch black Egyptian.

Oh wait!



The same damn man this time with brown skin. Per Cass doctrine are we to believe Mentuhotep was a skin color changing wizard?? Was he pitch black at day and brown at night???

You nazis love taking Egyptian art literally when it shows pitch black Nubians being bound and humiliated, but when it comes to Egyptians you hand wring, goalpost shift, deny and insult. You call dark Egyptians and light brown/yellow Nubians cherry picking but you picking the blackest Nubians you can find is representative and objective.


Again, F*** You Cass.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
lol. If light brown is 'black', then are southern Europeans, black? Apparently you never looked at Mycenaean and Minoan artwork.

Mycenaean-era Greek warriors:


Of course though this doesn't fit your pan-African politics.

---

So basically if you find a painting the same or similar light brown colour as above in Egypt it is "black", but if in Greece, it is "white". These Afro-loons are just politicalizing colours to fit their racial politics, its beyond ridiculous.

---

Southern Europeans are not light-brown, you twit. The San are light-brown and the ancient Egyptians were mostly mahogany brown to a shade or two under that.

Southern Europeans are olive skin and that is the hue of that warrior -- not light-brown.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Southern Europeans are a light brown, dummy.

This is what Mycenaean-era Greek men were most commonly painted as:


You're politicalizing black to the extent brown shades have to be restricted to Africa and all Europeans are 'white'. Laughing so hard right now.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Simpletons.

I posted this:


"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)

Punos misread it, like you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
So since dark brown = black per Cassdom, Upper Egyptians were black? Seems like we've finally come full circle.

---

What Snowden says is "a darker brown", not "dark brown" (black). I never contradicted myself, its just you Afro-loons cannot read; Snowden describes southern Egyptians as medium brown, not dark brown.

Was Frank Snowden a Nazi?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_M._Snowden_Jr.

---

Tutankhamun's golden throne. The color here is a glass glaze so it's unfaded, all the colors vibrant

^^ This color is what Snowden meant when he said a "darker brown"

The scientific name for this color is brown, not black. Black is this this color:




"Black" is a political term when referring to humans that connotes more than just skin color so it cause confusion when it is introduced into anthropological discussion involving measurement of physical morphology or genetics.

The political term "black" is also unwise to stress because if "brown" where the official category people called "black" would fit into it and it would be a much larger category than "black", thus strength in numbers.
But people prefer the smaller exclusive category "black" just like Europeans like the smaller exclusive category "white"





^^ Nevertheless when Snowden said "a darker brown" he meant this color which is very very common in Egyptian art.

Of the various things including skin color and other traits that the political term "black" connotes, this color of Tutankhamun would be of the range that would be politically "black". As we can see Snowden, considered politically "black" himself is slightly lighter that the "darker brown" politically black toned Tutankhuamun (unless you can find a quote where Frank Snowden says he himself was not black and then try to argue Frank Snowden wasn't black)

All these experts you quote on this matter are merely looking sat the art just like we are and giving an opinion on applying a political term or not. So they may be scientists but such remarks are subjective opinion
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Southern Europeans are a light brown, dummy.

This is what Mycenaean-era Greek men were most commonly painted as:


You're politicalizing black to the extent brown shades have to be restricted to Africa and all Europeans are 'white'. Laughing so hard right now.

---

Southern Europeans are known as olive skin - not "light-brown". The San are light-brown. Lower "Nubians" and Southern Egyptians are two black populations with a common origin.
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Southern Euros are typically type 3. Modern Egyptians are typically type 4-5 and as I said I'd be willing to bet AE were typically 5-6.



You see, this lil inbred nazi trollop demands we play the game by his rules, then cries foul and tries to switch up when we beat him at the ruleset he forced us into. Afroloons indeed.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
"Olive skin" is a light brown, just the lightest shade of that colour spectrum- we're still talking about a brown colour, not white. And as Snowden (1997) points out coastal Egyptians would have been virtually indistinguishable to southern Europeans in pigmentation.

Anyway, I noticed in your recent replies you only say southern Egyptians were black. So do you now admit northern (Lower/Middle) Egyptians were light brown shades and not black? That's a start I guess.
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
" coastal Egyptians would have been virtually indistinguishable to southern Europeans in pigmentation."





 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Southern Euros are typically type 3. Modern Egyptians are typically type 4-5 and as I said I'd be willing to bet AE were typically 5-6.



You see, this lil inbred nazi trollop demands we play the game by his rules, then cries foul and tries to switch up when we beat him at the ruleset he forced us into. Afroloons indeed.

---

You just made those figures up. And you do realise only 6 is "black" on that scale?

Fitzpatrick scale
Type VI: deeply pigmented dark brown to darkest brown, black in complexion



But dermatologists are Nazis, right? You're the biggest clown on the forum. Just stop.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
"Olive skin" is a light brown, just the lightest shade of that colour spectrum- we're still talking about a brown colour, not white. And as Snowden (1997) points out coastal Egyptians would have been virtually indistinguishable to southern Europeans in pigmentation.

Anyway, I noticed in your recent replies you only say southern Egyptians were black. So do you now admit northern (Lower/Middle) Egyptians were light brown shades and not black? That's a start I guess.

---

this is the color Snowden meant when he said Southern Egyptians were a darker brown

This same color is the same color that multi millions of people who are called "black" today, including Snowden himself are

-try to avoid this
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Right I just made them up, and I thought you said dark brown equals black, not just near black (darker end of type 6) a category you said was "too narrow to be useful"



Type 5 skin falls well within what you called the "chocolate class" on the luschan tile scale too.

quote:

---

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:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Right I just made them up, and I thought you said dark brown equals black, not just near black (darker end of type 6) a category you said was "too narrow to be useful"



Type 5 skin falls well within what you called the "chocolate class" on the luschan tile scale too.

quote:

---

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

---

Type V (scores 28–34) very rarely burns, tans very easily (brown)

Type VI (scores 35–36) never burns, always tans (deeply pigmented dark brown to darkest brown, black in complexion)

Try again, dumb b!tch

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
"Olive skin" is a light brown, just the lightest shade of that colour spectrum- we're still talking about a brown colour, not white. And as Snowden (1997) points out coastal Egyptians would have been virtually indistinguishable to southern Europeans in pigmentation.

Anyway, I noticed in your recent replies you only say southern Egyptians were black. So do you now admit northern (Lower/Middle) Egyptians were light brown shades and not black? That's a start I guess.

---

Southern Europeans are not light-brown and an olive hue is not a metonym for light-brown. Southern Europeans are just tanned. The San are truly light-brown.

I think Northern Egyptians were biracial whereas the South was indisputably black, but then again if we use European standards, biracial people are still black.

When I mention Southern Egypt, I mean Upper Egypt. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.

The South is the most important region of ancient Egypt; the area where the civilization sprang from; the area in which the population was virtually identical to Lower "Nubians"; the politically dominant region; the region that conquered the other part of Egypt - starting the dynastic period; the geographically largest; the demographically dominant region; the richer, more sophisticated and more advanced region.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
These people below are biracial Western celebrities:

Slash



Jennifer Beals



Soledad O'Brien:



Rashida Jones:




Maya Rudolph:




And Hoda Kotb - Egyptian host on NBC:




Let's be honest here, Europeans emphasise cosmopolitan modern Lower Egyptians for no reason other than the fact that their "Eurasian" appearance provides them with a great deal of comfort in its relation to their image of ancient Egypt.

You people act as though Lower Egyptians were the majority in Dynastic Egypt and that they are the best representatives of the Pharaohs when in fact Upper Egyptians are far better representatives of the Pharaohs -- but they look like other Northeast Africans and so there is no comfort to be derived, is there?
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
"Olive skin" is a light brown, just the lightest shade of that colour spectrum- we're still talking about a brown colour, not white. And as Snowden (1997) points out coastal Egyptians would have been virtually indistinguishable to southern Europeans in pigmentation.

Anyway, I noticed in your recent replies you only say southern Egyptians were black. So do you now admit northern (Lower/Middle) Egyptians were light brown shades and not black? That's a start I guess.

---

Southern Europeans are not light-brown and an olive hue is not a metonym for light-brown. Southern Europeans are just tanned. The San are truly light-brown.

I think Northern Egyptians were biracial whereas the South was indisputably black, but then again if we use European standards, biracial people are still black.

When I mention Southern Egypt, I mean Upper Egypt. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.

The South is the most important region of ancient Egypt; the area where the civilization sprang from; the area in which the population was virtually identical to Lower "Nubians"; the politically dominant region; the region that conquered the other part of Egypt - starting the dynastic period; the geographically largest; the demographically dominant region; the richer, more sophisticated and more advanced region.

---

quote:

---

"Morant (1925) and Batrawi (1946) also found significant differences between Predynastic Upper Egyptians and, represented by Naqada and those from Lower Egypt, represented by Giza. Subsequent investigations using different sets of variables and more sophisticated statistical analysis, have confirmed that marked differences existed between Predynastic and Early Dynastic samples from the north and south of Egypt, and that these differences decreased in later period(Chichton 1966; Hillson 1978; Keita 1002, 1995, 1996).

---

quote:

---

... Keita (1992) found that distance between populations from Badari, Naqada and Abydos, as calculated from metrical parameters, correlated well with chronology rather than geographical distance."

---

quote:

---

"The findings presented here indicate that the north-south differences reported for Predynastic and Early Dynastic populations in Egypt were not due to large-scale population movements out of the southern Levant in the Neolithic or Predynastic period. Rather, they appear to reflect the long-term effect of differentiation between small, localized groups of hunters and gatherers exploiting different ecological niches. Having said this, it must be emphasized that these results are constrained by the small sample sizes available for the sites discussed here, and the limited number of sites represented."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
Southern Europeans are not light-brown and an olive hue is not a metonym for light-brown. Southern Europeans are just tanned. The San are truly light-brown.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

Erm No. There's no accurate way to match Luschan to the Fitzpatrick scale; completely different ranges exist per author/study. Type VI isn't limited to 35-36; that can clearly be seen by just looking at the chocolate brown (as opposed to near jet black) colour of the smiley face (VI). Duh. A dermatology publication I'm looking at on PDF right now has different ranges. You only had to Google this to find.

---

Ah I see..so when you ripped the description of type 5 skin from the same article I cited it was fine, but when I quote the comparisons between Fitzpatrick and Luschan from the same its not accurate??


L. O. L.

Maybe this one is better?



Maybe this one?


Or this one?


I'm sure if you search and scour the Internet you'll be able to find one that lists type 5 skin as olive/light brown, though doing such a thing would be...cherry picking
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Black is a political and social construct.


 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
Southern Europeans are not light-brown and an olive hue is not a metonym for light-brown. Southern Europeans are just tanned. The San are truly light-brown.

---

Southern Europeans are naturally darker than Northern Europeans; the difference isn't just a tan/sub-burn. Skin reflectance values (685 nm) taken from the unexposed [inner] arm show SE's tend to have lower skin reflectance values than NE's by >5%; below are some values I found while just searching:

Dutch: 68.9
Northern English (Northumberland): 68.6
Belgians: 67.3
Germans: 66.9
Northern Spanish (Leon): 62.7

The difference would be up to 10% between the north/south extremes of Europe, e.g. Southern Spanish or Aegean Greeks vs. Swedes or Danes.

Southern Europeans without a tan, aren't 'white', but a faint light brown colour.

Do you see why its so ridiculous to say the whole of Africa including Egyptians were 'black', when 'white' is restricted to a much smaller geographical area? Why should 'black' be so broad? The answer is you people are politicalizing it to fit a pan-African ideology.

---

Whether you like it or not the ancient Egyptians stem from a common origin with other black populations in Egypt and Northern Sudan.

Southern Europeans are white, acknowledge that they're white, are considered such by every white person I have ever met. Neo-Nazis may have a difference of opinion but I scarcely care.

You are being political, mate. Lower "Nubians"-Upper Egyptians have a common origin, adapted to the same ecological environment over thousands of years, were virtually identical, practiced the same culture and were responsible for creating dynastic Egypt... but only one sibling is black?

This has everything to do with your self-admitted hatred of black people, so your desperate lip-service to objectivity is laughable and is dismissed.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
"Olive skin" is a light brown, just the lightest shade of that colour spectrum- we're still talking about a brown colour, not white. And as Snowden (1997) points out coastal Egyptians would have been virtually indistinguishable to southern Europeans in pigmentation.

Anyway, I noticed in your recent replies you only say southern Egyptians were black. So do you now admit northern (Lower/Middle) Egyptians were light brown shades and not black? That's a start I guess.

---

Southern Europeans are not light-brown and an olive hue is not a metonym for light-brown. Southern Europeans are just tanned. The San are truly light-brown.

I think Northern Egyptians were biracial whereas the South was indisputably black, but then again if we use European standards, biracial people are still black.

When I mention Southern Egypt, I mean Upper Egypt. You will also have to stop pretending that Southern Egyptians didn't create and dominate the ancient Egyptian civilization politically, demographically and militarily for the bulk of dynastic Egyptian history.

The South is the most important region of ancient Egypt; the area where the civilization sprang from; the area in which the population was virtually identical to Lower "Nubians"; the politically dominant region; the region that conquered the other part of Egypt - starting the dynastic period; the geographically largest; the demographically dominant region; the richer, more sophisticated and more advanced region.

---

The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern Levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE

Patricia Smith

http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/13.pdf

quote:

---

"Morant (1925) and Batrawi (1946) also found significant differences between Predynastic Upper Egyptians and, represented by Naqada and those from Lower Egypt, represented by Giza. Subsequent investigations using different sets of variables and more sophisticated statistical analysis, have confirmed that marked differences existed between Predynastic and Early Dynastic samples from the north and south of Egypt, and that these differences decreased in later period(Chichton 1966; Hillson 1978; Keita 1002, 1995, 1996).

---

quote:

---

... Keita (1992) found that distance between populations from Badari, Naqada and Abydos, as calculated from metrical parameters, correlated well with chronology rather than geographical distance."

---

quote:

---

"The findings presented here indicate that the north-south differences reported for Predynastic and Early Dynastic populations in Egypt were not due to large-scale population movements out of the southern Levant in the Neolithic or Predynastic period. Rather, they appear to reflect the long-term effect of differentiation between small, localized groups of hunters and gatherers exploiting different ecological niches. Having said this, it must be emphasized that these results are constrained by the small sample sizes available for the sites discussed here, and the limited number of sites represented."

---

---

Thanks a million for this. I'll give it a read.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
How far is this man from invalid ecological construct that is Sub Saharan Africa Cass?



Would most people agree he is black?
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
[QB] Black is a political and social construct.

---

"Black" pigmentation isn't political, its simply a word that categorizes the darkest skin pigmentation, i.e. shades of dark brown.

All was fine for hundreds of years. Physical anthropologists have categorized skin colours without a fuss for a long time. Then came along some Afrocentric trolls on the internet in the last decade who want to politicalize "black" to cover all skin phenotypes observed across the entire African continent.
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:
Yeah, I kinda agree. Even though a lot of it is unreferenced stuff on the Internet, there's multiple versions, etc, still there's a heck of a lot of it.

Quite a few of these stories seem to involve a legendary founder figure who marries a local girl and founds a dynasty or whatever. So small-scale but culturally influential migration. That maybe you could test by looking at uniparental lineages of certain clans, royal families and so forth. And the results would be interesting whether you found a connection to Sudan/Egypt/Yemen/wherever or not.

But if we are talking about whole peoples migrating, I don't see how the heck it works. Sudan is genetically distinct from West Africa, and yet also very diverse, not like the genetically West African people only would leave and the rest remain. And in terms of languages you'd need pretty much the entire population of West Africa to be wholesale recent arrivals. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
All was fine for hundreds of years. Physical anthropologists have categorized skin colours without a fuss for a long time. Then came along some Afrocentric trolls on the internet in the last decade who want to politicalize "black" to cover all skin phenotypes observed across the entire African continent. [/QB]

---

The F***#!!!!

You call THIS categorizing skin colors without a fuss??



"(Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, 1853–1855) by Joseph Arthur, Comte de Gobineau, was a book arguing there were differences between human races, that civilizations decline and fall when the races are mixed and that the white race was superior. It is today considered to be one of the earliest examples of scientific racism.

Expanding upon Boulainvilliers' use of ethnography to defend the Ancien Régime against the claims of the Third Estate, Gobineau aimed for an explanatory system universal in scope: namely, that race is the primary force determining world events. Using scientific disciplines as varied as linguistics and anthropology, Gobineau divides the human species into three major groupings, white, yellow and black, claiming to demonstrate that "history springs only from contact with the white races." Among the white races, he distinguishes the Aryan race as the pinnacle of human development, comprising the basis of all European aristocracies. However, inevitable miscegenation led to the "downfall of civilizations"."


You call THIS categorizing without a fuss??

quote:

---

In 1745 John Green published in London with great success the New General Collection of Voyages and Travels on this wave of increasing interest in foreign travels. Of this four volume work, one volume dealt exclusively with Africa. Abbe Prevost later translated this work into French, mainly due to personal financial hardships. The French translation of Greene's work encompassed seven volumes, to which Prevost added eight more volumes consisting of his own collections and insights. Prevost's fifteen volume set was published between 1746 and 1759 entitled Histoire generale des voyages and quickly became incredibly successful. (Prevost's work was posthumously expanded to twenty-one volumes.). Although the first edition soon became an expensive collector's item, many could afford the less expensive quarto edition published in eighty-volumes over the period of 1746 and 1789.

Not only did major explorers and voyagers such as Montcalm and Bougainville carry Prevost's edition with them across the seas, but it clearly influenced the writings and thought of the philosophes. Buffon, the Encyclopedie (the Opus Magnus of the era), and Rousseau all gleaned most of their information from Prevost and often even plagiarized the Histoire. [3]

Prevost's information on Africa, however, was a hodgepodge collection which he had simply taken from previous seventeenth and early eighteenth century accounts and opinions by various authors. His financial motive and subsequent haste in writing the Histoire added to an inconsistency and contradictory view of African peoples. For example, of the West Africans, Prevost writes:

"Since they are naturally sly and violent they cannot live in peace with each other. The Europeans who are not safe from their insults can find no better vengeance than to burn their huts and ruin their plantations. On the other hand the Negroes of Sierra Leone are sober... They have more feeling and intelligence than the Negroes in the other parts of the Guinea Coast." [4]
Elsewhere Prevost states:

"The Negroes in general are given over to incontinence. Their women, who are no less stirred by the pleasure of the senses, employ herbs and barks to excite their husbands. These vicious customs reign here... But the inhabitants (of the Guinea Coast) are more moderate, more gentle, more sociable than the other Negroes. They do not like to shed blood, and don't think of war unless they are forced to by the need to defend themselves." [5]
Prevost commonly uses this pattern of presenting favorable qualities of a particular group as an exception to the whole of the African peoples. As we noted earlier, European bias against the Africans may derive quite directly from the impenetrability of the African mainland and the resulting mystery/ignorance regarding those peoples. In support of this suggestion we can here point to the interesting fact that those groups of Africans of which Prevost speaks most favorably are in fact those groups with which Europe was most familiar, namely the populations of the northwest coast of the African mainland. Thus Prevost deems the more familiar group as an exception of civility and respectability to the otherwise mysterious remainder of African peoples.

---

http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/foutz-racism.shtml

You call this fussless???!!




Anyone stupid enough to think this guy has a legitimate leg to stand on vs us "afroloons" can kick rocks, I'm done!
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
[QB] Black is a political and social construct.

---

"Black" pigmentation isn't political, its simply a word that categorizes the darkest skin pigmentation, i.e. shades of dark brown.

---

quote:

---

All was fine for hundreds of years. Physical anthropologists have categorized skin colours without a fuss for a long time. Then came along some Afrocentric trolls on the internet in the last decade who want to politicalize "black" to cover all skin phenotypes observed across the entire African continent.

---

Race is not a biological construct but a social one. Who qualified as black in it's beginnings included people with lighter complexions we see in northern Egypt. Among the Mande, Igbo and mulattoes there were enough people with those lighter tones to where they were not an invisible part of the population. Whites noticed them and made it clear they labeled them "black." You can't whitewash away that history. Egyptians were tropically adapted and had tones that fit within the spectrum of blackness that people experience. You'll never win this debate because when a person is treated as black for having the SAME complexion they will look at an Egyptian and see blackness. You'll never be able to unwrite what people within this forum (and out of this forum) have experienced with comparable complexions.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
You guys stay chasing cass...

I'ma just point out 2 things:
1.)
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009436;p=4#000190

2.)
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009626;p=1#000000

...the former is self explanatory, but you guys are chasing the man that's giving even the most hardcore negro-Kongo-Kemet-Afro-Übermensch the utmost breathing room at this point in time as it relates to the second link. ...and U.O.E.N.O. it. Like I said he's a useful troll, don't engage in overdebated or nonsensical topics w/ that child.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
lol.

We're talking about skin colour and these Afro-loons keep mentioning social theories of race in the past I couldn't care less about.
William Montague Cobb was an African-American physical anthropologist. He categorized the skin colour of African-American individuals (using the Luschan scale). Was he a Nazi? Take that nonsense elsewhere.

As Cobb showed- not all African-Americans are black (dark brown) in pigmentation; a sizable percentage have medium brown shades, and a small number, light brown. This is explained by the heterogeneous ancestry of African-Americans, who have European and Native American mixture.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
~It appears I'm the only person on the forum who fully separates/distinguishes categorizing skin colour from social theories of 'race'. And I'm the racist?
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
My Problem is folks on here acting like this is some sort of religion to them, and maybe it is IDK. When I cone on and people talking about "He's not a Melanated African" or white Devil this and that how can I take this place serious? Im starting to believe Swenet's comment about the early days being a fluke, racial based approaches to anything esp. History just leads to an Ignorant totalitarian echo chamber...People arent here to learn anymore they're here to defend at all costs their pre-conceived ideologies.
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
90ish% Greater "African" basedon on social shat



99% African based on social shat


0-15% African based on etc?

skin color is determined by pigment genes first environment possibly/probably.
Remember the black Neanderthals.
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
~It appears I'm the only person on the forum who fully separates/distinguishes categorizing skin colour from social theories of 'race'. And I'm the racist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
@Doug

I see you responded while I was in the process of writing that post above, so I missed your reply.

You just wrote a whole monologue addressing non-existent points of contention. Might as well have said nothing. But I like how you danced around your slip up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
My Problem is folks on here acting like this is some sort of religion to them, and maybe it is IDK. When I cone on and people talking about "He's not a Melanated African" or white Devil this and that how can I take this place serious? Im starting to believe Swenet's comment about the early days being a fluke, racial based approaches to anything esp. History just leads to an Ignorant totalitarian echo chamber...People arent here to learn anymore they're here to defend at all costs their pre-conceived ideologies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^See and thats the problem. but the thing is I dont think most of them are doing it intentionally, I think most of them have been in the ES echo chamber for so long they dont get why you are breaking the mold on here so to speak, but there is a select few who know full well and are very deceptive, acting like they are oppressed by white Europeans but will shout "White Devil this and that" and dedicate threads to racially degrade white people, . Ironically these are the very same people who will scream "AFRICAN DIVERSITY!!! AFRICANS ARE THE MOST DIVERSE ON THE PLANET!!! When the opposition does the VERY SAME Eyeball racial based tactics they employ. IF they're going to be religious about it, stop pretending that they are some objective unbiased scholars trying to rectify the distortions to history by the "Evil" white European. Stop acting like you dont believe in race or that you care about African history for African history, because you dont, all you care about is sticking it to whitey and some Pan African non-sense wet dream. Honestly they remind me of Creationists, I recenly went on a creation FB page that attacked Bill Nye for not being a "REAL" scientist but an Engineer due to his degree. Out of the Hundreds of thousand echo-chamber attacks on Nye not ONE attacked his arguments only his character. Its sad tbh, I love this place, I built memories here and made friends but now Im thinking, damn was I this bad as well??

I came here wanting to post info that Ive recently discovered of the links of Medieval Nubia and Axum to the Classical World, something that is ignored in Mainstream history and Africana alike, that Axum and Nubia were CLASSICAL, I.E GREEK SPEAKING(Lingua Franca) and Influenced Cultures, but I doubt many here would want to hear that, Something like that isnt the "Africans were more superior to Whitey European" narrative many here seem to only care about, hell it implies that the Greeks were so influential and respected that their language was adopted in places where very few Greeks visited let alone lived or colonized.....****, thats so disruptive to the narrative here they'd just call me a white person or Hamiticist if I dared showed that the Greeks had influence in Ancient Africa as far as Axum. I guess Ill go to historum or somewhere else, IDK

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
[qb] "As to the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, both iconographie and written evidence differentiated between the physical traits of Egyptians and the populations south of Egypt. The art of ancient Egypt frequently painted Egyptian men as reddish brown, women as yellow, and people to the south as black."
- Snowden, 1997

---

I'm going to keep posting the brown Nubians and brown Ramses 2 and sons until it sticks through to your Nazi skull

---

You're just cherry-picking. Why is it if you search for ancient depictions of Nubians, the vast majority don't show the lighter brown colours?


Syrian (left), Nubian (right)



Over 50 Nubians being run-over and killed by Tut, why are none of them lighter brown?


Kemsit, the Nubian queen of the Egyptian King Mentuhotep II B.C.), and her Egyptian servants:

[google]


Nubian (second from left)

---

The only people in Africa that are extremely dark skinned, but still dark brown are people of Southern Sudan. They and Southern Indians have the darkest of skin color amongst humanity.

But this pitch black is obviously symbolic. And means STRENGHT, the secondary meaning refers to coming from the South.










You have been punked and debunked once again.


Ps, the so called Syrian figure is not even Syrian, but is described as an Asiatic prisoner. And in terms of cranium both figures look the same.

Next I will expose you some more...
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
^ A Nubian and an Asiatic prisoner fettered at the elbows. Painted soles of two sandals. New Kingdom (1554-1080 BCE), Egypt. Drovetti Collection


http://www.lessingimages.com/viewimage.asp?i=08010839+&cr=87&cl=1

Sources with Assyrians show individuals similar to the this Asiatic individual.


In fact this is a Syrian.



Above ancient Syrian

A Syrian mercenary drinking beer in the company of his Egyptian wife and child, c. 1350 BC. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis

https://www.ancient.eu/image/11155/egyptian-stele-of-a-syrian-mercenary/

This is a Syrian:




Lessing, Erich, photographer (born 1923)

Syrian prisoner. Fragment of a painted fayence tile. Ramessid Period, 20th Dynasty (1196-1080 BCE), New Kingdom, Egypt. E 76 916

Louvre, Departement des Antiquites Egyptiennes, Paris, France




Head of a Syrian
KhM 3896a
TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4906




Head of a Beduin from Syria
KhM 3896b
TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4907




Head of a Beduin from Syria
KhM 3896c
TILE; NEW KINGDOM

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4908




Above ancient Philistine





Lessing,Erich,photographer (born 1923)

Two assyrian dignitaries placed behind the royal throne, scene of audience Tell Ahmar; approximately 8th century BCE; on clay coating with colours posed on whitewash (chalk, milk): ochre red, carbon black, Egyptian blue H.:65cm; W.: 62,50cm AO 23011

Louvre, Departement des Antiquites Orientales, Paris, France


http://www.lessingimages.com/viewimage.asp?i=03030219+&cr=28&cl=1


The closest these get to being Syrian is being stored at National Museum, Aleppo, Syria.



Lessing, Erich, photographer (born 1923)

Bust of an Assyrian officer in arms. Fresco (Mid 8th BCE) from a frieze in the governor's palace of Kar Salmanassar, Achmar (Tel Barsib) Height 35 cm

National Museum, Aleppo, Syria

https://www.lessingimages.com/viewimage.asp?i=08020860+&cr=124&cl=1


Cass, you are a hogwash individual. Euronut job. And as I said keep doing you, it's funny how everything you post contradicts you.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
lol.

We're talking about skin colour and these Afro-loons keep mentioning social theories of race in the past I couldn't care less about.
William Montague Cobb was an African-American physical anthropologist.

He categorized the skin colour of African-American individuals (using the Luschan scale). Was he a Nazi? Take that nonsense elsewhere.

---

You are so stupid you don't even understand that you are contradicting yourself here within the same column.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
lol.As Cobb showed- not all African-Americans are black (dark brown) in pigmentation; a sizable percentage have medium brown shades, and a small number, light brown. This is explained by the heterogeneous ancestry of African-Americans, who have European and Native American mixture.

---

Do you know how funny that reads!





It's funny to read how you assumed and think you made a fallible argument, however:


BLACK MEDICAL PIONEERS: AFRICAN AMERICAN 'FIRSTS' IN ACADEMIC AND ORGANIZED MEDICINE

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568213/pdf/jnma00158-0063.pdf

quote:

---

On October 12, 1904, Alexizine Montague Cobb and William Elmer Cobb introduced the world to William Montague Cobb. Born in Washington D.C in a segregated neighborhood, Cobb attended a segregated elementary school, Patterson Elementary, and a segregated high school, Dunbar High. Dunbar, still a prestigious high school, had African American teachers with advanced degrees. Because many universities did not hire African American professors, most of them ended up as teachers at segregated high schools. Cobb's experience at segregated primary schools opened his eyes to the oppression people of color face. After graduating from Dunbar in 1921, Cobb moved to Massachusetts and matriculated at Amherst College with a scholarship. During his tenure at Amherst College, Cobb was a cross-country runner, a boxer and a member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Incorporated.

[...]

When Cobb entered the field of physical anthropology, the debate over racial determinism was at an all time high. Some physical anthropologists believed that African Americans were naturally inferior to Whites due to their genetic makeup while others aimed to disprove scientific racism. When Cobb first opened his lab he made it a point to note that the purpose of his lab was to prove that African Americans are not physically or mentally inferior simply because of their race. In order to prove that African Americans were not inferior to Whites based on race, Cobb had to do something no other scientist had dared to do before, Cobb had to create a collection of African American skeletons and records.

[...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
You never looked more closely.



They're not only jet-black, but lighter shades. Those colours however are still a dark brown (more specifically chocolate-brown). Above you can see these two dark brown shades: chocolate-brown and jet black. The light brown are the Egyptians killing the Nubians.

---

And still, they all originated from the South, Ta-Seti.


Enjoy these murals.




Ancient Egyptian Tombs With Eye-Popping Murals Discovered In Luxor




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/12/ancient-egypt-tombs-luxor_n_6855154.html


Now go cry yourself to sleep again.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Southern Europeans are a light brown, dummy.

This is what Mycenaean-era Greek men were most commonly painted as:


You're politicalizing black to the extent brown shades have to be restricted to Africa and all Europeans are 'white'. Laughing so hard right now.

---

quote:

---

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:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
~It appears I'm the only person on the forum who fully separates/distinguishes categorizing skin colour from social theories of 'race'. And I'm the racist?

---

Yeah, because YOU'RE WHITE. To people of color it makes no sense.

Are you a racist..., probably. Rather yet, most likely.



 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
[QB] Black is a political and social construct.

---

"Black" pigmentation isn't political, its simply a word that categorizes the darkest skin pigmentation, i.e. shades of dark brown.

All was fine for hundreds of years. Physical anthropologists have categorized skin colours without a fuss for a long time. Then came along some Afrocentric trolls on the internet in the last decade who want to politicalize "black" to cover all skin phenotypes observed across the entire African continent.

---

By hundreds of years, you mean during the colonial period, where only whites had a say in things? Do you understand how crooked that reads and sounds what you claim.

It's a different time and different era, so get over your crap.



 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
And who said anything I said was unique to Afrocentrics, Ive been debating Eurocentrics/White Racialists even before I joined ES in 2007 and still am on their BS but the moment I or Swenet or anyone else bucks the trend over here, posters here who pretend like they are some scholarly intellectual powerhouse who are unbiased and only here to rectify racism suddenly come out the wood works and start crying foul.

And thankyou for confirming what I believed, if the topic here isnt s@hitting on Whitey in some fashion, or proclaiming superiority of "black" culture over white culture, the majority of people will not only not care but will turn around and accuse me of being white in some shape or form. I never once said the influence went one way, but you took it upon yourself to defend against it, how odd. Like I said, not interested in learning or African history at all..smh and this is just history/language I can just Imagine the hell Swenet and Beyoku been catching over DNA...smdh

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^See and thats the problem. but the thing is I dont think most of them are doing it intentionally, I think most of them have been in the ES echo chamber for so long they dont get why you are breaking the mold on here so to speak, but there is a select few who know full well and are very deceptive, acting like they are oppressed by white Europeans but will shout "White Devil this and that" and dedicate threads to racially degrade white people, . Ironically these are the very same people who will scream "AFRICAN DIVERSITY!!! AFRICANS ARE THE MOST DIVERSE ON THE PLANET!!! When the opposition does the VERY SAME Eyeball racial based tactics they employ. IF they're going to be religious about it, stop pretending that they are some objective unbiased scholars trying to rectify the distortions to history by the "Evil" white European. Stop acting like you dont believe in race or that you care about African history for African history, because you dont, all you care about is sticking it to whitey and some Pan African non-sense wet dream. Honestly they remind me of Creationists, I recenly went on a creation FB page that attacked Bill Nye for not being a "REAL" scientist but an Engineer due to his degree. Out of the Hundreds of thousand echo-chamber attacks on Nye not ONE attacked his arguments only his character. Its sad tbh, I love this place, I built memories here and made friends but now Im thinking, damn was I this bad as well??

I came here wanting to post info that Ive recently discovered of the links of Medieval Nubia and Axum to the Classical World, something that is ignored in Mainstream history and Africana alike, that Axum and Nubia were CLASSICAL, I.E GREEK SPEAKING(Lingua Franca) and Influenced Cultures, but I doubt many here would want to hear that, Something like that isnt the "Africans were more superior to Whitey European" narrative many here seem to only care about, hell it implies that the Greeks were so influential and respected that their language was adopted in places where very few Greeks visited let alone lived or colonized.....****, thats so disruptive to the narrative here they'd just call me a white person or Hamiticist if I dared showed that the Greeks had influence in Ancient Africa as far as Axum. I guess Ill go to historum or somewhere else, IDK

---

Influence goes both ways and it would not be a probem if Greco-Roman influence is shown in tandem with ancient Egyptian influence on Minoan, Phoenician, Greek and Roman civilizations.

There are racialistic cults all over the net, so let's not pretend that your criticisms are unique to 'Afrocentrics'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
And who said anything I said was unique to Afrocentrics, Ive been debating Eurocentrics/White Racialists even before I joined ES in 2007 and still am on their BS but the moment I or Swenet or anyone else bucks the trend over here, posters here who pretend like they are some scholarly intellectual powerhouse who are unbiased and only here to rectify racism suddenly come out the wood works and start crying foul.

And thankyou for confirming what I believed, if the topic here isnt s@hitting on Whitey in some fashion, or proclaiming superiority of "black" culture over white culture, the majority of people will not only not care but will turn around and accuse me of being white in some shape or form. I never once said the influence went one way, but you took it upon yourself to defend against it, how odd. Like I said, not interested in learning or African history at all..smh and this is just history/language I can just Imagine the hell Swenet and Beyoku been catching over DNA...smdh

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
And who said anything I said was unique to Afrocentrics, Ive been debating Eurocentrics/White Racialists even before I joined ES in 2007 and still am on their BS but the moment I or Swenet or anyone else bucks the trend over here, posters here who pretend like they are some scholarly intellectual powerhouse who are unbiased and only here to rectify racism suddenly come out the wood works and start crying foul.

And thankyou for confirming what I believed, if the topic here isnt s@hitting on Whitey in some fashion, or proclaiming superiority of "black" culture over white culture, the majority of people will not only not care but will turn around and accuse me of being white in some shape or form. I never once said the influence went one way, but you took it upon yourself to defend against it, how odd. Like I said, not interested in learning or African history at all..smh and this is just history/language I can just Imagine the hell Swenet and Beyoku been catching over DNA...smdh

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^See and thats the problem. but the thing is I dont think most of them are doing it intentionally, I think most of them have been in the ES echo chamber for so long they dont get why you are breaking the mold on here so to speak, but there is a select few who know full well and are very deceptive, acting like they are oppressed by white Europeans but will shout "White Devil this and that" and dedicate threads to racially degrade white people, . Ironically these are the very same people who will scream "AFRICAN DIVERSITY!!! AFRICANS ARE THE MOST DIVERSE ON THE PLANET!!! When the opposition does the VERY SAME Eyeball racial based tactics they employ. IF they're going to be religious about it, stop pretending that they are some objective unbiased scholars trying to rectify the distortions to history by the "Evil" white European. Stop acting like you dont believe in race or that you care about African history for African history, because you dont, all you care about is sticking it to whitey and some Pan African non-sense wet dream. Honestly they remind me of Creationists, I recenly went on a creation FB page that attacked Bill Nye for not being a "REAL" scientist but an Engineer due to his degree. Out of the Hundreds of thousand echo-chamber attacks on Nye not ONE attacked his arguments only his character. Its sad tbh, I love this place, I built memories here and made friends but now Im thinking, damn was I this bad as well??

I came here wanting to post info that Ive recently discovered of the links of Medieval Nubia and Axum to the Classical World, something that is ignored in Mainstream history and Africana alike, that Axum and Nubia were CLASSICAL, I.E GREEK SPEAKING(Lingua Franca) and Influenced Cultures, but I doubt many here would want to hear that, Something like that isnt the "Africans were more superior to Whitey European" narrative many here seem to only care about, hell it implies that the Greeks were so influential and respected that their language was adopted in places where very few Greeks visited let alone lived or colonized.....****, thats so disruptive to the narrative here they'd just call me a white person or Hamiticist if I dared showed that the Greeks had influence in Ancient Africa as far as Axum. I guess Ill go to historum or somewhere else, IDK

---

Influence goes both ways and it would not be a probem if Greco-Roman influence is shown in tandem with ancient Egyptian influence on Minoan, Phoenician, Greek and Roman civilizations.

There are racialistic cults all over the net, so let's not pretend that your criticisms are unique to 'Afrocentrics'.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
My Problem is folks on here acting like this is some sort of religion to them, and maybe it is IDK. When I cone on and people talking about "He's not a Melanated African" or white Devil this and that how can I take this place serious? Im starting to believe Swenet's comment about the early days being a fluke, racial based approaches to anything esp. History just leads to an Ignorant totalitarian echo chamber...People arent here to learn anymore they're here to defend at all costs their pre-conceived ideologies.

---

How many times do these people want to look the other way when it comes to North African and North African-influenced aDNA before they give up on their fairy tales? How many times do they want to dismiss ancient DNA and expect people not to raise an eyebrow?

--Contrary to ES expectations Afalou have little SSA mtDNAs
--Contrary to ES expectations Taforalt have little SSA mtDNAs
--Contrary to ES expectations random Eurasians (e.g. Han Chinese) are closer to the recently sampled Natufians than SSA groups are
--Contrary to ES expectations OOA individuals have little to no SSA ancestry
--Contrary to ES expectations early farmers with E-M78 (eastern Saharan ancestry) have little SSA ancestry
--Contrary to ES expectations the R-V88 carrier among early farmers in Spain has little SSA autosomal ancestry
--Contrary to ES expectations aboriginal Canary Islanders have little SSA mtDNAs and Y chromosomes
--Contrary to ES expectations Abusir mummies have little SSA mtDNAs and autosomal ancestry
--Contrary to ES expectations Bronze Age Armenian with E-M34 (eastern Saharan Y DNA) has little SSA autosomal ancestry
--We see SSA mtDNAs in Syrians and Iberians but contrary to expectations, autosomally these people are closer to modern inhabitants than SSA groups

It is clear that they demand a special leniency from the world that isn't afforded to anyone else. Somehow, everyone has to accept scientific findings, except them. This is how you identify faith-based communities. They demand that their debunked beliefs be allowed to co-exist with facts, simply because they want their feelings and investments spared. They think they're special snowflakes that they're exempt from scientific findings.

---

I think the problem here is indeed with the term black. The tendency is to separate the dark skinned North Africans from this debate of being black. It has been done in the past and attempts are being made to maintain this. Worse is, in the past dark skin North Africans have been excluded of having North African origin by ignorant scholars (likely because the considered them black), though we can still see this happening. Exemplary for this is Cass, and people on the internet who are ignorant on this.

Guanche mummy:








http://www.abc.es/cultura/abci-momia-guanche-muda-arqueologico-201512151200_noticia.html


I think this paper explains a bit on the complexity of the Sahara.

quote:

---

Firstly, E-M81 is the most common haplogroup in North Africa showing its highest concentrations in Northwestern Africa (76 % in Saharawis in Morocco (Arredi et al., 2004)) with cline frequencies decreasing eastward: Algeria (45 %), Libya (34 %) and Egypt (10 %) (Robino et al., 2008; Triki-Fendri et al., submitted; Arredi et al., 2004).


Besides, Ottoni et al., (2011) have reported that E-M81 appear to constitute a common paternal genetic matrix in the Tuareg populations where it was encountered at high frequency (89 %).

Hence, the distribution of this haplogroup in Africa closely matches the present area of Berber-speaking population’s allocation on the continent, suggesting a close haplogroup-ethnic group parallelism (Bosch et al., 2001; Cruciani et al., 2002; 2004; Arredi et al., 2004; Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2011; Bekada et al., 2013). However, knowing that the Berber dialects have been replaced by Arabic in North African populations, carriers of E-M81 haplogroup are currently Arab-speaking peoples whose ancestors were Berber-speaking.


Outside of Africa, E-M81 is almost absent in the Middle East and in Europe (with the exception of Iberia and Sicily). The presence of E-M81 in the Iberian Peninsula (12 % in southern Portugal) (Cruciani et al., 2004) has been attributed to trans-Mediterranean contacts linked to the Islamic influence, since it is typically Berber (Bosch et al., 2001; Semino et al., 2004; Beleza et al., 2006; Alvarez et al., 2009; Cruciani et al., 2007; Trombetta et al., 2011).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
When people say black, they don't mean fully genetically SSA, I thin thats the problem but idiots in here create that strawman and beat on it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^See and thats the problem. but the thing is I dont think most of them are doing it intentionally, I think most of them have been in the ES echo chamber for so long they dont get why you are breaking the mold on here so to speak, but there is a select few who know full well and are very deceptive, acting like they are oppressed by white Europeans but will shout "White Devil this and that" and dedicate threads to racially degrade white people, . Ironically these are the very same people who will scream "AFRICAN DIVERSITY!!! AFRICANS ARE THE MOST DIVERSE ON THE PLANET!!! When the opposition does the VERY SAME Eyeball racial based tactics they employ. IF they're going to be religious about it, stop pretending that they are some objective unbiased scholars trying to rectify the distortions to history by the "Evil" white European. Stop acting like you dont believe in race or that you care about African history for African history, because you dont, all you care about is sticking it to whitey and some Pan African non-sense wet dream. Honestly they remind me of Creationists, I recenly went on a creation FB page that attacked Bill Nye for not being a "REAL" scientist but an Engineer due to his degree. Out of the Hundreds of thousand echo-chamber attacks on Nye not ONE attacked his arguments only his character. Its sad tbh, I love this place, I built memories here and made friends but now Im thinking, damn was I this bad as well??

I came here wanting to post info that Ive recently discovered of the links of Medieval Nubia and Axum to the Classical World, something that is ignored in Mainstream history and Africana alike, that Axum and Nubia were CLASSICAL, I.E GREEK SPEAKING(Lingua Franca) and Influenced Cultures, but I doubt many here would want to hear that, Something like that isnt the "Africans were more superior to Whitey European" narrative many here seem to only care about, hell it implies that the Greeks were so influential and respected that their language was adopted in places where very few Greeks visited let alone lived or colonized.....****, thats so disruptive to the narrative here they'd just call me a white person or Hamiticist if I dared showed that the Greeks had influence in Ancient Africa as far as Axum. I guess Ill go to historum or somewhere else, IDK

---

Influence goes both ways and it would not be a probem if Greco-Roman influence is shown in tandem with ancient Egyptian influence on Minoan, Phoenician, Greek and Roman civilizations.

There are racialistic cults all over the net, so let's not pretend that your criticisms are unique to 'Afrocentrics'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


--Contrary to ES expectations Afalou have little SSA mtDNAs

---

quote:

---

--Contrary to ES expectations random Eurasians (e.g. Han Chinese) are closer to the recently sampled Natufians than SSA groups are

---

quote:

---

--Contrary to ES expectations OOA individuals have little to no SSA ancestry

---

quote:

---

--Contrary to ES expectations early farmers with E-M78 (eastern Saharan ancestry) have little SSA ancestry

---

quote:

---

--Contrary to ES expectations the R-V88 carrier among early farmers in Spain has little SSA autosomal ancestry

---

quote:

---

--Contrary to ES expectations aboriginal Canary Islanders have little SSA mtDNAs and Y chromosomes

---

quote:

---

--Contrary to ES expectations Abusir mummies have little SSA mtDNAs and autosomal ancestry

---

quote:

---

--Contrary to ES expectations Bronze Age Armenian with E-M34 (eastern Saharan Y DNA) has little SSA autosomal ancestry

---

quote:

---

--We see SSA mtDNAs in Syrians and Iberians but contrary to expectations, autosomally these people are closer to modern inhabitants than SSA groups

---

quote:

---

It is clear that they demand a special leniency from the world that isn't afforded to anyone else. Somehow, everyone has to accept scientific findings, except them. This is how you identify faith-based communities. They demand that their debunked beliefs be allowed to co-exist with facts, simply because they want their feelings and investments spared. They think they're special snowflakes that they're exempt from scientific findings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


When Europeans say the first humans in Eurasia were NON African as a major branch of the human genetic tree, thats fine, dandy and good scholarship according to these folks. Yet when Africans sit up and talk about African lineages outside of Africa or African genetic history not being defined by Eurasian input, oh how radical is that..... These folks man.

It should be obvious by now that these folks are trying to say that Eurasian genes are more dominant in the history of humanity than African genes, including in ancient Africa. Therefore, North Africans aren't "truly African" because they have so many "dominant" Eurasian genes. That leaves so-called "SSA" as the only true PURE AFRICAN genetically. So we have gone past the "true negro" racial type to the "true negro" genetic type. I don't see how folks don't understand this.

Same old game, different day.

---

Actually, in the field of eurocentrism modern day humans only evolved outside of Africa. This is why the had the evolution going from Ape to European, with exclusion of Africans and Australians as being primitive, unevolved / even non-human. This is why eurocentrism is fighting for a multi-regional theory, hence Cass. I have spend a good amount of time in extreme right-wing circles to find out these things. The mindset, the hate. lol smh



Of course they never gave up on the above.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
lol.As Cobb showed- not all African-Americans are black (dark brown) in pigmentation; a sizable percentage have medium brown shades, and a small number, light brown. This is explained by the heterogeneous ancestry of African-Americans, who have European and Native American mixture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ive been debating Eurocentrics/White Racialists even before I joined ES in 2007 and still am on their BS but the moment I or Swenet or anyone else bucks the trend over here, posters here who pretend like they are some scholarly intellectual powerhouse who are unbiased and only here to rectify racism suddenly come out the wood works and start crying foul.

---

quote:

---

That clan of forum member do not wish to acknowledge the legitimacy of Chiekh Anta Diop nor the other master teachers, because they unhesitatingly glorify the people whom they fear giving glory to the most (West, South, Central Africans and dispora). Follow the path laid by the master teachers, and ignore those agents/fools.

---

 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
SSA is not a valid biological or ecological construct. People within this area can be as different as a Chinese and Italian, but are being treated as one biological unit. What confuses me is the notion of "L" lineages and how it seems like this is "the" marker to reinforce this singular grouping of Africans.

Someone please explain this to me, I am new and do not understand. How can people living underneath the Sahara have the genetic differences found between Chinese and Italians, but genetically their differences are under an "L" lineages that makes them "the same" enough for genetic measurement and comparison?
 

---

Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ive been debating Eurocentrics/White Racialists even before I joined ES in 2007 and still am on their BS but the moment I or Swenet or anyone else bucks the trend over here, posters here who pretend like they are some scholarly intellectual powerhouse who are unbiased and only here to rectify racism suddenly come out the wood works and start crying foul.

---

True. Our record on debating Euroloons over the years speaks for itself. But when you go where the evidence leads and no longer toe the partyline, you're somehow "secretly white". Folks think in terms of religious fundamentalism, i.e. heretics, fifth columns, agents and the faithful.

You have words thrown around like:

"sell out"
"master teachings"
"the elders"
"hamiticist"

Someone actually wrote this on this site:

quote:

---

That clan of forum member do not wish to acknowledge the legitimacy of Chiekh Anta Diop nor the other master teachers, because they unhesitatingly glorify the people whom they fear giving glory to the most (West, South, Central Africans and dispora). Follow the path laid by the master teachers, and ignore those agents/fools.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
SSA is not a valid biological or ecological construct. People within this area can be as different as a Chinese and Italian, but are being treated as one biological unit. What confuses me is the notion of "L" lineages and how it seems like this is "the" marker to reinforce this singular grouping of Africans.

Someone please explain this to me, I am new and do not understand. How can people living underneath the Sahara have the genetic differences found between Chinese and Italians, but genetically their differences are under an "L" lineages that makes them "the same" enough for genetic measurement and comparison?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
SSA is not a valid biological or ecological construct. People within this area can be as different as a Chinese and Italian, but are being treated as one biological unit. What confuses me is the notion of "L" lineages and how it seems like this is "the" marker to reinforce this singular grouping of Africans.

Someone please explain this to me, I am new and do not understand. How can people living underneath the Sahara have the genetic differences found between Chinese and Italians, but genetically their differences are under an "L" lineages that makes them "the same" enough for genetic measurement and comparison?

---

Those people are internally very diverse. But this misses the point completely. These groups have similar and/or very large distances to Eurasians on the world stage. In that context of world comparisons internal diversity of regions is irrelevant. We're not talking about internal diversity of regions; we're talking about regional comparisons on a world stage.

For instance, which of those very diverse Sub-Saharan groups have ancestry components that are close to Basal Eurasian? They are diverse, but they are diverse in other directions (mostly). So there is no need to emphasize that sort of diversity in inter regional comparisons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
SSA is not a valid biological or ecological construct. People within this area can be as different as a Chinese and Italian, but are being treated as one biological unit. What confuses me is the notion of "L" lineages and how it seems like this is "the" marker to reinforce this singular grouping of Africans.

Someone please explain this to me, I am new and do not understand. How can people living underneath the Sahara have the genetic differences found between Chinese and Italians, but genetically their differences are under an "L" lineages that makes them "the same" enough for genetic measurement and comparison?

---

Those people are internally very diverse. But this misses the point completely. These groups have similar and/or very large distances to Eurasians on the world stage. In that context of world comparisons internal diversity of regions is irrelevant. We're not talking about internal diversity of regions; we're talking about regional comparisons on a world stage.

For instance, which of those very diverse Sub-Saharan groups have ancestry components that are close to Basal Eurasian? They are diverse, but they are diverse in other directions (mostly). So there is no need to emphasize that sort of diversity in inter regional comparisons.

---

Yes but what it sounded like I was reading, Africa's internal diversity is comparable with the diversity we would see comparing other parts of the world with one another on a world stage. The difference between a Chinese and Italian is something that would be noticed on world stage right? So how does it make sense that Africans can be lumped together as an "L" lineage, though they have that type of diversity??? I still do not understand, very sorry...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
SSA is not a valid biological or ecological construct. People within this area can be as different as a Chinese and Italian, but are being treated as one biological unit. What confuses me is the notion of "L" lineages and how it seems like this is "the" marker to reinforce this singular grouping of Africans.

Someone please explain this to me, I am new and do not understand. How can people living underneath the Sahara have the genetic differences found between Chinese and Italians, but genetically their differences are under an "L" lineages that makes them "the same" enough for genetic measurement and comparison?

---

Those people are internally very diverse. But this misses the point completely. These groups have similar and/or very large distances to Eurasians on the world stage. In that context of world comparisons internal diversity of regions is irrelevant. We're not talking about internal diversity of regions; we're talking about regional comparisons on a world stage.

For instance, which of those very diverse Sub-Saharan groups have ancestry components that are close to Basal Eurasian? They are diverse, but they are diverse in other directions (mostly). So there is no need to emphasize that sort of diversity in inter regional comparisons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
All the OoA expats genetic base came from
a north or east African people, IE; a regional
or local set of genes.

At that time and since then different regions
or localities in Africa with different variations
in drift and founder effect and yes bottleneckso
made different genetic patterns more common
to specific peoples or in specific places.


Does this help you any at all or did I make it worse?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
SSA is not a valid biological or ecological construct. People within this area can be as different as a Chinese and Italian, but are being treated as one biological unit. What confuses me is the notion of "L" lineages and how it seems like this is "the" marker to reinforce this singular grouping of Africans.

Someone please explain this to me, I am new and do not understand. How can people living underneath the Sahara have the genetic differences found between Chinese and Italians, but genetically their differences are under an "L" lineages that makes them "the same" enough for genetic measurement and comparison?

---

Those people are internally very diverse. But this misses the point completely. These groups have similar and/or very large distances to Eurasians on the world stage. In that context of world comparisons internal diversity of regions is irrelevant. We're not talking about internal diversity of regions; we're talking about regional comparisons on a world stage.

For instance, which of those very diverse Sub-Saharan groups have ancestry components that are close to Basal Eurasian? They are diverse, but they are diverse in other directions (mostly). So there is no need to emphasize that sort of diversity in inter regional comparisons.

---

I just heard a moan from Ish Gebor and zarahan, sort of like a tire deflating

---

Nah, you must have heard something else. There is no common agenda in regards to this subject, remember?

As a matter of fact, I don't even know what this about. I'm just punching air and attacking strawmen with pent up rage.
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
And who said anything I said was unique to Afrocentrics, Ive been debating Eurocentrics/White Racialists even before I joined ES in 2007 and still am on their BS but the moment I or Swenet or anyone else bucks the trend over here, posters here who pretend like they are some scholarly intellectual powerhouse who are unbiased and only here to rectify racism suddenly come out the wood works and start crying foul.

And thankyou for confirming what I believed, if the topic here isnt s@hitting on Whitey in some fashion, or proclaiming superiority of "black" culture over white culture, the majority of people will not only not care but will turn around and accuse me of being white in some shape or form. I never once said the influence went one way, but you took it upon yourself to defend against it, how odd. Like I said, not interested in learning or African history at all..smh and this is just history/language I can just Imagine the hell Swenet and Beyoku been catching over DNA...smdh

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^See and thats the problem. but the thing is I dont think most of them are doing it intentionally, I think most of them have been in the ES echo chamber for so long they dont get why you are breaking the mold on here so to speak, but there is a select few who know full well and are very deceptive, acting like they are oppressed by white Europeans but will shout "White Devil this and that" and dedicate threads to racially degrade white people, . Ironically these are the very same people who will scream "AFRICAN DIVERSITY!!! AFRICANS ARE THE MOST DIVERSE ON THE PLANET!!! When the opposition does the VERY SAME Eyeball racial based tactics they employ. IF they're going to be religious about it, stop pretending that they are some objective unbiased scholars trying to rectify the distortions to history by the "Evil" white European. Stop acting like you dont believe in race or that you care about African history for African history, because you dont, all you care about is sticking it to whitey and some Pan African non-sense wet dream. Honestly they remind me of Creationists, I recenly went on a creation FB page that attacked Bill Nye for not being a "REAL" scientist but an Engineer due to his degree. Out of the Hundreds of thousand echo-chamber attacks on Nye not ONE attacked his arguments only his character. Its sad tbh, I love this place, I built memories here and made friends but now Im thinking, damn was I this bad as well??

I came here wanting to post info that Ive recently discovered of the links of Medieval Nubia and Axum to the Classical World, something that is ignored in Mainstream history and Africana alike, that Axum and Nubia were CLASSICAL, I.E GREEK SPEAKING(Lingua Franca) and Influenced Cultures, but I doubt many here would want to hear that, Something like that isnt the "Africans were more superior to Whitey European" narrative many here seem to only care about, hell it implies that the Greeks were so influential and respected that their language was adopted in places where very few Greeks visited let alone lived or colonized.....****, thats so disruptive to the narrative here they'd just call me a white person or Hamiticist if I dared showed that the Greeks had influence in Ancient Africa as far as Axum. I guess Ill go to historum or somewhere else, IDK

---

Influence goes both ways and it would not be a probem if Greco-Roman influence is shown in tandem with ancient Egyptian influence on Minoan, Phoenician, Greek and Roman civilizations.

There are racialistic cults all over the net, so let's not pretend that your criticisms are unique to 'Afrocentrics'.

---

---

You're being far too defencive and lashing out against someone that does not at all fit the mold of the Afrocentrics that you *rightly* criticise.


Have I ever shown myself to be a black supremacist? Have I ever said anything hateful about "whitey"?

I have mocked and criticised Clyde and his many deranged disciples and Mike has responded by desperaging me as yet anothe clueless African.

I have absolutely no problem with discussions on Greco-Roman influence on any African civilization. All civilizations influence each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
And who said anything I said was unique to Afrocentrics, Ive been debating Eurocentrics/White Racialists even before I joined ES in 2007 and still am on their BS but the moment I or Swenet or anyone else bucks the trend over here, posters here who pretend like they are some scholarly intellectual powerhouse who are unbiased and only here to rectify racism suddenly come out the wood works and start crying foul.

And thankyou for confirming what I believed, if the topic here isnt s@hitting on Whitey in some fashion, or proclaiming superiority of "black" culture over white culture, the majority of people will not only not care but will turn around and accuse me of being white in some shape or form. I never once said the influence went one way, but you took it upon yourself to defend against it, how odd. Like I said, not interested in learning or African history at all..smh and this is just history/language I can just Imagine the hell Swenet and Beyoku been catching over DNA...smdh

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^See and thats the problem. but the thing is I dont think most of them are doing it intentionally, I think most of them have been in the ES echo chamber for so long they dont get why you are breaking the mold on here so to speak, but there is a select few who know full well and are very deceptive, acting like they are oppressed by white Europeans but will shout "White Devil this and that" and dedicate threads to racially degrade white people, . Ironically these are the very same people who will scream "AFRICAN DIVERSITY!!! AFRICANS ARE THE MOST DIVERSE ON THE PLANET!!! When the opposition does the VERY SAME Eyeball racial based tactics they employ. IF they're going to be religious about it, stop pretending that they are some objective unbiased scholars trying to rectify the distortions to history by the "Evil" white European. Stop acting like you dont believe in race or that you care about African history for African history, because you dont, all you care about is sticking it to whitey and some Pan African non-sense wet dream. Honestly they remind me of Creationists, I recenly went on a creation FB page that attacked Bill Nye for not being a "REAL" scientist but an Engineer due to his degree. Out of the Hundreds of thousand echo-chamber attacks on Nye not ONE attacked his arguments only his character. Its sad tbh, I love this place, I built memories here and made friends but now Im thinking, damn was I this bad as well??

I came here wanting to post info that Ive recently discovered of the links of Medieval Nubia and Axum to the Classical World, something that is ignored in Mainstream history and Africana alike, that Axum and Nubia were CLASSICAL, I.E GREEK SPEAKING(Lingua Franca) and Influenced Cultures, but I doubt many here would want to hear that, Something like that isnt the "Africans were more superior to Whitey European" narrative many here seem to only care about, hell it implies that the Greeks were so influential and respected that their language was adopted in places where very few Greeks visited let alone lived or colonized.....****, thats so disruptive to the narrative here they'd just call me a white person or Hamiticist if I dared showed that the Greeks had influence in Ancient Africa as far as Axum. I guess Ill go to historum or somewhere else, IDK

---

Influence goes both ways and it would not be a probem if Greco-Roman influence is shown in tandem with ancient Egyptian influence on Minoan, Phoenician, Greek and Roman civilizations.

There are racialistic cults all over the net, so let's not pretend that your criticisms are unique to 'Afrocentrics'.

---

---

You're being far too defencive and lashing out against someone that does not at all fit the mold of the Afrocentrics that you *rightly* criticise.


Have I ever shown myself to be a black supremacist? Have I ever said anything hateful about "whitey"?

I have mocked and criticised Clyde and his many deranged disciples and Mike has responded by desperaging me as yet anothe clueless African.

I have absolutely no problem with discussions on Greco-Roman influence on any African civilization. All civilizations influence each other.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

I just heard a moan from Ish Gebor and zarahan, sort of like a tire deflating

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
SSA is not a valid biological or ecological construct. People within this area can be as different as a Chinese and Italian, but are being treated as one biological unit. What confuses me is the notion of "L" lineages and how it seems like this is "the" marker to reinforce this singular grouping of Africans.

Someone please explain this to me, I am new and do not understand. How can people living underneath the Sahara have the genetic differences found between Chinese and Italians, but genetically their differences are under an "L" lineages that makes them "the same" enough for genetic measurement and comparison?

---

Those people are internally very diverse. But this misses the point completely. These groups have similar and/or very large distances to Eurasians on the world stage. In that context of world comparisons internal diversity of regions is irrelevant. We're not talking about internal diversity of regions; we're talking about regional comparisons on a world stage.

For instance, which of those very diverse Sub-Saharan groups have ancestry components that are close to Basal Eurasian? They are diverse, but they are diverse in other directions (mostly). So there is no need to emphasize that sort of diversity in inter regional comparisons.

---

I just heard a moan from Ish Gebor and zarahan, sort of like a tire deflating

---

Nah, you must have heard something else. There is no common agenda in regards to this subject, remember?

As a matter of fact, I don't even know what this about. I'm just punching air and attacking strawmen with pent up rage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Certain African tribes in THOSE DAYS were known to produce clans with noticeable amounts of lighter skin. Hell many still do, though we do not know if the rates of production are similar.

---

Talbot & Mulhall (1962) didn't use colorimetric tiles like the Luschan-scale, so their visual assessment is more subjective; I mentioned this in another thread. However, they recognised three skin colour categories: "light" (as yellowish to light-brown), "medium" (as medium-brown), and "dark" (as chocolate-brown to near jet-black). Presumably the latter is Coon's (1939) "chocolate brown class"; Luschan # 29-36 tiles, i.e. black skin.



As expected with a single exception (Ngwa), all these western SSA tribes/ethnic groups have 70% black skin (and several of them >80%), which is why on average these populations are black in pigmentation. I'm simply not interested in anything other than the mean as a typical value, or in this case a mode statistic; the majority of individuals of each west SSA tribe in Talbot & Mulhall (1962) are black skinned. So why do you have a fantasy that these peoples are commonly light brown? Even the exceptional tribe (Ngwa), have a majority of black skinned individuals (56%). The percentage of "light" skin colour in nearly all these tribes is extremely low to negligible, in some it is 0%. While the Ngwa supposedly have 19% of yellowish to light-brown skin shades, none of the other Igbo tribes do and 19% is still low. It means less than 1/5 individuals of this tribe have yellowish to light-brown skin.

In the other thread I noted since Talbot & Mulhall didn't use colorimetric tiles, many individuals they classified as "light" could fall in the "medium brown" range of Luschan tiles. Assuming though Talbot & Mulhall's visual assessment is accurate in the sense it corresponds closely with Luschan's tiles, what it shows is light brown skin as a whole is extremely rare across western SSA. Instead you're distorting this data to bizarrely argue light brown pigmentation was/is common across western SSA.
 

---

Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
 
To be quite honest I still think ES still gots it when it comes to discussions centering around African history. Its just that this site is lacking when it comes to CURRENT bio-anthropological discussions.

I'll leave it at that.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Oshun

I tried answering your question
and you don't even respond???
 

---

Posted by capra (Member # 22737) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
SSA is not a valid biological or ecological construct. People within this area can be as different as a Chinese and Italian, but are being treated as one biological unit. What confuses me is the notion of "L" lineages and how it seems like this is "the" marker to reinforce this singular grouping of Africans.

Someone please explain this to me, I am new and do not understand. How can people living underneath the Sahara have the genetic differences found between Chinese and Italians, but genetically their differences are under an "L" lineages that makes them "the same" enough for genetic measurement and comparison?

---

quote:

---

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).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Actually, in the field of eurocentrism modern day humans only evolved outside of Africa. This is why the had the evolution going from Ape to European, with exclusion of Africans and Australians as being primitive, unevolved / even non-human. This is why eurocentrism is fighting for a multi-regional theory, hence Cass. I have spend a good amount of time in extreme right-wing circles to find out these things. The mindset, the hate. lol smh

---

The Multiregional model isn't "Eurocentric" dummy. It doesn't argue anatomical modernity was exclusive to Europe, or any one region for that matter. It doesn't play into politics like the OOA theory.

Just imagine if most scientists in the west were currently saying anatomically modern humans came from Europe, not East Africa. How many black posters here would accept this model? So please don't tell me OOA isn't political. The only reason black Africans support it is because its in their political interests.
 

---

Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Re: my point that diversity of SSA populations and grouping them under the same category can go hand in hand:

quote:

---

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).

---

—Lazaridis et al 2016

SSA groups are diverse, but their distance to Natufians is not at all diverse. (The only exceptions are SSA groups with North African ancestry). Therefore, you lose very little by juxtaposing the category 'SSA' with the African ancestry in Natufians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
I think the problem here is indeed with the term black. The tendency is to separate the dark skinned North Africans from this debate of being black. It has been done in the past and attempts are being made to maintain this. Worse is, in the past dark skin North Africans have been excluded of having North African origin by ignorant scholars (likely because the considered them black), though we can still see this happening. Exemplary for this is Cass, and people on the internet who are ignorant on this.

Guanche mummy

---

The Canary Islands are off the coast of Morocco, well above the tropics. If you actually look at Spanish artwork of Guanches when they met them, they're barely different in pigmentation to the Spanish themselves:



This is what they looked like, obviously not black.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
I'm not trying to strawman I even said I might not understand... [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

Geneticists don't actually think SSA is one thing, that's just a strawman. For instance if you look at the recent Laziridis paper on first farmers when looking for SSA affinity in Natufians they used 4 SSA references: Mota (Ethiopia), San (Namibia iirc), Mbuti (DRC), and Yoruba (Nigeria). [/QB]

---

Oshun sets up the same straw man.

If "SSA's were one thing", then physical anthropologists wouldn't have distinguished 'Bushmenoids' (Coon's "Capoids")from 'Negroids' and so on for the past century or more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capoid_race
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid

^ Did the above never happen? Did Carleton Coon never exist?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
sudaniya is this true?

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

,,. every African tribe west of the Nile claim their ancestors are from the east

---

quote:

---

Geneticists don't actually think SSA is one thing, that's just a strawman. For instance if you look at the recent Laziridis paper on first farmers when looking for SSA affinity in Natufians they used 4 SSA references: Mota (Ethiopia), San (Namibia iirc), Mbuti (DRC), and Yoruba (Nigeria).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
All the OoA expats genetic base came from
a north or east African people, IE; a regional
or local set of genes.

At that time and since then different regions
or localities in Africa with different variations
in drift and founder effect and yes bottleneckso
made different genetic patterns more common
to specific peoples or in specific places.


Does this help you any at all or did I make it worse?

---

Summed up perfectly. This is why I don't expect modern SSAs(however defined) to be the same as prehistoric SSAs.

---

quote:

---

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) usually taken as an indication of populations that have passed through ‘‘recent’’ demographic expansion [33], although in this case, may in fact be considered a sign of extended shared history of in situ evolution where alleles are exchanged between neighboring demes [34].

• Figure S1 Neighbor joining (NJ). NJ tree of the world populations based on MT-CO2 sequences. The evolutionary relationship of 171 sequences and evolutionary history was inferred using the Neighbor-Joining method. The optimal tree with the sum of branch length = 0.20401570 is shown. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Maximum Composite Likelihood method and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. Codon positions included were 1st+2nd+3rd+Noncoding. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated from the dataset. There were a total of 543 positions in the final dataset. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted in MEGA4. Red dots: east Africa, Blue: Africa, Green: Asia, Yellow: Australia, Pink: Europe and gray: America. (TIF)

• Figure S2 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 2nd and 3rd coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 nuclear microsatellite loci from 469 individuals of 24 world populations. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. 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.
  (TIF)

• Figure S3 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 3rd and 4th coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite loci, across the human genome in 469 individuals from 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. 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.
  (TIF)

Figure 4. Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). A. First and second coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite Marshfield data set across the human genome for 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS plot was constructed from pairwise differences FST generated by Arlequin program (Table S3). B. First and second coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite loci, across the human genome in 469 individuals from 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. East Africans cluster to the left of the plot, while Beja (red cluster in the middle), assumes intermediate position. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097674.g004

• Figure S4 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). First and second coordinates of an MDS plot based on MT-CO2 data set constructed from pairwise differences FST generated by Arlequin v3.11. Population code as follows: Nara: Nar, Kunama (Kun), Hidarb (Hid), Afar (Afa), Saho (Sah), Bilen (Bil), Tigre (Tgr), Tigrigna (Tig), Rashaida (Rsh), Nilotics (Nil), Beja (Bej), Ethiopians(Eth), Egyptians (Egy), Moroccans (Mor), Southern Africans (Sth), Pygmy (Pyg), Saudi Arabia (Sdi), Asia (Asi), Europe (Eur), Native Americans (NA), Australians (Ast), Nubians (Nub), Nuba (Nba)
  (TIF)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Ok. But none of this sub-structure existed Pleistocene?

I have no problem recognising a sub-Saharan African biological cluster throughout the Pleistocene. What happens if you look at the fossil record at that time is there are no morphotypes like "Negroid", "Bushmenoid" etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
sudaniya is this true?

quote:

---

Originally posted by the questioner:

,,. every African tribe west of the Nile claim their ancestors are from the east

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Ok. But none of this sub-structure existed Pleistocene?

I have no problem recognising a sub-Saharan African biological cluster throughout the Pleistocene. What happens if you look at the fossil record at that time is there are no morphotypes like "Negroid", "Bushmenoid" etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
And who said anything I said was unique to Afrocentrics, Ive been debating Eurocentrics/White Racialists even before I joined ES in 2007 and still am on their BS but the moment I or Swenet or anyone else bucks the trend over here, posters here who pretend like they are some scholarly intellectual powerhouse who are unbiased and only here to rectify racism suddenly come out the wood works and start crying foul.

And thankyou for confirming what I believed, if the topic here isnt s@hitting on Whitey in some fashion, or proclaiming superiority of "black" culture over white culture, the majority of people will not only not care but will turn around and accuse me of being white in some shape or form. I never once said the influence went one way, but you took it upon yourself to defend against it, how odd. Like I said, not interested in learning or African history at all..smh and this is just history/language I can just Imagine the hell Swenet and Beyoku been catching over DNA...smdh

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
^^^See and thats the problem. but the thing is I dont think most of them are doing it intentionally, I think most of them have been in the ES echo chamber for so long they dont get why you are breaking the mold on here so to speak, but there is a select few who know full well and are very deceptive, acting like they are oppressed by white Europeans but will shout "White Devil this and that" and dedicate threads to racially degrade white people, . Ironically these are the very same people who will scream "AFRICAN DIVERSITY!!! AFRICANS ARE THE MOST DIVERSE ON THE PLANET!!! When the opposition does the VERY SAME Eyeball racial based tactics they employ. IF they're going to be religious about it, stop pretending that they are some objective unbiased scholars trying to rectify the distortions to history by the "Evil" white European. Stop acting like you dont believe in race or that you care about African history for African history, because you dont, all you care about is sticking it to whitey and some Pan African non-sense wet dream. Honestly they remind me of Creationists, I recenly went on a creation FB page that attacked Bill Nye for not being a "REAL" scientist but an Engineer due to his degree. Out of the Hundreds of thousand echo-chamber attacks on Nye not ONE attacked his arguments only his character. Its sad tbh, I love this place, I built memories here and made friends but now Im thinking, damn was I this bad as well??

I came here wanting to post info that Ive recently discovered of the links of Medieval Nubia and Axum to the Classical World, something that is ignored in Mainstream history and Africana alike, that Axum and Nubia were CLASSICAL, I.E GREEK SPEAKING(Lingua Franca) and Influenced Cultures, but I doubt many here would want to hear that, Something like that isnt the "Africans were more superior to Whitey European" narrative many here seem to only care about, hell it implies that the Greeks were so influential and respected that their language was adopted in places where very few Greeks visited let alone lived or colonized.....****, thats so disruptive to the narrative here they'd just call me a white person or Hamiticist if I dared showed that the Greeks had influence in Ancient Africa as far as Axum. I guess Ill go to historum or somewhere else, IDK

---

Influence goes both ways and it would not be a probem if Greco-Roman influence is shown in tandem with ancient Egyptian influence on Minoan, Phoenician, Greek and Roman civilizations.

There are racialistic cults all over the net, so let's not pretend that your criticisms are unique to 'Afrocentrics'.

---

---

You're being far too defencive and lashing out against someone that does not at all fit the mold of the Afrocentrics that you *rightly* criticise.


Have I ever shown myself to be a black supremacist? Have I ever said anything hateful about "whitey"?

I have mocked and criticised Clyde and his many deranged disciples and Mike has responded by desperaging me as yet anothe clueless African.

I have absolutely no problem with discussions on Greco-Roman influence on any African civilization. All civilizations influence each other.

---

---

I should have worded my response a little differently, because I truly was trying to say that all sides in this contest for history are all precisely like you described - cultish.

There are none that are even remotely objective. What is found here is also found on Forumbiodiversity and other such websites. Humans are inherently tribal and consequently will not see reason if they feel that their tribe is being assailed in some form or another.



I did not accuse you of being white, nor did I accuse you of being a sell-out. I merely wanted to bring some context, although it may have come across to you that I was specifically admonishing you.

The Greco-Roman civilizations influenced innumerable other civilizations and African kingdoms are no exception. We already know that ancient Egypt also had profound imfluence on multiple civilizations within and outside Africa -- the Greco-Roman civilization included.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.

---

The thing is, I have a few questions:

1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?

2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Certain African tribes in THOSE DAYS were known to produce clans with noticeable amounts of lighter skin. Hell many still do, though we do not know if the rates of production are similar.

---

Talbot & Mulhall (1962) didn't use colorimetric tiles like the Luschan-scale, so their visual assessment is more subjective; I mentioned this in another thread. However, they recognised three skin colour categories: "light" (as yellowish to light-brown), "medium" (as medium-brown), and "dark" (as chocolate-brown to near jet-black). Presumably the latter is Coon's (1939) "chocolate brown class"; Luschan # 29-36 tiles, i.e. black skin.



As expected with a single exception (Ngwa), all these western SSA tribes/ethnic groups have 70% black skin (and several of them >80%), which is why on average these populations are black in pigmentation. I'm simply not interested in anything other than the mean as a typical value, or in this case a mode statistic; the majority of individuals of each west SSA tribe in Talbot & Mulhall (1962) are black skinned. So why do you have a fantasy that these peoples are commonly light brown? Even the exceptional tribe (Ngwa), have a majority of black skinned individuals (56%). The percentage of "light" skin colour in nearly all these tribes is extremely low to negligible, in some it is 0%. While the Ngwa supposedly have 19% of yellowish to light-brown skin shades, none of the other Igbo tribes do and 19% is still low. It means less than 1/5 individuals of this tribe have yellowish to light-brown skin.

In the other thread I noted since Talbot & Mulhall didn't use colorimetric tiles, many individuals they classified as "light" could fall in the "medium brown" range of Luschan tiles. Assuming though Talbot & Mulhall's visual assessment is accurate in the sense it corresponds closely with Luschan's tiles, what it shows is light brown skin as a whole is extremely rare across western SSA. Instead you're distorting this data to bizarrely argue light brown pigmentation was/is common across western SSA.

---

There are Nigerian people in London, all over London. There is a large Black British population in East London, Brixton.

Go over there and tell them that. I will read the backend story on how it ended in The Guardian or The Observer.


I am not interested in white rightwing eugenic evolutions on black people.

And on that note, I say good bye.





http://www.africanexaminer.com/ngwa-monarchs-endorse-abaribe-as-sole-abia-south-senate-candidate/





http://www.africanexaminer.com/opinion-the-sphinx-of-violence-by-owei-lakemfa/
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ish, dont take this the wrong way, but I dont think my answers to you would lead to anything productive. Ive had a similar experience with you that didnt lead anywhere and was more confusing to me than anything. It might be your style of debate..idk.

Dont get me wrong I respect you and your contributions, I also find your relationship/fueds with Lioness entertaining to say the least, and trust me Ive used your stuff countless times even very recently, so please dont take it as disrespect

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.

---

The thing is, I have a few questions:

1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?

2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Actually, in the field of eurocentrism modern day humans only evolved outside of Africa. This is why the had the evolution going from Ape to European, with exclusion of Africans and Australians as being primitive, unevolved / even non-human. This is why eurocentrism is fighting for a multi-regional theory, hence Cass. I have spend a good amount of time in extreme right-wing circles to find out these things. The mindset, the hate. lol smh

---

The Multiregional model isn't "Eurocentric" dummy. It doesn't argue anatomical modernity was exclusive to Europe, or any one region for that matter. It doesn't play into politics like the OOA theory.

Just imagine if most scientists in the west were currently saying anatomically modern humans came from Europe, not East Africa. How many black posters here would accept this model? So please don't tell me OOA isn't political. The only reason black Africans support it is because its in their political interests.

---

Eurocentricks don't except the single region. Eurocentricks purpose a
multi-regional theory. So it's a Eurocentrick ideology.


At one time there was a period, when the claim was that modern man arose from Europe and spread from there into other parts of the world. But it doesn't fly since Europe was FROZEN COLD Ice Age (first a large then a little Ice Age. The OoA is stable for many reasons, such as genetically older people in Africa; anatomically older people in Africa; older industries in Africa precursor to those outside of Africa etc… DUMMY!


And on that note I day good bye:
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
@ Ish Gebor

If you have a problem with white people, a chip on your shoulder (moaning non-stop about "white racism") why choose to surround yourself with white people? Laughably no black poster from this forum actually lives in Sub-Saharan Africa, they are either living in UK, France, Netherlands or the US.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Ish Gebor

If you have a problem with white people, a chip on your shoulder (moaning non-stop about "white racism") why choose to surround yourself with white people? Laughably no black poster from this forum actually lives in Sub-Saharan Africa, they are either living in UK, France, Netherlands or the US.

---

How do you get from your idiotic rant to me having a problem with white people? lol


I have friends from all ethnic backgrounds, unlike you and your gibberish EUGENIC theories. White supremacy has done enough harm as is.

You cry about something some posters write with extreme views, on extreme theories, because of extreme experiences with whites. But those are like childish compared to what eugenics / eurocentrism has done to the world, for centuries embarking a white supremacy ideology is not wrong to you, it is perfectly okay.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
All the OoA expats genetic base came from
a north or east African people, IE; a regional
or local set of genes.

At that time and since then different regions
or localities in Africa with different variations
in drift and founder effect and yes bottleneckso
made different genetic patterns more common
to specific peoples or in specific places.


Does this help you any at all or did I make it worse?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Ok. But none of this sub-structure existed Pleistocene?

I have no problem recognising a sub-Saharan African biological cluster throughout the Pleistocene. What happens if you look at the fossil record at that time is there are no morphotypes like "Negroid", "Bushmenoid" etc.

---

Definitely deep structure must have existed in the Pleistocene. Not the same structure as is now, but the ingredients of it. Physical types I couldn't tell you, maybe they have evolved recently for all I know.

---

quote:

---

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages of macro-haplogroup L (excluding the derived L3 branches M and N) represent the majority of the typical sub-Saharan mtDNA variability. In Europe, these mtDNAs account for <1% of the total but, when analyzed at the level of control region, they show no signals of having evolved within the European continent, an observation that is compatible with a recent arrival from the African continent. To further evaluate this issue, we analyzed 69 mitochondrial genomes belonging to various L sublineages from a wide range of European populations. Phylogeographic analyses showed that ~65% of the European L lineages most likely arrived in rather recent historical times, including the Romanization period, the Arab conquest of the Iberian Peninsula and Sicily, and during the period of the Atlantic slave trade. However, the remaining 35% of L mtDNAs form European-specific subclades, revealing that there was gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa toward Europe as early as 11,000 yr ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Oshun sets up the same straw man.

If "SSA's were one thing", then physical anthropologists wouldn't have distinguished 'Bushmenoids' (Coon's "Capoids")from 'Negroids' and so on for the past century or more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by capra:

Geneticists don't actually think SSA is one thing, that's just a strawman. For instance if you look at the recent Laziridis paper on first farmers when looking for SSA affinity in Natufians they used 4 SSA references: Mota (Ethiopia), San (Namibia iirc), Mbuti (DRC), and Yoruba (Nigeria).

---

Oshun sets up the same straw man.

If "SSA's were one thing", then physical anthropologists wouldn't have distinguished 'Bushmenoids' (Coon's "Capoids")from 'Negroids' and so on for the past century or more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capoid_race
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid

^ Did the above never happen? Did Carleton Coon never exist? [/QB]

---

Now up to the next debunk.

Tell, are there intermediate ethnic groups to the two groups, you and your eugenic god Carleton Coon proposed? Here is your chance to show how awesome your knowledge is on African ethnography.


This is going to be fun …
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
@Oshun
Its the opposite really, treating SSA as its own genetic group helps OOA's better recognize fine scale population structure for the very fact that SSA's are diverse and heterogenous. The problem is using a single SSA population as the end all representation of all SSA.

The next problem is defining SSA, for example, let's say a post bottleneck population isolated from the ancestors of contemporary Eurasian populations introgressed with a currently identified SSA group like Yorubans but not any other non ssa population. When we sequence them there's no mtdna L, no Yhap E3a, A, B and little E1a and E3b maybe an F or so, and they show some autosomal affinity to near eastern & North Africans. Would we consider this a SSAn population?

Or what if we find a population with basal mtdna L and Yhap E/CT but no-little modern SSA affinity BELOW the Sahara, will that ancient group be considered SSA?

These things are possibilities but how things are right now not much non-Africans would care. SSA being treated as a singular roll group is a quick and dirty way to measure recent genetic exchange.

--oh damn--
Didn't notice I was replying in this **** thread. No shade to Brandon.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
@ Oshun

SSA is not a valid biological construct, but the entire African continent is? Got to love these pan-Africanist loons. Your whole agenda from day 1 since being here has been to stop people differentiating North Africans from populations below the Sahara as part of your pan-African politics, hence also why you politicalize the word "black" to cover the whole continent.

Anyway, if you look at the Koppen climate map, the vast majority of SSA is humid-heat: blue and green shades on map:


~ That is more or less the "Negroid" or "Broad African" geographical zone in Coon (1962), Baker (1974), Hiernaux (1975) etc.
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Ish here is the thread where a similar situation occurred..
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009453;p=2

Again I doubt this conversation will be productive and thus I really have no interest to go down that road...sorry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ish, dont take this the wrong way, but I dont think my answers to you would lead to anything productive. Ive had a similar experience with you that didnt lead anywhere and was more confusing to me than anything. It might be your style of debate..idk.

Dont get me wrong I respect you and your contributions, I also find your relationship/fueds with Lioness entertaining to say the least, and trust me Ive used your stuff countless times even very recently, so please dont take it as disrespect

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.

---

The thing is, I have a few questions:

1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?

2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?

---

---

I am not sure we ever debated, unless you posted with a pseudo name. But I am asking your opinion or rather spread of knowledge on the subject. After all, it was you who mentioned it.

So can you please elaborate…

1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?

2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Oshun

SSA is not a valid biological construct, but the entire African continent is? Got to love these pan-Africanist loons. Your whole agenda from day 1 since being here has been to stop people differentiating North Africans from populations below the Sahara as part of your pan-African politics, hence also why you politicalize the word "black" to cover the whole continent.

Anyway, if you look at the Koppen climate map, the vast majority of SSA is humid-heat: blue and green shades on map:


~ That is more or less the "Negroid" or "Broad African" geographical zone in Coon (1962), Baker (1974), Hiernaux (1975) etc.

---

quote:

---

"Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa's Evolution"


"Radiocarbon data from 150 archaeological excavations in the now hyper-arid Eastern Sahara of Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Chad reveal close links between climatic variations and prehistoric occupation during the past 12,000 years. Synoptic multiple-indicator views for major time slices demonstrate the transition from initial settlement after the sudden onset of humid conditions at 8500 B.C.E. to the exodus resulting from gradual desiccation since 5300 B.C.E. Southward shifting of the desert margin helped trigger the emergence of pharaonic civilization along the Nile, influenced the spread of pastoralism throughout the continent, and affects sub-Saharan Africa to the present day."

---

quote:

---

Desiccation of the Sahara since the middle Holocene has eradicated all but a few natural archives recording its transition from a "green Sahara" to the present hyperarid desert. Our continuous 6000-year paleoenvironmental reconstruction from northern Chad shows progressive drying of the regional terrestrial ecosystem in response to weakening insolation forcing of the African monsoon and abrupt hydrological change in the local aquatic ecosystem controlled by site-specific thresholds. Strong reductions in tropical trees and then Sahelian grassland cover allowed large-scale dust mobilization from 4300 calendar years before the present (cal yr B.P.). Today's desert ecosystem and regional wind regime were established around 2700 cal yr B.P. This gradual rather than abrupt termination of the African Humid Period in the eastern Sahara suggests a relatively weak biogeophysical feedback on climate.

---

—Kröpelin S et al.

Science. 2008 May 9;320(5877):765-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1154913.
Climate-driven ecosystem succession in the Sahara: the past 6000 years.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18467583


You are a comedian at best.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
Baker, 1974-


 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ish here is the thread where a similar situation occurred..
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009453;p=2

Again I doubt this conversation will be productive and thus I really have no interest to go down that road...sorry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ish, dont take this the wrong way, but I dont think my answers to you would lead to anything productive. Ive had a similar experience with you that didnt lead anywhere and was more confusing to me than anything. It might be your style of debate..idk.

Dont get me wrong I respect you and your contributions, I also find your relationship/fueds with Lioness entertaining to say the least, and trust me Ive used your stuff countless times even very recently, so please dont take it as disrespect

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.

---

The thing is, I have a few questions:

1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?

2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?

---

---

I am not sure we ever debated, unless you posted with a pseudo name. But I am asking your opinion or rather spread of knowledge on the subject. After all, it was you who mentioned it.

So can you please elaborate…

1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?

2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
Baker, 1974-

http://oi39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/mapforNegrids.jpg

---

Dude you are desperate, with all this eurocentrick nonsense you are posting here. Even your map says unclassified tribes. And this is for obvious reasons.

You hardly understand who lives where on the plateau.

And Fulbe go from East to West all over the Sahel. You dumb box of eurocentrick rocks.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[QB] Ish here is the thread where a similar situation occurred..
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009453;p=2

Again I doubt this conversation will be productive and thus I really have no interest to go down that road...sorry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
All the OoA expats genetic base came from
a north or east African people, IE; a regional
or local set of genes.

At that time and since then different regions
or localities in Africa with different variations
in drift and founder effect and yes bottleneckso
made different genetic patterns more common
to specific peoples or in specific places.


Does this help you any at all or did I make it worse?

---

Still left a little confused. Sorry I wanted to give myself a few times to read it over before commenting. I think I get the idea of bottlenecks and founder effects. It's just that if genetic differences within SSA are as large as global comparissons to two OOA groups, I don't see how the label of SSA as a grouping with genetic support is a well founded idea.

P.S: I'm not saying all of academia does this. It just seems that there are people with sociopolitical interest that use the term SSA and want to make their political distinctions rooted in biological fact. That or they've heard it so many times it's normal for them to think in that direction without pondering it.

---

 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Again this isnt about manning up or me forwarding something(Please show me where I mentioned or "Forwarded" anything in those vague odd questions you're asking) Its about my past history with you in a very similar situation. Case In point if you go back to the thread I never said a damn thing about the Berber confederation I was specific to a people(The Bidane Maurs) and Place(of Mauritania) and even after asking your questions you kept up your wack-a-mole bait tactics when you could have simply stated your case like you just did here months after the conversation. Again I dont see anything productive out of conversing with you about this, esp. given the vague nature of your questions which had nothing to do with anything Ive said....

Sorry but Insanity is defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results, Im not Insane so Im not going down a very similar path with you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ish here is the thread where a similar situation occurred..
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009453;p=2

Again I doubt this conversation will be productive and thus I really have no interest to go down that road...sorry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ish, dont take this the wrong way, but I dont think my answers to you would lead to anything productive. Ive had a similar experience with you that didnt lead anywhere and was more confusing to me than anything. It might be your style of debate..idk.

Dont get me wrong I respect you and your contributions, I also find your relationship/fueds with Lioness entertaining to say the least, and trust me Ive used your stuff countless times even very recently, so please dont take it as disrespect

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The thing is I dont think you are doing it on purpose, hell I dont deny you do everything you say and more but it is odd that you had to bring up the influence of Nubia and Axum on Greece and then Implied that Im giving targeting Afrocentrics.

---

The thing is, I have a few questions:

1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?

2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?

---

---

I am not sure we ever debated, unless you posted with a pseudo name. But I am asking your opinion or rather spread of knowledge on the subject. After all, it was you who mentioned it.

So can you please elaborate…

1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?

2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?

---

---

That was another subject. And it was indeed a bit weird to claims things about people you have never met in your entire lifetime.

The Berber confederation is too complex for internet lurkers to comprehend. This is why you couldn't answer a simple question on this ethnography.


Anyway this question here is based on something you for forwarded, and I like for you to elaborate on this.


I mean there aren't a lot of options here in the end. I mean you're either right or wrong.


So please man up and adress what you bolstered on earlier on:


1) What is the history and root of Eurocentrism and White Racialism?

2) Did Eurocentrism and White Racialism had an influence and impact on science?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Oshun

SSA is not a valid biological construct, but the entire African continent is?

---

The entire continent of Africa is a valid geological construct. Saharan Africa is an ecosystem within that geological construct. To call someone an "African" simply means they have been adapting towards any of the various climates within it for generations. With respect to Egypt, throughout the course of it's history, and depending on what region you refer to, they were adapting to (or already had adaptions to) 2-4 ecological systems. As a whole, they were not just adapted to "the Sahara." Your claims strip the complexity of Egypt's ecological development with respect to location and time, to oversimplify things in favor of a political agenda. It's not technically wrong to say many of them were Saharan. But it's also not wrong to say many upper Egyptians lived in Sahel like conditions during early periods. Coastal Egyptians in the Delta were living in an environment that was probably different than either Sahel or Sahara. They also had tropical adaptations.



I've considered if Africa can be understood as a valid biological construct beyond the review of technical adaptation to any of it's ecosystems. I'm still not really so sure about that. In fact I'm not so sure about SSA as a genetic cluster let alone all of Africa. But this is deflection tactics at it's finest. What does this have to do with the fact you persistently justified SSA to be valid beyond a sociopolitical construct? SSA is not a valid geological construct, nor an ecological one. You can continue to show me attempts of anthropologists who've attempted to make classifications of humans within SSA. That does not support SSA as a cluster however, which I'm not sure you're understanding.

quote:

---

Got to love these pan-Africanist loons. Your whole agenda from day 1 since being here has been to stop people differentiating North Africans from populations below the Sahara as part of your pan-African politics, hence also why you politicalize the word "black" to cover the whole continent.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, if you look at the Koppen climate map, the vast majority of SSA is humid-heat: blue and green shades on map:


~ That is more or less the "Negroid" or "Broad African" geographical zone in Coon (1962), Baker (1974), Hiernaux (1975) etc.

---

Trying hard to justify SSA as a valid construct for your political interests.


Politically Egypt = black has already been over for a long time, especially in the U.S. People labeled black have features they see (and are judged for) in the average ancient Egyptian. People labeled black have Eurasian ancestry. Having OOA ancestry does not mean people aren't relegated to being treated as black. Not that it matters because no one really checks for genes to decide race. Racists may try to attach races to genes and to imply certain lineages can be racialized and have "genetic racial disorders", but they don't judge based on objective genetic reality. There are genuine genetic abnormalities that can impair people physically or mentally. You can find those abnormalities reviewing genetic material (like Down Syndrome). "Black" as a racist "genetic disorder" has no genetic data to support who has whatever problems they're attaching to "blackness." Race is based on how you look and the many phobic stupidities that people have over appearances. For people being judged as black in this manner, Egypt is proof of black history, black capability and achievement. This is why every time race is injected into conversation we see so many image dumps. It's not scientific, it's stereotypes based on visuals.

The only questions that are left to explore about Egypt are for those people who are have questions that lie outside of how where these people fit within modern social constructs.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Say it loud, I'm Sub Saharan and proud....
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Again this isnt about manning up or me forwarding something(Please show me where I mentioned or "Forwarded" anything in those vague odd questions you're asking) Its about my past history with you in a very similar situation. Case In point if you go back to the thread I never said a damn thing about the Berber confederation I was specific to a people (The Bidane Maurs) and Place(of Mauritania) and even after asking your questions you kept up your wack-a-mole bait tactics when you could have simply stated your case like you just did here months after the conversation. Again I dont see anything productive out of conversing with you about this, esp. given the vague nature of your questions which had nothing to do with anything Ive said....

Sorry but Insanity is defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results, Im not Insane so Im not going down a very similar path with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Ive been debating Eurocentrics/White Racialists even before I joined ES in 2007

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
[QB] Ish here is the thread where a similar situation occurred..
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009453;p=2

Again I doubt this conversation will be productive and thus I really have no interest to go down that road...sorry.

---

That push back comes from an agenda people won't acknowledge they have. You can see that push back in all threads with information deemed threatening to the faith-based narrative. Visit the Natufian thread and you will see people trying push back against Natufian aDNA. Visit threads about Taforalt mtDNA and you will see people trying to reclassify Taforalt haplotype motifs as mtDNA L lineages. The push back movement is real. And it's usually based on wishful thinking and incompetence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Actually, in the field of eurocentrism modern day humans only evolved outside of Africa. This is why the had the evolution going from Ape to European, with exclusion of Africans and Australians as being primitive, unevolved / even non-human. This is why eurocentrism is fighting for a multi-regional theory, hence Cass. I have spend a good amount of time in extreme right-wing circles to find out these things. The mindset, the hate. lol smh

---

The Multiregional model isn't "Eurocentric" dummy. It doesn't argue anatomical modernity was exclusive to Europe, or any one region for that matter. It doesn't play into politics like the OOA theory.

Just imagine if most scientists in the west were currently saying anatomically modern humans came from Europe, not East Africa. How many black posters here would accept this model? So please don't tell me OOA isn't political. The only reason black Africans support it is because its in their political interests.

---

Eurocentricks don't except the single region. Eurocentricks purpose a
multi-regional theory. So it's a Eurocentrick ideology.


At one time there was a period, when the claim was that modern man arose from Europe and spread from there into other parts of the world. But it doesn't fly since Europe was FROZEN COLD Ice Age (first a large then a little Ice Age. The OoA is stable for many reasons, such as genetically older people in Africa; anatomically older people in Africa; older industries in Africa precursor to those outside of Africa etc… DUMMY!


And on that note I day good bye:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Say it loud, I'm Sub Saharan and proud....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Eurocentric means exactly what it says: Everything in history is centered on Europe. Whatever happened before Europe or outside of Europe doesn't count. And the reason why this is important is because it reinforces the idea that in the present day and into the future the only people doing anything worthwhile are and will be Europeans. Nobody else counts except in their relationships to Europeans.

---

quote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The problem is that this ideology is false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
This is why Europeans must fight hard to destroy Afrocentrism and independent African scholarship, because it destroys their mythology ideology that is all based on lies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The point here is that they must discredit independent African scholarship because it is the biggest threat to their house of cards.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
That is the original Egyptsearch I remember not some single monolithic cult like group. In the past there were strong minded folks with their own opinions and perspectives and nobody was trying to play follow the leader and be on other folks bandwagon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@Oshun
Its the opposite really, treating SSA as its own genetic group helps OOA's better recognize fine scale population structure for the very fact that SSA's are diverse and heterogenous. The problem is using a single SSA population as the end all representation of all SSA.

---

But that happens because SSA is creating a singular label that makes it easy to assume a single population is representational. That was the intention for political, social, and economic interests. It does not appear to translate well to science. Do genetics have ecological or geographic barriers? Otherwise I don't understand why SSA would be a proper term instead of Non-OOA African, or something that allows for comparison of the diversity of Africans not genetically linked to OOA (regardless of where they live).
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
@ Oshun



Not sure why you think SSA isn't a valid ecological label/division, when humid-heat climate covers the vast majority of land below the Saharan desert, notice all the green on the map (moderate to high annual precipitation levels.) The exceptions are the Horn of Africa, small pockets of East Africa and the Kalahari desert that are dry (very low precipitation.)

Look at Fig 4. in the following study (Beals et al. 1984) where it shows most of SSA as "wet heat".
http://syslearn.oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

Also compare the above map, Koppen climate map, and what I posted from Baker (1974), they all match each other near perfect; the "Negroid" morphotype is circumscribed by the humid-heat (wet-heat) climatic zone.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:


Do genetics have ecological or geographic barriers? Otherwise I don't understand why SSA would be a proper term instead of Non-OOA African, or something that allows for comparison of the diversity of Africans not genetically linked to OOA (regardless of where they live).

---

Rarely but at times the contrast I use is
• stay at home African
vs
• outbound African.

The former of course still exist but technically
the latter disappeared back in the Middle Stone
Ages as outbound Africans developed some
new phenotypes, new SNPs, and new STR
combinations leading to human varieties
that never existed in Africa. No need to call
these new people any kind of African. They
are Asians, Europeans, and their offshoots.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
We've already been over this sh!t Cass
First let's blow up the map he's talking about:

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

When you evaluate Africa there are several ecological constructs, not two. Why would people from the other several ecosystems be characterized as one unit ("Sub Saharan") though their ecosystems are unique as well?

---

Stop with the straw man arguments. I've never said there is a single Sub-Saharan African climatic/eco-zone, but the complete opposite.

---

You defend the use of "Sub Saharan" which provides the illusion of a singular eco-zone outside of the Sahara.

quote:

---

This is just the stupid straw man you made, I've covered it like 10 times... When we discuss Sub-Saharan Africa, no one is saying those different climatic/eco-zones cluster together; look at the Koppen climate map.

---

Later he says ...

quote:

---

Ok..., so next time I distinguish between Saharans and other regional populations, I will have to list half-a-dozen (or more!) separate climatic-zones, instead of convenience just saying Sub-Saharan Africa.

---

The Koppen-climate map doesn't mean people are describing Africans by the different environments they live in. It doesn't mean the word "Sub Saharan" in language magically describes the different ecosystems on similar terms. Many people don't even know about that map but they know what SSA is. SSA is used as a political construct to suggest there is one people and one ecology in Africa south of the Sahara. If you don't have a problem with a place as large and diverse as SSA being described under one label, you have little claim to then demand it for the Sahara because you suddenly care about distances and diversity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:


Do genetics have ecological or geographic barriers? Otherwise I don't understand why SSA would be a proper term instead of Non-OOA African, or something that allows for comparison of the diversity of Africans not genetically linked to OOA (regardless of where they live).

---

Rarely but at times the contrast I use is
• stay at home African
vs
• outbound African.

The former of course still exist but technically
the latter disappeared back in the Middle Stone
Ages as outbound Africans developed some
new phenotypes, new SNPs, and new STR
combinations leading to human varieties
that never existed in Africa. No need to call
these new people any kind of African. They
are Asians, Europeans, and their offshoots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Oshun



Not sure why you think SSA isn't a valid ecological label/division, when humid-heat climate covers the vast majority of land below the Saharan desert, notice all the green on the map (moderate to high annual precipitation levels.) The exceptions are the Horn of Africa, small pockets of East Africa and the Kalahari desert that are dry (very low precipitation.)

Look at Fig 4. in the following study (Beals et al. 1984) where it shows most of SSA as "wet heat".
http://syslearn.oregonstate.edu/instruction/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

Also compare the above map, Koppen climate map, and what I posted from Baker (1974), they all match each other near perfect; the "Negroid" morphotype is circumscribed by the humid-heat (wet-heat) climatic zone.

---

quote:

---

The study on the partial calvarium discovered at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel (dated to 54.7 ± 5.5 kyr BP, Hershkovitz et al. 2015), revealed close morphological affinity with recent African skulls as well as with early Upper Paleolithic European skulls, but less so with earlier anatomically modern humans from the Levant (e.g., Skhul). The ongoing fieldwork at the Manot Cave has resulted in the discovery of several new hominin teeth. These include a lower incisor (I1), a right lower first deciduous molar (dm1), a left upper first deciduous molar (dm1) and an upper second molar (M2) all from area C (>32 kyr) and a right upper second molar (M2) from area E (>36 kyr). The current study presents metric and morphological data on the new Manot Cave teeth. These new data combined with our already existing knowledge on the Manot skull may provide an important insight on the Upper Paleolithic population of the Levant, its origin and dietary habits.

---

—Author(s): Rachel Sarig ; Ofer Marder ; Omry Barzilai ; Bruce Latimer ; Israel Hershkovitz

The Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Manot Cave: the dental perspective (Year: 2017)

http://core.tdar.org/document/431657/the-upper-paleolithic-inhabitants-of-manot-cave-the-dental-perspective
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Also...didn't he post this?



If this is not tryna say that there were differing adaptions being made among people south of the Sahara I'm not sure how this is relevant to the conversation. Well, I grasp how he's trying to spin it, but it would still seem that the source he's trying to place here is making distinctions within SSA. SSA is very large and vast and has several ecosystems. It's ridiculous how he can try to insist grouping people as "SSA" but whines about the distance between north Africa to the Sahel.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
So now what of the home coming Africans,
ie, outbound Africans who came back only
a step or two removed from the way they
were before they left.

Regional isolation due to Arid Ages (Ice Ages)
concentrated the local differences in the tiny
far northwest in a way unlike other places
that had greater variety before extreme
aridity isolated the northwesterners.

Even though those not 'trapped' in the far NW
could and did intermingle, phenotype and
genetic concentrations don't allow for
any monolithic designation outside
the NW as witness
• Shorties
• Sans
• others
aren't a single sub-continental human monolith.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:


Do genetics have ecological or geographic barriers? Otherwise I don't understand why SSA would be a proper term instead of Non-OOA African, or something that allows for comparison of the diversity of Africans not genetically linked to OOA (regardless of where they live).

---

Rarely but at times the contrast I use is
• stay at home African
vs
• outbound African.

The former of course still exist but technically
the latter disappeared back in the Middle Stone
Ages as outbound Africans developed some
new phenotypes, new SNPs, and new STR
combinations leading to human varieties
that never existed in Africa. No need to call
these new people any kind of African. They
are Asians, Europeans, and their offshoots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
The only one treating SSA as a single biological unit are Swenet and these geneticists.

I remember when my mtDNA, L4b2, was not counted as sub-Saharan because at that time only L1 and L2 were counted as sub-Saharan because of the Hpal 3592np mutation being present in L1 and L2

---

quote:

---

African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).

Within Africa, the most private alleles were in southern Africa, reflecting those in southern African Khoesan (SAK) San and !Xun/Khwe populations (fig. S6C) (12).

Eastern and Saharan Africans shared the most alleles absent from other African populations examined (fig. S6D).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
The only one treating SSA as a single biological unit are Swenet and these geneticists.

I remember when my mtDNA, L4b2, was not counted as sub-Saharan because at that time only L1 and L2 were counted as sub-Saharan because of the Hpal 3592np mutation being present in L1 and L2

---

So, why happened? Why did they changed it and how was it changed.

I mean it created a direct conflict of interest.

Btw

quote:

---

African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations (fig. S6B).

Within Africa, the most private alleles were in southern Africa, reflecting those in southern African Khoesan (SAK) San and !Xun/Khwe populations (fig. S6C) (12).

Eastern and Saharan Africans shared the most alleles absent from other African populations examined (fig. S6D).

---

—Sarah A. Tishkoff,
The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans

---

Nothing happened. It is the same game they have been playing all along. But now they are using genetics to push the idea of "Sub Saharan" ghettos where "true Africans" have always been isolated at. This is partly being done by mislabeling the close relationship between certain Africans and non Africans as evidence of "back migration". Sure some back migration and mixture has occurred but a lot of that relationship is due to the Africans being ancestral to all other humans. But they are purposely distorting this relationship in order to make the back migration more important and significant within the history of African genetic history and downplaying the significance of the African basis of Eurasian genes both during and After OOA. So it is pure hypocrisy and double standards the same as always but now using genetics.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
idk if Swenet is trying to say L lineages are a singular group. But it seems like there are people out there who want to racialize haplogroups or other forms of genetic data. There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier, but that doesn't really support the Egypt = "True negro haplogroup" position either. Egyptians aren't going to be any closer genetically to diaspora Africans through clustering people by ecosystems instead of where they live in the Sahara. It might on the whole provide a greater proximity for some East Africans (who wouldn't be expected to be averaged with other Africans) but I don't think much else. It's just my position that SSA isn't very valid beyond a sociopolitical concept.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Wait... so, how did my name and posts get involved in this notion of L lineages being a singular group? I've literally never heard anyone say this. This position doesn't exist as an actual view held by people.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
They playing games. As if neither on of us ever talked about African substructure or the highly diverse phylogeny of L maternal lineages.

They really sitting up here with a straight face trying to argue that we think "Sub Saharan" is one distinct genetic Grouping.

I do remember coming down hard on Amun Ra with his 'all Africans were the same' before a specific admixture event. I also remember ES folks in his camp. They are projecting their own failure in assessing the data onto other folks. UNLESS that is, they are telling about Cass?
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt for now. But it's clear she's not addressing what people are actually saying. And she's doing it repeatedly.

Case in point:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
They playing games. As if neither on of us ever talked about African substructure or the highly diverse phylogeny of L maternal lineages.

They really sitting up here with a straight face trying to argue that we think "Sub Saharan" is one distinct genetic Grouping.

I do remember coming down hard on Amun Ra with his 'all Africans were the same' before a specific admixture event. I also remember ES folks in his camp. They are projecting their own failure in assessing the data onto other folks. UNLESS that is, they are telling about Cass?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier

---

You clearly haven't seen any maps of L4, E-M35, U6, M1, L6, etc. Apartheid is your word choice, but these haplogroups show a clear geography-based distribution pattern.

What do you call these largely uncorrelated distributions?





https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-12-234


 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
^I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt for now. But it's clear she's not addressing what people are actually saying. And she's doing it repeatedly.

Case in point:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier

---

It's easy to swap what people are actually saying (the genetic rift between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa being one of the most informative axes of variation in Africa), for something that's an easy target to take down, like "there was no apartheid as there was bi-directional migration".

This is simply another false dichotomy as these two aren't mutually exclusive. You can have bi-directional migration and substructure along the aforementioned lines.

---

If you read earlier what I said not agreeing that "Sub Saharan" is a valid construct does not mean I'm trying to weasel into the conversation that I believe that majority of people living below the Sahara are closely related and that they are genetically indistinguishable for North Africans. Saying "I believe people in zone (A: Sahara) has common genetic data that is different from genetic common to ecological zones BCDEFG instead of saying BCDEFG are a singular "zone B" doesn't mean the people living in zones BCDEFG are now more closely related to A. Unless the people living in areas BCDEFG are closely related, I don't see the point in labeling them as one zone, but that doesn't mean I'm saying they're closely related to A. I said that it wouldn't reduce distance. IDG what I said wrong...
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
Based on this the population origin is at East Africa, SSA. AKA the South.



Cruciani et al. 2007 use the term Northeastern Africa to refer to Egypt and Libya, as shown in Table 1 of the study. Prior to Cruciani et al. 2007, Semino et al. 2004 East Africa as a possible place of origin of E-M78, based upon Ethiopian testing. This was because of the high frequency and diversity of E-M78 lineages in the region of Ethiopia. However, Cruciani et al. 2007 were able to study more data, including populations from North Africa who were not represented in the Semino et al. 2004 study, and found evidence that the E-M78 lineages which make up a significant proportion of some populations in that region, were relatively young branches (see E-V32 below). They therefore concluded that "Northeast Africa" was the likely place of origin of E-M78 based on "the peripheral geographic distribution of the most derived subhaplogroups with respect to northeastern Africa, as well as the results of quantitative analysis of UEP and microsatellite diversity". So according to Cruciani et al. 2007 E-M35, the parent clade of E-M78, originated in East Africa, subsequently spread to Northeast Africa, and then there was a "back migration" of E-M215 chromosomes that had acquired the E-M78 mutation. Cruciani et al. 2007 therefore note this as evidence for "a corridor for bidirectional migrations" between Northeast Africa (Egypt and Libya in their data) on the one hand and East Africa on the other. The authors believe there were "at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago".

—wiki









—Sarah Tishkoff et al.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
idk if Swenet is trying to say L lineages are a singular group. But it seems like there are people out there who want to racialize haplogroups or other forms of genetic data. There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier, but that doesn't really support the Egypt = "True negro haplogroup" position either. Egyptians aren't going to be any closer genetically to diaspora Africans through clustering people by ecosystems instead of where they live in the Sahara. It might on the whole provide a greater proximity for some East Africans (who wouldn't be expected to be averaged with other Africans) but I don't think much else. It's just my position that SSA isn't very valid beyond a sociopolitical concept.

---

The point is SSA doesn't define "African" on any level: genetically, biologically or historically. So these papers where they compare populations in other parts of Africa to "SSA" are the problem because it implies or tries to suggest that "SSA" = "True African" and the other populations are therefore "less African", ie. "more mixed".

So those championing these papers are muddying the waters as to what specifically they are saying. Because they never say anything about the contradictions in that approach but constantly try and harp on whatever "inconsistencies" they can find everywhere else.

Again, if folks REALLY cared about the historic migrations of populations and haplogroups within Africa over the last 50,000 years they would filter out the Non African genes and focus on just the African ones. Somehow folks are perfectly fine with researchers doing this in Eurasia but somehow reject the same approach in Africa and would rather rely on broad generalizations and simplistic groupings instead. Like I said before, there is no Nordic vs Mediterranean in the Laziridis, et al papers.
 

---

Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
 
^ do you not understand how ADMIXTURE works? There SURELY is the differentiation of Eurasian/African groups in these studies. What do you think they have been doing with all of their ancient DNA studies?

What you are saying sounds as if you stepped out some ES time machine from 2010 and don't really know what is going on. We already brought up Pagani. What are you repeating the same argument when someone mentioned Pagani?
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
This is interesting:

Bahariyya E-V22 score = 21,95%





Mixed Ethiopiansa E-V22 score = 25.00%

—Fulvio Cruciani (2007)


Fulani E-V22 score = 27.2%

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.

--Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim

Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Also...didn't he post this?

If this is not tryna say that there were differing adaptions being made among people south of the Sahara I'm not sure how this is relevant to the conversation. Well, I grasp how he's trying to spin it, but it would still seem that the source he's trying to place here is making distinctions within SSA. SSA is very large and vast and has several ecosystems. It's ridiculous how he can try to insist grouping people as "SSA" but whines about the distance between north Africa to the Sahel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Also...didn't he post this?

If this is not tryna say that there were differing adaptions being made among people south of the Sahara I'm not sure how this is relevant to the conversation. Well, I grasp how he's trying to spin it, but it would still seem that the source he's trying to place here is making distinctions within SSA. SSA is very large and vast and has several ecosystems. It's ridiculous how he can try to insist grouping people as "SSA" but whines about the distance between north Africa to the Sahel.

---

You don't know what you're posting. I'm talking about climatic adaptation (ecology), not genetic distance (biology). Example: the genetic distance between populations across Europe is small, so if you look at the geographical extremes (Fst 0.0084 Swedes ~ Greeks), southern & northern Europeans are genetically close. However, there are clearly two distinct ecotypes - the "Mediterranean" and the "Nordic". The main phenotypic differences between these is pigmentation (skin & eye* colour), not skeletal; according to 20th physical anthropologists (Coon, Hooton, Cole etc.) "Nordics" are "depigmented Mediterraneans".

*"One reason why light eyes are geographically associated with dim light has been explained by the Nobel Prize winner George Wald. He found that blue- and gray-eyed people see more sharply over long distances than brown-eyed people do." (Coon, C. S. 1982. Racial Adaptations. p. 66) [so the climatic selection argument here is light eye colouration is favoruable in northern Europe that receives the lowest annual UV/sunlight levels.]

So my point about SSA is despite the much larger genetic distances between many populations there (10x what is observed in Europe), e.g. Fst 0.0851 Mbuti Pygmy ~ San (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994), that most of it has an ecotype adapted to the humid-heat (and high UV), the so-called "Negroid" with broad nose, black skin and dark eyes. As Roberts (1976) wrote in a book review of Jean Hiernaux's People of Africa (1975), the ecotype classifications of Hiernaux closely match the old racial boundaries of Seligman: -

"Thus lack of classification does not however prevent the presentation of the material by chapters which in earlier days would have had race headings... essentially the same subdivisions as Seligman's Races of Africa." (Roberts, 1976 "African Physiques" The Journal of African History, 17(3): 445-447)

Hence, I noted how Baker's (1974) "Negrid" [Negroid] map closely matches the Koppen climate classification for SSA, and Hiernaux (1975).

---

quote:

---

In our data, with the exception of a low frequency haplotype in Africa, rs916977 and rs1667394 are in nearly complete LD. Therefore, we treat them as another haplotype system, BEH3, blue-eye associated haplotype #3. The blue-eye associated allele of BEH3 is CA, again the derived haplotype. In the HGDP populations BEH3 will consist of rs1667394 only since rs916977 is not present in the data set.

---

quote:

---

Climate and ecological changes have also been causes for migration. The creation of the Sahara Desert by 2500 BC separated Sub-Saharan Africa from the rest of the world. However, there have been millennia of humid and arid periods, which have had a profound impact on migration into and out of the region. Drought has forced inhabitants to leave many locations throughout the continent. Generally, these movements have been from north to south during arid periods and from south to north when conditions are relatively humid.

---

quote:

---

“Evidence from throughout the Sahara indicates that the region experienced a cool, dry and windy climate during the last glacial period, followed by a wetter climate with the onset of the current interglacial, with humid conditions being fully established by around 10,000 years BP, when we see the first evidence of a reoccupation of parts of the central Sahara by hunter gathers, most likely originating from sub-Saharan Africa (Cremaschi and Di Lernia, 1998; Goudie, 1992; Phillipson, 1993; Ritchie, 1994; Roberts, 1998). 

[...]

Conical tumuli, platform burials and a V-type monument represent structures similar to those found in other Saharan regions and associated with human burials, appearing in sixth millennium BP onwards in northeast Niger and southwest Libya (Sivilli, 2002). In the latter area a shift in emphasis from faunal to human burials, complete by the early fifth millennium BP, has been interpreted by Di Lernia and Manzi (2002) as being associated with a changes in social organisation that occurred at a time of increasing aridity. While further research is required in order to place the funerary monuments of Western Sahara in their chronological context, we can postulate a similar process as a hypothesis to be tested, based on the high density of burial sites recorded in the 2002 survey. Fig. 2: Megaliths associated with tumulus burial (to right of frame), north of Tifariti (Fig. 1). A monument consisting of sixty five stelae was also of great interest; precise alignments north and east, a division of the area covered into separate units, and a deliberate scattering of quartzite inside the structure, are suggestive of an astronomical function associated with funerary rituals. Stelae are also associated with a number of burial sites, again suggesting dual funerary and astronomical functions (Figure 2). Further similarities with other Saharan regions are evident in the rock art recorded in the study area, although local stylistic developments are also apparent. Carvings of wild fauna at the site of Sluguilla resemble the Tazina style found in Algeria, Libya and Morocco (Pichler and Rodrigue, 2003), although examples of elephant and rhinoceros in a naturalistic style reminiscent of engravings from the central Sahara believed to date from the early Holocene are also present.” 

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier

---

You clearly haven't seen any maps of L4, E-M35, U6, M1, L6, etc. Apartheid is your words, but these haplogroups show a clear geography-based distribution pattern.

What do you call these largely uncorrelated distributions?

---

Peaks in 2-3 main areas: West African coast line (peaking in equitorial West African coast and staying steady into the Mauritania coastline where it starts tapering off). There's another peak area or two in east Africa. We also do not see a tapering effect that relies exclisvely on distance from the sahara. South Africa and east African coastlines as well as the distance from the Sahel show a tapering effect. I guess people can say that the peak points are in SSA but it's like injecting science into a preexisting construct. A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).




figure A (M1?) has peak points in areas north and south of the Sahara (like the horn). A nice example of some haplogroups not fitting neatly within sociopolitical lines.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
There are posters on this forum who have been here nearly a decade and haven't yet realised climatic boundaries are not genetic boundaries.

"a single population can consist of multiple overlapping ecotypes."

and:

"gene flow between different ecotypes is relatively common (see Futuyma 1998, and cites
therein); if there is sufficient selective pressure to maintain the genetic differences associated with the different adaptive phenotypes, other genes, not so associated, may flow freely between the populations"

and:

"in the case of ecotypes, adaptive genetic differentiation can be maintained between populations by natural selection even where there is significant gene flow between the populations."

and:

"skin color’’ is an ecologically important—not a phylogenetically significant—trait"

- Pigliucci and Kaplan, 2003
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~kaplanj/2003-PhilSc-race.pdf
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).

---

SSA is a socio-political construct, but Africa isn't? You're the person who has used a pan-African political concept of Africa for years to try to cluster SSA's with North Africans. Your hypocrisy is through the roof since you're now trying to criticize socio-politicalizing geographical regions when that is your agenda.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
There are posters on this forum who have been here nearly a decade and haven't yet realised climatic boundaries are not genetic boundaries.

"a single population can consist of multiple overlapping ecotypes."

and:

"gene flow between different ecotypes is relatively common (see Futuyma 1998, and cites
therein); if there is sufficient selective pressure to maintain the genetic differences associated with the different adaptive phenotypes, other genes, not so associated, may flow freely between the populations"

and:

"in the case of ecotypes, adaptive genetic differentiation can be maintained between populations by natural selection even where there is significant gene flow between the populations."

and:

"skin color’’ is an ecologically important—not a phylogenetically significant—trait"

- Pigliucci and Kaplan, 2003
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~kaplanj/2003-PhilSc-race.pdf

---

Thanks, this just debunked your entire crappy philosophy. And I am sure you yourself don't even not it.






 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).

---

SSA is a socio-political construct, but Africa isn't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
[QB] There are posters on this forum who have been here nearly a decade and haven't yet realised climatic boundaries are not genetic boundaries.

"a single population can consist of multiple overlapping ecotypes."

---

quote:

---

"gene flow between different ecotypes is relatively common (see Futuyma 1998, and cites
therein); if there is sufficient selective pressure to maintain the genetic differences associated with the different adaptive phenotypes, other genes, not so associated, may flow freely between the populations"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).

---

SSA is a socio-political construct, but Africa isn't? You're the person who has used a pan-African political concept of Africa for years to try to cluster SSA's with North Africans. Your hypocrisy is through the roof since you're now trying to criticize socio-politicalizing geographical regions when that is your agenda.

---

So is Europe and Asia. lol


Anyway, …









Volume 300, 25 June 2013, Pages 153–170

The Middle Palaeolithic in the Desert

The Middle Stone Age of the Central Sahara: Biogeographical opportunities and technological strategies in later human evolution
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618212033848










Successes and failures of human dispersals from North Africa
(2011)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618211003612
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
^ do you not understand how ADMIXTURE works? There SURELY is the differentiation of Eurasian/African groups in these studies. What do you think they have been doing with all of their ancient DNA studies?

What you are saying sounds as if you stepped out some ES time machine from 2010 and don't really know what is going on. We already brought up Pagani. What are you repeating the same argument when someone mentioned Pagani?

---

quote:

---

Although the African origin of AMH is now largely accepted, debate has continued over whether the anatomically modern form first arose in East, South, or North Africa.

Southern or East African origin

Support for an East African origin is provided by the discovery of the oldest unequivocally modern human fossils to date in Ethiopia: the Omo I from Kibish first discovered by Richard Leakey in 1967 dated to 190 and 200 kya44,45 and the Herto fossils dated to between 160 and 154 kya (Fig. 1).46

Evidence for a Southern origin has largely been provided by genetic rather than archeological studies. Henn et al analyzed genomes from extant hunter-gatherers from sub-Saharan Africa: pygmies of central Africa, click-speaking populations of Tanzania in East Africa (Hazda and Sandawe), and the Khomani Bushmen of Southern Africa.47 Their analyses of LD and heterozygosity patterns suggested Southern hunter-gatherers were among the most genetically diverse of all human populations, lending support to a Southern African origin of AMH. Schlebusch et al also considered patterns of LD in South Africa, observing the same high levels of genetic diversity, low levels of LD, and shorter runs of heterozygosity as mentioned in the previous studies. However, by incorporating additional samples throughout the rest of Africa, they showed that LD-based statistics fail to pinpoint a specific origin point, as LD levels were similarly low in other parts of the continent besides South Africa, indicating that different groups of individuals within different regions are important. This suggests that the population history within sub-Saharan Africa is likely too complex to localize the origins of H. sapiens using these approaches and available data.48 Similarly, Pickrell et al showed an ancient link between the Southern African Khoe-San and the Hadza and Sandawe of East Africa, suggesting that both Eastern and Southern Africa are equally consistent candidates as an origin locality of modern humans.49

A more recent study jointly analyzed paleo-climatic records and estimates of effective population size from the whole-genome sequences of five Khoe-Sans and one Bantu individual along with 420,000 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) from worldwide groups.50 Although unable to resolve a Southern or Eastern origin, using coalescent-based modeling, they suggest that Southern African populations have had high effective population sizes throughout their history, which might result in lower levels of LD relative to other parts of Africa, irrespective of where AMH arose. This corresponds well with climatic records, which find that Western and central Africa were affected by a dry climate with increasing aridity, around 100 kya, leading to a decline in the effective population size of West African populations (ancestors of the Bantu-speaking and non-African populations) but not vastly altering the effective size of South Africans (ancestors of the Khoe-San).51 The incorporation of climatic data has also been important in mtDNA analyses aiming to resolve a clear location of origin. In a paper focusing on the distribution of mtDNA haplogroups, Rito et al propose that the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of modern mtDNA likely arose in Central Africa before splitting into Southern African groups such as the Khoe-San (L0) and central/East African groups (L1’6).52 This is in good agreement with the aforementioned autosomal studies, which postulated an early split between the Khoe-San and more Northern African populations,48,49 although they did not advocate a MRCA in Central Africa.

Northern African origin

Up until recently, little focus has been given to North Africa as a potential origin point of the AMH form, despite the discovery of early AMH, Jebel Irhoud remains in Morocco dated to 160 kya (Fig. 1).53 Focus on the region changed with the publication of a revised Y chromosomal phylogenetic tree based on resequencing of male-specific regions of the Y chromosome from four relevant clades.54 The revised phylogeny found that the deepest clades were rooted in central and Northwest Africa, suggesting this region was more important than previously thought. Fadhlaoui-Zid et al went on to analyze both Y chromosome and genome-wide data from North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. They found some evidence for a recent origin of human populations in North Africa but stressed how high levels of migration, admixture, and drift in North Africans make interpretation extremely challenging.55

It is important to note that many genetic-based approaches such as these are limited in their ability to answer questions of this nature given that extant human populations are likely poor representatives of populations residing in these regions during pre-AMH time periods. For instance, populations can be quite mobile, and thus the geographic location of modern humans groups may differ from that of their ancestors in the past. Archeological and paleontological approaches, as well as DNA from ancient human remains, can go some way to guiding inference but are also limited given the scarcity of sites. For example, an origin of AMH in Western or central Africa cannot be ruled out but to our knowledge, there is currently no archeological data available to address this as a candidate region.

Potential Routes out of Africa

One of the most intriguing questions regarding the exit of modern humans out of Africa is which geographical route was taken. The consensus view is that if modern humans did exit Africa via a single dispersal, there were two possible routes (not mutually exclusive) at the time: a Northern route, through Egypt and Sinai, and a Southern route, through Ethiopia, the Bab el Mandeb strait, and the Arabian Peninsula (Fig. 1 and Table 1). So far, neither archeological nor genetic evidence has been able to resolve this question with confidence.

Northern route

Some of the earliest remains of AMH anywhere outside of Africa, the Skhul and Qafzeh hominins, were found in the Levant (present-day Israel) and dated to 120 and 100–90 kya, respectively (Fig. 1).56,57 It has been suggested that these fossils represent an early exit of modern humans approximately 120 kya, traveling across the Sinai Peninsula to the Levant.58 The next human remains found in the region include the Manot1 cranium, which was dated to around 55 kya,59 demonstrating a considerable gap in the fossil record of AMH occupation in the Levant. This, in conjunction with climatic records, indicating a global glacial period 90 kya,60 has led some authors to suggest that if the first humans did exit early via the Levant they did not survive, and that the Skhul and Qafzeh hominins are the remnants of this failed exodus.58 Other authors emphasize the possibility that this group could have already left the Levant before the glacial period 90 kya.61 That said, the recent presentation of archeological material, primarily stone tools and assemblages dated to 100–80 kya, from an empty corner of the Arabian Peninsula suggests early settlements may have been widely distributed and that even if Skhul and Qafzeh do represent a failed exodus, it was broader and more complex than previously thought.62

In addition to the evidence from the archeological and climatic record, genetic studies have also suggested some support for a Northern route. A study of Y chromosome haplogroup distributions together with 10 microsatellite loci and 45 binary markers in different African and Near Eastern populations found that the Levant was the most supported route for the primary migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia.63 In a more recent paper, Pagani et al sequenced the genomes of 100 Egyptians and 125 individuals from five Ethiopian ethnic groups (Amhara, Oromo, Ethiopian Somali, Wolayta, and Gumuz).64 After attempting to mask West Eurasian genetic components inherited via recent non-African admixture within the last 4 kya, they showed that modern non-African haplotypes were more similar to Egyptian haplotypes than to Ethiopian haplotypes, thus suggesting that Egypt was the more likely route in the exodus out of Africa migration, assuming the efficacy of their masking procedure. However, as noted earlier, one limitation of such studies that analyze modern DNA is that extant populations may not be good representatives of past populations due to factors such as population replacement, migrations, admixture, and drift.

Southern route

In contrast, mtDNA studies have traditionally favored a Southern route across the Bab el Mandeb strait at the mouth of the Red Sea.65–67 From there, modern humans are thought to have spread rapidly into regions of Southeast Asia and Oceania.68,69 For example, two studies have concluded that individuals assigned to haplogroup L3 migrated out of the continent via the Horn of Africa.67,70 Furthermore, Fernandes et al.71 analyzed three minor West-Eurasian haplogroups and found a relic distribution of these minor haplogroups suggestive of ancestry within the Arabian cradle, as expected under a Southern route. That being said, many mtDNA studies, including these, are based on the premise that haplogroup L3 represents a remnant Eastern African haplogroup. Groucutt et al have recently theorized that L3 does not provide conclusive evidence for a shared African ancestor, given human demographic history is likely to be less “tree-like” than has been consistently assumed by mtDNA analyses.72 As an example, they showed that L3 could have arisen inside or outside of Africa if gene flow occurred between the ancestors of Africans and non-Africans following their initial divergence.

Short Tandem Repeats (STR) and analysis of LD decay in combination with geographic data have also been used to support a Southern route via a single wave serial bottleneck model.73 Under this model, it is thought that a group crossed the mouth of the Red Sea and traveled along the Southern coast of the Arabian Peninsula toward India as “beachcombers,” exploiting shellfish and other marine products.74 Migrations then continued in an iterative wave as populations dispersed and expanded into uninhabited areas. This is consistent with a glacial maximum occurring during this time period, which caused sea levels to fall allowing potential passage across the mouth of the Red Sea.

From an archeological perspective, evidence indicative of maritime exploitation is extremely limited. The discovery of artifacts from the Abdur Reef Limestone in the Red Sea and archeological sites in the Gulf Basin that indicate long-standing human occupation earlier than 100 kya may offer some evidence; however, whether these represent the activities of the ancestors of modern-day human groups is still an open question.75,76 Furthermore, Boivin et al caution that while coastal regions may have been important, a coastal-focused dispersal would still have been problematic and not necessarily conducive to rapid out of Africa dispersal.77

---

quote:

---

Afrocentrists* have also modified their position to realise the Egyptians were Saharan [North] Africans, not Sub-Saharan Africans. My only issue with the latter is that they still call Saharan Africans "black"; the average skin colour of northern Saharan peoples, including modern Egyptians, is too light to be labelled black and living Egyptians do not consider themselves to be black either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
For thousands of years there had been NO Sahara. The Sahara had just started coming back, which forced many populations that made kemet to move towards the Nile in the first place. Its so amazingly stupid that African Americans are called sub saharans despite being centuries removed from Sub Saharan Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
@ Oshun can you stop trying to mask your dishonest pan-African intentions and politics?

Back in February, 2017 I posted this to you:

quote:

---

Afrocentrists* have also modified their position to realise the Egyptians were Saharan [North] Africans, not Sub-Saharan Africans. My only issue with the latter is that they still call Saharan Africans "black"; the average skin colour of northern Saharan peoples, including modern Egyptians, is too light to be labelled black and living Egyptians do not consider themselves to be black either.

---

*Those Afrocentrists I had in mind were the more intellectual ones on this forum, who modified their views as now has Nodarb (this thread creator). They no longer argue ancient Egyptians were SSA's or had strong biological ties to SSA's, but were Saharan [North] Africans.

Your response to the above was rejecting this intellectual-honest shift and to criticize those posters arguing for the Saharan theory. Secondly like Bass did to Swenet, you bogusly accused me of "true negro stereotyping" for merely pointing out Saharan's do not cluster biologically with populations below the Sahara.

One of your pan-African arguments is since the Sahara desert today once had a different climate (for short interval periods), somehow that means there is no biological distinction between SSA's and North Africans. It's completely erroneous because the genetic distance of these populations to SSA's in response to climatic desertification or humidification would not have changed. You constantly confuse adaptation with genetic distance. Even if the Saharan desert was once more lush and humid, its inhabitants were still thousands of km away from SSA's.

quote:

---

For thousands of years there had been NO Sahara. The Sahara had just started coming back, which forced many populations that made kemet to move towards the Nile in the first place. Its so amazingly stupid that African Americans are called sub saharans despite being centuries removed from Sub Saharan Africa.

---

In conclusion, you're in the same boat as Charlie Bass, Zaharan etc. Pan-Africanist. You're purely in this for the politics, no science. If not, you would be doing what Nodard has done and changed his views.

---

quote:

---

Thus, arguably, a considerable amount of genetic and phenotypic diversity may have been present at an early stage of modern human evolution.

---

quote:

---

Over the course of the Holocene the Sahara underwent major climatic changes, marking the beginning of the African Humid Period (AHP) approximately 12,000 years ago (Gasse et al., 1990; Street-Perrott and Perrott, 1990; deMenocal et al., 2000; Adkins et al., 2006; McGee et al., 2013; Tierney and deMenocal, 2013), and what has been referred to as the ‘Green Sahara’ (Sereno et al., 2008; Drake et al., 2011; Dunne et al., 2012). Whilst the Holocene AHP is perhaps one of the most thoroughly documented and well-dated climate change events, its implications for ancient human settlement is less well understood.

Occupation is clearly testified in the frequent rock engravings that are scattered throughout the upland regions of the desert, illustrating a lush environment with Sahelian and riverine fauna and scenes of large-game hunting, livestock herding and religious cer- emony (Mori, 1965; di Lernia and Gallinaro, 2010). Settlement studies from the Fezzan (Cremaschi and Zerboni, 2009; Cancellieri and di Lernia, 2013), Tenere (Sereno et al., 2008; Garcea, 2013) and Eastern Sahara (Wendorf et al., 2001; Hoelzmann et al., 2002; Kuper

[…]


Although there is increasing evidence to suggest the Sahara may have been more populated during the AHP, our null hypothesis must assume no prior knowledge of this in order to formally test the magnitude of demographic change, and whether the fluctuations in our SPD could be merely due to random sam- pling. The underlying principle of this method assumes a mono- tonic relationship between the population size and the amount of radiocarbon dates recovered, which is reliant on the law of large numbers to overcome small-scale temporal and spatial biases. Therefore by combining all 14C dates in a region, the fluctuation in the density of dates through time can be used as a demographic proxy to investigate the timing of population change in northern Africa. Full details on the method can be found in Shennan et al. (2013) and Timpson et al. (in press), and all dates are calibrated using the IntCal09 curve (Reimer et al., 2009). Our initial analysis uses 3287 published radiocarbon dates from 1011 Neolithic archaeological sites (Fig. 1). Further details about the data and the full radiocarbon date list can be found in Appendix A.


Conclusion
The analysis presented here offers a first insight into the de- mographic response to Holocene climate change in the Sahara. Over a relatively short period of time climatic amelioration allowed human populations to colonize a vast region of the African conti- nent, and yet within less than 6000 years, they were gone. More generally, this analysis offers greatly improved temporal resolution on effective carrying capacity, providing critical insight into the terrestrial response to changing atmospheric conditions, and a complementary proxy for the timing of Holocene climate change in northern Africa. We find evidence for a temporal delay of around 1000 years in the terrestrial recovery of the Saharan ecosystem at the start of the Holocene AHP. Our results also highlight a sub- stantial and broad-scale demographic decline between 7500 and 6500 years BP, which is in accordance with major cultural and economic changes, but has yet to be identified in any current palaeoclimate proxies although recent work by He ly et al. (2014) suggests a possible synchronous dip in Saharan biodiversity, providing a potential source of corroboration. Further work is needed to explore the implications of this event, nevertheless it seems likely, based on the broad scale synchronicity between our sub-regions, that an exogenous force such as climate must have played a role.

---

 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
I would have no problem with Eurocentric propagandists (like Cass) if Europeans were simply arguing that the ancient Egyptians were merely derivatives of the North African environment and that they are most biologically and culturally intimated with North African groups like "Nubians" in Egypt and Sudan, the Beja and other black North Africans.

Cass is not arguing that position; he asserts that the ancient Egyptians were a Levantine transplant before the Holocene.
 

---

Posted by Cass/ (Member # 22355) on :
 
"Pan-Europeanism" is falsified by genetics, just like pan-Africanism.

Greeks are closer genetically to Levant populations like Druze, than Swedes [although the genetic distances between all these are small].

I've also from day 1 recognised two ecotypes in Europe: a Mediterrnanean and Nordic. I'm not the one claiming all Europeans are "white". In fact, that's what you Afrocentrists on this forum argue: Africa = black, Europe = white. You're politicalizing skin colours to fit racial politics. I've been here for the past 5 years or more pointing out North Africans are not black and Southern Europeans are not white in pigmentation.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
You're politicalizing skin colours to fit racial politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
You're politicalizing skin colours to fit racial politics.

---

But your opinion is NOT RELEVANT TO US! Especially since you have know knowledege on our ethnography and consolidation of original settlers. You are just another airhead on the internet no more no less.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
"Pan-Europeanism" is falsified by genetics, just like pan-Africanism.

Greeks are closer genetically to Levant populations like Druze, than Swedes [although the genetic distances between all these are small].

I've also from day 1 recognised two ecotypes in Europe: a Mediterrnanean and Nordic. I'm not the one claiming all Europeans are "white".

---

Okay,

quote:

---

Haplogroup E, defined by mutation M40, is the most common human Y chromosome clade within Africa. To increase the level of resolution of haplogroup E, we disclosed the phylogenetic relationships among 729 mutations found in 33 haplogroup DE Y-chromosomes sequenced at high coverage in previous studies. Additionally, we dissected the E-M35 subclade by genotyping 62 informative markers in 5,222 samples from 118 worldwide populations. The phylogeny of haplogroup E showed novel features compared with the previous topology, including a new basal dichotomy. Within haplogroup E-M35, we resolved all the previously known polytomies and assigned all the E-M35* chromosomes to five new different clades, all belonging to a newly identified subhaplogroup (E-V1515), which accounts for almost half of the E-M35 chromosomes from the Horn of Africa.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier

---

You clearly haven't seen any maps of L4, E-M35, U6, M1, L6, etc. Apartheid is your words, but these haplogroups show a clear geography-based distribution pattern.

What do you call these largely uncorrelated distributions?

http://i67.tinypic.com/6sswts.jpg

---

Peaks in 2-3 main areas: West African coast line (peaking in equitorial West African coast and staying steady into the Mauritania coastline where it starts tapering off). There's another peak area or two in east Africa. We also do not see a tapering effect that relies exclisvely on distance from the sahara. South Africa and east African coastlines as well as the distance from the Sahel show a tapering effect. I guess people can say that the peak points are in SSA but it's like injecting science into a preexisting construct. A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).

https://snag.gy/L5bDtd.jpg


figure A (M1?) has peak points in areas north and south of the Sahara (like the horn). A nice example of some haplogroups not fitting neatly within sociopolitical lines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
I would have no problem with Eurocentric propagandists (like Cass) if Europeans were simply arguing that the ancient Egyptians were merely derivatives of the North African environment and that they are most biologically and culturally intimated with North African groups like "Nubians" in Egypt and Sudan, the Beja and other black North Africans.

Cass is not arguing that position; he asserts that the ancient Egyptians were a Levantine transplant before the Holocene.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cass/:
[QB] @ Oshun can you stop trying to mask your dishonest pan-African intentions and politics?

Back in February, 2017 I posted this to you:

quote:

---

Afrocentrists* have also modified their position to realise the Egyptians were Saharan [North] Africans, not Sub-Saharan Africans. My only issue with the latter is that they still call Saharan Africans "black"; the average skin colour of northern Saharan peoples, including modern Egyptians, is too light to be labelled black and living Egyptians do not consider themselves to be black either.

---

Most commonly "black" as a social construct is not (edit:strictly) referring to people with jet black or dark brown skin. People throughout the diaspora are being treated as black with the same complexions they see that people have North Africa. With comparable admixture as well. Please STFU, you're not going to overtalk what black people experience because of what you and your idiot white supremacist brethren find inconvenient.

quote:

---

Your response to the above was rejecting this intellectual-honest shift and to criticize those posters arguing for the Saharan theory.

---

I just said that if people were going to discuss people by ecological constructs when discussing the Sahara (particularly in comparative terms), they should do it for the areas south of it. SSA is not an ecological construct. You've been trying (and failing) repeatedly to force SSA as a legitimate construct. Accepting that the various ecosystems are probably more valid to compare (than SSA) doesn't make the people living and adapting to those areas any more genetically related. It does not create a backdoor avenue to argue west Africans share the same haplogroup or something. In fact I would think it actually makes it harder. Because horners that may share M1 with some Egyptians don't risk being averaged against a west African. But you want a "Pan SSA" identity because it suits your interests.

quote:

---

Secondly like Bass did to Swenet, you bogusly accused me of "true negro stereotyping" for merely pointing out Saharan's do not cluster biologically with populations below the Sahara.

---

Stop riding Swenet's jock. To repeat myself: Saharans NOT clustering (genetically) with many (if not most) of the populations south of the Sahara does not mean the "SSA" is suddenly a justifiable construct. If Saharans do not cluster with populations outside of their biome, it doesn't mean that everyone outside of it are one group.

quote:

---

One of your pan-African arguments is since the Sahara desert today once had a different climate (for short interval periods), somehow that means there is no biological distinction between SSA's and North Africans.

---

I'm not even saying that there aren't distinctions between SSA, much less them and people living in the Sahara. Lower the dose of whatever you're on. Egyptians did have different ecological niches depending on where they lived and it DID seem to create differentiation among earlier period Egyptians. Some of the adaptions they had included tropical characteristics.

quote:

---

Morant (1925) and Batrawi (1946) also found significant differences between Predynastic Upper Egyptians and, represented by Naqada and those from Lower Egypt, represented by Giza. Subsequent investigations using different sets of variables and more sophisticated statistical analysis, have confirmed that marked differences existed between Predynastic and Early Dynastic samples from the north and south of Egypt, and that these differences decreased in later period (Chichton 1966; Hillson 1978; Keita 1002, 1995, 1996).

---

quote:

---

The findings presented here indicate that the north-south differences reported for Predynastic and Early Dynastic populations in Egypt were not due to large-scale population movements out of the southern Levant in the Neolithic or Predynastic period. Rather, they appear to reflect the long-term effect of differentiation between small, localized groups of hunters and gatherers exploiting different ecological niches. Having said this, it must be emphasized that these results are constrained by the small sample sizes available for the sites discussed here, and the limited number of sites represented.

---

The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern Levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE

Patricia Smith

http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/13.pdf

quote:

---

[QUOTE]For thousands of years there had been NO Sahara. The Sahara had just started coming back, which forced many populations that made kemet to move towards the Nile in the first place. Its so amazingly stupid that African Americans are called sub saharans despite being centuries removed from Sub Saharan Africa.

---

In conclusion, you're in the same boat as Charlie Bass, Zaharan etc. Pan-Africanist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
[qb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
There isn't a haplogroup that is subject to some geological apartheid barrier

---

You clearly haven't seen any maps of L4, E-M35, U6, M1, L6, etc. Apartheid is your words, but these haplogroups show a clear geography-based distribution pattern.

What do you call these largely uncorrelated distributions?

http://i67.tinypic.com/6sswts.jpg

---

Peaks in 2-3 main areas: West African coast line (peaking in equitorial West African coast and staying steady into the Mauritania coastline where it starts tapering off). There's another peak area or two in east Africa. We also do not see a tapering effect that relies exclisvely on distance from the sahara. South Africa and east African coastlines as well as the distance from the Sahel show a tapering effect. I guess people can say that the peak points are in SSA but it's like injecting science into a preexisting construct. A lot of the genetic data is found in this sociopolitical area called "SSA" but it doesn't validate SSA as a ecological or genetic cluster (which I was not arguing that you or beyoku were saying, Doug was).

https://snag.gy/L5bDtd.jpg


figure A (M1?) has peak points in areas north and south of the Sahara (like the horn). A nice example of some haplogroups not fitting neatly within sociopolitical lines.

---

Again, trying to obscure clear hg distribution patterns with irrelevant bi-directional migrations.

---