Premiered Mar 18, 2023 The Great DNA Hoax: The European heist of Ancient Egypt (Documentary) #kemet The Kings Monologue 18,016 views total time 15:10
excerpts from video:
welcome to the king's monologue in this short documentary we'll be taking a deep dive into the claims made by a heavily referenced article that was published in nature Communications (Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods Verena J. Schuenemann,2017) (Abusir El Meleq) it claims that ancient Egyptian ancestry is largely non-African I mean this might be one of the biggest lies ever told.
the German Research Foundation claimed that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with near easterners than present-day Egyptians and Africans the study took genetic samples from pre-Ptolemaic Ptolemaic and Roman era mummies suggesting there is genetic continuity between the ancient Egyptians and modern Eastern Mediterraneans, the Turkish and modern near Eastern populations to the uninformed general public the study seemed conclusive however as is too often the case in Egyptology not all was as it seemed thank you the study failed to reference that the ethnicity of the mummies irrefutably biased the results of the test
An article from UCL confirms this it states in the Ptolemaic period the Fayum was one of the main regions where Greek settled Encyclopedia Britannica in support of this rights Greek settlers were brought to the area creating prosperous Hellenistic communities historical researcher Joanna Wllimovska states that statistical analysis revealed that Greek settlers constituted about 30 of the total population of the Fayum in the mid-third century BC bear in mind this constitutes the very start of the Ptolemaic era and thus would have significantly risen over time. ancient Origins writes it is known that the Fayum population exploded During the Ptolemaic period by the settling of numerous Greek veteran soldiers there the District of Fame was a known immigration settlement since the second intermediary period under Hyksos rule and became the most significant settlement for Greek immigrants during the Ptolemy period
Egyptian populations we can helpfully consider this claim to be corroborated with genetic evidence modern Egyptians are in fact largely Greek and Levantine not in origin but as a result of admixture from foreign settlers I must caveat that this does not exclude them from being direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians this is not a claim I support as cultural diffusion is a much more likely scenario
in February 2010 a research team led by Dr hawas conducted an autosomal DNA analysis of several New Kingdom mummies in an effort to discover the ancestry and pathology of King Tutankhamun's family the mummies included Tut, Thuya Amenhotep III Yuya other Amarana mummies and some mummies from the Ramesside Dynasty in the pharaonic lineage autosomal profiling of eight pairs of Str were used to obtain this data and published The Reason autosomal Str profiling is a much more powerful tool in Cross analysis against phenotype is because race and phenotype quite often have a more direct correlation with Biology immunity and other physiological traits determined by autosomal DNA analysis the only DNA analysis that takes the entire genome into consideration the is why autosomal in February 2010 the results were definite and conclusive all of the pharaonic mummies clustered incontrovertibly close to Modern sub-Saharan Africans at a rate of 70 to 94 genetic Affinity whereas modern Eurasian's genetic Affinity was just 5 to 31 percent and modern 0 to 1.5 percent on average the pharaonic mummies were 10 to 20 times more likely to be related to Modern Continental Africans than modern near Eastern or Eurasian populations showing the closest Affinity by some degree to Southern Africans followed by Africans of the Great Lakes region followed by West Africans so in spite of the current phenotype of modern Egyptians it seems conclusive that their relation to the ancient Egyptian population lies in their plus 20 genetic association with Continental Africa so much for the slavery Spike rather than be ashamed of this modern Egyptians should be proud of the direct lineage that they have retained with their ancient Egyptian forebears in spite of the multiple occupations of the land
Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion (pre-print 2018) Jean-Philippe Gourdine1,4, S.O.Y Keita2,4, Jean-Luc Gourdine3 and Alain Anselin4*1Oregon Health & Science University, 2Smithsonian Institution, 3National Institute of Agricultural Research, France(Guadeloupe), 4Ankhou/Cahiers Caribéens d'Égyptologie (Guadeloupe, Martinique),*corresponding author: jpgourdineohsu@gmail.com
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Compared with Europe, palaeogenetics in Africa is poorly studied, in part because DNA degrades faster in tropical and dry environments. Chapter 4 aims to unveil population movements in Egypt and Sudan from the Neolithic onward. DNA was extracted from 94 samples from Armant (Egypt), Nuerat (Egypt) and Ghaba (Sudan) dated from the Early Neolithic to the historic period. Genome-wide data were successfully recovered from one sample from Nuerat sequenced to 0.22X coverage, dated to 2,868-2,492 cal BCE (95.4% probability) - consistent with the 3rd-4th Dynasties of the Old Kingdom. Allele frequency-based analyses (PCA, ADMIXTURE, f-statistics, qpAdm) show a strong genetic affinity of this sample to Levantine Natufians. Compared with genomes dated from the end of the Dynastic period (Third Intermediate Period) and present-day Egyptians, the Nuerat sample did not carry the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer genetic component that started to spread across West Asia ~4,000 years ago and is widely spread in present-day populations. The presence of this component in Egypt is likely associated with admixture between local Egyptian populations and Bronze Age-related populations from West Asia. This admixture pattern might result from the dominance of Lower Egypt by Canaanite (Levantine) rulers during the Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1,650-1,550 BCE).
I don't understand what is problematic about this Beyoku? Seems to me the data suggests that the Lower Egyptians were populated by Natufian related peoples?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
transcript excerpt from OP video, saying STR analysis is superior to SNP defined Y and MtDNA haplogroups
...in February 2010 a research team led by Dr Hawas conducted an autosomal DNA analysis of several New Kingdom mummies in an effort to discover the ancestry and pathology of King Tutankhamun's family the mummies included Tut, Thuya Amenhotep III, yuya other Amarna mummies and some mummies from the Ramasside Dynasty in the pharaonic lineage autosomal profiling of eight pairs of STR were used to obtain this data and published The Reason autosomal STR profiling is a much more powerful tool in Cross analysis against phenotype is because race and phenotype quite often have a more direct correlation with Biology immunity and other physiological traits determined by autosomal DNA analysis the only DNA analysis that takes the entire genome into consideration the is why autosomal STR profiling is used exclusively as the method for forensic and medical analyzes by contrast why DNA paternal and mitochondrial DNA maternal analyzes can only Trace ancestral links to a single historical ancestor but are almost useless in finding the level of relation between two individuals however autosomal DNA analysis takes the entire genome into account and so can cluster relation probabilities via matching algorithms against STR profile databases put simply certain groups will often form traits and patterns that permeate across the ethnicity and culture these are reflected in the genome think about allergies and Immunity as simple examples in 2014 independent researchers utilized the matching algorithms of existing STR databases to conduct an analyzes on the autosomal DNA results published by Dr Hawass in February 2010 the results were definite and conclusive all of the pharaonic mummies clustered incontrovertibly close to Modern sub-Saharan Africans at a rate of 70 to 94 genetic Affinity whereas modern eurasian's genetic Affinity was just 5 to 31 percent and modern 0 to 1.5 percent on average the pharaonic mummies were 10 to 20 times more likely to be related to Modern Continental Africans than modern near Eastern or Eurasian populations showing the closest Affinity by some degree to Southern Africans followed by Africans of the Great Lakes region followed by West Africans so in spite of the current phenotype of modern Egyptians it seems conclusive that their relation to the ancient Egyptian population lies in their plus 20 genetic association with Continental Africa so much for the slavery Spike rather than be ashamed of this modern Egyptians should be proud of the direct lineage that they have retained with their ancient Egyptian forebears in spite of the multiple occupations of the land this DNA links us together as a single continent and provides the evidence that Kemet was an African achievement and not the result of some foreign incursion and their ancestors were in fact the same as other native Continental Africans just as they depicted themselves the modern North Egyptian phenotype is nothing more than the result of cultural diffusion a natural occurrence for a nation with Egypt's foreign history after the fall of the New Kingdom modern Egyptians like other North Africans other cousins of modern Continental Africans and this fact is being suppressed in an attempt to pit us against each other whilst Europeans claim The Spoils of our histories disingenuous European research groups like the German Research Foundation whose Origins date back to Hyper-Aryanism in Germany are attempting to steal African history
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
quote:Compared with Europe, palaeogenetics in Africa is poorly studied, in part because DNA degrades faster in tropical and dry environments. Chapter 4 aims to unveil population movements in Egypt and Sudan from the Neolithic onward. DNA was extracted from 94 samples from Armant (Egypt), Nuerat (Egypt) and Ghaba (Sudan) dated from the Early Neolithic to the historic period. Genome-wide data were successfully recovered from one sample from Nuerat sequenced to 0.22X coverage, dated to 2,868-2,492 cal BCE (95.4% probability) - consistent with the 3rd-4th Dynasties of the Old Kingdom. Allele frequency-based analyses (PCA, ADMIXTURE, f-statistics, qpAdm) show a strong genetic affinity of this sample to Levantine Natufians. Compared with genomes dated from the end of the Dynastic period (Third Intermediate Period) and present-day Egyptians, the Nuerat sample did not carry the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer genetic component that started to spread across West Asia ~4,000 years ago and is widely spread in present-day populations. The presence of this component in Egypt is likely associated with admixture between local Egyptian populations and Bronze Age-related populations from West Asia. This admixture pattern might result from the dominance of Lower Egypt by Canaanite (Levantine) rulers during the Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1,650-1,550 BCE).
I don't understand what is problematic about this Beyoku? Seems to me the data suggests that the Lower Egyptians were populated by Natufian related peoples?
It seems to me that, without more prehistoric samples from Northeastern Africa, "Natufian" is our best model for indigenous pre-OOA African ancestry in the region. Hence why you see a lot of Northeast African samples like Nubians and the East African Pastoral Neolithic getting modeled as Natufian/Dinka mixes.
What I find strange is that this abstract doesn't mention either a presence or absence of "sub-Saharan" ancestry in the Nuerat sample (Nuerat is in Middle Egypt a little north of Beni Hasan, BTW). I do expect to find a little Dinka- or Mota-like ancestry in there, maybe somewhere on the spectrum between the Abusir el-Meleq and the Kadruka samples, but we will have to wait until the results are published to verify or falsify my hunch.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
By nature of the game the Nuerat Sample will have non-negligable SSA of some-sort. The CHG component being absent is a tell. However, what I've grown to notice is that a "Natufian" component doesn't really make sense. I said about 5 years ago that the reason why Natufian ancestry is preferred in a lot of models is because of the fact that they're a good proxy in the absence of North African aDNA. What I didn't call into attention was simply reference bias due to the Natufians being relatively low-coverage Psuedo-Haploid source population. There's actually no academic consensus on the make-up of their genetic profile. Some studies have them as partially Taforalt, Some as partially Ancient East African, WHG... etc. I think it's more insightful to use a combination of CHG/Dzudzuana, Pinarbasi and Taforalt to try to model populations in adjacent to models relying on the Natufian stand in. Therefore we'll get resolution on both the Novel samples and Natufians.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: I think it's more insightful to use a combination of CHG/Dzudzuana, Pinarbasi and Taforalt to try to model populations in adjacent to models relying on the Natufian stand in. Therefore we'll get resolution on both the Novel samples and Natufians.
Does Dzudzuana count as CHG? Weren't they a Paleolithic people living in the Caucasus, after all?
EDIT: NM, checked the Lazaridis pre-print on Dzudzuana and saw that he distinguished them from later CHG, saying the former were more similar to Anatolian populations.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
So without the CHG ancestry, would this not suggest the lower Egyptians sampled were closer to Natufian aka Afro-Asiatic peoples...
It seems the consensus is that the Natufians would've looked similar to this..
quote:Compared with Europe, palaeogenetics in Africa is poorly studied, in part because DNA degrades faster in tropical and dry environments. Chapter 4 aims to unveil population movements in Egypt and Sudan from the Neolithic onward. DNA was extracted from 94 samples from Armant (Egypt), Nuerat (Egypt) and Ghaba (Sudan) dated from the Early Neolithic to the historic period. Genome-wide data were successfully recovered from one sample from Nuerat sequenced to 0.22X coverage, dated to 2,868-2,492 cal BCE (95.4% probability) - consistent with the 3rd-4th Dynasties of the Old Kingdom. Allele frequency-based analyses (PCA, ADMIXTURE, f-statistics, qpAdm) show a strong genetic affinity of this sample to Levantine Natufians. Compared with genomes dated from the end of the Dynastic period (Third Intermediate Period) and present-day Egyptians, the Nuerat sample did not carry the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer genetic component that started to spread across West Asia ~4,000 years ago and is widely spread in present-day populations. The presence of this component in Egypt is likely associated with admixture between local Egyptian populations and Bronze Age-related populations from West Asia. This admixture pattern might result from the dominance of Lower Egypt by Canaanite (Levantine) rulers during the Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1,650-1,550 BCE).
I don't understand what is problematic about this Beyoku? Seems to me the data suggests that the Lower Egyptians were populated by Natufian related peoples?
It seems to me that, without more prehistoric samples from Northeastern Africa, "Natufian" is our best model for indigenous pre-OOA African ancestry in the region. Hence why you see a lot of Northeast African samples like Nubians and the East African Pastoral Neolithic getting modeled as Natufian/Dinka mixes.
What I find strange is that this abstract doesn't mention either a presence or absence of "sub-Saharan" ancestry in the Nuerat sample (Nuerat is in Middle Egypt a little north of Beni Hasan, BTW). I do expect to find a little Dinka- or Mota-like ancestry in there, maybe somewhere on the spectrum between the Abusir el-Meleq and the Kadruka samples, but we will have to wait until the results are published to verify or falsify my hunch.
Reconstructing past human genetic variation with ancient DNA: case studies from ancient Egypt and medieval Europe
Morez, A (2023) Reconstructing past human genetic variation with ancient DNA: case studies from ancient Egypt and medieval Europe. Doctoral thesis,
Liverpool John Moores University.
Abstract
....Chapter 4 aims to unveil population movements in Egypt and Sudan from the Neolithic onward. DNA was extracted from
94 samples from
ARMANT (Egypt),
NUERAT (Egypt)
and Ghaba (Sudan)
dated from the Early Neolithic to the historic period. Genome-wide data were successfully recovered from one sample from Nuerat sequenced to 0.22X coverage, dated to 2,868-2,492 cal BCE (95.4% probability) - consistent with the 3rd-4th Dynasties of the Old Kingdom. Allele frequency-based analyses (PCA, ADMIXTURE, f-statistics, qpAdm) show a strong genetic affinity of this sample to Levantine Natufians.
I'm posting some related data here but not from the above thesis
If I am not mistaken the total number of Natufians DNA test report at this point in time = 5 individuals as follows
.
.
NUERAT
Tombs of the II an IV dynasties near Nuerat
p 16
Historical Features. The earliest features are those furthest to the north, opposite to Shatarah , just above a hamlet known as Nuerat. Here a number of small rock- tombs are ranged along the face of the cliff. One row of these, opening to the west, is visible from the river, although separated by a sweep of sand of considerable width. The earliest of them, however, were found. hidden away in the side of a little ravine. From the archaic character of the interments found within and near to these, it is probable that they date back to the IIIrd Dynasty or even earlier. The other groups, just to the north, to judge by their characteristics and the few objects found within them, may be assigned to the IVth Dynasty or thereabouts. These small tombs are described in the opening section of the next chapter. The next period of local history is represented by a row of rock chambers at the southern end of our tract, just above the village of Beni Hassan itself. In these also there fortunately remained one or two original interments and other evidences, including a few inscriptions carved upon the walls. These seem to belong to the full development of the Old Empire, about the Vth Dynasty.
30
The burial customs illustrated by these tombs near Nuerat obviously represent an early phase of development. The construction of the tombs in the rock argues a certain advance upon the archaic methods ; but the nature of the interments, unless they are local exceptions to the general rule, excludes them from any date. later than the first days of the Old Empire. They fall into position without difficulty or much uncertainty in the transitional phase between the IIIrd and IVth Dynasties which links the archaic with the advanced culture of the Pyramid Age.
University of Liverpool Institute of Archaeology THE BURIAL CUSTOMS OF ANCIENT EGYPT AS ILLUSTRATED BY TOMBS OF THE MIDDLE KINGDOM BEING A Report of Excavations made in the Necropolis of Beni Hassan during 1902-3-4 BY JOHN GARSTANG B LITT MA FSA
National Museum Liverpool Human Remains; Skull Fragments 4500 BC - 3100 BC about
Human remains from a burial at Armant, excavated in 1932. Cranial, maxilla and mandible bones with some teeth missing. Both marked in ink with the grave number 1323.
Wellcome Historical Medical Museum accession number 153492. Provenance on the Wellcome Historical Medical Museum accession card recorded as, "Egyptian Exploration Society, Armant, 1931-1932. Pre-dynastic Settlement, S[equence] D[ate] 1000".
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: By nature of the game the Nuerat Sample will have non-negligable SSA of some-sort. The CHG component being absent is a tell. However, what I've grown to notice is that a "Natufian" component doesn't really make sense. I said about 5 years ago that the reason why Natufian ancestry is preferred in a lot of models is because of the fact that they're a good proxy in the absence of North African aDNA. What I didn't call into attention was simply reference bias due to the Natufians being relatively low-coverage Psuedo-Haploid source population. There's actually no academic consensus on the make-up of their genetic profile. Some studies have them as partially Taforalt, Some as partially Ancient East African, WHG... etc. I think it's more insightful to use a combination of CHG/Dzudzuana, Pinarbasi and Taforalt to try to model populations in adjacent to models relying on the Natufian stand in. Therefore we'll get resolution on both the Novel samples and Natufians.
I see what you mean. The lack of Egyptian or Sudanese Neolithic samples probably muddies the water a bit here. With that being said, we have at least some Iberomaurusian Taforalt samples. Thus we can conclude that the OK Egyptians, and thus the Pyramid builders, were not Iberomaurasian-like or even proto-Berber.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So without the CHG ancestry, would this not suggest the lower Egyptians sampled were closer to Natufian aka Afro-Asiatic peoples...
It seems the consensus is that the Natufians would've looked similar to this..
quote:Compared with Europe, palaeogenetics in Africa is poorly studied, in part because DNA degrades faster in tropical and dry environments. Chapter 4 aims to unveil population movements in Egypt and Sudan from the Neolithic onward. DNA was extracted from 94 samples from Armant (Egypt), Nuerat (Egypt) and Ghaba (Sudan) dated from the Early Neolithic to the historic period. Genome-wide data were successfully recovered from one sample from Nuerat sequenced to 0.22X coverage, dated to 2,868-2,492 cal BCE (95.4% probability) - consistent with the 3rd-4th Dynasties of the Old Kingdom. Allele frequency-based analyses (PCA, ADMIXTURE, f-statistics, qpAdm) show a strong genetic affinity of this sample to Levantine Natufians. Compared with genomes dated from the end of the Dynastic period (Third Intermediate Period) and present-day Egyptians, the Nuerat sample did not carry the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer genetic component that started to spread across West Asia ~4,000 years ago and is widely spread in present-day populations. The presence of this component in Egypt is likely associated with admixture between local Egyptian populations and Bronze Age-related populations from West Asia. This admixture pattern might result from the dominance of Lower Egypt by Canaanite (Levantine) rulers during the Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1,650-1,550 BCE).
I don't understand what is problematic about this Beyoku? Seems to me the data suggests that the Lower Egyptians were populated by Natufian related peoples?
It seems to me that, without more prehistoric samples from Northeastern Africa, "Natufian" is our best model for indigenous pre-OOA African ancestry in the region. Hence why you see a lot of Northeast African samples like Nubians and the East African Pastoral Neolithic getting modeled as Natufian/Dinka mixes.
What I find strange is that this abstract doesn't mention either a presence or absence of "sub-Saharan" ancestry in the Nuerat sample (Nuerat is in Middle Egypt a little north of Beni Hasan, BTW). I do expect to find a little Dinka- or Mota-like ancestry in there, maybe somewhere on the spectrum between the Abusir el-Meleq and the Kadruka samples, but we will have to wait until the results are published to verify or falsify my hunch.
How they look and their genetic compositions are two different things. You can simply reference their reconstructions for how they looked. Their genetic composition is not fully resolved. The Bedoiun who you've posted might be the closest to Natufians but they're not purely Natufian.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: [QUOTE]Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ..........
What I find strange is that this abstract doesn't mention either a presence or absence of "sub-Saharan" ancestry in the Nuerat sample (Nuerat is in Middle Egypt a little north of Beni Hasan, BTW). I do expect to find a little Dinka- or Mota-like ancestry in there, maybe somewhere on the spectrum between the Abusir el-Meleq and the Kadruka samples, but we will have to wait until the results are published to verify or falsify my hunch.
The abstract usually doesn't tell everything, and you sometimes see non-mentioned admixture results and gene flow later in the full study. So, any detected Dinka or Mota ancestry will be shown in the preprint or final paper. Besides, in my opinion, Dinka- or Mota-like ancestry in OK Egyptians can be expected and won't be absent.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So without the CHG ancestry, would this not suggest the lower Egyptians sampled were closer to Natufian aka Afro-Asiatic peoples...
It seems the consensus is that the Natufians would've looked similar to this..
quote:Compared with Europe, palaeogenetics in Africa is poorly studied, in part because DNA degrades faster in tropical and dry environments. Chapter 4 aims to unveil population movements in Egypt and Sudan from the Neolithic onward. DNA was extracted from 94 samples from Armant (Egypt), Nuerat (Egypt) and Ghaba (Sudan) dated from the Early Neolithic to the historic period. Genome-wide data were successfully recovered from one sample from Nuerat sequenced to 0.22X coverage, dated to 2,868-2,492 cal BCE (95.4% probability) - consistent with the 3rd-4th Dynasties of the Old Kingdom. Allele frequency-based analyses (PCA, ADMIXTURE, f-statistics, qpAdm) show a strong genetic affinity of this sample to Levantine Natufians. Compared with genomes dated from the end of the Dynastic period (Third Intermediate Period) and present-day Egyptians, the Nuerat sample did not carry the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer genetic component that started to spread across West Asia ~4,000 years ago and is widely spread in present-day populations. The presence of this component in Egypt is likely associated with admixture between local Egyptian populations and Bronze Age-related populations from West Asia. This admixture pattern might result from the dominance of Lower Egypt by Canaanite (Levantine) rulers during the Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1,650-1,550 BCE).
I don't understand what is problematic about this Beyoku? Seems to me the data suggests that the Lower Egyptians were populated by Natufian related peoples?
It seems to me that, without more prehistoric samples from Northeastern Africa, "Natufian" is our best model for indigenous pre-OOA African ancestry in the region. Hence why you see a lot of Northeast African samples like Nubians and the East African Pastoral Neolithic getting modeled as Natufian/Dinka mixes.
What I find strange is that this abstract doesn't mention either a presence or absence of "sub-Saharan" ancestry in the Nuerat sample (Nuerat is in Middle Egypt a little north of Beni Hasan, BTW). I do expect to find a little Dinka- or Mota-like ancestry in there, maybe somewhere on the spectrum between the Abusir el-Meleq and the Kadruka samples, but we will have to wait until the results are published to verify or falsify my hunch.
How they look and their genetic compositions are two different things. You can simply reference their reconstructions for how they looked. Their genetic composition is not fully resolved. The Bedoiun who you've posted might be the closest to Natufians but they're not purely Natufian.
Indeed, we don't know the genetic profile of these two individuals, so you can't go by appearance here. And the second man on the picture is probably a Tuareg due to his blue turban.
Anyway, we have today a more refined and updated reconstruction of the Natufian skull. Here's a rendering of what a Natufian might have looked like.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Man on the left is from Soqotri
Most Soqotri belong to the paternal haplogroup J, bearing the basal J*(xJ1,J2) clade at its highest frequencies (71.4%). The remaining individuals mainly carry the J1 subclade (14.3%).[4] YFull[5] and FTDNA[6] have however failed to find J* people anywhere in the world although there are 2 J2-Y130506 persons and 1 J1 person from Soqotra.
Haplogroup E is represented at a frequency of 9.5% and three other haplogroups, F*(xJ,K), K*(xO,P) and R*(xR1b), are present in one individual each. (Viktor Cerny 2009)
Maternally, the Soqotri primarily belong to the haplogroups N (24.3% N*; 6.2% N1a) and R0 (17.8% R0a1b; 13.8% R0a; 6.2% R0a1). The basal N* clade occurs at its highest frequencies among them. The next most common mtDNA lineages borne by Soqotri individuals are the haplogroups J (9.2% J*; 3.1 J1b), T (7.7% T2; 1.2% T*), L3 (4.3% L3*), H (3.1%), and R (1.2 R*)
_________________________
The Tuareg man is from Mali
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf:
Anyway, we have today a more refined and updated reconstruction of the Natufian skull. Here's a rendering of what a Natufian might have looked like.
that is not a professional reconstruction. although the pro ones dones with 3d modeling are speculative also
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare.
Rude Awakenings to what? Prepare for what? Exactly?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Man on the left is from Soqotri
Most Soqotri belong to the paternal haplogroup J, bearing the basal J*(xJ1,J2) clade at its highest frequencies (71.4%). The remaining individuals mainly carry the J1 subclade (14.3%).[4] YFull[5] and FTDNA[6] have however failed to find J* people anywhere in the world although there are 2 J2-Y130506 persons and 1 J1 person from Soqotra.
Haplogroup E is represented at a frequency of 9.5% and three other haplogroups, F*(xJ,K), K*(xO,P) and R*(xR1b), are present in one individual each. (Viktor Cerny 2009)
Maternally, the Soqotri primarily belong to the haplogroups N (24.3% N*; 6.2% N1a) and R0 (17.8% R0a1b; 13.8% R0a; 6.2% R0a1). The basal N* clade occurs at its highest frequencies among them. The next most common mtDNA lineages borne by Soqotri individuals are the haplogroups J (9.2% J*; 3.1 J1b), T (7.7% T2; 1.2% T*), L3 (4.3% L3*), H (3.1%), and R (1.2 R*)
_________________________
The Tuareg man is from Mali
How do you know that one is from Mali? What is his Haplogroup?
copied from Qoura...
[QUOTE]Interestingly, it is just to the south of the core area of the Natufian culture that we find people with more Natufian/Natufian-like ancestry in the 21st century, which indicates that the precursors of agriculture and sedentary life in that region of the globe received lots of foreign genetic input, but, though they resisted in their homeland, left a more significant genetic impact outside the Levant “proper”, but still close to it. That is, in the Arabian peninsula, in Egypt and in the southernmost portion of the Levant, the Negev desert and the Sinai peninsula.
These are the modern populations (among those available in the Global25 datasheets) that are most genetically similar to the Natufians (not that much, though, as genetic distances are relatively large):
"The Mahri language of Southern Arabian is one of the few indigenous, non-Arabic languages remaining on the Arabian Peninsula, and since Mahri is a non-written language, poetry in the Mahri language is a strictly oral art form Cushitic substratum in their languages discovered by Militarev
Mehri tribal men of Yemen.
Al-Mahri (Merhi/Arab Salah) men, Al Mahrah Governorate - Yemen circa. 1930
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
Man on the left is from Soqotri
Most Soqotri belong to the paternal haplogroup J, bearing the basal J*(xJ1,J2) clade at its highest frequencies (71.4%). The remaining individuals mainly carry the J1 subclade (14.3%).[4] YFull[5] and FTDNA[6] have however failed to find J* people anywhere in the world although there are 2 J2-Y130506 persons and 1 J1 person from Soqotra.
Haplogroup E is represented at a frequency of 9.5% and three other haplogroups, F*(xJ,K), K*(xO,P) and R*(xR1b), are present in one individual each. (Viktor Cerny 2009)
Maternally, the Soqotri primarily belong to the haplogroups N (24.3% N*; 6.2% N1a) and R0 (17.8% R0a1b; 13.8% R0a; 6.2% R0a1). The basal N* clade occurs at its highest frequencies among them. The next most common mtDNA lineages borne by Soqotri individuals are the haplogroups J (9.2% J*; 3.1 J1b), T (7.7% T2; 1.2% T*), L3 (4.3% L3*), H (3.1%), and R (1.2 R*)
_________________________
The Tuareg man is from Mali
How do you know that one is from Mali? What is his Haplogroup?
I don't know what his haplogroup or what the man from Socqotri's haplogroup is
______________________________________
quote:
In particular, the Tuareg have 50% to 80% of their paternal lineages E1b1b1b-M81
In particular, the Tuareg have 50% to 80% of their paternal lineages E1b1b1b-M81...
The second component separates all North African populations except Egyptians from all other populations and shows that E-M81 plays a major role in this structure. The Tuareg appear to be drawn towards sub-Saharans while Egyptians clustered with Middle Easterners close to Palestinians...
Population structure within North Africa starts with the splitting of Egypt around 2,800 ya. Tuareg split next from North Africans around 1,900 ya, followed by the remaining North Africans splitting around 1,000-1,300 ya.
Published online 2013 Nov 27. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080293 PMCID: PMC3842387 PMID: 24312208 Genome-Wide and Paternal Diversity Reveal a Recent Origin of Human Populations in North Africa Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid,
quote: Deep into the roots of the Libyan Tuareg: a genetic survey of their paternal heritage Claudio Ottoni 1, Maarten H D Larmuseau, Nancy Vanderheyden, Cristina Martínez-Labarga, Giuseppina Primativo, Gianfranco Biondi, Ronny Decorte, Olga Rickards Affiliations expand PMID: 21312181 DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21473 Abstract Recent genetic studies of the Tuareg have begun to uncover the origin of this semi-nomadic northwest African people and their relationship with African populations. For centuries they were caravan traders plying the trade routes between the Mediterranean coast and south-Saharan Africa. Their origin most likely coincides with the fall of the Garamantes who inhabited the Fezzan (Libya) between the 1st millennium BC and the 5th century AD. In this study we report novel data on the Y-chromosome variation in the Libyan Tuareg from Al Awaynat and Tahala, two villages in Fezzan, whose maternal genetic pool was previously characterized. High-resolution investigation of 37 Y-chromosome STR loci and analysis of 35 bi-allelic markers in 47 individuals revealed a predominant northwest African component (E-M81, haplogroup E1b1b1b) which likely originated in the second half of the Holocene in the same ancestral population that contributed to the maternal pool of the Libyan Tuareg. A significant paternal contribution from south-Saharan Africa (E-U175, haplogroup E1b1a8) was also detected, which may likely be due to recent secondary introduction, possibly through slavery practices or fusion between different tribal groups. The difference in haplogroup composition between the villages of Al Awaynat and Tahala suggests that founder effects and drift played a significant role in shaping the genetic pool of the Libyan Tuareg.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare.
The problem is they're falling for the 'Sub-Saharan' trap that Eurocentrics have created. Genetic Sub-Saharan is the new "True Negro". Indigenous African genetic diversity is much greater than that.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posting various pictures of modern people is not that useful to the thread. The issue I was trying to get at with this thread is comparing the value of ethnicity predictions derived from database comparisons of STR autosomal DNA compared to haplotyping by SNP. The video maker 'The Kings Monologue' was favoring STR over SNP and using the Keita article as reference, however if you look at the Gourdine/Keita article they do also discuss much about haplogroups as well. However the only chart they produced was the PopAffiliator STR derived chart That was 2018-2020, that shows high percentages of African although I'm not sure what the STRUCTURE program would say, which is the one use in most professional genetics articles
This reported haplogroups of the Amarna (both Y and MtDNA of males also, and MtDNA of females) but also mentioning their earlier report on Rameses III, who had dissimilar Y DNA to the Amarna kings
However, wisely unlike Verena J. Schuenemann (2017) and the Max Planck click the Egyptian researchers avoid using the data to make ethnic conclusions about the Ancient Egyptians in these articles and avoid flamboyant genetics claims in press releases although you might find remarks by Hawass in interviews if you dig when pressed on general questions on the AE's ethnicity
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I don't understand what is problematic about this Beyoku? Seems to me the data suggests that the Lower Egyptians were populated by Natufian related peoples?
Morez, A (2023) Reconstructing past human genetic variation with ancient DNA: case studies from ancient Egypt and medieval Europe. Doctoral thesis, Liverpool John Moores University.
Compared with Europe, palaeogenetics in Africa is poorly studied, in part because DNA degrades faster in tropical and dry environments. Chapter 4 aims to unveil population movements in Egypt and Sudan from the Neolithic onward. DNA was extracted from 94 samples from Armant (Egypt), Nuerat (Egypt) and Ghaba (Sudan) dated from the Early Neolithic to the historic period. Genome-wide data were successfully recovered from one sample from Nuerat sequenced to 0.22X coverage, dated to 2,868-2,492 cal BCE (95.4% probability) - consistent with the 3rd-4th Dynasties of the Old Kingdom. Allele frequency-based analyses (PCA, ADMIXTURE, f-statistics, qpAdm) show a strong genetic affinity of this sample to Levantine Natufians. Compared with genomes dated from the end of the Dynastic period (Third Intermediate Period) and present-day Egyptians, the Nuerat sample did not carry the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer genetic component that started to spread across West Asia ~4,000 years ago and is widely spread in present-day populations. The presence of this component in Egypt is likely associated with admixture between local Egyptian populations and Bronze Age-related populations from West Asia. This admixture pattern might result from the dominance of Lower Egypt by Canaanite (Levantine) rulers during the Second Intermediate Period (ca. 1,650-1,550 BCE).
I don't understand what is problematic about this Beyoku? Seems to me the data suggests that the Lower Egyptians were populated by Natufian related peoples?
Too much emphasis here is placed on Natufians (and keep in mind only the Y DNA of 5 Natufians has been reported) They are talking about one sample out of 94
quote:
"94 samples from Armant (Egypt), Nuerat (Egypt) and Ghaba (Sudan) dated from the Early Neolithic to the historic period."..
Genome-wide data were successfully recovered from one sample from Nuerat sequenced to 0.22X coverage, dated to 2,868-2,492...
show a strong genetic affinity of this sample to Levantine Natufians.
the keyword here is one and now people are going off about Natufians
I will indulge this one picture:
Abdel Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil el-Sisi the sixth and current president of Egypt since 2014.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare.
The problem is they're falling for the 'Sub-Saharan' trap that Eurocentrics have created. Genetic Sub-Saharan is the new "True Negro". Indigenous African genetic diversity is much greater than that.
we can already dismiss conclusions made in the article "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods Verena J. Schuenemann,2017"
We can dismiss conclusions about the ethnicity of the AEs in general before even getting into what they said in the article about a Sub-Saharan component increasing later
We can dismiss the conclusions because of the 90 mummies they are - all from one location - vast majority late period - all mitochondrial DNA except for 3 (and none of these 3 included the small few of older mummies) - and one of the full genome mummies was E1b
We already had long thread discussing the weak conclusions of that article So we can move on to the Amarna
what I am trying to get to is the comparison of STR vs SNP data as per aDNA How much weight should be given to each one
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare.
The problem is they're falling for the 'Sub-Saharan' trap that Eurocentrics have created. Genetic Sub-Saharan is the new "True Negro". Indigenous African genetic diversity is much greater than that.
The " true negro " trap is why there are no rude awakenings to "prepare" for..
How can Mahra have the highest natufian components yet have high neanderthal introgression, and Haplogroup J at 70% and Hap E at 28%. They have no subsaharan admixture but have 21% Mtdna L ( xM, N ) Basel N has also been found in the Magreb
quote: However, our ADMIXTURE results indicate that a subset of Yemeni samples from the Mahra governate share a very high level of ancestry (~85%) with a single Near Eastern component. Interestingly, these individuals have Neanderthal ancestry estimates that are greater than estimates from almost all Near Eastern and North African populations and are more consistent with estimates from European and South/Central Asian populations, suggesting that eastern Yemen may be an area of elevated Neanderthal introgression in the Near East. Greater sampling of Near Eastern populations is needed to better understand variation in Neanderthal ancestry and the site(s) where modern humans and Neanderthals interbred."/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]One thing a person might catch right off the bat when reading the study is that it points out that modern Horn-Africans, Somalis included, based on formal-stats, seem to share drift with both Neolithic Levantines and Iranians whereas the Southeast African Pastoralist from 3,000 years ago only seems to share drift with Neolithic Levantines:
We found that the 3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000-year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al.,2016) , and we can exclude source populations related to early farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia.
quote:While these findings show that a Levant-Neolithic-related population made a critical contribution to the ancestry of present-day eastern Africans (Lazaridis et al., 2016), present-day Cushitic speakers such as the Somali cannot be fit simply as having Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP ancestry. The best fitting model for the Somali includes Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP ancestry, Dinka-related ancestry, and 16% ± 3% Iranian-Neolithic-related ancestry (p = 0.015). This suggests that ancestry related to the Iranian Neolithic appeared in eastern Africa after earlier gene flow related to Levant Neolithic populations , a scenario that is made more plausible by the genetic evidence of admixture of Iranian-Neolithic-related ancestry throughout the Levant by the time of the Bronze Age (Lazaridis et al., 2016) and in ancient Egypt by the Iron Age (Schuenemann et al., 2017)
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare.
Rude Awakenings to what? Prepare for what? Exactly?
See what Djehuti wrote. We are using outdated models that are not grounded in human variation and adaptation in an attempt to compete with Eurocentrism on its own pseudo-scientific level. This is done in absence of archeology. Worst of all is a regurgitation of antiquated and pre-genomic arguments. We are not even building upon the data of our master teachers. Right now on Youtube, People are creating videos with fancy editing....parroting things from Diop and Obenga years 50 years ago.... combining it with things we said on Egyptsearch 20 years ago....to argue against genome wide data sequenced from mummies last year. This is why we are left flat footed IMO. Leading to the erasure of entire swathes of African specific genomic and phenotypic diversity which is masked by de-pigmentation.
At this rate...knowing what is coming down the pipe:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Undoubtedly the only solution to this is to make one's own well edited youtube videos
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare.
Rude Awakenings to what? Prepare for what? Exactly?
See what Djehuti wrote. We are using outdated models that are not grounded in human variation and adaptation in an attempt to compete with Eurocentrism on its own pseudo-scientific level. This is done in absence of archeology. Worst of all is a regurgitation of antiquated and pre-genomic arguments. We are not even building upon the data of our master teachers. Right now on Youtube, People are creating videos with fancy editing....parroting things from Diop and Obenga years 50 years ago.... combining it with things we said on Egyptsearch 20 years ago....to argue against genome wide data sequenced from mummies last year. This is why we are left flat footed IMO. Leading to the erasure of entire swathes of African specific genomic and phenotypic diversity which is masked by de-pigmentation.
At this rate...knowing what is coming down the pipe:
Calm the F down, there is no spoon, there is no towel, there are no rude awakenings smh....
You assume, I started from the premise that all Sub Africans/Saharan Africans are identical genetically, and that Yoruba's founded the Egyptian civilization, from a locus of the Niger Bend. I never believed that by the way.
What pseudo amateur afrocentrics on social media believe and promote as popular knowledge aka fake news does not count. I would like you to tell me which old school afrocentric wrote this and taught this?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@Yatunde Lisa Bey - This is not a criticism of you as an individual (Unless you made that video) . This is a critique of the "Black Egypt" community as a whole which has devolved into trolling, pseudo-science, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia. Why make an article about a Keita publication when Egyptsearch did what Keita did 10 years before he did it? Matter of fact, why make a video about Keita's publication yet still "Persist in the racial thinking" that Keita warned about when i was in Highschool over 25 year ago?
@the lioness. No. It all needs to be slashed and burned. Those who fall in its wake will be left as fertilizer creating nutrient rich soil where a new generation of scholars can sow seeds.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: This is a critique of the "Black Egypt" community as a whole which has devolved into trolling, pseudo-science, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia. Why make an article about a Keita publication when Egyptsearch did what Keita did 10 years before he did it? Matter of fact, why make a video about Keita's publication yet still that Keita warned about when i was in Highschool over 25 year ago?
Well I assume that youtubers The Kings Monologue of this thread and Mr. Imhotep fall into this category but what about HomeTeam History? They seem relatively more accurate but I have not taken a hard look it
So we have Scott ADams, suggesting white people move away from black people but that's old school white flight but I also noticed that he was interviewed by Hotep Jesus of "Hotep Nation" In that thread I posted a list of Hotep Nation's FAQS about Hotep Nation, they say first off:
"Hotep Nation is a non-profit 501(c) dedicated to promoting the idea of homeschooling in America.Our mission is to empower families with the resources they need to make the transition from mainstream educational institutions to value-oriented homeschooling, painlessly."
and there was another of their items that I didn't post but I saw, their book list:
So they have all that old predictable stuff on that list, not very hip to the latest
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Undoubtedly the only solution to this is to make one's own well edited youtube videos
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @the lioness. No. It all needs to be slashed and burned. Those who fall in its wake will be left as fertilizer creating nutrient rich soil where a new generation of scholars can sow seeds.
so you or some collaborator with video production skills making more accurate youtube videos is not something you would consider? This dude King's Monologue say he has over 400K views
So on the one hand homeschooling is becoming more popular with white Republicans and MAGAs reacting to all this stuff they label as "woke" and drag book readings for kids, homeschooling so their kids won't be exposed to "dangerous books"
On the other hand there's this Hotep stuff regurgitating and not updating and they are into their own homeschooling and also all these videos on youtube bypassing formal academic education entirely
That's the internet world we are in now, do-it-yourself everything, isolate into your own tribal echo chamber
So anybody on youtube is now, also an educator and the more slick production skills they have, the more work they put into to a crisp video and a well organized script, and sprinkling in a little conspiracy this stuff is presented more in a more entertaining and graphically more appealing way then the dry university academics and scholars doing dry low quality videos of them lecturing with a slide presentation
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I was trying to figure out the source of this picture, It looks like some men looking at some statue
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
I agree with beyoku that a lot of people advocating for African Egypt need to update their paradigms and pay more attention to recent scholarship. A big part of the problem is that most laypeople are conditioned into "racial thinking" which affects how they view data. That's why a lot of these arguments over ancient Egypt's African roots get reduced to "were they 'Negroid'/SSA/Black". People get too hung up on how much AE would have resembled West and Central Africans because they are accustomed to thinking of those latter populations as the definitive "Black African people", even though there are plenty of dark-skinned ethnic groups in other parts of Africa who don't look like them.
Remember, it wasn't that long ago when Australasians and certain South Asians were classified as "Black" or "Negroid", even though today's racialists would prefer to give them their own "Australoid" racial category. Our whole construct of race is antiquated and contradicted by our current genetic knowledge. For example, we now know that, since non-African ancestry is nested within African ancestry, that some "Negroid" Africans are more closely related to those non-Africans than they are to certain other "Negroid" Africans. That is not something compatible with the racial thinking that even Afrocentrics can fall victim to.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: No. It all needs to be slashed and burned. Those who fall in its wake will be left as fertilizer creating nutrient rich soil where a new generation of scholars can sow seeds.
What we need is more people who know better, like Keita, speaking up and doing more to reach out to the general public. They won't convince everyone, for the same reason that not even NASA has been able to convince everyone that the Earth is an oblate spheroid (look up "flat Earthers" if you don't believe me), but they can provide an authoritative counterpoint to all the nonsense you see everywhere.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
were they 'Negroid'/SSA/Black
Huh? Somalis and Ethiopians are SSA but don't all look like west Africans which is a region.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: were they 'Negroid'/SSA/Black
Huh? Somalis and Ethiopians are SSA but don't all look like west Africans which is a region.
You're technically right, but I meant "SSA" as synonymous with the stereotyped West/Central African phenotype, which is how even people who should know better (i.e. people in the bio-anthropology fandom) often use it.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
So what did Diop say? They claim to be from the east and found pygmies in the country when they arrived.
What did shumlaka dna say? Only Batwa DNA found Geneticists sequenced genome-wide DNA data from four Shum Laka foragers buried at the site of Shum Laka in Cameroon between 8000–3000 years ago.
E1b1* etc and L3 have North eastern provenance... L2 is bidirectional on the Sahel
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Yatunde Lisa Bey - This is not a criticism of you as an individual (Unless you made that video) . This is a critique of the "Black Egypt" community as a whole which has devolved into trolling, pseudo-science, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia. Why make an article about a Keita publication when Egyptsearch did what Keita did 10 years before he did it? Matter of fact, why make a video about Keita's publication yet still "Persist in the racial thinking" that Keita warned about when i was in Highschool over 25 year ago?
@the lioness. No. It all needs to be slashed and burned. Those who fall in its wake will be left as fertilizer creating nutrient rich soil where a new generation of scholars can sow seeds.
By the whole thing being slashed and burned, I assume you mean Afrocentrists? How Nhilistic of you Nah, some people including you need to in fact go back and read the old heads ( even when they are wrong) and understand/comprehend what was actually said and written, much of it was on point, and needed criticism of Eurocentric thought and racist historical propaganda and white supremacy eugenics of the time. Old afrocentrics are not responsible for the EGOISTS who go out on twitter on propagate falshoods, to win social media beefs.
Notice... Eurocentrics have not given up a damn thing they are just rewriting paradigms to favor Eurasians in the DNA game, even tho.. the category itself called "Eurasian" is false... some dna classified as " Eurasian " should be described as "Afrasian..." As long as racial thinking persists with the Europoids, it will persist everywhere
Afrocentricists should never unilaterally disarm that would be stupid. I am still waiting for an answer to my original question...
The modern game of genetics is still being played on the 19th century Eugenics game board...
RPSG Lecture 15 Dec 2021 - Eugenics: A Dark History and Troubling Present Dr Adam Rutherford
some of y'all are some naive MF'ers and some of y'all have yet to crack open a history book and it shows, if one DNA result gots you sweating, or if you are still expecting Rameses III to be changed back from E1b1a to E1b1b.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Anyway, we have today a more refined and updated reconstruction of the Natufian skull. Here's a rendering of what a Natufian might have looked like.
LOL
Sorry but I don't trust facial reconstructions, especially those from artists who are not double-blinded and thus prone to biases, and I particularly don't take anything seriously from 'Ancestral Whispers'!
You do realize that the Natufians craniometrically have shown close affinities to Sub-Saharan Africans, right?
But just to show you how ludicrous the artists of 'Ancestral Whispers' are, here below was their initial reconstruction of Nazlet Khater 2, the 33,000 year old Upper Egyptian man!:
^ This despite the fact that due to rather conspicuous craniofacial features, virtually all the experts like Ron Pinhasi, Collin Groves, Pierre Vermeersch etc. concur that he represents a population ancestral to modern Sub-Saharan "negroes"! I understand that a recent study of his inner ear bones show affinities with modern Eurasians, but seriously a facial reconstruction is suppose to be based on the visible skull as a whole. I guess you can reconstruct any skull to look European no matter how "negroid" it looks.
When 'Ancestral Whispers' received backlash from even white laypeople who were not 'Afrocentrics' due to their overly blatant white-wash, they then did another reconstruction This shows just how accurate or rather inaccurate reconstructions are.
P.S. The affinities of NK's inner ear bones should give Afrocentrics a clue as to just how "Eurasian" Epipaleolithic Southwest Asians were much less North Africans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Nature. 2016 Aug 25; 536(7617): 419–424. doi: 10.1038/nature19310
Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians and populations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, 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).
Nature. 2016 Aug 25; 536(7617): 419–424. doi: 10.1038/nature19310
Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians and populations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, 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).
DO NOT SHARE MORE ALLELES, this claim is DUBIOUS...this is legalize type language, and conditional" Which SSA is he even talking about?" The " Yoruban sample" they keep using?
quote:on Natufian skeletal remains from present-day northern Israel, the remains of 5 Natufians carried the following paternal haplgroups:
E1b1b1b2 (xE1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b) - meaning an unspecified branch of E1b1b1b2 E1b1 (xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1) - i.e. a branch of E1b1 that is neither E1b1a1 nor E1b1b1b1. E1b1b1 - originally classified as CT but further defined as E1b1b1 by Martiniano et al. 2020. [58] A 2018 analysis by Daniel Shriner, using modern populations as a reference, suggested that the Natufians carried a small amount of Eastern African ancestry (~6.8%) associated with the modern Omotic-speaking groups of southern Ethiopia. The study also suggested that this component may be the source of Y-haplogroup E (particularly Y-haplogroup E-M215, also known as "E1b1b") among Natufians
quote:Laziridis 2018 defined the Iberomaurisians as own lineage from a unique population called 'Ancestral North African' (ANA). This ancestral population also contributed around 13% ancestry into Mesolithic Natufians of the Levant, as well as around 12,5% Iberomaurisian-like gene flow into modern West Africans (Yoruba)
quote:individuals associated with the Natufian culture have been found to cluster with other West-Eurasian populations, but also have substantial higher ancestry that can be traced back to the hypothetical "Basal Eurasian" lineage, which contributed in varying degrees to all West-Eurasian lineages, except the Ancient North Eurasians, and peaks among modern Gulf Arabs. The Natufians were already differentiated from other West-Eurasian lineages, such as the Anatolian farmers north of the Levant, that contributed to the peopling of Europe in significant amounts, and who had some Western Hunter Gatherer-like (WHG) inferred ancestry, in contrast to Natufians who lacked this component (similar to Neolithic Iranian farmers from the Zagros mountains). This might suggest that different strains of West-Eurasians contributed to Natufians and Zagros farmers,[51] as both Natufians and Zagros farmers descended from different populations of local hunter gatherers.
So Natufians have some minor ANA ancestry that includes some West African type 0.0455 % that had 8% Omotic, they carried African Ydna lineages and some African Mtdna lineages ( L3, L2 & Basal N) the CT has been corrected to E1b1... Natufian skeletal remains have Negroid affinity. Natufians have ancestral not derived SLC24A5. Natufians lack substantial neanderthal introgresssion. Natufians are not related to WHG nor CHG. Levantine Natufian remains are on the African techtonic plate... Natfuians are also the spreaders of AfroAsiatic languages ( that originate in AFRICA)
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Yatunde Lisa Bey - This is not a criticism of you as an individual (Unless you made that video) . This is a critique of the "Black Egypt" community as a whole which has devolved into trolling, pseudo-science, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia. Why make an article about a Keita publication when Egyptsearch did what Keita did 10 years before he did it? Matter of fact, why make a video about Keita's publication yet still "Persist in the racial thinking" that Keita warned about when i was in Highschool over 25 year ago?
@the lioness. No. It all needs to be slashed and burned. Those who fall in its wake will be left as fertilizer creating nutrient rich soil where a new generation of scholars can sow seeds.
By the whole thing being slashed and burned, I assume you mean Afrocentrists? How Nhilistic of you Nah, some people including you need to in fact go back and read the old heads ( even when they are wrong) and understand/comprehend what was actually said and written, much of it was on point, and needed criticism of Eurocentric thought and racist historical propaganda and white supremacy eugenics of the time. Old afrocentrics are not responsible for the EGOISTS who go out on twitter on propagate falshoods, to win social media beefs.
Notice... Eurocentrics have not given up a damn thing they are just rewriting paradigms to favor Eurasians in the DNA game, even tho.. the category itself called "Eurasian" is false... some dna classified as " Eurasian " should be described as "Afrasian..." As long as racial thinking persists with the Europoids, it will persist everywhere
Afrocentricists should never unilaterally disarm that would be stupid. I am still waiting for an answer to my original question...
The modern game of genetics is still being played on the 19th century Eugenics game board...
RPSG Lecture 15 Dec 2021 - Eugenics: A Dark History and Troubling Present Dr Adam Rutherford
some of y'all are some naive MF'ers and some of y'all have yet to crack open a history book and it shows, if one DNA result gots you sweating, or if you are still expecting Rameses III to be changed back from E1b1a to E1b1b.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I dont know how long you have been in this space but i was lurking Egyptsearch in like 2004/5. It's not about Afrocentricity. I am talking about "Black Egypt" which right NOW is simply a GRIFT. Its not just this ONE Study....its ALL the studies proving the Grift is up. When we HAVE the cranial analysis of Egyptian skeletons why model them in a reconstruction as looking West Central Africans when their are "Black People" in Luxor who look like King Tut and Akhenaton's Busts?
I think your suggestion is part of the problem, you don't recognize the opposition. Cracking open a book from 50-60 years ago that is NOT a primary source is part of the problem. Why do I need to crack open a book from 50 years ago when i can look at archeological findings done 5 Years ago?........from Archeological sites that didn't even EXIST 15-30 Years ago? That a problem, because the opposition is using data that was produced 5 DAYS ago! The entire movement is plagued with grifting and WORK AVOIDANCE. ANd to prove a point. Please post the last 5 articles on Nile Valley/African archaeology you have read that supports your position against the Euroclowns. Dont worry I will wait... Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Why do I need to crack open a book from 50 years ago when i can look at archaeologist findings done 5 Years ago?.
You don't have to crack open the old heads if you don't want, but you could crack open some new books because clearly, history is important and adds context to archaeological findings and sometimes can predict what the DNA/Archaeologists/Anthropologists are going to actually find.
But, you do you.... but don't run around like the sky is falling Chicken little when some obvious DNA findings pop up... not every Afrocentrist is a youtube grifter or social media incel looking for an egoist boost and hit of feel good dopamine.
And, I would like to hear the same heat given to Eurocentric grifters on youtube, and eurocentric incels on social media... because they are still promoting hate and white supremacy eugenics that are much more harmful Africans in general.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Please post the last 5 articles on Nile Valley/African archaeology you have read that supports your position against the Euroclowns. Dont worry I will wait...
Have I stated my position?
The way you view archaeology as benign is cute Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Why do I need to crack open a book from 50 years ago when i can look at archaeologist findings done 5 Years ago?.
You don't have to crack open the old heads if you don't want, but you could crack open some new books because clearly, history is important and adds context to archaeological findings and sometimes can predict what the DNA/Archaeologists/Anthropologists are going to actually find.
But, you do you.... but don't run around like the sky is falling Chicken little when some obvious DNA findings pop up... not every Afrocentrist is a youtube grifter or social media incel looking for an egoist boost and hit of feel good dopamine.
And, I would like to hear the same heat given to Eurocentric grifters on youtube, and eurocentric incels on social media... because they are still promoting hate and white supremacy eugenics that are much more harmful Africans in general.
Exactly. Work Avoidance.
I ask what have you read that counters Euroclowns and supports your position...you reply with NOTHING. You right, Not every Afrocentric is Grifting for clicks. The most vocal, and loudest ones are so they control the narrative. Furthermore, what is the point of being "Vocal" and bringing heat to Eurocentric stupidity? What is the point of fighting pseudoscience with more pseudoscience? I am not here to study Eurocentrism. I am here to point out most are not ready to combat it.
So far, This is how things are going down:
Me: Euroclowns got guns now. you: We know karate though, look at these moves from 50 years ago. me: But they got guns....we need to get some better guns. you: Im, anti gun. me: They got brand new guns. We gonna lose. we need more guns. you: i mean, i looked at some guns. me: what are the last 5 guns you looked at? you: we dont need to talk our lack of guns. why dont you talk about how the euros got too many guns? you: (showing up to the gun ight with a knife.)
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
You who have insisted for the last 10 years that the Ram 3 call as E1b1a was a bad call and would soon be switched to E1b1b telling someone they have work avoidance is rich... all you had to do was crack open an Egyptology book to learn why that was never going to be..
But OK...
By the way, I am a real person, not an internet troll or incel, I started lurking on EgyptSearch back in 2001 or so... this is just an interest not a full time, job. In the last 20 years, I worked, raised my kids, helped to put them both through University ( successfully)... ran my own business ( successfully) and for the last three years took care of my dying father whom recently passed. I am just now focusing my full attention and reading back to this history. So... No laziness is not my issue...
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: You who have insisted for the last 10 years that the Ram 3 call as E1b1a was a bad call and would soon be switched to E1b1b telling someone they have work avoidance is rich... all you had to do was crack open an Egyptology book to learn why that was never going to be.. .
I didn't say E1b1a was a "Bad Call". I explained specifically why stating a lineage is "E1b1a" (Which is a known SNP) based on limited *STR Testing* is not technically true.
quote: Short tandem repeats (STRs) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are two kinds of commonly used markers in Y chromosome studies of forensic and population genetics. There has been increasing interest in the cost saving strategy by using the STR haplotypes to predict SNP haplogroups. However, the convergence of Y chromosome STR haplotypes from different haplogroups might compromise the accuracy of haplogroup prediction. Here, we compared the worldwide Y chromosome lineages at both haplogroup level and haplotype level to search for the possible haplotype similarities among haplogroups. The similar haplotypes between haplogroups B and I2, C1 and E1b1b1, C2 and E1b1a1, H1 and J, L and O3a2c1, O1a and N, O3a1c and O3a2b, and M1 and O3a2 have been found, and those similarities reduce the accuracy of prediction.
quote: The most ancient lineage A00 also has the exclusive STR haplotypes. The haplotypes of haplogroup A1a and A1b1b2b show similarities with haplogroup DE and E1b1a1, thus, about 30% of A1a and A1b1b2b samples were mistaken as DE in YPredictor. Haplogroup B+s are probably the most diverse clades, sharing similar haplotypes with various haplogroups, such as haplogroups I2a1, R1a1, D2a, E1b1b1, and L. Actually, only 18% of haplogroup B samples could be successfully inferred, and 26% were mistaken as I2 or IJ, 21% were assigned as haplogroup R in YPredictor. Similar to haplogroup B, the haplotypes of paragroup F*, H*, and K* are also too diverse to be used in haplogroup prediction. Most haplotypes of haplogroup C1 are similar to those of E1b1b1 and 22% of C1 samples were mistaken as E1b1b1 in prediction. Similarly, haplogroup C2 and its sublineages C2a and C2a1 shared most haplotypes with E1b1a1 and therefore 37% of those C2 samples were mistaken as E1b1a1.
This is the work. I will take the work and accurate analysis ANY DAY over the casual acceptance of a predicted results because it happens to ALSO Be the one i carry. DATA > Feelgoodism. When and If they SNP test Ramesses III or ANY of these mummies that have conflicting STR predictions in different calculators guess who is not going to be left flat footed? Dont get butthurt i made the claim. Just address the evidence of the claim. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Nature. 2016 Aug 25; 536(7617): 419–424. doi: 10.1038/nature19310
Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East
A population without Neanderthal admixture, basal to other Eurasians, may have plausibly lived in Africa. Craniometric analyses have suggested an affinity between the Natufians and populations of north or sub-Saharan Africa24,25, a result that finds some support from Y chromosome analysis which shows that the Natufians and successor Levantine Neolithic populations carried haplogroup E, of likely ultimate African origin, which has not been detected in other ancient males from West Eurasia (Supplementary Information, section 6) 7,8. However, 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).
If this is a response to my last post, then I suggest you read what I wrote again. I never said anything about Natufian genetics, only about their craniometric features in regards to facial reconstruction. Cranial morphology and genomic makeup are two different things. By the way, Lazaridis is correct that in terms of autosomal alleles *present-day sub-Saharan Africans* do not share more alleles with Natufians than other Eurasians, but we don't know about the situation in ancient times much less prehistoric times. Getting back to the issue of cranial morphology, what about the epipaleolithic skeletal remains in Kenya contemporary to that of the Natufians?? Theirs show "caucasoid" morphology, so what do you think their autosomal DNA would tell us? This is why racial typology is a fallacy as well as a deathtrap to Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics who still cling to it.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
BTW, the Nazlet Khater specimen would be a nice sample to get aDNA from. Would be nice to see if they are more closely related to Upper Nile populations, eastern Saharans like the AE, or some other population. Right now, I'm getting mixed vibes from the craniofacial features and that inner ear examination.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism
Historical feelgoodism is bringing in a lot of money to people who can turn that into for sale pseudo-educational products
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism
Historical feelgoodism is bringing in a lot of money to people who can turn that into for sale pseudo- educational products
Euro's have spent the last 250 years on historical propaganda to engender political and geopolitical gains and some, "feelgoodism" for low class poor whites.
Not one ethnic group on the planet has made more money off of ethnocentric feelgoodism than white supremacists.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@ The Lioness - Why we should burn it all down. @ Yatunde Lisa Bey - IN what way does white folks 250 years of nonsense make us SMARTER? It doesn't. A sound understanding of African archeology and an understanding of human migration grounded in Science is going to make us smarter REGARDLESS of white folks foolishness. Furthermore when they bring their foolishness we will not be ill-equipped to combat it (See Below).
See the video in the OP where the creator speaks of New Kingdom Egyptians being "PURE" Africans while presenting data that doesn't show those said Egyptians to be "PURE" African. The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS!
At this point, "DNA Tribes" and "Rameses III E1b1a" is going to be the rebuttal for everything coming down the pipe in the next few years. Abusir, we flailing. Old Kingdom Egyptians similar to Abusir, oof. We in 2023 and these dudes making videos where Ancient Egyptians look like Ghanians. Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: were they 'Negroid'/SSA/Black
Huh? Somalis and Ethiopians are SSA but don't all look like west Africans which is a region.
What exactly do "sub-Saharan "West Africans" look like? The "sub-Saharan" people below are from Ethiopia. Why don't they look like "West Africans"?
Member Rated: posted 24-10-2006 08:21 PM It seems like most people here only care about Egyptian race and other aspects of Egypt which are directly or indirectly related to their biological makeup. No wonder the "whiteys" are always gonna be the greatest contributors in Egyptology and provide with the information they want so you can continue to argue about the Egyptian race.
Look here another forum concerning Ancient Egypt i just found, http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=2&sid=ea4edecd44ec0d941a5dc24f5cc1e0ea these people here are interested genuinly about Pharaonic Egypt, they barely ever discuss social contructs such as "race", they are real passionate about Ancient Egypt and its people, Religion, culture etc. Its these people who will take over Egyptology later and become the next generation experts on Egypt and controll the information flow, maybe then you'll still be debating and arguing with the information they release. Fix up god damn it, this race thing has gone to far, same ol day in and day out, and then waiting for the next guy to appear and release the same old debate and arguments, and waiting for the next again.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism
Historical feelgoodism is bringing in a lot of money to people who can turn that into for sale pseudo- educational products
Euro's have spent the last 250 years on historical propaganda to engender political and geopolitical gains and some, "feelgoodism" for low class poor whites.
Not one ethnic group on the planet has made more money off of ethnocentric feelgoodism than white supremacists.
check out the number of products available, many images coming in several forms, framed , unframed, hoodie, backpacks, cup etc then look at just the reviews for just one of these items, you might see 50 people bought it and liked it, do the math that's some paper right there
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: See the video in the OP where the creator speaks of New Kingdom Egyptians being "PURE" Africans while presenting data that doesn't show those said Egyptians to be "PURE" African. The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS!
Please post timecode reference of this statement, and I can't find a single reference to 'pure' Africans anywhere in the video...?
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: This is a critique of the "Black Egypt" community as a whole which has devolved into trolling, pseudo-science, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia. Why make an article about a Keita publication when Egyptsearch did what Keita did 10 years before he did it? Matter of fact, why make a video about Keita's publication yet still that Keita warned about when i was in Highschool over 25 year ago?
Well I assume that youtubers The Kings Monologue of this thread and Mr. Imhotep fall into this category but what about HomeTeam History? They seem relatively more accurate but I have not taken a hard look it
So we have Scott ADams, suggesting white people move away from black people but that's old school white flight but I also noticed that he was interviewed by Hotep Jesus of "Hotep Nation" In that thread I posted a list of Hotep Nation's FAQS about Hotep Nation, they say first off:
"Hotep Nation is a non-profit 501(c) dedicated to promoting the idea of homeschooling in America.Our mission is to empower families with the resources they need to make the transition from mainstream educational institutions to value-oriented homeschooling, painlessly."
and there was another of their items that I didn't post but I saw, their book list:
So they have all that old predictable stuff on that list, not very hip to the latest
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Undoubtedly the only solution to this is to make one's own well edited youtube videos
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @the lioness. No. It all needs to be slashed and burned. Those who fall in its wake will be left as fertilizer creating nutrient rich soil where a new generation of scholars can sow seeds.
so you or some collaborator with video production skills making more accurate youtube videos is not something you would consider? This dude King's Monologue say he has over 400K views
So on the one hand homeschooling is becoming more popular with white Republicans and MAGAs reacting to all this stuff they label as "woke" and drag book readings for kids, homeschooling so their kids won't be exposed to "dangerous books"
On the other hand there's this Hotep stuff regurgitating and not updating and they are into their own homeschooling and also all these videos on youtube bypassing formal academic education entirely
That's the internet world we are in now, do-it-yourself everything, isolate into your own tribal echo chamber
So anybody on you tube is no also an educator and the more slick production skills they have, the more work they put into to a crisp video and a well organized script, and sprinkling in a little conspiracy this stuff is presented more in a more entertaining and graphically more appealing way then the dry university academics and scholars doing dry low quality videos of them lecturing with a slide presentation
HomeTeam is not bad, making few extremist claims, and oft qualify their arguments. Hotep Nation seems basically a black front group for libertarian/right wing causes. They say there are into "home schooling" but why then does most of their content regurgitate libertarian/right wing talking points, bashing fading BLM and Dem bashing and not actual homeschool issues of which they are many, from state regulation, to extra curricular participations, to getting kids some sort of certification of education, etc etc. "BLM" is hardly a burning issue among the dozens that need attention. As for home schooling due to "wokeness", home schoolers for multiple decades have objected to school curricula on religious or political grounds. Where were the "hoteps" in those decades past? Do any of them actually have kids being homeschooled, not one or two tokens but a actual viable, ongoing homeschooling groups with real kids and real parents?
They appear similar to a number of "conservative" groups that popped up on Facebook during Trump's 2018 run, where most of the group content seemed copied over from standard right wing groups, including "nigg#$@#" videos. I asked the negroes frontin the group whey they were allowing such insulting BS on a supposed black run group and a "conservative" one at that. They ducked the question, but turned out the group was actually run by a white woman.
Don't get me wrong- they are perfectly entitled to their own agenda and opinions, and those on the left are likewise running their own black front groups.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by the lioness,: quote: Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism
Historical feelgoodism is bringing in a lot of money to people who can turn that into for sale pseudo- educational products Euro's have spent the last 250 years on historical propaganda to engender political and geopolitical gains and some, "feelgoodism" for low class poor whites.
Not one ethnic group on the planet has made more money off of ethnocentric feelgoodism than white supremacists. yes, but who's getting paid?
check out the number of products available, many images coming in several forms, framed , unframed, hoodie, backpacks, cup etc then look at just the reviews for just one of these items, you might see 50 people bought it and liked it, do the math that's some paper right there
So you are saying even Tyranhotep is cashing in on the 'Afrocentric thing"? There seems to be also a flurry of product activity on the "Kemety" side complete with calendars, pens and other merchandise, including people trying to "copyright" stuff they leached from Reloaded and ES.
Re feelgoodism, yes there are assorted "hotep enthusiasts" who insist on "blackwash" variants of the narrative that everybody looked or was colored like Oprah or Mike Tyson or similar in AE until Greeks, Persians or Arabs showed up. These people, and there are several on Facebook, paint themselves into a corner with extreme claims then get embarrassed online when weaknesses are pointed out. Years ago I advised people like Deidra Mcintyre over at Facebook to get a better handle on the data and make claims more defensible, or they would be seriously embarrassed when they tried to debate outside their echo chambers. That being said, no doubt there may be troll agents around setting up strawman arguments that are easily and nobly "refuted".
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
I'd be interested to know how members of this board contribute to knowledge proliferation beyond critiquing other people's work on this forum?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ first Narmer Menes posts in 13 years, just sayin
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Many seem to cash in on ancient Egypt. One could write a whole book about all the things that are sold all over the world that are inspired by AE.
Just look at this shower curtain which transforms your bathroom to a part of the Nile
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique
Hotep Nation seems basically a black front group for libertarian/right wing causes. They say there are into "home schooling" but why then does most of their content regurgitate libertarian/right wing talking points, bashing fading BLM and Dem bashing and not actual homeschool issues of which they are many, from state regulation, to extra curricular participations, to getting kids some sort of certification
I was thinking the same, that they are quasi-conservatives but then I came across their reading list with all the old school Afrocentric stuff on it. So it's a confusing blend (may also have transformed over time ?)
Hotep Jesus, one of the main members Hotep Nation his youtube was founded 2012 The Hotep Nation channel only started 2021 However I saw one post on their website form 2016, not sure how far the website version goes back
Hotep Jesus, youtube He has videos going back 8 years, you can scroll down to the earliest, there's not that many, maybe 100 (but a whole other set under the LIVE tab)
Look at the banner of the channel, they've got the ankhs and the crook and flail but when I typed in Egypt in the search on videos all I see as far as Egypt goes is a Shaka Ahamose interview
Bryan Sharpe. You know him as Hotep Jesus. Many of you know him from his various media appearances: FOX news, The Joe Rogan experience, InfoWars, Gutfeld! and more. If you don’t already, you will soon know him for much more than his humor and ability to create viral content on social media.
If you aren’t soaking up the unmatched insight extended by one of this generation’s greatest intellects and informed by thousands of hours of research unauthorized by the establishment, prepare to be left behind by the next wave of growth and enlightenment. The uninformed call him a grifter. The attuned intellect recognizes him for what he is: a harbinger.
maybe that booklist is some kind decoy because check this out
HOTEP NATION CONFERENCE 2023 Ahern Hotel, Las Vegas (hotepcon for short)
ONE ON ONE WITH HOTEP JESUS
OUR SPECIAL GUESTS SIT DOWN WITH HOTEP JESUS TO DIVE DEEPLY INTO THEIR AREAS OF EXPERTISE IN FRONT OF A LIVE STUDIO OF VIPS. The political expert, Sonnie Johnson, will have her minds tugged and prodded about the political landscape of America. When it comes to mental and physical health, we have the eminent authority, Project Rook present. More Speakers announced soon…
MEET SONNIE JOHNSON Sonnie Johnson is a dynamic and inspirational national speaker, Tea Party activist, and pundit.
Sonnie was formerly a host of Politichicks and is a regular contributor to Breitbart.com. She has appeared frequently on Fox News, including Hannity, and Red Eye, as well as Headline News.
Sonnie is a frequent speaker at conservative and Tea Party events, including CPAC, Tea Party Patriots, David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend, and many others.
Sonnie is the founder of “DidSheSayThat.com” where she provides cutting edge conservative commentary and opinion. Her strong and original voice on that site drew the attention of many conservative organizations, and she was soon introduced to the leaders of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, where she became the President of the Virginia chapter.
As President, she was offered numerous speaking engagements at Tea Party rallies and women’s conservative groups. Her first public speaking engagement was at the Roanoke Tea Party rally, where they called her the “star of the show.”
MEET PROJECT ROOK Rook is a wholistic health and wellness coach who discovered the mind and body’s natural ability to heal itself while struggling with several “mystery” illnesses that conventional medicine couldn’t explain or remedy.
Her journey back to health revealed that illness is not our adversary after all, but instead a messenger sent to move us closer to the truth that the answers we’re all looking for are within.
Rook now teaches millennials how to connect the dots between an unhealthy body, a victim mindset and a life of suffering.
Rook’s message to the world is that every human can return to an illness and pain-free life by transforming how they eat and how they think, but the foundation for true healing must begin with a change in beliefs.
MEET TANEI RICKS Dr. Tanei Ricks is a classically trained synthetic organic chemist that frequently uses his skill set at the interface of chemistry and biology.
He holds a BS in Chemistry (Biochemistry focus) from Augusta State University, a PhD in Organic Chemistry from the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, and he completed a postdoctoral research fellowship at the University of Memphis where he is currently an assistant professor of teaching.
Throughout his decade of undergraduate and graduate research , he is an author on 3 scientific publications, an inaugural member of the Savannah River Scholarship Program funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and a Program for Excellence and Equity in Research (PEER) fellowship recipient funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH).
Tanei’s mission in science is to give the average person the tools to use scientific data and studies to enrich their lives. He believes that the world is made better through the practical application of science and strives to help people make those connections in the classroom and online. His online presence includes an active Twitter account with 30K+ followers, a scientific newsletter, and a study website for organic chemistry students called hackorganicchemistry.com
VIP Ticket Dining Accomodations FEAST WITH THE HOTEPS Enjoy a luxurious private dinner with the Hoteps at the Ahern hotel.
CELEBRITY CHEF 5-COURSE TASTING On our first night we feast on a 5-course tasting from Celebrity Chef Mark.
BREAKFAST AND APPETIZERS Enjoy two chef’s kiss breakfasts and appetizers at events.
Gun Range VIP Experience Hoteps advocate for firearm training. Join Cannon Hotep and others at the local firing range for some 2A action and VIP experience (guns sold serparately).
LOCK IN YOUR SPOT BEFORE THE NEXT RATE HIKE!
All-Inclusive VIP w/ 3-night hotel stay $1129
VIP Event Pass Does not include hotel stay $697 5 Food Experiences All-access Pass (Add a guest)
Prices for Hotep Conference 2023 tickets do not include fees for the firing range. That is an activity separate from Hotep Nation and handle by the entity at the firing range.
^^ notice how you can click "get it" and it takes you to Amazon, so the Nation gets a percentage by affiliate marketing, a lesson in passive income. both demographics covered, Tea Party/Breibart and Elijah Muhammad
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
lol, hey, its like the Ancient Egyptian shower curtain. They figured out an angle to get paid, just as BLM front or sponsored groups (funded by Soros?) figured out a way to get paid, though I have no doubt some believe in their particular spiels. I have no particular beef with HotepN's politics- there needs to be reppin' on the other side of the street- just wish they were more balanced, rather than recycle the talking points, but they are doing what everyone else is doing it could be said.
Likewise I just wish some of the blek Egypt or white Egypt crowd were more balanced. Speaking of which, I wonder why Morez did not sample Southern Egypt?
Posted by Tehutimes (Member # 21712) on :
@beyoku Do you know what every Ghanaian looks like?@ Yatunde Lisa Bey Its great reading you battling against those making Ancient Khemit limited in the phenotypes & ethnicities of African populations that it consisted of.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^ first Narmer Menes posts in 13 years, just sayin
Haha... I gave up when I realised most people on here just criticise afrocentric scholars, post pictures of bedouins and lean apologetically towards eurocentricism...
I hope you're well Lioness... still loving your energy.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tehutimes: @beyoku Do you know what every Ghanaian looks like?@ Yatunde Lisa Bey Its great reading you battling against those making Ancient Khemit limited in the phenotypes & ethnicities of African populations that it consisted of.
I agree. He posts pictures of big nosed bedouins with zero cultural or ethnic affiliation to kemet, then goes on to criticise reconstructions that look Ghanaian... totally unaware of the ethnic diversity that spans nations like Ghana and Nigeria, and also, not to mention, shall we talk about the phenotype of mentuhotep 1 & 2, Sensusret 2, Sahure, djoser...etc they are far from typical arab looking bedouin...
The eurocentric apologism isn't even subtle... smh. Also, noticed how he made criticisms of that video that were unreferenced. He literally put in quotes the word 'PURE' and that phrase or emphasis wasn't towards purity wanst made at all. I'm waiting for him to explain that.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
@Tehutimes No BEYOKU does not know what every Ghanaian looks like, Anthropology, History, Cultural studies must all bow to genetic models that may or may not include samples from all the different ethnic groupings within Ghana. Ghanaians are genetically identical to Yorubans don't you know. ( insert sarcasm )
quote:" the emergence of of biology from the 18th century onwards and from genetics in the 19th and 20th Century onwards actually was a deeply pernicious history because both of those academic fields of study which are now the biggest science are were invented not in parallel with political ideologies but in service of those political ideologies foreign "
quote:" so race science was invented in the in the 18th 17th 18th centuries in order to bolster European expansion colonialization and similarly genetics emerged out of a desire to reshape populations and the structure of populations "
quote:" talk about the history of eugenics from from geneticists now I think it's really really important that we know our own history because and this is the sort of long answer to your to your question because you know we think of science we like to think of science as being apolitical and amoral and that we're just generating data and it is up to you know grabby politicians or journalists or Society more broadly to interpret the data that we generate uh in this absolutely pristine neutral way right that is just not true it's not true at all. All science is political in all science has always been political anyone who says that science isn't political has not been paying attention for about 500 years "
quote:" genetics is a really good example of how even people who are well intentioned can be unaware of the fact that data is never neutral and science is always political. "
quote:" when we first started doing genome-wide Association studies in the 2005-ish about 90 percent of the genomes available to us came from White European people because most of the work had been done in in Western Europe and America and that's that's deeply unrepresentative of genomic diversity in the rest of the world right white European people are a statistical outlier in terms of genome diversity and almost all genetic diversity in humans is it resides within people of recent African descent either in Africa at the moment or from the various diasporas over the last a few centuries so if you're only looking at White European genomes you're you're really only addressing a tiny proportion of genomic diversity and only really serving a tiny proportion of humanity that was in and you know we know this is a problem the last time it was assessed which was last year the proportion of genomes available for genome-wide Association study databases was now 92 percent white Europeans so we've actually gone in the wrong direction"
All quotes by Adam Rutherford ( Geneticist )
Adam Rutherford | A Scientific Scandal | Edinburgh International Book Festival
Discussing his book 'Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics', geneticist Adam Rutherford examines its continuing effects on people’s lives.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
All modern politics aside, which for some reason lioness always likes to interject, Ancient Egypt IS an African culture NOT a Eurasian one! All cultural anthropologists and ethnologists who've examined Egyptian culture agree that it holds most affinities with other African cultures especially those in Sub-Sahara. This is so much the case that racist scholars in the past used the 'Hamitic Race Theory' to suggest that it was Caucasoid Hamites from Eurasia who introduced these cultural traits and traditions into Sub-Sahara! LOL Now it seems that the theory is being revived again though this time excluding culture and based entirely on biology specifically genetics, though interestingly focused on aDNA since the Y and mtDNA show ties to Sub-Sahara. Speaking of which..
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: BTW, the Nazlet Khater specimen would be a nice sample to get aDNA from. Would be nice to see if they are more closely related to Upper Nile populations, eastern Saharans like the AE, or some other population. Right now, I'm getting mixed vibes from the craniofacial features and that inner ear examination.
I don't think there was any "mixture" at all but rather a perfect representation of the diversity that existed in Africa prior to the Holocene. N K is called "Proto-Negroid-Capoid" by his cranial morphology yet his ear bones look 'Eurasian'. Natufians metrically look Sub-Saharan and carry Sub-Saharan uniparental lineages yet their autosomal profile is 'Eurasian', and yet didn't the ancestors of Eurasians come from Africa? Also, there is the discovery of the autosomal signal dubbed 'Basal Eurasian' which the Natufians seem to be rich in, and even genetic commentators like Razib Khan who is not exactly Afrocentric has admitted that its likely origin is Africa. By the way, the same allegedly 'Near Eastern' autosomal profile found in Egyptians is also found in Nubians as far south as central Sudan, yet funny how you don't see much of this news in the usual web news sources which only talk about the Egyptians. The only ones who do mention it are those typical Hamiticists.
This is why Africanist scholars need to think outside the box that is 'Sub-Sahara' and everything it entails from "Negro-Egyptien" to the Great Lakes Origins for real answers. Cheikh Anta Diop is correct to postulate African origins for Egyptian civilization but bioanthropology has come a long way from the racialist thinking of his day. The whole "negro" vs. "caucasian" thing is obsolete and no longer valid.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
lower image is from The King's Monologue's video called: The Tutankhamun Re-Reconstruction Experiment
On the lower left is the unpainted, sculpted reconstruction of Tutankhamun based on the mummy made by forensic artist Christian Corbet for the documentary TUTANKHAMUN: ALLIES & ENEMIES ( Nov. 23, 2022) https://www.pbs.org/show/tutankhamun-allies-enemies/
on the right King's Monologue's reconstruction which he argues is more similar to the art and therefore more credible to how he actually looked (refer to how he explains it in the video)
On the top left one of the gold masks, another clip form the video At top right the wood bust, although does not appear in the video
More Tut art:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Christian Corbet for the documentary TUTANKHAMUN: ALLIES & ENEMIES ( Nov. 23, 2022)
another peculiar looking reconstruction, also looks like a 40-50 year old man, in my opinion
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Not all the Tut art looks exactly the same as far features but as for skin color, this question goes out to anyone: We don't know what his exact skim color was but do you feel the real person was closer to the King's Monologue reconstruction or that reddish brown on that wood sculpture? We can only guess
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
The skin color of this TUT reconstruction is too dark... he was Red Brown, just like a lot of Africans.
Fula Chief Amadou Ba Aladzie ( red brown ) & Boubacar Tessougue ( black ) of Mali. No different than the paintings on the walls of ancient egypt, the Egyptian and the Nubian. Both ancestors to African Americans.
Some, People here really worried about social media afrocentrists while Europoids are out in the wild Europoiding with academic bonafides, with racist language and ideas that will influence future medical doctors, geneticists, politicians etc.
quote:" these are words that are used in different academic disciplines which have certainly different meanings to anthropologists or population geneticists or medics or genetic counselors and certainly different meanings from how people might use them in the street we don't have agreed norms on this on on this language only recently did i think to do something very very obvious which is actually just to look at the citations that include some of these words and this slide shows just the words Caucasian and race in pubmed and to my horror and i hope to yours it's a modern phenomenon it ramps up in the 2000s and maybe sloping off now but the number of citations using the word is not some artifact from the 19th century is something that we are doing as a scientific community today now we talked about how useless races race is as a as a scientific concept Caucasian is worse right Caucasian is a scientifically meaningless term although "
Speaking of Language, Natufians are Afriasians not Eurasions.
@Djehuti
quote:"Proto-Negroid-Capoid" by his cranial morphology yet his ear bones look 'Eurasian'.
Or, unless you can prove inheritance from Eurasions.. Eurasians have inheritaed Proto-Negroid-Capoid Ear bones.
@Djehuti
quote: Natufians metrically look Sub-Saharan and carry Sub-Saharan uniparental lineages yet their autosomal profile is 'Eurasian',
Or Eurasians carry some autosomal inheritance from Natufian Afrasians
As Dr. Adam said. LANGUAGE is important. I say Geneticists have to learn not to CENTER " Eurasiain ' the story of Human diversity and evolution. The Levant and Arabia are greater Africa or North East East Africa. It is not geographically Europe...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ can you put Djehuti's name for quotes of him please, people looking at that may think it's from the video, thanks
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
I don't know why people are seriously giving into the "true Negro" theory in genetic form, YOU know..... there indigenous black North Africans that look nothing like west/central African phenotype and their genetics are different too, but hey, keep on giving into that "SSA=true Negro/black" BS
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Some people want to believe that modern genetics is a benign exercise and that it provides rational scientific truths. However, the old eugenic racist "true negro" theory has been over laid with modern genetics.
It's old wine in new bottles....
You don't even have to go all the way to North Africa to find this diversity, there are Akan & Ashanti that look cushitic and some that look sudanic black. The so called yoruba are totally heterogenous, no single look among them either, some look sudanic black, some look fula, some look hausa... a mixed bag. The Igbo are the same.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: See the video in the OP where the creator speaks of New Kingdom Egyptians being "PURE" Africans while presenting data that doesn't show those said Egyptians to be "PURE" African. The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS!
Please post timecode reference of this statement, and I can't find a single reference to 'pure' Africans anywhere in the video...?
6 minutes 30 seconds. "A purely African population inhabited Ancient Egypt"
10: minutes in he also goes into supporting a pseudo scientific Physical Race = Autosomal Genetics argument. If folks dont know why both these statements are problematic..... These folks are in amatuer hour. They need to consult someone who knows more before they make these videos. A competent Eurocentrist would destroy this video, this is a problem.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I don't know why people are seriously giving into the "true Negro" theory in genetic form, YOU know..... there indigenous black North Africans that look nothing like west/central African phenotype and their genetics are different too, but hey, keep on giving into that "SSA=true Negro/black" BS
This....because of FeelGoodism. Now all of a sudden folks acting like they cant tell West Africans from East Africans from North East Africans. I cant make a general example of a typical West Central African phenotype because i "Dont know how ALL Ghanaians look". We really going to play that game? Take a look a EVERY reconstruction by these people and tell me you dont notice the trend that they look like they have Adaptation from the Humid Forest Belt?
@Elijah. The folks you are speaking of that do this dont really BELIEVE in "Indigenous Black North Africans". Its NOT in their psyche. The creator of this video doesn't believe in them NOR does even believe in indigenous Egyptians being Black. That is why he keeps mentioning "Sub Saharan African".....because indigenous humans in that North African region cannot be black to him, Black people have to COME FROM Somewhere else and ENTER North Africa.
Shemai cannot be "Egyptian" because he is basically too Negro and Negroes cannot be Egyptians thus his features HAD to be foreign to Egypt. Folks pass this around thinking its a win talking about "See Egyptians was Black". No dummy, the people are arguing he is NOT an Egyptian and you getting played. People gonna learn though. DNA Tribes and Ramesses III wont take us across he finish line.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
The folks you are speaking of that do this dont really BELIEVE in "Indigenous Black North Africans". Its NOT in their psyche. The creator of this video doesn't believe in them NOR does even believe in indigenous Egyptians being Black. That is why he keeps mentioning "Sub Saharan African".....because indigenous humans in that North African region cannot be black to him, Black people have to COME FROM Somewhere else and ENTER North Africa.
but hasn't this been a big theme on ES also,"The Prophecies of Neferti" the idea that AEs came from the South and that Egyptians civilization started in Nubia, the Qustul incense burner proposed as proof?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
lower image is from The King's Monologue's video called: The Tutankhamun Re-Reconstruction Experiment
This is why forensic reconstruction is as much an art as it is science, perhaps more so of the former because the skull cannot provide any information on soft tissue parts like ear shape, nose tip, and lips, let alone skin color. This was covered most recently here.
Here is a reconstruction of an Egyptian from 18th Dynasty Thebes by Ancestral Whispers
Strange how he is not as white-washed as his prehistoric predecessor Nazlet Khater.
By the way Lioness, why are you bringing up all this stuff from this King's Monologue guy? You seem to be promoting a lot of his stuff the same way you did Clyde Winter. LOL
To Yatunde Lisa, I'm merely questioning the label of Eurasian. If Eurasians originated in Northeast Africa in the first place, then it should be no surprise for Northeast Africans to show "Eurasian" affinities. The same way Northeast Asians show Amerindian affinities.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Then if it is NE African why label it Eurasian?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That's my point exactly! But then again, I'm not the one who created these labels. Remember that when Y haplogroup E was first discovered, it too was initially called 'Eurasian'.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I don't know why people are seriously giving into the "true Negro" theory in genetic form, YOU know..... there indigenous black North Africans that look nothing like west/central African phenotype and their genetics are different too, but hey, keep on giving into that "SSA=true Negro/black" BS
This....because of FeelGoodism. Now all of a sudden folks acting like they cant tell West Africans from East Africans from North East Africans. I cant make a general example of a typical West Central African phenotype because i "Dont know how ALL Ghanaians look". We really going to play that game? Take a look a EVERY reconstruction by these people and tell me you dont notice the trend that they look like they have Adaptation from the Humid Forest Belt?
@Elijah. The folks you are speaking of that do this dont really BELIEVE in "Indigenous Black North Africans". Its NOT in their psyche. The creator of this video doesn't believe in them NOR does even believe in indigenous Egyptians being Black. That is why he keeps mentioning "Sub Saharan African".....because indigenous humans in that North African region cannot be black to him, Black people have to COME FROM Somewhere else and ENTER North Africa.
Shemai cannot be "Egyptian" because he is basically too Negro and Negroes cannot be Egyptians thus his features HAD to be foreign to Egypt. Folks pass this around thinking its a win talking about "See Egyptians was Black". No dummy, the people are arguing he is NOT an Egyptian and you getting played. People gonna learn though. DNA Tribes and Ramesses III wont take us across he finish line.
Exactly! Indigenous African populations possess the greatest genetic diversity yet you have on one side Afronuts who then try to homogenize Africans and making it seem as if North Africans like Nubians and Egyptian are no different from Nigerians and Congolese while on the other side you have Euronuts who claim that North Africans aren't black at all but "caucasians" while true blacks only come from Sub-Sahara.
As far as Shemai's "negroid" features, such was not uncommon in Egypt. Recall the Old Kingdom Reserve Heads who were labeled as "foreign" due to their "negroid" features despite the fact that the Reserve Heads were supposed to depict members of the elite. Apparently the same was true with Proto-historical and Punic Maghrebis as Antalas has shown here: On some skulls, there is a more or less accentuated platyrrhiny associated with a more or less marked prognathism. These are all traits that one might consider negroid. If one is only based on the association of these two traits, ten skulls could be considered as negroid. Some are typical, such as Gastel's skull 3.52 which has a sub-nasal groove, flattened nasal bones, accentuated facial and alveolar prognathism, an erased chin, as well as Djelfa's wife (2.11) whose face, although narrow and long, is strongly prognathic with a grooved infra-nasal rim, flattened nasal bones and, a cultural trait common in African Melanoderms, an image of an upper incisor. Others are less typically negroid, but can nevertheless be considered as such, they are the skulls of Beidj (2.10), Tiddis (5.02), Roknia (3.05 and 3.37), Gastel (3.54), Sigus (coll. Thomas 3.79) , Carthage (4.27 and 4.36).
Of course Antalas claims that this was either due to "Mechtoid" influence or Sub-Saharan slaves, but what are we to make of Egyptians who have such features or better yet the Natufians?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way Lioness, why are you bringing up all this stuff from this King's Monologue guy? You seem to be promoting a lot of his stuff
He's similar to Mr. Imhotep on youtube and is using a lot of fancy editing techniques and with authoritative sounding British accent (the King's English) but his production skills and rhetoric are up a notch from Mr. Imhotep. He also does a tenacious defense of his views in the comments section, although he also has plenty of supportive comments (probably more) Quickly with serval videos he has amassed over 4OOK views on youtube. so I think he has a lot of influence at the moment on youtube. Some of his arguments are reasonable, others half right or wrong but since it's presented so well I think it's worth critiquing the details. I had also noticed that on ES in the past couple of years a lot of stock being taken in these affiliator prediction programs and generating their own results as well. Youtube videos like this and random people doing commentary on the news have replaced some of the conventional news and documentary companies. Anybody can do it now. For instance the documentary from Hebrews to Negroes and Ron Dalton's earlier book of the same title, tremendously influential and self-produced. He's probably a multi millionaire at this point.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Here is a reconstruction of an Egyptian from 18th Dynasty Thebes by Ancestral Whispers
The result is not necessarily better but I think there is a distinction to be made between researchers who do 3D modeling reconstructions based on skull casts or 3D printing, trained in anatomy and with a methodical procedure compared to people who just use photoshop to make on illustration on top
In the end I don't take much stock in either one because of the speculation element, skin tone and facial fleshy parts, hair type that came in at the end, like you said
I also think it's pointless in same cases instead of dealing with skulls to take a piece of Egyptian sculpture, do a remake of it and it call a "reconstruction"
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Not all the Tut art looks exactly the same as far features but as for skin color, this question goes out to anyone: We don't know what his exact skim color was but do you feel the real person was closer to the King's Monologue reconstruction or that reddish brown on that wood sculpture? We can only guess
Yes it is hard to say. There are so many individual variations, and also due to the light, if one sees a person in full sunlight, or in a room lit only by fires and so on. Even in the same family skin color can vary as in this photo of a Nubian man and his daughter.
(Image by Lauren E Bohn, Egypt, 2013)
If one search for the somewhat reddish brown appearance on some of the ancient Egyptian art, this girl is maybe rather close to it. She is also a Nubian
(Image by Lauren E Bohn, Egypt, 2013)
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Here is a reconstruction of an Egyptian from 18th Dynasty Thebes by Ancestral Whispers
The result is not necessarily better but I think there is a distinction to be made between researchers who do 3D modeling reconstructions based on skull casts or 3D printing, trained in anatomy and with a methodical procedure compared to people who just use photoshop to make on illustration on top
In the end I don't take much stock in either one because of the speculation element, skin tone and facial fleshy parts, hair type that came in at the end, like you said
I also think it's pointless in same cases instead of dealing with skulls to take a piece of Egyptian sculpture, do a remake of it and it call a "reconstruction"
The best is if some hair, skin and other tissue is preserved (as in a mummy) and/or there are some good art which depicts the dead.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I don't know why people are seriously giving into the "true Negro" theory in genetic form, YOU know..... there indigenous black North Africans that look nothing like west/central African phenotype and their genetics are different too, but hey, keep on giving into that "SSA=true Negro/black" BS
This....because of FeelGoodism. Now all of a sudden folks acting like they cant tell West Africans from East Africans from North East Africans. I cant make a general example of a typical West Central African phenotype because i "Dont know how ALL Ghanaians look". We really going to play that game? Take a look a EVERY reconstruction by these people and tell me you dont notice the trend that they look like they have Adaptation from the Humid Forest Belt?
@Elijah. The folks you are speaking of that do this dont really BELIEVE in "Indigenous Black North Africans". Its NOT in their psyche. The creator of this video doesn't believe in them NOR does even believe in indigenous Egyptians being Black. That is why he keeps mentioning "Sub Saharan African".....because indigenous humans in that North African region cannot be black to him, Black people have to COME FROM Somewhere else and ENTER North Africa.
Shemai cannot be "Egyptian" because he is basically too Negro and Negroes cannot be Egyptians thus his features HAD to be foreign to Egypt. Folks pass this around thinking its a win talking about "See Egyptians was Black". No dummy, the people are arguing he is NOT an Egyptian and you getting played. People gonna learn though. DNA Tribes and Ramesses III wont take us across he finish line.
Indeed. There are some Saharan peoples that look phenotypically black, but look apart from and are genetically different from West/Central Africans. People who argue Black=West/Central African looking only and feeding into the same strawman argument that Brace used when he too stated Ancient Egyptians wasn't black.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Indeed. There are some Saharan peoples that look phenotypically black, but look apart from and are genetically different from West/Central Africans. People who argue Black=West/Central African looking only and feeding into the same strawman argument that Brace used when he too stated Ancient Egyptians wasn't black. [/QB]
therefore how is your "black" category valid ? Since dark skinned populations are not necessarily related whether genetically or culturally why do you lump them all under the racist and eurocentric label of "black" ?
"black" make more sense when it's restricted to populations from Sub-saharan africa who have no or negligible amount of eurasian ancestry.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: See the video in the OP where the creator speaks of New Kingdom Egyptians being "PURE" Africans while presenting data that doesn't show those said Egyptians to be "PURE" African. The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS!
Please post timecode reference of this statement, and I can't find a single reference to 'pure' Africans anywhere in the video...?
6 minutes 30 seconds. "A purely African population inhabited Ancient Egypt"
Excuse me, how is that incorrect? Are you suggesting a purely African population didn't inhabit ancient Egypt? Are you supporting the idea that Kemet was colonised from Mesopotamia or the Middle East? Last time I checked the Kemetic population were an indigenous nilo-saharan population... what the hell is going on here. This is exactly why I stopped posting in this group, eurocentric apologists.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: See the video in the OP where the creator speaks of New Kingdom Egyptians being "PURE" Africans while presenting data that doesn't show those said Egyptians to be "PURE" African. The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS!
Please post timecode reference of this statement, and I can't find a single reference to 'pure' Africans anywhere in the video...?
10: minutes in he also goes into supporting a pseudo scientific Physical Race = Autosomal Genetics argument. If folks dont know why both these statements are problematic..... These folks are in amatuer hour. They need to consult someone who knows more before they make these videos. A competent Eurocentrist would destroy this video, this is a problem.
Destroy it then. I haven't seen anything but rhetoric thus far. I for one would be interested to hear it. I have a friend who is a geneticist and he said STR matching algorithms are the only method by which geneticists can ascertain ethnicity... are they incorrect? If so, I'd like to know because I've been guilty of promoting the same.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: This is exactly why I stopped posting in this group, eurocentric apologists.
so did you go somewhere else? Egyptsearch Reloaded maybe? but you're back ??
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: This is exactly why I stopped posting in this group, eurocentric apologists.
so did you go somewhere else? Egyptsearch Reloaded maybe? but you're back ??
I popped in and I saw your post on the kings monologue... didnt realise how far south this place had become. Dont worry, I won't be around for long at this rate... this place has been overrun by eurocentrics in disguise.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I don't know why people are seriously giving into the "true Negro" theory in genetic form, YOU know..... there indigenous black North Africans that look nothing like west/central African phenotype and their genetics are different too, but hey, keep on giving into that "SSA=true Negro/black" BS
This....because of FeelGoodism. Now all of a sudden folks acting like they cant tell West Africans from East Africans from North East Africans. I cant make a general example of a typical West Central African phenotype because i "Dont know how ALL Ghanaians look". We really going to play that game? Take a look a EVERY reconstruction by these people and tell me you dont notice the trend that they look like they have Adaptation from the Humid Forest Belt?
@Elijah. The folks you are speaking of that do this dont really BELIEVE in "Indigenous Black North Africans". Its NOT in their psyche. The creator of this video doesn't believe in them NOR does even believe in indigenous Egyptians being Black. That is why he keeps mentioning "Sub Saharan African".....because indigenous humans in that North African region cannot be black to him, Black people have to COME FROM Somewhere else and ENTER North Africa.
Shemai cannot be "Egyptian" because he is basically too Negro and Negroes cannot be Egyptians thus his features HAD to be foreign to Egypt. Folks pass this around thinking its a win talking about "See Egyptians was Black". No dummy, the people are arguing he is NOT an Egyptian and you getting played. People gonna learn though. DNA Tribes and Ramesses III wont take us across he finish line.
There's so much wrong with so much you posted here it's actually hard to keep up. First of all I'm sure you're aware that Nigeria has Nilo Sharan, afro-asiatic, niger kordofian and bantu speaking groups in very close proximity. Have you ever met the Tarewa people of Northern Nigeria? They share a phenotype with the habesha people of East Africa. Not to mention a huge puel base, then yoruba, evreh, Benin all have traceable origin in East and central Africa. The phenotype diversity in Nigeria is beyond immense, so I find it puzzling and contradictory that you talk about True negro stereotypes then have audacity to say that the ancient Egyptians could not have possibly looked Ghanaian? You're a wierd one you.
Also he only mentions SSA ONCE in that video and at thay point he's literally quoting the study. He never uses that term from what I've seen. You keep projecting your own prejudice against dark skinned Africans and 'west african' phenotype by making these snide remarks because you basically think bedouin is the only acceptable phenotype... its bizarre.
I'll tell you who doesn't believe indigenous north Africans, You. That's why you're seem obsessed with approving photos of Egyptians with obvious and traceable levantine and Turkish admixture and insisting they are reflective of the indigenous... its nothing more than an acceptance of the modern eurocentric ideology that modern Egyptians have always been beige and they never were dark skinned like other Africans. To me the kings monologue reconstruction looks oromo, and even that is too black for you... hilarious
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: See the video in the OP where the creator speaks of New Kingdom Egyptians being "PURE" Africans while presenting data that doesn't show those said Egyptians to be "PURE" African. The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS!
Please post timecode reference of this statement, and I can't find a single reference to 'pure' Africans anywhere in the video...?
6 minutes 30 seconds. "A purely African population inhabited Ancient Egypt"
Excuse me, how is that incorrect? Are you suggesting a purely African population didn't inhabit ancient Egypt? Are you supporting the idea that Kemet was colonised from Mesopotamia or the Middle East? Last time I checked the Kemetic population were an indigenous nilo-saharan population... what the hell is going on here. This is exactly why I stopped posting in this group, eurocentric apologists.
Thank you!!!!
To act like there are not White Supremacists in genetic labs and universities in the same manner there are white supremacists police and doctors is delusional and naive
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: This is exactly why I stopped posting in this group, eurocentric apologists.
so did you go somewhere else? Egyptsearch Reloaded maybe? but you're back ??
I popped in and I saw your post on the kings monologue... didnt realise how far south this place had become. Dont worry, I won't be around for long at this rate... this place has been overrun by eurocentrics in disguise.
They are not even in disguise
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: nobody said anything about Natufians or ancient Egyptians having modern "Sub-Saharan" ancestry. That was never anybody's argument here so why bother bringing it up??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Therefore how is your "black" category valid? Since dark skinned populations are not necessarily related whether genetically or culturally why do you lump them all under the racist and Eurocentric label of "black"?
I thought we already explained to your dumbass multiple times before that a category is only as valid as it is logical. In this case "black" is simply a descriptor of color. There is nothing invalid about it. However you are correct in that the category only describes skin color alone and not ancestry OR culture. The category itself though is no more "racist" or even "Eurocentric" than is the label "white". Hence why non-European Indians also use the label to describe very dark peoples especially in the south, or Southeast Asians use the term to describe aboriginal types. This is why when people identify themselves ethnically, they use actual ethnic names NOT skin color or race, except in the West where blacks are a minority to the predominant whites. Even then 'black' in and of itself is not an ethnic identity though Black American, Black Canadian, etc. is because of the particular cultural groups labeled by skin color.
quote:"Black" make more sense when it's restricted to populations from Sub-Saharan africa who have no or negligible amount of eurasian ancestry.
WRONG! Again for the hundredth time the reason being that "black" or melanoderm skin is not limited to "Sub-Sahara" but is also found among indigenous populations of North Africa and even in Eurasia-- from Southwest Asia all the way to the Pacific!
Andamanese people of Southeast Asia (100% Eurasian):
What color label do you think other Southeast Asians call them?
You are just ass-hurt over the fact that indigenous North Africans like Nubians and some Maghrebis either identify by color as "black" OR get identified by others that way and for obvious reasons.
racist anthropologist Carleton Coon’s example of a “gracile Mediterranean” Shluh Berber of Morocco
modern day Shluh Moroccan
What color label do you think the above individuals would get in Europe or in the Americas?
As far as all this talk on "Eurasian" ancestry, the question is exactly how Eurasian since the ancestors of Eurasians originated in northeast Africa to begin with. You have Basal Eurasian which differs from other Eurasians in the absence of Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry which is why many experts think Basal Eurasian originated in Africa. You also have Ancestral North African which was initially thought to be Eurasian as well but is now confirmed to be African in origin and is found not only from the Maghreb to the Levant (Natufians) but extends well into Sub-Sahara. So you're whole premise of North Africans being as Eurasian as Europeans or South and East Asians is a total farce especially since the first received admixture from said North Africans, and that North Africans themselves are not totally separated or cut off genetically from Sub-Saharans has already which is why they share uniparental lineages, and why even autosomal studies show it!
Lazaridis et al.
Loosdrecht et al.
Fregel et al.
It should be apparent that even "Sub-Saharan" is not monolithic which is why West Africans are genetically closer to not only North Africans but Western Eurasians than they are to Southern Africans.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
The crazy part is Keita warned them like 10 yrs ago, Keita was saying the same stuff you are Beyoku.
I do notice the recontructions never use any of the black Egyptian and Nubian people still living in Egypt, it always folks from further south.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I don't know why people are seriously giving into the "true Negro" theory in genetic form, YOU know..... there indigenous black North Africans that look nothing like west/central African phenotype and their genetics are different too, but hey, keep on giving into that "SSA=true Negro/black" BS
This....because of FeelGoodism. Now all of a sudden folks acting like they cant tell West Africans from East Africans from North East Africans. I cant make a general example of a typical West Central African phenotype because i "Dont know how ALL Ghanaians look". We really going to play that game? Take a look a EVERY reconstruction by these people and tell me you dont notice the trend that they look like they have Adaptation from the Humid Forest Belt?
@Elijah. The folks you are speaking of that do this dont really BELIEVE in "Indigenous Black North Africans". Its NOT in their psyche. The creator of this video doesn't believe in them NOR does even believe in indigenous Egyptians being Black. That is why he keeps mentioning "Sub Saharan African".....because indigenous humans in that North African region cannot be black to him, Black people have to COME FROM Somewhere else and ENTER North Africa.
Shemai cannot be "Egyptian" because he is basically too Negro and Negroes cannot be Egyptians thus his features HAD to be foreign to Egypt. Folks pass this around thinking its a win talking about "See Egyptians was Black". No dummy, the people are arguing he is NOT an Egyptian and you getting played. People gonna learn though. DNA Tribes and Ramesses III wont take us across he finish line.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Does BEYOKU agree with everything Keita said? Was Keita 100% correct on his idea of plasticity or convergent evolution?
When was the last time y'all actually went back and listened directly to Keita and not what someone said Keita said?
Is black skin and hair texture retained traits or plasticity?
quote:in terms of human history deep human biological history Africa has a special role as a place of the emergence of modern humans whether from a single population that has crossed the threshold and diversified or whether for multiple populations that have intermixed to create the fundamental basis of modern humanity ancient Nubia and ancient Egypt share roots common cultural roots in Northeast Africa in the Sahara and along the Nile Valley the ancient Egyptians in the ancient and Nubians can both be described especially in the earlier periods as being descendants of North East African indigenous populations as one writer said all of these people are Africans and I define Africans as people whose biological histories have emerged and and their identities have emerged in Africa and where any mixing that took place took place on African soil the Egyptians did not come from anyplace else other than the Nile Valley their identities in any other ancestry that they may have had were all forged together in that space one becomes better known and one's writing becomes translatable which is purely an accident the discovery of the Rosetta Stone otherwise we would not be able to read the Egyptian hieroglyphs as well so they would still be a mystery as well we have not recovered something similar for you know later period Nubia I don't think in terms of race in general I don't and and when I say this I think about it in two different ways Darwin essentially suggested that in order to say that a species was subdivided into subspecies which would be the equivalent of races that the populations involved would have to be almost incipient species okay so a high degree of substructuring I can tell you that you cannot use that idea of any difference or being able to tell a difference either at the molecular level or physical level as indicative of requiring the use of the term race so I say there are populations but no races and and I'm not the first person to say that all of these people are connected to each other and dividing them in a way that implies a a level of discreteness that the term race implies is inappropriate were there people with darker skin lighter skin curlier hair less curly hair yes there were there is no evidence that the ancient Egyptians who did medicine who made observations and sometimes detailed artwork about the environment around them animals plants there's no evidence that they had a theory of human variation that would be commensurate are similar to notions of race as they were developed in Europe there's a deep shared ancestry in the Sahara of these societies the fact that they were sometimes in conflict we should not impose our reasons our ways of thinking on to why this conflict may have occurred the conflicts were political social probably over the same issues let's not read ideological ideas about the reason of this conflict back into the past we have to avoid stereotypes we have to avoid the old ways of thinking but just put in two new datasets or new types of data which I do believe that we can see in literature sometimes today you know and I think that a lot of times if you look very carefully in the scientific literature you'll see that sometimes the old ways of thinking of lurking beneath the surface there and this is something that needs to be addressed
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I thought we already explained to your dumbass multiple times before that a category is only as valid as it is logical. In this case "black" is simply a descriptor of color. There is nothing invalid about it. However you are correct in that the category only describes skin color alone and not ancestry OR culture. The category itself though is no more "racist" or even "Eurocentric" than is the label "black". Hence why non-European Indians also use the label to describe very dark peoples especially in the south, or Southeast Asians use the term to describe aboriginal types. This is why when people identify themselves ethnically, they use actual ethnic names NOT skin color or race, except in the West where blacks are a minority to the predominant whites. Even then 'black' in and of itself is not an ethnic identity though Black American, Black Canadian, etc. is because of the particular cultural groups labeled by skin color.
This doesn't contradict what I said. What would be the point of using a "color descriptor" to assess relatedness between populations ? If I label ancient Kush as a "black" civilization would that means that an aboriginal australian, andamanese and a himba from Namibia can consider it their heritage/history ?
Your color descriptor is absolutely useless and I don't gain any concrete knowledge from it. It's a broad inaccurate category used by insecure americans to claim and appropriate anything they want.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: WRONG! Again for the hundredth time the reason being that "black" or melanoderm skin is not limited to "Sub-Sahara" but is also found among indigenous populations of North Africa and even in Eurasia-- from Southwest Asia all the way to the Pacific!
Andamanese people of Southeast Asia (100% Eurasian):
Your point ? Those Andamanese are not related to SSAs so why do you lump them all under the same label ? It seems you have a hard time acknowledging diversity so yes my definition totally make sense.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You are just ass-hurt over the fact that indigenous North Africans like Nubians and some Maghrebis either identify by color as "black" OR get identified by others that way and for obvious reasons.
What color label do you think the above individuals would get in Europe or in the Americas?
Subjective perception or self-identity are not objective and neutral ways to assess kinship or morphology. A dark skinned man from ethiopia can be genetically/morphologically closer to Europeans, arabs, north africans than west/central/east africans so there is no reason to put him under a racist and reductive label.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So you're whole premise of North Africans being as Eurasian as Europeans or South and East Asians is a total farce especially since the first received admixture from said North Africans, and that North Africans themselves are not totally separated or cut off genetically from Sub-Saharans has already which is why they share uniparental lineages, and why even autosomal studies show it!
Strawman. Nobody said north africans are as eurasian as europeans...wtf ? Still they are genetically and morphologically much closer to Europeans.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Then if it is NE African why label it Eurasian?
Cant label it "North East African" if North East Africans DONT EXIST after we have created a dichotomy between Sub Saharan Blacks and White Eurasians with no substructure inbetween. Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Then if it is NE African why label it Eurasian?
Cant label it "North East African" if North East Africans DONT EXIST after we have created a dichotomy between Sub Saharan Blacks and White Eurasians with no substructure inbetween.
Who is we?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: This doesn't contradict what I said. What would be the point of using a "color descriptor" to assess relatedness between populations? If I label ancient Kush as a "black" civilization would that means that an aboriginal australian, andamanese and a himba from Namibia can consider it their heritage/history?
Again, an idiotic straw doll! Nobody used the label of black to describe ancestry, you nitwit! Hence the reason why both Nubians and Egyptians would more accurately be called black AFRICAN civilizations.
quote:Your color descriptor is absolutely useless and I don't gain any concrete knowledge from it. It's a broad inaccurate category used by insecure Americans to claim and appropriate anything they want.
Again it is only only useless if used for anything else besides describing skin color! Which again nobody in here has ever done! You are just a negrophobe who hates the FACT that indigenous North Africans were indeed melanoderm i.e. black and not white like those of European ancestry like yourself!
quote:Your point? Those Andamanese are not related to SSAs so why do you lump them all under the same label? It seems you have a hard time acknowledging diversity so yes my definition totally make sense.
I never said anything about them being related to Sub-Saharans! In fact I said they are 100% Eurasians! I'm not the one lumping them under the label 'black' because they ARE already lumped there simply by the criteria of black skin!! When will you get it through your head that 'black' is are reference to skin color NOT ancestry!!
And while Andamanese are not related to Sub-Saharans, North Africans are since they are as equally Africans!!
quote:Subjective perception or self-identity are not objective and neutral ways to assess kinship or morphology. A dark skinned man from ethiopia can be genetically/morphologically closer to Europeans, arabs, north africans than west/central/east africans so there is no reason to put him under a racist and reductive label.
Again there is nothing "racist" about the label anymore than the label 'white'. This is why you're a negrophobe, because your problem is only with the label 'black' but not 'white' which you and other coastal Maghrebis fall under. Also the charts I posted from Lazaridis, LLoosdrecht, and Fregel show that Ethiopians are as closely related to Europeans as they are West Africans, you liar! Which again brings me back to my original point that when it comes to genetic relations, there are degrees of relativity! West Africans are closer related to North Africans than they are to Southern Africans yet you desperately try to lump the first and last groups together into a Sub-Saharan group while lumping North Africans with West Eurasians into a "Eurasian" group. Yet why is it that in none of the charts I cited there are no other Eurasians like South Asians, East Asians etc.?? That's because West Eurasians have African admixture that pools them closer to Africans, specifically North Africans while people like Indians and Andamanese do NOT! Europeans and Middle-Easterners have African admixture which is why they are closer to North Africans than other Eurasians!
quote:Strawman. Nobody said north africans are as eurasian as europeans...wtf ? Still they are genetically and morphologically much closer to Europeans.
Yes for the reason I sated above-- Europeans have admixture from Africans!
By the way in terms of cultural identity. Since that is what matters as much as ancestry.
quote:Earlier I posted: Ancient Egypt IS an African culture NOT a Eurasian one! All cultural anthropologists and ethnologists who've examined Egyptian culture agree that it holds most affinities with other African cultures especially those in Sub-Sahara. This is so much the case that racist scholars in the past used the 'Hamitic Race Theory' to suggest that it was Caucasoid Hamites from Eurasia who introduced these cultural traits and traditions into Sub-Sahara! LOL
The 2nd Father of Egyptology E. A. Wallis Budge was the first to proclaim ancient Egyptian culture as "a fundamentally African culture" whose elements and features differ radically with those of the Near East. In fact Budge saw many of Egypt's features in Nilotic tribes up the Nile and even among peoples in Uganda and West Africa that resembled Egypt than anything in the Levant or Mesopotamia.
From The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 28 The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...
Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization (rather than diffusion from Sub-Saharan Africa, as claimed by some Afrocentric scholars.)" Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: The crazy part is Keita warned them like 10 yrs ago, Keita was saying the same stuff you are Beyoku.
I do notice the reconstructions never use any of the black Egyptian and Nubian people still living in Egypt, it always folks from further south.
Indeed it's part of the false dialectic going on. The Afronuts deny the genetic diversity of Africans in order to homogenize Africans to the point that they claim an Egyptian is genetically not much different from a West African. But on the other extreme the Euronuts use the genetic diversity to their advantage by pigeon-holing the population genetics where they create this artificial divide of North Africans being totally separate from a monolithic "Sub-Saharan" category i.e. (genetic true negro). It's even come to the point that they will even white-wash the appearance of ancient Egyptians in their reconstructions. Antalas is just par-exemplar of this fallacious idiocy. The Afronuts and Euronuts are just two different sides of the same dirty coin based on ethnic prejudice ideology.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Then if it is NE African why label it Eurasian?
Cant label it "North East African" if North East Africans DONT EXIST after we have created a dichotomy between Sub Saharan Blacks and White Eurasians with no substructure inbetween.
That is exactly my point! The funny thing is that the very experts these Euronuts cite totally contradict their ridiculous paradigm!
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
@ Djehuti
You know what Antalas is trying to do is declare the racial understanding of "Black" as the only acceptable one. Hence why he gets salty whenever people apply "black" to anyone outside of "sub-Saharan" Africa. Of course, that very racial understanding was applied to groups with disparate ancestry to begin with, as you astutely point out, so his argument that "Black" refers to a particular lineage or ethnic grouping is moot anyway.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, an idiotic straw doll! Nobody used the label of black to describe ancestry, you nitwit! Hence the reason why both Nubians and Egyptians would more accurately be called black AFRICAN civilizations.
Actually everyone does use it to describe ancestry. I've never seen a single person calling indians "black" here despite being dark skinned. Where I live, "black" is restricted to black africans.
Why would nubians and egyptians (except upper nubians) be described as "black african" ? Most egyptians were not black skinned and morphologically both populations were not similar to most sub-saharan africans. Here a simple example from Irish 2010 :
Also why "african" ? Did most africans participated in the foundation of those two civilizations ? Did they share most of their cultural background with them ? The answer is no therefore labelling cultures/civilizations by a continent is utterly idiotic and useless. That would be like someone insisting that Ancient Persia "WAS AN ASIATIC CIVILIZATION OKAY ?!" XD
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again it is only only useless if used for anything else besides describing skin color! Which again nobody in here has ever done! You are just a negrophobe who hates the FACT that indigenous North Africans were indeed melanoderm i.e. black and not white like those of European ancestry like yourself!
Only skin color ? You sure ? Why are those people describe as "black" in your country then ? :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I never said anything about them being related to Sub-Saharans! In fact I said they are 100% Eurasians! I'm not the one lumping them under the label 'black' because they ARE already lumped there simply by the criteria of black skin!! When will you get it through your head that 'black' is are reference to skin color NOT ancestry!!
Therefore you admit the label is totally misleading since those people despite being dark skinned are not related to black africans.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again there is nothing "racist" about the label anymore than the label 'white'. This is why you're a negrophobe, because your problem is only with the label 'black' but not 'white' which you and other coastal Maghrebis fall under. Also the charts I posted from Lazaridis, LLoosdrecht, and Fregel show that Ethiopians are as closely related to Europeans as they are West Africans, you liar! Which again brings me back to my original point that when it comes to genetic relations, there are degrees of relativity! West Africans are closer related to North Africans than they are to Southern Africans yet you desperately try to lump the first and last groups together into a Sub-Saharan group while lumping North Africans with West Eurasians into a "Eurasian" group. Yet why is it that in none of the charts I cited there are no other Eurasians like South Asians, East Asians etc.?? That's because West Eurasians have African admixture that pools them closer to Africans, specifically North Africans while people like Indians and Andamanese do NOT! Europeans and Middle-Easterners have African admixture which is why they are closer to North Africans than other Eurasians!
I would have no problem with "white" if it's restricted to europeans since most of them form a coherent and homogeneous cluster. The same way I have no problem with "black" if it's restricted to africans with no or negligible amount of eurasian ancestry.
As for ethiopians, I did not lie :
Here you can see Afar are closer to italians than west africans (even closer to french) :
Same for Tigray :
or Amhara :
Let's not even talk about how close they are to berbers like me than west/central or east africans.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: they create this artificial divide of North Africans being totally separate from a monolithic "Sub-Saharan" category i.e. (genetic true negro). It's even come to the point that they will even white-wash the appearance of ancient Egyptians in their reconstructions. Antalas is just par-exemplar of this fallacious idiocy.
Seems like Anthropologists do not agree with you :
quote:We recognized five major modern dental populations: Western Eurasia (including North Africa and India), sub-Saharan Africa, Sino-America, SundaPacific, and Sahul-Pacific. These divisions have substantial correspondence with linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and ethnographic classifications.
Joel D. Irish, Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology, pp. 28
quote: Three broad geographic based groups are evident: (1) Europe/Mediterranean (Europe, West Asia, North Africa) , (2) Northeast Asia/New World (South Siberia, China-Mongolia, Northeast Asia, American Arctic, North and South Native Americans), and (3) Australia/Oceania (Southeast Asia, Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia). These groupings, alone, support the utility of categorization at a broad, that is, geographic, level [e.g., Mongoloid Dental Complex (Hanihara 1968) and Sinodonty characterize the second grouping]. Moreover, the Southeast Asian sample, as would be expected given known population history, is intermediate between the latter two groups. The sub-Saharan sample is divergent from all others , though it is more or less equidistant between Europe/Mediterranean and Australia/Oceania.
Joel D. Irish, Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology, pp. 279
Here Again :
quote:As seen in Figure 2, there is an obvious separation of sub-saharan and north african samples, yet apparent homogeneity within regions - particularly North Africa.These findings are supported by previous affinity estimates based on African genetic, skeletal, dermatoglyphic, anthropometric, linguistic, and cultural data (see Mourant 1954, 1983; Greenberg 1959, 1966; Murdock 1959; Hiernaux 1975; Nurse et al, 1985; Sanchez-Mazas et al, 1986; Excoffier et al, 1987; Roychoudhury and Nei 1988; Howells 1989; Froment, 1992a,b; Franciscus 1995; Holliday 1995; among others).
J.D. Irish, Dental morphological affinities of late pleistocene through recent sub-saharan and north african peoples, 1998
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
Black never was exclusively limited to only West/Central Africans, don't know why Nassbean keeps trying to limit it that way.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
FWIW, I'll never forget George Orwell describing Indian people like this in his essay Shooting an Elephant, which I had to read in high school.
quote:I rounded the hut and saw a man’s dead body sprawling in the mud. He was an Indian, a black Dravidian coolie, almost naked, and he could not have been dead many minutes.
Hasn't Antalas himself admitted that "black" had different meanings back in the past when confronted with ancient descriptions of dark-skinned people in North Africa?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LOL The malcontent Mazigh is still arguing over the term 'Black African' and posts pictures of fair-skinned white-admixed African Americans.
Such has no bearing on actual Africans with black skin.
North Africans
^ Last picture above is of Mostafa Hefny a Nubian from Egypt who sued the U.S. government for classifying him as "white" simply because he is from North Africa! You see the government census went along with the myth that North African = Caucasian and thus 'white' while black Africans are only from Sub-Sahara. His court cased exposed this stupidity to the rest of world. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
This doesn't contradict what I said. What would be the point of using a "color descriptor" to assess relatedness between populations? If I label ancient Kush as a "black" civilization would that means that an aboriginal australian, andamanese and a himba from Namibia can consider it their heritage/history?
Again, an idiotic straw doll! Nobody used the label of black to describe ancestry, you nitwit! Hence the reason why both Nubians and Egyptians would more accurately be called black AFRICAN civilizations.
quote:Your color descriptor is absolutely useless and I don't gain any concrete knowledge from it. It's a broad inaccurate category used by insecure Americans to claim and appropriate anything they want.
Again it is only only useless if used for anything else besides describing skin color! Which again nobody in here has ever done!
Djehuti, is he brown or black?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
Ok thanks djehuti you show that you have no proper arguments when confronted to proper datas. Also the people you posted are genetically and morphologically closer to me than any west/central or east african.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: See the video in the OP where the creator speaks of New Kingdom Egyptians being "PURE" Africans while presenting data that doesn't show those said Egyptians to be "PURE" African. The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS!
Please post timecode reference of this statement, and I can't find a single reference to 'pure' Africans anywhere in the video...?
6 minutes 30 seconds. "A purely African population inhabited Ancient Egypt"
Excuse me, how is that incorrect? Are you suggesting a purely African population didn't inhabit ancient Egypt? Are you supporting the idea that Kemet was colonised from Mesopotamia or the Middle East? Last time I checked the Kemetic population were an indigenous nilo-saharan population... what the hell is going on here. This is exactly why I stopped posting in this group, eurocentric apologists.
Wait so we in 2023 and we still arguing that ancient Egyptians were "100% Sub Saharan African"? We really doing that? "Kemetic population were an indigenous nilo-saharan population" Wait, what? "Ancient Egyptian" linguistically is no longer part of the Afro-Asiatic language family anymore?
Don't we have DNA From Ancient Egypt indicating they were not "Pure Africans". Doesn't Amarna R-M269 and Mtdna K1 indicate they are not "Pure Africans". Doesn't DNA Tribe debunk the notion of "Pure Africans" ?
Did you just step out of a time capsule or something and have yet to get reoriented with the latest genetic findings? Everyone want to put Keitas name in their mouth but dont really want to folly Keita and 5 Minutes later the talking about "Pure Races".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, you have an Afronut on one side and a Euronut on the other, speaking of the latter..
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Ok thanks djehuti you show that you have no proper arguments when confronted to proper datas. Also the people you posted are genetically and morphologically closer to me than any west/central or east african.
You have presented no 'data' which is the plural of datum, and West/Central Africans are closer to North Africans than they are to Southern Africans so what is your point?! LOL North Africans are still African and there are degrees of relativity.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed, you have an Afronut on one side and a Euronut on the other, speaking of the latter..
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Ok thanks djehuti you show that you have no proper arguments when confronted to proper datas. Also the people you posted are genetically and morphologically closer to me than any west/central or east african.
You have presented no 'data' which is the plural of datum, and West/Central Africans are closer to North Africans than they are to Southern Africans so what is your point?! LOL North Africans are still African and there are degrees of relativity.
I've posted data showing why your "black" category is invalid and I've posted data showing that morphologically North africans do belong to a cluster separated from most sub-saharans .
and how did you answer ? By posting pictures of random people who btw are genetically closer to me than most SSAs.
Thanks.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
The R in the Armana's has been called as M269? OFFICIALLY?
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
showing that morphologically North africans do belong to a cluster separated from most sub-saharans.
Which ones? Because the issue is one of semantics,SSA is suppose to be a region, along with Mediterranean. Until groups started to leave,there weren't any European or Western Asian Mediterranean untill ancient Africans went into those regions and called it home
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
ANALYSIS : In the past 10-15 years traditional ideas regarding "physical race" SHOULD HAVE dissolved due to the realities of genomic research, particularly ancient Genomic research.
Dr. Keita cannot get enough credit for being FAR ahead of the curve regarding the "persistence of racial thinking" and instead went with a model that revolves around ideas if micro-adaptation as an evolutionary process in the human species due to external factors of environment/climate/diet/etc. In this model Physical "Race" has no genetic indicators as far as ancestry. This has been demonstrated time and time again, specifically with ancient fossils who's Genomic affinity precede the physical affinities found among the descendants (Phenotypic discontinuity combined with genetic continuity in West Asians, South Asians, South East Asians, East Asians, Europeans, Amerindians)
In the genetic space there has been considerable work uncovering the specifics of Continental African substructure which phases out simplistic ideas of "Sub Saharan African Blacks" being a monolith. There is also considerable data we should ALL be familiar with regarding the multiple wet phases of the Sahara that provide opportunities for geneflow between regions.
IMO and from my observations. The latest generation of "Black Egypt" proponents have regressed. They are discarding everything we have known and learned over the past 15 years and reverting back to ideas of discrete races to the advantage of Eurocentrist that used these tools to obfuscate identities in the first place. There is certain language we should be using. There are certain arguments we should be making based on NEW data and science. WE shouldn't be reverting back to ideas genetic "Purity" that border on pseudo science. Where is the balance? Who is going to clean up their mess?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: The R in the Armana's has been called as M269?
Basically.
-It has to be SNP tested but it is what it is. -The mitochondrial DNA is what it is. -The presence of Non-African genetic signatures in Pleistocene Moroccans 15 thousand years ago is that it is. -The presence of Natufian like signatures and non African mtdna in East African Pastoral Neolithic is what it is.
It's so silly we are playing the "Pure African" game in 2023 in the face of overwhelming evidence. The feelgoodism is a mind killer.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: showing that morphologically North africans do belong to a cluster separated from most sub-saharans.
Which ones? Because the issue is one of semantics,SSA is suppose to be a region, along with Mediterranean. Until groups started to leave,there weren't any European or Western Asian Mediterranean untill ancient Africans went into those regions and called it home
Look up above I've posted 3 quotes by J.D. Irish and I said "most sub-saharans" not simply sub-saharan Africa since many populations in north-east Africa despite being located below the Sahara are part of the North African cluster hence why calling them "black" and therefore lumping them with west/central/east africans is deeply misleading and inaccurate. I've also posted a scatterplot where you can see that ancient upper egyptians, lower nubians and modern ethiopians plot far from most modern sub-saharan africans and are much closer to europeans and maghrebis.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
What is the point of going back and forth with Antalas? Africa has the greatest diversity on the planet. These different geographic populations CAN look different, BE genetically distinct and still have a long standing origin/presence on the continent. Cranial, Dental and Genetic observations show EVERY region in africa to have long standing distinctions.
SURE there is overlap, sure there is external and internal geneflow. Why are we dying on this hill?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ANALYSIS : In the past 10-15 years traditional ideas regarding "physical race" SHOULD HAVE dissolved due to the realities of genomic research, particularly ancient Genomic research.
Dr. Keita cannot get enough credit for being FAR ahead of the curve regarding the "persistence of racial thinking" and instead went with a model that revolves around ideas if micro-adaptation as an evolutionary process in the human species due to external factors of environment/climate/diet/etc. In this model Physical "Race" has no genetic indicators as far as ancestry. This has been demonstrated time and time again, specifically with ancient fossils who's Genomic affinity precede the physical affinities found among the descendants (Phenotypic discontinuity combined with genetic continuity in West Asians, South Asians, South East Asians, East Asians, Europeans, Amerindians)
In the genetic space there has been considerable work uncovering the specifics of Continental African substructure which phases out simplistic ideas of "Sub Saharan African Blacks" being a monolith. There is also considerable data we should ALL be familiar with regarding the multiple wet phases of the Sahara that provide opportunities for geneflow between regions.
IMO and from my observations. The latest generation of "Black Egypt" proponents have regressed. They are discarding everything we have known and learned over the past 15 years and reverting back to ideas of discrete races to the advantage of Eurocentrist that used these tools to obfuscate identities in the first place. There is certain language we should be using. There are certain arguments we should be making based on NEW data and science. WE shouldn't be reverting back to ideas genetic "Purity" that border on pseudo science. Where is the balance? Who is going to clean up their mess?
Most Members here don't care about this. A "color descriptor" is enough for them, for Djehuti if ancient nubians were dark skinned that's enough to label their whole culture and history as "black" and therefore there is no problem with an afro-american of west african descent to take pride in it and see it as "black achievement" despite the fact the two populations are not related and are genetically/morphologically very different. That's the level we're dealing with here.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@Antalas - "Black" is a social description not a scientific one. The way people use it depends on their personal bias and cultural conditioning. I dont really care how they use the word so long as they are not arguing it SCIENTIFIC.
My gripes is how they (we) are ignoring science. leaving us flat footed and unable to address Eurocentrism even when Eurocentrists have bad interpretation of scientific data. I have seen Euroclowns make up things out of THIN AIR and "Black Egypt" proponents (1) not know the argument was made up and (2) not understand how to simply ask for a "Source".
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: What is the point of going back and forth with Antalas? Africa has the greatest diversity on the planet. These different geographic populations CAN look different, BE genetically distinct and still have a long standing origin/presence on the continent. Cranial, Dental and Genetic observations show EVERY region in africa to have long standing distinctions.
SURE there is overlap, sure there is external and internal geneflow. Why are we dying on this hill?
Beyoku this probably isn't my place to ask but do you believe the Ancient Egyptians most likely had an admixture of Sub-Saharan genes and "Eurasian" DNA? If so what do you think the proportion might be (If you had to take a guess)
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Antalas - "Black" is a social description not a scientific one. The way people use it depends on their personal bias and cultural conditioning. I dont really care how they use the word so long as they are not arguing it SCIENTIFIC.
I agree it is a social description, often highly politicized. If one go by color in a more literal sense most people who are called black are in fact different nuances of brown. It seems many are so caught up in the dichotomy of black or white that they forget the true spectrum of diversity among people also regarding skin color.
When we see a brown cat, we call it brown, but many times if we see a person with brown skin we call him black. Seems we are more objektive and accurate when we assess color among cats than among humans.
Like these two cats I posted in another thread. No one would call the brown cat black. And the difference between the brown and the black cat are quite obvious.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
@beyoku I Agree, however, I firmly believe that for many individuals, the situation is a lost cause because even when presented with factual information, they persist in engaging in mental acrobatics. This was for instance evidenced by the mislabeling of the Abusir samples as "foreigners," the labeling of the Nuerat sample as "black" due to the unfounded belief that Natufians were "black," the unfounded assertion that Ramses III had the E1b1a haplogroup, the labeling of Tut's R1b haplogroup as "R-V88" without justification, etc
These individuals are in a constant state of denial and simply want to see themselves in those samples. At this point, their behavior can be considered pathological.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
... is he brown or black?
Objectively seen he is brown. Here where I live he would be called brown, or "Indian" (from India or Pakistan). Interestingly if he would have had nappy hair instead of straight hair some would probably have called him black, even if he still would have had the same skin color. That shows how arbitrary the label black is.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
How about this girl? She is a Nubian from Egypt. She is clearly African, but is she black? I would call her brown.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: What is the point of going back and forth with Antalas? Africa has the greatest diversity on the planet. These different geographic populations CAN look different, BE genetically distinct and still have a long standing origin/presence on the continent. Cranial, Dental and Genetic observations show EVERY region in africa to have long standing distinctions.
SURE there is overlap, sure there is external and internal geneflow. Why are we dying on this hill?
Beyoku this probably isn't my place to ask but do you believe the Ancient Egyptians most likely had an admixture of Sub-Saharan genes and "Eurasian" DNA? If so what do you think the proportion might be (If you had to take a guess)
"Sub Saharan African" ancestry in Indigenous "Pharaonic" Egyptian is not "Admixture". This component was likely already present at unification. Using fossil data in lieu of Genetic data, the Neolithic and Mesolithic ancestors of pharaonic Egyptians will likely range somewhere from 0-100% Equatorial African / North African depending on Age/location. AT the moment "north African" can be used as a synonym of Natufian since this seems to be the component which is being modeled as a proxy for ONE TYPE of Hunter Gatherer Ancestry in this region of Africa. At this moment in time its useless to attempt to distinguish Non-African Levantine from North African using the models we have today. Archeology on the other hand provides distinctions. It provides no evidence of mass migration. It also provides the evidence of food producing technology and cultural precursors already being present prior to Near Eastern Domesticate arrival. Levantines didn't teach Africans how to Farm nor herd animals.
We dont have enough Genetic data. Using the Limited genetic data we have, and using the current models we have that DONT recognize regional genetic Substructure instead treating the region as a Dinka(Nilotic) and Natufian (Levantine) composite: Sarahan related Pre-Neolithic Agro Pastoral Egyptians were predominantly Dinka like. Other Pre-Neolithic populations within Africa migrate north and Neolithic pastoralist from the levant migrate south and out compete Earlier Egyptians pastoralists who are absorbed in the Nile Valley and also migrate south. Dinka like ancestry goes from being predominant 9000-12000 years ago.....to being whittled down to "6-15%" in Late dynastic Northern Egyptians at Abusir. IF the Abusir Mummies are Actual "levatines" as other have argued, then 6-15% represents Sub Saharan ancestry in ancient Levatines (Higher than today) or it represents Egyptian Admixture into Abusir Migrants.....someone can do the math and attempt to predict SSA in ancient Egyptians using Abusir as an example of levatines with Egyptian admixture.
That is my answer. I will answer a request for (2) sources to anything that i have wrote above.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: "Sub Saharan African" ancestry in Indigenous "Pharaonic" Egyptian is not "Admixture". This component was likely already present at unification. Using fossil data in lieu of Genetic data, the Neolithic and Mesolithic ancestors of pharaonic Egyptians will likely range somewhere from 0-100% Equatorial African / North African depending on Age/location. AT the moment "north African" can be used as a synonym of Natufian since this seems to be the component which is being modeled as a proxy for ONE TYPE of Hunter Gatherer Ancestry in this region of Africa. At this moment in time its useless to attempt to distinguish Non-African Levantine from North African using the models we have today. Archeology on the other hand provides distinctions. It provides no evidence of mass migration. It also provides the evidence of food producing technology and cultural precursors already being present prior to Near Eastern Domesticate arrival. Levantines didn't teach Africans how to Farm nor herd animals.
We dont have enough Genetic data. Using the Limited genetic data we have, and using the current models we have that DONT recognize regional genetic Substructure instead treating the region as a Dinka(Nilotic) and Natufian (Levantine) composite: Sarahan related Pre-Neolithic Agro Pastoral Egyptians were predominantly Dinka like. Other Pre-Neolithic populations within Africa migrate north and Neolithic pastoralist from the levant migrate south and out compete Earlier Egyptians pastoralists who are absorbed in the Nile Valley and also migrate south. Dinka like ancestry goes from being predominant 9000-12000 years ago.....to being whittled down to "6-15%" in Late dynastic Northern Egyptians at Abusir. IF the Abusir Mummies are Actual "levatines" as other have argued, then 6-15% represents Sub Saharan ancestry in ancient Levatines (Higher than today) or it represents Egyptian Admixture into Abusir Migrants.....someone can do the math and attempt to predict SSA in ancient Egyptians using Abusir as an example of levatines with Egyptian admixture.
That is my answer.
There is no justification for classifying the Abusir samples as foreign because the authors of the paper note that these samples demonstrate continuity over a period of 1,300 years. Additionally, there are at least two other Egyptian samples, one from Phoenicia and one from York, which are very similar to the Abusir samples. An upcoming paper by U. Christian et al. has also confirmed that mummies from several sites and different eras match the mtDNA profile of the Abusir samples. Furthermore, there are now hundreds of ancient Levantine samples that have been sequenced and are similar to modern Levantines, without being as African-shifted as the Abusir samples.
I believe you are referring to the Jebel Sahaba/Wadi Halfa people when you mention the predominance of Dinka-like ancestry during the UP. However, do you remember when I told you about them being considered as foreign migrants who were moving towards the Nile Valley during the climatic optimum? This may explain why El Khiday is more similar to later Nubians. That's why I think the situation was probably more intricate than what you are suggesting.
I personally think that by the early predynastic era, their African ancestry would have been comparable to that of modern Egyptians, with the most SSA shifted being similar to the Kulubnarti samples.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: [qb] The R in the Armana's has been called as M269?
Basically.
-It has to be SNP tested but it is what it is. -The mitochondrial DNA is what it is. -The presence of Non-African genetic signatures in Pleistocene Moroccans 15 thousand years ago is that it is. -The presence of Natufian like signatures and non African mtdna in East African Pastoral Neolithic is what it is.
"haplogroup R-V88 was only observed in Afroasiatic-speaking populations from northern Africa, with frequencies ranging from 0.3% in Morocco, to 3.0% in Algeria, and to 11.5% in Egypt, where a particularly high frequency (26.9%) was observed among the Berbers from the Siwa Oasis. " ~ Fulvio Cruciani, 2010 Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: [qb] The R in the Armana's has been called as M269?
Basically.
-It has to be SNP tested but it is what it is. -The mitochondrial DNA is what it is. -The presence of Non-African genetic signatures in Pleistocene Moroccans 15 thousand years ago is that it is. -The presence of Natufian like signatures and non African mtdna in East African Pastoral Neolithic is what it is.
"haplogroup R-V88 was only observed in Afroasiatic-speaking populations from northern Africa, with frequencies ranging from 0.3% in Morocco, to 3.0% in Algeria, and to 11.5% in Egypt, where a particularly high frequency (26.9%) was observed among the Berbers from the Siwa Oasis. " ~ Fulvio Cruciani, 2010 Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages
The simple answer to my question was no... the call has not been made
quote: Now let see some samples, with fitness scores distribution in range from 0 to 100. First goes fitting of R1a haplotypes into R1b statistics in NevGen’s General Levels (from R1a and R1b are excluded some very old subclades , like YP4141, YP1272, V88, V1636, PH155… which does not change results much), together with fitting coefficients. We can see it on six different markers sets./QUOTE]
quote: Bayesian approach which NevGen predictor uses has one bad property, or problem: it assumes that entered haplotype belongs to one of subbranches supported by predictor . So it divides 100% of probability to its supported haplogroups
quote:A group of chromosomes of potential interest to past trans-Saharan connections is the paragroup R1b1* (R-P25*). Cruciani et al18 found this paragroup (at that time defined as haplogroup 117, or R-M173*(xSRY10831, M18, M73, M269)) to be present at high frequencies (up to 95%) in populations from northern Cameroon. The same paragroup was only rarely observed in other sub-Saharan African regions, and not observed at all in western Eurasia.18 Subsequent studies dealing with the MSY diversity in Africa have confirmed the presence of R-P25*(xM269) in northern Cameroon at high frequencies23 and, at lower frequencies (mean 5%, range 0–20%), of R-P25* immediately south of Cameroon, in several populations from Gabon.25 Interestingly, chromosomes of haplogroup R-P25/R-M173, ancestral for M269 as well as for other ‘Eurasian' downstream markers , have been found to be present in northern Africa (1% in Algeria, 4% in Tunisia, and 2–4% in Egypt).20, 23, 26 The presence of R-P25 Y chromosomes has also been reported in population groups from the Sudan;27 however, as no internal markers were typed, the sub-haplogroup affiliation of these chromosomes remains undefined. " target="_blank">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987365/[/QUOTE] Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@Yatunde Lisa Bey - Why argue over ONE lineage when there are other Eurasians ones? What is the point? Egypt is a crossroads. 15KYA Moroccans have Eurasian DNA that likely crossed into Africa via the Sinai. Stop wasting time trying to prove genetic "Purity". ITS BS. Even Diop, Williams, et al speak of foreign migration going back into the predynastic. Even Keita said in an analysis of Egyptian crania: "However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity". V-88 Aint "African" anyway if you have been paying attention to ancient DNA....and the matriarch is K1a Does that make King Tut "Non-African" ? NO. Does that mean the 18th Dynasty carry lineages indicative of Recent or ancient migration from Eurasia? Yes. Further analysis will point out the time depth of these lineages in Africa. Archaeological data does a VERY good job of providing information of When opportunities for Geneflow would have happened. Its the best tool we have at the moment.
@Antalas - I am not arguing the mummies are foreign. I am creating a contingency for those that are: "If This" > "Then This". I don't care either way. But notice those that DO make the argument don't think hard enough to cross the line and argue Levantines were "More African" than they are now. Or use this 6-15% as Egyptian "admixture" to reconstruct SSA in Ancient Egypt. IMO, this means they are not really thinking about it, its just COPE.
As for the fossils, Foreign or not (1) They were THERE and exist as the only known fossils recognized and associated with Specific *EGYPTIAN* material cultures, they have no West African lithic precursors that i know of (Unless you argue Nile Valley pottery is a transplant of an Ounjougou precursor ). (2) They seem local, in that Modern Egyptian's African Substratum is not West African derived if there was stone age continuity. The lineages that exist contain diversity that has the time depth that can only be associated with these old fossils. Egypt's SSA is modeled as "DINKA" not anything else, not Senegambian. Furthermore The Eastern Sahara/Nile Valley derived African ancestry in Horn Africans and East African pastoral Neolithic is also DINKA, not Senegambian. The type of the Australo Melanesian / Jebel Sahaba affinity goes all the way back to Nazlet Khater and Taramsa Hill Boy 35kya and 65-75kya respectively. Its not "NEW".
Also keep in mind, this is just ONE model. The simplest model. The really dumbed down no genetic substructure in africa Model. This is a model i can prove appealing to peer review. I don't support this model. I am separating what i personally think and expect seeing the trends of Ancient dna vs what i can prove appealing to peer review and using the models we have right now.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
1st You need to quit arguing with me like you actually know my position and opinions, because you don't. Quit talking down to people like they are stupid. Quit telling people to read, when you won't crack a history book to save your life. Quit trying to tear down the old heads... and replace it with the even more spurious eurocentric white supremacists. Eat the meat throw out the bones...
Iconoclasm & Nhilism never really helped anyone.
Akenaten was an Iconoclast... look where that got him.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, an idiotic straw doll! Nobody used the label of black to describe ancestry, you nitwit! Hence the reason why both Nubians and Egyptians would more accurately be called black AFRICAN civilizations.
Actually everyone does use it to describe ancestry. I've never seen a single person calling indians "black" here despite being dark skinned. Where I live, "black" is restricted to black africans.
Why would nubians and egyptians (except upper nubians) be described as "black african" ? Most egyptians were not black skinned and morphologically both populations were not similar to most sub-saharan africans. Here a simple example from Irish 2010 :
Also why "african" ? Did most africans participated in the foundation of those two civilizations ? Did they share most of their cultural background with them ? The answer is no therefore labelling cultures/civilizations by a continent is utterly idiotic and useless. That would be like someone insisting that Ancient Persia "WAS AN ASIATIC CIVILIZATION OKAY ?!" XD
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again it is only only useless if used for anything else besides describing skin color! Which again nobody in here has ever done! You are just a negrophobe who hates the FACT that indigenous North Africans were indeed melanoderm i.e. black and not white like those of European ancestry like yourself!
Only skin color ? You sure ? Why are those people describe as "black" in your country then ? :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I never said anything about them being related to Sub-Saharans! In fact I said they are 100% Eurasians! I'm not the one lumping them under the label 'black' because they ARE already lumped there simply by the criteria of black skin!! When will you get it through your head that 'black' is are reference to skin color NOT ancestry!!
Therefore you admit the label is totally misleading since those people despite being dark skinned are not related to black africans.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again there is nothing "racist" about the label anymore than the label 'white'. This is why you're a negrophobe, because your problem is only with the label 'black' but not 'white' which you and other coastal Maghrebis fall under. Also the charts I posted from Lazaridis, LLoosdrecht, and Fregel show that Ethiopians are as closely related to Europeans as they are West Africans, you liar! Which again brings me back to my original point that when it comes to genetic relations, there are degrees of relativity! West Africans are closer related to North Africans than they are to Southern Africans yet you desperately try to lump the first and last groups together into a Sub-Saharan group while lumping North Africans with West Eurasians into a "Eurasian" group. Yet why is it that in none of the charts I cited there are no other Eurasians like South Asians, East Asians etc.?? That's because West Eurasians have African admixture that pools them closer to Africans, specifically North Africans while people like Indians and Andamanese do NOT! Europeans and Middle-Easterners have African admixture which is why they are closer to North Africans than other Eurasians!
I would have no problem with "white" if it's restricted to europeans since most of them form a coherent and homogeneous cluster. The same way I have no problem with "black" if it's restricted to africans with no or negligible amount of eurasian ancestry.
As for ethiopians, I did not lie :
Here you can see Afar are closer to italians than west africans (even closer to french) :
Same for Tigray :
or Amhara :
Let's not even talk about how close they are to berbers like me than west/central or east africans.
What do you mean by most ancient egyptians not being Black skinned?? This color is part of Black this is what the average Egyptian looked like:
now east africans from punt looked this color also:
that shows that reddish brown skin color is the average color of East Africa and Ancient Egypt.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
Iconoclasm & Nhilism never really helped anyone.
Akenaten was an Iconoclast... look where that got him.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
@Beyoku What you're saying makes sense and is a possibility but the thing is Why are they so different from upper nubians (UP and neolithic) ? The latter being much less "negroid". Irish clearly insists that they're too divergent to be ancestral to neolithic/dynastic nubians. Also morphologically the closest populations to them are modern west/central africans (notably Ashanti/Ishango) not south sudanese.
As for Nazlet Khater, correct me if I'm wrong but all we know about their biological affinities is based on their mandibula/teeth only and unlike Jebel Sahaba they are not associated with modern west africans but with khoisans (+ some other MSA pop.) and even in that case they are still quite different from the latter. But I may be wrong since your wadi Howar paper says they show affinities with Jebel Sahaba/wadi Halfa/Tushka.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
Iconoclasm & Nhilism never really helped anyone.
Akenaten was an Iconoclast... look where that got him.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam
You are right
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: What do you mean by most ancient egyptians not being Black skinned?? This color is part of Black this is what the average Egyptian looked like:
now east africans from punt looked this color also:
that shows that reddish brown skin color is the average color of East Africa and Ancient Egypt.
Exactly this is not black skinned like in the case of how many nubians were depicted :
"Reddish brown" is basically the skin tone of many modern egyptians :
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
I wonder why none of the soldiers have light skin color not even one
as you see the soldiers were uniformaliy described as black skinned and you can see the reddish brown skin that majority Ancient Egyptians shared with East Africa
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
KING will you please reduce those images they are to large for the thread
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: KING will you please reduce those images they are to large for the thread
how do I reduce the image size?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: @Beyoku What you're saying makes sense and is a possibility but the thing is Why are they so different from upper nubians (UP and neolithic) ? The latter being much less "negroid". Irish clearly insists that they're too divergent to be ancestral to neolithic/dynastic nubians. Also morphologically the closest populations to them are modern west/central africans (notably Ashanti/Ishango) not south sudanese.
As for Nazlet Khater, correct me if I'm wrong but all we know about their biological affinities is based on their mandibula/teeth only and unlike Jebel Sahaba they are not associated with modern west africans but with khoisans (+ some other MSA pop.) and even in that case they are still quite different from the latter. But I may be wrong since your wadi Howar paper says they show affinities with Jebel Sahaba/wadi Halfa/Tushka.
The Genetic connection is still there. Irish/Becker are a bit too Rigid in their argument. We know this because genetic data exists:
We already know that sample like Jebel Ramlah are dentally "mixed". We dont have their DNA Though. We have ancient Nubians (Kulubnarti), Modern Horners, Ancient Pastoralists who are STRONGLY Natufian like...have some of these Northern dental Affinities but are STILL 35-55% Dinka.
All the Neolithic and Post Neolithic Nubians samples show affinity to Egyptian samples regarding the North African dental pattern still carry Dinka. So there cant be total discontinuity : "The Kulubnarti Nubians had ~43% Nilotic-related ancestry (individual variation between ~36–54%) " - Sirak.
East African Neolithics from limited data of a Kenyan Sample were also Dentally North African. THe Genomic Data is 40/40/20 Dinka/Natufian/MOTA respectively. Kadruka autosomal sample is from Kerma. Kerma is EXTREMELY close to Egyptians cranially and Dentally. The sample was genetically indistinguishable for Pastoral Neolithic: 40/40/20. Early Y-dna from Neolithic Kadruka was 60/40 A-M91/E-M40 respectively. So Dinka like ancestry using the generic model we have can still persist in Dentally "North African" populations even to the tune of 33-54% in the case of Kulubnarti. 40% in the case of Pastoral Neolithic.
These samples, IMO represent what could be the upper bound limites of Dinka type ancestry in populations that dentally/cranial North African in the Nile Valley. None of them would be out of place. WE should use these frequencies with the understanding they have been reduced to 6-15% in Late Northern Dynastics at Abusir.
Again, this is ONE WAY to look at the data. If we wanted to take a literal interpretation of dental affinity in lieu of genetic data as suggested by the Abstract.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: KING will you please reduce those images they are to large for the thread
how do I reduce the image size?
sign up to a free image host like https://imgur.com you can resize there
Thank You Lioness
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: See the video in the OP where the creator speaks of New Kingdom Egyptians being "PURE" Africans while presenting data that doesn't show those said Egyptians to be "PURE" African. The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS!
Please post timecode reference of this statement, and I can't find a single reference to 'pure' Africans anywhere in the video...?
10: minutes in he also goes into supporting a pseudo scientific Physical Race = Autosomal Genetics argument. If folks dont know why both these statements are problematic..... These folks are in amatuer hour. They need to consult someone who knows more before they make these videos. A competent Eurocentrist would destroy this video, this is a problem.
Destroy it then. I haven't seen anything but rhetoric thus far. I for one would be interested to hear it. I have a friend who is a geneticist and he said STR matching algorithms are the only method by which geneticists can ascertain ethnicity... are they incorrect? If so, I'd like to know because I've been guilty of promoting the same.
beyoku can you answer this
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: I wonder why none of the soldiers have light skin color not even one
as you see the soldiers were uniformaliy described as black skinned and you can see the reddish brown skin that majority Ancient Egyptians shared with East Africa
If I'm not mistaken these are soldiers from the private army of Mesehti which included nubian archers and soldiers :
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by KING: I wonder why none of the soldiers have light skin color not even one
as you see the soldiers were uniformaliy described as black skinned and you can see the reddish brown skin that majority Ancient Egyptians shared with East Africa
If I'm not mistaken these are soldiers from the private army of Mesehti which included nubian archers and soldiers :
We have to understand the pictures show only black skinned people. Where the picture was found does not make it someones private army.
The picture shows egyptians with the spears the also look black not just the ones with the arrows.
what you have to understand is that your exxplanation comes from bias ideas of eurocentric comments.
the army is all we have to go by, and they are all Black. there is not another group of armies togo by.
we have this army and they are all Black skinned that does not count the nubians only but the egyptians with spears.
when the two groups were found there is no explanation, its a random grouping of the egyptian army that is all
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@KING, sorry I used a quick fix picture resize site but turns out the image only has a short time limit. You need one of the free image host sites to resize stuff
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: .
Thanks again lioness hopefully this picture will stay
as you can see antlas this is a grouping of the egyptian Army and they all look Black there is differences inside the grouping with different noses and eyes and lips yet not inside there skin color that remains the same rich Black skin that is used its not someones private army to dismiss that the egyptian army drew from black skin people of Ancient egypt.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
the topic though is different types of genetic methods
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Here's are a couple of pictures of ancient Puntites that should be manageable for this board:
As for the models of soldiers from the tomb of Mesehti, my understanding is that the archers are from Wawat (Lower Nubia) and the spearmen with the cowhide shields are native Egyptians. The Wawatian archers do have darker skin on average, but both are clearly melanoderm peoples. Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The Genetic connection is still there. Irish/Becker are a bit too Rigid in their argument. We know this because genetic data exists:
We already know that sample like Jebel Ramlah are dentally "mixed". We dont have their DNA Though. We have ancient Nubians (Kulubnarti), Modern Horners, Ancient Pastoralists who are STRONGLY Natufian like...have some of these Northern dental Affinities but are STILL 35-55% Dinka.
All the Neolithic and Post Neolithic Nubians samples show affinity to Egyptian samples regarding the North African dental pattern still carry Dinka. So there cant be total discontinuity : "The Kulubnarti Nubians had ~43% Nilotic-related ancestry (individual variation between ~36–54%) " - Sirak.
East African Neolithics from limited data of a Kenyan Sample were also Dentally North African. THe Genomic Data is 40/40/20 Dinka/Natufian/MOTA respectively. Kadruka autosomal sample is from Kerma. Kerma is EXTREMELY close to Egyptians cranially and Dentally. The sample was genetically indistinguishable for Pastoral Neolithic: 40/40/20. Early Y-dna from Neolithic Kadruka was 60/40 A-M91/E-M40 respectively. So Dinka like ancestry using the generic model we have can still persist in Dentally "North African" populations even to the tune of 33-54% in the case of Kulubnarti. 40% in the case of Pastoral Neolithic.
These samples, IMO represent what could be the upper bound limites of Dinka type ancestry in populations that dentally/cranial North African in the Nile Valley. None of them would be out of place. WE should use these frequencies with the understanding they have been reduced to 6-15% in Late Northern Dynastics at Abusir.
Again, this is ONE WAY to look at the data. If we wanted to take a literal interpretation of dental affinity in lieu of genetic data as suggested by the Abstract. [/QB]
Ok but I did not mean to suggest that El Khiday was entirely of Eurasian descent. My point was that there may have been populations in that region with a significant amount of Eurasian ancestry, even as far south and as early as El Khiday. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if the people of the Jebel Sahaba culture turn out to be something other than Dinka-like.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: We have to understand the pictures show only black skinned people. Where the picture was found does not make it someones private army.
The picture shows egyptians with the spears the also look black not just the ones with the arrows.
what you have to understand is that your exxplanation comes from bias ideas of eurocentric comments.
the army is all we have to go by, and they are all Black. there is not another group of armies togo by.
we have this army and they are all Black skinned that does not count the nubians only but the egyptians with spears.
when the two groups were found there is no explanation, its a random grouping of the egyptian army that is all
I have just provided you with a historical account, which explains that Mesethi had a private army, and we have concrete evidence of this fact. The historian also mentioned that Mesethi recruited Nubian soldiers, specifically archers and spearmen. In their iconography, Egyptians are almost never depicted with black skin. If you were to visit a museum that houses Egyptian artifacts, you would be able to see this for yourself.
Furthermore, there are numerous wooden Egyptian figurines in existence, which depict the same reddish skin tone that is typical of Egyptians :
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed, you have an Afronut on one side and a Euronut on the other, speaking of the latter..
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Ok thanks djehuti you show that you have no proper arguments when confronted to proper datas. Also the people you posted are genetically and morphologically closer to me than any west/central or east african.
You have presented no 'data' which is the plural of datum, and West/Central Africans are closer to North Africans than they are to Southern Africans so what is your point?! LOL North Africans are still African and there are degrees of relativity.
I've posted data showing why your "black" category is invalid and I've posted data showing that morphologically North africans do belong to a cluster separated from most sub-saharans .
and how did you answer ? By posting pictures of random people who btw are genetically closer to me than most SSAs.
Thanks.
Tooth data doesn't indicate race, end of story!
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: See the video in the OP where the creator speaks of New Kingdom Egyptians being "PURE" Africans while presenting data that doesn't show those said Egyptians to be "PURE" African. The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS!
Please post timecode reference of this statement, and I can't find a single reference to 'pure' Africans anywhere in the video...?
6 minutes 30 seconds. "A purely African population inhabited Ancient Egypt"
Excuse me, how is that incorrect? Are you suggesting a purely African population didn't inhabit ancient Egypt? Are you supporting the idea that Kemet was colonised from Mesopotamia or the Middle East? Last time I checked the Kemetic population were an indigenous nilo-saharan population... what the hell is going on here. This is exactly why I stopped posting in this group, eurocentric apologists.
Wait so we in 2023 and we still arguing that ancient Egyptians were "100% Sub Saharan African"? We really doing that? "Kemetic population were an indigenous nilo-saharan population" Wait, what? "Ancient Egyptian" linguistically is no longer part of the Afro-Asiatic language family anymore?
Don't we have DNA From Ancient Egypt indicating they were not "Pure Africans". Doesn't Amarna R-M269 and Mtdna K1 indicate they are not "Pure Africans". Doesn't DNA Tribe debunk the notion of "Pure Africans" ?
Did you just step out of a time capsule or something and have yet to get reoriented with the latest genetic findings? Everyone want to put Keitas name in their mouth but dont really want to folly Keita and 5 Minutes later the talking about "Pure Races".
Do you regard the "Natufian" ancestry as purely "Eurasian," or as a mixed North African/Eurasian component?
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by KING: We have to understand the pictures show only black skinned people. Where the picture was found does not make it someones private army.
The picture shows egyptians with the spears the also look black not just the ones with the arrows.
what you have to understand is that your exxplanation comes from bias ideas of eurocentric comments.
the army is all we have to go by, and they are all Black. there is not another group of armies togo by.
we have this army and they are all Black skinned that does not count the nubians only but the egyptians with spears.
when the two groups were found there is no explanation, its a random grouping of the egyptian army that is all
I have just provided you with a historical account, which explains that Mesethi had a private army, and we have concrete evidence of this fact. The historian also mentioned that Mesethi recruited Nubian soldiers, specifically archers and spearmen. In their iconography, Egyptians are almost never depicted with black skin. If you were to visit a museum that houses Egyptian artifacts, you would be able to see this for yourself.
Furthermore, there are numerous wooden Egyptian figurines in existence, which depict the same reddish skin tone that is typical of Egyptians :
So how do you know that that private army was not shown as a grouping of Ancient Egypt Army instead where did it say for a fact that mesheti had a Private army so the models of soliders were not just a grouping did King Tut have a private Army. how about Akhenaten did they have a private army???
what words from the Tomb of mesheti stated that this was his private army models???
Also Reddish Brown is a part of Black. and did not egyptians claim red as evil??
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
Also Reddish Brown is a part of Black. and did not egyptians claim red as evil??
Seems many people are deliberately colorblind out of political reasons. Reddish brown is a part of brown, it is not black in a literal sense. Black when used for skin color is often a social construct, a political buss word, not so many people are literally black.
Or will you claim that this reddish brown person have the same color as the black rectangle?
Maybe time to abandon the black and white dichotomy?
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by KING:
Also Reddish Brown is a part of Black. and did not egyptians claim red as evil??
Seems many people are deliberately colorblind out of political reasons. Reddish brown is a part of brown, it is not black in a literal sense. Black when used for skin color is often a social construct, a political buss word, not so many people are literally black.
Or will you claim that this reddish brown person have the same color as the black rectangle?
Maybe time to abandon the black and white dichotomy?
Black means what I have said and reddish brown is a part of Black. Look at these Africans and you can tell they belong with the reddish brown that is part of Black:
now majority of Black Africans have the reddish brown skin tone its a part of Black. Black is a compassing word that recognizes that these people is part of Africa. And there color goes to Black People who is at its highest has Black Skinned people part of their heritage. Black goes from Blackest to Yellowish color.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Black is black, it is just in some persons heads that black is brown or brown is black, it is not a literal description but a social construct and political label.
It is just in some peoples minds that brown is a part of black. It does not correspond with any physical reality.
Maybe time to abandon the notion of "black" regarding people whose skin tones are different shades of brown.
The pictures you posted were all of brown people, if one shall go strictly after skin color. It seems rather meaningless to describe people with another color than they actually are.
Had these two cats been people some would probably called both of them black too.
Are both these cats black??
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Black is black, it is just in some persons heads that black is brown or brown is black, it is not a literal description but a social construct and political label.
It is just in some peoples minds that brown is a part of black. It does not correspond with any physical reality.
Maybe time to abandon the notion of "black" regarding people whose skin tones are different shades of brown.
The pictures you posted were all of brown people, if one shall go strictly after skin color. It seems rather meaningless to describe people with another color than they actually are.
Had these two cats been people some would probably called both of them black too.
Are both these cats black??
Why abandon Black when it can be uplifted, Black is the universal home of people who have Black To rich brown and yellowish skin color. Not many people is literally Black Color yet they share the trait with Nappy to wavy hair full lips, and deep rich color of skin that connects them as Black Africans.
where not comparing humans to cats. We are people created from God and recognize we are not animals.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@KING did you watch the video in the OP? It's about genetics Anybody can pick and choose photos of people they like and post them. People have been doing that for nearly 20 years. What does that accomplish?
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: @KING did you watch the video in the OP? It's about genetics Anybody can pick and choose photos of people they like and post them. People have been doing that for nearly 20 years. What does that accomplish?
the lioness, I understand what the video entails and will watch it later, pictures show that Africans do not look out of place inside egypt.
Europeans and near eastereners whatever that means do look out of place and there is none of Egyptian culture found inside the near east and europe., yet Africa has all the traits of Ancient Egypt from Egypt to somalia
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
Why abandon Black when it can be uplifted, Black is the universal home of people who have Black To rich brown and yellowish skin color. Not many people is literally Black Color yet they share the trait with Nappy to wavy hair full lips, and deep rich color of skin that connects them as Black Africans.
where not comparing humans to cats. We are people created from God and recognize we are not animals.
Maybe one should in the long run abandon both the the concepts of white and black since we humans come in such many variants that it will be an oversimplification to divide us into only two colors (maybe one could add yellow too which is much less accepted. Few Asians call themselves yellow).
To divide billions of people in Black and White is an oversimplification that also continues to divide us.
Some researchers regards us as animals, more precisely primates and mammals. But that is another discussion.
You said nappy hair, so is this man not black?
And this girl? She is African, but is she black?
Where do we draw the line?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote: Originally posted by KING: Europeans and near eastereners whatever that means do look out of place and there is none of Egyptian culture found inside the near east and europe., yet Africa has all the traits of Ancient Egypt from Egypt to somalia
Still these people have interacted with, visited and even lived in Egypt since the time of Hyksos. And even if we find no Egyptian colonies in Europe and most of the Middle East we still find Egyptian goods there, and Egyptians had once a presence in the Levant. So Egyptians have not been totally isolated, they have interacted with their neighbours.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@Antalas - This is one reason i said North African could be from 0-100%. A model could exist where both Natufian and AlKhiday are 100% North African/West Eurasian if they model it that way.
Thus: "Other Pre-Neolithic populations within Africa (Al-khiday) migrate north and Neolithic pastoralist from the levant(natufian/PPNB) migrate south and out compete Earlier Egyptians pastoralists (Dinka) who are absorbed in the Nile Valley".
Jebel Saharans COULD have MOTA ancestry. MOTA (thus far) is the autochthonous ancestry of East/Horn African, Dinka is not and is likely Central African/Central Saharan (IMO). Egyptians prefer Dinka in most of the models BUT The kerma samples if TRUELY "genetically indistinguishable" from East African pastoralists create the opportunity for Mota to be present North of the Horn. Time will tell. Omotic Signatures in Natufian (Shriner et al) provides some hints. Early Fossil data in Somalia with Dental traits like Jebel Sahabans is HIGHLY probable to be associated with MOTA ancestry.
@Elijah The Tishbite - In relation to "Tooth Data" Why are you still talking about "Race"? SMH. "Natufian" is a mixed component. Likely 25% African....North African included. "Natufian" in its North East African and Horn african context is likely something related but different all together BUT This is the model we have right now, and i cannot argue based on speculation of models that dont exist.
Whether 100% Eurasian or not, it matters little in the big scheme of things. Right now "Natufian" is how North East African non equatorial ancestry is modeled. In Egypt, i am calling it "North African" for the sake of simplicity. Pairing it with dental traits that are called "North African" carried by humans with Y-DNA lineages that we are calling "North African". I am calling these things "North African" with an understanding that if *No Widespread mass migration exists* then this component is pre-Neolithic Hunter Gatherer ancestry characteristic of this part of North Africa.
My main criticism is you cannot get the type of conversation we have having RIGHT NOW form these folks that created the youtube videos. They dont know this. They dont WANT to know this and would read it and not even ask for sources....because they dont care.
They trying to get that viewership up to put money in they bank account. TRUST ME. I have had conversations with some of these folks. Luckly for me i am rich so i don't have to monetize information.
@King - In 2023 I think we are past pictures brother. Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by KING:
Why abandon Black when it can be uplifted, Black is the universal home of people who have Black To rich brown and yellowish skin color. Not many people is literally Black Color yet they share the trait with Nappy to wavy hair full lips, and deep rich color of skin that connects them as Black Africans.
where not comparing humans to cats. We are people created from God and recognize we are not animals.
Maybe one should in the long run abandon both the the concepts of white and black since we humans come in such many variants that it will be an oversimplification to divide us into only two colors (maybe one could add yellow too which is much less accepted. Few Asians call themselves yellow).
To divide billions of people in Black and White is an oversimplification that also continues to divide us.
Some researchers regards us as animals, more precisely primates and mammals. But that is another discussion.
You said nappy hair, so is this man not black?
And this girl? She is African, but is she black?
Where do we draw the line?
The indian man is Black his skin color puts him into that category and yes the girl is Black. Black can be seen even from thailand with the hill tribes people.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote: Originally posted by KING: Europeans and near eastereners whatever that means do look out of place and there is none of Egyptian culture found inside the near east and europe., yet Africa has all the traits of Ancient Egypt from Egypt to somalia
Still these people have interacted with, visited and even lived in Egypt since the time of Hyksos. And even if we find no Egyptian colonies in Europe and most of the Middle East we still find Egyptian goods there, and Egyptians had once a presence in the Levant. So Egyptians have not been totally isolated, they have interacted with their neighbours.
for all your talk about near east you would think we would find some cultural traits from their inside egypt and when they had a presence in the levent yet we see no cultural references from their of egypt yet when we get to Africa we have culture and traits at the extreme.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
@King - In 2023 I think we are past pictures brother.
Pictures tell you more then words that repeat what has already bin stated.
Pictures show you who is related and who is different.
the fayum mummies we know are not part of egypt simply because we have the pictures of the mummies when they were alive and the look like arabs and greeks. Pictures tell you who is a related African and shows that the Ancient Egyptians are reddish brown Black Africans.
i know you may thinkyour intelligence gets a boost from your own words about peoples study but that does not mean that Pictures dont tell you what these people is hiding.
This picture no doubts says these people is Black:
thats more then any words can tell you, if we did not have this depiction then you would have arguements for years about just what color these people are
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: The indian man is Black his skin color puts him into that category and yes the girl is Black. Black can be seen even from thailand with the hill tribes people.
I would say both are brown, at least in a literal sense. Then it is another matter where one likes to place them in a political, or socially constructed scheme. Also, black, brown, white can be a matter of identification. Does the Indian man identify himself as black? How does the girl identify herself? I heard Africans more dark in their skin say that they refuse to identify as black, they do not like that label out of different reasons. That also shows how arbitrary such label is. And in science and anthropology I think it is better it is avoided.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
I think that most of the colors of skin one can see on ancient Egyptian art still can be seen in Egypt today. And who is really an Egyptian? How long time must ones ancestor have lived in Egypt before one can be called an Egyptian?
Here are girls from an ancient painting, from a 19th century painting, and a photo of a Nubian girl from Egypt of today. And in todays Egypt there are also both darker and more light skinned individuals. Also on paintings there are darker and more light skinned people, who all ought to be called Egyptians.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by KING: The indian man is Black his skin color puts him into that category and yes the girl is Black. Black can be seen even from thailand with the hill tribes people.
I would say both are brown, at least in a literal sense. Then it is another matter where one likes to place them in a political, or socially constructed scheme. Also, black, brown, white can be a matter of identification. Does the Indian man identify himself as black? How does the girl identify herself? I heard Africans more dark in their skin say that they refuse to identify as black, they do not like that label out of different reasons. That also shows how arbitrary such label is. And in science and anthropology I think it is better it is avoided.
Black is a label that deserves to be built up. Black does not need for people to self identify as Black. Black encompasses skin color and other traits that unites people as Black. Literal word does not supress that Black is at the highest of word for people of deep rich skin ad full lips and nappy to wavy hair.
Black should be used as a unifying label for all people of African and outside Africa.
rather the black label then dark dark equals evil
also the near east does not share with egyptian culture
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I think that most of the colors of skin one can see on ancient Egyptian art still can be seen in Egypt today. And who is really an Egyptian? How long time must ones ancestor have lived in Egypt before one can be called an Egyptian?
Here are girls from an ancient painting, from a 19th century painting, and a photo of a Nubian girl from Egypt of today. And in todays Egypt there are also both darker and more light skinned individuals. Also on paintings there are darker and more light skinned people, who all ought to be called Egyptians.
its not the matter of claiming egypt its that there is NO CULTURAL TRAITS OF EGYPTIAN INSIDE THE NEAR EAST OR EUROPE ONLY AFRICA SHARES EGYPTIAN CULTURE.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
^¨ Well that is rather obvious since Egypt is located in Africa. It is the same with Kenya, Nigeria or whatever place you choose, those cultures also exists only in Africa. It is just like Sweden is located in Europe and only Europe shares Swedish culture. (except today everyone congregate in America and share their cultures and genes)
Still Egypt was not isolated, it had cultural contacts also with areas outside Africa, as the Levant and maybe also Creete and Cyprus.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: ^¨ Well that is rather obvious since Egypt is located in Africa. It is the same with Kenya, Nigeria or whatever place you choose, those cultures also exists only in Africa. It is just like Sweden is located in Europe and only Europe shares Swedish culture. (except today everyone congregate in America and share their cultures and genes)
Still Egypt was not isolated, it had cultural contacts also with areas outside Africa, as the Levant and maybe also Creete and Cyprus.
as much contact Egypt had with the levant their is no culture shared or part of the levant from egypt. The culture of Egypt is African and there is no culture outside of Africa that it shares with the levant or europe. Not saying that egypt did not make moves on the near east or crete as you call it, I am saying that Egypt people share culture and heritage with East Africa and none with there enimes from the middle east or europe even with all the migration and travel that has happen in and out of egypt we see no comparable culture or traits that rubbed off on the middle east or crete
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Some people have claimed though that certain aspects of Egyptian culture influenced for example the Minoans and the Phoenicians, at least concerning art styles and artistic conventions. But it does not mean that the Minoans or Phoenicians adapted Egyptian culture, or that for example Crete were colonized by Egyptians.
One can also wonder about how ancient Hebrews got influenced by the Egyptians, since according to the Bible some of them lived in Egypt for quite a while. Some have claimed that Achenatons monoteism may have inspired the monoteism of the early Hebrews. Hard to know since the books in the old Testament were written much later.
But I think we have a thread about Egyptian influence on Judaism and Christianity already
Who is the guy making this video? Is he a an archaeologist, historian or geneticist? It does not seem so judging from some of the videos on his YouTube channel.
The video does not sound like an objective evaluation but rather as a more ideologically motivated criticism where he suggests that the authors of the study were dishonest in some way.
Seems that the Abusir study has really become a bone of contention in the debates between Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Who is the guy making this video? Is he a an archaeologist, historian or geneticist? It does not seem so judging from some of the videos on his YouTube channel.
He is someone who was influenced by the below 2020 article co-authored by S.O.Y. Keita (American University Washington D.C. | AU · Department of Anthropology MD, DP Research Affiliate in the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution Keita completed his medical training at Howard University and received an M.D. degree, but is not Board certified. He studied taxonomy and evolutionary biology with S.T. Hussain and D. Domning in the anatomy department, as well as skeletal biology with the late J. Lawrence (Larry) Angel of the Smithsonian Institution. He received his D. Phil. which is equivalent to a PhD in the United States in biological anthropology from Oxford University where his supervisors were noted scholars, A.J.(Anthony) Boyce (biological anthropology) and John Baines (Egyptology).
and article lead by Jean-Philippe Gourdine, Senior Research Associate, Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute Ph.D., 2006, Universite des Antilles et de la Guyane
and including Alain Anselin (died 2019) Université des Antilles, Egyptology, Faculty Member Martinican Alain Anselin, Egyptologist and Bumidom specialist, at the Guadeloupe University Hospital. He was one of the few recognized Antillean specialists in ancient Egypt. A student in Dakar of Cheikh Anta Diop who considered him his "heir"
_________________________
(Pre print 2018) 2020 Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion Jean-Philippe Gourdine1, S.O.Y Keita Jean-Luc Gourdine Alain Anselin
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I think that most of the colors of skin one can see on ancient Egyptian art still can be seen in Egypt today. And who is really an Egyptian? How long time must ones ancestor have lived in Egypt before one can be called an Egyptian?
Here are girls from an ancient painting, from a 19th century painting, and a photo of a Nubian girl from Egypt of today. And in todays Egypt there are also both darker and more light skinned individuals. Also on paintings there are darker and more light skinned people, who all ought to be called Egyptians.
its not the matter of claiming egypt its that there is NO CULTURAL TRAITS OF EGYPTIAN INSIDE THE NEAR EAST OR EUROPE ONLY AFRICA SHARES EGYPTIAN CULTURE.
Facts!
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Ok, so then imagine if people were saying, since Ancient Swedes have Eurasian ancestry their whole material culture is Russian or Arabian etc. That's exactly what people are doing with A. Egypt.
There's not a scrap of evidence that A. Egyptian material culture originated in the Levant let alone Arabia of all places...
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: ^¨ Well that is rather obvious since Egypt is located in Africa. It is the same with Kenya, Nigeria or whatever place you choose, those cultures also exists only in Africa. It is just like Sweden is located in Europe and only Europe shares Swedish culture. (except today everyone congregate in America and share their cultures and genes)
Still Egypt was not isolated, it had cultural contacts also with areas outside Africa, as the Levant and maybe also Creete and Cyprus.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ok, so then imagine if people were saying, since Ancient Swedes have Eurasian ancestry their whole material culture is Russian or Arabian etc. That's exactly what people are doing with A. Egypt.
Actually once there existed such ideas regarding Sweden too, that our culture came from all kinds of places. Some have claimed that parts of Scandinavian pagan religion came from Greece or Rome. Others claimed that it came from the east (Russia, Ukraine, Caucasus, even India) and so on. Some have claimed that Scandinavian bronze age culture had it´s roots in Minoan Crete, Mycenaean Greece or even Egypt.
The origin of grave types, hillforts, all kinds of artifacts, buildings and other material things have also been discussed, with all kinds of suggestions (Greece, Rome, the muslim world, eastern Europe, Middle East and others).
Some have for example seen Roman cavalry helmets or Iranian helmets in Swedish helmets from the Vendel time (550-800 AD).
We have also had a lot of ideas that goes the other way, that most of the European culture originally came from Scandinavia. Once some people here even claimed that the garden of Eden was located in southern Sweden and that Adam was a Swede. Some have claimed that Odysseus was a Scandinavian and that his adventures took place in the Baltic sea and not in the Mediterranean. So Sweden and Scandinavia have also had it´s share of wild ideas and speculations. Even fake monuments have been manufactured that was said to prove certain things.
Some of these speculations have survived online but the serious researchers have mostly left them behind.
Today migrations and genes are in vogue and are discussed in many papers, and also online.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
-Northern Egypt contains the presence of Levantine specific (PPNB) lithic toolkits and arrow heads in predynastic times.
-Egypt received an entire agricultural package from the Near East that ultimately replaced their local Saharo-Sahelian derived domesticates.
-Egypt received domesticated sheep and Goats from the Near East as far back as 9000 years ago.
-Keita speaks of actual "Levantines" in Northern Egypt based on the discontinuity of tropical limbs in some predynastic Northern samples associated with levantine material culture.
-Semitic and Cushitic speakers in Sub Saharan Africa carry Non African derived light skin alleles. These groups non Local Ancestry is strongly tied to the Eastern Sahara and Egypto-Nubia. Thus It is HIGHLY LIKELY these light skin variants existing in the SOURCE population of pastoral migrants FROM North Africa.
ALL These instances provide opportunities (and evidence) for Geneflow during the predynastic leading to Near Eastern Ancestry being a part of Pharaonic Egyptian's Ethnogenesis. Arguments of Genetic purity are stupid and wrong. Arguments about racial purity are even dumber. In 2023 if we are not intellectually mature enough to recognize Non African contributions of Food producing Technology and or Ancestry into Egypt (Before we even QUANTIFY it) then we are not ready to sit at the "big boy table". Time to put on those Big Boy Pants. There is no need to rehash 20 year old arguments from Egyptsearch. Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Ok, so then imagine if people were saying, since Ancient Swedes have Eurasian ancestry their whole material culture is Russian or Arabian etc. That's exactly what people are doing with A. Egypt.
There's not a scrap of evidence that A. Egyptian material culture originated in the Levant let alone Arabia of all places...
Now, imagine people stating that since the ancient Persian civilization's development was owed to its local populations, it is fundamentally Asian in essence.
What concrete knowledge can I gain from this? Were other Asians also involved in this? Does this imply the existence of a pan-Asian civilization or culture? Can modern Indians or Japanese take pride in it?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
-Semitic and Cushitic speakers in Sub Saharan Africa carry Non African derived light skin alleles. These groups non Local Ancestry is strongly tied to the Eastern Sahara and Egypto-Nubia. Thus It is HIGHLY LIKELY these light skin variants existing in the SOURCE population of pastoral migrants FROM North Africa.
That's interesting. When do you think those alleles first appeared in that specific part of North Africa (Egypt) ?
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Ok, so then imagine if people were saying, since Ancient Swedes have Eurasian ancestry their whole material culture is Russian or Arabian etc. That's exactly what people are doing with A. Egypt.
There's not a scrap of evidence that A. Egyptian material culture originated in the Levant let alone Arabia of all places...
Now, imagine people stating that since the ancient Persian civilization's development was owed to its local populations, it is fundamentally Asian in essence.
What concrete knowledge can I gain from this? Were other Asians also involved in this? Does this imply the existence of a pan-Asian civilization or culture? Can modern Indians or Japanese take pride in it?
no what we are saying is that Ancient Egypt has not any cultural traits that the levant shares with the Culture.
Ancient Egypt has shared culture with East Africa from beads to wood working, to dances and hairstyle.
where inside the levant is hairstyles as diverse as Egypt that has its shared hairstyles with East Africa.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
IDK if this comment was geared toward me, but I never denied that non African contributions to A. Egyptian ancestry, you said you've been lurking for years, check back when I started saying that there were gonna be Asiatic ancestry in OK, even Pre-Dynastic times. How many years ago was it? So miss me with that...JS.
What Im saying is that A. Egypt is NOT Levantine, or Arabian or any of the B.S theories that people at your so called "Big Boy Table" are saying on the other side. Tell your Bio-Diversity Scholars to put their Big Boy Pants on and go take their ass to Arabia and the Levant and produce A. Egyptian Material culture older than anything inside of Africa, then they can overturn years of established historical and archeological fact.
lol and this is the big boy table, using interactions between ancient populations as a way to attribute credit for material culture to the Levant, based on that....and after all that, they still went into Africa and produced A. Egyptian culture...
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: -Northern Egypt contains the presence of Levantine specific (PPNB) lithic toolkits and arrow heads in predynastic times.
-Egypt received an entire agricultural package from the Near East that ultimately replaced their local Saharo-Sahelian derived domesticates.
-Egypt received domesticated sheep and Goats from the Near East as far back as 9000 years ago.
-Keita speaks of actual "Levantines" in Northern Egypt based on the discontinuity of tropical limbs in some predynastic Northern samples associated with levantine material culture.
-Semitic and Cushitic speakers in Sub Saharan Africa carry Non African derived light skin alleles. These groups non Local Ancestry is strongly tied to the Eastern Sahara and Egypto-Nubia. Thus It is HIGHLY LIKELY these light skin variants existing in the SOURCE population of pastoral migrants FROM North Africa.
ALL These instances provide opportunities (and evidence) for Geneflow during the predynastic leading to Near Eastern Ancestry being a part of Pharaonic Egyptian's Ethnogenesis. Arguments of Genetic purity are stupid and wrong. Arguments about racial purity are even dumber. In 2023 if we are not intellectually mature enough to recognize Non African contributions of Food producing Technology and or Ancestry into Egypt (Before we even QUANTIFY it) then we are not ready to sit at the "big boy table". Time to put on those Big Boy Pants. There is no need to rehash 20 year old arguments from Egyptsearch.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: -Northern Egypt contains the presence of Levantine specific (PPNB) lithic toolkits and arrow heads in predynastic times.
-Egypt received an entire agricultural package from the Near East that ultimately replaced their local Saharo-Sahelian derived domesticates.
-Egypt received domesticated sheep and Goats from the Near East as far back as 9000 years ago.
-Keita speaks of actual "Levantines" in Northern Egypt based on the discontinuity of tropical limbs in some predynastic Northern samples associated with levantine material culture.
-Semitic and Cushitic speakers in Sub Saharan Africa carry Non African derived light skin alleles. These groups non Local Ancestry is strongly tied to the Eastern Sahara and Egypto-Nubia. Thus It is HIGHLY LIKELY these light skin variants existing in the SOURCE population of pastoral migrants FROM North Africa.
ALL These instances provide opportunities (and evidence) for Geneflow during the predynastic leading to Near Eastern Ancestry being a part of Pharaonic Egyptian's Ethnogenesis. Arguments of Genetic purity are stupid and wrong. Arguments about racial purity are even dumber. In 2023 if we are not intellectually mature enough to recognize Non African contributions of Food producing Technology and or Ancestry into Egypt (Before we even QUANTIFY it) then we are not ready to sit at the "big boy table". Time to put on those Big Boy Pants. There is no need to rehash 20 year old arguments from Egyptsearch.
there are different time periods to consider Here is a 2023 article discussing Egyptian presence in the Southern Levant during the late fourth millennium
It seems that colonial encounters between Egyptians and Canaanites at Tel Maaḥaz lacked any ‘positive’ traits of assimilation or integration and can instead be classified as segregation. While we cannot establish which population dominated the situation, we can still see no signs of a creolized culture emerging during the late EB IB at the site. On the contrary, each community maintained its material culture and spatial location within the settlement. Another site with an extensive Egyptian presence and where bilateral encounters can be examined is Tel Ḥalif Terrace (Naḥal Tillah). Here, quite a different picture emerges compared to Tel Maaḥaz. The excavated areas reflect a similar distribution of Egyptian and local pottery (found on the same floors), and it seems there was no distinct or separated Egyptian quarter at the site. These finds may reflect a high degree of integration between both communities, where each group kept its material culture and habits and did not assimilate into one another or create a ‘creolized’ culture. The finds may also represent a reality where social cultural boundaries between the groups were fluid and flexible Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
here is what Ancient Egypt shares with East Africa
Egypt and East Africa share clay hats
the v scarfs shared with south Africa xhosa people
Ancient Egypt beadworks and Bantu bead work similarity
Ancient Egypt wearing animal coats like Black Africans
the hairstyles that is shared with East Africa:
egyptians and other east Africans with shared head carrying ways
Similar look of Ancient Egyptians and Africans
All these show cultural similarity that is not shared with the levant so how does the levant compare.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Gebel el-Arak Knife, 3500—3200 BC, believed to be from Abydos
wikipedia says
"The Gebel el-Arak Knife, also Jebel el-Arak Knife, is an ivory and flint knife dating from the Naqada II period of Egyptian prehistory (3500—3200 BC), showing Mesopotamian influence.
The handle of the knife is carved on both sides with finely executed figures arranged in five horizontal registers. The side of the handle with the knob shows Mesopotamian influence[21] featuring the Master of Animals motif, very common in Mesopotamian art, in the form of a figure wearing Mesopotamian clothing flanked by two upright lions symbolising the Morning and Evening Stars (now both identified with the planet Venus). Robert du Mesnil du Buisson said the central figure is the god El
^^ the exact nature of "influence" is not clear or if that is the right word to use but they appear to have this Mesopotamian God El on this piece but we see some sharing of cultural motifs
Relief, Limestone North Syria, Neo-Hittite period, 850-830 BC
this sun disk is thought to have been inspired by the Egyptian motif
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I'd be careful using those picture spams as scientific proof, You'd have to do peer reviewed studies to be taken serious.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
All these show cultural similarity that is not shared with the levant so how does the levant compare.
the nose is broken off
-and facial features are not culture
khafrehafre-enthroned-2520-bc-everett.html King Khafre, 4th dynasty
Did the Sphinx's nose resemble Khafre's nose?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I'd be careful using those picture spams as scientific proof, You'd have to do peer reviewed studies to be taken serious.
who are you addressing?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
-Semitic and Cushitic speakers in Sub Saharan Africa carry Non African derived light skin alleles. These groups non Local Ancestry is strongly tied to the Eastern Sahara and Egypto-Nubia. Thus It is HIGHLY LIKELY these light skin variants existing in the SOURCE population of pastoral migrants FROM North Africa.
That's interesting. When do you think those alleles first appeared in that specific part of North Africa (Egypt) ?
Well They came into existence 28kya. -So Nazlet Khater 35kya couldn't have had them. -Wadi Kubbaniya (Southern Egypt) 20kya COULD have had them based on dates....But likely didn't based on their absence in Iberomaurusian 15kya, Natufian 14kya, Late Neolithic Moroccan 7kya.
-In PPNB they start to show up in the Levant based on SNP call data. As of now Sheep Goat migration into Africa has the earliest date of 9kya in the Western Desert (Polish Team Jebel Ramlah unpublished). -Jebel Ramlah 7000BC COULD carry them. Path of migration = PPNB Levant > Red Sea Coast > Nile > Western Desert. The transmission of these domesticates from PPNB are hypothesized to have been incorporated into the Saharo Sahelian Cultural complex (Nilo Saharans). Not directly into the ancestors of Afro-Asiatics. Here again the paucity of data is a handicaps and we only know that a human type with predominantly Sub Saharan Dental traits starts to show a bit of heterogeneity in the Early Western Desert (Nabta Playa) and even more Northern African traits in Jebel Ramlah by 5000BC. A "mixed" or "Mediterranean" type has not been found this early in Egypt. Also None of their Nilotic Descendants who lack Cushitic ancestry carry derived traits.
IMO this is the Window. The 9-6kya allows a window where EARLY migration into Africa would be be of Dark skinned West Eurasian populations. These populations are thought to have been absorbed into Nilo-Saharans and their pastoral influence is associated with Saharao-Sahelian cultural complex. See Wadi Takarkori (7000ya) skeletons being of an Equatorial type while carrying mtdna N*, and practically ALL Egyptian Western Desert People.
As far as I am concerned, both episodes of pulse Migration can have individuals with the composite Dinka/Natufian genetic profile characteristic of "Cushtic" speakers, the oldest of which simply wouldn't carry derived alleles.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
its not that this knife has a cultural impact on the egyptian where the culture originates is not where the levant is
this is from the levant yet nothing of the Ancient Egyptian culture influencing the levant
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@King. WE know that Egyptians were African. You are wasting bandwidth.
@-Just Call Me Jari- It wasnt to it was at anyone here arguing Genetic "Purity" and acting as if no admixture has taken place.
Ancient Egyptian culture and civilization is African. Certain technological innovations were INCORPORATED into this region from other parts of Africa or Eurasia - IE Camels....Chariots ..Horses....Donkeys....Sheep....Goats etc. These additions were important. Egypt was not isolated.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: its not that this knife has a cultural impact on the egyptian where the culture originates is not where the levant is
this is from the levant yet nothing of the Ancient Egyptian culture influencing the levant [/QB]
The Egyptians put a Mesopotamian God on their ceremonial knife. It depends on what you mean by "culture influence" You seem to me saying saying art and ceremonial objects don't count but clothing and jewelry does
Also if you you see some similarity between Egyptian clothing and jewelry and clothing and jewelry form some other place in Africa it is not clear who had it first But it think you are right in saying there is more overlap between Egyptian culture and other places in Africa compared to the Levant
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by KING: its not that this knife has a cultural impact on the egyptian where the culture originates is not where the levant is
this is from the levant yet nothing of the Ancient Egyptian culture influencing the levant
The Egyptians put a Mesopotamian God on their ceremonial knife. It depends on what you mean by "culture influence" You seem to me saying saying art and ceremonial objects don't count but clothing and jewelry does
Also if you you see some similarity between Egyptian clothing and jewelry and clothing and jewelry form some other place in Africa it is not clear who had it first But it think you are right in saying there is more overlap between Egyptian culture and other places in Africa compared to the Levant [/QB]
what you fail to understand is that the levant has no cultural aspect from Ancient Egypt.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I never said Egypt was isolated, I would'nt even bring up A. Egypt's material culture if biodiversity scholars were'nt using DNA to try to make Egypt Levantine/Arabian. Ive seen this claim being made across the biodiversity google scholar internet bubble.
and this is supposed to be the "big kids table"....the same folks using DNA to discredit mountains of established historical and archeological facts..Im supposed to take serious.
IMO they're as amatuer as the "feel-good" Afrocentrists...
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
@-Just Call Me Jari- It wasnt to it was at anyone here arguing Genetic "Purity" and acting as if no admixture has taken place.
Ancient Egyptian culture and civilization is African. Certain technological innovations were INCORPORATED into this region from other parts of Africa or Eurasia - IE Camels....Chariots ..Horses....Donkeys....Sheep....Goats etc. These additions were important. Egypt was not isolated.
Yeah, that's not what the biodiversity google scholars are saying...apperantly they don't knoe Egyptians were Africans...they're Levantines, Eurasians, Europeans, and Arabians some how...
quote:@King. WE know that Egyptians were African. You are wasting bandwidth.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by KING: its not that this knife has a cultural impact on the egyptian where the culture originates is not where the levant is
this is from the levant yet nothing of the Ancient Egyptian culture influencing the levant
The Egyptians put a Mesopotamian God on their ceremonial knife. It depends on what you mean by "culture influence" You seem to me saying saying art and ceremonial objects don't count but clothing and jewelry does
Also if you you see some similarity between Egyptian clothing and jewelry and clothing and jewelry form some other place in Africa it is not clear who had it first But it think you are right in saying there is more overlap between Egyptian culture and other places in Africa compared to the Levant
what you fail to understand is that the levant has no cultural aspect from Ancient Egypt. [/QB]
what about Akhenaten inspiring the monotheism of Judaism, Christianity nd Islam ? Isn't that a huge influence?
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @King. WE know that Egyptians were African. You are wasting bandwidth.
Pictures are not a waste of bandwidth, it shows that Ancient Egypt and its people were Black Africans and shows the connections to Africa not shared with the levant
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @King. WE know that Egyptians were African. You are wasting bandwidth.
Pictures are not a waste of bandwidth, it shows that Ancient Egypt and its people were Black Africans and shows the connections to Africa not shared with the levant
yes but the video and topic is about preference of STR based predictor analysis over SNP haplogroups by some
not a general "Were the Egyptians Black? " thread, that there are already 8,304 threads on already
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@-Just Call Me Jari- ForumBiodiversity died like 7 years ago or something. It no longer exists and none of those people are here.
This is a discussion about how *WE* analyze and discuss scientific data....and how *WE* Ignore and or refuse to read up to date scientific data.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by KING:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @King. WE know that Egyptians were African. You are wasting bandwidth.
Pictures are not a waste of bandwidth, it shows that Ancient Egypt and its people were Black Africans and shows the connections to Africa not shared with the levant
yes but the video and topic is about preference of STR predictor analysis over SNP haplogroups by some
not a general "Were the Egyptians Black? " thread, that there are already 8,304 threads on already
Listen, I took the fayum mummies as described as part of what it means to have pictures of mummies of obvious greek and roman ancestry as a way of understanding that the pictures on the wall show the egyptians to be culturally Black African and that its shared with East Africans.
To say the egyptians culture was African denotes that North Africa has influence on egypt but the North Africans do not share cultural traits as much either. Its Black Africa that Shares cultural traits
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
-Semitic and Cushitic speakers in Sub Saharan Africa carry Non African derived light skin alleles. These groups non Local Ancestry is strongly tied to the Eastern Sahara and Egypto-Nubia. Thus It is HIGHLY LIKELY these light skin variants existing in the SOURCE population of pastoral migrants FROM North Africa.
That's interesting. When do you think those alleles first appeared in that specific part of North Africa (Egypt) ?
Well They came into existence 28kya. -So Nazlet Khater 35kya couldn't have had them. -Wadi Kubbaniya (Southern Egypt) 20kya COULD have had them based on dates....But likely didn't based on their absence in Iberomaurusian 15kya, Natufian 14kya, Late Neolithic Moroccan 7kya.
-In PPNB they start to show up in the Levant based on SNP call data. As of now Sheep Goat migration into Africa has the earliest date of 9kya in the Western Desert (Polish Team Jebel Ramlah unpublished). -Jebel Ramlah 7000BC COULD carry them. Path of migration = PPNB Levant > Red Sea Coast > Nile > Western Desert. The transmission of these domesticates from PPNB are hypothesized to have been incorporated into the Saharo Sahelian Cultural complex (Nilo Saharans). Not directly into the ancestors of Afro-Asiatics. Here again the paucity of data is a handicaps and we only know that a human type with predominantly Sub Saharan Dental traits starts to show a bit of heterogeneity in the Early Western Desert (Nabta Playa) and even more Northern African traits in Jebel Ramlah by 5000BC. A "mixed" or "Mediterranean" type has not been found this early in Egypt. Also None of their Nilotic Descendants who lack Cushitic ancestry carry derived traits.
IMO this is the Window. The 9-6kya allows a window where EARLY migration into Africa would be be of Dark skinned West Eurasian populations. These populations are thought to have been absorbed into Nilo-Saharans and their pastoral influence is associated with Saharao-Sahelian cultural complex. See Wadi Takarkori (7000ya) skeletons being of an Equatorial type while carrying mtdna N*, and practically ALL Egyptian Western Desert People.
As far as I am concerned, both episodes of pulse Migration can have individuals with the composite Dinka/Natufian genetic profile characteristic of "Cushtic" speakers, the oldest of which simply wouldn't carry derived alleles.
Thanks, this is fascinating because it could potentially also clarify the sudden appearance of the Capsian industry in southern Tunisia, which exhibited distinct physical differences from the Mechta-Afalou types. Your proposed timeframe also aligns with this. Additionally, I am aware that the Dinka/Natufian genetic component offered a better match for one of the Copper Age North African samples, as opposed to the Yoruba or Natufian alone so who knows.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Forum Biodiverity has been cloned and reused all over the net, also a biodiveristy google scholar is not confined to one website. They're all over the net claiming a. Egypt is Levantine/Eurasian and spamming We Wuz Kangs and calling folks Hoteps if they disagree..
I agree that Afrocentrists and Africanits like to ignore Data and science, I honestly barely take any of them serious, esp. the online Youtube historians that inspired this thread.
You have folks like Dr. Ashby, but yeah your right people will flock to the feel goodism over proper researchers like Dr. Ashby.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @-Just Call Me Jari- ForumBiodiversity died like 7 years ago or something. It no longer exists and none of those people are here.
This is a discussion about how *WE* analyze and discuss scientific data....and how *WE* Ignore and or refuse to read up to date scientific data.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by KING:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @King. WE know that Egyptians were African. You are wasting bandwidth.
Pictures are not a waste of bandwidth, it shows that Ancient Egypt and its people were Black Africans and shows the connections to Africa not shared with the levant
yes but the video and topic is about preference of STR predictor analysis over SNP haplogroups by some
not a general "Were the Egyptians Black? " thread, that there are already 8,304 threads on already
Listen, I took the what do you think of these Amarna pop affiliator results by Keita et al. ?mummies as described as part of what it means to have pictures of mummies of obvious greek and roman ancestry as a way of understanding that the pictures on the wall show the egyptians to be culturally Black African and that its shared with East Africans.
To say the egyptians culture was African denotes that North Africa has influence on egypt but the North Africans do not share cultural traits as much either. Its Black Africa that Shares cultural traits
That's the problem
The thread title is
"what do you think of these Amarna pop affiliator results by Keita et al. ?"
that is a genetic test result from a specific computer program and has nothing to do with looking at anything or culture It has to do with DNA testing methods
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
King
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I'd be careful using those picture spams as scientific proof, You'd have to do peer reviewed studies to be taken serious.
who are you addressing?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Regarding jewelry and similar, something that the Levant borrowed from Egyptian culture was the use of scarabs. They became rather popular among peoples like Canaanites and Phoenicians
quote: Scarabs, beetle shaped amulets and impression seals which were widely popular throughout ancient Egypt, still survive in large numbers still today. Through their inscriptions and typology, they prove to be an important source of information for archaeologists and historians of the ancient world, and represent a significant body of ancient Egyptian art.
Likely due to their connections to the Egyptian goddess Khepri, amulets in the form of Scarab Beetles had become enormously popular in Ancient Egypt by the early Middle Kingdom (approx. 2000 BCE) and remained popular for the rest of the pharaonic period and beyond. Throughout Egyptian history, the function of Scarabs repeatedly changed. Though primarily worn as amulets and sometimes rings, Scarabs were also inscribed for use as personal or administrative seals or were incorporated into other kinds of jewelry. Additionally, some Scarabs were created for political or diplomatic purposes to commemorate or advertise royal achievements.
Starting in the middle Bronze Age, other ancient peoples of the Mediterranean and the Middle East imported Scarabs from Egypt and also produced Scarabs in Egyptian or local styles, especially in the Levant.
Phoenician scarab, Israel Museum, Jerusalem
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by KING:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by KING:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @King. WE know that Egyptians were African. You are wasting bandwidth.
Pictures are not a waste of bandwidth, it shows that Ancient Egypt and its people were Black Africans and shows the connections to Africa not shared with the levant
yes but the video and topic is about preference of STR predictor analysis over SNP haplogroups by some
not a general "Were the Egyptians Black? " thread, that there are already 8,304 threads on already
Listen, I took the what do you think of these Amarna pop affiliator results by Keita et al. ?mummies as described as part of what it means to have pictures of mummies of obvious greek and roman ancestry as a way of understanding that the pictures on the wall show the egyptians to be culturally Black African and that its shared with East Africans.
To say the egyptians culture was African denotes that North Africa has influence on egypt but the North Africans do not share cultural traits as much either. Its Black Africa that Shares cultural traits
That's the problem
The thread title is
"what do you think of these Amarna pop affiliator results by Keita et al. ?"
that is a genetic test result from a specific computer program and has nothing to do with looking at anything or culture It has to do with DNA testing methods
lioness you have no bearing on what I post. The fayum mummies was used to talk about a certain study that claimed Ancient egypt was linked to the near east, I countered with culture that shows no links but many links to Black Africa
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: here is what Ancient Egypt shares with East Africa
Egypt and East Africa share clay hats
the v scarfs shared with south Africa xhosa people
Ancient Egypt beadworks and Bantu bead work similarity
Ancient Egypt wearing animal coats like Black Africans
the hairstyles that is shared with East Africa:
egyptians and other east Africans with shared head carrying ways
Similar look of Ancient Egyptians and Africans
All these show cultural similarity that is not shared with the levant so how does the levant compare.
this cultural aspects cant be compared to what has happened to the levant because theres no people behind it
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: lioness you have no bearing on what I post. The fayum mummies was used to talk about a certain study that claimed Ancient egypt was linked to the near east, I countered with culture that shows no links but many links to Black Africa
No, the theme of the thread is pop affiliator results of Keita and I don't know if you know what that is. Look at the title The theme of the thread is not "what do you think of this video"
Now you are repeating the same big pictures all over again, please make a new thread instead
people, please ignore KING, it's diversion off the topic , spamming pictures >> repeating them unnecessarily to try to occupy more space
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by KING: lioness you have no bearing on what I post. The fayum mummies was used to talk about a certain study that claimed Ancient egypt was linked to the near east, I countered with culture that shows no links but many links to Black Africa
No, the theme of the thread is pop affiliator results of Keita and I don't know if you know what that is. Look at the title The theme of the thread is not "what do you think of this video"
Now you are repeating the same big pictures all over again, please make a new thread instead
people, please ignore KING, it's diversion off the topic , spamming pictures >> repeating them unnecessarily to try to occupy more space
Lioness in the first 2 minutes of the video The Great DNA Hoax: The European heist of Ancient Egypt (Documentary) the video talks about the fayum mummies and that was what he is talking about. I chose to talk about the fayum and use pictures to show that ancient Egypt is Black African
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by KING: lioness you have no bearing on what I post. The fayum mummies was used to talk about a certain study that claimed Ancient egypt was linked to the near east, I countered with culture that shows no links but many links to Black Africa
No, the theme of the thread is pop affiliator results of Keita and I don't know if you know what that is. Look at the title The theme of the thread is not "what do you think of this video"
Now you are repeating the same big pictures all over again, please make a new thread instead
people, please ignore KING, it's diversion off the topic , spamming pictures >> repeating them unnecessarily to try to occupy more space
Lioness in the first 2 minutes of the video the video talks about the fayum mummies and that was what he is talking about. I chose to talk about the fayum and use pictures to show that ancient Egypt is Black African
The theme of the thread is a specific thing discussed in the video pop affiliator results by Keita, that is the name of genetics program PopAffiliator
You are putting a lot of big photos in the thread. You should start a new thread "About King's Monologue video about Fayum mummies"
I have to do a lot of work, making images and posting info related to the topic. I didn't even put King's Monologue in the thread title because his source was S.O.Y Keita's test results
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Its extremely obvious a certain subset of people in this space have not intellectually matured. A thorough understanding of archeology in this region makes a person extremely comfortable and confident how LOCAL this culture is. It allows you to discuss external influence in its proper context without having to constantly remind yourself its Africanness or its Blackness.
"To say the egyptians culture was African denotes that North Africa has influence on egypt"
Folks entire orientation is messed up. "North Africa having influence on Egypt" is about as nonsensical as saying "Africa has Influence on Egypt." Let me stop here, yall getting my blood pressure up.
And this is why i laugh when we flail.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Its extremely obvious a certain subset of people in this space have not intellectually matured. A thorough understanding of archeology in this region makes a person extremely comfortable and confident how LOCAL this culture is. It allows you to discuss external influence in its proper context without having to constantly remind yourself its Africanness or its Blackness.
"To say the egyptians culture was African denotes that North Africa has influence on egypt"
Folks entire orientation is messed up. "North Africa having influence on Egypt" is about as nonsensical as saying "Africa has Influence on Egypt." Let me stop here, yall getting my blood pressure up.
And this is why i laugh when we flail.
Whats stated is that North African does not share with Ancient Egypt culture as Black Africa has
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare.
So I assume that S.O.Y. Keita et al. was guilty of doing that in the 2020 article in the OP, the only chart they produced was based on the that old 2010 data, Keita indulging in feelgoodism
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
We could def. have discussions on A. Egyptian archeology without having to resort to this and that "blackness" or Africaness. Ive tried for years with my Uah-Ka thread...
A whole unexplored, untouched subject where the evidence strongly suggests that not only a powerful Elite of Southern Egyptian /Northern Sudanese families who originated in Ta-Set were dominating A. Egyptian aristocratic life by at least the 4th Dynasty.
Not only that but these folks Created/Pioneered the Speo/Rock Hewn Temple later used by Sutens such as Rameses II at Abu Simbel....
but no one cares, out side of Al...has anyone shown interest.
Yall care more about DNA, and being at the "Big Boys Table" with Eurocentrics/Biodiversity Scholars....
I don't mind, just lets not pretend the folks at the Big Boy table give a damn about A. Egyptian cultural/archeological/historical material evidence.
A. Egypt=Levantine/A/ Egypt=European/A. Egypt= Motha -fuking Arabians of all people..lol
All discussed and said and accepted in mainstream "genetic/science" communities. This is supposed to be the big boy table? Saying A.Egypt=Levantines/Arab because they found some Natufian ancestry....lol Come on dawg., I don't know half about the DNA stuff but even I know that is about as intellectually Immature as folks here still stuck on the pure African Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Its extremely obvious a certain subset of people in this space have not intellectually matured. A thorough understanding of archeology in this region makes a person extremely comfortable and confident how LOCAL this culture is. It allows you to discuss external influence in its proper context without having to constantly remind yourself its Africanness or its Blackness.
"To say the egyptians culture was African denotes that North Africa has influence on egypt"
Folks entire orientation is messed up. "North Africa having influence on Egypt" is about as nonsensical as saying "Africa has Influence on Egypt." Let me stop here, yall getting my blood pressure up.
And this is why i laugh when we flail.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: See the video in the OP where the creator speaks of New Kingdom Egyptians being "PURE" Africans while presenting data that doesn't show those said Egyptians to be "PURE" African. The guy speaking DOESNT even know where Abusir IS!
Please post timecode reference of this statement, and I can't find a single reference to 'pure' Africans anywhere in the video...?
6 minutes 30 seconds. "A purely African population inhabited Ancient Egypt"
Excuse me, how is that incorrect? Are you suggesting a purely African population didn't inhabit ancient Egypt? Are you supporting the idea that Kemet was colonised from Mesopotamia or the Middle East? Last time I checked the Kemetic population were an indigenous nilo-saharan population... what the hell is going on here. This is exactly why I stopped posting in this group, eurocentric apologists.
Wait so we in 2023 and we still arguing that ancient Egyptians were "100% Sub Saharan African"? We really doing that? "Kemetic population were an indigenous nilo-saharan population" Wait, what? "Ancient Egyptian" linguistically is no longer part of the Afro-Asiatic language family anymore?
Don't we have DNA From Ancient Egypt indicating they were not "Pure Africans". Doesn't Amarna R-M269 and Mtdna K1 indicate they are not "Pure Africans". Doesn't DNA Tribe debunk the notion of "Pure Africans" ?
Did you just step out of a time capsule or something and have yet to get reoriented with the latest genetic findings? Everyone want to put Keitas name in their mouth but dont really want to folly Keita and 5 Minutes later the talking about "Pure Races".
Do you regard the "Natufian" ancestry as purely "Eurasian," or as a mixed North African/Eurasian component?
The ability for people to create their own strawman arguments is hilarious. I don't believe you are unintelligent enough to not understand the difference between 'purely african' and pure Africans. No one has stated 'pure africans'apart from you and Beyoku. The video states, and I support that AE was a purely African civilisation. Ie. Founded by an indigenous African (No one mentioned sub saharan, once again that's you creating another strawman argument) civilisation. I don't subscribe to sub saharan, since all saharan cultures were trans saharan.
Also, because I know you will play semantics, let me explain the difference since willful stupidity seems to be the order of the day. My household is PURELY AFRICAN... ie. I'm African, my wife is African and my kids are African.... now that does not mean that everyone in my house is PURE AFRICANS... My wife has recent Portuguese ancestry, and I very well may have some admixture down the line... I don't dna test so I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised. Therefore I would be amiss to describe myself or my children as PURE AFRICANS. Do you understand the difference? The fact both you and beyoku have twisted the semantics to create a ludicrous debate over PURE SUB SAHARANS either shows a height of dishonesty or a complete lack of reading and/or listening comprehension. You choose.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
Sorry, that last post should be directed entirely towards Beyoku... I misread the quote...
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ANALYSIS : In the past 10-15 years traditional ideas regarding "physical race" SHOULD HAVE dissolved due to the realities of genomic research, particularly ancient Genomic research.
Dr. Keita cannot get enough credit for being FAR ahead of the curve regarding the "persistence of racial thinking" and instead went with a model that revolves around ideas if micro-adaptation as an evolutionary process in the human species due to external factors of environment/climate/diet/etc. In this model Physical "Race" has no genetic indicators as far as ancestry. This has been demonstrated time and time again, specifically with ancient fossils who's Genomic affinity precede the physical affinities found among the descendants (Phenotypic discontinuity combined with genetic continuity in West Asians, South Asians, South East Asians, East Asians, Europeans, Amerindians)
In the genetic space there has been considerable work uncovering the specifics of Continental African substructure which phases out simplistic ideas of "Sub Saharan African Blacks" being a monolith. There is also considerable data we should ALL be familiar with regarding the multiple wet phases of the Sahara that provide opportunities for geneflow between regions.
IMO and from my observations. The latest generation of "Black Egypt" proponents have regressed. They are discarding everything we have known and learned over the past 15 years and reverting back to ideas of discrete races to the advantage of Eurocentrist that used these tools to obfuscate identities in the first place. There is certain language we should be using. There are certain arguments we should be making based on NEW data and science. WE shouldn't be reverting back to ideas genetic "Purity" that border on pseudo science. Where is the balance? Who is going to clean up their mess?
Once again blowing down your own strawman. You yourself coined the phrase PURE AFRICANS, and now you're also talking about subsaharan purity? Wth are you on about? To say kemet was purely African is a fact agreed upon. You're just introducing this idea of genetic purity to win an argument that no one's trying to make! I stated that kemet was formed by an amalgamation of nilo saharan Africans, and now I'm pushing some kind of racially pure sub saharan pseudo science. Youre sounding like a eurocentric to me... I think your whole shtick is incredibly suss... I don't knownwho trusts you here or why...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The opening paragraph ( of Ancient Mummy Genomes -at Abusir El-Meleq, Schuenemann,2017) states: "Our analyzes reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with near easterners than present-day Egyptians who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times" This is not an exercise of objective exploration but rather an attempt to lead the unsuspecting public towards support of the foreign rather than indigenous origin of ancient Egyptian people. In the end the study provided no representation for the possibility of an indigenous origin and seemed to suggest there was no indigenous material that made up ancient and modern Egyptians they are all simply the result of either Levantine or Mediterranean settlers. This robs not only Africa but also ancient and present Egyptians of an entirely African accomplishment. However in their attempt to hastily manipulate the public's trust and general lack of insight towards their own agenda the researchers inadvertently uncovered two massive confirmations of support to the ancient model that corroborates a purely African population inhabited ancient Egypt. The first Factor they've unwittingly exposed is the confirmation of modern Egyptians genetic similarity to ancient Greeks particularly in the North something that is increasingly being denied in an attempt to sell the modern Egyptian phenotype as an isolated and differentiated phenomenon independent from quote-unquote sub-Saharan Africa yet in reality it is well known that in excess of two million Greeks migrated into Egypt during the Ptolemaic period.
Published: 30 May 2017 Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods Verena J. Schuenemann,
excerpt DISCUSSION section:
The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.
Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society. Especially in the Roman Period there may have been significant legal and social incentives to marry within one’s ethnic group, as individuals with Roman citizenship had to marry other Roman citizens to pass on their citizenship. Such policies are likely to have affected the intermarriage of Romans and non-Romans to a degree55. Additional genetic studies on ancient human remains from Egypt are needed with extensive geographical, social and chronological spread in order to expand our current picture in variety, accuracy and detail.
However, our results revise previous scepticism towards the DNA preservation in ancient Egyptian mummies due to climate conditions or mummification procedures8. The methodology presented here opens up promising avenues for future genetic research and can greatly contribute towards a more accurate and refined understanding of Egypt’s population history.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
All people in this dabate participating in feelgoodism, its just it only called out when Afrocentrics do it because they're low hanging fruit. Calling folks Hoteps and spamming We Wuz Kangs is a popular past time for most of these "scholars" at the "big boy table"...
But Eurocentrics and Biodiversity scholars participating in feel-goodism, with their B/S this and that genetic study means A. Egyptian civilization was Levantine/European/Arabian. They playing like feel-good games as much as the Afrocentric...not one scrap of Archeological evidence from the Levant or Arabia showing a material origin of A. Egyptian civilization...but they say that B.S and are accepted in mainstream "academic" circles...
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare.
So I assume that S.O.Y. Keita et al. was guilty of doing that in the 2020 article in the OP, the only chart they produced was based on the that old 2010 data, Keita indulging in feelgoodism
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: All people in this dabate participating in feelgoodism,
we are trying to de-feelgoodize the feelgood-itzation coming from both sides
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Are we going to ignore that Nguni clustered as closest match to AE according to popaffiliator matching of autosomal dna of new kingdom pharaohs? Surely direct match with dna and clear cultural continuity is smoking gun territory...
what is you source? please include URL link
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
This actually made me laugh...good one.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] All people in this dabate participating in feelgoodism,
we are trying to de-feelgoodize the feelgood-itzation coming from both sides
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Are we going to ignore that Nguni clustered as closest match to AE according to popaffiliator matching of autosomal dna of new kingdom pharaohs? Surely direct match with dna and clear cultural continuity is smoking gun territory...
what is you source? please include URL link
The south Africans from the very study you cited. Unless you're going to assume the south Africans that clustered are Khoisan peoples, which wouldn't make any sense in an ethno-cultural sense. South Africans clustered closest in the original autosomal study by DNA Tribes in 2014.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: All people in this dabate participating in feelgoodism, its just it only called out when Afrocentrics do it because they're low hanging fruit. Calling folks Hoteps and spamming We Wuz Kangs is a popular past time for most of these "scholars" at the "big boy table"...
But Eurocentrics and Biodiversity scholars participating in feel-goodism, with their B/S this and that genetic study means A. Egyptian civilization was Levantine/European/Arabian. They playing like feel-good games as much as the Afrocentric...not one scrap of Archeological evidence from the Levant or Arabia showing a material origin of A. Egyptian civilization...but they say that B.S and are accepted in mainstream "academic" circles...
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare.
So I assume that S.O.Y. Keita et al. was guilty of doing that in the 2020 article in the OP, the only chart they produced was based on the that old 2010 data, Keita indulging in feelgoodism
The entire Krause study is feelgoodism. Egyptology is the father of feelgoodism. They post conclusions from foundational flawed studies and for some reason pay them respect even though the basis of their presentations are laughable at best. It is a disservice to claim feelgoodism is equal on both sides, name a eurocentric study that wasn't pure feelgoodism?
There is nothing feel good about Keith's study, the autosomal STR results are repeatable on any database. They don't require the anthropological logic twisting of single ancestry SNP haplogroups that tell you virtually NOTHING about a person's ancestry, yet many in this group hanging their hopes on it... in 500 years (20 generations) there are around million people that have contributed to your ancestry.... having both your mtdna and ydna will give you a total of 2 out of 1 million contributors to your ancestry? They determine ascent from descent... its pseudo science at its finest... but people on this group have committed so much time to debating this phenotype and ethnic descent nonsense that any geneticist worth their weight in salt will tell you is unscientific GUESS WORK that you call the people simply sharing the basic truths (that we should be focused on) ie. Cultural continuity, ethno-linguistics, biological traits, ancient depictions and descriptions etc... they now are the crack feel good isms... but haplogroup quackery... nooo... thats the real science... what a joke.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
The opening paragraph ( of Ancient Mummy Genomes -at Abusir El-Meleq, Schuenemann,2017) states: "Our analyzes reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with near easterners than present-day Egyptians who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times" This is not an exercise of objective exploration but rather an attempt to lead the unsuspecting public towards support of the foreign rather than indigenous origin of ancient Egyptian people. In the end the study provided no representation for the possibility of an indigenous origin and seemed to suggest there was no indigenous material that made up ancient and modern Egyptians they are all simply the result of either Levantine or Mediterranean settlers. This robs not only Africa but also ancient and present Egyptians of an entirely African accomplishment. However in their attempt to hastily manipulate the public's trust and general lack of insight towards their own agenda the researchers inadvertently uncovered two massive confirmations of support to the ancient model that corroborates a purely African population inhabited ancient Egypt. The first Factor they've unwittingly exposed is the confirmation of modern Egyptians genetic similarity to ancient Greeks particularly in the North something that is increasingly being denied in an attempt to sell the modern Egyptian phenotype as an isolated and differentiated phenomenon independent from quote-unquote sub-Saharan Africa yet in reality it is well known that in excess of two million Greeks migrated into Egypt during the Ptolemaic period.
Published: 30 May 2017 Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods Verena J. Schuenemann,
excerpt DISCUSSION section:
The ancient DNA data revealed a high level of affinity between the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq and modern populations from the Near East and the Levant. This finding is pertinent in the light of the hypotheses advanced by Pagani and colleagues, who estimated that the average proportion of non-African ancestry in Egyptians was 80% and dated the midpoint of this admixture event to around 750 years ago17. Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation54. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant54.
Our genetic time transect suggests genetic continuity between the Pre-Ptolemaic, Ptolemaic and Roman populations of Abusir el-Meleq, indicating that foreign rule impacted the town’s population only to a very limited degree at the genetic level. It is possible that the genetic impact of Greek and Roman immigration was more pronounced in the north-western Delta and the Fayum, where most Greek and Roman settlement concentrated, or among the higher classes of Egyptian society. Under Ptolemaic and Roman rule, ethnic descent was crucial to belonging to an elite group and afforded a privileged position in society. Especially in the Roman Period there may have been significant legal and social incentives to marry within one’s ethnic group, as individuals with Roman citizenship had to marry other Roman citizens to pass on their citizenship. Such policies are likely to have affected the intermarriage of Romans and non-Romans to a degree55. Additional genetic studies on ancient human remains from Egypt are needed with extensive geographical, social and chronological spread in order to expand our current picture in variety, accuracy and detail.
However, our results revise previous scepticism towards the DNA preservation in ancient Egyptian mummies due to climate conditions or mummification procedures8. The methodology presented here opens up promising avenues for future genetic research and can greatly contribute towards a more accurate and refined understanding of Egypt’s population history.
The problem is Lioness, that you are quoting from liars. Abusir el meleq is a KNOWN burial ground for Fayuum officials.... its known throughout egyptology.
"The cemetery continued to be used for centuries, with the earlier shaft tombs being filled with later burials from the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. Thousands of individuals were buried at the site over hundreds of years of use."
You guys can't keep quoting these guys lies and taking them as truths. It's funny, someone actually does the ground work of providing the evidence of this and they accused of feelgoodism, yet you guys are quoting the feelgoodism masters and taking their word for it. They even mentioned in the study they had NO CONTEXT for any of the mummies that they sampled... ie, they could have been anybody. They dated the mummies based on the age of the TOMBS they were found in... but article above proves none of the tombs had the original mummies in them
Feelgoodism....
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: The problem is Lioness, that you are quoting from liars. Abusir el meleq is a KNOWN burial ground for Fayuum officials.... its known throughout egyptology.
I post sources including articles titles and links, you don't
I posted that King's Monologue video quote to show he used the term " a purely African population inhabited ancient Egypt." because that term was being talked about in the thread
I posted that so people can judge his choice of terms in context of the paragraph
I also included his remarks on Greeks a separate issue but something he focuses on in the video
and I posted Schuenemann,2017 Ancient Mummy Genomes article and some of her her remarks on Greeks because he was reacting to that article
I didn't comment, the purpose is that we have easy access to the exact quotes to then comment on.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Are we going to ignore that Nguni clustered as closest match to AE according to popaffiliator matching of autosomal dna of new kingdom pharaohs? Surely direct match with dna and clear cultural continuity is smoking gun territory...
what is you source? please include URL link
The south Africans from the very study you cited. Unless you're going to assume the south Africans that clustered are Khoisan peoples, which wouldn't make any sense in an ethno-cultural sense. South Africans clustered closest in the original autosomal study by DNA Tribes in 2014.
No I never mentioned DNA Tribes I mentioned S.O.Y. Keita's 2020 article and showed the chart from it
^^ this article has 13 references at the bottom, none are DNA Tribes
And even if we refer to DNA Tribes, I don't think you are quoting them properly and you have no links, so you can't back your claims as to accurately what they said
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: -Northern Egypt contains the presence of Levantine specific (PPNB) lithic toolkits and arrow heads in predynastic times.
-Egypt received an entire agricultural package from the Near East that ultimately replaced their local Saharo-Sahelian derived domesticates.
-Egypt received domesticated sheep and Goats from the Near East as far back as 9000 years ago.
-Keita speaks of actual "Levantines" in Northern Egypt based on the discontinuity of tropical limbs in some predynastic Northern samples associated with levantine material culture.
-Semitic and Cushitic speakers in Sub Saharan Africa carry Non African derived light skin alleles. These groups non Local Ancestry is strongly tied to the Eastern Sahara and Egypto-Nubia. Thus It is HIGHLY LIKELY these light skin variants existing in the SOURCE population of pastoral migrants FROM North Africa.
ALL These instances provide opportunities (and evidence) for Geneflow during the predynastic leading to Near Eastern Ancestry being a part of Pharaonic Egyptian's Ethnogenesis. Arguments of Genetic purity are stupid and wrong. Arguments about racial purity are even dumber. In 2023 if we are not intellectually mature enough to recognize Non African contributions of Food producing Technology and or Ancestry into Egypt (Before we even QUANTIFY it) then we are not ready to sit at the "big boy table". Time to put on those Big Boy Pants. There is no need to rehash 20 year old arguments from Egyptsearch.
Keita said, in his lecture that the domesticates were received without cultural replacement or large migration and or population replacement.
quote: " the culture there is no evidence that something called the Egyptian community or Egyptian culture was created in Syria and that a whole community of people came to the Nile Valley do things like that happen sure"
Shomarka Omar Yahya M.D
"
quote: 9,000 years ago the rains had returned to Africa so to speak and the lake levels were all high we had lake mega Chad there were River there were rivers running as a hare this way and it is at this moment in time that we see people moving back into the Sahara in fact they're not a lot of sights in the now valley at this time and the people who enter Sahara when conditions get worse eventually move into the valley so when we look at the pre-dynastic cultures of early egypt we see influences from the Sahara we have Levantine influences as I mentioned in a sheep goat cattle the animals that were domesticated they actually wind up in the Sahara before they are in the Nile Valley we find evidence in some cases of for example goats and goat remains uh we think they're goat remains in terms of the early pre-dynastic there's a culture called the tazian in which people have generally put together with the badarian but the tasian has a particular kind of beaker tulip shape that has this ancestry clearly seems to have originated in the Sudan up and down the Nile Valley from the Neolithic but probably ultimately of Saharan origin and not found in the Near East[ /QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Cambridge Oxford guys you know talked about the pre-dynastic race of Egypt == they say and in the main a blending of various proportion of semites and Negro and this is from an old book the earliest inhabitants of Abydos well what's very interesting about that is this is forum what type illogical perspective you get something that's in the middle that seems to have different traits well I would argue no it's not a blending of anything it's just own people they're from a bio geographical perspective evolved right there in Northeast Africa
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: All people in this dabate participating in feelgoodism, its just it only called out when Afrocentrics do it because they're low hanging fruit. Calling folks Hoteps and spamming We Wuz Kangs is a popular past time for most of these "scholars" at the "big boy table"...
But Eurocentrics and Biodiversity scholars participating in feel-goodism, with their B/S this and that genetic study means A. Egyptian civilization was Levantine/European/Arabian. They playing like feel-good games as much as the Afrocentric...not one scrap of Archeological evidence from the Levant or Arabia showing a material origin of A. Egyptian civilization...but they say that B.S and are accepted in mainstream "academic" circles...
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare.
So I assume that S.O.Y. Keita et al. was guilty of doing that in the 2020 article in the OP, the only chart they produced was based on the that old 2010 data, Keita indulging in feelgoodism
The entire Krause study is feelgoodism. Egyptology is the father of feelgoodism. They post conclusions from foundational flawed studies and for some reason pay them respect even though the basis of their presentations are laughable at best. It is a disservice to claim feelgoodism is equal on both sides, name a eurocentric study that wasn't pure feelgoodism?
There is nothing feel good about Keith's study, the autosomal STR results are repeatable on any database. They don't require the anthropological logic twisting of single ancestry SNP haplogroups that tell you virtually NOTHING about a person's ancestry, yet many in this group hanging their hopes on it... in 500 years (20 generations) there are around million people that have contributed to your ancestry.... having both your mtdna and ydna will give you a total of 2 out of 1 million contributors to your ancestry? They determine ascent from descent... its pseudo science at its finest... but people on this group have committed so much time to debating this phenotype and ethnic descent nonsense that any geneticist worth their weight in salt will tell you is unscientific GUESS WORK that you call the people simply sharing the basic truths (that we should be focused on) ie. Cultural continuity, ethno-linguistics, biological traits, ancient depictions and descriptions etc... they now are the crack feel good isms... but haplogroup quackery... nooo... thats the real science... what a joke.
This!
Christopher Ehret.....
quote:Some of you may have seen or heard about a recent genetics article that makes the ancient Egyptians out to be Levantines. Let me be very clear. These findings come from one locale in a large stretch of possible locales in northern Egypt, and the finds date well after the foundational periods of ancient Egypt. It's somewhat as if I was thinking of this particular image. Rather than investigating DNA from a 17th century cemetery in Plymouth, we instead choose to investigate DNA from a later 19th century cemetery in south Boston. And then we conclude, having done that, that the United States was founded by people of Irish descent, and then Americans were predominantly-- are predominantly Irish. Well, that isn't necessarily how the writers of the article meant it to be interpreted, but that's certainly the way I've had people interpreting it to me, even someone with a Coptic--seemed to be a Coptic last name from the sounds of things berating me for being such a terrible human being all these years in my whole career for ever having thought of Egypt as being African. So, anyway, there is a deeper problem here. Genetics may be able to tell us about the different elements in our individual genetic physical ancestries, ancestries that we may have partaken, come from in our individual cells. But genes do not at all determine language. It's our own historical, cultural life experiences, personal experiences that determine what language you speak, not our genes. And we need only look around at each other here in the room to know the truth of that. And it is these experiences also that shape our culture choices and our choice of cultural self-identification. Again, not our genes. It's our historical and cultural experiences
.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
beyoku at time 11:13 he says:
quote:
in 2014 independent researchers utilized the matching algorithms of existing Str databases to conduct an analyzes on the autosomal DNA results published by Dr Hawass in February 2010 the results were definite and conclusive all of the pharonic mummies clustered incontrovertibly close to Modern sub-Saharan Africans at a rate of 70 to 94 genetic Affinity
I can't remember if I saw that image in the video where Yes I have seen the 8 STRs' marker boxes part of it But I don't recall seeing the lower part: "Population Assignments Population Group Probability Sub-Saharan African 93.4%"
did somebody post that in 2014 with that percentage on it? I don't remember seeing DNA Tribes putting those percentages in one of their digest articles, I could be wrong, maybe it was written in text somewhere (but then ES members would have been shouting it from the rooftops)
^^^BUT here it has the same percentages But this article is August 2020 (pre print 2018) and it says there:
quote: Contributions J-P.G and S.O.Y Keita performed the PopAffialiator analysis, drew tables, wrote and reviewed the maingenetic, statistical, anthropological and Egyptology portions of the article. J-L. G wrote and review the statistical portion. A.A wrote and reviewed Egyptological/linguistics portion.
It took Keita 8-10 years to make this chart? seems a bit late (probably why King's Monologue says "independent researchers" instead of Keita, since that dates it 2018, not 2014) It was also a low profile self published article Then in the same year 2020, October, Hawass affiliate Yehia Gad et al came out with the Nature Communications article in October:
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
this was using 2010 samples from his earlier 2010 article but this time HGs were reported. But unlike Schuenemann/Krause 2017 the emphasis was on kinship not ethnicity and they didn't go making press releases hyping R1b to the media
And they doesn't exactly dovetail expectations, Yuya being predicted by PopAffiliator, according to Keita 93.7% African whilst Gad reporting YDNA Haplogroup G2 !
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
Lioness, do you realise yDNA makes up for less than 2% of your available ancestry and an infinitesimally tiny fraction of your total ancestry. Also, it's not been disproven that G2 was present in Africa, it clearly was, so its current proliferation or movement since is irrelevant. So it's very possible and likely that both are true.
You guys are fighting a losing battle trying to prove race from subclades. It's infinitely stupid.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Are we going to ignore that Nguni clustered as closest match to AE according to popaffiliator matching of autosomal dna of new kingdom pharaohs? Surely direct match with dna and clear cultural continuity is smoking gun territory...
what is you source? please include URL link
The south Africans from the very study you cited. Unless you're going to assume the south Africans that clustered are Khoisan peoples, which wouldn't make any sense in an ethno-cultural sense. South Africans clustered closest in the original autosomal study by DNA Tribes in 2014.
No I never mentioned DNA Tribes I mentioned S.O.Y. Keita's 2020 article and showed the chart from it
^^ this article has 13 references at the bottom, none are DNA Tribes
And even if we refer to DNA Tribes, I don't think you are quoting them properly and you have no links, so you can't back your claims as to accurately what they said
Because you asked politely.
DNA Tribes Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Skip, has both European Ydna & Mtdna lineages, married a white women, and still got arrested like a regular Negro..
As would any "Natufian like" North African, showing up in an all white neighborhood in America... smh
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Skip, has both European Ydna & Mtdna lineages, married a white women, and still got arrested like a regular Negro..
As would any "Natufian like" North African, showing up in an all white neighborhood in America... smh
As if white people never get arrested in USA, or Mexicans, or Native Americans.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Skip, has both European Ydna & Mtdna lineages, married a white women, and still got arrested like a regular Negro..
As would any "Natufian like" North African, showing up in an all white neighborhood in America... smh
As if white people never get arrested in USA, or Mexicans, or Native Americans.
quote:On July 22, President Barack Obama said about the incident, "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately ."
Let's be clear, Gates was arrested for challenging a white man...
quote: Sergeant Crowley arrived at the scene, went up to the front door, and asked Gates to step outside. Crowley explained he was investigating the report of a break-in in progress; as he did so, Gates opened the front door and said, "Why, because I'm a black man in America?
It is being stopped by the police disproportionately that makes it getting arrested like a regular negro.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Skip, has both European Ydna & Mtdna lineages, married a white women, and still got arrested like a regular Negro..
As would any "Natufian like" North African, showing up in an all white neighborhood in America... smh
Deserves everything he gets. Sold his soul to push eurocentric propoganda
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Skip, has both European Ydna & Mtdna lineages, married a white women, and still got arrested like a regular Negro..
As would any "Natufian like" North African, showing up in an all white neighborhood in America... smh
Deserves everything he gets. Sold his soul to push eurocentric propoganda
Facts!... and now wants to play Johnny come lately
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Skip, has both European Ydna & Mtdna lineages, married a white women, and still got arrested like a regular Negro..
As would any "Natufian like" North African, showing up in an all white neighborhood in America... smh
Deserves everything he gets. Sold his soul to push eurocentric propoganda
Facts!... and now wants to play Johnny come lately
Looool... girl bye!
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
So at least today people are giving ancient Swedes their due respect and not making theories that they were too stupid to produce their own culture and civilization.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Ok, so then imagine if people were saying, since Ancient Swedes have Eurasian ancestry their whole material culture is Russian or Arabian etc. That's exactly what people are doing with A. Egypt.
Actually once there existed such ideas regarding Sweden too, that our culture came from all kinds of places. Some have claimed that parts of Scandinavian pagan religion came from Greece or Rome. Others claimed that it came from the east (Russia, Ukraine, Caucasus, even India) and so on. Some have claimed that Scandinavian bronze age culture had it´s roots in Minoan Crete, Mycenaean Greece or even Egypt.
The origin of grave types, hillforts, all kinds of artifacts, buildings and other material things have also been discussed, with all kinds of suggestions (Greece, Rome, the muslim world, eastern Europe, Middle East and others).
Some have for example seen Roman cavalry helmets or Iranian helmets in Swedish helmets from the Vendel time (550-800 AD).
We have also had a lot of ideas that goes the other way, that most of the European culture originally came from Scandinavia. Once some people here even claimed that the garden of Eden was located in southern Sweden and that Adam was a Swede. Some have claimed that Odysseus was a Scandinavian and that his adventures took place in the Baltic sea and not in the Mediterranean. So Sweden and Scandinavia have also had it´s share of wild ideas and speculations. Even fake monuments have been manufactured that was said to prove certain things.
Some of these speculations have survived online but the serious researchers have mostly left them behind.
Today migrations and genes are in vogue and are discussed in many papers, and also online.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
The funny part is every single one of them, EVERY SINGLE ONE, knows what you are saying. If I know they know, but its easier to hoodwink and play games because they know the public at large knows even less than I do, which isn't much.
Its why they choose to name their DNA studies with Dog-Whistling titles
I remember vaguely that even mainstream Egyptologists were having to respond to hate mail/critics that were upset that Egyptology was lying about Egypt being "European"...after that dog-whistling Abusier study...
Notice none of them studying language, culture, archeology, history or anything else except DNA, because its easier to gaslight with DNA, they actually gotta go and find primary evidence of A. Egypt in the Levant/Arabia/Europe and present it in a peer review to be taken serious in any other field.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: All people in this dabate participating in feelgoodism, its just it only called out when Afrocentrics do it because they're low hanging fruit. Calling folks Hoteps and spamming We Wuz Kangs is a popular past time for most of these "scholars" at the "big boy table"...
But Eurocentrics and Biodiversity scholars participating in feel-goodism, with their B/S this and that genetic study means A. Egyptian civilization was Levantine/European/Arabian. They playing like feel-good games as much as the Afrocentric...not one scrap of Archeological evidence from the Levant or Arabia showing a material origin of A. Egyptian civilization...but they say that B.S and are accepted in mainstream "academic" circles...
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare.
So I assume that S.O.Y. Keita et al. was guilty of doing that in the 2020 article in the OP, the only chart they produced was based on the that old 2010 data, Keita indulging in feelgoodism
The entire Krause study is feelgoodism. Egyptology is the father of feelgoodism. They post conclusions from foundational flawed studies and for some reason pay them respect even though the basis of their presentations are laughable at best. It is a disservice to claim feelgoodism is equal on both sides, name a eurocentric study that wasn't pure feelgoodism?
There is nothing feel good about Keith's study, the autosomal STR results are repeatable on any database. They don't require the anthropological logic twisting of single ancestry SNP haplogroups that tell you virtually NOTHING about a person's ancestry, yet many in this group hanging their hopes on it... in 500 years (20 generations) there are around million people that have contributed to your ancestry.... having both your mtdna and ydna will give you a total of 2 out of 1 million contributors to your ancestry? They determine ascent from descent... its pseudo science at its finest... but people on this group have committed so much time to debating this phenotype and ethnic descent nonsense that any geneticist worth their weight in salt will tell you is unscientific GUESS WORK that you call the people simply sharing the basic truths (that we should be focused on) ie. Cultural continuity, ethno-linguistics, biological traits, ancient depictions and descriptions etc... they now are the crack feel good isms... but haplogroup quackery... nooo... thats the real science... what a joke.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
@Just Call Me Jari... said,
quote:Notice none of them studying language, culture, archeology, history or anything else except DNA, because its easier to gaslight with DNA, they actually gotta go and find primary evidence of A. Egypt in the Levant/Arabia/Europe and present it in a peer review to be taken serious in any other field.
This! The whole purpose of the White Supremacy enterprise of Egyptology/Eugenic Dna studies is to delay delay delay the truth....
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
I'm not sure what Jari is referring to, but for over 50 years now, most experts in the fields of history and anthropology have dismissed the notion that ancient Egyptian culture originated from a subset of Levantine culture. It seems like you're using this claim to bolster your Afrocentric perspective and make it seem more reasonable or neutral, but even if we accept that ancient Egyptians were indigenous to the region, that doesn't necessarily mean that they were similar to your ancestors. Genetic and morphological data clearly indicate that they differed significantly from West Africans. In fact, Arabs or light-skinned imazighen would be more genetically similar to ancient Egyptians and lower Nubians than you, regardless of whether their culture was "african" or not and this is the crux of the debate we're having here.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I'm not sure what Jari is referring to, but for over 50 years now, most experts in the fields of history and anthropology have dismissed the notion that ancient Egyptian culture originated from a subset of Levantine culture. It seems like you're using this claim to bolster your Afrocentric perspective and make it seem more reasonable or neutral, but even if we accept that ancient Egyptians were indigenous to the region, that doesn't necessarily mean that they were similar to your ancestors. Genetic and morphological data clearly indicate that they differed significantly from West Africans. In fact, Arabs or light-skinned imazighen would be more genetically similar to ancient Egyptians and lower Nubians than you, regardless of whether their culture was "african" or not and this is the crux of the debate we're having here.
Which West Africans?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
Genetic and morphological data clearly indicate that they differed significantly from West Africans. In fact, Arabs or light-skinned imazighen would be more genetically similar to ancient Egyptians and lower Nubians than you, regardless of whether their culture was "african" or not and this is the crux of the debate we're having here.
Yehia Gad of the Hawass team describes the amount of Egyptian aDNA that has been tested is "scanty"
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I'm not sure what Jari is referring to, but for over 50 years now, most experts in the fields of history and anthropology have dismissed the notion that ancient Egyptian culture originated from a subset of Levantine culture. It seems like you're using this claim to bolster your Afrocentric perspective and make it seem more reasonable or neutral, but even if we accept that ancient Egyptians were indigenous to the region, that doesn't necessarily mean that they were similar to your ancestors. Genetic and morphological data clearly indicate that they differed significantly from West Africans. In fact, Arabs or light-skinned imazighen would be more genetically similar to ancient Egyptians and lower Nubians than you, regardless of whether their culture was "african" or not and this is the crux of the debate we're having here.
Based on which datasets? Fair skinned north Africans are not tropically adapted and have limb proportions closer to Eurasians. What are you basing these correlations on? Genotype, phenotype, biology, culture.... what exactly? please be specific and then qualify it with data to support.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
That always has been an African man. I was never fooled by what is clearly a chemical reaction and thousands of years of hair compression.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: That always has been an African man. I was never fooled by what is clearly a chemical reaction and thousands of years of hair compression.
How do you know how what his hair texture type was while alive?
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
These race arguments are becoming pathetic with all of these damn strawmen arguments. Except for an extreme fringe group of people, N O ONE stated that ancient Egyptians came from nor looked liked MODERN DAY West Africans, yall need to quit using that damn strawman. West and Central Africans aren't the only black people in Africa, plenty live in Northeast, East, the Sahara, and southern Africa.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Fair skinned north Africans are not tropically adapted and have limb proportions closer to Eurasians. What are you basing these correlations on? Genotype, phenotype, biology, culture.... what exactly? please be specific and then qualify it with data to support.
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence T. W. HOLLIDAY 2013
The Ain Dokhara specimen also falls within the scatter of recent African means. In contrast, none of the Afalou specimens, nor of the El Wad Natufian specimens, falls within the African scatter, and all lie toward the more cold-adapted end of the scatter. As was the case with the bivariate analyses, among the prehistoric skeletons, Afalou 28 looks the most extreme in its cold-adapted morphology, and note that this specimen was recovered some 2 m below the other human remains at the site Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:There is no justification for classifying the Abusir samples as foreign because the authors of the paper note that these samples demonstrate continuity over a period of 1,300 years.
This is 1,300 years within a timespan that is 1000 years after Egyptians said foreigners were heavy in the region and hundreds of years after foreigners took over the region for the length of a dynasty. There was also a book that said the region had Semitic burials. I hafta disagree. I think its reasonable to call them foreigners in comparison to the Armana family.
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
You guys are fighting a losing battle trying to prove race from subclades. It's infinitely stupid.
Trying to prove race is a waste because RACE IS 100% Opinion. I define black as: If you saw someone running down the street naked without any hair product and the police asked you their race what would you say. This is not something you could prove with a clade or culture its 100% based on appearance and opinion.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: That always has been an African man. I was never fooled by what is clearly a chemical reaction and thousands of years of hair compression.
How do you know how what his hair texture type was while alive?
I have no idea what his hair texture was when he was alive... but I do know the affects of heat compression on curly hair, and THAT is it. His hair could have been anything from coil and loose to kinky... its largely irrelevant since they are all incredibly common African hair textures.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Fair skinned north Africans are not tropically adapted and have limb proportions closer to Eurasians. What are you basing these correlations on? Genotype, phenotype, biology, culture.... what exactly? please be specific and then qualify it with data to support.
1) who added the red text 2) what is the context of the single Algerian sample, since we know all of North Africa was essentially an extension of west Africa until the barbary slave influx...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: 1) who added the red text 2) what is the context of the single Algerian sample, since we know all of North Africa was essentially an extension of west Africa until the barbary slave influx...
I added the red text There is one individual from the Caspian culture at the Ain Dokara site in Algeria and there are 5 other Algerians of the Iberomausrian culture at Afalou-bou-Rhummel The blue text is the site The red text is the country (or state) and the name of the culture at the site (from the bottom of the chart, list )
The Ain Dokhara specimen also falls within the scatter of recent African means. In contrast, none of the Afalou specimens, nor of the El Wad Natufian specimens, falls within the African scatter, and all lie toward the more cold-adapted end of the scatter. As was the case with the bivariate analyses, among the prehistoric skeletons, Afalou 28 looks the most extreme in its cold-adapted morphology, and note that this specimen was recovered some 2 m below the other human remains at the site Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Yuya
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: That always has been an African man. I was never fooled by what is clearly a chemical reaction and thousands of years of hair compression.
How do you know how what his hair texture type was while alive?
I have no idea what his hair texture was when he was alive... but I do know the affects of heat compression on curly hair, and THAT is it. His hair could have been anything from coil and loose to kinky... its largely irrelevant since they are all incredibly common African hair textures.
How would you describe the hair on the mummy as it looks here, just a description of it exactly as it appears here, regardless of mummifications etc ? Just a by eye description of it's state here
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: These race arguments are becoming pathetic with all of these damn strawmen arguments. Except for an extreme fringe group of people, N O ONE stated that ancient Egyptians came from nor looked liked MODERN DAY West Africans, yall need to quit using that damn strawman. West and Central Africans aren't the only black people in Africa, plenty live in Northeast, East, the Sahara, and southern Africa.
Big issue is racial thinking within itself not the specifics within the racial thinking.
You would notice that when certain people address certain claims relating how Black or African AE's were for example, the narrative of "No ones saying that they're true negroes or west Africans" doesn't need to be said. Reason being is that in the last ten years we're seeing increasing complexity in the history of our species. The strawman works exceptionally well on people who apply this oldschool racial thinking without updated perspective. Which is how posters like Antalas can route a whole thread here nowadays.
Little do people know, the popAffiliator results in the video in the op doesn't contradict any modern claim that AE were European or even worse, West Asian. I don't think most people here arguing in bad faith about how black AEgypt was could even understand why or how. That's the problem. Noone's updating the resume.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Little do people know, the popAffiliator results in the video in the op doesn't contradict any modern claim that AE were European or even worse, West Asian.
S.O.Y. Keita and Jen-Luc did the PopAffliator results in the above image from the video and you can see the reference in small print on the bottom of that screenshot but I'm sure you know this but I don't know what you mean the above PopAffiliator results don't contradict claims that AE were European or West Asian. How could that be?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Little do people know, the popAffiliator results in the video in the op doesn't contradict any modern claim that AE were European or even worse, West Asian.
S.O.Y. Keita and Jen-Luc did the PopAffliator results in the above image from the video and you can see the reference in small print on the bottom of that screenshot but I'm sure you know this but I don't know what you mean the above PopAffiliator results don't contradict claims that AE were European or West Asian. How could that be?
reference bias using the those three samples as reference populations for an extinct profile.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
reference bias using the those three samples as reference populations for an extinct profile.
the PopAffilator results were based on Hawass/JAMA 2010 data What three samples are you taking about? The Abusir El-Meleq? What do you mean "extinct profile."?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
These biodiversity folks love bringing up West Africa, its just a reshash of the Hamite Hypothesis, another Gaslighting theory/tactic used by 19th Century "Big Boy Table" mainstream scientists.
They'll always envoke West Africa as a desperate attempt to pretend they give a damn about other N. East Africans, then these same folks will use N. East Africans like Nubians in their racist Nubians=True Negro when the time suits them.
But this is the Big Boy Table, we're supposed to take serious.
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: These race arguments are becoming pathetic with all of these damn strawmen arguments. Except for an extreme fringe group of people, N O ONE stated that ancient Egyptians came from nor looked liked MODERN DAY West Africans, yall need to quit using that damn strawman. West and Central Africans aren't the only black people in Africa, plenty live in Northeast, East, the Sahara, and southern Africa.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
Now they're trying to make me a proponent of the Hamitic theory and being into "racial thinking" even though I'm one of the few individuals here who recognizes the diversity of African populations and the inaccuracy of categorizing all Africans as simply "black". I have mentioned West Africans, as many members here are descended from them and desire to see themselves represented in the results. This is why individuals like Jari obsess over "Ta-Seti" or the "Africaness" of Ancient Egypt, and members like Elmaestro spend years in these forums, hoping to find evidence that Ancient Egyptians were less Eurasian shifted than current populations.
When I challenge the idea that "black" is merely a color descriptor and suggest that my definition is not based on the "true negro" stereotype, I receive no response when asking why light-skinned African Americans are still considered black in America. They argue that "northeast Africans are black too," but I demonstrate that genetically and morphologically, these individuals are more similar to light-skinned North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Europeans, rather than to West, Central, or South Africans. Thus, their "black" label is nonsensical and doesn't hold.
When assessing relatedness or kinship, it should be based on genetics or some morphological traits, not on social constructs specific to the United States or any other biased labeling system.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
Curious you didn't mention East Africans with Nilotic being mostly East Africans.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
You guys are fighting a losing battle trying to prove race from subclades. It's infinitely stupid.
Trying to prove race is a waste because RACE IS 100% Opinion. I define black as: If you saw someone running down the street naked without any hair product and the police asked you their race what would you say. This is not something you could prove with a clade or culture its 100% based on appearance and opinion.
Maybe I am lucky to live in a country where the police (at least officially) are not allowed to ask such question. Also on your birth certificate and other official papers your race can not be stated, only where you are born.
But in ordinary peoples mouths old labels still live, like "black", n-word, "Arab" (as a generic name for Arabs, other Middle Easterners and North Africans), and "babbar" (generic name for non European foreigners in general) and so on.
Also some brown people are called "black" (as Africans, African Americans) while others are not, like Indians who are called Indians, or sometimes just brown.
The labels have also changed over time, once Romani people where called black, and even Swedes who happened to have dark hair. Africans have been called "blamadr" (blue men), "Morians" and "negroes". About the two later, often Africans living in Sweden were called "morians" while Africans in the colonies (St Barthelemy) were called "negroes".
So black is a rather floating concept which can vary in different countries and cultures.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
reference bias using the those three samples as reference populations for an extinct profile.
the PopAffilator results were based on Hawass/JAMA 2010 data What three samples are you taking about? The Abusir El-Meleq? What do you mean "extinct profile."?
ONE Way to think of it: SNP's change slow. STR's change fast. An STR profile (Collection of 13 Codis Marker) is unique to a specific period of time.
These mummie STR "profiles" are from 3500 years ago, thus they are a time machine back to a demographic event that no longer exists in 2023.
It would be like taking a 2023 snapshot of some African American Genomes: The culmination of 400 years of demographic event that combined Enslaved Africans from MULTIPLE regions, Europeans and Native Americans. Then expecting that Snapshot to still exist in 5500AD. No, it wouldn't....because there are 3500 years of STR mutations and the snapshot from 2023 is extinct and only describes what happened in that 400 year window.
It would be like taking baby pictures in 2003 then asking why the same individuals isnt a bald 7lbs 15inch human in 2023.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Now they're trying to make me a proponent of the Hamitic theory and being into "racial thinking" even though I'm one of the few individuals here who recognizes the diversity of African populations and the inaccuracy of categorizing all Africans as simply "black". I have mentioned West Africans, as many members here are descended from them and desire to see themselves represented in the results. This is why individuals like Jari obsess over "Ta-Seti" or the "Africaness" of Ancient Egypt, and members like Elmaestro spend years in these forums, hoping to find evidence that Ancient Egyptians were less Eurasian shifted than current populations.
When I challenge the idea that "black" is merely a color descriptor and suggest that my definition is not based on the "true negro" stereotype, I receive no response when asking why light-skinned African Americans are still considered black in America. They argue that "northeast Africans are black too," but I demonstrate that genetically and morphologically, these individuals are more similar to light-skinned North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Europeans, rather than to West, Central, or South Africans. Thus, their "black" label is nonsensical and doesn't hold.
When assessing relatedness or kinship, it should be based on genetics or some morphological traits, not on social constructs specific to the United States or any other biased labeling system.
You have very poor reading comprehension.
What do you mean find evidence AE are less Eurasian shifted? Is this bait? I have quite a bit of evidence on my hard-drive of whether they are or aren't... I'm contempt. I'm chilling lol.
nonetheless, how couldn't you tell who I was primarily criticizing with "racial thinking"? It wasn't you, by why do you think it was?
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
reference bias using the those three samples as reference populations for an extinct profile.
the PopAffilator results were based on Hawass/JAMA 2010 data What three samples are you taking about? The Abusir El-Meleq? What do you mean "extinct profile."?
ONE Way to think of it: SNP's change slow. STR's change fast. An STR profile (Collection of 13 Codis Marker) is unique to a specific period of time.
These mummie STR "profiles" are from 3500 years ago, thus they are a time machine back to a demographic event that no longer exists in 2023.
It would be like taking a 2023 snapshot of some African American Genomes: The culmination of 400 years of demographic event that combined Enslaved Africans from MULTIPLE regions, Europeans and Native Americans. Then expecting that Snapshot to still exist in 5500AD. No, it wouldn't....because there are 3500 years of STR mutations and the snapshot from 2023 is extinct and only describes what happened in that 400 year window.
It would be like taking baby pictures in 2003 then asking why the same individuals isnt a bald 7lbs 15inch human in 2023.
In your mind it's more sensible to assume phenotype, not from biological traits, but from a marker left by a single ancestor, who was one of millions left tens of thousands of years ago. Yes, that makes perfect sense... this single ancestor from the millions of ancestors that were contemporaneously contributing to my genetic makeup will determine my ethnicity, culture, and language. I will be the same phenotype as this single ancestor in spite of the billions of other ancestors that have contributed to my ancestry.... because pseudo academia says so. Makes perfect sense... SNP markers are the way to go!
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@Narmer Menes
-First of all WTF are you talking about? I came the thread *criticizing dumb outdated ideas of physical Race*. Now here you are accusing me of assuming phenotype means something and Y-DNA markers means something? I came in here *criticizing* the spamming of predicted and not SNP tested Y-DNA, and the REFUSAL for people to read archaeological studies that place genetic studies in context.
IF you don't have anything scientific to say in this thread then you could have just kept quiet......Because as of NOW, your comment reads like a person NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR with ANY of what i wrote in terms of responses to *Antalas* who was one the few in thread discussing actual science/data and interpretation of it.
Your response is Projection. Totally lost in the Sauce. Nobody here can read what i have said in this thread....read my reply to Lioness, then read your reply to me and know WTF you are talking about.
Dont worry, yall going to learn the hard way. By then someone ELSE is going to control the narrative. Its already being shaped. Things are in motion Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Now they're trying to make me a proponent of the Hamitic theory and being into "racial thinking" even though I'm one of the few individuals here who recognizes the diversity of African populations and the inaccuracy of categorizing all Africans as simply "black". I have mentioned West Africans, as many members here are descended from them and desire to see themselves represented in the results. This is why individuals like Jari obsess over "Ta-Seti" or the "Africaness" of Ancient Egypt, and members like Elmaestro spend years in these forums, hoping to find evidence that Ancient Egyptians were less Eurasian shifted than current populations.
When I challenge the idea that "black" is merely a color descriptor and suggest that my definition is not based on the "true negro" stereotype, I receive no response when asking why light-skinned African Americans are still considered black in America. They argue that "northeast Africans are black too," but I demonstrate that genetically and morphologically, these individuals are more similar to light-skinned North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Europeans, rather than to West, Central, or South Africans. Thus, their "black" label is nonsensical and doesn't hold.
When assessing relatedness or kinship, it should be based on genetics or some morphological traits, not on social constructs specific to the United States or any other biased labeling system.
what does it mean that north east Africans is closer genetically related to middle east and europeans before other Africans thats an obvious lie as africans are closer related to each other before they are related to outsiders.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
Why are those people described as "black" in your country ?
I receive no response when asking why light-skinned African Americans are still considered black in America. They argue that "northeast Africans are black too," but I demonstrate that genetically and morphologically, these individuals are more similar to light-skinned North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Europeans, rather than to West, Central, or South Africans. Thus, their "black" label is nonsensical and doesn't hold.
When assessing relatedness or kinship, it should be based on genetics or some morphological traits, not on social constructs specific to the United States or any other biased labeling system.
"Light skinned blacks" in America are typically West African with higher percentage of European, of course a much smaller percentage some may also be of places in Africa not West
Ice Spice is described as having an African-American father and Dominican mother (spice mixed with ice)
Colin Luther Powell parents were both of mixed African and Scottish ancestry.
Colin Powell
Chris Rock belongs to Y-DNA haplogroup B (subclade B2a1). He is paternally descended from the Uldeme people of Cameroon
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Djoser
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
But in ordinary peoples mouths old labels still live, like "black", n-word, "Arab" (as a generic name for Arabs, other Middle Easterners and North Africans), and "babbar" (generic name for non European foreigners in general) and so on.
Also some brown people are called "black" (as Africans, African Americans) while others are not, like Indians who are called Indians, or sometimes just brown.
The labels have also changed over time, once Romani people where called black, and even Swedes who happened to have dark hair. Africans have been called "blamadr" (blue men), "Morians" and "negroes". About the two later, often Africans living in Sweden were called "morians" while Africans in the colonies (St Barthelemy) were called "negroes".
So black is a rather floating concept which can vary in different countries and cultures.
The naked person across the street definition of race would apply to most of the "western world". That is generally who I'm talking about because they are the people would white wash Egyptians.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Many here would describe such a person as "mörkhyad" (dark skinned) which is a rather common label here in my place. But it of course vary from country to country.
Sweden is located in the Western world
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Why don't you just speak plainly, I think I understand your position, but IMO, I don't so what the big deal is?
Tell me if Im wrong...
You're criticizing the video creator(other ES members) for sticking to a A.E=Sterotypical Negroid African...or True Negro, and ignoring the DNA data of the Natufians going back to the Old Kingdom/Predynastic...Ok fair point...
Then your saying folks gonna be "controlling the narriative, and to prepare....
For What?
First off, They're already controlling the narriative...so ok..next.
second, all I see the more I research the Natufians is they've been in Africa thousands of years, looked similar to other Africans(Possibly) and were in the Afro-Asiatic context.
Further the results said these folks(The Natufians from the Egyptian village)...lacked Eurasian DNA..So maybe these Natufians were more North African/Afro-Asiatic....IDK..
Am I wrong? Im being honest as someone who does'nt know as much about DNA, as you.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Narmer Menes
-First of all WTF are you talking about? I came the thread *criticizing dumb outdated ideas of physical Race*. Now here you are accusing me of assuming phenotype means something and Y-DNA markers means something? I came in here *criticizing* the spamming of predicted and not SNP tested Y-DNA, and the REFUSAL for people to read archaeological studies that place genetic studies in context.
IF you don't have anything scientific to say in this thread then you could have just kept quiet......Because as of NOW, your comment reads like a person NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR with ANY of what i wrote in terms of responses to *Antalas* who was one the few in thread discussing actual science/data and interpretation of it.
Your response is Projection. Totally lost in the Sauce. Nobody here can read what i have said in this thread....read my reply to Lioness, then read your reply to me and know WTF you are talking about.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
So these DNA/Data been in Africa for Thousands of years....Could have originated in Africa.
Am I missing something...
Prepare for what.
Imagine a DNA study finds something thats been present in Europe for thousands of years....and people on European minded forums being told to prepare...
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: These race arguments are becoming pathetic with all of these damn strawmen arguments. Except for an extreme fringe group of people, N O ONE stated that ancient Egyptians came from nor looked liked MODERN DAY West Africans, yall need to quit using that damn strawman. West and Central Africans aren't the only black people in Africa, plenty live in Northeast, East, the Sahara, and southern Africa.
Big issue is racial thinking within itself not the specifics within the racial thinking.
You would notice that when certain people address certain claims relating how Black or African AE's were for example, the narrative of "No ones saying that they're true negroes or west Africans" doesn't need to be said. Reason being is that in the last ten years we're seeing increasing complexity in the history of our species. The strawman works exceptionally well on people who apply this oldschool racial thinking without updated perspective. Which is how posters like Antalas can route a whole thread here nowadays.
Little do people know, the popAffiliator results in the video in the op doesn't contradict any modern claim that AE were European or even worse, West Asian. I don't think most people here arguing in bad faith about how black AEgypt was could even understand why or how. That's the problem. Noone's updating the resume.
I agree with you. its just frustating seeing the same strawman tossed around for over the past 20 years since I've been on this messageboard. Its as if people resort to old tricks when all else fails.
I like beyoku's approach putting emphasis on archeology, thats refreshing, because archeology is a good indicator of whether migrations have occured in masse.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Now they're trying to make me a proponent of the Hamitic theory and being into "racial thinking" even though I'm one of the few individuals here who recognizes the diversity of African populations and the inaccuracy of categorizing all Africans as simply "black". I have mentioned West Africans, as many members here are descended from them and desire to see themselves represented in the results. This is why individuals like Jari obsess over "Ta-Seti" or the "Africaness" of Ancient Egypt, and members like Elmaestro spend years in these forums, hoping to find evidence that Ancient Egyptians were less Eurasian shifted than current populations.
When I challenge the idea that "black" is merely a color descriptor and suggest that my definition is not based on the "true negro" stereotype, I receive no response when asking why light-skinned African Americans are still considered black in America. They argue that "northeast Africans are black too," but I demonstrate that genetically and morphologically, these individuals are more similar to light-skinned North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Europeans, rather than to West, Central, or South Africans. Thus, their "black" label is nonsensical and doesn't hold.
When assessing relatedness or kinship, it should be based on genetics or some morphological traits, not on social constructs specific to the United States or any other biased labeling system.
You only challenge the descriptor of "black" only when it comes to certain populations, period! If you were totally against racial thinking you wouldn't be so hellbent on limiting "black" people to West/Central Africans.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
So these DNA/Data been in Africa for Thousands of years....Could have originated in Africa.
Am I missing something...
Prepare for what.
Imagine a DNA study finds something thats been present in Europe for thousands of years.... and people on European minded forums being told to prepare... [/QB]
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
I like beyoku's approach putting emphasis on archeology, thats refreshing, because archeology is a good indicator of whether migrations have occured in masse.
What archaeological finds have bee found created by ancient Libyans of the type depicted in Egyptian art?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I agree with you and with El Mestro's take, that people are still thinking in old racial terms, but my only point is that Afrocentrists are not the only ones no taking into account the complexity of human migrations and interactions.
Beyoku's results say a people who could have originated in N.E Africa, lived in that region for thousands of years, and had no Eurasian links. Then people turn around and say these folks are Levantine or Arabian.
different side of the same coin..IMO.
I know Beyoku wants to focus on the Afrocentrist side, but my problem is trying to make the other side of the coin seem more valid or scientific.
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: These race arguments are becoming pathetic with all of these damn strawmen arguments. Except for an extreme fringe group of people, N O ONE stated that ancient Egyptians came from nor looked liked MODERN DAY West Africans, yall need to quit using that damn strawman. West and Central Africans aren't the only black people in Africa, plenty live in Northeast, East, the Sahara, and southern Africa.
Big issue is racial thinking within itself not the specifics within the racial thinking.
You would notice that when certain people address certain claims relating how Black or African AE's were for example, the narrative of "No ones saying that they're true negroes or west Africans" doesn't need to be said. Reason being is that in the last ten years we're seeing increasing complexity in the history of our species. The strawman works exceptionally well on people who apply this oldschool racial thinking without updated perspective. Which is how posters like Antalas can route a whole thread here nowadays.
Little do people know, the popAffiliator results in the video in the op doesn't contradict any modern claim that AE were European or even worse, West Asian. I don't think most people here arguing in bad faith about how black AEgypt was could even understand why or how. That's the problem. Noone's updating the resume.
I agree with you. its just frustating seeing the same strawman tossed around for over the past 20 years since I've been on this messageboard. Its as if people resort to old tricks when all else fails.
I like beyoku's approach putting emphasis on archeology, thats refreshing, because archeology is a good indicator of whether migrations have occured in masse.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:I know Beyoku wants to focus on the Afrocentrist side, but my problem is trying to make the other side of the coin seem more valid or scientific.
how to spot THE game....
1. It's first premise is always iconoclasm + nhilism. Burn down your old idols, don't read them or study them they are "psuedo" i.e. Old Afrocentrics. DuBois, Diop, Jackson and the rest, because they may have gotten a thing or two wrong, or had a mistaken hypothesis. As if Eurocentric white supremacist Egyptologist got everything right. Reisner, excavated Nubia and never wrote about it, he was completely silent. I wonder why? Notice eurocentrics are not burning down their old racist idols despite them being wrong on so many things... Sir Francis Galton
2. Install new Idol or " religion" in this case DNA as if it is an unbiased flawless science. Despite sampling bias, unbalanced data sets, and Bayesian mathematics that is the Schrodinger's cat of science.
3. Ridicule anyone who does not totally agree or has issue with the new " religion " aka DNA studies call them stupid, ignorant and unprepared for eurocentric scientific dominance ( this is gaslighting by the way) Tell African Americans they are Yorubans genetically, and they should just accept that and quit looking to Egypt for inspiration. Even though no one tells this same thing to a White British/Scottish person who studies classical Greece or Ancient Egypt, shouldn't they just stick to studying stonehenge?
4. Ignore other forms of evidence , i.e. history,anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, archeo-astromony, oral history,in favor of new science " DNA " as the end all and be all of truth.
5. Believe naively or not, that the White Supremacist agenda is still not in full play. Their goal? To find the origin of their " race " separate and apart from Black Africans or to create a narrative that explains alternative theory of Basal Eurasian genesis that does not include Africa. Also, without a doubt to say that Black Africans are not fully human.
6. Failure to acknowledge current political agendas at work in DNA studies and archaeology. With Egypt you have competing interest of tourism industry the museum and industrial university complex. Ancient Egypt makes a lot of people a lot of money. Ancient "white" Egypt does anyway. With Israel, you have biblical mythology that supports the existence of the Israeli state. Anything contradicting that would be suppressed or destroyed. To support their agenda, forgeries would and could be created, DNA falsified if necessary. Don't doubt it.
BY THE WAY THIS WAS A PLAY BY PLAY OF NGOZI'S PLAYBOOK Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
I'm the coach. I manage my team. Why would I focus on how bad by opponents are and focusing on their flaws and stupidy when I can spend that time TRAINING MY TEAM? Making sure my teams is physically fit and ready to take on ANY opponent?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:I know Beyoku wants to focus on the Afrocentrist side, but my problem is trying to make the other side of the coin seem more valid or scientific.
how to spot THE game....
1. It's first premise is always iconoclasm + nhilism. Burn down your old idols, don't read them or study them they are "psuedo" i.e. Old Afrocentrics. DuBois, Diop, Jackson and the rest, because they may have gotten a thing or two wrong, or had a mistaken hypothesis. As if Eurocentric white supremacist Egyptologist got everything right. Reisner, excavated Nubia and never wrote about it, he was completely silent. I wonder why? Notice eurocentrics are not burning down their old racist idols despite them being wrong on so many things... Sir Francis Galton
2. Install new Idol or " religion" in this case DNA as if it is an unbiased flawless science. Despite sampling bias, unbalanced data sets, and Bayesian mathematics that is the Schrodinger's cat of science.
3. Ridicule anyone who does not totally agree or has issue with the new " religion " aka DNA studies call them stupid, ignorant and unprepared for eurocentric scientific dominance ( this is gaslighting by the way) Tell African Americans they are Yorubans genetically, and they should just accept that and quit looking to Egypt for inspiration. Even though no one tells this same thing to a White British/Scottish person who studies classical Greece or Ancient Egypt, shouldn't they just stick to studying stonehenge?
4. Ignore other forms of evidence , i.e. history,anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, archeo-astromony, oral history,in favor of new science " DNA " as the end all and be all of truth.
5. Believe naively or not, that the White Supremacist agenda is still not in full play. Their goal? To find the origin of their " race " separate and apart from Black Africans or to create a narrative that explains alternative theory of Basal Eurasian genesis that does not include Africa. Also, without a doubt to say that Black Africans are not fully human.
6. Failure to acknowledge current political agendas at work in DNA studies and archaeology. With Egypt you have competing interest of tourism industry the museum and industrial university complex. Ancient Egypt makes a lot of people a lot of money. Ancient "white" Egypt does anyway. With Israel, you have biblical mythology that supports the existence of the Israeli state. Anything contradicting that would be suppressed or destroyed. To support their agenda, forgeries would and could be created, DNA falsified if necessary. Don't doubt it.
BY THE WAY THIS WAS A PLAY BY PLAY OF NGOZI'S PLAYBOOK
Stop with all of the emotionalism.
Jari makes some good points, yes the so-called "oppositions" don't look at the data optimally and might indulge in the same bone-headed practices but at least they update that resume.
To further use Beyoku's analogies... Afro-leaning "scholars" are keeping slingshots in circulation, the "Euro-nuts" got tanks and stealth bombers... Why should the team armed with the slingshots be concerned whether or not their opposition knows how to aim? It's futile, It doesn't matter if none these [expletives] know how to aim when one side clearly has the bigger guns. As in real life lore, the war doesn't even need to be fought.
The biggest issue is the hacks who are the CEO's of the slingshot manufacturing. That's why it's necessary to "burn the shit down". Certain people are incentivized to keep people they should be supporting unequipped.
There are some serious issues with modern GWAS studies and tools defining pop-history that I wish I could talk about. But I'm 99.99% sure that me bringing these concerns here will only strengthen the people most here would consider "Ops." (Some of them already had). It's like discussing the fault's in the B-2 bomber's engineering to a tribe of slingshot wielders... They'll patch the shit before most the people on this side can fathom how to capitalize.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Stop with all of the emotionalism.
^^^^^ Typical misogynoir
No burning it down is not the "proper" response. The old afrocentrics never overstated their case the way current psuedo's on social media do. they should be critiqued , they should! But that takes, the willingness to write books and create content not argue with trolls on social media. HUGE waste of time by the way. Old Afrocentrics were more subtle and if people would actually go back and read what was said they would have better arguments against the Eurocentric propaganda
Afrocentricism is an absolute necessary and needed epistemology as a check on the resurgence of Eugenicist supremacist who are actually using Paabo and Reich to reinvent their religion.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
Afrocentricism is an absolute necessary and needed epistemology as a check on the resurgence of Eugenicist supremacist who are actually using Paabo and Reich to reinvent their religion.
What are the names of these Eugenicist supremacists?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Stop with all of the emotionalism.
^^^^^ Typical misogynoir
I don't see where Elmaestro attacked your gender in his post though?
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
The Genomic Revolution and Beliefs about Essential Racial Differences: A Backdoor to Eugenics? Jo C. Phelan,a Bruce G. Link,b and Naumi M. Feldmana
quote:By Amy Harmon Oct. 19, 2018 In an unusual statement on the role of science in the resurgence of white supremacy in America, the American Society of Human Genetics on Friday denounced “attempts to link genetics and racial supremacy.”
quote: One of the people behind the revival of race science was, not long ago, a mainstream figure. In 2014, Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times science correspondent, wrote what must rank as the most toxic book on race science to appear in the last 20 years. In A Troublesome Inheritance, he repeated three race-science shibboleths: that the notion of “race” corresponds to profound biological differences among groups of humans; that human brains evolved differently from race to race; and that this is supported by different racial averages in IQ scores./QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The return of race science and why it matters for family science Linda M. Chatters, Robert Joseph Taylor, Amy J. Schulz First published: 09 August 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12472Citations: 2
quote:In a recent op-ed in The New York Times, “How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding of Race,” the geneticist David Reich challenged what he called an “orthodoxy” in genetics. Due to concerns of political correctness, he argued, scientists are unwilling to do research on—or, in some cases, even discuss—genetic variation between human populations, despite the fact that genetic variations do exist. “It is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ‘races,’” he wrote.
quote:All of this is textbook genetics—as Reich clearly knows, seeing as he did some of the research that demonstrated these claims. But his op-ed starts losing clarity when, thanks to some unfortunate language, the distinct concepts of “races” and “populations” seem to become admixed themselves. As an example, in discussing his lab’s use of self-reported race in tracking down genetic risk factors for prostate cancer, Reich places socially constructed terms (like “African-American”) right alongside the results of statistical inferences about genome history (such as “probably West African in origin”). He’s apparently trying to defend the use of both, but in the process somewhat blurs his earlier distinctions between race and ancestry .
I don't see where Elmaestro attacked your gender in his post though?
telling a woman she is emotional is equivalent to telling a woman to calm down. It's misogyny
quote:New research finds that labeling a woman as “emotional” or telling her to “calm down” makes her point of view seem less credible. From Kamala Harris to Oprah Winfrey, the “emotional” label is often thrown on women in politics, entertainment, business and any realm where women are trying to be heard .
quote:Women who argue with men are often told to “calm down” simply because they’re expressing themselves. This gaslighting term, used in one form or another around the world, often acts as a quick phrase meant to brush off women’s ideas and opinions, and reduce them to irrational hysterics . But we know women who speak their minds to be strong, and sometimes, it’s where we come from that gives us our voice.
Egyptology and White Supremacy is intimately tied together from it's beginnings.
I don't see where Elmaestro attacked your gender in his post though?
He didn't need to be specific as it's a stereotype that women are more emotional than men. And what does being emotional really mean? Being enthusiast or very confident are types of emotion but most people wouldn't called that being emotional,also context matters.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
It's funny how my criticisms of focusing on singular pieces of genetic evidence like E1b1a or STR's, ignoring studies of archeology to place DNA in context, and not being versed on the latest data has MORPHED into a criticism of Beyoku focusing too much on Genetics, Ignoring Archeology, and not being familiar with the latest multidisciplinary studies.
People accused me a making up the term "Pure Africans" when i quoted the words "Purely African" from the OP video and included the SPECIFIC time stamp. People accuse me of associating DNA with race when i criticized the idea of it being pseudo and included the SPECIFIC Timestamp where its done in the video. I also included multiple comments with DATA/Analysis in this thread that have basically been ignore by everyone except Antalas.
Typical immature, "I know you are but what am I" fashion. You all are running, and you are getting sweaty but you will never reach your destination nor progress because you are running in place on a treadmill.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: It's funny how my criticisms of focusing on singular pieces of genetic evidence like E1b1a or STR's, ignoring studies of archeology to place DNA in context, and not being versed on the latest data has MORPHED into a criticism of Beyoku focusing too much on Genetics, Ignoring Archeology, and not being familiar with the latest multidisciplinary studies.
People accused me a making up the term "Pure Africans" when i quoted the words "Purely African" from the OP video and included the SPECIFIC time stamp. People accuse me of associating DNA with race when i criticized the idea of it being pseudo and included the SPECIFIC Timestamp where its done in the video. I also included multiple comments with DATA/Analysis in this thread that have basically been ignore by everyone except Antalas.
Typical immature, "I know you are but what am I" fashion. You all are running, and you are getting sweaty but you will never reach your destination nor progress because you are running in place on a treadmill.
But Beyoku, you did make up the term PURE AFRICANS. No one sated that apart from you. I gave you an example a kindergarten could understand explaining the difference between something being PURELY AFRICAN, and people being PURE AFRICANS. Your attempt at a subtle semantic shift to undermine the study was purely infantile. That statement does not suggest you are a pure infant! Ones household wing purely african, does not require it to consist of pure africans.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Stop with all of the emotionalism.
Well...
That was clearly sexist. Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:I know Beyoku wants to focus on the Afrocentrist side, but my problem is trying to make the other side of the coin seem more valid or scientific.
how to spot THE game....
1. It's first premise is always iconoclasm + nhilism. Burn down your old idols, don't read them or study them they are "psuedo" i.e. Old Afrocentrics. DuBois, Diop, Jackson and the rest, because they may have gotten a thing or two wrong, or had a mistaken hypothesis. As if Eurocentric white supremacist Egyptologist got everything right. Reisner, excavated Nubia and never wrote about it, he was completely silent. I wonder why? Notice eurocentrics are not burning down their old racist idols despite them being wrong on so many things... Sir Francis Galton
2. Install new Idol or " religion" in this case DNA as if it is an unbiased flawless science. Despite sampling bias, unbalanced data sets, and Bayesian mathematics that is the Schrodinger's cat of science.
3. Ridicule anyone who does not totally agree or has issue with the new " religion " aka DNA studies call them stupid, ignorant and unprepared for eurocentric scientific dominance ( this is gaslighting by the way) Tell African Americans they are Yorubans genetically, and they should just accept that and quit looking to Egypt for inspiration. Even though no one tells this same thing to a White British/Scottish person who studies classical Greece or Ancient Egypt, shouldn't they just stick to studying stonehenge?
4. Ignore other forms of evidence , i.e. history,anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, archeo-astromony, oral history,in favor of new science " DNA " as the end all and be all of truth.
5. Believe naively or not, that the White Supremacist agenda is still not in full play. Their goal? To find the origin of their " race " separate and apart from Black Africans or to create a narrative that explains alternative theory of Basal Eurasian genesis that does not include Africa. Also, without a doubt to say that Black Africans are not fully human.
6. Failure to acknowledge current political agendas at work in DNA studies and archaeology. With Egypt you have competing interest of tourism industry the museum and industrial university complex. Ancient Egypt makes a lot of people a lot of money. Ancient "white" Egypt does anyway. With Israel, you have biblical mythology that supports the existence of the Israeli state. Anything contradicting that would be suppressed or destroyed. To support their agenda, forgeries would and could be created, DNA falsified if necessary. Don't doubt it.
BY THE WAY THIS WAS A PLAY BY PLAY OF NGOZI'S PLAYBOOK
Agree with every word.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
^^^^^ 👍🏾
@Thereal
Thanks for being real Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: It's funny how my criticisms of focusing on singular pieces of genetic evidence like E1b1a or STR's, ignoring studies of archeology to place DNA in context, and not being versed on the latest data has MORPHED into a criticism of Beyoku focusing too much on Genetics, Ignoring Archeology, and not being familiar with the latest multidisciplinary studies.
People accused me a making up the term "Pure Africans" when i quoted the words "Purely African" from the OP video and included the SPECIFIC time stamp. People accuse me of associating DNA with race when i criticized the idea of it being pseudo and included the SPECIFIC Timestamp where its done in the video. I also included multiple comments with DATA/Analysis in this thread that have basically been ignore by everyone except Antalas.
Typical immature, "I know you are but what am I" fashion. You all are running, and you are getting sweaty but you will never reach your destination nor progress because you are running in place on a treadmill.
But Beyoku, you did make up the term PURE AFRICANS. No one sated that apart from you. I gave you an example a kindergarten could understand explaining the difference between something being PURELY AFRICAN, and people being PURE AFRICANS. Your attempt at a subtle semantic shift to undermine the study was purely infantile. That statement does not suggest you are a pure infant! Ones household wing purely african, does not require it to consist of pure africans.
*In a discussion of DNA*. ..please explain the difference between a populations being: - "Pure African" - "Purely African"
This is where the rubber meets the road. The floor is yours. Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: It's funny how my criticisms of focusing on singular pieces of genetic evidence like E1b1a or STR's, ignoring studies of archeology to place DNA in context, and not being versed on the latest data has MORPHED into a criticism of Beyoku focusing too much on Genetics, Ignoring Archeology, and not being familiar with the latest multidisciplinary studies.
People accused me a making up the term "Pure Africans" when i quoted the words "Purely African" from the OP video and included the SPECIFIC time stamp. People accuse me of associating DNA with race when i criticized the idea of it being pseudo and included the SPECIFIC Timestamp where its done in the video. I also included multiple comments with DATA/Analysis in this thread that have basically been ignore by everyone except Antalas.
Typical immature, "I know you are but what am I" fashion. You all are running, and you are getting sweaty but you will never reach your destination nor progress because you are running in place on a treadmill.
But Beyoku, you did make up the term PURE AFRICANS. No one sated that apart from you. I gave you an example a kindergarten could understand explaining the difference between something being PURELY AFRICAN, and people being PURE AFRICANS. Your attempt at a subtle semantic shift to undermine the study was purely infantile. That statement does not suggest you are a pure infant! Ones household wing purely african, does not require it to consist of pure africans.
*In a discussion of DNA*. ..please explain the difference between a populations being: - "Pure African" - "Purely African"
This is where the rubber meets the road. The floor is yours.
I dont know if I should be embarrassed that you asked this, or just feel sorry for you.
Even in a discussion about DNA, the term 'purely' is an adverb, meaning ENITRELY. It could be traded for the synonym TOTALLY, or EXCLUSIVELY. Ie. The ancient Egyptians were TOTALLY african. Its a numerical comparison.
Pure is an adjective meaning UNMIXED or without dilution. In a conversation about DNA, to say they were PURE Africans would mean they are entirely undiluted and had a proven ancestral line that did not ever intermingle outside of that.
A literally retarded babboon would understand the difference between the two. You understand the difference which is why you deliberately misquoted it to kick this all off... hoping no one would check you like a true troll.
I am literally embarrassed for you.
Look, whatever floats your boat, but it definitely isn't my face hitting the floor here.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Both of your Definitions and Quantitative.
"The ancient Egyptians were TOTALLY african. Its a numerical comparison." = 100% Africa DNA.
"To say they were PURE Africans would mean they are entirely undiluted and had a proven ancestral line that did not ever intermingle outside of that" = 100% Africa DNA.
Same shit. I cant believe you sat there and thought that nonsense and still decided to type it. you understand the implications in the flaw of arguing genetic purity but you don't want to admit it. Then the OP posted video where none of the mummies added up to 100%. Yeah, go ahead and hold that "L". Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@Narmer Menes what do you think about in the video by King's Monologue he says
" the researchers inadvertently uncovered two massive confirmations of support to the ancient model that corroborates a purely African population inhabited ancient Egypt."
The Great DNA Hoax: The European heist of Ancient Egypt
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Stop with all of the emotionalism.
^^^^^ Typical misogynoir
No burning it down is not the "proper" response. The old afrocentrics never overstated their case the way current psuedo's on social media do. they should be critiqued , they should! But that takes, the willingness to write books and create content not argue with trolls on social media. HUGE waste of time by the way. Old Afrocentrics were more subtle and if people would actually go back and read what was said they would have better arguments against the Eurocentric propaganda
Afrocentricism is an absolute necessary and needed epistemology as a check on the resurgence of Eugenicist supremacist who are actually using Paabo and Reich to reinvent their religion.
I see your stance. The problem is every good point you make even outside of the realm of this niche online will come with the burden and baggage of negative perception due to noise. There are Kooks out here saying a bunch of nonsense and feelgoodism going relatively unchecked by Afrocentrists. These people basically serve as counterintelligence. We will have their shadow over every one of our claims, responses and publications. No one is saying to scrub old data in favor of new tools. It's just some very loud people are reluctant to incorporate new findings because it doesn't jive with whatever they've been trying to sell for decades. And as a result we all look bad.
I'm also disappointed in those who took the call out as an attack on gender/sex (in your case race as well). Wth? Some of yall gotta lay off twitter.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: It's funny how my criticisms of focusing on singular pieces of genetic evidence like E1b1a or STR's, ignoring studies of archeology to place DNA in context, and not being versed on the latest data has MORPHED into a criticism of Beyoku focusing too much on Genetics, Ignoring Archeology, and not being familiar with the latest multidisciplinary studies.
People accused me a making up the term "Pure Africans" when i quoted the words "Purely African" from the OP video and included the SPECIFIC time stamp. People accuse me of associating DNA with race when i criticized the idea of it being pseudo and included the SPECIFIC Timestamp where its done in the video. I also included multiple comments with DATA/Analysis in this thread that have basically been ignore by everyone except Antalas.
Typical immature, "I know you are but what am I" fashion. You all are running, and you are getting sweaty but you will never reach your destination nor progress because you are running in place on a treadmill.
But Beyoku, you did make up the term PURE AFRICANS. No one sated that apart from you. I gave you an example a kindergarten could understand explaining the difference between something being PURELY AFRICAN, and people being PURE AFRICANS. Your attempt at a subtle semantic shift to undermine the study was purely infantile. That statement does not suggest you are a pure infant! Ones household wing purely african, does not require it to consist of pure africans.
*In a discussion of DNA*. ..please explain the difference between a populations being: - "Pure African" - "Purely African"
This is where the rubber meets the road. The floor is yours.
Have fun trying to pin down that goalpost. lmao
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Both of your Definitions and Quantitative.
"The ancient Egyptians were TOTALLY african. Its a numerical comparison." = 100% Africa DNA.
"To say they were PURE Africans would mean they are entirely undiluted and had a proven ancestral line that did not ever intermingle outside of that" = 100% Africa DNA.
Same shit. I cant believe you sat there and thought that nonsense and still decided to type it. you understand the implications in the flaw of arguing genetic purity but you don't want to admit it. Then the OP posted video where none of the mummies added up to 100%. Yeah, go ahead and hold that "L".
So if I say the population of Islamabad is purely afghan, that's the same as saying the population of Islamabad is filled people who 100% afghan dna?
You're comprehension is too low for me. Enjoy it.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Both of your Definitions and Quantitative.
"The ancient Egyptians were TOTALLY african. Its a numerical comparison." = 100% Africa DNA.
"To say they were PURE Africans would mean they are entirely undiluted and had a proven ancestral line that did not ever intermingle outside of that" = 100% Africa DNA.
Same shit. I cant believe you sat there and thought that nonsense and still decided to type it. you understand the implications in the flaw of arguing genetic purity but you don't want to admit it. Then the OP posted video where none of the mummies added up to 100%. Yeah, go ahead and hold that "L".
So if I say the population of Islamabad is purely afghan, that's the same as saying the population of Islamabad is filled people who 100% afghan dna?
You're comprehension is too low for me. Enjoy it.
1 - Why would you make the argument that the population of Islamabad is "Purely Afghan" if Islamabad is in Pakistan?
2 - (Genetic Argument) Why would you make an argument that people in in Islamabad have 100% Afghan DNA then produce data of 7 individuals, NONE of which carry 100% Afghan DNA?
3 - (Population Demographic Argument) Why Would you say Islamabad has a population that is 100% Afghan *demographically* as an argument AGAINST a study that has data containing samples that are genetically 6-15% Afghan and 85-94% Chinese? Who's mitochondrial DNA that is 5% Afghan and 95% Chinese. Samples of which you then argue are NOT Native populations of Islamabad, and instead come from neighboring China? Which conflicts with the entire premise that the Islamabad population was ethnically singular with no outsiders?
You just keep digging yourself deep and deeper in order to avoid the fact that the OP Video made bogus pseudo claims about African purity. Then went on to make pseudo claims the Genetics is tied to physical race. Are YOU the creator of these videos and YOU cant take the criticism? If now why cape for this clown? I am not dumb. There is no type of fancy wordplay you can create to get out of this because the OP Video is *flawed scientifically*. No matter how many times you move the goal post you will continue to visit defeat. You have your hooks into an argument from a video that is pseudo science.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:I see your stance. The problem is every good point you make even outside of the realm of this niche online will come with the burden and baggage of negative perception due to noise. There are Kooks out here saying a bunch of nonsense and feelgoodism going relatively unchecked by Afrocentrists. These people basically serve as counterintelligence. We will have their shadow over every one of our claims, responses and publications. No one is saying to scrub old data in favor of new tools. It's just some very loud people are reluctant to incorporate new findings because it doesn't jive with whatever they've been trying to sell for decades. And as a result we all look bad.
I'm also disappointed in those who took the call out as an attack on gender/sex (in your case race as well). Wth? Some of yall gotta lay off twitter.
And some of y'all have to lay off the manosphere, where ideas about "feelgoodism" is a term with origins in the right wing, white supremacist proud boy western civilization types. " feelgoodism" denotes weakness sometimes related to femininity and multiculturism. So what is being parroted here is the charge used against afrocentricism, that it is unscientific " feelgoodism" Which is blatantly FALSE.
You don't see Eurocentrics challenging their " kooks " they basically ignore the Hypoborean/blonde atlanteans/ aliens built the pyramid types. So, for the serious researchers, stick to the lanes that you are used too.
quote:S.O.Y. Keita, a biological anthropologist and research affilitate at the Smithsonian Institution who has been described as sympathetic to Afrocentrism,[47] but defined his position as that "it is not a question of “African” “influence”; Ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not “Afrocentric,” but simply correct
Versus
quote:As historian Ronald H. Fritze argued, mainstream Egyptologists and other scholars strongly object to Afrocentric Egyptology, viewing it as "theurapetic mythology" for black people, since it fails to provide sufficient evidence or persuasive interpretations to back up its claims.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
A new member, LoStranger wrote a thread in Dehret called
"Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism fancy editing.
STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies. New studies putting a foot in that ass while we regurgitate 15 year old data with no new analysis. Rude Awakenings coming. Prepare."
He's absolutely right 110%! The sad part is I actually remember Ketia warning against the racialist model and saying the very same thing and even myself dismissing it all those years back thinking he was just trying to be appease white folk. But I'm realizing this issue is far bigger than just Ketia or a set of genetic data it's a general lack of foresight and critical thinking skills I see in a lot of black folk not all of us but a large percentage of us and I feel this has been a massive problem for us blacks for a very long time. We tend to have a very bad habit of leading into situations with our emotion ie: "feelgoodism" where critical thinking is not utilized or respected within our communities:
You see it in the things we prioritize as a community, our spending habits, our voting habits (voting democrats every 4 years despite them not doing a damn thing for Blacks in America) the way few of us like prioritizing for the distant future. Our over extension and kindness to Non-African foreigners when they rarely extend the same level of kindness back towards Black/Africans.
It reminds me of a quote from the Arab writer Al-Jahiz which stated:
"We know that the Zanj (blacks) are the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind, and the least capable of understanding the consequences of actions."
As much as I hate that quote I kinda have to agree with it because I just see it in too many black people to ignore. Just for the record I believe the issue isnot so much a lack of intelligence but a serious lack of foresight that seems to be our biggest issue in my opinion.
Another issue I've noticed is a lack of "pre-emptive thinking" and what I mean by that is when you look at modern day Egyptology notice it has changed from the old racialist models of "Black vs White" and it was primarily European Egyptologists who have acknowledged this change while too many black people who are interested in Egypt hold on to racialist models of the 1960's and 1970's. We as black people are being left in the dust because too many hold onto OLD ways of thinking and again I've have noticed this issue extends far beyond just Egyptology. Just look at the old days when we were back in Africa and how too many of us were too reliant on Oral tradition (I'm NOT suggesting we did not have written history/traditions because that is a Eurocentric LIE) However we definitely relied far too much on Oral tradition compared to other peoples such as European or Mediterranean civilizations. Just look at how the Moroccan empire under Saadi leadership secured weapons from Spanish Europeans which enabled them to easily dispatched of the Songhai Empire and control their gold mines. Ironically It was Mali and Songhai (as well as their Kings) that had all the gold and wealth in Muslim Africa so why didn't we import superior weapons for ourselves before hand? Another example is the way Africans still separate themselves by tribe in freaking 2023. Africans refused to unify to fight Europeans whom themselves were unified during colonialism and STILL to this day Africans refuse to unify in any shape or form even when you've two tribes who look EXACTLY the same example: Yoruba & Igbo or Soninke and Mandinka.
Note how Eurocentric Egyptologists before used a Black vs White model in order to secure victory than they changed to a Negroid vs Caucasoid skull/cranium model now they're using a Eurasian vs Sub-Saharan model in genetics as their model.
One thing about Europeans, white folk whatever you want to call them is they respect the need to innovate and change while too many Black folks are just happy to live ignorantly and care free as long as we feel good in the present moment in time there's no need for us to innovate or change.
I don't feel like commenting on it now, maybe later
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Demographics of Islamabad, Pakistan
Islamabad had an estimated population of 1,014,825 according to the 2017 Census.
Urdu, the national and first official language of the country, is predominantly spoken within the city due to the ethnic mix of populations. English, the second official language, is also commonly understood. Other languages include Punjabi and Pashto. The mother tongue of the majority of the population is Punjabi, at 54%. According to the 2021 Census, 20% of the population are Pashto speakers, 14% are Baloch , and the remaining 10% speak Urdu, Seraiki, Pahari or other languages. The total migrant population of the city is 397,731, with the majority from Punjab (201,977). Around 116,614 of the migrated population came from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 75,143 from Sindh, 24,438 from Azad Kashmir, and 21,372 from other countries. Smaller populations emigrated from Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Balochistan, and Gilgit-Baltistan.
Islam is the largest religion in the city, with 95.53% of the population Muslim. Per 1998 census in rural areas this percentage is 98.80%, while in urban areas the percentage of Muslims is 93.83%. The second largest religion is Christianity, with 4.07% of the population, 0.94% in rural areas and 5.70% in the city. Other minorities 0.39% of the population.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
feelgoodism reference:
How the Self-Esteem Craze Took Over America And why the hype was irresistible.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Both of your Definitions and Quantitative.
"The ancient Egyptians were TOTALLY african. Its a numerical comparison." = 100% Africa DNA.
"To say they were PURE Africans would mean they are entirely undiluted and had a proven ancestral line that did not ever intermingle outside of that" = 100% Africa DNA.
Same shit. I cant believe you sat there and thought that nonsense and still decided to type it. you understand the implications in the flaw of arguing genetic purity but you don't want to admit it. Then the OP posted video where none of the mummies added up to 100%. Yeah, go ahead and hold that "L".
So if I say the population of Islamabad is purely afghan, that's the same as saying the population of Islamabad is filled people who 100% afghan dna?
You're comprehension is too low for me. Enjoy it.
1 - Why would you make the argument that the population of Islamabad is "Purely Afghan" if Islamabad is in Pakistan?
2 - (Genetic Argument) Why would you make an argument that people in in Islamabad have 100% Afghan DNA then produce data of 7 individuals, NONE of which carry 100% Afghan DNA?
3 - (Population Demographic Argument) Why Would you say Islamabad has a population that is 100% Afghan *demographically* as an argument AGAINST a study that has data containing samples that are genetically 6-15% Afghan and 85-94% Chinese? Who's mitochondrial DNA that is 5% Afghan and 95% Chinese. Samples of which you then argue are NOT Native populations of Islamabad, and instead come from neighboring China? Which conflicts with the entire premise that the Islamabad population was ethnically singular with no outsiders?
You just keep digging yourself deep and deeper in order to avoid the fact that the OP Video made bogus pseudo claims about African purity. Then went on to make pseudo claims the Genetics is tied to physical race. Are YOU the creator of these videos and YOU cant take the criticism? If now why cape for this clown? I am not dumb. There is no type of fancy wordplay you can create to get out of this because the OP Video is *flawed scientifically*. No matter how many times you move the goal post you will continue to visit defeat. You have your hooks into an argument from a video that is pseudo science.
What I've decided is.... youre actually an idiot.
And I've got better things to do than argue with idiots. You will semantically shift over and over in order to win. You are right, your criticisms were warranted and your approach to battling egyptology is the only one that can truly battle the behemoth of scientific accuracy that is eurocentricism. The OP creator should reach out to you and take some advice on how to reach so many people with your convincing data that so comprehensively trumps eurocentricism by accepting the European and mixed origins of ancient kemet and hitting them with that AHAH, but they were a pre race species. He can learn so much from you, you should reach out to him, honestly.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
2020 Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: I have a friend who is a geneticist and he said STR matching algorithms are the only method by which geneticists can ascertain ethnicity... are they incorrect? If so, I'd like to know because I've been guilty of promoting the same.
beyoku, I hope this doesn't turn into a name calling match with Narmer Menes at this point, it feels like it's entering non-productive name calling stage
but that aside I'm looking at the info above. How reliable is PopAffiliator, in your opinion, at least in terms of ancestry located to a particular continent ?
If Yuya was YDNA G2 and mtDNA K is it possible he was simultaneously of 97% SSA African ancestry?
Somebody might say "of course, it's two different types of DNA" but then somebody else might say "yes but there weren't enough STRs to says he was 97% SSA" Yet somebody else might say "yes, it's two types of DNA but I see this as just too far apart to be be likely, regardless, the PopAffilator result has to be inaccurate"
What is the best answer in your opinion, I find it confusing And Yuya was of unknown parentage and believed to not be of royal descent
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: And some of y'all have to lay off the manosphere, where ideas about "feelgoodism" is a term with origins in the right wing, white supremacist proud boy western civilization types. " feelgoodism" denotes weakness sometimes related to femininity and multiculturism. So what is being parroted here is the charge used against afrocentricism, that it is unscientific " feelgoodism" Which is blatantly FALSE.
You don't see Eurocentrics challenging their " kooks " they basically ignore the Hypoborean/blonde atlanteans/ aliens built the pyramid types. So, for the serious researchers, stick to the lanes that you are used too.
quote:S.O.Y. Keita, a biological anthropologist and research affilitate at the Smithsonian Institution who has been described as sympathetic to Afrocentrism,[47] but defined his position as that "it is not a question of “African” “influence”; Ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not “Afrocentric,” but simply correct
Versus
quote:As historian Ronald H. Fritze argued, mainstream Egyptologists and other scholars strongly object to Afrocentric Egyptology, viewing it as "theurapetic mythology" for black people, since it fails to provide sufficient evidence or persuasive interpretations to back up its claims.
What am I supposed to do with this? lol
All that shit is meaningless to me. I learned the term "feelgoodism" on this forum. Like I said, get off of twitter.
Why can't you see the fact that the second quote should not have any cultural legitimacy (or relevancy)? The reason why it shouldn't is because A.Egypt is ultimately an African civilization and Egyptology by default should technically be Afrocentric... The reason why it does is because videos like the one in the OP exists. This is the problem. Blatant incorrect information being championed and mainstream among the Afrocentric niche.
The main goal of studying A.Egypt or Africa in general should not be to combat white supremacy. The main goal of reading all these books, Articles, opinions, and writing all these articles, blogsposts and literal code is not to stick it to Eurocentrism. BUT right now modern day Eurocentrism IS the de-facto frame of reference for modern day Egyptology. And that's the fault of modern day Afrocentrism being conspicuously incorrect and slow to incorporate new findings.
Take the OP video for example. Everything that TKM was correct about is undercut by the fact that he or his writers doesn't understand the genetic make up of the Abusir mummies (including the fact that the pre-ptolemaic sample is the most widely referenced sample of the Fayoum mummies) and that his smoking gun was of a study over a decade old which doesn't even contradict the schuenemman et.al 2017 data due to sampling methods explained earlier in this thread. Antalas would have done a better job accurately defending an African A.Egypt. And he's been on the verge of getting banned for coming across as a "white supremacist" or "Negrophobe."
That's the problem.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: beyoku, I hope this doesn't turn into a name calling match with Narmer Menes at this point, it feels like it's entering non-productive name calling stage
but that aside I'm looking at the info above. How reliable is PopAffiliator, in your opinion, at least in terms of ancestry located to a particular continent ?
If Yuya was YDNA G2 and mtDNA K is it possible he was simultaneously of 97% SSA African ancestry?
Somebody might say "of course, it's two different types of DNA" but then somebody else might say "yes but there weren't enough STRs to says he was 97% SSA" Yet somebody else might say "yes, it's two types of DNA but I see this as just too far apart to be be likely, regardless, the PopAffilator result has to be inaccurate"
What is the best answer in your opinion, I find it confusing And Yuya was of unknown parentage and believed to not be of royal descent [/QB]
I'll break it down simply. STR's predict the likelihood of samples belonging to a reference population. In modern day forensics the reference populations are delineated by race for example. The results will say a person is whatever percent (n%) likely to be of a reference population available.
This is where we have the first warning. the method predicts with %n certainty that Yuya for example is African NOT that Yuya is 97% African.
Furthermore the A.Egyptians sampled were alive over 3,000 years ago and the reference populations are sampled in modern times.
This is the second warning. If any of the ancestry cohorts, highlighted by the reference populations, consolidated within the last 3000 years OR prior to 3000 years with the extinct ancestors of the target (A.Egyptians) it can influence the likelihoods.
So for example, lets pretend that A.Egyptians were purely EEF. making them 100% European (ghost population notwithstanding). If the EEF population were to permeate African within the last 4-5k years and consolidated prior to 3kya meanwhile the demographic history of Europe involved large movements absorbtion, replacement etc within the last 3kya, then the likihood of the A.Egyptians belonging to modern day Africans will go up and the likelihoods of them belonging to Europeans will go down.
Which brings us to the third warning. The three population cohorts used as references. Modern day European, SSA, or Asian. What if the A.Egyptians were neither? -There'll be a bias toward the most diverse cluster of individuals, -the previous warning, warning 2, will be exacerbated -The predictive framework could just break.
As Beyoku stated before it's easier to think of it as STR's change fast, SNP's change slow. STR's are extremely powerful at predicting association due to the very fact that it changes fast. But because we've caught a snapshot of individuals thousands of years old, its strength now becomes a liability.
--- Now I will pretend that Yuya is 90+% African and answer your other question. Yes it is very possible to be whatever haplogroup with whatever Autosomal composition. And it isn't two types of DNA, it's the same DNA with different sampling measures.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: beyoku, I hope this doesn't turn into a name calling match with Narmer Menes at this point, it feels like it's entering non-productive name calling stage
but that aside I'm looking at the info above. How reliable is PopAffiliator, in your opinion, at least in terms of ancestry located to a particular continent ?
If Yuya was YDNA G2 and mtDNA K is it possible he was simultaneously of 97% SSA African ancestry?
Somebody might say "of course, it's two different types of DNA" but then somebody else might say "yes but there weren't enough STRs to says he was 97% SSA" Yet somebody else might say "yes, it's two types of DNA but I see this as just too far apart to be be likely, regardless, the PopAffilator result has to be inaccurate"
What is the best answer in your opinion, I find it confusing And Yuya was of unknown parentage and believed to not be of royal descent
I'll break it down simply. STR's predict the likelihood of samples belonging to a reference population. In modern day forensics the reference populations are delineated by race for example. The results will say a person is whatever percent (n%) likely to be of a reference population available.
This is where we have the first warning. the method predicts with %n certainty that Yuya for example is African NOT that Yuya is 97% African.
Furthermore the A.Egyptians sampled were alive over 3,000 years ago and the reference populations are sampled in modern times.
This is the second warning. If any of the ancestry cohorts, highlighted by the reference populations, consolidated within the last 3000 years OR prior to 3000 years with the extinct ancestors of the target (A.Egyptians) it can influence the likelihoods.
So for example, lets pretend that A.Egyptians were purely EEF. making them 100% European (ghost population notwithstanding). If the EEF population were to permeate African within the last 4-5k years and consolidated prior to 3kya meanwhile the demographic history of Europe involved large movements absorbtion, replacement etc within the last 3kya, then the likihood of the A.Egyptians belonging to modern day Africans will go up and the likelihoods of them belonging to Europeans will go down.
Which brings us to the third warning. The three population cohorts used as references. Modern day European, SSA, or Asian. What if the A.Egyptians were neither? -There'll be a bias toward the most diverse cluster of individuals, -the previous warning, warning 2, will be exacerbated -The predictive framework could just break.
As Beyoku stated before it's easier to think of it as STR's change fast, SNP's change slow. STR's are extremely powerful at predicting association due to the very fact that it changes fast. But because we've caught a snapshot of individuals thousands of years old, its strength now becomes a liability.
--- Now I will pretend that Yuya is 90+% African and answer your other question. Yes it is very possible to be whatever haplogroup with whatever Autosomal composition. And it isn't two types of DNA, it's the same DNA with different sampling measures.
Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt: Further discussion (pre-print 2018) Jean-Philippe Gourdine S.O.Y Keita and Alain Anselin
The authors (Schuenemann et al, 2017) completely dismiss the results of PCR methods used on AE remains. As aHabicht et al.4states, PCR based methods were used successfully on mummified Egyptian cats and crocodiles without creating extensive debate. Results that are likelyreliable are from studies that analyzed short tandem repeats (STRs) from Amarna royalmummies5 (1,300 BC), and of Ramesses III (1,200 BC)6; Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage7. Our analysis of STRs from Amarna and Ramesside royal mummies with popAffiliator18 based on the same published data indicates a 41.7% to 93.9% probability of SSA affinities (see Table 1);most of the individuals had a greater probability of affiliation with “SSA” which is not the only way to be “African” a point worth repeating.
STR's predict the likelihood of samples belonging to a reference population. In modern day forensics the reference populations are delineated by race for example. The results will say a person is whatever percent (n%) likely to be of a reference population available....
yes, too simplistic, that is oriented toward criminal investigation in America, was he white , black or Asian
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
--- Now I will pretend that Yuya is 90+% African and answer your other question. Yes it is very possible to be whatever haplogroup with whatever Autosomal composition. And it isn't two types of DNA, it's the same DNA with different sampling measures.
But how probable for an individual Y G2 / mtDNA K?
Even in that Keita et al quote when advocating PCA, methods also adds, "Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage"
and this is before Yehia Gad published the haplogroups on these 18th dynasty Amarnas
G2 and K are not considered African lineage groups, so I wonder what Keta et al. would have said "G2a1 has an extremely low frequency in almost all populations except parts of the Caucasus Mountains." if they had written this article after those results were published and had known. It should also be noted none of the other Amarna males tested were G2 and while Yuya was father of Tiye he was not father of the other males tested King Ay may or may not be his son. "The mummy of Ay has not been located, although fragmentary skeletal remains recovered from his tomb may represent it"
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
STR's predict the likelihood of samples belonging to a reference population. In modern day forensics the reference populations are delineated by race for example. The results will say a person is whatever percent (n%) likely to be of a reference population available....
yes, too simplistic, that is oriented toward criminal investigation in America, was he white , black or Asian
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
--- Now I will pretend that Yuya is 90+% African and answer your other question. Yes it is very possible to be whatever haplogroup with whatever Autosomal composition. And it isn't two types of DNA, it's the same DNA with different sampling measures.
But how probable for an individual Y G2 / mtDNA K?
Even in that Keita et al quote when advocating PCA, methods also adds, "Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage"
and this is before Yehia Gad published the haplogroups on these 18th dynasty Amarnas
G2 and K are not considered African lineage groups, so I wonder what Keta et al. would have said "G2a1 has an extremely low frequency in almost all populations except parts of the Caucasus Mountains." if they had written this article after those results were published and had known. It should also be noted none of the other Amarna males tested were G2 and while Yuya was father of Tiye he was not father of the other males tested King Ay may or may not be his son. "The mummy of Ay has not been located, although fragmentary skeletal remains recovered from his tomb may represent it"
Keitas counter claim was in response to AE being less African, negligibly so according to schuenemann. pointing out an African lineage ascociated with SSA being persistant in that region among an elite does just that. It is not very probable to have both uniparentals be of European decent while your Autosomal results are 93% SSA for example, but it can happen and it happens.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@Elmaestro , do me a favor, I don't want people to get misinformed. I always get mixed up between Yuya and Thuya as per who is the male and the female. I've got it corrected now. You quoted me close to bottom of pg 5, my bad he's Yuya not Thuya, this is the fix, : https://images2.imgbox.com/9c/fd/jMXk65NT_o.png Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
2020 Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: I have a friend who is a geneticist and he said STR matching algorithms are the only method by which geneticists can ascertain ethnicity... are they incorrect? If so, I'd like to know because I've been guilty of promoting the same.
beyoku, I hope this doesn't turn into a name calling match with Narmer Menes at this point, it feels like it's entering non-productive name calling stage
but that aside I'm looking at the info above. How reliable is PopAffiliator, in your opinion, at least in terms of ancestry located to a particular continent ?
If Yuya was YDNA G2 and mtDNA K is it possible he was simultaneously of 97% SSA African ancestry?
Somebody might say "of course, it's two different types of DNA" but then somebody else might say "yes but there weren't enough STRs to says he was 97% SSA" Yet somebody else might say "yes, it's two types of DNA but I see this as just too far apart to be be likely, regardless, the PopAffilator result has to be inaccurate"
What is the best answer in your opinion, I find it confusing And Yuya was of unknown parentage and believed to not be of royal descent
The entire ancestry by genetics game is a shit show, and the fact that people are hanging on to what marker shows up and then making predictions about ethnicity is beyond psuedo science into a whole other realm of insanity. It reminds me of the blood letting doctors of old.
1) y dna and mtdna do not determine ancestry. They are nothing more than a party trick to sell dna testing kits. They serve no purpose beyond telling some poor shmuck in Ohio that he shares an ancestor with queen elizabeth. They are not parmissable in ANY kind of legal propensity and are not accurate. they tell you about a single common ancestor. The origin of that common ancestor cannot be determined until enough samples have been gathered, and can always be moved depending on a) where they are receiving samples (dna tests) from and b) where the oldest samples are found. So if they dont excavate certain areas, they avoid the possibility of finding older occurances and as a result having to reclassify subclades that have become associated with a certain population. It is known that 90% of dna testing is taking place in Europe which is causing a skew towards european origin of many haplogroups, not because they originate there, but because they have tested large %s of other populations that might be carriers.
2) the subclades that are selected as relevant are selected not because other mutations do not exist because they have greater relevance, but because they appear to communicate a narrative. They ignore a countless amount of commonly occuring mutations because they occur 'within populations' or some other crumby excuse. What you need to ask, is who is making these determinations about which groups are important and which should be ingored. Human interaction is so interpolated you can basically selected haplogroups that present coverage that communicate a tale that you want to tell about human migration, the possibilities are infinite.
3) they are restricted to such a tiny amount of human ancestry, its neglible to the point of it being useless. In 500 years, based on 4 generations per century, your y dna would make up 1/1,000,000th of your ancestry. Are you fathoming that? So it sounds ridiculous that you are even questioning the results of the autosomal dna versus the mtdna or ydna results... they are not at a measure of someones origin and have NO impact on your phenotype.
4) classifications of certain clades, being associated with geographic locations is stupid. Once again, this can only be done if century by century you have a global snapshot of genetic results for comparison. In reality, this data will never be available, so its just blind guesswork dictated by funding of interested parties. Its similar to covid testing, if you test more, you get more positive results, so if they want move the location of a certain group, they just have to keep digging in a certain area until they uncover a haplogroup that sells that tale. Similar to Krause' approach to testing the Fayumites in that study.
You need to stop wasting your time with this hog wash, I've already stated before that REAL geneticits do not give any credence to this anthropological hoodoo. It was supposed to fool the general public, not educated academicians. The problem is eurocentrists see the opportunity to use this to once again control the narrative and ignorant people are lapping it up.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
STR's predict the likelihood of samples belonging to a reference population. In modern day forensics the reference populations are delineated by race for example. The results will say a person is whatever percent (n%) likely to be of a reference population available....
yes, too simplistic, that is oriented toward criminal investigation in America, was he white , black or Asian
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
--- Now I will pretend that Yuya is 90+% African and answer your other question. Yes it is very possible to be whatever haplogroup with whatever Autosomal composition. And it isn't two types of DNA, it's the same DNA with different sampling measures.
But how probable for an individual Y G2 / mtDNA K?
Even in that Keita et al quote when advocating PCA, methods also adds, "Ramesses III had the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, an old African lineage"
and this is before Yehia Gad published the haplogroups on these 18th dynasty Amarnas
G2 and K are not considered African lineage groups, so I wonder what Keta et al. would have said "G2a1 has an extremely low frequency in almost all populations except parts of the Caucasus Mountains." if they had written this article after those results were published and had known. It should also be noted none of the other Amarna males tested were G2 and while Yuya was father of Tiye he was not father of the other males tested King Ay may or may not be his son. "The mummy of Ay has not been located, although fragmentary skeletal remains recovered from his tomb may represent it"
Autosomal STR profiling does not trace ancestry, the look for patterns in chromosome pairings that give people a sort of genetic signature. Related populations over time will start to form similar signatures, and unique loci placements become common. As such, it is possible to determine relatedness probability between individuals and groups of individuals using these patterns. It's a similar method to paternity testing. But the % is not how much, but rather a LIKELIHOOD of relation.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@Narmer Menes. Your example/analogy was debunked ether way you tried to put it: Demographic exclusivity or Ethnic exclusivity.
YOU played that game and failed.
The OP played that game and failed.
Don't come back here all of a sudden telling the formum we need to read more archeology to place genetic studies in Context. That was the whole premise of my critique. The entire pushback from the form is "Whites control everything so we should read anything". Basic work avoidance.
Go ahead and change the goal post again and give another example how the OP wasn't talking about African genentic exclusivity. Why even argue demographic exclusivity we Hyksos exist?
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Narmer Menes. Your example/analogy was debunked ether way you tried to put it: Demographic exclusivity or Ethnic exclusivity.
YOU played that game and failed.
The OP played that game and failed.
Don't come back here all of a sudden telling the formum we need to read more archeology to place genetic studies in Context. That was the whole premise of my critique. The entire pushback from the form is "Whites control everything so we should read anything". Basic work avoidance.
Go ahead and change the goal post again and give another example how the OP wasn't talking about African genentic exclusivity. Why even argue demographic exclusivity we Hyksos exist?
Beyoku. I've moved on from you.
I know your entire existence revolves around winning semantic battles on forums, but I actually dont care. I just gave you the victory. Well done. Chalk it up. Gloat. You are a seasoned lexical shifter who I'm sure has a promising future in scrabble tournaments.
I've actually got better and more constructive things to do. Bye.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QUOTE]
Take the OP video for example. Everything that TKM was correct about is undercut by the fact that he or his writers doesn't understand the genetic make up of the Abusir mummies (including the fact that the pre-ptolemaic sample is the most widely referenced sample of the Fayoum mummies) and that his smoking gun was of a study over a decade old which doesn't even contradict the schuenemman et.al 2017 data due to sampling methods explained earlier in this thread. Antalas would have done a better job accurately defending an African A.Egypt. And he's been on the verge of getting banned for coming across as a "white supremacist" or "Negrophobe."
That's the problem.
Or, maybe the problem is that you didn't watch the entire video. This quote has already been posted in this thread.
"The earliest evidence of occupation at the site dates from around 3000 B.C., with the majority of burials beginning 1,500 years later. The cemetery continued to be used for centuries, with the earlier shaft tombs being filled with later burials from the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. Thousands of individuals were buried at the site over hundreds of years of use."
The age of the mummies was determined by carbon dating of the tombs, not of the mummies, this is admitted in the report. But, the tombs were filled with later burials. So perhaps it's your comprehension that's the problem? Do you guys make a habit of hearing only the parts that suit your effort to undermine the works of others? This quote is literally taken from the video.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QUOTE]
Take the OP video for example. Everything that TKM was correct about is undercut by the fact that he or his writers doesn't understand the genetic make up of the Abusir mummies (including the fact that the pre-ptolemaic sample is the most widely referenced sample of the Fayoum mummies) and that his smoking gun was of a study over a decade old which doesn't even contradict the schuenemman et.al 2017 data due to sampling methods explained earlier in this thread. Antalas would have done a better job accurately defending an African A.Egypt. And he's been on the verge of getting banned for coming across as a "white supremacist" or "Negrophobe."
That's the problem.
Or, maybe the problem is that you didn't watch the entire video. This quote has already been posted in this thread.
"The earliest evidence of occupation at the site dates from around 3000 B.C., with the majority of burials beginning 1,500 years later. The cemetery continued to be used for centuries, with the earlier shaft tombs being filled with later burials from the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. Thousands of individuals were buried at the site over hundreds of years of use."
The age of the mummies was determined by carbon dating of the tombs, not of the mummies, this is admitted in the report. But, the tombs were filled with later burials. So perhaps it's your comprehension that's the problem? Do you guys make a habit of hearing only the parts that suit your effort to undermine the works of others? This quote is literally taken from the video.
Also pre ptolemaic is defined as new kingdom to late period, without any specification as to which either were. If the samples were likely Assyrians or Persians, I don't understand how any of this ruins the premise of the video. If it was New Kingdom, they would have just said. Saying pre-ptolemaic and then admitting there was no context to the mummies sampled is the most open admission that they were clearly not New Kingdom samples.
You dont have to discredit it because you didn't see it. It's quite obvious in hindsight.
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: And some of y'all have to lay off the manosphere, where ideas about "feelgoodism" is a term with origins in the right wing, white supremacist proud boy western civilization types. " feelgoodism" denotes weakness sometimes related to femininity and multiculturism. So what is being parroted here is the charge used against afrocentricism, that it is unscientific " feelgoodism" Which is blatantly FALSE.
You don't see Eurocentrics challenging their " kooks " they basically ignore the Hypoborean/blonde atlanteans/ aliens built the pyramid types. So, for the serious researchers, stick to the lanes that you are used too.
quote:S.O.Y. Keita, a biological anthropologist and research affilitate at the Smithsonian Institution who has been described as sympathetic to Afrocentrism,[47] but defined his position as that "it is not a question of “African” “influence”; Ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not “Afrocentric,” but simply correct
Versus
quote:As historian Ronald H. Fritze argued, mainstream Egyptologists and other scholars strongly object to Afrocentric Egyptology, viewing it as "theurapetic mythology" for black people, since it fails to provide sufficient evidence or persuasive interpretations to back up its claims.
What am I supposed to do with this? lol
All that shit is meaningless to me. I learned the term "feelgoodism" on this forum. Like I said, get off of twitter.
Why can't you see the fact that the second quote should not have any cultural legitimacy (or relevancy)? The reason why it shouldn't is because A.Egypt is ultimately an African civilization and Egyptology by default should technically be Afrocentric... The reason why it does is because videos like the one in the OP exists. This is the problem. Blatant incorrect information being championed and mainstream among the Afrocentric niche.
The main goal of studying A.Egypt or Africa in general should not be to combat white supremacy. The main goal of reading all these books, Articles, opinions, and writing all these articles, blogsposts and literal code is not to stick it to Eurocentrism. BUT right now modern day Eurocentrism IS the de-facto frame of reference for modern day Egyptology. And that's the fault of modern day Afrocentrism being conspicuously incorrect and slow to incorporate new findings.
Take the OP video for example. Everything that TKM was correct about is undercut by the fact that he or his writers doesn't understand the genetic make up of the Abusir mummies (including the fact that the pre-ptolemaic sample is the most widely referenced sample of the Fayoum mummies) and that his smoking gun was of a study over a decade old which doesn't even contradict the schuenemman et.al 2017 data due to sampling methods explained earlier in this thread. Antalas would have done a better job accurately defending an African A.Egypt. And he's been on the verge of getting banned for coming across as a "white supremacist" or "Negrophobe."
That's the problem.
Nature Comm Study _ Krause Abusir el-Meleq’s proximity to, and close ties with, the Fayum are significant in the context of this study as the Fayum in particular saw a substantial growth in its population during the first hundred years of Ptolemaic rule, presumably as a result of Greek immigration33,43. Later, in the Roman Period, many veterans of the Roman army—who, initially at least, were not Egyptian but people from disparate cultural backgrounds—settled in the Fayum area after the completion of their service, and formed social relations and intermarried with local populations44. Importantly, there is evidence for foreign influence at Abusir el-Meleq. Individuals with Greek, Latin and Hebrew names are known to have lived at the site and several coffins found at the cemetery used Greek portrait image and adapted Greek statue types to suit ‘Egyptian’ burial practices2,45. The site’s first excavator, Otto Rubensohn, also found a Greek grave inscription in stone as well as a writing board inscribed in Greek46. Taken together with the multitude of Greek papyri that were written at the site, this evidence strongly suggests that at least some inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq were literate in, and able to speak, Greek45. However, a general issue concerning the site is that several details of the context of the individuals analysed in this study were lost over time. All of the material was excavated by Rubensohn in the early twentieth century, whose main interest was to obtain literary papyri from cartonnage rather than to excavate human remains47. As is customary for the time, Rubensohn’s archaeological records are highly incomplete and many of the finds made by him were removed undocumented from their contexts.
Notwithstanding the sampling methods which is also a path that could have been taken, just explain why that is more valid than simply exposing the fact that they likelihood of these mummies being indigenous was quite clearly somewhere between unlikely and impossible? Seriously, I don't understand. Why would you waste your time. All of the information proving they were foreign (including the pre ptolemaic sample) are literally given to you. Do you not see that, or you just refuse to accept it because of the work you've done trying to reinterpret the dna results and discredit the sampling methods. I'm interested to know.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
The OP played that game and failed.
Is this referring to me or the video?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
Autosomal STR profiling does not trace ancestry, the look for patterns in chromosome pairings that give people a sort of genetic signature. Related populations over time will start to form similar signatures, and unique loci placements become common. As such, it is possible to determine relatedness probability between individuals and groups of individuals using these patterns. It's a similar method to paternity testing. But the % is not how much, but rather a LIKELIHOOD of relation.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: I have a friend who is a geneticist and he said STR matching algorithms are the only method by which geneticists can ascertain ethnicity... are they incorrect? If so, I'd like to know because I've been guilty of promoting the same.
I think you might want to refer to Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods (at Abusir El-Meleq
as "Schuenemann 2017" because most people do and in their press interviews and articles they use her name as lead author, although it is also true Krause was a co-author
that is a superficial point but when you mentioned Krause earlier I had to look up the article because I forgot he was coauthor
Anyway I hesitate to talk further about Schuenemann 2017 the Greeks, I didn't agree with her conclusions and we have many long threads about it
I wanted to focus on Keita et al's 2020 PopAffilaitor results, these kinds of results which you have been promoting, how do we assess that particular brand and how good it is at predicting ethnicity or not as well as if the number of STRs was sufficient
As El Maestro pointed out in the results Keita et al put in their article it breaks it all down to, SSA =- Sub Saharan African EA - Eurasian A - Asian
the old 3 main "races" paradigm similar to Black, White and Asian. It also peculiar to have this compound term "Eurasian" comprising all of Europe and Asia and then to have Asia separately also
I looked for more information about PopAffiliator I didn't find much, I think the pros use the programs STRUUCTURE and Admixture more frequently but I don't much about the differences
The Europeans geneticists like to publish all these PCA charts and Admixture program results but Gad et al of the Hawass team don't like to get into that and avoid talking about ethnicity of the AEs in articles where they are talking about genetics, kinship and disease of which they also mention the DNA
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I think at this point both sides are just talking over each other and letting ego get in the way of understanding.
Afrocentrists need to update their tactics, be more affiliated with DNA studies is the main argument of Beyoku/El Mestro. Which is a fair point.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I also included multiple comments with DATA/Analysis in this thread that have basically been ignore by everyone except Antalas.
This is a lie, I commented on the data you posted...at least at the best of my understanding...you just did'nt respond..or care..
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
My only propblem with Beyoku/Em Mestro side is yall pretending that the Eurocentrist has ever NOT controlled the narrative and that Afrocentrists(I don't consider myself Afrocentrists btw) learning the DNA lingo/science is no different than what Afrocentrists/Africanists did in the 80s/90s, learn the Dental Morphology, Ancient Descriptions game, and limb proportions etc. that was the old school eurocetrist game of True Negroism...
Yall acting like studying the DNA will lead to some sort of results outside of online debate bro piss contests and that the mainstream won't just come up with another tactic to further their True Negroism agenda....10 yes ago it was KaKazoid vs Negroid teeth,
Today its magical barrier SSA vs Every other scrap of land above their magical barrier DNA
Yall keep shouting out Antalas as the only person who can conversate with you on DNA to your liking.....When Antalas only argument against me when we debate is...."Why You ObSesS OvEr EgYpT...ThEy'Re NoT YoUr AnCeStOrS....".....The same dude who turns around and spams pictures of subjected Nubian captives first popularized and used on websites like Stormfront...
Same dude.
But now Im supposed take this new Euro gaslighting attempt serious..
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
Let's make things clear : a few months ago, I posted pictures of Nubian captives in order to challenge Jari's perspective. I aimed to demonstrate that the AEs often depicted Nubians as enemies, and therefore in degrading positions, similar to how they depicted many Asiatics and Libyans. Additionally, I wanted to show Jari that the way Nubians were portrayed by the Egyptians aligns with what he considers to be the fallacy of the "true negro". I didn't intend to humiliate anyone here with these posts, and as I mentioned, the Egyptians also depicted Libyans as captives.
Also It seems like some members here are using the term "eurocentrist" as a weak justification for dismissing any information that contradicts their beliefs. I have read numerous academic papers on this topic and have yet to come across a single European scholar who questions the key role that the natives played in the establishment of this state. Additionally, I have not seen any European scholars claim that the AEs were purely "KaKazoid" and closely related to Europeans whether explicitly or implicitly. For that you would have to go back to the early XXth century.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Silly Child I thought you learned what happens when you try to play your games with me...
Ive been doing this way longer than you, and you wont win...
Here is what you wrote....
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Indeed a "convention" as you say, that was set during the old kingdom therefore can't be representative of all egyptians. Moreover such conventions used a red type of skin tone similar to what many modern egyptians have not black like their nubian neighbours and let alone the traits who were typically caucasoid in contrast to the negroids from Nubia.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [qb] Let's make things clear : a few months ago, I posted pictures of Nubian captives in order to challenge Jari's perspective. I aimed to demonstrate that the AEs often depicted Nubians as enemies, and therefore in degrading positions, similar to how they depicted many Asiatics and Libyans. Additionally, I wanted to show Jari that the way Nubians were portrayed by the Egyptians aligns with what he considers to be the fallacy of the "true negro".
First off you were'nt even talking to me when you first posted those images, Lie #1, so how again were you trying to expose "MY" use of True Negro Ideology...lol
Show ONE Fucking example of me using a True Negro ideology, the same ideology I fought against folks like Mike111 and Melaninking for, One of the only members to stand up to them.
Ive been doing the exact sh@t Beyoku/ElMaestro are NOW sugggesting my whole existance on this site, telling Afrocentrists to grow the f-k up, fighting the Melanin, Albina, Bantu-Egypt pseudoscience, Europan-Cabal in Mainstream conspiracy theories...
So fuck off. Trying to paint me in your camp.
I already spun my web around you.
But I get it you now want to switch your image up(Gaslight) now that Beyoku/El Mestro complimenting you....
Keep trying.. Next
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Now that Im done speaking with dumbass f-king children, If anyone else has replies to me Ill answer...
Done wasting my time of lying ass f-king racists cowards, gaslighting their B/S on African/African history...
Beyoku gonna answer my replies to his data or continue to snub/ignore me....
anyone got anything else to say or are folks gonna continue to talk over each other?
Again, now Im supposed take this new Euro gaslighting attempt serious..
When Antalas the dude yall complimenting, He's the example of what we need to be..lol
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
None of what you posted contradict what I said. Specifically, I was discussing how the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves in comparison to the Nubians and emphasized the contrast between the two groups. I did not suggest that, based on anthropological data, the skulls of egyptians do not display any "SSA" or "equatorial" traits.
Additionally, I do not have the time or inclination to read through hundreds of pages of discussion, but I distinctly recall your previous positions regarding the fallacy of the "true negro." I did not claim that you supported this fallacy, but rather that you frequently implied that depictions of sub-Saharan Africans with certain physical characteristics were a product of the recent colonial era. However, my argument is that even in ancient Egypt, some SSAs were depicted with the typical negroid morphology.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Sigh
"you frequently implied that depictions of sub-Saharan Africans with certain physical characgeristics were a product of the recent colonial era"
Bruh, you sound stupid AF, WTF are you even talking about....
What SSA were depicted in f-king A. Egypt, when the Africans in their art were from the Nile F-king Valley, in North F-king Africa...
God Damn, How many f-king years do we have to go over this basic ass fact, about so called Nubian relations with A.Egyptians
How many years we gonna keep showing yall images that prove A. Egyptians also depicted themselves with True Negro traits..
But this the Sh@t that We, IM supposed to emulate....
Can't comprehend basic ass historical facts but can gaslight with DNA....
Got it...
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Weird how I easily found your posts though and caught you in a lie...
Should be easy, If I made posts supporting True Negro, post it.
The floor is all your, all eyes on you...
Prove you're not a lying f-king racist, who got insppiration of his images from Stormfront/March of the Titans...
Should be Easy
If you're not gaslighting...that is
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I do not have the time or inclination to read through hundreds of pages of discussion,
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
"you frequently implied that depictions of sub-Saharan Africans with certain physical characgeristics were a product of the recent colonial era"
Bruh, you sound stupid AF, WTF are you even talking about....
What SSA were depicted in f-king A. Egypt, when the Africans in their art were from the Nile F-king Valley, in North F-king Africa...
God Damn, How many f-king years do we have to go over this basic ass fact, about so called Nubian relations with A.Egyptians
How many years we gonna keep showing yall images that prove A. Egyptians also depicted themselves with True Negro traits..
But this the Sh@t that We, IM supposed to emulate....
Can't comprehend basic ass historical facts but can gaslight with DNA....
Got it...
Now he's nitpicking on the semantics. Yes, it's true that certain groups like the Dinkas are not considered part of SSA since the United Nations has classified Sudan as part of North Africa...lol Do I have to remind you that geographically a large part of the Nile Valley is in SSA ?
Since you're playing dumb let's be perfectly precise : They depicted some people who used to reside further south with characteristics that we generally associate with populations from that same area today.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Weird how I easily found your posts though and caught you in a lie...
Where is the lie ? There is a whole world between artistic conventions and forensic anthropology.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Should be easy, If I made posts supporting True Negro, post it.
I literally just wrote that you did not support it. Read carefully what I wrote.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Prove you're not a lying f-king racist, who got insppiration of his images from Stormfront/March of the Titans...
Why would a north african lurk on white supremacist boards ? wtf...
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
And Radio Silence...
Here's what Ive said and maintained...
That the A. Egyptians depicted themselves like
They've been in Africa for thousands of years...from the first stone monument build in Nabta Playa to when their nappy headed, blubbery lipped asses wrote the last Mdu Ntr on the Temple Walls of Km.t and still there to the present day
Ain't no DNA gonna overturn that...
Further its a North African people, the Dinka/South Sudanese, who are some of the blackest people on Earth, Darker and more Blubbery lipped, than the "SSA" used in that Dog Whistling titled DNA Abusier study, that were the token Devil used by modern Biodiversity scholars as the True Negro of A. Egypt...
There I did what no dog whistling, thousand dollar funded DNA study has done, I put that into the archeological/Historical facts of A.Egyptian history...
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Silly Child I thought you learned what happens when you try to play your games with me...
Ive been doing this way longer than you, and you wont win...
Here is what you wrote....
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Indeed a "convention" as you say, that was set during the old kingdom therefore can't be representative of all egyptians. Moreover such conventions used a red type of skin tone similar to what many modern egyptians have not black like their nubian neighbours and let alone the traits who were typically caucasoid in contrast to the negroids from Nubia.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [qb] Let's make things clear : a few months ago, I posted pictures of Nubian captives in order to challenge Jari's perspective. I aimed to demonstrate that the AEs often depicted Nubians as enemies, and therefore in degrading positions, similar to how they depicted many Asiatics and Libyans. Additionally, I wanted to show Jari that the way Nubians were portrayed by the Egyptians aligns with what he considers to be the fallacy of the "true negro".
First off you were'nt even talking to me when you first posted those images, Lie #1, so how again were you trying to expose "MY" use of True Negro Ideology...lol
Show ONE Fucking example of me using a True Negro ideology, the same ideology I fought against folks like Mike111 and Melaninking for, One of the only members to stand up to them.
Ive been doing the exact sh@t Beyoku/ElMaestro are NOW sugggesting my whole existance on this site, telling Afrocentrists to grow the f-k up, fighting the Melanin, Albina, Bantu-Egypt pseudoscience, Europan-Cabal in Mainstream conspiracy theories...
So fuck off. Trying to paint me in your camp.
I already spun my web around you.
But I get it you now want to switch your image up(Gaslight) now that Beyoku/El Mestro complimenting you....
Keep trying.. Next
Those pics that Nassbean posted as "Nubians" are actually Nilotics like Dinka, Nuer, and Shilluks, they look very similar to those modern groups. Every group south of Egypt are not "Nubians" by default.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
So we're back to 2006 picture wars?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
How could they have been in Nabta Playa if the latter are said to be physically distinct from the later dynastic egyptians ? How could they have been "nappy headed" if most samples have straight/wavy hair including many lower nubian remains ? Like I said you simply want to see yourself in those remains.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Here's the thing, Antalas, the people/Sutens who started those war campaigns were the 12th dynasty, who had links to Ta Sete, who also depicted themselves with stereotypical True Negro features, and paid hommage to NHSY gods.
You say I obesess over Ta Seti because they're more Negroid, when my fascination started with an old documentary on Youtube, where an Egyptologist, who was white if I remember correctly, so no an Afrocentrist, made the claim that Abu Simbel was made not to intimidate the NHSY, but to impress them, because Ramses, Nefertiti and her Daughters were depicted as "Nubians" wearing the Nubian Wig Hairstyles...etc.
Abu Simble was my fav. A. Egyptian temple so I researched and found the Uah-Ka connection from Al Takruri and introduction of Speo Architecture, which is what Abu Simbel basically is.
I did'nt even realize then how much power Ta-seti folks were weilding in Dynastic Egypt, and I use it because it flips every aspect of Non-African A. Egypt on its head.
Truth is I don't even need to use Ta-Seti folks, we have the Dakhla Oasis/Siwa we posted on this forum, we have the Upper Egyptians I posted in those videos a few months back.
Simple fact is trying to use one type of features vs. another in context of A. Egypt is sloppy, there's the default Red Brown, and outlier features from Light Beige to Dark Brown represented.
Here's the thing, I admitted you were right on the Spanish Moors/Mehgrebi Berber stuff, Hell Ill even say the Light Eyes and Skin evolved in Africa, as Keita alluded to years ago. He knows more than I do, and it does'nt bother me if Blue Eyed,Blond people evolved in Africa...
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: They depicted some people who used to reside further south with characteristics that we generally associate with populations from that same area today.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Im not at war with anyone, I clarified what I think the Average A. Egyptian looked like.
After being accused of supporting True Negroid ideology
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So we're back to 2006 picture wars?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Me being tongue in cheek now equals me wanting to see myself in A. Egyptians...lol
Ok, who were the last to write Mdu Ntr, on the Temple Walls of Kmt, Abu Sier, Modern Arabian/Levantine Natufians or NHSY who you claim were depicted as darker and more negroid than A. Egyptians...
.....
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: How could they have been in Nabta Playa if the latter are said to be physically distinct from the later dynastic egyptians ? How could they have been "nappy headed" if most samples have straight/wavy hair including many lower nubian remains ? Like I said you simply want to see yourself in those remains.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Here's the thing, Antalas, the people/Sutens who started those war campaigns were the 12th dynasty, who had links to Ta Sete, who also depicted themselves with stereotypical True Negro features, and paid hommage to NHSY gods.
You say I obesess over Ta Seti because they're more Negroid, when my fascination started with an old documentary on Youtube, where an Egyptologist, who was white if I remember correctly, so no an Afrocentrist, made the claim that Abu Simbel was made not to intimidate the NHSY, but to impress them, because Ramses, Nefertiti and her Daughters were depicted as "Nubians" wearing the Nubian Wig Hairstyles...etc.
Abu Simble was my fav. A. Egyptian temple so I researched and found the Uah-Ka connection from Al Takruri and introduction of Speo Architecture, which is what Abu Simbel basically is.
I did'nt even realize then how much power Ta-seti folks were weilding in Dynastic Egypt, and I use it because it flips every aspect of Non-African A. Egypt on its head.
Truth is I don't even need to use Ta-Seti folks, we have the Dakhla Oasis/Siwa we posted on this forum, we have the Upper Egyptians I posted in those videos a few months back.
Simple fact is trying to use one type of features vs. another in context of A. Egypt is sloppy, there's the default Red Brown, and outlier features from Light Beige to Dark Brown represented.
Here's the thing, I admitted you were right on the Spanish Moors/Mehgrebi Berber stuff, Hell Ill even say the Light Eyes and Skin evolved in Africa, as Keita alluded to years ago. He knows more than I do, and it does'nt bother me if Blue Eyed,Blond people evolved in Africa...
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: They depicted some people who used to reside further south with characteristics that we generally associate with populations from that same area today.
Ta-Seti is the key that unlocks many doors...
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: who also depicted themselves with stereotypical True Negro features.
any example ?
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You say I obesess over Ta Seti because they're more Negroid, when my fascination started with an old documentary on Youtube, where an Egyptologist, who was white if I remember correctly, so no an Afrocentrist, made the claim that Abu Simbel was made not to intimidate the NHSY, but to impress them, because Ramses, Nefertiti and her Daughters were depicted as "Nubians" wearing the Nubian Wig Hairstyles...etc.
Abu Simble was my fav. A. Egyptian temple so I researched and found the Uah-Ka connection from Al Takruri and introduction of Speo Architecture, which is what Abu Simbel basically is.
I did'nt even realize then how much power Ta-seti folks were weilding in Dynastic Egypt, and I use it because it flips every aspect of Non-African A. Egypt on its head.
I must admit I still have a lot to read on these relations. However, I fail to comprehend why you take pride in them. No people in this area were physically/genetically similar to afro-americans/west africans and as surprising as it may sounds, they would have been more similar to myself, a light-skinned Berber, than to you so that would be comparable to an indian or chinese obsessing over the influence that the Near East had on Egypt...
Look how far most SSAs plot from lower nubians, ethiopians (tigray), upper egyptians, maghrebis, etc (from Irish 2010) :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Here's the thing, I admitted you were right on the Spanish Moors/Mehgrebi Berber stuff, Hell Ill even say the Light Eyes and Skin evolved in Africa, as Keita alluded to years ago. He knows more than I do, and it does'nt bother me if Blue Eyed,Blond people evolved in Africa...
I honestly think you did that because you don't care much about this part of Africa, it's less prestigious and you probably quickly realized that there is much less chance to find a "black" past there than Egypt/Nubia.
I'm simply asking you to stick to datas whether about maghrebis or egyptians/nubians. That's why Beyoku said you guys are not ready for the rude awakenings.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Me being tongue in cheek now equals me wanting to see myself in A. Egyptians...lol
Ok, who were the last to write Mdu Ntr, on the Temple Walls of Kmt, Abu Sier, Modern Arabian/Levantine Natufians or NHSY who you claim were depicted as darker and more negroid than A. Egyptians...
What evidence do you have that the egyptians at Philae would have been "nappy headed" and "blubbery lipped" ?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Well well well.....Cultural connections and artistic depictions VS metric and Non Metric skeletal and Dental data. Im grabbing me a seat to see how this turns out.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: who also depicted themselves with stereotypical True Negro features.
any example ?
I’m not at my home computer rn but you can google 12th dynasty Egypsearch, they were called the Galla type by Egyptologists.
quote:honestly think you did that because you don't care much about this part of Africa, it's less prestigious and you probably quickly realized that there is much less chance to find a "black" past there than Egypt/Nubia.
I really don’t care what you think I have nothing to prove to you. You are not important to me nor do I consider you to be academically legitimate or intellectually sound in any aspect outside of Megrebi history and population genetics. You will never dictate anything to me.
quote:I'm simply asking you to stick to datas whether about maghrebis or egyptians/nubians. That's why Beyoku said you guys are not ready for the rude awakenings.
What Data’s?
Since Beyoku refuses to man up and address me, explain what data? The data posted says not only were these people in Africa thousands of years but they could have evolved in Africa and lacked Eurasian affiliation.
Are you going to explain what’s the problem or ignore me like beyoku?
Explain how I’m getting a rude awakening?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Lol I was being tongue in cheek Nassa, but ok they weren’t nappy headed thick lipped.
Now I admitted I was wrong and answered you…
You gonna answer me and man the f-k up, who wrote the last Mdu Ntr?
Btw what god was being praised and worshiped in that inscription? Was it a god introduced by the 25th dynasty Merotes and what did the Meroites look like in the context of your BS explanation about NHSY further south looking more negroid…
You gonna man up and answer, or evade?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Me being tongue in cheek now equals me wanting to see myself in A. Egyptians...lol
Ok, who were the last to write Mdu Ntr, on the Temple Walls of Kmt, Abu Sier, Modern Arabian/Levantine Natufians or NHSY who you claim were depicted as darker and more negroid than A. Egyptians...
What evidence do you have that the egyptians at Philae would have been "nappy headed" and "blubbery lipped" ?
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: who also depicted themselves with stereotypical True Negro features.
any example ?
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You say I obesess over Ta Seti because they're more Negroid, when my fascination started with an old documentary on Youtube, where an Egyptologist, who was white if I remember correctly, so no an Afrocentrist, made the claim that Abu Simbel was made not to intimidate the NHSY, but to impress them, because Ramses, Nefertiti and her Daughters were depicted as "Nubians" wearing the Nubian Wig Hairstyles...etc.
Abu Simble was my fav. A. Egyptian temple so I researched and found the Uah-Ka connection from Al Takruri and introduction of Speo Architecture, which is what Abu Simbel basically is.
I did'nt even realize then how much power Ta-seti folks were weilding in Dynastic Egypt, and I use it because it flips every aspect of Non-African A. Egypt on its head.
I must admit I still have a lot to read on these relations. However, I fail to comprehend why you take pride in them. No people in this area were physically/genetically similar to afro-americans/west africans and as surprising as it may sounds, they would have been more similar to myself, a light-skinned Berber, than to you so that would be comparable to an indian or chinese obsessing over the influence that the Near East had on Egypt...
Look how far most SSAs plot from lower nubians, ethiopians (tigray), upper egyptians, maghrebis, etc (from Irish 2010) :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Here's the thing, I admitted you were right on the Spanish Moors/Mehgrebi Berber stuff, Hell Ill even say the Light Eyes and Skin evolved in Africa, as Keita alluded to years ago. He knows more than I do, and it does'nt bother me if Blue Eyed,Blond people evolved in Africa...
I honestly think you did that because you don't care much about this part of Africa, it's less prestigious and you probably quickly realized that there is much less chance to find a "black" past there than Egypt/Nubia.
I'm simply asking you to stick to datas whether about maghrebis or egyptians/nubians. That's why Beyoku said you guys are not ready for the rude awakenings.
Just out of curiosity, can you tell me which of the thousands of 'sub saharan' ethnic groups were selected for your SSA classification. Also, whilst you're at it, can you explain how Ethiopians were miraculously not included in as sub Saharans?
Just so I understand how these metrics are being calculated...
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Since Beyoku refuses to man up and address me, explain what data? The data posted says not only were these people in Africa thousands of years but they could have evolved in Africa and lacked Eurasian affiliation.
Are you going to explain what’s the problem or ignore me like beyoku?
Explain how I’m getting a rude awakening?
What data ? Lacked eurasian affiliation ?
What about this ? :
quote:Figure 4a shows that Sudan_Kadruka1_4000BP shares the highest genetic affinity with ancient Levantine groups, ancient northern and Eastern Africans and modern Africans from northern Sahara and the Horn of Africa. [...] Nevertheless, we see from f3-statistics that this individual, from a rural agro-pastoral population linked with the Kerma culture of Upper Nubia16, shares close genetic afnity with Levantine groups. Moreover, we could show that this individual is genetically indistinguishable from early Pastoral Neolithic individuals dated to 4000BP living over 2500 km away in Kenya and Tanzania
Ke Wang et al., 4000‑year‑old hair from the Middle Nile highlights unusual ancient DNA degradation pattern and a potential source of early eastern Africa pastoralists, 2022
Btw that's his hair type :
Very nappy indeed...
Now What about this ? :
quote: The Kulubnarti individuals approximately overlap present day Sudanese Arabs, Beja, and Nubians, as well as Semitic and Cushitic-speaking Ethiopians. This suggests that the ancient Kulubnarti individuals have both West Eurasian-related ancestry and ancestry related to Nilo-Saharan-speakers [...] The Kulubnarti Nubians on average are shifted slightly toward present-day West Eurasians relative to present-day Nubians, who are estimated to have ~40% West Eurasian-related ancestry 20,53.
Sirak et al., Social stratification without genetic differentiation at the site of Kulubnarti in Christian period Nubia, 2021 (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27356-8)
or this ? :
quote: We retrieved whole mitogenomes (MT) for six individuals: two with African ancestry and four with Eurasian ancestry.The ancient Nubians showed most genetic affinity with modern East Africans, Middle Easterners, and Egyptians. These results indicate that Nubians had a strong African component with evidence of gene flow from Eurasia dating back to at least Meroitic through Christian times.
New perspective on nubian ancestry:paleogenomic investigation of the ancient middle nile region, 2020
No eurasian affiliation you said ? :
quote:[...] a recent preliminary study of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic human remains (Crèvecoeur 2012) describes strong and signifcant diferences (anatomical discontinuity) between the two populations from el-Barga (in the Kerma area). The Mesolithic group is more similar in terms of body size and robustness to the groups at Jebel Sahaba, Taforalt and Wadi Halfa (Crèvecoeur 2012, p. 28). Moreover, the genetic or anatomic discontinuity between the late Pleistocene population of Jebel Sahaba and that of the Gebel Ramlah Final Neolithic (following the Wendorf terminology) implies that ‘replacement or genetic swamping of an existing gene pool by an outside group, or groups, occurred after the Pleistocene’ (Irish 2005, p. 520). If this suggestion is correct, we anticipate that this discontinuity occurred near the end of the 7th millennium cal BC and that it is linked to the arrival of small agro-pastoral groups from the Levant (Bar-Yosef 2013, p. 244), apparently in connection with the so-called 8200 BP climate crisis, as suggested on genetic grounds (Smith, A.C. 2013).
Salvatori et al., The neolithic and "pastoralism" along the Nile : a dissenting view, 2019
You want more ?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@-Just Call Me Jari- We Good. When you go back and read the thread you will noticed there were a few individuals that were particularly butthurt about my chastisement of Black Egypt and this new wave of Afrocentricity.
You wasn't one of them. You get it. MY Beef is with the: -"AE Was 100% African" camp. -The "Modern Egyptians are Arabs and have nothing to do with Ancient Egyptians" ethnocentric nonsense. -The arguing AE contained specific hair types that are not found in Fossil Data. -The taking of AE skeletons which SEEM to have very specific localised adaptations to the Arid Eastern Sahara and creating AI reconstructions which look like West Africans adapted to the forest belt. -Light skin didnt show up in North African until roman times. -Let me attack you but ignore and not contest what you say about the data. -We should ignore "white" researchers. -Egyptology = Eurocentrism.
All this type of assorted madness. Put forth by people who couldn't produce a source if their life depended on it. Lets go back to my criticism :
quote: See what Djehuti wrote. We are using outdated models that are not grounded in human variation and adaptation in an attempt to compete with Eurocentrism on its own pseudo-scientific level. This is done in absence of archeology. Worst of all is a regurgitation of antiquated and pre-genomic arguments. We are not even building upon the data of our master teachers. Right now on Youtube, People are creating videos with fancy editing....parroting things from Diop and Obenga years 50 years ago.... combining it with things we said on Egyptsearch 20 years ago....to argue against genome wide data sequenced from mummies last year. This is why we are left flat footed IMO. Leading to the erasure of entire swathes of African specific genomic and phenotypic diversity which is masked by de-pigmentation. [Roll Eyes]
At this rate...knowing what is coming down the pipe:
quote: ANALYSIS : In the past 10-15 years traditional ideas regarding "physical race" SHOULD HAVE dissolved due to the realities of genomic research, particularly ancient Genomic research.
Dr. Keita cannot get enough credit for being FAR ahead of the curve regarding the "persistence of racial thinking" and instead went with a model that revolves around ideas if micro-adaptation as an evolutionary process in the human species due to external factors of environment/climate/diet/etc. In this model Physical "Race" has no genetic indicators as far as ancestry. This has been demonstrated time and time again, specifically with ancient fossils who's Genomic affinity precede the physical affinities found among the descendants (Phenotypic discontinuity combined with genetic continuity in West Asians, South Asians, South East Asians, East Asians, Europeans, Amerindians)
In the genetic space there has been considerable work uncovering the specifics of Continental African substructure which phases out simplistic ideas of "Sub Saharan African Blacks" being a monolith. There is also considerable data we should ALL be familiar with regarding the multiple wet phases of the Sahara that provide opportunities for geneflow between regions.
IMO and from my observations. The latest generation of "Black Egypt" proponents have regressed. They are discarding everything we have known and learned over the past 15 years and reverting back to ideas of discrete races to the advantage of Eurocentrist that used these tools to obfuscate identities in the first place. There is certain language we should be using. There are certain arguments we should be making based on NEW data and science. WE shouldn't be reverting back to ideas genetic "Purity" that border on pseudo science. Where is the balance? Who is going to clean up their mess?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Just out of curiosity, can you tell me which of the thousands of 'sub saharan' ethnic groups were selected for your SSA classification. Also, whilst you're at it, can you explain how Ethiopians were miraculously not included in as sub Saharans?
Just so I understand how these metrics are being calculated... [/QB]
It says 463 skulls from "West, Central and East Africa" (19th/20th century) and the ethiopian sample was not labeled as SSA simply because it's morphologically too different.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QUOTE]
Take the OP video for example. Everything that TKM was correct about is undercut by the fact that he or his writers doesn't understand the genetic make up of the Abusir mummies (including the fact that the pre-ptolemaic sample is the most widely referenced sample of the Fayoum mummies) and that his smoking gun was of a study over a decade old which doesn't even contradict the schuenemman et.al 2017 data due to sampling methods explained earlier in this thread. Antalas would have done a better job accurately defending an African A.Egypt. And he's been on the verge of getting banned for coming across as a "white supremacist" or "Negrophobe."
That's the problem.
Or, maybe the problem is that you didn't watch the entire video. This quote has already been posted in this thread.
"The earliest evidence of occupation at the site dates from around 3000 B.C., with the majority of burials beginning 1,500 years later. The cemetery continued to be used for centuries, with the earlier shaft tombs being filled with later burials from the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. Thousands of individuals were buried at the site over hundreds of years of use."
The age of the mummies was determined by carbon dating of the tombs, not of the mummies, this is admitted in the report. But, the tombs were filled with later burials. So perhaps it's your comprehension that's the problem? Do you guys make a habit of hearing only the parts that suit your effort to undermine the works of others? This quote is literally taken from the video.
Also pre ptolemaic is defined as new kingdom to late period, without any specification as to which either were. If the samples were likely Assyrians or Persians, I don't understand how any of this ruins the premise of the video. If it was New Kingdom, they would have just said. Saying pre-ptolemaic and then admitting there was no context to the mummies sampled is the most open admission that they were clearly not New Kingdom samples.
You dont have to discredit it because you didn't see it. It's quite obvious in hindsight.
I'll address both of your comments here:
The age of the mummies was observed from the samples in which they sought to extract Mitochondrial DNA. No where in the paper do they admit to carbon dating the tombs. In that case the premise of the video which was to assert the high likelihood that all of the Abusir mummies represent Greek/Ptolemaic settlement is wrong. Furthermore, of the three samples in which we got Nuclear DNA, there's heavy continuity. So if one is Pre-ptolomaic and the others are highly likely greek, then we have to answer to why the possible persian/assyrian etc are almost genetically Identical to the greek settlers. To add more, when you extrapolate the genomes of three and compare them to modern and ancient samples, they're consistently closest to Near eastern groups than to Europeans/greeks. The premise of the video asserting that they represent three Ancient greek samples just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
...but let's pretend it did. or as if he never asserted that in the first place.
Do none of the samples have any Kemetian admixture at all? And if they did, what does it look like? 3 samples possibly spanding over 1,000 years and not one drop of Local admixture? The challenge I propose is finding any evidence to suggest these samples in question had absolutely no A.Egyptian ancestry or if they did how would that reconcile with the findings of Schuenamann et al 2017?
The problem is laziness. I read the study, I did work with the genomes, I scowered supporting and complementary archeological info... I have a sound conclusion of who theses mummies were. The person in the video or his team clearly did not. The fact that you're cosigning it let's me know, You clearly didn't either.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
So you're not gonna man up and answer my questions got it...
Kinda sheds light onto how much you actually know about A.Egyptian historical/archeological evidence outside of one trick pony DNA ofuscation and semantics...
got it.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Explain how I’m getting a rude awakening?
What data ? Lacked eurasian affiliation ?
Are you reading Beyoku's data he posted or are you being deliberately dense...?
quote:What about this ? :
quote:Figure 4a shows that Sudan_Kadruka1_4000BP shares the highest genetic affinity with ancient Levantine groups, ancient northern and Eastern Africans and modern Africans from northern Sahara and the Horn of Africa. [...] Nevertheless, we see from f3-statistics that this individual, from a rural agro-pastoral population linked with the Kerma culture of Upper Nubia16, shares close genetic afnity with Levantine groups. Moreover, we could show that this individual is genetically indistinguishable from early Pastoral Neolithic individuals dated to 4000BP living over 2500 km away in Kenya and Tanzania
Are you serious? Is this really some sort of gotcha or trump care for you...
You do know who the Kermans were, what they looked like...
You do know what Kenyans and Tanzanians look like, BTW, I have ancestry from Kenyans and Tanzanians...So now can I be bestowed the retarded Biodiversity privliage of studying and being interested in Ancient Egypt/Nile Valley History...now that I officially have ancestry to the region...
Now yall saying Euoasians created Kerman culture...LMFAO...SMDH...and that the "Euroasians" were in Kenya and Tanzania..
Ok...So what?
Again prepare for what?
Is this really the brain dead BS you're going with...
quote:Btw that's his hair type :
Very nappy indeed...
Lol this dumbass does'nt get tongue in cheek...
quote:Now What about this ? :
quote: The Kulubnarti individuals approximately overlap present day Sudanese Arabs, Beja, and Nubians, as well as Semitic and Cushitic-speaking Ethiopians. This suggests that the ancient Kulubnarti individuals have both West Eurasian-related ancestry and ancestry related to Nilo-Saharan-speakers [...] The Kulubnarti Nubians on average are shifted slightly toward present-day West Eurasians relative to present-day Nubians, who are estimated to have ~40% West Eurasian-related ancestry 20,53.
Sirak et al., Social stratification without genetic differentiation at the site of Kulubnarti in Christian period Nubia, 2021 (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27356-8)
or this ? :
quote: We retrieved whole mitogenomes (MT) for six individuals: two with African ancestry and four with Eurasian ancestry.The ancient Nubians showed most genetic affinity with modern East Africans, Middle Easterners, and Egyptians. These results indicate that Nubians had a strong African component with evidence of gene flow from Eurasia dating back to at least Meroitic through Christian times.
New perspective on nubian ancestry:paleogenomic investigation of the ancient middle nile region, 2020
GASP....OMG, AFRICANS INTERACTED WITH OTHER PEOPLE....
OH NOES...WHAT AM I GONNA DO....
GASP ...AFRICANS WERE'NT SO STUPID TO INTERACT WITH OTHERS LIKE EVERY f-kING PEOPLE ON EARTH...
quote:No eurasian affiliation you said ?
I did'nt say sh@t, Beyoku's data did, or are you too stupid to read and comprehend English?
quote:[...] a recent preliminary study of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic human remains (Crèvecoeur 2012) describes strong and signifcant diferences (anatomical discontinuity) between the two populations from el-Barga (in the Kerma area). The Mesolithic group is more similar in terms of body size and robustness to the groups at Jebel Sahaba, Taforalt and Wadi Halfa (Crèvecoeur 2012, p. 28). Moreover, the genetic or anatomic discontinuity between the late Pleistocene population of Jebel Sahaba and that of the Gebel Ramlah Final Neolithic (following the Wendorf terminology) implies that ‘replacement or genetic swamping of an existing gene pool by an outside group, or groups, occurred after the Pleistocene’ (Irish 2005, p. 520). If this suggestion is correct, we anticipate that this discontinuity occurred near the end of the 7th millennium cal BC and that it is linked to the arrival of small agro-pastoral groups from the Levant (Bar-Yosef 2013, p. 244), apparently in connection with the so-called 8200 BP climate crisis, as suggested on genetic grounds (Smith, A.C. 2013).
Salvatori et al., The neolithic and "pastoralism" along the Nile : a dissenting view, 2019
You want more ? [/QB]
Your own data is saying these people are no different than other Africans in the region.
What did these Eurasians do that had any significant impact on the development of African cultures in the regions you mention?
Eurasians came and became incorporated in the region...
So What?
Are you even familiar with the material culture of the region? Its development?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: My only propblem with Beyoku/Em Mestro side is yall pretending that the Eurocentrist has ever NOT controlled the narrative and that Afrocentrists(I don't consider myself Afrocentrists btw) learning the DNA lingo/science is no different than what Afrocentrists/Africanists did in the 80s/90s, learn the Dental Morphology, Ancient Descriptions game, and limb proportions etc. that was the old school eurocetrist game of True Negroism...
There's a difference between studying dna and not ignoring new findings to the inclusion of gwas studies. I'm pushing for people to do the latter. I'm not suggesting everyone get good with DNA that's a false narrative. Lastly contemporary genetic research should not blatantly contradict established archeological or any multidisciplinary facts set beforehand. There's a reason why the paper suggesting almost all Africans have Caucasian admixture is stuck in preprint for 5 years. And there are multiple minor oversights, inconsistencies, and bias in aDNA research that is hard to pin point for the average reader of these studies. I would not expect everyone to just get it or become professional critics. However, don't ignore the new research that goes against whatever narrative. And that's not just with DNA studies, I'm also referring to other biological studies involving morphological studies as well. They all give context to each other.
quote: Yall acting like studying the DNA will lead to some sort of results outside of online debate bro piss contests and that the mainstream won't just come up with another tactic to further their True Negroism agenda....10 yes ago it was KaKazoid vs Negroid teeth,
Studying DNA does lead to a lot of results outside of debates online. I don't debate much online anymore... in-fact the more I learn the less I debate.
quote: Today its magical barrier SSA vs Every other scrap of land above their magical barrier DNA
This is correct and what are you gonna do about it? If me and you know that dichotomy is false but some modern research is being presented in ways that perpetuate this narrative how we gon' combat it? It might be just me but... I don't think by ignoring it....
quote: Yall keep shouting out Antalas as the only person who can conversate with you on DNA to your liking.....When Antalas only argument against me when we debate is...."Why You ObSesS OvEr EgYpT...ThEy'Re NoT YoUr AnCeStOrS....".....The same dude who turns around and spams pictures of subjected Nubian captives first popularized and used on websites like Stormfront...
Same dude.
But now Im supposed take this new Euro gaslighting attempt serious.. [/qb]
I would call this Emotionalism but I'm not sure if you're a male or a female. And I don't wanna be accused of sexism... again.
nonetheless... Who cares if this is the same dude who only posts to hurt black peoples feelings. So what? He's better equipped to defend an Afrocentric narrative than homie in the video. That's just what it is. And I'll point it out every time I'm prompted to do so.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:There's a difference between studying dna and not ignoring new findings to the inclusion of gwas studies. I'm pushing for people to do the latter. I'm not suggesting everyone get good with DNA that's a false narrative. Lastly contemporary genetic research should not blatantly contradict established archeological or any multidisciplinary facts set beforehand. There's a reason why the paper suggesting almost all Africans have Caucasian admixture is stuck in preprint for 5 years. And there are multiple minor oversights, inconsistencies, and bias in aDNA research that is hard to pin point for the average reader of these studies. I would not expect everyone to just get it or become professional critics. However, don't ignore the new research that goes against whatever narrative. And that's not just with DNA studies, I'm also referring to other biological studies involving morphological studies as well. They all give context to each other.
Like I said I get where you and Beyoku are coming from, and I agree with you. I don't "Ignore" the DNA stuff, I just not familiar with it as you are. What I advocate is that DNA studies should be taken into context of other fields of study...
For example with A. Egypt, you have archeology/history.
The Abu Seir study comes out and the literal internet melts down. Yet anyone with a strong grounding in A. Egyptian history know this Abu Sier stuff is just more distraction and has nothing to do with the material/cultural orgins of A. Egyptian history. Plus we know Asiatics/Eurasuans were in A. Egypt from early periods. etc.
quote:This is correct and what are you gonna do about it? If me and you know that dichotomy is false but some modern research is being presented in ways that perpetuate this narrative how we gon' combat it? It might be just me but... I don't think by ignoring it....
Me personally, I actively mock it and point out how stupid a concept it is, not just here but on other forums like Historum. Like you I don't debate much any more.
I always wanted to make history videos, though I doubt Ill debate there, Id rather focus on stuff like Ta Seti, Tilchitt Walata, The Cane River Creoles etc..
That is to say, Not much, like I said before the Eurocentric controls the narriative, "SSA" is used not only by non Africans, lay people, but even African people alike.
People all over the world use their descriptors, ideologies etc. Lioness made a good example with the North Africa thread...but people African/Non African alike use "North African Looking Vs SSA Mixed" ideology, and that just as small example...
am I being defeatest IDK, I feel like its more realism.
If you have a better idea, Im all ears.
quote:I would call this Emotionalism but I'm not sure if you're a male or a female. And I don't wanna be accused of sexism... again.
nonetheless... Who cares if this is the same dude who only posts to hurt black peoples feelings. So what? He's better equipped to defend an Afrocentric narrative than homie in the video. That's just what it is. And I'll point it out every time I'm prompted to do so.
Its not really emotionalism, given I don't really care too much to be emotional about it. Personally, Im pretty confident in my understanding of Ancient Egyptian history to be bothered much.
Hell Ill even admit Antalas is very knowledgable about DNA, esp. the Mehgrebi DNA history.
I mean he ain't hurting my feelings, like demanding I be genetically related to the people I find interest is =the dumbest sh#t Ive ever heard of...but I get your point..
My point without the emotion is, how are we going to put the DNA stuff within the context of A. History...
Dude in the video is indeed sloppy. out of his league.
Ive seen a short where he claimed NHSY were mislabeled and were really Lybians because they had feathers in their head gear like other Lybians...
Mike111 level slop...smh
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I got you, I see what you are trying to say. Im just trying to learn as I go...
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @-Just Call Me Jari- We Good. When you go back and read the thread you will noticed there were a few individuals that were particularly butthurt about my chastisement of Black Egypt and this new wave of Afrocentricity.
You wasn't one of them. You get it. MY Beef is with the: -"AE Was 100% African" camp. -The "Modern Egyptians are Arabs and have nothing to do with Ancient Egyptians" ethnocentric nonsense. -The arguing AE contained specific hair types that are not found in Fossil Data. -The taking of AE skeletons which SEEM to have very specific localised adaptations to the Arid Eastern Sahara and creating AI reconstructions which look like West Africans adapted to the forest belt. -Light skin didnt show up in North African until roman times. -Let me attack you but ignore and not contest what you say about the data. -We should ignore "white" researchers. -Egyptology = Eurocentrism.
All this type of assorted madness. Put forth by people who couldn't produce a source if their life depended on it. Lets go back to my criticism :
quote: See what Djehuti wrote. We are using outdated models that are not grounded in human variation and adaptation in an attempt to compete with Eurocentrism on its own pseudo-scientific level. This is done in absence of archeology. Worst of all is a regurgitation of antiquated and pre-genomic arguments. We are not even building upon the data of our master teachers. Right now on Youtube, People are creating videos with fancy editing....parroting things from Diop and Obenga years 50 years ago.... combining it with things we said on Egyptsearch 20 years ago....to argue against genome wide data sequenced from mummies last year. This is why we are left flat footed IMO. Leading to the erasure of entire swathes of African specific genomic and phenotypic diversity which is masked by de-pigmentation. [Roll Eyes]
At this rate...knowing what is coming down the pipe:
quote: ANALYSIS : In the past 10-15 years traditional ideas regarding "physical race" SHOULD HAVE dissolved due to the realities of genomic research, particularly ancient Genomic research.
Dr. Keita cannot get enough credit for being FAR ahead of the curve regarding the "persistence of racial thinking" and instead went with a model that revolves around ideas if micro-adaptation as an evolutionary process in the human species due to external factors of environment/climate/diet/etc. In this model Physical "Race" has no genetic indicators as far as ancestry. This has been demonstrated time and time again, specifically with ancient fossils who's Genomic affinity precede the physical affinities found among the descendants (Phenotypic discontinuity combined with genetic continuity in West Asians, South Asians, South East Asians, East Asians, Europeans, Amerindians)
In the genetic space there has been considerable work uncovering the specifics of Continental African substructure which phases out simplistic ideas of "Sub Saharan African Blacks" being a monolith. There is also considerable data we should ALL be familiar with regarding the multiple wet phases of the Sahara that provide opportunities for geneflow between regions.
IMO and from my observations. The latest generation of "Black Egypt" proponents have regressed. They are discarding everything we have known and learned over the past 15 years and reverting back to ideas of discrete races to the advantage of Eurocentrist that used these tools to obfuscate identities in the first place. There is certain language we should be using. There are certain arguments we should be making based on NEW data and science. WE shouldn't be reverting back to ideas genetic "Purity" that border on pseudo science. Where is the balance? Who is going to clean up their mess?
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes: Just out of curiosity, can you tell me which of the thousands of 'sub saharan' ethnic groups were selected for your SSA classification. Also, whilst you're at it, can you explain how Ethiopians were miraculously not included in as sub Saharans?
Just so I understand how these metrics are being calculated...
It says 463 skulls from "West, Central and East Africa" (19th/20th century) and the ethiopian sample was not labeled as SSA simply because it's morphologically too different. [/QB]
LMAO! So in order to prove the difference between SSA and others you've posted a study that only included SSA as long as it was different enough... when it was similar they gave it its own classification in spite of it being 'sub-saharan'...
Oh lord... this actually is gold!
So basically, let me get this right...SSA is negroid unless it isn't... when was this study made 1912??? Who is taking this seriously.
Also 463 skulls from West Central and East Africa is not useful. The phenotypic diversity in Nigeria, or Senegal or Chad alone would give you the entire spectrum of human cranial diversity... this is not scientific. THIS is a joke.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism
Historical feelgoodism is bringing in a lot of money to people who can turn that into for sale pseudo- educational products
Euro's have spent the last 250 years on historical propaganda to engender political and geopolitical gains and some, "feelgoodism" for low class poor whites.
Not one ethnic group on the planet has made more money off of ethnocentric feelgoodism than white supremacists.
You are absolutely correct, it is the caucasians who perfected the art of "feelgoodism", and making every ancient population "caucasian.
Eurocentrics can use statistics all they want to claim that this or that population was caucasian but the craniometrics don't lie these ancient people were "negroes".
LOL. We have accurate depictions of ancient Egyptians from Egyptian artefacts, and yet Eurocentrics reconstruct Egyptians like Tutankamun as if they were caucasians LMAO.
It is sad Egyptsearch has been hijacked .
.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism
Historical feelgoodism is bringing in a lot of money to people who can turn that into for sale pseudo- educational products
Euro's have spent the last 250 years on historical propaganda to engender political and geopolitical gains and some, "feelgoodism" for low class poor whites.
Not one ethnic group on the planet has made more money off of ethnocentric feelgoodism than white supremacists.
You are absolutely correct, it is the caucasians who perfected the art of "feelgoodism", and making every ancient population "caucasian.
Eurocentrics can use statistics all they want to claim that this or that population was caucasian but the craniometrics don't lie these ancient people were "negroes".
LOL. We have accurate depictions of ancient Egyptians from Egyptian artefacts, and yet Eurocentrics reconstruct Egyptians like Tutankamun as if they were caucasians LMAO.
It is sad Egyptsearch has been hijacked .
This
Even so it is good to see you post again, missed your input and thoughts.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Black folk steadily getting played with feelgoodism
Historical feelgoodism is bringing in a lot of money to people who can turn that into for sale pseudo- educational products
Euro's have spent the last 250 years on historical propaganda to engender political and geopolitical gains and some, "feelgoodism" for low class poor whites.
Not one ethnic group on the planet has made more money off of ethnocentric feelgoodism than white supremacists.
You are absolutely correct, it is the caucasians who perfected the art of "feelgoodism", and making every ancient population "caucasian.
Eurocentrics can use statistics all they want to claim that this or that population was caucasian but the craniometrics don't lie these ancient people were "negroes".
LOL. We have accurate depictions of ancient Egyptians from Egyptian artefacts, and yet Eurocentrics reconstruct Egyptians like Tutankamun as if they were caucasians LMAO.
It is sad Egyptsearch has been hijacked .
This
Even so it is good to see you post again, missed your input and thoughts.
Thank you for your support.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] So you're not gonna man up and answer my questions got it...
Kinda sheds light onto how much you actually know about A.Egyptian historical/archeological evidence outside of one trick pony DNA ofuscation and semantics...
got it.
I mentioned Philae no ?
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Are you serious? Is this really some sort of gotcha or trump care for you...
You do know who the Kermans were, what they looked like...
You do know what Kenyans and Tanzanians look like, BTW, I have ancestry from Kenyans and Tanzanians...So now can I be bestowed the retarded Biodiversity privliage of studying and being interested in Ancient Egypt/Nile Valley History...now that I officially have ancestry to the region...
Now yall saying Euoasians created Kerman culture...LMFAO...SMDH...and that the "Euroasians" were in Kenya and Tanzania..
Seems like you're not aware of the bantu expansion...those "early pastoral" groups from Kenya were in fact similar to modern somalis not bantu speaking kenyans.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: GASP....OMG, AFRICANS INTERACTED WITH OTHER PEOPLE.... OH NOES...WHAT AM I GONNA DO.... GASP ...AFRICANS WERE'NT SO STUPID TO INTERACT WITH OTHERS LIKE EVERY f-kING PEOPLE ON EARTH...
Your own data is saying these people are no different than other Africans in the region. What did these Eurasians do that had any significant impact on the development of African cultures in the regions you mention? Eurasians came and became incorporated in the region... So What? Are you even familiar with the material culture of the region? Its development?
Ah so now it isn't only about africans ? I thought there was no "eurasian affiliation" ..?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Clyde what do you think of King's Monologue's videos and his reconstructions in general? Have you seen some of them?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I mentioned Philae no ?
So once again you're not gonna man up and answer the question.
We both know, Who wrote the Last Mdu Ntr, and What God they were invoking....Im sure you've googled it by now.
We can move on.
quote:Seems like you're not aware of the bantu expansion...those "early pastoral" groups from Kenya were in fact similar to modern somalis not bantu speaking kenyans.
So what impact did these people have in the region?
As far as I can tell the study is saying the Kerma individual originated as a source population (possibly) from the Rift Valley in East Africa. Most of the study is behind a paywall so maybe Im wrong...but..this is a win for you?
quote:Ah so now it isn't only about africans ? I thought there was no "eurasian affiliation" ..?
The no Euasian was in reference to this...
"the Nuerat sample did not carry the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer genetic component that started to spread across West Asia ~4,000 years ago and is widely spread in present-day populations."
I quoted it wrong, it said no CHG..The other data Beyoku posted said they could have originated in North Africa, so
It seems to me these people don't know whats going on really..
Don't get why you're gloating and so happy about this...but Ok.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: I mentioned Philae no ?
So once again you're not gonna man up and answer the question.
We both know, Who wrote the Last Mdu Ntr, and What God they were invoking....Im sure you've googled it by now.
We can move on.
Your point ? Of course the farther a group is from the cultural core of a civilization, the more likely they are to preserve certain cultural elements that may have been lost or changed in the central regions.
Seems like you're trying to suggest that the southern "blacks" have preserved the knowledge of Kemet, as opposed to the mixed Byzantino-syriaco-Hyksos light-skinned Egyptians...lmao seriously grow up.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: As far as I can tell the study is saying the Kerma individual originated as a source population (possibly) from the Rift Valley in East Africa. Most of the study is behind a paywall so maybe Im wrong...but..this is a win for you?
The no Eurasian was in reference to this...
"the Nuerat sample did not carry the Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer genetic component that started to spread across West Asia ~4,000 years ago and is widely spread in present-day populations."
I quoted it wrong, it said no CHG..The other data Beyoku posted said they could have originated in North Africa, so
It seems to me these people don't know whats going on really..
Don't get why you're gloating and so happy about this...but Ok.
The paper is telling you that its highest genetic affinities are with "Levantines", ancient/modern NAs and horners and that it had substantial eurasian ancestry. Now cross-reference this information with this :
quote:Just like the prehistoric inhabitants of the Wadi Howar, the Early and Middle Holocene population of the Malian Sahara and the Late Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba/Tushka population belonged to the Saharo-Nilotic population complex. None of these biologically sub-Saharan groups shared any direct ancestors with prehistoric North Africans. The A-Group, on the other hand, was not part of the Saharo-Nilotic population complex. Substantial gene flow and migrations from the north entered the Northern Sudanese Nile Valley after its original Saharo-Nilotic inhabitants had adopted Neolithic subsistence strategies. The incomers partly replaced and interbred with the Saharo-Nilotes of the region. The people of the A-Group and the inhabitants of sites like Kadruka were representatives of the resulting non Saharo-Nilotic population.Conversely, the Saharo-Nilotic groups further south, both in the Nile Valley and in the adjacent areas of the Sahara, remained largely unaffected by the northern influence. Biologically fully or partly North African groups did ultimately enter the northern parts of the Saharan territory of the Saharo-Nilotes as well. These new arrivals took the place of the Saharo-Nilotes in this region or founded new populations together with them.
The prehistoric inhabitants of the wadi howar and anthropological study of human skeletal remains from the sudanese part of the eastern sahara, 2011
quote:The subsistence economy was increasingly based on irrigated agriculture. Despite some genetic roots and ritual survivals of North African origin, the agrosystem was of Mediterranean-Near Eastern origin, rather than African. That applies firstly to the essential crops, including wheat, barley and legumes planted in the autumn and harvested in late winter or early spring. Second, meat, labor and special products were provided by the standard Near Eastern herd animals. Oxen pulled the basic “scratch” plow, and although wooly strains of sheep were introduced during the Middle Kingdom, flax was woven into linen as the most common cloth.
Karl W. Butzer, Subsistence and diet in Dynastic Egypt, in: Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, Routledge, 2005, pp. 918
quote: The absence of domesticated ox before 6000 BC does not confirm the discoveries of Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba which postulates a local process of cattle domestication since the 9th millennium. On the contrary, it reinforces the idea of the introduction of all the Neolithic components (at least: domesticated animals and agriculture) from the Near East at the end of the 7th millennium
M. Honegger, Recent advances in our understanding of prehistory in Northern Sudan, 2014
Like Beyoku said this cannot be denied anymore and you had proper eurasians who migrated and settled in the Nile Valley and this is millenias before Dynastic Egypt even existed.
And the Irony is that low to no CHG + high Natufian is basically the DNA profile of modern Arabs. That Nuerat sample is basically more arabian-like than modern egyptians.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Your point ? Of course the farther a group is from the cultural core of a civilization, the more likely they are to preserve certain cultural elements that may have been lost or changed in the central regions.
My point?
You act like Im defending something, when the only reason we're talking about this is your desperate attempt to pretend you were'nt using True Negroism, with those picture spams you plagerized from Stormfront.
quote:Seems like you're trying to suggest that the southern "blacks" have preserved the knowledge of Kemet, as opposed to the mixed Byzantino-syriaco-Hyksos light-skinned Egyptians...lmao seriously grow up.
Then you have the nerve to call out Afrocentrists when you're saying sh#t like the above...lmfao.
Nah, You DOOONT believe in outdated races like Afro-Centrists...You're so smart and "Scientific" because you can conversate about DNA studies...
LMFAO.
This is why I ignore you, stupid me thinking I could discuss with a child.
quote: The paper is telling you that its highest genetic affinities are with "Levantines", ancient/modern NAs and horners and that it had substantial eurasian ancestry. Now cross-reference this information with this :
quote:Just like the prehistoric inhabitants of the Wadi Howar, the Early and Middle Holocene population of the Malian Sahara and the Late Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba/Tushka population belonged to the Saharo-Nilotic population complex. None of these biologically sub-Saharan groups shared any direct ancestors with prehistoric North Africans. The A-Group, on the other hand, was not part of the Saharo-Nilotic population complex. Substantial gene flow and migrations from the north entered the Northern Sudanese Nile Valley after its original Saharo-Nilotic inhabitants had adopted Neolithic subsistence strategies. The incomers partly replaced and interbred with the Saharo-Nilotes of the region. The people of the A-Group and the inhabitants of sites like Kadruka were representatives of the resulting non Saharo-Nilotic population. Conversely, the Saharo-Nilotic groups further south, both in the Nile Valley and in the adjacent areas of the Sahara, remained largely unaffected by the northern influence. Biologically fully or partly North African groups did ultimately enter the northern parts of the Saharan territory of the Saharo-Nilotes as well. These new arrivals took the place of the Saharo-Nilotes in this region or founded new populations together with them.
The prehistoric inhabitants of the wadi howar and anthropological study of human skeletal remains from the sudanese part of the eastern sahara, 2011
quote:The subsistence economy was increasingly based on irrigated agriculture. Despite some genetic roots and ritual survivals of North African origin, the agrosystem was of Mediterranean-Near Eastern origin, rather than African. That applies firstly to the essential crops, including wheat, barley and legumes planted in the autumn and harvested in late winter or early spring. Second, meat, labor and special products were provided by the standard Near Eastern herd animals. Oxen pulled the basic “scratch” plow, and although wooly strains of sheep were introduced during the Middle Kingdom, flax was woven into linen as the most common cloth.
Karl W. Butzer, Subsistence and diet in Dynastic Egypt, in: Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, Routledge, 2005, pp. 918
quote: The absence of domesticated ox before 6000 BC does not confirm the discoveries of Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba which postulates a local process of cattle domestication since the 9th millennium. On the contrary, it reinforces the idea of the introduction of all the Neolithic components (at least: domesticated animals and agriculture) from the Near East at the end of the 7th millennium
M. Honegger, Recent advances in our understanding of prehistory in Northern Sudan, 2014
I asked you twice, Ill ask you again
What does this have to do with the material culture, archeology, and history of the regions?
What is this impacting, that is overturning the history of the people in the regions?
Do you have any knowledge of any of the above disciplines? Or are you just using these DNA studies to sh#t Post on the internet in Debate Bro piss contests?
quote:Like Beyoku said this cannot be denied anymore and you had proper eurasians who migrated and settled in the Nile Valley and this is millenias before Dynastic Egypt even existed.
And the Irony is that low to no CHG + high Natufian is basically the DNA profile of modern Arabs. That Nuerat sample is basically more arabian-like than modern egyptians.
Back Migrations was something discussed years ago on this forum, they don't bother me.
Also, WTF is "More Arabian Like" If these people could've evolved in North Africa/Levant WTF does Arabia have to do with anything?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Also, WTF is "More Arabian Like" If these people could've evolved in North Africa/Levant WTF does Arabia have to do with anything?
IIRC, the table he posted in the other thread showed substantial Iranian Neolithic-like ancestry in modern Arabian populations. And while CHG is listed as separate in the table, I know Elmaestro has told me that Iranian and CHG are pretty closely related nonetheless. So I doubt there will be a ton of that ancestry type in the Nuerat genome, though of course we will have to wait until it's published for everyone to see.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
You act like Im defending something, when the only reason we're talking about this is your desperate attempt to pretend you were'nt using True Negroism, with those picture spams you plagerized from Stormfront.
Sure pictures of nubian captives can only be found on White supremacist boards.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: "Southern Blacks.... Mixed syrica-Hyksos Egyptians...WTF.
God damn, you're f-ing stupid
Then you have the nerve to call out Afrocentrists when you're saying sh#t like the above...lmfao.
Nah, You DOOONT believe in outdated races like Afro-Centrists...You're so smart and "Scientific" because you can conversate about DNA studies...
LMFAO.
This is why I ignore you, stupid me thinking I could discuss with a child.
The guy literally took this seriously but it's me the idiot...
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: What does this have to do with the material culture, archeology, and history of the regions?
What is this impacting, that is overturning the history of the people in the regions?
Do you have any knowledge of any of the above disciplines? Or are you just using these DNA studies to sh#t Post on the internet in Debate Bro piss contests?
You're not even aware that what I posted is partially based on archaeology/material culture smh.
Anyway stay on topic and stop being so emotional calm yourself.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Sure pictures of nubian captives can only be found on White supremacist boards.
The pictures you posted in the context of "Negroid Nubians vs. Kakazoid Egyptians" were popularized on Stormfron, end of story...
Move the f-k on already.
quote:The guy literally took this seriously but it's me the idiot...
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Now you're just kidding, You dont EEEVER Use Racialist terms and arguments...
quote:You're not even aware that what I posted is partially based on archaeology/material culture smh.
Anyway stay on topic and stop being so emotional calm yourself.
So then answer the f-king question and tell us the implications. Should be easier for you then....
What does this have to do with the material culture, archeology, and history of the regions?
What is this impacting, that is overturning the history of the people in the regions?
You ain't just, posting this stuff to sh@t post on the net right, you aint just trying to win debate bro pissing contests with Afrocentrists right...
Prove us wrong...
I mean you're not full of sh@t right..?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Now you're just kidding, You dont EEEVER Use Racialist terms and arguments...
So you think I was serious about "mixed Byzantino-syriaco-Hyksos" ? How many times Afrocentrists have put forth the argument that Egyptians had mixed ancestry ? XD
Also terms like "negroid" "caucasoid" "mongoloid" are widely used in Anthropology you simply don't read.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: So then answer the f-king question and tell us the implications. Should be easier for you then....
What does this have to do with the material culture, archeology, and history of the regions?
What is this impacting, that is overturning the history of the people in the regions?
You ain't just, posting this stuff to sh@t post on the net right, you aint just trying to win debate bro pissing contests with Afrocentrists right...
Prove us wrong...
I mean you're not full of sh@t right..?
But what are you talking about ? Stay on topic, as you previously argued that AE/Nubia had no connection to Eurasia. However, I proved that they did have such a connection through various means, such as their DNA, skulls, and material culture. The movement of population from the Near East was a significant factor in the formation of Ancient Egypt, and this is a well-established fact.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Knock it off.
Either stick to the topic or it will be closed.
One and only warning.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
As far as the OP discussion is concerned...
I agree with Asten and Elmaestro that a lot of people on Team Afro need to step up their game with regards to knowledge in relevant fields (and maybe lose their attachment to racialized thinking). On the other hand, I understand Jari's concerns about us losing sight of Eurocentrics being a bigger threat in the grand scheme of things. It's good to "coach" your own team to have better arguments, but it's also important to remember the big picture and who the main "bad guys" really are.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: As far as the OP discussion is concerned...
I agree with Asten and Elmaestro that a lot of people on Team Afro need to step up their game with regards to knowledge in relevant fields (and maybe lose their attachment to racialized thinking). On the other hand, I understand Jari's concerns about us losing sight of Eurocentrics being a bigger threat in the grand scheme of things. It's good to "coach" your own team to have better arguments, but it's also important to remember the big picture and who the main "bad guys" really are.
Some people need to step up their knowledge of history and culture.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@ Yatunde Lisa Bey
Asten and Elmaestro....who have been filing complaints have NOT demonstrated they are lacking when it comes to having a sound understanding of Egyptian history and culture. Its Our understanding that allows us to point out the flaws and file the complaint in the first place. This is why when you reread Asten's posts you will see comments that contain Sources, Data, Locations, Fossils, Animals, Plants, Dates...SPECIFICITY....... and not just idol talk about race and personality. And my interpretation of the data has gone unchallenged by those who don't like my critique. Shall i share MY last publications i have read?
How would people hypothesize a Badari or Naqadan genome under this model?
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
I'm not accepting that any "Eurasian" component found in North/Northeast Africa is a purely Eurasian component. I believe that the lack of a native North/Northeast African specific component is done by design to lend credence to a modern day Hamitic Hypothesis, and some people are either blind to this, or just don't want to accept it. So called mainstream science still has its biases. Time for me to head back to retirement, nothing has changed, its just different so called scientists upholding the same "true Negro"(now defined and SSA in genetic literature) Africa and Hamite shxt. Yeah, there are some senseless Afrocentrists out there, but they're not wrong for saying science today is still following the same bs from over 100 years ago
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
How would people hypothesize a Badari or Naqadan genome under this model? [/QB]
Make this a thread pls.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
^ see my link. No “Hamites” there. Take to hypothesize?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Yatunde Lisa Bey
Asten and Elmaestro....who have been filing complaints have NOT demonstrated they are lacking when it comes to having a sound understanding of Egyptian history and culture. Its Our understanding that allows us to point out the flaws and file the complaint in the first place. This is why when you reread Asten's posts you will see comments that contain Sources, Data, Locations, Fossils, Animals, Plants, Dates...SPECIFICITY....... and not just idol talk about race and personality. And my interpretation of the data has gone unchallenged by those who don't like my critique. Shall i share MY last publications i have read?
How would people hypothesize a Badari or Naqadan genome under this model?
.... ... ..
.....
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Id say similiar/inbetween to the "Ethiopian/Somal<---------->Iberomaurasian/Morocco Samples...
Seems with all this "Eurasian" links being found, there's a "Afro-Asiatic connection/grouping"...I'd guess these predynastic A. Egyptians would fit in with that grouping.
This coming from someone who has bare min. knowledge of this stuff...JS
IDK if we should discuss this here, don't want the thread locked..
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ see my link. No “Hamites” there. Take to hypothesize?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: How would people hypothesize a Badari or Naqadan genome under this model?
Maybe mostly dark green (shared with Iberomaurusians, IAM, and NE Africans) with smaller amounts of blue (Israel_C-like) and light orange (Dinka-like)? Shame that Natufians are not on that chart though. Would they be more dark green or more blue?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I don't think Eurocentrists are the "Main Bad Guys" I think most of them are lazy(when it comes to African History) and don't give a damn about Africa or A. Egypt/Nubia, outside of Sh#t posting on Afrocentrists.
A good example is how they uphold the lightest modern Egyptians as representative of Dynastic A. Egyptians while Ignoring the whole host of other darker Modern Egyptians like that Twitter account that attacked your Artwork.
Ive met a few I can count on one hand like Cachibatches on Historum that give a damn about African History while pushing back against Afrocentrism, and I don't consider Cachi an enemy.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: As far as the OP discussion is concerned...
I agree with Asten and Elmaestro that a lot of people on Team Afro need to step up their game with regards to knowledge in relevant fields (and maybe lose their attachment to racialized thinking). On the other hand, I understand Jari's concerns about us losing sight of Eurocentrics being a bigger threat in the grand scheme of things. It's good to "coach" your own team to have better arguments, but it's also important to remember the big picture and who the main "bad guys" really are.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
That Kerma study was interesting as hell NGL, seems to imply Pastorialists from the Rift Valley ended up as far as Kerma...any more info/studies related to that. Seems everything is behind a paywall...
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Y'know. A particular user used modern non-African samples to troll. Stating that a certain component is absent in these modern people which lends its hand to a middle/upper Egyptian sample being just like them. In the chart Beyoku posted above there is a certain Non-African sample being used as a very relevant outgroup. Why haven't some people used this new publication to dunk on the purported "Eurocentrist" in proximity yet?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Y'know. A particular user used modern non-African samples to troll. Stating that a certain component is absent in these modern people which lends its hand to a middle/upper Egyptian sample being just like them.
You mean this?
Because I've already noted that the Arabian samples had a lot of Iranian Neolithic-like ancestry (which is related to CHG) in addition to high Natufian-like ancestry.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Id say similiar/inbetween to the "Ethiopian/Somal<---------->Iberomaurasian/Morocco Samples...
Seems with all this "Eurasian" links being found, there's a "Afro-Asiatic connection/grouping"...I'd guess these predynastic A. Egyptians would fit in with that grouping.
This coming from someone who has bare min. knowledge of this stuff...JS
IDK if we should discuss this here, don't want the thread locked..
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ see my link. No “Hamites” there. Take to hypothesize?
It won't get locked as long as things are civil.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: How would people hypothesize a Badari or Naqadan genome under this model?
Maybe mostly dark green (shared with Iberomaurusians, IAM, and NE Africans) with smaller amounts of blue (Israel_C-like) and light orange (Dinka-like)? Shame that Natufians are not on that chart though. Would they be more dark green or more blue?
I believe the dark green is "Natufian" without CHG, EHG, etc... I.e North African.
Edit:
I read you wrong. My bad. I think they would be blue. Because look at the main outgroup. And its the region where the Natufians are from.. And that same outgroup has only a little bit of dark green.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I see how in my absence this thread has degenerated as usual. Not that any thread by lioness is worth salvaging.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Actually everyone does use it to describe ancestry. I've never seen a single person calling Indians "black" here despite being dark skinned. Where I live, "black" is restricted to black africans.
That's because in America "black" is usually synonymous with African ancestry. That doesn't mean the only black peoples are African. black Indians are called 'kalu' by non-black Indians, and what does that word mean again?
quote:Why would nubians and egyptians (except upper nubians) be described as "black african"? Most egyptians were not black skinned...
So only Upper Nubians are black, even though in other threads when I posted pictures of black Egyptians you thought they were Nubians from from the Aswan region i.e. Lower Nubians?! LMAO You are such a self-contradicting simpleton!
Here are some portraits of ancient Egyptians and Lower Nubians.
Egyptians
Lower Nubians
quote:morphologically both populations were not similar to most sub-saharan africans. Here a simple example from Irish 2010 :
Yes, because Africans are diverse and heterogeneous.
Also what do craniometric features have to do with black skin?
quote:Also why "african"? Did most africans participated in the foundation of those two civilizations? Did they share most of their cultural background with them? The answer is no therefore labelling cultures/civilizations by a continent is utterly idiotic and useless. That would be like someone insisting that Ancient Persia "WAS AN ASIATIC CIVILIZATION OKAY ?!" XD
Most Europeans didn't have anything to do with founding Rome or Greece but that hasn't stopped them from claiming those two civilizations or Sumer or Egypt for that matter! LOL
I won't even bother addressing the rest of your idiocy. You are done and have been for a long time now. You are just another troll good for a punching bag.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I see how in my absence this thread has degenerated as usual. Not that any thread by lioness is worth salvaging.
stop trolling aka trying to instigate
This thread is supposed to be about PopAffilaitor and you are doing picture spams and talking about he meaning of "black" It gets boring after 20 years. Do you have to react to everything? This is my thread not Antalas
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@El Maestro what program is that dark gray chart BP just posted?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: @El Maestro what program is that dark gray chart BP just posted?
Vahaduo, web based program that uses nmonte G25 coordinates to infer genetic distance and average Admixture estimates.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: How would people hypothesize a Badari or Naqadan genome under this model?
Maybe mostly dark green (shared with Iberomaurusians, IAM, and NE Africans) with smaller amounts of blue (Israel_C-like) and light orange (Dinka-like)? Shame that Natufians are not on that chart though. Would they be more dark green or more blue?
I believe the dark green is "Natufian" without CHG, EHG, etc... I.e North African.
Edit:
I read you wrong. My bad. I think they would be blue. Because look at the main outgroup. And its the region where the Natufians are from.. And that same outgroup has only a little bit of dark green.
You were right the fist time, What separates the Chalcolithic samples of the levant and Neolithic/terminal Epipaleolithic samples is Iran_Chl related ancestry.
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
What SSA were depicted in f-king A. Egypt, when the Africans in their art were from the Nile F-king Valley, in North F-king Africa...
Exactly. If they are breathing air in Egypt they are North African.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I see how in my absence this thread has degenerated as usual. Not that any thread by lioness is worth salvaging.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Actually everyone does use it to describe ancestry. I've never seen a single person calling Indians "black" here despite being dark skinned. Where I live, "black" is restricted to black africans.
That's because in America "black" is usually synonymous with African ancestry. That doesn't mean the only black peoples are African. black Indians are called 'kalu' by non-black Indians, and what does that word mean again?
Honestly, the whole "who is Black" conversation is almost like the other side of the coin as the "who is White" one you see White nationalists arguing over. The lines get fuzzier once you move away from the extremes in skin tone.
That being said, in my anecdotal experience, some of the North African ethnic nationalists you see online are adamant that they qualify as "white-skinned" people, despite most Europeans not accepting them into the "White" club. If their light brown behinds count as white-skinned, who are they to say that sienna-brown Kemetians aren't really "black-skinned"?
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: @El Maestro what program is that dark gray chart BP just posted?
Vahaduo, web based program that uses nmonte G25 coordinates to infer genetic distance and average Admixture estimates.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: How would people hypothesize a Badari or Naqadan genome under this model?
Maybe mostly dark green (shared with Iberomaurusians, IAM, and NE Africans) with smaller amounts of blue (Israel_C-like) and light orange (Dinka-like)? Shame that Natufians are not on that chart though. Would they be more dark green or more blue?
I believe the dark green is "Natufian" without CHG, EHG, etc... I.e North African.
Edit:
I read you wrong. My bad. I think they would be blue. Because look at the main outgroup. And its the region where the Natufians are from.. And that same outgroup has only a little bit of dark green.
You were right the fist time, What separates the Chalcolithic samples of the levant and Neolithic/terminal Epipaleolithic samples is Iran_Chl related ancestry.
I know. I mean Brandon meant there wasn't a Natufian profile but even if there were it would've probably be blue. In my honest opinion.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
How would people hypothesize a Badari or Naqadan genome under this model? [/QB]
It's getting really confusing now. At least there seem to be a shared component between NA and the Horn and eurasian ancestry might have been older than previously thought in the Horn probably entering the area between 30k-20k BC.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
How would people hypothesize a Badari or Naqadan genome under this model?
It's getting really confusing now. At least there seem to be a shared component between NA and the Horn and eurasian ancestry might have been older than previously thought in the Horn probably entering the area between 30k-20k BC. [/QB]
There's no evidence of Eurasians in the Horn en masse 30k-20k ago, the more yall keep pushing it back the less likely its that old.................
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
How would people hypothesize a Badari or Naqadan genome under this model?
It's getting really confusing now. At least there seem to be a shared component between NA and the Horn and eurasian ancestry might have been older than previously thought in the Horn probably entering the area between 30k-20k BC. [/QB]
What you're saying COULD be right but... We are not seeing this shared Eurasian component in Israel(the Levant).
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
How would people hypothesize a Badari or Naqadan genome under this model?
It's getting really confusing now. At least there seem to be a shared component between NA and the Horn and eurasian ancestry might have been older than previously thought in the Horn probably entering the area between 30k-20k BC.
What you're saying COULD be right but... We are not seeing this shared Eurasian component in Israel(the Levant). [/QB]
It might simply be an older wave of eurasians that predate by millenias Israel_C and even Natufians and would explain the expansion of U6/M1 in Africa. This could also explain the sudden appearance of the Iberomaurusian industry and its people, who were morphologically distinct from the preceding Aterians and instead similar to the Cro-Magnon populations of Europe.
Several decades ago, Henri Vallois proposed several theories, one of which suggested the existence of a Middle Eastern "pre-Cro-Magnoid" core that expanded into Africa and Europe. This theory could account for the strong morphological affinities between the two regions.
So one group of people migrated westward along the Mediterranean coast while another group migrated south into the Nile Valley. This may explain why the El Khiday specimen, which is approximately 15,000 years old, displays a mixed type of morphology similar to that of both ancient dynastic Nubians and modern-day Nubians.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Antalas
Or it can simply be an indignous Northeast African component that we been missing. Again, why wouldn't this older "Eurasian" component(dark green) be found in the Israel profile?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @Antalas
Or it can simply be an indignous Northeast African component that we been missing. Again, why wouldn't this older "Eurasian" component(dark green) be found in the Israel profile?
Is it reasonable to assume that Eurasians from the Levant around 30k/25k BC would resemble Israel_C? Given the apparent back migrations during the Pleistocene, it seems unlikely that Eurasian influx only occurred during the middle Holocene and beyond. However, there may be an ANA specific to the area that is absent and still not properly detected, which would be a distinct local component.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Antalas We're just gonna need more ancient DNA.
And not saying Eurasian influence only occurred during the middle Holocene and beyond, but the fact of the matter is that the Israel profile is only showing very little of this component. Unlike with Horners, Tanzanian/Kenyan Pastoralist and IAM are... Which screams Afro-Asiatic type genetic unity in my opinion. If this is some type of missing/old Eurasian ancestry then why is the Israel profile showing so little of it? The Israel profile should be displaying the most in fact since it would've came from that region(the Levant). Don't you think? Heck that's where the Natufians are from. Unless you're telling me Africans in Africa have more Ancient Eurasian ancestry than those in Eurasia? As for U6/M1? Those haplogroups would've already been absorbed by the local population by the time of the neolithic. No different than r1b being absorbed by local populations in Chad. Yet none of this explains why the Israel profile has so little of this dark green.
And as for this: "However, there may be an ANA specific to the area that is absent and still not properly detected, which would be a distinct local component."
That's literally what I am saying..
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @Antalas
Or it can simply be an indignous Northeast African component that we been missing. Again, why wouldn't this older "Eurasian" component(dark green) be found in the Israel profile?
Is it reasonable to assume that Eurasians from the Levant around 30k/25k BC would resemble Israel_C? Given the apparent back migrations during the Pleistocene, it seems unlikely that Eurasian influx only occurred during the middle Holocene and beyond. However, there may be an ANA specific to the area that is absent and still not properly detected, which would be a distinct local component.
The distinct local component in the east wont be that distinct due to the fact that Eurasian ancestry would likely be a subset of it. Also, 30kya Eurasian ancestry which is likely distinct from Natufian Ancestry(due to levant_Chl mostly forming their own component), that is likely to be shared by more Africans extant and extinct than their contemporaneous Eurasian counterparts is truly hardly Eurasian.
Furthermore, in Fregel et al. 2017, download the supp and Look at the genetic distances between Taforalt and every one else, Natufian and everyone else, IAM and everyone else and yoruba and Eurasians.
Can you confidently and intellectually honestly state for the board that you believe that a Eurasian component, increased the genetic distance between IAM and other Eurasians from their predecessors?
Can you confidently state that that same Eurasian component decreased the distance between IAM and Yoruba in relation to their predecessors?
Can you intellectually state that a Eurasian component which permeated Africa that long ago is indeed Eurasian but not represented well in Natufians and their likely descendants Levant_Chl? If not Natufians which Eurasian population should we liken this ancient Eurasian ancestry to?
What you wanted to pass off as ANA is now framed in a different light. The distinct North West African component had been parsed out due to the West African related ancestry forming it's own component. Hadza also formed their own component in the run, though their ancestry was reduced to noise amounts in Taforalt. I warned you that Aterian ancestry will likely be west_African related but you insisted it was ANA. So here we have it, this shared dark green component is not West African related, it absorbed Taforalt's Hadza related ancestry, and it follows the same ANA distribution pattern calculated a couple years ago.Does this precious 30Kya Eurasian ancestry in Africans have Aterian-ANA ancestry? Why or why not?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Yeah that's what I feel like as well, the chart plus all the info coming out seems to be pointing to a genetic "unity" as you put it with the Afro-Asiatic populations...plus even more interesting, it extends to the Pastoralists in Kenya and Tanzania, who that made it as far as Kerma according to one DNA study...
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: Which screams Afro-Asiatic type genetic unity in my opinion.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
Afrocentricism is an absolute necessary and needed epistemology as a check on the resurgence of Eugenicist supremacist who are actually using Paabo and Reich to reinvent their religion.
What are the names of these Eugenicist supremacists?
Clines, Clusters, and Clades in the Race Debate Matthew Kopec Philosophy of Science, Vol. 81, No. 5 (December 2014), pp. 1053-1065 (13 pages)
Re-situations of scientific knowledge: a case study of a skirmish over clusters vs clines in human population genomics
quote:This finding was in line with previous findings and arguments (e.g., Lewontin, 1972), and argued against interpreting patterns of genetic structure among human populations as support for reductionist, biological concepts of race.Footnote19 However, questions about the models, dataset, software, and findings have led to a variety of critiques, challenges, and parallel or divergent projects. Among these, a prominent concern has been around how findings in Rosenberg et al. (2002) could be read or not as “biologizing” race, both by life and social scientists (e.g., Bolnick, 2008; Foster & Sharp, 2004; Gannett, 2005; Glasgow, 2003; Marks, 2010; REGWG, 2005; Royal & Dunston, 2004
quote:3.1 Race Ontologies As has been previously rehearsed in philosophy of science, differences in beliefs about the reality of race can be sorted according to the types of ontological claims that they entail: realist, anti-realist, or constructivist.[4] The present article is not an effort to develop an ontological account of race as a biological or cultural concept; rather, it interrogates two distinct types of racial realist claims. These claims can be distinguished according to the categories of racial realism delineated by Kaplan and Winther (2014), two of which relate to biological categories: bio-genomic cluster/racial realism, which claims that population structure exists in humans, as assessed through genomic or anthropometric measures; and biological racial realism, which claims that groups identified genomically or phenomically map stably onto social groups conventionally identified as races (1040–1
quote:oreover, Wade's use of the adverb “often” suggests that such isolation extends to other groups, an impression he reinforces with unwarranted extrapolation. The authors make no mention of linguistic isolation in Africa, but Wade writes confidently that:
Within races, the Rosenberg-Feldman study showed that different ethnicities could be recognized. Among Africans, it is easy to distinguish by their genomes the Yoruba of Nigeria, the San (a click-speaking people of southern Africa) and the Mbuti and Biaka pygmies. (98)
What Wade appears to mean by “easy to distinguish” is that these four groups are shaded four distinctive colors in Figure 2: orange, green, blue, and red, respectively. There are two problems with this representation. First, it isolates the Yoruba, whose orange cluster membership is nearly identical to their two (unmentioned) neighboring groups; it would thus not be possible to “distinguish by their genomes” the Yoruba from the Bantu or Mandenka. Second, Wade's commentary entirely overlooks the significant admixture of the Biaka Pygmy population as discussed in [population-and-regional-uniformity]. In interpreting this group as colored solely red, he wrongly implies that these populations are characterized by unique and uniform clusters.
At the worldwide level, Wade persistently implies a particularly rigid separation between clusters, steadily minimizing discussion of clinal gradients in describing the five “main” clusters as sharply, geographically bounded. He repeatedly emphasizes the fixedness of individuals and populations, writing, for instance, that the study “confirm[s] the remarkable extent to which people throughout history have lived and died in the place where they were born” (98)—a normative claim apparently of his own invention. From here, Wade further conceptualizes genetic flow as a discrete process of “splitting off” and “taking away” ancestral genes, phrasings that foreclose the possibility of clinal distribution or admixture by framing the movement of alleles across continents as a series of clean breaks rather than a continuous blending (98). Wade reemphasizes the separation of populations in discussing the two Asian regions, writing that “several Central Asian ethnicities ... are of mixed European and East Asian ancestry. This is not a surprise, given the frequent movement of peoples to and fro across Central Asia” (98). While he here admits the possibility of movement within continents, Wade refuses to describe this region as clinally distributed, even though its groups demonstrate notably graded, stable proportions of blue to pink. His phrasing rather emphasizes constancy of movement—a permanent flux—rather than stable, graded admixture; he wants to see this region as bounded by Asia on one side with Europe firmly on the other.
quote:Both of Rosenberg et al.'s racial interpreters base their hereditarian claims on overstating the strength of correspondence between cluster and geography, emphasizing the strength of this relationship to imply that a variety of phenotypic “racial” differences must follow. Both rely heavily on the word “correspond,” using it disingenuously to conflate clusters with races.
quote:5.2 Worldwide Cluster Distinctiveness A second factor that may unintentionally precondition certain aspects of the racial interpretation is the ordering of population groups, which subtly foregrounds the appearance of distinct and bounded continental clusters. The populations in Figure 1 are arranged in roughly an east-moving direction from Africa through the Americas, presumably to highlight patterns associated with major geographic boundaries (oceans, mountains) and to reflect the approximate order of human colonization. The order of populations, unlike the ordering of individuals, is an aspect of figure construction determined by the authors, and in fact some continental and population groups are altered from their original order in the CEPH data (Rosenberg 2007b, 2). That reordering produces certain sharp divisions between clusters at the expense of softer, more graded boundaries.
For instance, the Mozabites and Bedouins, with their significant secondary orange coloration, are placed apart from the chiefly orange-colored African populations in the worldwide sample:
quote:This distance results from Rosenberg et al.'s own reordering. Cann et al. designate the Mozabites as a North African population, placing the group directly after the other (Sub-Saharan) African groups and immediately before the three Middle Eastern groups. Following this original ordering would thus have placed the Mozabites, followed by the Bedouins, Druze, and Palestinians, immediately to the right of the other African groups. The effect would have been a clinal pattern, a slight gradient with the fringed orange of the Mozabites and Bedouins softening the boundary between orange and blue. Instead, by shifting the Mozabites to a Middle Eastern affiliation (eliminating the North African designation) and placing that entire regional grouping to the right of Europe, Figure 1 strands these groups in a sea of blue, diffusing the impact of their secondary clustering patterns and obscuring the genetic similarity between Middle Eastern and African groups. Intentionally or not, this implicitly posits the Sahara as divisive and encourages the perception of a sharp boundary on either side .
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:STRUCTURE uses Bayesian methods to assign individuals in a sample to source populations (Pritchard et al., 2000). Prior to this Bayesian approach, forerunners had developed related maximum likelihood approaches to population mixture and assignment (see Novembre, 2016). Because STRUCTURE’s methods are Bayesian, the authors of the most recent software documentation (version 2.3) caution that:
While the computational approaches implemented here are fairly powerful, some care is needed in running the program in order to ensure sensible answers. For example, it is not possible to determine suitable run-lengths theoretically, and this requires some experimentation on the part of the user. (Pritchard et al. 2010, p. 4, our emphasis)
Because there is an experimental art to running software of this kind (Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation in a Bayesian analysis), re-situating the software in different project settings where researchers with different “artistry” or operating choices can create situations with different problems of interpretation of results, even when the exact same dataset is used as a starting resource.
quote:Just as there is an “art” to running STRUCTURE, there is an art to seeing “clusters” according to PCA and an art to interpreting PC variables
quote:The key here is that K may be unknown, yet the method is model-based, so a value for K must be assumed for the software to operate. What this means in practice is that the software is used in an exploratory way, by setting K to each of a series of values, 1, 2, 3, … K, in a series of computer “runs” and then interpreting the results of each run in terms of the larger context of an exploration of a series of clustering relationships.Footnote23 It’s a sort of “guess and check” method of exploration: guess that K might be some number, then check the results of assuming K is that value rather than some other value to see if the results make more sense under one model or another. Rosenberg et al. (2002) report results for K = 2 up to K = 6
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] @El Maestro what program is that dark gray chart BP just posted?
Vahaduo, web based program that uses nmonte G25 coordinates to infer genetic distance and average Admixture estimates.
can the 18th dynasty by analyzed by this?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
@Maestro @Askia The thing is that I'm not necessarily against what you propose but in that case what do you make of this :
quote:All of the haplogroups analyzed here provide signs that Southwest Asia saw local population expansions from refugia, but Southwest Asia also acted as a reservoir for dispersals toward Africa (to northern Africa through the Levant and to eastern Africa via the Red Sea ; for example, the deep lineages within N1a) and Europe. These N(xR) expansions match signals from several haplogroup R lineages both within Arabia49 and toward Africa.
quote:Curiously, however, the fact that some of the branches studied here include deep lineages in eastern Africa (haplogroups I, N1a, and N1f) shows that migration back to Africa occurred a number of times between 15 and 40 ka ago .
The Arabian Cradle: Mitochondrial Relicts of the First Steps along the Southern Route out of Africa
quote:Overall, the correlation analysis and the f4 ancestry ratio statistic show that the North African component actually contributes to the signal of gene flow from Neandertals. Given that the North African autochthonous ancestry seems to be 12,000–40,000 years old [17], our hypothesis is that this ancestral population was descendant from the populations that first interbreed with Neandertals about ∼37,000–86,000 years ago [18] somewhere in the Middle East. Nonetheless further analyses in populations around the contact areas are needed to confirm this hypothesis.
quote: This suggests that most of IAM ancestry originates from an out-of-Africa source, as IAM shares more alleles with Levantines than with any sub-Saharan Africans, including the 4,500-y-old genome from Ethiopia (14). To further test the hypothesis that IAM is more closely related to out-of-Africa populations, we determined whether we could detect Neanderthal ancestry in IAM, which is typical of non-African populations. A signal of Neanderthal ancestry has been detected in modern North African populations (26). A lack of Neanderthal ancestry in IAM would imply that the signal observed today is a product of more recent migration into North Africa from the Middle East and Europe in historical times. Compared with the Neanderthal high coverage genome sequence from Altai (27) and the low-coverage sequence from Vindija Cave (28), and using the S statistic (24), we detected a Neanderthal introgression signal into IAM, suggesting derivation from the same event shared by non-African populations (SI Appendix, Supplementary Note 10).
You nor the data you posted are still not explaining why the descendants of Natufians(Levant_Chl) are showing very little of this component. The studies you posted are not addressing the real issues. They are only referencing the same position that we already know. However, let's say that this component is some ancient Eurasian component, at the end of the day it would've been absorbed by the local populations in Northeast Africa.
quote:Our high-resolution phylogenetic dissection of both haplogroups and coalescent time assessments suggest that the extant main branching pattern of both haplogroups arose and diversified in the mid-later Upper Palaeolithic, with some sub-clades concomitantly with the expansion of the Iberomaurusian industry. Carriers of these maternal lineages have been later absorbed into and diversified further during the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages in North and East Africa.
So, what is the point in really bringing up 35k year old supposed Eurasian ancestry(not denying Eurasian ancestry entered Africa around that time), when it was most likely absorbed by the time of the Neolithic period? As for Neanderthal ancestry? Okay, IAM most likely absorbed Neanderthal ancestry from southern Europe most likely. Yet what about Northeast Africa? Which if I remember correctly almost show NO Neanderthal ancestry if at all... Especially Horn of Africans.. The dark green component almost peaks in Horners, if this is the case why don't Horners show Neanderthal like ancestry? Same with Egyptians/Sudanese? I agree with certain posters(don't want to say their names in case of misrepresenting their position) that in the future we will see a split in Northeast and Northwest African indigenous ancestry, but that's a story for another time.
All in all, you are not focusing on the big elephant in the room in that Israel_C profile is not showing very LITTLE of this dark green component. The same Israel_C profile which would more than likely be the descendant of the Natufians. If this component in fact came from Eurasia, then it would've easily peaked in the Israel profile. Instead, we are not seeing that.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yeah that's what I feel like as well, the chart plus all the info coming out seems to be pointing to a genetic "unity" as you put it with the Afro-Asiatic populations...plus even more interesting, it extends to the Pastoralists in Kenya and Tanzania, who that made it as far as Kerma according to one DNA study...
What DNA study? It would've been the other way around with more northern populations migrating south. These Kenyan and Tanzanian pastoralists would've received this component most likely from the Horn, and the latter most likely from Egypt/Sudan region. Heck pastoralism comes from North Africa if I'm not mistaken. Either way this component based on what I am seeing is most likely indignous to Africa. And yea I see it as a indignous component mostly found in Afro-Asiatic speakers. When Afro-Asiatic is eventually confirmed to originated around Egypt/Sudan area then everything will be tied together. Now... If its confirmed to be found in "another" location then things get a bit interesting.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: It seems to me that, without more prehistoric samples from Northeastern Africa, "Natufian" is our best model for indigenous pre-OOA African ancestry in the region. Hence why you see a lot of Northeast African samples like Nubians and the East African Pastoral Neolithic getting modeled as Natufian/Dinka mixes.
What I find strange is that this abstract doesn't mention either a presence or absence of "sub-Saharan" ancestry in the Nuerat sample (Nuerat is in Middle Egypt a little north of Beni Hasan, BTW). I do expect to find a little Dinka- or Mota-like ancestry in there, maybe somewhere on the spectrum between the Abusir el-Meleq and the Kadruka samples, but we will have to wait until the results are published to verify or falsify my hunch.
Specifically Natufian without CHG or EHG.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
mtDNA recovered for 3 of the 5 Natufians that were tested
2 individuals of mtDNA J2 1 individual N1
______________________________
Note the Levant Neolithic samples had 1 individual of Hg K, similarly 18 dynasty Amarna females as well as Tutankhamun and Akhenaten as per Yehia Gad 2020
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The distinct local component in the east wont be that distinct due to the fact that Eurasian ancestry would likely be a subset of it. Also, 30kya Eurasian ancestry which is likely distinct from Natufian Ancestry(due to levant_Chl mostly forming their own component), that is likely to be shared by more Africans extant and extinct than their contemporaneous Eurasian counterparts is truly hardly Eurasian.
Furthermore, in Fregel et al. 2017, download the supp and Look at the genetic distances between Taforalt and every one else, Natufian and everyone else, IAM and everyone else and yoruba and Eurasians.
Can you confidently and intellectually honestly state for the board that you believe that a Eurasian component, increased the genetic distance between IAM and other Eurasians from their predecessors?
Can you confidently state that that same Eurasian component decreased the distance between IAM and Yoruba in relation to their predecessors?
Can you intellectually state that a Eurasian component which permeated Africa that long ago is indeed Eurasian but not represented well in Natufians and their likely descendants Levant_Chl? If not Natufians which Eurasian population should we liken this ancient Eurasian ancestry to?
What you wanted to pass off as ANA is now framed in a different light. The distinct North West African component had been parsed out due to the West African related ancestry forming it's own component. Hadza also formed their own component in the run, though their ancestry was reduced to noise amounts in Taforalt. I warned you that Aterian ancestry will likely be west_African related but you insisted it was ANA. So here we have it, this shared dark green component is not West African related, it absorbed Taforalt's Hadza related ancestry, and it follows the same ANA distribution pattern calculated a couple years ago.Does this precious 30Kya Eurasian ancestry in Africans have Aterian-ANA ancestry? Why or why not?
Come now Askia and Elmaestro, your valid questions might prove too much for the poor guy.
Recall Tishkoff's 2000 STR polymorphism study These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
Also, in Antalas's other thread on Old Kingdom aDNA which he has yet to respond, I posted:
quote: Then we have Tishkoff's 2009 autosomal study which was discussed in a thread on Mozabite Berbers here, wherein she stated: Within Africa, genetic diversity estimated from expected heterozygosity significantly correlates with estimates from microsatellite variance (fig. S4) (4) and varies by linguistic, geographic, and subsistence classifications (fig. S5). Three hunter-gatherer populations (Baka and Bakola Pygmies and San) were among the five populations with the highest levels of genetic diversity based on variance estimates (fig. S2A) (4). In addition, more private alleles exist in Africa than other regions (fig. S6A). Consistent with bi-directional gene flow (14), 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).
'Saharan Africans' is her term for North Africans.
^ Note the blue color represents alleged "Eurasian" ancestry. It should not come as a surprise that the 'Cape Couloured' folk of South Africa who descend from natives mixed with colonial whites and Asian immigrants have it. The presumption then is that Saharan populations like the Beja and especially Mozabite also posses it due to admixture, but Tishkoff cautions against such thinking especially since the Sub-Saharan Dogon carry it also!
Dogon
^ The Dogon look no different from 'typical' Sub-Saharans i.e. "negroes" which are the only people Antalas would call 'black', yet they carry more Eurasian autosomal alleles than Mozabites!
Any answers to this?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ The Dogon look no different from 'typical' Sub-Saharans i.e. "negroes" which are the only people Antalas would call 'black', yet they carry more Eurasian autosomal alleles than Mozabites!
^^ A.I. generated art, these aren't real people
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: [QB] @Antalas
You nor the data you posted are still not explaining why the descendants of Natufians(Levant_Chl) are showing very little of this component. The studies you posted are not addressing the real issues. They are only referencing the same position that we already know. However, let's say that this component is some ancient Eurasian component, at the end of the day it would've been absorbed by the local populations in Northeast Africa.
quote:Our high-resolution phylogenetic dissection of both haplogroups and coalescent time assessments suggest that the extant main branching pattern of both haplogroups arose and diversified in the mid-later Upper Palaeolithic, with some sub-clades concomitantly with the expansion of the Iberomaurusian industry. Carriers of these maternal lineages have been later absorbed into and diversified further during the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages in North and East Africa.
So, what is the point in really bringing up 35k year old supposed Eurasian ancestry(not denying Eurasian ancestry entered Africa around that time), when it was most likely absorbed by the time of the Neolithic period? As for Neanderthal ancestry? Okay, IAM most likely absorbed Neanderthal ancestry from southern Europe most likely. Yet what about Northeast Africa? Which if I remember correctly almost show NO Neanderthal ancestry if at all... Especially Horn of Africans.. The dark green component almost peaks in Horners, if this is the case why don't Horners show Neanderthal like ancestry? Same with Egyptians/Sudanese? I agree with certain posters(don't want to say their names in case of misrepresenting their position) that in the future we will see a split in Northeast and Northwest African indigenous ancestry, but that's a story for another time.
All in all, you are not focusing on the big elephant in the room in that Israel_C profile is not showing very LITTLE of this dark green component. The same Israel_C profile which would more than likely be the descendant of the Natufians. If this component in fact came from Eurasia, then it would've easily peaked in the Israel profile. Instead, we are not seeing that.
Israel_C were not purely natufian nor predominantly natufian and other factors could be at work here. Neanderthals were not in Africa so how did Upper Paleolithic north africans ended up with it if there were no eurasian back migrations back then ? The idea that this genetic component was "absorbed" is purely speculative and based on your assumptions. There is no supporting evidence, and given the low levels of demography at the time, even a small band of hunter-gatherers could have had a significant genetic impact.
Reality back then was more complex than what you guys are proposing.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: [QB] @Antalas
You nor the data you posted are still not explaining why the descendants of Natufians(Levant_Chl) are showing very little of this component. The studies you posted are not addressing the real issues. They are only referencing the same position that we already know. However, let's say that this component is some ancient Eurasian component, at the end of the day it would've been absorbed by the local populations in Northeast Africa.
quote:Our high-resolution phylogenetic dissection of both haplogroups and coalescent time assessments suggest that the extant main branching pattern of both haplogroups arose and diversified in the mid-later Upper Palaeolithic, with some sub-clades concomitantly with the expansion of the Iberomaurusian industry. Carriers of these maternal lineages have been later absorbed into and diversified further during the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages in North and East Africa.
So, what is the point in really bringing up 35k year old supposed Eurasian ancestry(not denying Eurasian ancestry entered Africa around that time), when it was most likely absorbed by the time of the Neolithic period? As for Neanderthal ancestry? Okay, IAM most likely absorbed Neanderthal ancestry from southern Europe most likely. Yet what about Northeast Africa? Which if I remember correctly almost show NO Neanderthal ancestry if at all... Especially Horn of Africans.. The dark green component almost peaks in Horners, if this is the case why don't Horners show Neanderthal like ancestry? Same with Egyptians/Sudanese? I agree with certain posters(don't want to say their names in case of misrepresenting their position) that in the future we will see a split in Northeast and Northwest African indigenous ancestry, but that's a story for another time.
All in all, you are not focusing on the big elephant in the room in that Israel_C profile is not showing very LITTLE of this dark green component. The same Israel_C profile which would more than likely be the descendant of the Natufians. If this component in fact came from Eurasia, then it would've easily peaked in the Israel profile. Instead, we are not seeing that.
Israel_C were not purely natufian nor predominantly natufian and other factors could be at work here. Neanderthals were not in Africa so how did Upper Paleolithic north africans ended up with it if there were no eurasian back migrations back then ? The idea that this genetic component was "absorbed" is purely speculative and based on your assumptions. There is no supporting evidence, and given the low levels of demography at the time, even a small band of hunter-gatherers could have had a significant genetic impact.
Reality back then was more complex than what you guys are proposing.
The reality that you're subtextually proposing is that there was predominant occupations of Eurasians in Africa for at least 20k years. I don't think there's much complexity in that Idea especially if you think it's important to point out that a clearly African (based on distribution) component is likely Eurasian. That's a gross oversimplification, especially given the fact that Eurasian occupation that old would very likely have a wider distribution among Africans and not just be represented in Horners and east Africans.
For instance do you think that these biologically and Morphometrical Africans of Takorkori represents pure Eurasians during the Early Neolithic?
The complex reality could be that what you point out just an example of relatedness to Early Eurasian populace which served as a dead end outside of Afica until further expansions of North Africans ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). If that's the case there's no reason to pointing out 30K year old Eurasians.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
^ The Dogon look no different from 'typical' Sub-Saharans i.e. "negroes" which are the only people Antalas would call 'black', yet they carry more Eurasian autosomal alleles than Mozabites!
^^ A.I. generated art, these aren't real people
AI generated a beard on an African woman?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: AI generated a beard on an African woman?
AI does a lot of weird shit, doesn't know any better
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I just did a quick google search. I don't know why they are putting AI generated art when there real life pictures. It's bad enough people try to pass real life pics of people as 'Egyptians' when they're not.
Here are I'm assuming real pics of Dogon
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ [QUOTE]Originally posted by Elmaestro: [qb] The distinct local component in the east wont be that distinct due to the fact that Eurasian ancestry would likely be a subset of it. Also, 30kya Eurasian ancestry which is likely distinct from Natufian Ancestry(due to levant_Chl mostly forming their own component), that is likely to be shared by more Africans extant and extinct than their contemporaneous Eurasian counterparts is truly hardly Eurasian.
Furthermore, in Fregel et al. 2017, download the supp and Look at the genetic distances between Taforalt and every one else, Natufian and everyone else, IAM and everyone else and yoruba and Eurasians.
Can you confidently and intellectually honestly state for the board that you believe that a Eurasian component, increased the genetic distance between IAM and other Eurasians from their predecessors?
Can you confidently state that that same Eurasian component decreased the distance between IAM and Yoruba in relation to their predecessors?
Can you intellectually state that a Eurasian component which permeated Africa that long ago is indeed Eurasian but not represented well in Natufians and their likely descendants Levant_Chl? If not Natufians which Eurasian population should we liken this ancient Eurasian ancestry to?
What you wanted to pass off as ANA is now framed in a different light. The distinct North West African component had been parsed out due to the West African related ancestry forming it's own component. Hadza also formed their own component in the run, though their ancestry was reduced to noise amounts in Taforalt. I warned you that Aterian ancestry will likely be west_African related but you insisted it was ANA. So here we have it, this shared dark green component is not West African related, it absorbed Taforalt's Hadza related ancestry, and it follows the same ANA distribution pattern calculated a couple years ago.Does this precious 30Kya Eurasian ancestry in Africans have Aterian-ANA ancestry? Why or why not?
Come now Askia and Elmaestro, your valid questions might prove too much for the poor guy.
Recall Tishkoff's 2000 STR polymorphism study These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998)that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999).
Also, in Antalas's other thread on Old Kingdom aDNA which he has yet to respond, I posted:
quote: Then we have Tishkoff's 2009 autosomal study which was discussed in a thread on Mozabite Berbers here, wherein she stated: Within Africa, genetic diversity estimated from expected heterozygosity significantly correlates with estimates from microsatellite variance (fig. S4) (4) and varies by linguistic, geographic, and subsistence classifications (fig. S5). Three hunter-gatherer populations (Baka and Bakola Pygmies and San) were among the five populations with the highest levels of genetic diversity based on variance estimates (fig. S2A) (4). In addition, more private alleles exist in Africa than other regions (fig. S6A). Consistent with bi-directional gene flow (14), 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).
'Saharan Africans' is her term for North Africans.
^ Note the blue color represents alleged "Eurasian" ancestry. It should not come as a surprise that the 'Cape Couloured' folk of South Africa who descend from natives mixed with colonial whites and Asian immigrants have it. The presumption then is that Saharan populations like the Beja and especially Mozabite also posses it due to admixture, but Tishkoff cautions against such thinking especially since the Sub-Saharan Dogon carry it also!
ElMaestro can you address this blue element in the TIshkoff In the article
Published online 2009 Apr 30. doi: 10.1126/science.1172257 PMCID: PMC2947357 NIHMSID: NIHMS231118 PMID: 19407144 The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans Sarah A. Tishkoff, et al 2009
African and African American populations, with the exception of the Dogon of Mali, show the highest levels of within-population genetic diversity (θ = 4Neμ, where is the level of genetic diversity based on variance of microsatellite allele length, Ne is the effective population size, and μ is the microsatellite mutation rate) (figs. S2 and S3).
The fourth PC (3.7%) is associated with the Mozabites, some Dogon, and the CMA individuals, who show ancestry from the European–Middle Eastern cluster. The fifth PC (3.1%) is associated with SAK speakers. The 10th PC was of particular interest (2.2%) because it associates with the SAK, Sandawe, and some Dogon individuals, suggesting shared ancestry.
Another geographically contiguous cluster extends across northern Africa (blue) into Mali (the Dogon), Ethiopia, and northern Kenya. With the exception of the Dogon, these populations speak an Afroasiatic language.
___________________________________
Supplement, quotes
(charts not shown)
Dogon samples were obtained from blood spots donated by participants in a cohort study of malaria incidence in Bandiagara, Mali. Ghanaian DNA was extracted onsite from whole blood, with the Purgene™ DNA extraction kit. Malian Dogon DNA samples were amplified by Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) with Illustra GenomiPhi HY™ kits provided by GE-Healthcare (Buckinghamshire, UK).
The Dogon from Mali, who speak a Niger-Kordofanian language, cluster near the Saharan populations in the phylogenetic trees (Figs. 1, S7, S8), consistent with the results from STRUCTURE analysis, showing considerable Saharan (blue) ancestry, and consistent with oral history of a northern African origin (although it should be noted that the sample size for this population, 9 individuals, is very small and many markers did not amplify well) (Figs. 5B and 5C; Table S9).
OCTOBER 1, 2000 Hemoglobin C associated with protection from severe malaria in the Dogon of Mali, a West African population with a low prevalence of hemoglobin S
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The reality that you're subtextually proposing is that there was predominant occupations of Eurasians in Africa for at least 20k years. I don't think there's much complexity in that Idea especially if you think it's important to point out that a clearly African (based on distribution) component is likely Eurasian. That's a gross oversimplification, especially given the fact that Eurasian occupation that old would very likely have a wider distribution among Africans and not just be represented in Horners and east Africans.
For instance do you think that these biologically and Morphometrical Africans of Takorkori represents pure Eurasians during the Early Neolithic?
The complex reality could be that what you point out just an example of relatedness to Early Eurasian populace which served as a dead end outside of Afica until further expansions of North Africans ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). If that's the case there's no reason to pointing out 30K year old Eurasians. [/QB]
No I'm telling you that population movements between Africa and Asia have been bi-directional since at least the Upper Paleolithic period and we do have evidence of this. Meanwhile what you're proposing (eurasian admixture only after the mid Holocene) is far-fetched and not in lines with the Data. Additionally, this does not negate the idea of another local component that is still not detected properly by those tools. And eurasian ancestry has been detected for non east african SSAs
No I do not believe the Takorkori specimen would be "pure eurasians" your point ? Btw the paper also proposes a eurasian introgression during the timeframe we're talking about. As for your last sentence I stay open to that possibility it just doesn't seem to be in phase with the Data (you should reread Lazaridis et al. 2018).
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Israel_C were not purely natufian nor predominantly natufian and other factors could be at work here. Neanderthals were not in Africa so how did Upper Paleolithic north africans ended up with it if there were no eurasian back migrations back then ? The idea that this genetic component was "absorbed" is purely speculative and based on your assumptions. There is no supporting evidence, and given the low levels of demography at the time, even a small band of hunter-gatherers could have had a significant genetic impact.
Reality back then was more complex than what you guys are proposing.
No one is arguing "purity", certainly not me. And even if the Israel_C were not "predominantly" Natufian, they would still have significant Natufian ancestry. In fact other studies showed that Israelis from the Chalcolithic period had SIGNIFICANT ancestry that the Natufians had. As shown here. No offense, but I am having a hard time following your argument Antalas(btw that chart is from Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation), as the chart shows in that study Levantine populations during the Chalcolithic period clearly had Natufian like ancestry, meanwhile this same ancestry is not being detected in huge amounts in the Horner, Kenyan/Tanzanian pastoralist or ancient Moroccans profile in large amounts compared to the dark green(which I bet $100 on is indigenous North African) from that chart in the Swahili study. The blue in the Israel_C is Natufian ancestry and I bet $100 on it. If the Israel C were not predominantly Natufian, then can you explain why that ancestry skipped a people(Israel C) who lived in the area that ancestry is from to be found predominantly in Northeast Africans?
As for Neanderthals? No one denied Neanderthals were in Africa, however I said Neanderthal ancestry in Northwest Africa was most likely due to ancestry from southern Europe. Northeast Africans as far as I can remember have very little to no Neanderthal ancestry. Unless, you can point me to a study that shows such and I will be interested. And as for that Eurasian component from 30,000 years ago being absorbed? This is NOT "speculation", when a study I posted literally proposed that. Heck, the majority of studies propose this. Unless you're telling me that U6 never became localized?
Either way, all in all these profiles are showing dark green and not blue like Israel C which clearly raises eyebrows. Thus far I have not seen any credible evidence/theories that dismisses the dark green as indigenous North African.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote: Originally posted by the lioness,: quote: Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: quote: Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Ironically genes in the saliva of modern Sub-Saharans shows such admixture with archaic Hominins which racist whites use as evidence to dehumanize said Africans. So the genetics of Sub-Saharans correlates with Nazlet Khater. Which white people are you referring to? what are their names and are the quotes of them saying these things? [/QUOTEB]
Stop gaslighting Lioness, you asked me the same exact thing in the other thread about Keita, which white supremacist you said, I produced ample evidence and you have yet to comment I AM STILL WAITING. I hope you read all and I mean ALL the sources and names of DNA scientists I referenced.
So why would anyone waste time producing evidence for you. White supremacist have been using the archaic admixture in Africans to imply that they are less than human since that study came out. You didn't answer it. You got scared and just put up some quotes, opinions of other people [QUOTE] It's a simple request, list a few names of people you think (not who someone else said this or that about), you in your own words, in one sentence naming who you think is a white supremacist. I'm tired of the bluffing, and hypothetical boogeymen
In this case with Djehuti, name the racist whites researchers who tried to dehumanize Africans by suggesting they have admixture with archaic Hominins
There is no risk here, we aren't even using our gov't name in this forum, just name the damn people first
Let's have some metaphorical balls here, and call out these evil whites by name Stop lying... the qoutes where answers, there are real dna scientist who believe Rosenbergs 5 continental races and used that study to expound on races and IQ...
Quit being a lazy gaslighter and go read ALL and I mean ALL of my links. The whole excercise of genomics was founded by a scientific racist and the whole point was to prove races exist, and negroes/ i.e. Yoruba are a subspecies of humanity.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Lioness...one thing I am not is is scared of debating anyone here...
And when you go back and read the Skirmish between Rosenberg and Paabo... you will see two different methods to come to the same conclusion. "human races"
When Reich says "populations" that is a euphemism for races....
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Quit being a lazy gaslighter and go read ALL and I mean ALL of my links. The whole excercise of genomics was founded by a scientific racist and the whole point was to prove races exist, and negroes/ i.e. Yoruba are a subspecies of humanity.
Yea... Take this to the Deshret section pls.
Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Lioness...one thing I am not is is scared of debating anyone here...
And when you go back and read the Skirmish between Rosenberg and Paabo... you will see two different methods to come to the same conclusion. "human races"
When Reich says "populations" that is a euphemism for races....
Biometrics. 😎
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Quit being a lazy gaslighter and go read ALL and I mean ALL of my links. The whole excercise of genomics was founded by a scientific racist and the whole point was to prove races exist, and negroes/ i.e. Yoruba are a subspecies of humanity.
Yea... Take this to the Deshret section pls.
This was a continuation of a discussion started here in this thread...
Why should it be in Deshret where is Lioness feel likes she is loosing the debate she will just delete. Nah, that is cool... I end this discussion now. I have better things to do than debate common knowledge or what should be common knowledge with a troll.
Posted by Geometer (Member # 23746) on :
Admin edit: Large image formatted to link. Pls be MINDFUL of large images making thread hard to read.
[ 06. April 2023, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Askia_The_Great ]
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The reality that you're subtextually proposing is that there was predominant occupations of Eurasians in Africa for at least 20k years. I don't think there's much complexity in that Idea especially if you think it's important to point out that a clearly African (based on distribution) component is likely Eurasian. That's a gross oversimplification, especially given the fact that Eurasian occupation that old would very likely have a wider distribution among Africans and not just be represented in Horners and east Africans.
For instance do you think that these biologically and Morphometrical Africans of Takorkori represents pure Eurasians during the Early Neolithic?
The complex reality could be that what you point out just an example of relatedness to Early Eurasian populace which served as a dead end outside of Afica until further expansions of North Africans ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). If that's the case there's no reason to pointing out 30K year old Eurasians.
No I'm telling you that population movements between Africa and Asia have been bi-directional since at least the Upper Paleolithic period and we do have evidence of this. Meanwhile what you're proposing (eurasian admixture only after the mid Holocene) is far-fetched and not in lines with the Data. Additionally, this does not negate the idea of another local component that is still not detected properly by those tools. And eurasian ancestry has been detected for non east african SSAs
No I do not believe the Takorkori specimen would be "pure eurasians" your point ? Btw the paper also proposes a eurasian introgression during the timeframe we're talking about. As for your last sentence I stay open to that possibility it just doesn't seem to be in phase with the Data (you should reread Lazaridis et al. 2018). [/QB]
You're moving the goalpost a bit buddy. You insinuated that the dark green component should be attributed to more ancient Eurasian Admixture in Africa. I'm arguing against that. One of my major talking points which you quoted above is the fact that Eurasian ancestry that old would not be localized. You provided further evidence for that by presenting the studies that highlight neanderthal components in Africa all of which included west Africans who do not carry the dark green component. So the initial question remains. Why are you mentioning 30+kyo Eurasian admixture in the context of the graph if you don't even believe that the N* carrying saharans with some Mechtoid Morphological affinities were pure Eurasians?
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: This was a continuation of a discussion started here in this thread...
Why should it be in Deshret where is Lioness feel likes she is loosing the debate she will just delete. Nah, that is cool... I end this discussion now. I have better things to do than debate common knowledge or what should be common knowledge with a troll.
1. Lioness is no longer moderator of Deshret.
2. This is the Egyptology section where genetics is an important discussion. If you have a problem with genetics then this section is not for you.
3. Saying genetics was created to prove race/and that Blacks are subhumans is extremely laughable considering that genetics literally break down the very foundations of "race." Yea certain people with agendas can TRY and manipulate genetics, but genetics in itself does not prove race in general exist. Seriously, welcome to a thing called "science."
4. Was genetics "racist" when modern genetics proved that humans come from Africa? Or DNAtribes? Or how about that predictor by Zahi Hawass showing Ramses III being e1b1a? Was it "racist" then?
And yea thank you for ending this discussion.
@Elmaestro
Yea, good point. Eurasian ancestry that old would've been more widespread in Africa.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great:
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: This was a continuation of a discussion started here in this thread...
Why should it be in Deshret where is Lioness feel likes she is loosing the debate she will just delete. Nah, that is cool... I end this discussion now. I have better things to do than debate common knowledge or what should be common knowledge with a troll.
1. Lioness is no longer moderator of Deshret.
2. This is the Egyptology section where genetics is an important discussion. If you have a problem with genetics then this section is not for you.
3. Saying genetics was created to prove race/and that Blacks are subhumans is extremely laughable considering that genetics literally break down the very foundations of "race." Yea certain people with agendas can TRY and manipulate genetics, but genetics in itself does not prove race in general exist. Seriously, welcome to a thing called "science."
4. Was genetics "racist" when modern genetics proved that humans come from Africa? Or DNAtribes? Or how about that predictor by Zahi Hawass showing Ramses III being e1b1a? Was it "racist" then?
And yea thank you for ending this discussion.
I get what " science " is but that was not the question. The question was what was the long term goal of Eugenics, which led to the discovery of " dna" and what is the current goal of genetics. What people, governments and scientists do with the information gleaned from "science" How is "genetics" and "science" framed for the general public consumption. THAT was the question and yes I end the discussion again here . While leaving some info
Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-first Century Paperback – September 1, 2012
quote:This groundbreaking book by legal scholar and social critic Dorothy Roberts examines how the myth of race as a biological concept―revived by purportedly cutting-edge science, race-specific drugs, genetic testing, and DNA databases―continues to undermine a just society and promote inequality in a supposedly “post-racial ...
Backdoor to Eugenics 2nd Edition by Troy Duster (Author)
quote:The study of knowledge formation is at once one of the most funda- mental and complex issues in human history. At specific points in time, select social questions emerge for critical, detailed, close inspection and the laying on of the tightest strictures of the prevailing epistemology of a culture. In the present period, this path is identified as science , but every culture and every epoch has its equivalent claim to faith in procedures of investigation that resolve matters in areas deemed knowable and worth knowing.
quote:. In the tradition of the sociology of knowledge, the major point here is that even when there is fraud , bodies of scientific work on the genetics of a phenomenon in such a hotly contested arena take on lives of their own, and often can produce and have direct social policy spinoffs.
PSG Lecture 15 Dec 2021 - Eugenics: A Dark History and Troubling Present Dr Adam Rutherford
1. Good to know that Lioness is no longer moderator of Deshret
2. While the R3 Dna test was great, know this, there will never be another DNA test of a Rameside Pharaoh, because they are ALL likely E1b1a even the semetic looking Seti I and R2
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
I thought you said you were done? If you want to critique genetics then do it in the Deshret.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
2. While the R3 Dna test was great, know this, there will never be another DNA test of a Rameside Pharaoh, because they are ALL likely E1b1a even the semetic looking Seti I and R2
who was the grandfather of R3 ?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The reality that you're subtextually proposing is that there was predominant occupations of Eurasians in Africa for at least 20k years. I don't think there's much complexity in that Idea especially if you think it's important to point out that a clearly African (based on distribution) component is likely Eurasian. That's a gross oversimplification, especially given the fact that Eurasian occupation that old would very likely have a wider distribution among Africans and not just be represented in Horners and east Africans.
For instance do you think that these biologically and Morphometrical Africans of Takorkori represents pure Eurasians during the Early Neolithic?
The complex reality could be that what you point out just an example of relatedness to Early Eurasian populace which served as a dead end outside of Afica until further expansions of North Africans ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). If that's the case there's no reason to pointing out 30K year old Eurasians.
No I'm telling you that population movements between Africa and Asia have been bi-directional since at least the Upper Paleolithic period and we do have evidence of this. Meanwhile what you're proposing (eurasian admixture only after the mid Holocene) is far-fetched and not in lines with the Data. Additionally, this does not negate the idea of another local component that is still not detected properly by those tools. And eurasian ancestry has been detected for non east african SSAs
No I do not believe the Takorkori specimen would be "pure eurasians" your point ? Btw the paper also proposes a eurasian introgression during the timeframe we're talking about. As for your last sentence I stay open to that possibility it just doesn't seem to be in phase with the Data (you should reread Lazaridis et al. 2018).
You're moving the goalpost a bit buddy. You insinuated that the dark green component should be attributed to more ancient Eurasian Admixture in Africa. I'm arguing against that. One of my major talking points which you quoted above is the fact that Eurasian ancestry that old would not be localized. You provided further evidence for that by presenting the studies that highlight neanderthal components in Africa all of which included west Africans who do not carry the dark green component. So the initial question remains. Why are you mentioning 30+kyo Eurasian admixture in the context of the graph if you don't even believe that the N* carrying saharans with some Mechtoid Morphological affinities were pure Eurasians? [/QB]
Indeed, nobody argued anything about "purity" so that is another strawdoll. The argument is that there is continuity between Sub-Sahara and and North Africa.
That is why North Africans are genetically closer to West Africans than the latter is to South Africans. And the reason why West Eurasians (Europeans and Southwest Asians) cluster close to North Africans is not only due to admixture of the former to the latter because of back-migrations but admixture going the other way around which is why West Eurasians carry specific African markers. This was known since the late 90s with Cavalli-Sforza's study
L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA Genes, peoples, and languages Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997
Also the point about Tishkoff is that due to the fact that Eurasians originated from Northeast Africa it would be easy to mistake ancient alleles indigenous to the area for those that back-migrated from Eurasia proper. This is why even armchair experts like Razib Khan are starting to admit that the autosomal marker 'Basal Eurasian' is actually African in origin.
And of course the argument you vehemently deny but is true is that North Africans were indeed black. As shown by the Egyptians in their own portraiture not to mention melanin tests done on their mummies as well as genetic tests.
And so were the Natufians again according to genetic tests.
So you fail on all counts. And please don't give me any ridiculous argument on definitions of 'black' since you won't give one for 'white' but sure do post a lot examples of it from modern coastal Amazigh who don't reflect the populations we discuss!
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: I thought you said you were done? If you want to critique genetics then do it in the Deshret.
I am done
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Indeed, nobody argued anything about "purity" so that is another strawdoll. The argument is that there is continuity between Sub-Sahara and and North Africa.
That is why North Africans are genetically closer to West Africans than the latter is to South Africans.
This lists ancient samples and South Africans from 12,000 and 2000BP Are either of these referring to San and Khoi people? what samples is this derived from? I have not heard of aDNA recovered from South Africa 12,000 BP
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA Genes, peoples, and languages Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997
This outdated 25 year old article is the type of thing beyoku was warning about, even Tukuler schooled you on numerous times, yet you cling to it, posting it year after year for polemical reasons
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: No one is arguing "purity", certainly not me. And even if the Israel_C were not "predominantly" Natufian, they would still have significant Natufian ancestry. In fact other studies showed that Israelis from the Chalcolithic period had SIGNIFICANT ancestry that the Natufians had. As shown here. No offense, but I am having a hard time following your argument Antalas(btw that chart is from Ancient DNA from Chalcolithic Israel reveals the role of population mixture in cultural transformation), as the chart shows in that study Levantine populations during the Chalcolithic period clearly had Natufian like ancestry, meanwhile this same ancestry is not being detected in huge amounts in the Horner, Kenyan/Tanzanian pastoralist or ancient Moroccans profile in large amounts compared to the dark green(which I bet $100 on is indigenous North African) from that chart in the Swahili study. The blue in the Israel_C is Natufian ancestry and I bet $100 on it. If the Israel C were not predominantly Natufian, then can you explain why that ancestry skipped a people(Israel C) who lived in the area that ancestry is from to be found predominantly in Northeast Africans?
As for Neanderthals? No one denied Neanderthals were in Africa, however I said Neanderthal ancestry in Northwest Africa was most likely due to ancestry from southern Europe. Northeast Africans as far as I can remember have very little to no Neanderthal ancestry. Unless, you can point me to a study that shows such and I will be interested. And as for that Eurasian component from 30,000 years ago being absorbed? This is NOT "speculation", when a study I posted literally proposed that. Heck, the majority of studies propose this. Unless you're telling me that U6 never became localized?
Either way, all in all these profiles are showing dark green and not blue like Israel C which clearly raises eyebrows. Thus far I have not seen any credible evidence/theories that dismisses the dark green as indigenous North African.
Why are we even arguing ? My proposal was simply that the component could potentially be an older Eurasian component, given that migrations dating back to the Upper Paleolithic are known, and that's also what some papers, such as Hodgson et al 2014, have suggested. However, I am also open to the possibility of an African autochthonous origin, which I find interesting.
As for Israel_C like I said it isn't that simple such stark contrast with the other samples can for instance be explained by genetic drift. Don't rely too heavily on it because it's likely that future papers will present new results and modeling that may change the current chart. Anyway the hypothesis that Neanderthal ancestry was mediated by WHG is not supported by archaeology, and if I recall correctly, one of Lazaridis' latest paper showed no evidence of WHG contribution to IBM.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: You're moving the goalpost a bit buddy. You insinuated that the dark green component should be attributed to more ancient Eurasian Admixture in Africa. I'm arguing against that.
Ok then what do you make of all the material and genetic evidence of such old back to Africa migrations ? You'll tell me that U6 didn't have an extensive expansion in NW Africa ? How did Afalou end up with middle eastern HGs like JT or T2 ?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: One of my major talking points which you quoted above is the fact that Eurasian ancestry that old would not be localized. You provided further evidence for that by presenting the studies that highlight neanderthal components in Africa all of which included west Africans who do not carry the dark green component. So the initial question remains. Why are you mentioning 30+kyo Eurasian admixture in the context of the graph if you don't even believe that the N* carrying saharans with some Mechtoid Morphological affinities were pure Eurasians? [/QB]
I don't get it. Why wouldn't an old Eurasian component be localized in Africa, while the African component would be, if they are of the same age ? In the case of Takorkori, I don't see why you expect me to find them perfectly eurasian in 5k BC ? Because they carry an ancestral N lineage ?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: This outdated 25 year old article is the type of thing beyoku was warning about and Tukuler schooled you on numerous times, yet you cling to it for polemical reasons [/QB]
He does this everytime, ignoring all the latest studies and he reminds me of Afrocentrists who rely on early 20th-century anthropological papers to support their unfounded claims. It's just a clown that's why serious members constantly ignore him.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
And of course the argument you vehemently deny but is true is that North Africans were indeed black. As shown by the Egyptians in their own portraiture not to mention melanin tests done on their mummies as well as genetic tests.
And so were the Natufians again according to genetic tests.
So you fail on all counts. And please don't give me any ridiculous argument on definitions of 'black' since you won't give one for 'white' but sure do post a lot examples of it from modern coastal Amazigh who don't reflect the populations we discuss! [/QB]
Hahahaha I thought there was no such thing as "black ancestry" ?? Now suddenly the "genetic tests" are confirming that "North Africans were indeed black" ? Thanks for contradicting yourself XD
Did you forget your words ? :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I thought we already explained to your dumbass multiple times before that a category is only as valid as it is logical. In this case "black" is simply a descriptor of color. There is nothing invalid about it. However you are correct in that the category only describes skin color alone and not ancestry OR culture. The category itself though is no more "racist" or even "Eurocentric" than is the label "white". Hence why non-European Indians also use the label to describe very dark peoples especially in the south, or Southeast Asians use the term to describe aboriginal types. This is why when people identify themselves ethnically, they use actual ethnic names NOT skin color or race, except in the West where blacks are a minority to the predominant whites. Even then 'black' in and of itself is not an ethnic identity though Black American, Black Canadian, etc. is because of the particular cultural groups labeled by skin color.
Again you said :
However you are correct in that the category only describes skin color alone and not ancestry OR culture.
So how could genetic tests detect it ?
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why are we even arguing ? My proposal was simply that the component could potentially be an older Eurasian component, given that migrations dating back to the Upper Paleolithic are known, and that's also what some papers, such as Hodgson et al 2014, have suggested. However, I am also open to the possibility of an African autochthonous origin, which I find interesting.
And the bolded is exactly what I am disagreeing with. No one is denying that there was a migration into North Africa during the Paleolithic but just HOW widespread was the distribution of that ancestry?? I agree with Elmaestro that it couldn't have been that large for it to have little impact throughout Africa. Like I said the dark green I bet $100 that its indigenous Northeast African. And it being indigenous Northeast African does not mean you are no longer "North African" my Berber brotha from another motha...
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: As for Israel_C like I said it isn't that simple such stark contrast with the other samples can for instance be explained by genetic drift. Don't rely too heavily on it because it's likely that future papers will present new results and modeling that may change the current chart. Anyway the hypothesis that Neanderthal ancestry was mediated by WHG is not supported by archaeology, and if I recall correctly, one of Lazaridis' latest paper showed no evidence of WHG contribution to IBM. [/QB]
As for the bolded we shall wait and see. But currently as far as I can see the Israel_C had significant Natufian ancestry and yet very little to none of the green. It is what it is...
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: And it being indigenous Northeast African does not mean you are no longer "North African" my Berber brotha from another motha...
I did not argued because of this because like you said african or eurasian it wouldn't change much in regards to how I plot. However, I don't like the tendency among some Panafricanist members here to "Africanize" everything and their insinuation that there were no Eurasian back migrations prior to the Holocene. Reality is always more complex and nuanced.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You're moving the goalpost a bit buddy. You insinuated that the dark green component should be attributed to more ancient Eurasian Admixture in Africa. I'm arguing against that.Ok then what do you make of all the material and genetic evidence of such old back to Africa migrations ? You'll tell me that U6 didn't have an extensive expansion in NW Africa ? How did Afalou end up with middle eastern HGs like JT or T2 ?
Why are you just naming Eurasian haplogroups? Aren't you supposed to be arguing that the dark green component (Which absorbed Hadza-related Ancestry) is just Earlier Eurasian ancestry? Do you not see that Taforalt in addition to the dark green component has clear Eurasian ancestry (represented by blue)??
quote:I don't get it. Why wouldn't an old Eurasian component be localized in Africa, while the African component would be, if they are of the same age ? In the case of Takorkori, I don't see why you expect me to find them perfectly eurasian in 5k BC ? Because they carry an ancestral N lineage ?
Because you're arguing the Green component is just older Eurasian ancestry. They would be a juicy representative of what could be old Eurasian Ancestry, given their profile and MT Haplogroup. not only that but they play in well with my last statement in which you partially accepted but don't seem to fully understand. Also, in regards to the localization of just onlder Eurasian, if you trace neanderthal DNA like you tried to do earlier you'll see how widespread this Eurasian ancestry was.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
"Panafricanist Members"....Do you even know what Pan-africanism is...
You know what...let me shut up, yall are having a civil and academic conversation....
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: And it being indigenous Northeast African does not mean you are no longer "North African" my Berber brotha from another motha...
I did not argued because of this because like you said african or eurasian it wouldn't change much in regards to how I plot. However, I don't like the tendency among some Panafricanist members here to "Africanize" everything and their insinuation that there were no Eurasian back migrations prior to the Holocene. Reality is always more complex and nuanced.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
@ElMaestro How would ANA be represented in this model ? If these aren't UP eurasians who are they ? Aterians ? Takarkori as an Aterian relict pop. ?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@El Maestro, in my post above, posted 05 April, 2023 12:07 PM , That has the Tishkoff chart that has the Dogon on it as well as some quote from the articles text as well as more details in the supplement quoted. How do you think that is explainable, all that blue Eurasian component?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So far as regard Dogon Y DNA it is one study's Dogon Y DNA E1a 45.4 E1b1a 43.6
sample of 55, this could be the highest frequency of E1a in Africa
E-M132/E1a has been found in the remains of one Guanche (1/30) from the Canary Islands, and one Bimbape (1/16) from El Hierro that has been dated to the 10th century CE.
Distribution
E-M132 Frequencies in select populations E-M132 is found most often in West Africa, and today it is especially common in the region of Mali.
________________________
As for mtDNA it's harder to find data
Four of the six Dogon subjects analyzed belong to the L2 cluster (0.7), whereas the other two are L3 (0.3)
~ Mitochondrial DNA Variation in Mauritania and Mali and their Genetic Relationship to Other Western Africa Populations A. M. Gonzalez ´ 1,∗, V. M. Cabrera 2006
___________ ^^^ (very small sample size)
___________________________________
Another geographically contiguous cluster extends across northern Africa (blue) into Mali (the Dogon), Ethiopia, and northern Kenya. With the exception of the Dogon, these populations speak an Afroasiatic language.
The second PC (6.1%) distinguishes the Hadza; the third PC (4.9%) distinguishes Pygmy and SAK individuals from other Africans. The fourth PC (3.7%) is associated with the Mozabites, some Dogon, and the CMA individuals, who show ancestry from the European–Middle Eastern cluster.
~ The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans Sarah A. Tishkoff, 2009
.
.
Yet in that Tishkoff pie chart the Dogon are resembling Mozabites whose DNA was also classified as 54% Eurasian mtDNA by Coudray, 2009
Tishkoff's article was based on just 9 individuals Dogon There is very little genetic data on them generally as far as I know
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:@ElMaestro How would ANA be represented in this model ? If these aren't UP eurasians who are they ? Aterians ? Takarkori as an Aterian relict pop. ?
@Antalas. I'm not sure who/what you mean by these?
But hopefully it's addressed in the following. there was a separation of who would become biological north Africans loosely identifiable as ANA. We will eventually be able to see a western cluster and an eastern cluster. The western cluster will be due to mixture with local populations with relicit human biological traits and local adaptations. Them plus the addition of an un-cited UP Eurasian group on the WHG cline will then form the Iberomaurasian. The local populations could very well be Aterian related. The eastern cluster will later follow the distribution we see in the graph Beyoku posted. They in combination with whichever proximal population will go on to become preedynastic Nilers, Horners and etc.
@Lioness. I thought it was covered that Tiskoffs Dogon samples were likely mislabeled? Dogon are not ~50% Eurasian.
@Jari LoL
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
@Lioness. I thought it was covered that Tiskoffs Dogon samples were likely mislabeled? Dogon are not ~50% Eurasian.
I don't know who covered it. I just can't explain it at this point
I found this old comment form Dienekes' blog 2009. This is not the whole long comment but it is the part pertaining to the Dogon:
....According to Tishkoff, one of the main conclusions of her study is that the world population samples produced 14 genetic clusters, and that 9 of them were in Africa. She said the clusters represent "genetically divergent ancestral population clusters". "You're seeing more diversity in one continent than across the globe". Clearly, according to Tishkoff, the 14 clusters she identified represent 14 ancestral populations, each with its own individual migratory history, existing separately from the other 13 ancestral populations for a long enough time to develop their own genetic profile, discernable today in Tishkoff's study. [Another important conclusion is that "the new findings will help medical researchers tailor drug treatments for different groups of Africans rather than treating them as homogenous."]
But identifying a genetic cluster doesn't automatically mean it represents an ancient population cluster. In her previous study from 2004, "Implications of biogeography of human populations for ‘race’ and medicine", she analyzed Rosenberg's genetic study of the 52 global populations of the HGDP samples, which resulted in 6 clusters. The clusters consisted of entire continents, except one which was made up exclusively by the Kalash in the mountains of north Pakistan. Tishkoff said that this 6th cluster "probably reflects high levels of inbreeding and genetic drift in that group". That's very likely and I completely agree. So in this case we have an example of a genetic cluster that doesn't represent an ancestral population, and in fact, the exact opposite, an extremely recent population cluster.
In this study, Tishkoff hasn't looked into this, because 3 of the 14 genetic clusters are almost certainly the result of inbreeding. In graph S10 (page 34) of the supplementary file of the study, they are the Dogon (gray), Hadza (yellow), and Mbugu (white). The latter 2 have less then 10,000 people, like the Kalash, and are clear candidates for inbreeding. The Dogon are instead almost a million people, but their samples were treated differently than the rest. "Because the inclusion of closely related individuals can impact population genetic inferences, we took the conservative approach of excluding individuals inferred to be third degree or more closely related. An exception was made in the case of the Dogon as it is difficult to reliably infer relative pairs in a small sample." The Dogon consisted of 9 samples (the average was 20). They were exempted from a test of relatedness, which means inbreeding can't be ruled out. And they form a cluster to which they belong 100% and which isn't found in any other population in any amount. This is identical to the Kalash or the Hadza, and it's to be expected from inbreeding. All the Dogon samples came from the same small city. I would easily consider the Dogon, Hadza, and Mbugu clusters to be the artifact of inbreeding, like the Kalash in Rosenberg's study, and discard them. That leaves 11 global genetic clusters, 6 of which are found in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: Repost.
Here's a post from a friend of mine on another forum, Aware-Dog, his input should be inciteful in regard to the situation.
"Doctoris Scientia, they used the data from the unsupervised structure runs to identify the populations having a high frequency of distinct ancestral clusters, in order to be used as training populations to run the supervised structure analysis. (read pg.7 in the supp. material)
Also, in the main paper (not the supplementary material), the results of the Supervised structure run for Africa were the only ones reported by Tishkoff and her team(fig. 5b), this is the only data pertinent to Africa.
And even if you want to play it safe, in regard to the Beja and Beta Israel by taking into account the averages of both the supervised and unsupervised structure run results; the possibly North African and/or Eurasian Saharan/Dogon cluster would only obviously account for 23-27% of their ancestry. Take away about half for ancient common ancestry with non-Africans that Northeast and North Africans possess and you would be left with approximately 12-14% of what can be described as potential Non-African admix in northerly Northeast Africans, not as significant." In regard to the 2 paragraph... optimized? I'm going to have to ask him.
^The Mozabite, 70-75% (medium of 73%) African. In regard to a medium of the Western Eurasian/"Saharan/Dogon" cluster from the Global + African runs.
The Global Unsupervized STRUCTURE only includes 10 African cluster, the African optimized (the last table) includes 14. Those results are not unsupervised. My numbers are from chart not labeled as unsupervised by the way.
i.e., in both the Global and African run, the blue color indicates ambiguous admixture, in regards Africans in particular. Either indicating indigenous North African/Saharan and/or Eurasian admixture.
The plots make it more obvious in regard to the fact that the Beja and Beta-Israel cluster with other Northeast Africans who lack the possibly Eurasian Saharan/Dogon cluster. While the Mozabite, being North African slightly moves in the direction of Eurasia.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
But hopefully it's addressed in the following. there was a separation of who would become biological north Africans loosely identifiable as ANA. We will eventually be able to see a western cluster and an eastern cluster. The western cluster will be due to mixture with local populations with relicit human biological traits and local adaptations. Them plus the addition of an un-cited UP Eurasian group on the WHG cline will then form the Iberomaurasian. The local populations could very well be Aterian related. The eastern cluster will later follow the distribution we see in the graph Beyoku posted. They in combination with whichever proximal population will go on to become preedynastic Nilers, Horners and etc.
Well believe it or not that's something I had already proposed before but I didn't expect it to be that high and even though there is some morphological similarities between Aterians and IBMs, there are also noticeable differences between the two. If IAM/IBM was predominantly ANA like in this chart, I don't believe the differences would have been as pronounced (it's also in contradiction with all the previous models). Even the two industries are completely different and there is a chronological gap between them.
It's all very confusing tbh and I don't have a deep understanding of the topic as you guys do but I recall papers suggesting that Aterians may have played a role in the OOA (but you rejected this in a discussion we had a few months ago) and another one highlighted high Basal eurasian ancestry for both IBM/natufian...
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
"Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
^^ I think what Elijah The Tishbite is saying is back migration is used as a god of the gaps.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Precisely, the point! They always fall back on back-migrations as the explanation while ignoring the OOA expansions prior. But evidence from groups like the Natufians is changing all that.
"[The Shuqbah Natufian] type may be described as Mediterranean, but with a distinct bias towards the African variety of that stock represented by the predynastic people of Egypt. [...] The later cave dwellers of Shukbah practiced a rite which is still observed by many negro tribes of Africa. They removed one or both upper central incisors in youth, which resulted in atrophy of the corresponding alveolar part of the upper jaw and in an upgrowth of the unopposed lower incisors." Keith 1931 pp. 210-11
It's not a coincidence that academics have such a hard time pinning down the genetic and morphological hallmarks of West Eurasians without inadvertently infringing on populations who don't fit for various reasons. Skeletally, what many call 'Caucasoid' are morphological tendencies that can rise and fall in frequency in many distinct human lineages independent of admixture. This is because the first mtDNA M and N carriers were already evolved in this morphological direction, to some extent. (We can see this, for instance, in the general appearance of Ksar Hill I. This fossil is among the oldest we have of Upper Palaeolithic colonists of West Eurasia). And if some of the first mtDNA M and N carriers already show precocious morphological tendencies in this so-called 'Caucasian' direction, the first L3 people must have shared those variations as well. Based on evolutionary principles, one would expect those variations to decrease as we look deeper in the history of Ksar Hill's ancestors. For instance, we might imagine that the mtDNA L3 people had such precocious tendencies more than the L3'4 people, who might have had them more than the L3'4'6 people, and so on.
Ksar Akil I Juvenile (Bergman and Stringer 1989) is one example in a long line of fossils that refute the fallacy that 'Caucasian' features = European, or even West Eurasian.
These apomorphic variations predate 'Caucasians' and explain why some Africans are phenotypically and genetically intermediate. Note that I'm not saying that Eurasian admixture here and there doesn't contribute to this intermediate position of some African populations. What I'm saying is that if you strip those 'intermediate' Africans of their Eurasian contributions, you might get a genetic profile similar to, say, Mota (who is intermediate), as opposed to one that you'd expect to find more likely in equatorial inner Africa. In other words, a Berber speaker stripped of all Eurasian ancestry would still look somewhat like Berbers, albeit with darker skin on par with equatorial Africans. So, the sentiment out there that living North Africans would necessarily blend in with a crowd of 'black Africans' (as lay people often put it) when stripped of their Eurasian ancestry is a myth. The same applies to East Africa. Mota's lack of Eurasian ancestry doesn't stop him from being genetically (and likely also morphologically) intermediate. In this article I will make the case that 'Basal Eurasian' is a later departure from the Y DNA CT / mtDNA L3'4'6 people than Mota. Moreover, I will make the case that they departed from the L3'4'6 stem before the M and N people did.
In the past (late 19th to early 20th century) European academics postulated the 'Hamitic Hypothesis' that is "caucasoid" migration into Africa to explain such traits. But modern genetics has debunked that and now show the opposite-- Africans migrating into West Eurasia prior to back-migrations if not concurrent.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Migrations were bi-directional
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Migrations were bi-directional
Which direction do you believe was more pronounced?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Migrations were bi-directional
Which direction do you believe was more pronounced?
that question is very vague unless you can point to a specific place
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Migrations were bi-directional
Which direction do you believe was more pronounced?
that question is very vague unless you can point to a specific place
Well, bi-directional is a vague statement itself. Of course the movement was bi-directional because if you can go one way at least some will go the other way as a matter of chance so it doesn't say much about the genetic landscape. I'm basically asking for the statement to be expounded on. For example, which population had the most environmental incentives to move in either direction? The discussion goes nowhere if we keep throwing open ended claims at each other.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
This is hilarious to me. Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
@Itoli Welcome back man.
@beyoku Like already stated, "Afrocentrics" really aren't prepared for the modern landscape of bio-anthropology/genetics. Smdh.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
^ That was a slaughter. Even with the slaughter there is all types of fvckery and Eurocentric nonsense, half truths, omissions, lies and idiocy in her response video. Anyone thoroughly familiar with the data could break her apart into tiny pieces .....with contained efficiency.....Like a Blender on "Ice Crush".
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ That was a slaughter. Even with the slaughter there is all types of fvckery and Eurocentric nonsense, half truths, omissions, lies and idiocy in her response video. Anyone thoroughly familiar with the data could break her apart into tiny pieces .....with contained efficiency.....Like a Blender on "Ice Crush".
I am curious to hear your response to her, and I'm almost convinced that Mr. Imhotep is solely motivated by the money he can extract from the black American community. He's selling them what they want to hear.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Nah dude believes what he is saying, just a sloppy method that is outdated and reaching. Look at his reconstructions...all look like West Africans, the actual black population of Egypt and Nubia or hell even the Horn be damned....not Negroid enough for him...smh. Hommie even...has a "Black European Monarchy"..short video...
Like this is why Afrocentrism is never taken serious..
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Lets be honest, I don't need to watch P7 video, but I doubt she goes into the actual complex history of population history of A. Egypt and Ancient North East/North Africa in general. Just from this thread Im seeing how complicated it is, and trying to put one group of people, be it Eurasians or SSAs as representative of the population is sloppy to say the least when the history of these people are all interconnected.
Just an example from this thread is the so called Eurasian found in Kerma Antalas brought up in our debate, these same people originated in the Rift Valley of East Africa and made it as far as Kerma. Why isn't this being talked about by folks, Phonecian7 will never touch that with a 10 foot pole, nor will Kings Monologue, it destroys both of their narriatives...IMO.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Nah dude believes what he is saying, just a sloppy method that is outdated and reaching. Look at his reconstructions...all look like West Africans, the actual black population of Egypt and Nubia or hell even the Horn be damned....not Negroid enough for him...smh. Hommie even...has a "Black European Monarchy"..short video...
I remember having a conversation with that Mr. Imhotep guy in which I brought up the diversity of biologically indigenous Africans, and he seemed intent on equating the AE phenotype with the West/Central African one which he saw as the true "Black African". I don't know his exact ethnic background, but I think he is a French citizen of West African origin, so I suspect he's looking for his own phenotype in the ancient Nile Valley.
That said, I have a personal grudge against that 7phoenician7 chick as well, since she once fat-shamed me in the comments panel of this video (not sure if her comments there are still visible). You know you're little better than a schoolyard bully when you start picking on people for being too chubby.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
4/10/23
King's Monologue started in November 2022 and has has 20.4K subs (this is in only 5 months) 2,930,379 views views on youtube. On Tik Tok: 6951 Followers, 397.8K Likes
Mr Imhotep has 309K subs and started in April 2017 (6 years) 41,319,518 views
I did some math on this and it seems like KM is acquiring subscribers around 10X faster than Mr Imhotep Another advantage (I'm guessing) is that KM appears in the videos which makes them more relatable On the other hand most of his videos are about his reconstructions and people may start to get bored of that. With A.I. art people will find it increasingly easy to make them
HomeTeam History 770K subs Oct 30, 2013 52,492,563 views
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [qb] Nah dude believes what he is saying, just a sloppy method that is outdated and reaching. Look at his reconstructions...all look like West Africans, the actual black population of Egypt and Nubia or hell even the Horn be damned....not Negroid enough for him...smh. Hommie even...has a "Black European Monarchy"..short video...
I remember having a conversation with that Mr. Imhotep guy in which I brought up the diversity of biologically indigenous Africans, and he seemed intent on equating the AE phenotype with the West/Central African one which he saw as the true "Black African". I don't know his exact ethnic background, but I think he is a French citizen of West African origin, so I suspect he's looking for his own phenotype in the ancient Nile Valley.
Brandon that is beyond ridiculous, you are literally one of the most Afrocentric artists on the planet,
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ That was a slaughter. Even with the slaughter there is all types of fvckery and Eurocentric nonsense, half truths, omissions, lies and idiocy in her response video. Anyone thoroughly familiar with the data could break her apart into tiny pieces .....with contained efficiency.....Like a Blender on "Ice Crush".
I am curious to hear your response to her, and I'm almost convinced that Mr. Imhotep is solely motivated by the money he can extract from the black American community. He's selling them what they want to hear.
You right, i had a conversation with Mr. Imho Right before i hit the block button.
With that said I don't think these are the same individuals. How would i deal with her?.. I would address her comments point by point and pick out all the lies she inserted into the few layers of Truth. Ultimately she did Cook "Kings Monologue"....But in away she is fighting Pseudo with Pseudo cause she did the same thing he did. She used one type of DNA Analysis to debunk another type of DNA analysis without actually ADRESSING the DNA analysis. King's Monologue avoid the SNPs, Egyptologist7 avoids the STRs. Two sides, same shitty coin.
Her video contains comments that are FACTAULLY incorrect. I have made comments about Afrocentrics avoiding work so I dont want to say anything yet. I want to just let this shit simmer and see what others have to say.
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Which direction do you believe was more pronounced? [/QB]
Without fore migration you wouldn't have people to back migrate.
Ok seriously Common sense would suggest that hunter gatherers stick to water and avoid transgressing on another hunter gatherer's range. But this all changes when they come back with chariots, guns and rockets.
The real question to me is why would anyone model back migration as being more pronounced before the invention of chariots. Can someone please answer that?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
The real question to me is why would anyone model back migration as being more pronounced before the invention of chariots. Can someone please answer that?
In the Maghreb or the Nile Valley?
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
Close enough for me.
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: In the Maghreb or the Nile Valley?
Both of those regions are special because they are impeded by a swamp and an Ocean. Even when people started to follow herds it would be problematic.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes: The real question to me is why would anyone model back migration as being more pronounced before the invention of chariots. Can someone please answer that?
In the Maghreb or the Nile Valley?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ That was a slaughter. Even with the slaughter there is all types of fvckery and Eurocentric nonsense, half truths, omissions, lies and idiocy in her response video. Anyone thoroughly familiar with the data could break her apart into tiny pieces .....with contained efficiency.....Like a Blender on "Ice Crush".
I am curious to hear your response to her, and I'm almost convinced that Mr. Imhotep is solely motivated by the money he can extract from the black American community. He's selling them what they want to hear.
You right, i had a conversation with Mr. Imho Right before i hit the block button.
With that said I don't think these are the same individuals. How would i deal with her?.. I would address her comments point by point and pick out all the lies she inserted into the few layers of Truth. Ultimately she did Cook "Kings Monologue"....But in away she is fighting Pseudo with Pseudo cause she did the same thing he did. She used one type of DNA Analysis to debunk another type of DNA analysis without actually ADRESSING the DNA analysis. King's Monologue avoid the SNPs, Egyptologist7 avoids the STRs. Two sides, same shitty coin.
Her video contains comments that are FACTAULLY incorrect. I have made comments about Afrocentrics avoiding work so I dont want to say anything yet. I want to just let this shit simmer and see what others have to say.
Didn't you imply that the STRs were useless in the case of those ancient remains and therefore should be avoided ?
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Migrations were bi-directional
Which direction do you believe was more pronounced?
that question is very vague unless you can point to a specific place
Well, bi-directional is a vague statement itself. Of course the movement was bi-directional because if you can go one way at least some will go the other way as a matter of chance so it doesn't say much about the genetic landscape. I'm basically asking for the statement to be expounded on. For example, which population had the most environmental incentives to move in either direction? The discussion goes nowhere if we keep throwing open ended claims at each other.
It depends on the time period, I believe that earliest in Dynastic Egypt there is evidence that Egyptians colonized parts of Canaan, so that would be an example of mixture going out. When haplogroup E left Northeast Africa thats another indication of mixture going out.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Which direction do you believe was more pronounced?
Without fore migration you wouldn't have people to back migrate.
Ok seriously Common sense would suggest that hunter gatherers stick to water and avoid transgressing on another hunter gatherer's range. But this all changes when they come back with chariots, guns and rockets.
The real question to me is why would anyone model back migration as being more pronounced before the invention of chariots. Can someone please answer that? [/QB]
Well, the largest human population expansions happened before the chariot, so I don't see why we would discount it? The practice of land ownership is fairly recent as well and it's not as if ancient hunter gathers moving into new lands would know who "owns" it regardless. The 2 major reasons I've seen for Eurasian introgression into Africa are population explosions due to changes in subsidence strategies and rapid climate change (glacial periods), so if we're talking about bi-directional gene flow simple happenstance doesn't clear that hurdle, so what are the forces or events on the African side that were as strong, or stronger?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: I believe that earliest in Dynastic Egypt there is evidence that Egyptians colonized parts of Canaan, so that would be an example of mixture going out.
What dynasty was that as compared to the Hyksos occupation?
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: "Back migrations" is simply another term for "mixture." Some of yall think "back migrations" means a group of Eurasians en masse got up and walked all through Africa which is not the case. Mixture can enter Africa in North or Northeast and be spread by other Africans who interact with each other, it's not a case of a "pure" group of Eurasians migrating all throughout Africa. If an African American with significant European mixture moved to Africa and started a family with an African woman, their children would have some of that European mixture. If someone took DNA samples of their kids 3000 years later and found "European" ancestry in their remains, does that mean "Europeans" migrated into Africa and brought that mixture? No!
So you're saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt
Instead Africans left Africa, mixed with Eurasians (but not too much) and then went back into Africa
Why do you assume North Africa was uninhabited until "Eurasians" migrated there? North Africa has evidence of being inhabited longer than modern humans were in Eurasia.
North Africa was inhabited, I never said it wasn't. The population density is unknown and it depends on the time period and how much desertification vs green it had (and when it was greener we can only speculate there were a lot more people ) and the specific location
Are you saying Eurasians never settled in the Maghreb or Egypt?
Migrations were bi-directional
Which direction do you believe was more pronounced?
that question is very vague unless you can point to a specific place
Well, bi-directional is a vague statement itself. Of course the movement was bi-directional because if you can go one way at least some will go the other way as a matter of chance so it doesn't say much about the genetic landscape. I'm basically asking for the statement to be expounded on. For example, which population had the most environmental incentives to move in either direction? The discussion goes nowhere if we keep throwing open ended claims at each other.
It depends on the time period, I believe that earliest in Dynastic Egypt there is evidence that Egyptians colonized parts of Canaan, so that would be an example of mixture going out. When haplogroup E left Northeast Africa thats another indication of mixture going out.
Agreed, but the pertinent questions are "how much", did that geneflow result in effective population replacement, if that population was the only one that back migrated, and more importantly, whether the Egyptian population at the time owed much of their ancestry to a previous Eurasian back migrations themselves.
I think for example, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that conquering a region results in large scale population movements (let alone at a replacement level), when that typically didn't happen between sedentary populations, unless there was incentive. What was the incentive for the Egyptian population to move to Canaan and what are the implications of an early iron age/late bronze age conquest to the initial seeding of the Nile valley civilization?
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @Itoli Welcome back man.
@beyoku Like already stated, "Afrocentrics" really aren't prepared for the modern landscape of bio-anthropology/genetics. Smdh.
Great to be back!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
There have been no Old Kingdom DNA test results published yet Genetically it is unknown how African the foundational population of dynastic Egypt was the end
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@Antalas. I said it shouldn't be interpreted LITERALLY.
But it's still STR Data. It is a different method of analysis than SNP Data. She can't use SNP data from Abusir to Debunk STR Data from Amarna. Those are two separate genetic methods from 2 different population samples from 2 different regions and Time periods. Also she brings up Amarna uniparental Markers but leaves out the Autosomal STR results that she is unable to explain. Most Euroclowns like her run and hide from these STRs. She in essence says there was no Sub Saharan African Ancestry there when Abusir was 6-15%. She equates Sub Saharan African ONLY with West Africa. She says Sub Saharan Africans didn't speak Afro Asiatic which is patently false LOL.
I could go own. I could slice her video up with a scalpel.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Antalas. I said it shouldn't be interpreted LITERALLY.
But it's still STR Data. It is a different method of analysis than SNP Data. She can't use SNP data from Abusir to Debunk STR Data from Amarna. Those are two separate genetic methods from 2 different population samples from 2 different regions and Time periods. Also she brings up Amarna uniparental Markers but leaves out the Autosomal STR results that she is unable to explain. Most Euroclowns like her run and hide from these STRs. She in essence says there was no Sub Saharan African Ancestry there when Abusir was 6-15%. She equates Sub Saharan African ONLY with West Africa. She says Sub Saharan Africans didn't speak Afro Asiatic which is patently false LOL.
I could go own. I could slice her video up with a scalpel.
I agree but I think we both agree that an STR analysis is less reliable/extensive than an SNP analysis when it comes to establishing the biological affinities of ancient populations therefore she could have used the Abusir results to demonstrate that the reality of this population's genetic makeup was more complex than initially assumed. Also what kind of results would modern egyptians get with this ?
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Antalas. I said it shouldn't be interpreted LITERALLY.
But it's still STR Data. It is a different method of analysis than SNP Data. She can't use SNP data from Abusir to Debunk STR Data from Amarna. Those are two separate genetic methods from 2 different population samples from 2 different regions and Time periods. Also she brings up Amarna uniparental Markers but leaves out the Autosomal STR results that she is unable to explain. Most Euroclowns like her run and hide from these STRs. She in essence says there was no Sub Saharan African Ancestry there when Abusir was 6-15%. She equates Sub Saharan African ONLY with West Africa. She says Sub Saharan Africans didn't speak Afro Asiatic which is patently false LOL.
I could go own. I could slice her video up with a scalpel.
Is she not aware of Chadic speakers?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: STR results from one set of mummies do not trump SNP results from a totally separate unrelated group of mummies.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: But it's still STR Data. It is a different method of analysis than SNP Data. She can't use SNP data from Abusir to Debunk STR Data from Amarna.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Well, bi-directional is a vague statement itself. Of course the movement was bi-directional because if you can go one way at least some will go the other way as a matter of chance so it doesn't say much about the genetic landscape. I'm basically asking for the statement to be expounded on. For example, which population had the most environmental incentives to move in either direction? The discussion goes nowhere if we keep throwing open ended claims at each other.
Could not the Sahara's various "humid" phrases have allowed peoples indigenous to North Africa (as well as further south in the continent) to spread across the region and into western Asia? I don't think it's a coincidence that the spread of Afroasiatic from wherever its homeland was throughout the Sahara and adjacent regions coincides with the last Green Sahara (or maybe the "Wild Nile" period before that). Though, admittedly, those same humid periods could theoretically have allowed movements in the other direction as well.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@The Lioness - Please go away. You add nothing to the discussion.
@Askia the Great - Probably not. There is a whole lot she doesn't know but nobody seems they need to address it.
@Antalas - There WERE some Egyptian and Middle Eastern STR results in dna Tribes database IN FACT there are modern Egyptian Autosomal STR results from nearly every region in the country. All someone has to do is put some of them in Populaion affiliator and see what happens. Not saying I havent already done it and they also came up Sub Saharan African.....Nope, I am not saying that. I am also NOT saying Someone used Population Affiliator2 by substituting commonly found STRs from every place where data existed in the old world and those mummies still came up North African. Nope. That never happened.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Well, bi-directional is a vague statement itself. Of course the movement was bi-directional because if you can go one way at least some will go the other way as a matter of chance so it doesn't say much about the genetic landscape. I'm basically asking for the statement to be expounded on. For example, which population had the most environmental incentives to move in either direction? The discussion goes nowhere if we keep throwing open ended claims at each other.
Could not the Sahara's various "humid" phrases have allowed peoples indigenous to North Africa (as well as further south in the continent) to spread across the region and into western Asia? I don't think it's a coincidence that the spread of Afroasiatic from wherever its homeland was throughout the Sahara and adjacent regions coincides with the last Green Sahara (or maybe the "Wild Nile" period before that). Though, admittedly, those same humid periods could theoretically have allowed movements in the other direction as well.
The AHP definitely facilitated increase gene flow to Eurasia from inner-Africa but (in addition to also facilitating Eurasian gene flow into Africa like you said) the ultimate impact of all of that depends on the native population size and density relative to the incoming migrants. Another caveat is that similar to how the southern populations expanded to fill the Sahara during that period, so did the coastal North African populations, so their prior genetic affinities also throw a wrench in a (presumptive) linear uni-directional gene flow model.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Bottom line, there is no mystery about the place of origin of the culture of the Nile Valley. It originated in the South going back over 20,000 years. In order for the ancient culture of the Nile Valley to originate in Eurasia, the culture would have to originate in the North. And it does not. So the idea that somehow someway Eurasian migrants repopulated the Nile Valley and made it all the way down into Sudan is just silly. The facts are abundantly clear that it is the opposite case.
Researchers know this yet they still keep promoting misinformation such as using "Egpypt vs Nubia" even going back 20,000 years ago when no such thing existed.
The Main Nile Valley at the End of the Pleistocene (28–15 ka): Dispersal Corridor or Environmental Refugium?
quote: This article focuses on the northern end of the Nile Valley and particularly on southern Egypt, northern (= Lower) and southern (= Upper) Nubia during MIS 2. This geographical focus is mainly guided by the availability of archaeological data for this period. The definition and geographical extent of Nubia has varied through time, in particular regarding its southern boundary. In a broad sense, Nubia is located between the First Cataract near Aswan with a southern boundary fluctuating between the Fourth and the Sixth Cataract north of Khartoum (Figure 1). Northern Nubia corresponds to the area between the First and Second Cataract, whereas southern Nubia corresponds to the area upstream from the Second cataract (Adams, 1977, 13–17; Hassan, 2007; Auenmüller, 2019).
....
During MIS 2, the lowering of the sea level led to an incision of the Nile starting around Qena (nick point, Sandford, 1936; Wendorf and Schild, 1989). No archaeological evidence dated to MIS 2 is available from the northern part of Egypt (north of Dishna). Geological deposits from this period and associated archaeological remains are thus either absent or buried under several meters of sediments accumulated by the Nile in parallel with the rise of the sea level. One main issue when discussing whether the Nile Valley acted as a corridor during MIS 2 is whether the Nile Delta was habitable. However, it is important to consider that the sea shore during most of MIS 2 was several kilometres northwards, and up to 50 km to the north during the LGM and maximum sea low stand (Stanley and Warne, 1993). Late Pleistocene deposits dated to MIS 2 documented in what is today the Nile Delta, was thus located well upstream from the sea shore. They show evidence for Nile floods and the presence of seasonal ponds, but the evidence is limited for the LGM in particular (Chen and Stanley, 1993; Stanley and Warne, 1993). Based on the characteristics of the mud deposits and their distribution in the Nile Delta, Chen and Stanley (1993) and Stanley and Warne (1993) suggest that the region during the Late Pleistocene was mostly a minimally-vegetated plain with seasonally active braided channels and ephemeral ponds in a generally arid environment. In addition, the composition of the Late Pleistocene Nile deposits in the Delta are consistent with the hypothesis that the Delta constituted the primary source of sand for the Negev-Sinai erg (Muhs et al., 2013). Punctuated human occupation of what is now the Nile Delta in the Late Pleistocene may therefore have been possible but it remains to be confirmed, particularly during the LGM.
From their own research it is clear the Nile Delta going back over 20,000 years ago was lightly populated while the Upper Nile between Egypt and Sudan was highly populated. Therefore, just by common sense and logic it is improbable that there was a lot of gene flow from Eurasia in the Upper Nile at this time. And it is also from the Upper Nile that the ancient kingdoms of the Nile originate. There is no mystery here and the facts are clear. But that wont stop people from trying to push alternative facts to suit their own purposes.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@Doug M - What is the name of the material "Culture" that originated in "The South" 20 thousand years ago that is responsible for pharaonic Egypt?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Wadi Kubbaniya is the name of one of the sites but it is not assigned to any specific "tool industry", which is part of the problem. Just like Nabta Playa is not associated with any specific tool industry. Keeping in mind there is no absolute chronology for stone tool industries because many of them are based on European sites are younger than those in Africa. And many of the "cultures" that have been proposed for the region have not been universally agreed upon, mostly due to whether it includes or excludes certain areas to the South or North (obviously reflecting apriori attitudes on the origin of such cultures). And this is why some have started using a more absolute chronology based on Marine Isotope Stages (MIS) because of the absence of an absolute chronology of these tool cultures. that doesn't change the point though.
quote: It appears from the zoological and botanical remains at the various sites in this wadi that the two environmental zones were exploited at different times. We know that the dune sites were occupied when the Nile River flooded the wadi because large numbers of fish and migratory bird bones were found at this location. When the water receded, people then moved down onto the silt left behind on the wadi floor and the floodplain, probably following large animals that looked for water there in the dry season. Paleolithic peoples lived at Wadi Kubbaniya for about 2,000 years, exploiting the different environments as the seasons changed. Other ancient camps have been discovered along the Nile from Sudan to the Mediterranean, yielding similar tools and food remains. These sites demonstrate that the early inhabitants of the Nile valley and its nearby deserts had learned how to exploit local environments, developing economic strategies that were maintained in later cultural traditions of pharaonic Egypt.
In the scientific literature of the last decades, much attention was paid to movements of modern Homo sapiens from East Africa to the rest of the world (Carto et al., 2009, Stewart and Stringer, 2012). It is obvious that the Nile Valley and probably also Arabia (Petraglia and Rose, 2009, Armitage et al., 2011), thereby may have played a prominent role. The Nile Valley is indeed, within an often extremely dry North Africa, an oasis right through the Sahara (Wendorf et al., 1989; Phillips, 1994, Camps and Szmidt, 2009, Garcea, 2010, Drake et al., 2011). It should therefore come as no surprise that the population of the Nile Valley may have played a prominent role during the Late Pleistocene. DNA analyses have produced numerous conjectures how the Late Pleistocene population of the Nile Valley was subject to movements from north to south and vice versa (Manni et al., 2002, Lucotte and Mercier, 2003, Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., 2011). The understanding of the changing climate and its influence on the Nile regime and on human population densities, has made great progress. Field research in the Nile Valley has collected data that allow us to understand how the Nile Valley reacted to the changing climate and could create a favourable environment for Late Pleistocene humans.
....
2.1. Late Pleistocene Nile Valley population
Research during the last decades regarding the Palaeolithic occupation of the Upper Egyptian Nile Valley (Vermeersch et al., 2000, Vermeersch et al., 2006, Vermeersch, 2006, Vermeersch, 2009, Vermeersch, 2010, Schild and Wendorf, 2010, Van Peer et al., 2010) has made it clear that an expanded population was present during the Middle Stone Age (MSA, Middle Palaeolithic). Whereas very large chert extraction sites of the MSA have been recorded (Vermeersch, 2002), suggesting an important need for chert blanks, very few such sites of the Upper Palaeolithic have been found. The best explanation of this observation is that, during the Late MSA and the Upper Palaeolithic there was a low demand for raw materials because during MIS 4 and MIS 3 the population density in Upper Egypt declined sharply. Traces of humans dated later than 60,000 years ago became rare (Fig. 1). However, from about 24 ka calBP an important population increase is registered by the presence of numerous Late Palaeolithic sites. During the LGM there is indeed an abundant presence of humans along the Nile Valley in Upper Egypt. Numerous Late Palaeolithic sites are known (Vignard, 1923, Butzer, 1967, Smith, 1967, Smith, 1968, Wendorf, 1968, Wendorf and Schild, 1976, Kabacinski and Usai, 1999, Paulissen and Vermeersch, 2000) with Nilotic silts and clays deposited well above the present flood plain (See Supplementary Data 1). They are situated some metres above the present floodplain, most often where Nilotic clays meet local deposits (Fig. 2). Several human groups can be identified such as the Fakhurian, the Kubbaniyan, the Idfuan, the Sebekian, the Silsilian, the Afian and the Isnan, all of them characterised by fishing–hunting camps located in the present lower desert along the Upper Egyptian Nile (Smith, 1967; Wendorf et al., 1989; Vermeersch, 2010). Several sites have been excavated and, as the faunal remains are mainly of fish, attest the presence of intensive fishing activities. Mammalian fauna is very restricted and consists of aurochs (Bos primigenius), hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus), dorcas gazelle (Gazella dorcas), hare (Lepus capensis) and hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius).
quote: During the Nubia Salvage Campaign and the subsequent expeditions from the 1960’s to the 1980’s, numerous sites attributed to the Late Palaeolithic (~25–15 ka) were found in the Nile Valley, particularly in Nubia and Upper Egypt. This region is one of the few to have allowed human occupations during the dry Marine Isotope Stage 2 and is therefore key to understanding how human populations adapted to environmental changes at this time. This paper focuses on two sites located in Upper Egypt, excavated by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition: E71K18, attributed to the Afian industry and E71K20, attributed to the Silsilian industry. It aims to review the geomorphological and chronological evidence of the sites, present a technological analysis of the lithic assemblages in order to provide data that can be used in detailed comparative studies, which will allow discussion of technological variability in the Late Palaeolithic of the Nile Valley and its place within the regional context. The lithic analysis relies on the chaîne opératoire concept combined with an attribute analysis to allow quantification. This study (1) casts doubts on the chronology of E71K18 and related Afian industry, which could be older or younger than previously suggested, highlights (2) distinct technological characteristics for the Afian and the Silsilian, as well as (3) similar technological characteristics which allow to group them under a same broad techno-cultural complex, distinct from those north or south of the area.
Again, the point here that all these sites between Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan 20 thousand years ago speak against Eurasian back migration for the settlement of the Nile. And the people doing these papers acknowledge that this is indeed one of the theories they are trying to validate, even though the facts themselves make it unlikely.
Another key point is a lot of these sites came to light during the Nubia Salvage campaign, when archaeologists rushed to excavate these areas before the region was flooded. This only supports the idea that these areas in so called Nubia are the key to the prehistory of the Nile but are now all submerged...... And there is nothing equivalent that can be found in the delta to suggest a large scale cultural or population movement into the Nile in prehistory as the basis for the people or culture there in this time period.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Bottom line, there is no mystery about the place of origin of the culture of the Nile Valley. It originated in the South going back over 20,000 years. In order for the ancient culture of the Nile Valley to originate in Eurasia, the culture would have to originate in the North. And it does not.
This study is inconclusive by the author's admission due to the lack of excavation though. The argument is furthermore only logically sound, if we assume that Eurasian geneflow was restricted to Northern Nile valley as a corridor (to the exclusion of the red sea, and Mediterranean coast), could've only occurred during that specific period, and that this snapshot can be extrapolated to be the genetic landscape from the LGM up until the early dynastic period (a period of ~11,000 years). Those are a lot of assumptions, which the wider pool of evidence doesn't support.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Don't think I forgot about this..
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
This lists ancient samples and South Africans from 12,000 and 2000BP Are either of these referring to San and Khoi people? what samples is this derived from? I have not heard of aDNA recovered from South Africa 12,000 BP
You're asking me when YOU created a thread on the paper on genetic samples of ancient African foragers here.
quote: L. LUCA CAVALLI-SFORZA Genes, peoples, and languages Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 7719 –7724, July 1997
This outdated 25 year old article is the type of thing beyoku was warning about, even Tukuler schooled you on numerous times, yet you cling to it, posting it year after year for polemical reasons
Wrong again. Beyoku warned about simplistic racial models on what counts as 'African'. As for Tukuler, you don't need to put words in his mouth as he made himself clear here.
His issue was the nature of the division of Europeans as 1/3 African 2/3s Asian. That doesn't mean Europeans don't have African admixture. Which is something Europeans like yourself seem to dread.
So back into the snake pit you go! And while you're there you can bite Antalas. LOL Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The argument is that there is continuity between Sub-Sahara and and North Africa.
That is why modern North Africans are genetically closer to West Africans than the latter is to South Africans.
You are posting a chart with no article title or author given, so nobody is required to assume it has credibility although it might and it has circles added to it
The above chart is of ancient samples so any statement you make about it should include the word "ancient" since the above chart is referring B2 carriers rather than SA since it has become predominantly populated by Bantu speakers. Some of them are of A and B but most are E1b1a 54.7% (Wood 2005) compared to E1b1b 4.4% (Wood 2005) which predominates in the Maghreb. South Africa’s total population is estimated at around 50 million people, and Indigenous groups make up approximately 1% of this figure.
That is why West Africans are genetically closer to South Africans than they are to Africans of the Maghreb but are relatively closer to Sahelians
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
the reason why West Eurasians (Europeans and Southwest Asians) cluster close to North Africans is not only due to admixture of the former to the latter because of back-migrations but admixture going the other way around which is why West Eurasians carry specific African markers. This was known since the late 90s with Cavalli-Sforza's study
I think you should get out of the habit of using "the former" and "the latter" because it makes things harder to follow
Also you include Southwest Asia. Southwest Asia consists of seven nations: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
I'm going to exclude Southwest Asia because that really mixes things up and is not represented on the chart. But we can talk about Europe and the Middle East ("West Asia")
West Asia, comprises of 13 countries including Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, the Syrian Arab Republic, Yemen and Iran in addition to the Gulf countries including Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. (basically "Middle East") .
.
To paraphrase to a statement that can be reasonably addressed>
quote:Some Southern Europeans and people of the Middle East ("West Eurasians") cluster close to Africans of the Maghreb due to migrations of them into Africa ("back migration) but paternally many of them are of the African haplogroup E to begin with, originating in Africa and migrated into Southern Europe and into the Middle East.
yes, Haplogroup E is thought to have emerged in prehistoric North Africa or East Africa, and would have later dispersed into West Asia. The major subclades of haplogroup E found amongst Berbers belong to E-Z827, which is believed to have emerged in North Africa.
Note the resemblance between the distribution of E-M81 and the African admixture from the Dodecad project.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Funny how when you suddenly grab a snake by its head to prevent from biting, it squirms.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
What is the purpose of this picture?
quote:
You are posting a chart with no article title or author given, so nobody is required to assume it has credibility although it might and it has circles added to it.
That chart was originally posted by Tukuler who made it clear to YOU and everyone else in this forum that it is a modified from of Rosa Fregel's 2019 PCA.
quote:The above chart is of ancient samples so any statement you make about it should include the word "ancient" since the above chart is referring B2 carriers rather than SA since it has become predominantly populated by Bantu speakers. Some of them are of A and B but most are E1b1a 54.7% (Wood 2005) compared to E1b1b 4.4% (Wood 2005) which predominates in the Maghreb. South Africa’s total population is estimated at around 50 million people, and Indigenous groups make up approximately 1% of this figure.
And here I thought anyone with functional eyes and is literate can simply read the chart and see that the samples therein are ancient. The topic of this thread is ancient samples, namely Amarna. Why are you bringing up Y haplogroups, when the chart is based on autosomal data?
quote:That is why West Africans are genetically closer to South Africans than they are to Africans of the Maghreb but are relatively closer to Sahelians
Wrong. The Fregel data is based on ancient samples not modern. While the Loosdrecht PCA as shown below is based on modern samples, the samples come from populations seen as indigenous or aboriginal to their respective regions.
In both South African = Khoisan NOT Bantu hence the great distance between West Africans and South Africans. West Africans are closest to East Africans, followed by North Africans.
quote:I think you should get out of the habit of using "the former" and "the latter" because it makes things harder to follow.[/qb]
It's not hard for someone who can properly read and is not dislexic.
quote:Also you include Southwest Asia. Southwest Asia consists of seven nations: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
I'm going to exclude Southwest Asia because that really mixes things up and is not represented on the chart. But we can talk about Europe and the Middle East ("West Asia")
LMAO No. You are confusing Southwest Asia with South Asia, or as some call it Southcentral Asia.
quote: West Asia, comprises of 13 countries including Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, the Syrian Arab Republic, Yemen and Iran in addition to the Gulf countries including Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. (basically "Middle East")
The Middle East is more accurately Southwest Asia to avoid the Eurocentric bias that is "Middle East". Technically the subcontinent of Europe is Northwest Asia and BOTH Southwest Asia and Northwest Asia (Europe) together is *Western Eurasia* whose populations have African admixture.
quote:To paraphrase to a statement that can be reasonably addressed>
quote:Some Southern Europeans and people of the Middle East ("West Eurasians") cluster close to Africans of the Maghreb due to migrations of them into Africa ("back migration) but paternally many of them are of the African haplogroup E to begin with, originating in Africa and migrated into Southern Europe and into the Middle East.
Actually most of the admixture in Europe doesn't come from the Maghreb but from northeast Africa.
Ironically most of the African admixture in Southwest Europe (Iberian Peninsula) is maternal L2.
quote:yes, Haplogroup E is thought to have emerged in prehistoric North Africa or East Africa, and would have later dispersed into West Asia. The major subclades of haplogroup E found amongst Berbers belong to E-Z827, which is believed to have emerged in North Africa.
Note the resemblance between the distribution of E-M81 and the African admixture from the Dodecad project.
I don't know about the entire E clade but E1b1b does show it's highest frequency and diversity together in Sub-Saharan East Africa, which is a wonder why you and others equate it with North Africa only.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That chart was originally posted by Tukuler who made it clear to YOU and everyone else in this forum that it is a modified from of Rosa Fregel's 2019 PCA.
For the sake of readers you should always list sources of charts unless you propose that the readers of this forum assume it's legitimate just by being a chart
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The topic of this thread is ancient samples, namely Amarna. Why are you bringing up Y haplogroups, when the chart is based on autosomal data?
Because you brought up a chart that has no ancient Egyptians on it, instead has ancient Maghrebians and you made a comment about their admixture and this is more easily explained by the differences in their maternal and paternal ancestry, and this is not covered in a PCA chart
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Also you include Southwest Asia. Southwest Asia consists of seven nations: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
I'm going to exclude Southwest Asia because that really mixes things up and is not represented on the chart. But we can talk about Europe and the Middle East ("West Asia")[/qb]
LMAO No. You are confusing Southwest Asia with South Asia, or as some call it Southcentral Asia.
why would I be confusing something?
you didn't say "South Central Asia." and that is three words not two. And even with that people don't usually use that term, they just say "Central Asia"
But you didn't use this word "central"
you said this:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
the reason why West Eurasians (Europeans and Southwest Asians) cluster close to North Africans is not only due to admixture of the former to the latter because of back-migrations but admixture going the other way around which is why West Eurasians carry specific African markers. This was known since the late 90s with Cavalli-Sforza's study
and Southwest Asians consists of seven nations: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
so instead of continuing to dig in you should be saying "o.k. you got me on that one I meant Southern Central Asians. "
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I don't know about the entire E clade but E1b1b does show it's highest frequency and diversity together in Sub-Saharan East Africa, which is a wonder why you and others equate it with North Africa only.
I already posted this in another thread you commented in
It shows how the frequency of E1b1b extends into sub-Saharan Africa, into the horn but you were talking about West Africans
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: most of the African admixture in Southwest Europe (Iberian Peninsula) is maternal L2.
I did not know that. How and when did this happen?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: For the sake of readers you should always list sources of charts unless you propose that the readers of this forum assume it's legitimate just by being a chart
This coming from the person who likes to post cryptic images and charts with no accompanying text.
quote:Because you brought up a chart that has no ancient Egyptians on it, instead has ancient Maghrebians and you made a comment about their admixture and this is more easily explained by the differences in their maternal and paternal ancestry, and this is not covered in a PCA chart.
The topic of this thread is pop affiliator which uses STRs which come from autosomal DNA. Autosomes are better at assessing admixture than uniparental lineages simply because these lineages only cover a very tiny fraction of the genome. This is why you have an Englishman who looks no different from other Englishmen but still carry African paternal A-M13! (That issue was discussed before in this forum but I couldn't find the thread) You need autosomal analysis to see how much African admixture he has because him having and African lineage won't say how much.
quote:you didn't say "South Central Asia." and that is three words not two. And even with that people don't usually use that term, they just say "Central Asia"
But you didn't use this word "central"
you said this:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
the reason why West Eurasians (Europeans and Southwest Asians) cluster close to North Africans is not only due to admixture of the former to the latter because of back-migrations but admixture going the other way around which is why West Eurasians carry specific African markers. This was known since the late 90s with Cavalli-Sforza's study
and Southwest Asians consists of seven nations: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
so instead of continuing to dig in you should be saying "o.k. you got me on that one I meant Southern Central Asians. "
The Indian subcontinent has always been referred to as SOUTH Asia which is different from Southwest Asia. Only seldom does it get called Southcentral Asia but very seldom since the terms Southwest, Southeast, and South between them.
I don't know how you confused Southwest Asia for the Indian subcontinent as I've never come across someone to make that mistake.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
I already posted this in another thread you commented in
It shows how the frequency of E1b1b extends into sub-Saharan Africa, into the horn but you were talking about West Africans.
Yes and West Africans are shown to be closer related to Horn Africans than they are to South African indigenes.
quote:[most of the African admixture in Southwest Europe (Iberian Peninsula) is maternal L2.] I did not know that. How and when did this happen?
I thought this was explained to you before in multiple threads per the Fernandez study. Funny how you love to bring up European maternal H1 in Africans but ignore the converse in Europe.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yes and West Africans are shown to be closer related to Horn Africans than they are to South African indigenes.
Now you've added the right word West Africans are shown to be closer related to Horn Africans than they are to 1% of South Africans, the indigenes.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
most of the African admixture in Southwest Europe (Iberian Peninsula) is maternal L2.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
I did not know that. How and when did this happen?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I thought this was explained to you before in multiple threads per the Fernandez study.
I notice you use this tactic a lot on me and other people, somebody asks you a question and instead of answering it you say stuff like:
"we have discussed this many times, like in this thread____LINK"
So then you expect people to read some multi-page thread and hope they will not invest the time and then wonder if maybe your argument was proven somewhere in it and then just give up, realizing that they have been put on a time wasting goose chase, taking hours
Or in this thread you are linking now, they are not even discussing your claim "most of the African admixture in Southwest Europe (Iberian Peninsula) is maternal L2."
the thread starts off with what looks like an article in Spanish
later we find out it's dissertation they are talking about, in Spanish
So it's like here, read this 300 page dissertation, my point is proven in there somewhere. It's not even clear if you can even still download it and where
That don't cut it, you are supposed to be able to answer the question and then support it with a a quote, article title and page number if it's long, something that can still be viewed stop dancing around and trying to use other threads to prove something
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
Okay so can someone explain in simple terms what this study/the DNA Tribes study shows us and how it fits with the other Ancient DNA findings from North and East Africa?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Okay so can someone explain in simple terms what this study/the DNA Tribes study shows us and how it fits with the other Ancient DNA findings from North and East Africa?
DNA Tribes was a private testing company that sold test kits with it's own proprietary test result format they called Match Likelihood (MLI) representing not a percentage but a number reflecting how many matches were made to other individuals in their database . The company no longer exists and their articles were not published in peer reviewed scientific journal articles
They used the same 2010 DNA data that Hawass did and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Keita also used that same data and published an article in 2020 where he used an admixture program and results were relayed as autosomal percentages although this was not published in a peer reviewed journal either. His results were similar to DNA tribes although DNA tribes claimed to have matched to some particular regions of Africa
In that same year Hawass' team lead by Yehia Gad released an article in the journal Human Molecular Genetics on these mummies:
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship Yehia Z Gad, October 2020
The genetic relatedness of individuals from archeological sites has been utilized to elucidate family relationships. A number of studies on Egyptian human remains assessed the maternal and paternal lineages using both mtDNA sequences and nuclear DNA markers, including autosomal and Y-chromosome short tandem repeats (STRs) (38,55–57). To the best of our knowledge, no full NGS autosomal study has been published yet in this regard, only uniparental markers were utilized.
An investigative study was carried out on the familial relationships of a number of late 18th dynasty mummies (ca. 1550–1295 b.c.), including that of Tutankhamen. The study was based on the analysis of the autosomal and Y-chromosome STR markers in addition to mitochondrial hypervariable region 1 sequences. A 4-generation pedigree of Tutankhamun’s immediate lineage and the identity of his ancestors were established. The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent (Amenhotep III) to the father (KV55, Akhenaten) to the grandchild (Tutankhamen). The maternal lineage, the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother (Thuya) to the grandmother (KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye) to the yet historically unidentified mother (KV35 Younger lady) to Tutankhamen (38,55).
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Okay so can someone explain in simple terms what this study/the DNA Tribes study shows us and how it fits with the other Ancient DNA findings from North and East Africa?
DNA Tribes was a private testing company that sold test kits with it's own proprietary test result format they called Match Likelihood (MLI) representing not a percentage but a number reflecting how many matches were made to other individuals in their database . The company no longer exists and their articles were not published in peer reviewed scientific journal articles
They used the same 2010 DNA data that Hawass did and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Keita also used that same data and published an article in 2020 where he used an admixture program and results were relayed as autosomal percentages although this was not published in a peer reviewed journal either. His results were similar to DNA tribes although DNA tribes claimed to have matched to some particular regions of Africa
In that same year Hawass' team lead by Yehia Gad released an article in the journal Human Molecular Genetics on these mummies:
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship Yehia Z Gad, October 2020
The genetic relatedness of individuals from archeological sites has been utilized to elucidate family relationships. A number of studies on Egyptian human remains assessed the maternal and paternal lineages using both mtDNA sequences and nuclear DNA markers, including autosomal and Y-chromosome short tandem repeats (STRs) (38,55–57). To the best of our knowledge, no full NGS autosomal study has been published yet in this regard, only uniparental markers were utilized.
An investigative study was carried out on the familial relationships of a number of late 18th dynasty mummies (ca. 1550–1295 b.c.), including that of Tutankhamen. The study was based on the analysis of the autosomal and Y-chromosome STR markers in addition to mitochondrial hypervariable region 1 sequences. A 4-generation pedigree of Tutankhamun’s immediate lineage and the identity of his ancestors were established. The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent (Amenhotep III) to the father (KV55, Akhenaten) to the grandchild (Tutankhamen). The maternal lineage, the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother (Thuya) to the grandmother (KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye) to the yet historically unidentified mother (KV35 Younger lady) to Tutankhamen (38,55).
So what's the significance of these mummies matching with these African populations? I think I have a rough idea why, but in you guys' words why isn't it indicative of population affinities or admixture percentages?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Okay so can someone explain in simple terms what this study/the DNA Tribes study shows us and how it fits with the other Ancient DNA findings from North and East Africa?
DNA Tribes was a private testing company that sold test kits with it's own proprietary test result format they called Match Likelihood (MLI) representing not a percentage but a number reflecting how many matches were made to other individuals in their database . The company no longer exists and their articles were not published in peer reviewed scientific journal articles
They used the same 2010 DNA data that Hawass did and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Keita also used that same data and published an article in 2020 where he used an admixture program and results were relayed as autosomal percentages although this was not published in a peer reviewed journal either. His results were similar to DNA tribes although DNA tribes claimed to have matched to some particular regions of Africa
In that same year Hawass' team lead by Yehia Gad released an article in the journal Human Molecular Genetics on these mummies:
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship Yehia Z Gad, October 2020
The genetic relatedness of individuals from archeological sites has been utilized to elucidate family relationships. A number of studies on Egyptian human remains assessed the maternal and paternal lineages using both mtDNA sequences and nuclear DNA markers, including autosomal and Y-chromosome short tandem repeats (STRs) (38,55–57). To the best of our knowledge, no full NGS autosomal study has been published yet in this regard, only uniparental markers were utilized.
An investigative study was carried out on the familial relationships of a number of late 18th dynasty mummies (ca. 1550–1295 b.c.), including that of Tutankhamen. The study was based on the analysis of the autosomal and Y-chromosome STR markers in addition to mitochondrial hypervariable region 1 sequences. A 4-generation pedigree of Tutankhamun’s immediate lineage and the identity of his ancestors were established. The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent (Amenhotep III) to the father (KV55, Akhenaten) to the grandchild (Tutankhamen). The maternal lineage, the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother (Thuya) to the grandmother (KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye) to the yet historically unidentified mother (KV35 Younger lady) to Tutankhamen (38,55).
So what's the significance of these mummies matching with these African populations? I think I have a rough idea why, but in you guys' words why isn't it indicative of population affinities or admixture percentages?
It's interesting the fact that before your return your question had been answered at least twice in this very thread in response to some usuals defense for the OP video. I wont go ahead and link you to the quotes yet as I want to see if someone who aren't those who posted the answers can give you a definitive response.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Okay so can someone explain in simple terms what this study/the DNA Tribes study shows us and how it fits with the other Ancient DNA findings from North and East Africa?
DNA Tribes was a private testing company that sold test kits with it's own proprietary test result format they called Match Likelihood (MLI) representing not a percentage but a number reflecting how many matches were made to other individuals in their database . The company no longer exists and their articles were not published in peer reviewed scientific journal articles
They used the same 2010 DNA data that Hawass did and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Keita also used that same data and published an article in 2020 where he used an admixture program and results were relayed as autosomal percentages although this was not published in a peer reviewed journal either. His results were similar to DNA tribes although DNA tribes claimed to have matched to some particular regions of Africa
In that same year Hawass' team lead by Yehia Gad released an article in the journal Human Molecular Genetics on these mummies:
Insights from ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian human mummies: clues to disease and kinship Yehia Z Gad, October 2020
The genetic relatedness of individuals from archeological sites has been utilized to elucidate family relationships. A number of studies on Egyptian human remains assessed the maternal and paternal lineages using both mtDNA sequences and nuclear DNA markers, including autosomal and Y-chromosome short tandem repeats (STRs) (38,55–57). To the best of our knowledge, no full NGS autosomal study has been published yet in this regard, only uniparental markers were utilized.
An investigative study was carried out on the familial relationships of a number of late 18th dynasty mummies (ca. 1550–1295 b.c.), including that of Tutankhamen. The study was based on the analysis of the autosomal and Y-chromosome STR markers in addition to mitochondrial hypervariable region 1 sequences. A 4-generation pedigree of Tutankhamun’s immediate lineage and the identity of his ancestors were established. The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent (Amenhotep III) to the father (KV55, Akhenaten) to the grandchild (Tutankhamen). The maternal lineage, the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother (Thuya) to the grandmother (KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye) to the yet historically unidentified mother (KV35 Younger lady) to Tutankhamen (38,55).
So what's the significance of these mummies matching with these African populations? I think I have a rough idea why, but in you guys' words why isn't it indicative of population affinities or admixture percentages?
It's interesting the fact that before your return your question had been answered at least twice in this very thread in response to some usuals defense for the OP video. I wont go ahead and link you to the quotes yet as I want to see if someone who aren't those who posted the answers can give you a definitive response.
I'm trying to follow along but some references are throwing me off lol. I'm not that familiar with the specific details of DNA testing so for example I don't know the significance of SNP vs STR and what each is better at. I'll try to re-read and see if I can follow along this time.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Now you've added the right word West Africans are shown to be closer related to Horn Africans than they are to 1% of South Africans, the indigenes.
Yes, that's what I keep saying especially to nitwits like Antalas who keep insisting on this "Sub-Saharan" vs. Eurasian divide wherein he includes North Africa in Eurasia.
quote: I notice you use this tactic a lot on me and other people, somebody asks you a question and instead of answering it you say stuff like:
"we have discussed this many times, like in this thread____LINK"
So then you expect people to read some multi-page thread and hope they will not invest the time and then wonder if maybe your argument was proven somewhere in it and then just give up, realizing that they have been put on a time wasting goose chase, taking hours
Or in this thread you are linking now, they are not even discussing your claim "most of the African admixture in Southwest Europe (Iberian Peninsula) is maternal L2."
the thread starts off with what looks like an article in Spanish
later we find out it's dissertation they are talking about, in Spanish
So it's like here, read this 300 page dissertation, my point is proven in there somewhere. It's not even clear if you can even still download it and where
That don't cut it, you are supposed to be able to answer the question and then support it with a a quote, article title and page number if it's long, something that can still be viewed stop dancing around and trying to use other threads to prove something
Okay how about this? The same way Southeastern Europe (Balkans) has a concentration of African paternal lineages, so does Southwest Europe (Iberia) possess African maternal lineages that date to the Neolithic.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
But getting back to the topic. What do you guys think of the Amarna DNA Tribes results? I understand some have taken and ran with the "Great Lakes African" theory, but a more plausible theory would be some relation to groups like Luxmanda and Kenyan Neolithic.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
. This is a critique of the "Black Egypt" community as a whole which has devolved into trolling, pseudo-science, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia. Why make an article about a Keita publication when Egyptsearch did what Keita did 10 years before he did it? Matter of fact, why make a video about Keita's publication yet still "Persist in the racial thinking" that Keita warned about when i was in Highschool over 25 year ago? 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). (2) They seem local, in that Modern Egyptian's African Substratum is not West African derived if there was stone age continuity. The lineages that exist contain diversity that has the time depth that can only be associated with these old fossils. Egypt's SSA is modeled as "DINKA" not anything else, not Senegambian. Furthermore The Eastern Sahara/Nile Valley derived African ancestry in Horn Africans and East African pastoral Neolithic is also DINKA, not Senegambian. The type of the Australo Melanesian / Jebel Sahaba affinity goes all the way back to Nazlet Khater and Taramsa Hill Boy 35kya and 65-75kya respectively. Its not "NEW".
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
