I was strolling around Wikipedia (I know it isn't the best source about Ancient Egypt)
When I bumped into this quote here found on this wikipage about the A-Group Nubians (The same quote is also found on the Population History of Egypt)
I'm confused as I always read the Badari as well as the Naqada as possessing some Negroid traits and I remember reading Anthropologists such as Frank Yurco describing the Pre-dynastic Egyptians as having a blend of "North African" and "Sub-Saharan" traits.
Is this a mistake or am I misreading things? Is anybody familiar with this study or this anthropologist?
Sorry the image didn't work in my last message guys here is the working image
Again from what I know from all the other studies I have read A Group Nubians, Badari and Naqada all cluster together (as this study also does) however why does he have the Nubian A Group as Caucasoid?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
just hit that paper and pencil icon, top right and you can edit your posts
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
Again from what I know from all the other studies I have read A Group Nubians, Badari and Naqada all cluster together (as this study also does) however why does he have the Nubian A Group as Caucasoid?
A lot of contemporary anthropologists don't use "negroid" "caucasoid", "mongoloid" etc classifications anymore but when the do they are doing so based on specific measurements of the skull and sometimes other skeletal proportions However the cut off points are not agreed upon and you are referring to 16 years ago and the 16 years ago quote refers to 1975 and 85 classification methods
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Sorry the image didn't work in my last message guys here is the working image
Again from what I know from all the other studies I have read A Group Nubians, Badari and Naqada all cluster together (as this study also does) however why does he have the Nubian A Group as Caucasoid?
Because someone on a whim created a collection of metric traits found in human crania and labeled it "Caucasoid." When the traits of the skeleton are measured they fit into that classification whether valid or not.
-In its pseudo context it could mean migration from and or ancestry from a specific region in West Asia (Caucus).
-In its evolutionary context with an understanding of microevolution among our species it could mean adaptation to a specific region and environmental/climactic pressures which shaped these cranial feature which perform a specific function.
In BOTH cases...the metric data DOES EXIST. Whether the collection of these traits of too limited or too broad is a different discussion. Whether the classification of the features are interpreted correctly and mean what we say they do is a different discussion.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
At one time all the populations of Upper Egypt to Lower Sudan were classified as "caucasoid" to distinguish them from "Negroids" further South. The distinction being made should be obvious in the context of 19th century race science, which is to separate "black Africans" from ancient North Africans.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: There is actually a biological basis for the distinction between North Africans and Sub-Saharans
how is it determined?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I thought I explained it to you before, but for the sake of the OT I'll do it again.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Dear Forum
I was strolling around Wikipedia (I know it isn't the best source about Ancient Egypt)
When I bumped into this quote here found on this wikipage about the A-Group Nubians (The same quote is also found on the Population History of Egypt)
I'm confused as I always read the Badari as well as the Naqada as possessing some Negroid traits and I remember reading Anthropologists such as Frank Yurco describing the Pre-dynastic Egyptians as having a blend of "North African" and "Sub-Saharan" traits.
Is this a mistake or am I misreading things? Is anybody familiar with this study or this anthropologist?
Craniofacially speaking there is a general distinction between North Africans and Sub-Saharans as shown below.
That said, certain traits typically called "negroid" such as wide nasal opening and prognathism are not uncommon among North Africans. This is why North Africans have traditionally been classified as "Caucasoids" but with "negroids traits".
All of these peoples group together as North African morphologically instead of Sub-Saharan which is why they were originally classified as "caucasoid" in the first place. This is something that some Afrocentrics seem to have a hard time grasping or outright denying.
A comparison of the more reliable material shows that there is a considerable variation in calvarial measurements among Negro races: all the Egyptian series fall within the extremes of length, breadth and cephalic index shown by the Negro types. But certain other measurements--chiefly facial--apparently distinguish all Negro from all Egyptian types.-- G.M. Morant (1925)
In regards to predynastic populations, the Badarians were noted to be relatively more "negroid" with narrower heads, broader noses, and more prognathous jaws compared to the Naqada people with the opposite features.
Even so, this was said about the Naqada folk:
"Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be sufficiently homogeneous to justify speaking of a Naqada race. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the cephalic and facial indices, this race presents affinities with Negroes. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans...." ---Dr. Emile Massoulard, Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt (1949)
The Naqada people are closest in physiognomy to Qustul (A-Group) Nubians.
A distinct human type inhabited both Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia in the early Predynastic times. At the late Predynastic period and early Dynastic, that early race had undergone an appreciable modification owing to mixture with an alien type coming into Upper Egypt from the North and another alien negro type introduced into Lower Nubia from the South. The negro element was, however, at first very small, but in the Third Dynasty it suddenly became more pronounced, although it was still relatively slight in amount. This process of intermixture proceeded quietly from the Third Dynasty onward, the population of negroes gradually increasing and a comparatively homogeneous blend of the Predynastic Egyptian and the Negro types is produced in the time of the New Kingdom.-- Ahmed Batrawi (1946)
Of the total of 117 [Badarian] skulls, 15 were found to be markedly Europoid, 9 of these were of the gracile Mediterranean type (Figs. ia & b), 6 were of very robust structure reminiscent of the North African Cromagnon type. Eight skulls were clearly Negroid (Figs. 2a and b), and were close to the Negro types occurring in East Africa... ..Regardless of this, however, the Negroid component among the Badarians is anthropologically well based. Even though the share of 'pure' Negroes is small (6.8 per cent), being half that of the Europoid forms (12-9 per cent), the high majority of mixed forms (80.3 per cent) suggests a long-lasting dispersion of Negroid genes in the population. --Strouhal 1971
The authors are always at pains to point out that the pure negro element appears to have been minute in the groups analyzed; two skeletons in a hundred, for example, at Naga-ed-Der in early predynastic times, and one in fifty-four in Lower Nubia (Massoulard, 1949, p396 and pp410-411), although all anthropologists concur in acknowledging the existence of a "negroid" component in the mixed population which constitutes the primitive Egyptian "ethnic group", at least from Neolithic times onwards. --Vercoutter 1974
We collected measurements for a single specimen from what was called the Nubian X Group in Reisner’s terminology (Reisner, 1909). This was a population that immediately preceded the early Christian Nubians of AD 550 (Carlson and Van Gerven, 19791), and, in the subjective treatment of a generation gone by, had been regarded as evidence for a “Negroid incursion" (Batrawi, 1935; Smith, 1909; Seligman, 1915). As our figures show, the probability of finding our representative specimen in a Sub-Saharan population is 0.009, which is highly unlikely. Its column loadings are generally similar to the loadings in the column for the Predynastic Naqada sample, and, except for the fact that it is only marginally unlikely that it can be excluded from the Giza sample, it cannot be denied membership in the Naqada, European, or South Asian samples.... ..The indications of exclusion, however, are much easier to interpret. For example, the likelihood that either the Giza or Naqada configuration could occur in West Africa, the Congo, or points south is vanishingly small-- 0.000 and 0.001. --Brace 1993
The Eurocentrics do the opposite or inverse of the aforementioned Afrocentrics by emphasizing the "Caucasoid" traits while downplaying or ignoring the "negroid" traits to the point that they try to group North Africans entirely with Western Eurasians (Europeans & Southwest Asians) when in fact North Africans morphologically fall in a position intermediate that is right between Sub-Saharans and Western Eurasians as these craniometric charts below show.
Mind you, all these data are based on metric traits which is more specious and are poor indicators of actual genetic relations. This is why South Asians (Indians) cluster with Nubians and in other studies Sub-Saharans cluster with Oceanian Aboriginals like Melanesians and Andamanese.
Nonmetric traits are a better indication of genetic relations and they still show North Africans to be intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians.
The West Eurasian samples given above happen to be Europeans but you should get the point.
Even in dental traits there are differences between North Africans and Sub-Saharans. The former have microdonty that is small mass-reduced teeth similar to Western Eurasians whereas the latter have have megadonty which is large mass-increased teeth similar to Australo-Melanesians. But when it comes to non-metric traits here is what one reknowned odontologist said:
Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which parallels that of Europeans, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans. --Irish (1998)
^The emboldened parts other than the bit about Carabelli's trait are all traits associated with Sub-Saharans.
Here is a chart from Irish showing the nonmetric dental divide between Sub-Saharans and North Africans.
Of course teeth are just another part of cranial features. One can turn to data of post-cranial traits i.e. skeletal body which is something Afrocentrics favor for obvious reasons.
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. ---Zakrzewski 2003
North Africans in regards to their skeletal structure are no different from Sub-Saharans especially those in the Sahel region. Yet even then, I've read that there are slight differences in the shape of certain bones of wrist and ankles.
But when it comes to actual genetics we know that Africans are indeed diverse and that North Africans comprise a part of that diversity.
Loosdrecht et al. 2018 Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
The Eurocentrics do the opposite or inverse of the aforementioned Afrocentrics by emphasizing the "Caucasoid" traits while downplaying or ignoring the "negroid" traits to the point that they try to group North Africans entirely with Western Eurasians (Europeans & Southwest Asians) when in fact North Africans morphologically fall in a position intermediate that is right between Sub-Saharans and Western Eurasians as these craniometric charts below show.
Why do you lie when the picture clearly shows that the centroids of both Lower/upper egyptian are closer to the european cluster ? Only the nubian centroid is indeed intermediate.
Here a more simple picture of the same Analysis where you can better see the position of the centroids :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Mind you, all these data are based on metric traits which is more specious and are poor indicators of actual genetic relations. This is why South Asians (Indians) cluster with Nubians and in other studies Sub-Saharans cluster with Oceanian Aboriginals like Melanesians and Andamanese.
Yes many south asians appear intermediate because they descend in part from those same Andamanese-like populations who happen to morphologically cluster with negroids. How is that surprising ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Nonmetric traits are a better indication of genetic relations and they still show North Africans to be intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians.
The West Eurasian samples given above happen to be Europeans but you should get the point.
That's not what Hanihara et al. 2003 shows :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Even in dental traits there are differences between North Africans and Sub-Saharans. The former have microdonty that is small mass-reduced teeth similar to Western Eurasians whereas the latter have have megadonty which is large mass-increased teeth similar to Australo-Melanesians. But when it comes to non-metric traits here is what one reknowned odontologist said:
Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which parallels that of Europeans, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans. --Irish (1998)
^The emboldened parts other than the bit about Carabelli's trait are all traits associated with Sub-Saharans.
Irish actually emphasize how different the two groups are and actually shows that dentally north africans are much closer to europeans and other eurasians whether they have some negroid tendencies or not and it seems that you purposely omitted the fact that this "North African" category also includes people from the Horn of Africa who are much more SSA shifted than Egyptians or NW Africans :
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, p. 279
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of course teeth are just another part of cranial features. One can turn to data of post-cranial traits i.e. skeletal body which is something Afrocentrics favor for obvious reasons.
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. ---Zakrzewski 2003
Those patterns do not apply to NW Africans and these are simply due to adaptation as Brace highlighted :
quote:The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat . Since heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature-namely skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be “super-negroid,” meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans (Robins and Shute, 1986). It would be just as accurate to call them “super-Veddoid or “superCarpentarian” since skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term “supertropical” would be better since it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more “racially loaded” term “negroid.”
Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
So it has nothing to do with admixture or genetic relationship.
Modern Egyptians still show such traits and they are similar to those predynastic egyptians :
quote:The biological characteristics of modern Egyptians show a north-south cline, reflecting their geographic location between sub-Saharan Africa and the Levant. This is expressed in DNA, blood groups, serum proteins and genetic disorders (Filon 1996; Hammer et al. 1998; Krings et al. 1999). They are also expressed in phenotypic characteristics that can be identified in the teeth and bones (Crichton 1966; Froment 1992; Keita 1996). These characteristics include head form, facial and nasal characteristics, jaw relationships, tooth size, morphology, and upper/lower limb proportions. In all these features, modern egyptians resemble sub-saharan africans (Howells 1989, Keita 1995).
P. Smith, The Palaeo-Biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millenia BCE, 2002
On the Craniological Study of Egyptians in various periods by M.F Gaballah et al, with reference to the works of both Batrawi 1946 and Sidney Smith 1926, it is said that the available series of modern Egyptian skulls conform more closely with the Southern phenotype that characterized the predynastic and early dynastic cultures of Upper Egypt such as the Naqada .
So egyptians are simply adapted to their environnement yet you call them "arabs" "ifrangi" and cherrypick pictures of the most black looking egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: North Africans in regards to their skeletal structure are no different from Sub-Saharans especially those in the Sahel region.
You've literally just posted a chart which shows that they are in fact different. Sahelians are simply closer to North africans than other SSAs because they have north african admixture :
quote:And fourth, dentitions of Sub-Saharan/North African boundary groups (i.e., Senegambia (SEN), Tukulor (TUK), Chad (???)) indicate probable North African genetic input based on lower frequencies of LM1 deflecting wrinkle and LM1 cusp 7, and higher UM3 agenesis.
quote:Our findings suggest that Eurasian admixture and the European LP allele was introduced into the Fulani through contact with a North African population /s. We furthermore confirm the link between the lactose digestion phenotype in the Fulani to the MCM6/LCT locus by reporting the first GWAS of the lactase persistence trait.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: But when it comes to actual genetics we know that Africans are indeed diverse and that North Africans comprise a part of that diversity.
Indeed and you should acknowledge that some Africans can have light skin, straight hair, and Caucasian-like features. Moreover you should stop portraying North Africans as recent invaders and recognize the diversity that exists within the African continent instead of constantly trying to darkwash their ancestors because you don't find enough commonnalities with the modern ones.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why do you lie when the picture clearly shows that the centroids of both Lower/Upper Egyptian are closer to the European cluster? Only the Nubian centroid is indeed intermediate.
This is exactly why I'm not joking when I say you need professional mental help. You actually accuse me of lying about a graph that anyone with eyes can clearly see.
First off, that the authors divide the Nile Valley population cluster into 3 different centroid groups shows the differentiation amongst them even though all are North African.
Second, back to my main point, anyone with functioning eyes can clearly see that the Nile Valley North Africans are indeed intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans with Lower Egyptians being closer to the former and Nubians to the latter.
I even used a virtual ruler for precise distances between each centroid:
Upper Egypt -- Lower Egypt: 1cm
Upper Egypt -- Nubia: 1.1cm
Upper Egypt -- Europe: 4.3cm
Upper Egypt -- Sub-Sahara: 4.5cm
Lower Egypt -- Europe: 3.2cm
Lower Egypt -- Nubia: 1.5cm
Lower Egypt -- Sub-Sahara: 4.7cm
Nubia -- Sub-Sahara: 3.4cm
Nubia -- Europe: 4.2cm
It's apparent to everyone but YOU that the Nile Valley population instead of clustering with Europeans form their own cluster with outlying populations that grade into the Sub-Saharans from the Nubian end and outlying populations that grade into Europeans from the Lower Egyptian end. In fact the Nile Valley group that plots closest to the graph origin is the Nubian centroid, while interestingly the group that is the farthest outlier plotting away from all the clusters is the sample from the Abydos Royal Tombs.
Lastly but just as significantly is the fact that many of the European samples in the graph especially those that cluster with Lower Egyptians are those of the Bronze Age and Neolithic Aegean! And what did Brace say about these samples he studied himself??
"The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe."-- Brace (2004)
It shouldn't be surprising since anthropologists from the early 1900s have noted Neolithic and Bronze Age southern Europeans to have "negroid" features.
quote:Here a more simple picture of the same Analysis where you can better see the position of the centroids:
Yeah, and again this more compact version shows still shows them to be intermediate except that the Nubian cluster is reduced to the centroid value only and interestingly the Palestinian sample is blown up to show that it is intermediate between the Upper Egyptian and Lower Egyptian centroids. LOL
quote:Yes many South Asians appear intermediate because they descend in part from those same Andamanese-like populations who happen to morphologically cluster with Negroids. How is that surprising?
Of course if your delusion affects your eyesight, it would affect your reading comprehension. I just stated the fact that craniometrics are NOT good indicators of genetic relations because South Asians group with Nubians while Andamanese groups with Sub-Saharans. Andamanese are genetically related to a substrate of South Asians specifically certain tribal groups in the southern part of the subcontinent. The majority of South Asians lack this ancestry but both South Asians and Andamanese are genetically closer related to each other and related to East Asians than either is to ANY African populations unlike West Eurasians (Europeans and Southwest Asians) because the latter has African admixture!
quote:That's not what Hanihara et al. 2003 shows:
ROTFLMAO
You dishonest fool! I was the one who cited Hanihara et a. 2003 and posted his graphs here!
Hanihara used a 3 Dimensional MMD matrix with 3 PCOs but you conveniently cherrypicked 1 of the 3 2D combinations.
Here are all 3 of them again:
^ Note Sub-Saharans cluster closest to North Africans in graph C.
And here is the total 3D PCO
Interestingly, there are some Southeast Asian samples that cluster in between North Africans and Sub-Saharans. I've already pointed out that Hanihara leaves out many nonmetric traits which can affect the distribution. What's just as significant if not more so is the sampling bias. Experts like Hanihara still use patchy geographic sampling in regards to Sub-Saharans. The sample closest geographically to Egyptians he used is Somalis but not Sudanese or Chadians. Be that as it may the results are the same-- North Africans are between Sub-Saharans and Western Eurasians.
quote:Irish actually emphasize how different the two groups are and actually shows that dentally North Africans are much closer to Europeans and other Eurasians whether they have some negroid tendencies or not and it seems that you purposely omitted the fact that this "North African" category also includes people from the Horn of Africa who are much more SSA shifted than Egyptians or NW Africans:
Irish's quote is quite clear. It's exactly their "negroid tendencies" as you put that make them intermediate. Note that such tendencies do NOT come from admixture because the metrics show a stark difference in size. As for your false accusation of me "purposely omitting" something, why do you always project YOUR guilt on to ME?!! I just busted your ass for posting only 1/3 of Hanihara's PCO chart! LOL Whereas I did not omit anything since the quote I cited was Irish's own summary describing the nonmetric nature of North Africans alone NOT Africans from the Horn who are geographically Sub-Saharan but since you bring them up, it's interesting that although nonmetrically they are 'North African' metrically they are considered intermediate between microdontic North Africans and other East Africans who are mesodontic.
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, p. 279
Yeah and as I noted before the distance between North Africans and Sub-Saharans is only slightly greater than that between Southeast Asians like myself and South Siberians, yet nobody denies that we are still East Asians. Also note the distance between Australians and Melanesians even though both populations inhabited the same continent of Sahul during the last Ice Age. By your logic, Sub-Saharans must be closer related to Melanesians and Micronesians due to their closer proximities in that graph! LOL
quote:Those patterns do not apply to NW Africans and these are simply due to adaptation as Brace highlighted:
Yes because NW Africans have significant European admixture which is why there are white Berbers like yourself! Also, the simple adaptation alone argument is deeply flawed as I will show.
quote:The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat . Since heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature-namely skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be “super-negroid,” meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans (Robins and Shute, 1986). It would be just as accurate to call them “super-Veddoid or “superCarpentarian” since skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term “supertropical” would be better since it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more “racially loaded” term “negroid.”---Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31. So it has nothing to do with admixture or genetic relationship.
Wrong as always! Of course there is adaptation but to divorce this from genetics is absurd. This is like saying differences in skin color is due to adaptation but has no genetic basis including admixture! LOL For example, when the ancestors of Eurasians left Africa, some of their descendants lost their tropically adapted builds, while others preserved it. Of course the former are those who live in colder climes while the latter are those who live in the tropics. What's interesting though is that Amerindian populations who live in the tropics of South America still retain the cold adapted builds of their Siberian ancestors despite living in that region for about 10,000 years which suggests that this change in skeletal structure likely takes tens of thousands of years. Yet in the case of the Egyptians we have this..
..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60
But what's really interesting is that studies from Gay Robins to Sonia Zakrzewski show that the general trend among ancient Egyptians isn't merely "negroid" or tropical but rather super-negroid or supra-tropical! This fact is rather striking considering that most of Egypt is located in the sub-tropics. So what does that imply other than the fact that their ancestors originated from more tropical climes similar to how the ancestors of Amerindians originated in colder climes.
quote:Modern Egyptians still show such traits and they are similar to those predynastic egyptians:
The biological characteristics of modern Egyptians show a north-south cline, reflecting their geographic location between sub-Saharan Africa and the Levant. This is expressed in DNA, blood groups, serum proteins and genetic disorders (Filon 1996; Hammer et al. 1998; Krings et al. 1999). They are also expressed in phenotypic characteristics that can be identified in the teeth and bones (Crichton 1966; Froment 1992; Keita 1996). These characteristics include head form, facial and nasal characteristics, jaw relationships, tooth size, morphology, and upper/lower limb proportions. In all these features, modern Egyptians resemble Sub-Saharan Africans (Howells 1989, Keita 1995).
LMAO So you cite a source supporting my whole argument that Egyptians as North Africans are biologically intermediate between Sub-Saharans and Eurasians but are still Africans. I guess this is the cunning of reason. LOL
quote:P. Smith, The Palaeo-Biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE, 2002 On the Craniological Study of Egyptians in various periods by M.F Gaballah et al, with reference to the works of both Batrawi 1946 and Sidney Smith 1926, it is said that the available series of modern Egyptian skulls conform more closely with the Southern phenotype that characterized the predynastic and early dynastic cultures of Upper Egypt such as the Naqada. So Egyptians are simply adapted to their environnement yet you call them "arabs" "ifrangi" and cherrypick pictures of the most black looking egyptians.
LOL Yeah and Nigerians are adapted to their environment too. The difference is that Nigeria did not have the type of immigration and admixture with Eurasians that Egyptians experienced. I only call the Egyptians YOU cherrypick pictures of as Afrangi because that is exactly what the Baladi (indigenous Egyptians) call them. Afrangi are the fair-skinned foreign elites who rule the country largely of Arab descent but also Turkish, Circassian, and others. The black looing types I post pics of are of non other than the Baladi themselves and yet again your own source says modern Egyptians conform to a "southern" type similar to Naqada folks who again closely resemble Kerma Nubians!! So are you saying the Afrangi types you post like Zahi Hawass conform to that type but not the Baladi I post?! LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:
Yeah I used to get the same reaction to the crap you post, but now I just have this reaction.
quote:You've literally just posted a chart which shows that they are in fact different. Sahelians are simply closer to North Africans than other SSAs because they have North African admixture:
And fourth, dentitions of Sub-Saharan/North African boundary groups (i.e., Senegambia (SEN), Tukulor (TUK), Chad (???)) indicate probable North African genetic input based on lower frequencies of LM1 deflecting wrinkle and LM1 cusp 7, and higher UM3 agenesis.
Our findings suggest that Eurasian admixture and the European LP allele was introduced into the Fulani through contact with a North African population /s. We furthermore confirm the link between the lactose digestion phenotype in the Fulani to the MCM6/LCT locus by reporting the first GWAS of the lactase persistence trait. https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-019-6296-7
My delusional, dull-witted friend. First of all if you properly read my post I was referring to post-cranial that is skeletal bodies which again are described as supra-tropical or super-"negroid".
Second, like Sub-Sahara, the term Sahel is a geographic label that denotes the vast area below:
Yet of the many populations inhabiting the above region you seize upon the Fulani as if they are the only Sahelians even though they still possess supra-tropical builds! A rather interesting exercise in psychology because the people group that I was thinking of was the Dinka and other southern Sudanese who are equally Sahelian and possess the same supra-tropical body structure. Unless you want to argue they inherited this trait from North Africans of the subtropics. LMAO
Third, Senegambia and Tukulor are inhabited by coastal Fulani who are distinct from the pastoral Fulani and thus don't carry the same genetic profile as them but are closer to West Africans like Wolof and Mande. You would know that if you read the paper at least with unwarped eyes. LOL
quote:Indeed and you should acknowledge that some Africans can have light skin, straight hair, and Caucasian-like features. Moreover you should stop portraying North Africans as recent invaders and recognize the diversity that exists within the African continent instead of constantly trying to darkwash their ancestors because you don't find enough commonnalities with the modern ones.
Yes some Africans like South African Khoisan have light skin but North Africans like YOU are white because of European admixture! How many times do I have to tell you that Northwest Africa has a different history from Northeast Africa in that the European admixture is greater in the former while Southwest Asian admixture is greater in the latter. I don't portray all North Africans recent invaders, but you can't deny that many especially in the coasts are indeed descended from said invaders. And again there is no such thing as "dark-wash" the term is dark-paint, but nobody has to do that because their dark descendants still exist today as rural Baladi, while Afrangi like Zahi Hawass like to believe the pharaohs look like them! LOL Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
It would not surprise me too much now if certain facial features commonly called "Caucasoid" actually originated in northeastern Africa before spreading to western Eurasia via Basal Eurasian. We all know that BE is a major component in most West Eurasian ancestry now. So it may be less that indigenous North Africans were "Caucasoid" than West Eurasians are to a degree "North Africoid". Or something like that.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Ironically that is a hypothesis that Swenet put forward. The Upper-Paleolithic Euros like Crog-Magnon had features reminiscent of Melanesians and Australian Aborigines, and not only were "caucasoid" features found in Africa first but these features were gracile and not robust like Paleolithic Western Eurasians. This is why you had 19th Century anthropologists like Giuseppe Sergi postulate a "Brown Mediterranean Race" that originated in Africa and were "Caucasoid" in form but much gracile and much darker/melanated skin but who "diverged" from Negroes. In fact another theory was developed about a "Eurafrican Race" that diverged from a common ancestry with Negroes and was represented by the so-called Mechta Afalou types of the Maghreb and was the ancestral to Mediterraneans. Dana Marniche has pointed all this out in her "Myth of the Mediterranean Race" paper. Even the Eurocentric blogger Dienekes years back spoke of "Prehistoric East African Caucasoids" as exemplified by fossils in the Kenyan Rift Valley like Gamble's Cave like Elmenteita or Naivasha.
This is why racial typology has been proven to be scientifically invalid.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Getting back to the issue of A-Group Nubians LoStranger cites an old paper from anthropologist Eugen Strouhal. Strouhal's findings still hold valid and were verified by more recent studies as I will show. The problem with Strouhal like many anthropologists of his day is the way he interprets his findings via use of the racial typological terms like "Caucasoid" to describe certain features. Other than that, he is correct that A-Group remains closely resemble those of their neighbors. Neolithic Egyptians and their origin In contrast to the sturdy nomadic or semi-sedentary human groups of presumed Saharan origin, the first agriculturalists and cattle-breeders, living in Nubia with a culture labelled by archaeologists as Group A in the 5th millennium BC, were slim and gracile, dolichocranic, with small faces and slightly broader noses. Their physical features were Caucasoid, not distinguishable from the contemporary Predynastic Upper Egyptians of the Badarian and Nagadian cultures (Billy 1975, Simon, Menk 1985). The origin of the Egyptians was looked for in the course of almost two centuries in nearer or more distant regions in all possible directions. It has not been, however, established yet with certainty. Predynastic Egyptians seem to be similar to the Capsian Mesolithic people of North Africa and to the historical Berbers. Recently it has been supposed that they had entered the Nile Valley from Neolithic Sahara through the Western Oases, bringing with them the archaic way of agriculture and cattle breeding (Strouhal 1988). The problem of the Egyptians' origins has been intensively studied by linguists, too. Greenberg (1955) proved that Hamitic and Semitic languages are genetically bound, as both developed from a common Hamito-Semitic (recently called Afro-Asian) language. Later it was split into an Asian (Semitic) and four African branches: the Tchadian, Berberic, Egyptian, and Kushitic. The Old Egyptian language, being the most archaic known one, has retained its original Hamito-Semitic character. It assumed a central geographic position, while the three other language families further polarized during migrations and evolution of their speakers.
By the way 'A-Group' a.k.a. Qustul Culture is associated with this area of the Nile.
^ Qustul Culture stretched from just north of the 2nd Cataract to as far north as the town of Kubaniyya in Upper Egypt. The Egyptians called these people 'Setiu' (bowmen) and their land Ta-Seti (Land of the Bow), though interestingly enough the Egyptians distinguished between the 1st nome of Upper Egypt Ta-Seti nwt in Aswan from Ta-Seti khast which is the foreign kingdom beyond the 1st Cataract. But more on that soon.
For now, to answer LoStranger's question, there have been many studies done elucidating the relations of Qustuli Nubians with other Nile Valley populations since that Strouhal study.
For example here are some charts from craniometric studies showing who the Qustuli most resembled and they all agree that they have the closest affinity with Wawati (C-Group) Nubians.
Carlson 1974
Brothwell 2016
Irish 2010
^ Note Sub-Saharan Tigray from Ethiopia craniometrically cluster with Nubians specifically the D-Group sample.
Now here are a couple of charts from nonmetric studies which yield a more accurate indications of genetic relations.
Godde 2018 (cranial nonmetrics)
Irish 2010 (dental nonmetrics)
Note that in both A-Group strays away from the nucleus of Nile Valley groups, but note that in Irish's graph A-Group clusters with the Ethiopian Tigray sample.
And here are both of Irish's charts to show the contrast between craniometrics and dental nonmetrics with the latter being more reliable in genetic relations.
What's interesting about these nonmetric findings is that there seems to be support from Y-DNA evidence.
Bone samples from different skeletal elements of burial sites from Neolithic, Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods in Sudan were collected from Sudan National Museum. aDNA extraction was successful in 35 out of 76 samples, PCR was performed for sex determination using Amelogenin marker. Fourteen samples were females and 19 were males. To generate Y-chromosome specific haplogroups A-M13, B-M60, F-M89 and Y Alu Polymorphism (YAP) markers, which define the deep ancestral haplotypes in the phylogenetic tree of Y-chromosome were used. Haplogroups A-M13 was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods. Haplogroup B-M60 was not observed in the sample analyzed. Hassan 2009
Ironically haplogroup A is the oldest clade in the world and is known as "Sub-Saharan" yet it was common among Qustuli Nubians.
^ It also seems that hg A is also found in the Tigray region of Ethiopia as well.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Ironically haplogroup A is the oldest clade in the world and is known as "Sub-Saharan" yet it was common among Qustuli Nubians.
please show us a journal article title saying that haplogroup A was found in Qustul Nubians.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ You're correct. The Hassan article I cited only analyzed the Neolithic remains of Upper Nubia (Kadruka) but not those of Lower Nubia (Qustul). The non-metric data though seems to imply it.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Hey snake, if you're going to scrutinize my posts, at least do a half-decent job at it! Are you even citing the same study as me?? I was not referring to Hassan's 2008 study but his 2009 study! The area known today as Sudan may have been the scene of pivotal human evolutionary events, both as a corridor for ancient and modern migrations, as well as the venue of crucial past cultural evolution. Several questions pertaining to the pattern of succession of the different groups in early Sudan have been raised. To shed light on these aspects, ancient DNA (aDNA) and present DNA collection were made and studied using Y-chromosome markers for aDNA, and Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers for present DNA. Bone samples from different skeletal elements of burial sites from Neolithic, Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods in Sudan were collected from Sudan National Museum. aDNA extraction was successful in 35 out of 76 samples, PCR was performed for sex determination using Amelogenin marker. Fourteen samples were females and 19 were males. To generate Y-chromosome specific haplogroups A-M13, B-M60, F-M89 and Y Alu Polymorphism (YAP) markers, which define the deep ancestral haplotypes in the phylogenetic tree of Y-chromosome were used. Haplogroups A-M13 was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post Meroitic and Christian periods. Haplogroup B-M60 was not observed in the sample analyzed. For extant DNA, Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroup variations were studied in 15 Sudanese populations representing the three linguistic families in Sudan by typing the major Y haplogroups in 445 unrelated males, and 404 unrelated individuals were sequenced for the mitochondrial hypervariable region. Y-chromosome analysis shows Sudanese populations falling into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 8.1, 34.2, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively. Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group. Mantel test reveal a strong correlation between genetic and linguistic structures (r= 0.30, p= 0.007), and a similar correlation between genetic and geographic distances (r= 0.29, p= 0.025) that appears after removing nomadic pastoralists of no known geographic locality from the analysis. For mtDNA analysis, a total of 56 haplotypes were observed, all belonging to the major sub-Saharan African and Eurasian mitochondrial macrohapolgroups L0, L1, L2, L4, L5, L3A, M and N in frequencies of 12.1, 11.9, 22, 4.2, 6.2, 29.5, 2, and 12.2% respectively. Haplogroups L6 was not observed in the sample analyzed. The considerable frequencies of macrohaplogroup L0 in Sudan is interesting given the fact that this macrohaplogroup occurs near the root of the mitochondrial DNA tree. Afro-Asiatic speaking groups appear to have sustained high gene flow form Nilo-Saharan speaking groups. Mantel test reveal no correlations between genetic, linguistic (r = 0.12, p = 0.14), and geographic distances (r = -0.07, p = 0.67). Accordingly, though limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley, and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba/Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13. The data analysis of the extant Y-chromosomes suggests that the bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events mainly from Asia and Europe, evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared to the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former. While the mtDNA data suggests that regional variation and diversity in mtDNA sequences in Sudan is likely to have been shaped by a longer history of in-situ evolution and then by human migrations form East, west-central and North Africa and to a lesser extent from Eurasia to the Nile Valley.
Unless you want to say I made up all the above.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Hassan's statement above is from an earlier paper and is in reference to MODERN Nubians who, of course lack haplogroup A! The results from Neolithic Nubians however is different story.
This thread is not about modern Nubians but ancient Nubians specifically Neolithic Nubians! Sorry that Hassan's findings shatter your preconceived notions of genetic Sub-Saharan.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Genetic Patterns of Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Variation, with Implications to the Peopling of the Sudan
Hisham Yousif Hassan Mohamed B.sc. (Honors) of Zoology, University of Khartoum, 1999 Upgrading to PhD. Institute of Endemic Diseases, 2004 Thesis Submitted for the Fulfillment of Requirements for Philosophy Degree of Science in Molecular Biology Supervisor: Prof. Muntaser Eltayeb Ibrahim Department of Molecular Biology Institute of Endemic Diseases University of Khartoum July 2009 231 pages
The area known today as Sudan may have been the scene of pivotal human evolutionary events, both as a corridor for ancient and modern migrations, as well as the venue of crucial past cultural evolution. Several questions pertaining to the pattern of succession of the different groups in early Sudan have been raised. To shed light on these aspects, ancient DNA (aDNA) and present DNA collection were made and studied using Y-chromosome markers for aDNA, and Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers for present DNA. Bone samples from different skeletal elements of burial sites from Neolithic, Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Christian periods in Sudan were collected from Sudan National Museum. aDNA extraction was successful in 35 out of 76 samples, PCR was performed for sex determination using Amelogenin marker. Fourteen samples were females and 19 were males. To generate Y-chromosome specific haplogroups A-M13, B-M60, F-M89 and Y Alu Polymorphism (YAP) markers, which define the deep ancestral haplotypes in the phylogenetic tree of Y-chromosome were used. Haplogroups A-M13 was found at high frequencies among Neolithic samples. Haplogroup F-M89 and YAP appeared to be more frequent among Meroitic, Post Meroitic and Christian periods. Haplogroup B-M60 was not observed in the sample analyzed. For extant DNA, Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroup variations were studied in 15 Sudanese populations representing the three linguistic families in Sudan by typing the major Y haplogroups in 445 unrelated males, and 404 unrelated individuals were sequenced for the mitochondrial hypervariable region. Y-chromosome analysis shows Sudanese populations falling into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 8.1, 34.2, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively. Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group. Mantel test reveal a strong correlation between genetic and linguistic structures (r= 0.30, p= 0.007), and a similar correlation between genetic and geographic distances (r= 0.29, p= 0.025) that appears after removing nomadic pastoralists of no known geographic locality from the analysis. For mtDNA analysis, a total of 56 haplotypes were observed, all belonging to the major sub-Saharan African and Eurasian mitochondrial macrohapolgroups L0, L1, L2, L4, L5, L3A, M and N in frequencies of 12.1, 11.9, 22, 4.2, 6.2, 29.5, 2, and 12.2% respectively. Haplogroups L6 was not observed in the sample analyzed. The considerable frequencies of macrohaplogroup L0 in Sudan is interesting given the fact that this macrohaplogroup occurs near the root of the mitochondrial DNA tree. Afro-Asiatic speaking groups appear to have sustained high gene flow form Nilo-Saharan speaking groups. Mantel test reveal no correlations between genetic, linguistic (r = 0.12, p = 0.14), and geographic distances (r = -0.07, p = 0.67). Accordingly, though limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley, and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba/Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13. The data analysis of the extant Y-chromosomes suggests that the bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events mainly from Asia and Europe, evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared to the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former. While the mtDNA data suggests that regional variation and diversity in mtDNA sequences in Sudan is likely to have been shaped by a longer history of in-situ evolution and then by human migrations form East, west-central and North Africa and to a lesser extent from Eurasia to the Nile Valley.[/i]
I have added the proper citation^ into your post which you should have done. It's a 231 page PhD Thesis. The above in the abstract
So assuming you can coordinate this specifically to A-Group Nubians (but I didn't see anything in the thesis that was that specific, although it is a lot to get through and the search doesn't work too efficiently ) but assuming that A-group Nubians were A-M13 then according to the below they would be expected to correspond to type A below
and as wee can the chart on the bottom if A group was A-M13 then genetically Sudanese groups Dinka, Nuba, Fur are much closer to A-Group "Nubians" as compared to modern day Nubians none of whom in this sample of 39 were bearing any clade of Haplogroup A
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Craniofacially speaking there is a general distinction between North Africans and Sub-Saharans are shown below.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Ironically that is a hypothesis that Swenet put forward. The Upper-Paleolithic Euros like Crog-Magnon had features reminiscent of Melanesians and Australian Aborigines, and not only were "caucasoid" features found in Africa first but these features were gracile and not robust like Paleolithic Western Eurasians. This is why you had 19th Century anthropologists like Giuseppe Sergi postulate a "Brown Mediterranean Race" that originated in Africa and were "Caucasoid" in form but much gracile and much darker/melanated skin but who "diverged" from Negroes. In fact another theory was developed about a "Eurafrican Race" that diverged from a common ancestry with Negroes and was represented by the so-called Mechta Afalou types of the Maghreb and was the ancestral to Mediterraneans. Dana Marniche has pointed all this out in her "Myth of the Mediterranean Race" paper. Even the Eurocentric blogger Dienekes years back spoke of "Prehistoric East African Caucasoids" as exemplified by fossils in the Kenyan Rift Valley like Gamble's Cave like Elmenteita or Naivasha.
This is why racial typology has been proven to be scientifically invalid.
I remember Swenet telling me that Paleolithic Western Eurasians were trending in a direction superficially resembling Native Americans as well as Oceanians prior to receiving further admixture from North Africa. Recall, of course, that Native Americans share "Ancient North Eurasian" ancestry with Europeans.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Dear Forum
I was strolling around Wikipedia (I know it isn't the best source about Ancient Egypt)
When I bumped into this quote here found on this wikipage about the A-Group Nubians (The same quote is also found on the Population History of Egypt)
I'm confused as I always read the Badari as well as the Naqada as possessing some Negroid traits and I remember reading Anthropologists such as Frank Yurco describing the Pre-dynastic Egyptians as having a blend of "North African" and "Sub-Saharan" traits.
Is this a mistake or am I misreading things? Is anybody familiar with this study or this anthropologist?
Caucasoid is an outdated racial term created by Europeans to indicate features of human crania that supposedly originated in the caucasus mountains. In calling various African groups caucasoid, what they are claiming is that these groups have ancestry from the caucasus, when they don't. And the fact is that most European race scientist acknowledged early on that all human features came from Africa, including so called caucasoid features. But they could not stop themselves from trying to twist the data to promote Europe as the origin of such features. And this includes claiming aboriginal black African populations with those features as somehow part of the white race.
quote: Carleton Coon
There was never consensus among the proponents of the "Caucasoid race" concept regarding how it would be delineated from other groups such as the proposed Mongoloid race. Carleton S. Coon (1939) included the populations native to all of Central and Northern Asia, including the Ainu people, under the Caucasoid label. However, many scientists maintained the racial categorizations of color established by Meiners' and Blumenbach's works, along with many other early steps of anthropology, well into the late 19th and mid-to-late 20th centuries, increasingly used to justify political policies, such as segregation and immigration restrictions, and other opinions based in prejudice. For example, Thomas Henry Huxley (1870) classified all populations of Asian nations as Mongoloid. Lothrop Stoddard (1920) in turn classified as "brown" most of the populations of the Middle East, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Central Asia and South Asia. He counted as "white" only European peoples and their descendants, as well as a few populations in areas adjacent to or opposite southern Europe, in parts of Anatolia and parts of the Rif and Atlas mountains.
In 1939, Coon argued that the Caucasian race had originated through admixture between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens of the "Mediterranean type" which he considered to be distinct from Caucasians, rather than a subtype of it as others had done. While Blumenbach had erroneously thought that light skin color was ancestral to all humans and the dark skin of southern populations was due to sun, Coon thought that Caucasians had lost their original pigmentation as they moved North. Coon used the term "Caucasoid" and "White race" synonymously.
In 1962, Coon published The Origin of Races, wherein he proposed a polygenist view, that human races had evolved separately from local varieties of Homo erectus. Dividing humans into five main races, and argued that each evolved in parallel but at different rates, so that some races had reached higher levels of evolution than others. He argued that the Caucasoid race had evolved 200,000 years prior to the "Congoid race", and hence represented a higher evolutionary stage.
Coon argued that Caucasoid traits emerged prior to the Cro-Magnons, and were present in the Skhul and Qafzeh hominids. However, these fossils and the Predmost specimen were held to be Neanderthaloid derivatives because they possessed short cervical vertebrae, lower and narrower pelves, and had some Neanderthal skull traits. Coon further asserted that the Caucasoid race was of dual origin, consisting of early dolichocephalic (e.g. Galley Hill, Combe-Capelle, Téviec) and Neolithic Mediterranean Homo sapiens (e.g. Muge, Long Barrow, Corded), as well as Neanderthal-influenced brachycephalic Homo sapiens dating to the Mesolithic and Neolithic (e.g. Afalou, Hvellinge, Fjelkinge).
Coon's theories on race were much disputed in his lifetime,[44] and are considered pseudoscientific in modern anthropology.
So a lot of it is basically propaganda using semantics and word games to hide the fact that so-called caucasoid features originate in Africa in Northern and North Eastern Africa. This is why these people are so obsessed with classifying Africans in North East Africa as "caucasoid" so they can claim them as being part of white or Eurasian history, when they are not.
And the fact is that to this day, large numbers of people in Northern Sudan and Southern Egypt have so-called "caucasoid" features. This phenotype includes straighter hair, narrow faces and features, which are also found in populations across North East Africa.
Not ironically, a lot of these Sudanese now consider themselves Arab.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
^Some of them ARE Arabs.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I have added the proper citation^ into your post which you should have done. It's a 231 page PhD Thesis. The above in the abstract
Thank you, and I apologize for the confusion.
quote:So assuming you can coordinate this specifically to A-Group Nubians (but I didn't see anything in the thesis that was that specific, although it is a lot to get through and the search doesn't work too efficiently ) but assuming that A-group Nubians were A-M13 then according to the below they would be expected to correspond to type A below
Firstly, the Neolithic genetic sample that Hassan refers to actually came from the Kadruka remains of Upper Nubia not those of Qustul. Second, we know from skeletal analysis of those remains by Becker et al. 2011 that they actually resemble Qustul remains and thus were type B! Hence Becker's conclusion below. 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.
The problem is that there are many people like you and Antalas who attempt to equate genetic lineage with morphotype so you assume all carriers of so-called "Sub-Saharan" lineages (as if such lineages are limited to Sub-Sahara to begin with) have to look a certain way.
Even Becker is probably guilty of such thinking since he talks of interbreeding, which probably did happen, which he probably bases on the presence of A-M13. Yet according to the genetic findings A-M13 seemed to be the predominant male lineage among the Kadruka even though they were 'type B'. A-M13 also occurs at high frequency today among northern Ethiopians who are also 'type B'.
quote:and as wee can the chart on the bottom if A group was A-M13 then genetically Sudanese groups Dinka, Nuba, Fur are much closer to A-Group "Nubians" as compared to modern day Nubians none of whom in this sample of 39 were bearing any clade of Haplogroup A
Yes they would be closer in paternal lineage but again that is just *one fraction* of their genome. What about maternal lineage? Or better yet, what about autosomal DNA which provides the best indicator of actual admixture amount. We've already discussed the latter here, and the results are shown below:
^ Notice how unlike the Kulubnarti samples, Kadruka is devoid of any 'Dinka' ancestry and instead seems to be just slightly less than half Jordan PPNB ancestry with the rest being Kenyan LSA.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
You are continuing on with this same pattern of missing citation You have some chart here not from a peer review article and then you do your usual thing about quoting a thread and then the usual "we discussed this" The chart you have above is from blog, any chart you post should have the title of the article below it, not just a link that could go dead and the link you have is not directly to an article. I think you do this to conceal the sketchiness of the info source
That blogs says
"Much cannot be said outside of what the “leaked” abstract above can confirm. I say so due to the extremely poor (though available) coverage of the specimen. "
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Here's a quick look into KDR001 Autosomal make up posted on Revoiye.
^ at minimum you should quote this from the thread instead of the thread. and then optionally the thread discussing it
This citation is not that great either, assumes we know what Revoiye is
so with further investigation
_____________________________________
About Revoiye
What is Revoiye? This is the product of when you combine what started as an individual with questions and the vast resources buried on the web. Since 2014 that individual took those resources and questions to forums and e-mails to seek and provide context they and others were starved of. Though there was progress in understanding since then, it had been seldom when it came to what mattered to some. Those who maintained a certain line of reasoning and or questioning had been drowned out due to erroneous factors. This is why we’re here now; as there is potential for more to be answered once the voices who question grows louder.
It's not even a person giving their name and there are zero credentials given
So it's some nameless person on a blog, unpublished chart, no peer review and of admitted poor quality of DNA
And you keep mentioning Kadruka. Hassan published nothing about Kadruka
I am going to update that other thread with the actual peer-review article that came out later (December 2022)
the only DNA published from Neolithic Kadruka as of May 23 2023 is from a single hair of of one individual
4000-year-old hair from the Middle Nile highlights unusual ancient DNA degradation pattern and a potential source of early eastern Africa pastoralists Ke Wang, et al, Dec 2022
^ LOL You can scrutinize Revoiye all you want. You are mistaken if you think I consider them to be the end all be all. I take their expertise as seriously as I did DNA Tribes. That is while I don't take their genomic assessments as top tier peer-reviewed research, I do consider their findings to be relevant clues if not bread crumbs to what the actual genetic situation is. Take for example their findings on ANA vs. Eurasian. This is why Swenet is correct to not just scrutinize everything even the works of peer-reviewed scholars but also take note on what clues are elucidated and throw out the bathwater but not the baby so to speak. It's the same with DNA Tribes findings on Amarna affinities to Great Lakes populations. There is some truth to that but it tends to get misconstrued by many Afrocentrics from what it may actually imply. The same can be said in regards to Jordanian PPNB vs. Kenyan LSA.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I remember Swenet telling me that Paleolithic Western Eurasians were trending in a direction superficially resembling Native Americans as well as Oceanians prior to receiving further admixture from North Africa. Recall, of course, that Native Americans share "Ancient North Eurasian" ancestry with Europeans.
Yes. Though don't get me wrong, Unlike Dana or some Afrocentrics I don't attribute all gracilization in Europeans to African admixture. Gracilization was (still is) an ongoing craniomorphic trend happening in all Anatomically Modern Humans. Many tend to attribute gracilization to the Neolithic lifestyle and later industrialization but that the same trend occurs in modern hunter-gatherers including Australian Aborigines refutes this. The problem with racial thinking is that traits like narrow faces and narrow noses get be labeled as "caucasoid" despite such craniometric trends occurring not only in Africa and South Asia but Tibet and the Pacific. I have repeated many times years ago how old Western anthropology has even classified some Filipinos as "Mediterranean Caucasoid" due to certain features. So it is any wonder this craziness continues to afflict African anthropology.
Getting more to the topic, Nubians especially Lower Nubians were long noted to be the closest in affinity to Egyptians which contradicted the 'Wretched Black Nubians" propaganda that early Egyptology was spreading.
Ironically, this contradicted Greco-Roman texts grouping Ethiopians and Egyptians together. Meanwhile as archaeology excavates further up the Nile we can see a continuation of so-called North African population stretching further south in what some have called the case of the "disappearing Negro". LOL Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Getting more to the topic, Nubians especially Lower Nubians were long noted to be the closest in affinity to Egyptians which contradicted the 'Wretched Black Nubians" propaganda that early Egyptology was spreading.
You have "Wretched Black Nubians" in quotes
yet if you look that up in google the result is zero
Closeness of biological affinity has nothing to do the term "Wretched Kush", that is the term translated by Breasted. The context of it is not describing a physique it's describing an enemy nation and there is a similar translation when describing Libyans: _________________________
Merenptah’s record:
quote: The wretched, fallen chief of Libya, Meryey, son of Dyd, has fallen upon the country of Tehenu with his bowmen … Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Luka, Teresh, (all Sea People), taking the best of every warrior and every warship of his country. He has brought his wife and his children … leaders of the camp, and he has reached the western boundary in the fields of Perire. … infantry and chariotry in great number were camped before them on the shore in front of the district of Perire.
Amenemhat I and Senusret I’s Nubian expeditions are confirmed by graffiti left by the participants at Gebel el Girgawi, about 180km south of Elephantine. Further expeditions occurred under Amenemhat II, but it was during the reign of Senusret III that canals through the First Cataract were constructed and the southern frontier was pushed to the Third Cataract and the forts of Semna and Uronarti were built. Year 8 under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt:
quote: Khakaura (Senusret III), living forever. His majesty commanded to make the canal anew, the name of this canal being: ‘Beautiful are the Ways of Khakaura OPERATIONS IN THE SOUTH — THE NUBIAN NILE 67 living forever’, when his majesty proceeded up-river to overthrow Kush, the wretched. Length of this canal 150 cubits (75m); width 20 (10m); depth 15 (7.5m). Year 16, third month of the second season, occurred his majesty’s making the southern boundary as far as Heh (Semna). I have made my boundary beyond that of my fathers. … I captured their women, I carried off their subjects, went forth to their wells, smote their bulls; I reaped their grain and set fire theret
An inscription on the island of Sehel near Elephantine, describes how Thutmose I had to clear the canal built at the First Cataract during the Middle Kingdom before he would be able to attack Kush. His majesty commanded to dig this canal, after he found it stopped up with stones, so that no ship sailed upon it. He sailed downstream upon it, his heart glad having slain his enemies.172 The clearing of a canal would normally be considered a constabulary state building task, but such a task was also undertaken as part of a military operation. In this instance: His majesty sailed this canal in victory and power, at his return from overthrowing the wretched Kush.
An inscription on the island of Sehel near Elephantine, describes how Thutmose I had to clear the canal built at the First Cataract during the Middle Kingdom before he would be able to attack Kush.
quote: His majesty commanded to dig this canal, after he found it stopped up with stones, so that no ship sailed upon it. He sailed downstream upon it, his heart glad having slain his enemies.
The clearing of a canal would normally be considered a constabulary state building task, but such a task was also undertaken as part of a military operation. In this instance:
quote: His majesty sailed this canal in victory and power, at his return from overthrowing the wretched Kush.
Sinuhe was not the only Egyptian to participate in wars fought in Syria. The Ancient Egyptian maritime forces of the Middle Kingdom could pick and choose in which Syrian wars they preferred to participate. The biography of the noble Sebek-khu, from Abydos, describes how he led a reserve force during a battle fought by Senusret III in Syria.
quote: His majesty proceeded northward, to overthrow the Asiatics. His majesty arrived at a district, Sekmem was its name. His majesty led the good way in proceeding to the palace of ‘Life, Prosperity and Health’, when Sekmem had fallen, together with Retjenu (Syria) the wretched, while I was acting as rearguard. Then the ‘living-ones’ of the army mixed in, to fight with the Asiatics. Then I captured an Asiatic, and had his weapons seized by two ‘living-ones’ of the army, for one did not turn back from the fight, but my face was to the front, and I gave not my back to the Asiatic.
^ If you were paying attention, I was referring to the racist propaganda of the time that attempted to racialize the conflicts Egypt had with Nubia. Of course the Egyptians had the same epithets for other foreigners they were at conflict with. By the way, the word Egyptologists translate as "wretched" is khsy which is etymologically related to khsw which means foreign or strange. Though as Ibis showed here Nubians were not as khsw as other foreigners. This issue was discussed before and explained by Egyptologist Dr. Stuart Tyson Smith.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This issue was discussed before and explained by Egyptologist Dr. Stuart Tyson Smith.
Stuart Tyson Smith, has an entire book called "Wretched Kush"
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes I know that. His book was discussed in the thread I cited. My point is that James Breasted translation of Nehesi to mean "negro" has long been debunked and now we have skeletal and genetic evidence showing that Africans of 'Type B' morphology the same as the Egyptians stretched up the Nile into Upper Nubia as shown by Kadruka, and that nonmetric traits for A-Group shows ties to modern Ethiopians and is suggested by Y-DNA hg A-M13 in Kadruka remains.
So the whole notion of so-called 'Sub-Saharan' haplogroups being limited to that part of the continent is debunked and so too is the notion of certain cranial morphotypes being geographically limited.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I should point out that the culture to which Kadruka belongs is the Abkan Culture which is part of the Sudanese Neolithic Complex. The Abkan Culture also shows many affinities to A-Group/Ta-Seti Culture to its north showing a direct relation.
As mentioned earlier, their dental morphology shows them to be part of the North African complex and judging by the look of their skulls their cranio-morphology also fits that type though this type reaches into Sub-Sahara in the Horn area.
Also, though I posted this chart showing hg A-M13 having its highest frequency in the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia...
Ethiohelix cites a paper published years ago showing a higher frequency among Wolayta of southwest Ethiopia.
The prevalence of this haplogroup in Ethiopia has always been known to us, however the extremely high frequency in the Wolayta is quite a surprise, this could be due to the relatively small sample size however, as the much higher sample size of the Wolayta found in the Plaster thesis, only showed 13% of A-M13.
But in regards to the Nile Valley, though we only have the genetic findings of Kadruka and not Qustul or other A-Group sites, we do have findings for Egyptians of the Old and Middle Kingdoms that Beyoku first posted in FBD
quote: OK A-M13, L3f Ok A-M13, L0a1 OK B-M150, L3d OK E-M2, L3e5 OK E-M2, L2a1 OK E-M123, L5a1 OK E-M35, R0a OK E-M41, L2a1 OK E-M41, L1b1a OK E-M75, M1 OK E-M78, L4b OK J-M267, L3i OK R-M173, L2 OK T-M184, L0a
While we're on the topic of A-Group Nubians, this paper on Academia.edu suggests that the Egyptians referred to their first nome as Ta-Seti because they resettled A-Group people there after defeating their kingdom:
quote:Having considered and analyzed the historical events of the time, I am now more inclined to believe that the 22nd Upper Egyptian nome was created primarily to become the new home for the displaced A-Group people.After defeating the ruler of Ta-Sty and destroying his capital and the royal cemetery at Qustul, whether by king Hor -Aha or Djer or whoever, the A-Group population of Lowe Nubia was widely dispersed; some fled southward following the Nile , others headed eastward and west-ward into the deserts.Thousands were undoubtedly taken prisoners to Egypt. Probably part of the population anticipated the catastrophe and surrendered peacefully . Under such situations, and after considering the best way as to how make most of the defeated A-Group people,the Egyptian authorities decided upon accommodating them inside its borders, naming their new home Ta-Sty. Thereafter, the region was organized to become the southern border.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^As we know the people o Ta Seti would still go on to influence Dynastic Egypt that I detail somewhat here:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: While we're on the topic of A-Group Nubians, this paper on Academia.edu suggests that the Egyptians referred to their first nome as Ta-Seti because they resettled A-Group people there after defeating their kingdom:
quote:Having considered and analyzed the historical events of the time, I am now more inclined to believe that the 22nd Upper Egyptian nome was created primarily to become the new home for the displaced A-Group people.After defeating the ruler of Ta-Sty and destroying his capital and the royal cemetery at Qustul, whether by king Hor -Aha or Djer or whoever, the A-Group population of Lowe Nubia was widely dispersed; some fled southward following the Nile , others headed eastward and west-ward into the deserts.Thousands were undoubtedly taken prisoners to Egypt. Probably part of the population anticipated the catastrophe and surrendered peacefully . Under such situations, and after considering the best way as to how make most of the defeated A-Group people,the Egyptian authorities decided upon accommodating them inside its borders, naming their new home Ta-Sty. Thereafter, the region was organized to become the southern border.
That the citizens of Ta-Sty were resettled in the 1st Nome after their defeat by Ta-Shemau is a common theory that I and many others have always had, but I question if the name 'Ta-Sty' was applied to the nome after this event. If the inhabitants of the 1st Nome were already ethnic Setiu prior to the wars with Qustul Kingdom, then there's no reason why the Egyptians didn't call the nome Ta-Sty before their conquest.
The main point of this thread is to address Lostranger's query. A-Group Nubians were morphologically "caucasoid" like other North Africans but this also includes Sub-Saharans in the Horn region as well. So I think the Abkan people like Kadruka were the link in this anthropological chain.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: While we're on the topic of A-Group Nubians, this paper on Academia.edu suggests that the Egyptians referred to their first nome as Ta-Seti because they resettled A-Group people there after defeating their kingdom:
quote:Having considered and analyzed the historical events of the time, I am now more inclined to believe that the 22nd Upper Egyptian nome was created primarily to become the new home for the displaced A-Group people.After defeating the ruler of Ta-Sty and destroying his capital and the royal cemetery at Qustul, whether by king Hor -Aha or Djer or whoever, the A-Group population of Lowe Nubia was widely dispersed; some fled southward following the Nile , others headed eastward and west-ward into the deserts.Thousands were undoubtedly taken prisoners to Egypt. Probably part of the population anticipated the catastrophe and surrendered peacefully . Under such situations, and after considering the best way as to how make most of the defeated A-Group people,the Egyptian authorities decided upon accommodating them inside its borders, naming their new home Ta-Sty. Thereafter, the region was organized to become the southern border.
That paper is just repeating the same theories since Petrie and Reisner, based solely on a few glyphs with nothing more than that. And it also gets the numbering of the nomes wrong. Ta Seti s the FIRST nome, not the 22nd nome or in other words, the beginning of the nome system. And this is reflected in the Edfu texts which uses mythology to tell the story of the founding of the various nomes, starting in Ta Seti, ie with southerners. And given that the Edfu texts are one of the best remaining examples of the mythological narrative surrounding the origin of the kingdom, I am surprised it still isn't fully published in English. But anyway, if these people were displaced it is because of shifting environmental conditions not due to some war.
Also, a recent work by Maria Gatto shows there is no evidence for this and actually supports the position of the so-called "Nubians", "A-group" or whatever you want to call them being above the first cataract for quite some time.
quote: On the other hand, a long-term and stable presence of Nubian people in the area surrounding the First Cataract and from there northward up to Hierakonpolis and even Armant is well attested (Gatto 2003; in press a; in press b; Midant-Reynes & Buchez 2002) and has to be taken into consideration. Interesting to note, unique cultural features, unknown elsewhere, are there recorded and may indicate the presence of a regional variant of the Naqadian culture combining, particularly during the first half of the fourth millennium BC, both Egyptian and Nubian traditions (Gatto 2003; in press b). The sites located between Kubbaniya and Metardul are 23 in total: 14 on the west bank consists on 11 cemeteries and 3 settlements; 9 cemeteries were found on the east bank; and some graves and remains within the habitation site were recorded at Elephantine island.
Otherwise there has been numerous evidences of Southerners with so called caucasoid features even if they were depicted as jet black. Such as some of the depictions from the tomb of Huy.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Yeah Doug is right I was confused because Ta-Seti was the first nome of Egypt as the nation was situated from south to north…
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Hey Jari, its isn't your fault, the paper has it listed as the 22nd nome not the first nome.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Craniofacially speaking there is a general distinction between North Africans and Sub-Saharans as shown below.
That said, certain traits typically called "negroid" such as wide nasal opening and prognathism are not uncommon among North Africans. This is why North Africans have traditionally been classified as "Caucasoids" but with "negroids traits".
Nonmetric traits are a better indication of genetic relations and they still show North Africans to be intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians.
I was reading through this thread again and I have a few questions on these points that you made.
When you say North Africans display a mix of Cauacasoid and Negroid cranial traits are you talking only about Ancient North Africans such as Badari, Naqada, etc etc or all North Africans? How about the modern fairer and "Arab looking" North Africans such as these guys:
Would they still fit intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasian craniometrically? If so wouldn't that indicate craniometric continuity between Ancient Egyptians and Modern Egyptians?
I ask this because several craniometric studies often show Ancient (Upper) Egyptians such as the Badari and Naqada for example clustering with Sub-Saharan African groups such as Kerma/Nubians/Sudanese, Tigreans, Somalis etc etc. By this logic shouldn't Badari and Naqada be within the Sub-Saharan craniometric grouping or at least close to it? And if there truly is a distinction between North African craniofacial traits and Sub-Saharan craniofacial traits as you stated why then did Keita show the Badari and Naqada (both North Africans) clustering more with "southerly groups?"
Thank You
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I was talking about indigenous North Africans both modern but especially ancient ones. Many modern North Africans are mixed (with Europeans in the Maghreb and Arabs in the Nile Valley) and while some of that admixture may go back to ancient times by and large the original phenotype is still retained especially in rural areas. Many photos you see of fair-skinned types in Egypt are found though not exclusively in the urban areas like in Cairo, Damietta, etc.
When I speak of a "mix" of traits, it depends on the traits. For example many North Africans may have prognathism despite having "caucasoid" like morphology. Another example comes from metric studies done by Cicely Fawcett as far back as 1902.
Skull and cliometrician measurement apparatus, from 1902.
A Second Study of the Variation and Correlation of the Human Skull, With Special Reference to the Naqada Crania Cicely D. Fawcett and Alice Lee 1902
"Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be sufficiently homogeneous to justify speaking of a Naqada race. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the cephalic and facial indices, this race presents affinities with Negroes. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans...." ---Dr. Emile Massoulard, Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt
That's just with metric traits. There seems to be a lot more with nonmetric traits, but all of these tend to get glossed over or ignored by Euronuts. But the facial morphometric trend is not just found in North Africans but also in indigenous East Africans as well.
This was discussed before here.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
I ask this because several craniometric studies often show Ancient (Upper) Egyptians such as the Badari and Naqada for example clustering with Sub-Saharan African groups such as Kerma/Nubians/Sudanese, Tigreans, Somalis etc etc. By this logic shouldn't Badari and Naqada be within the Sub-Saharan craniometric grouping or at least close to it? And if there truly is a distinction between North African craniofacial traits and Sub-Saharan craniofacial traits as you stated why then did Keita show the Badari and Naqada (both North Africans) clustering more with "southerly groups?"
Thank You
Those "Sub-saharan African groups" you highlight fall into the North african variation and are physically/genetically much closer to North Africans and eurasians than the rest of SSA.
quote: Nubia, for its part, is significantly different from six of the 12 groups with which it is compared. It comes close to being excluded from the Late Dynastic sample from Giza in Lower Egypt, and it comes within few percentage points of being excluded from sub-Saharan Africa as well. Nubians cannot be excluded from modern Europeans or from their northern neighbors at Predynastic Naqada, and barely from modern Somalis. Perhaps somewhat more surprisingly, they also cannot be excluded from South Asia-the Indian subcontinent . This simply reaffirms what can be seen in Figures 2-4.
Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
In Joel D. Irish 1998, people from Ancient Nubia are grouped with North Africans and these are some of his conclusion :
quote: As described by others (Hiernaux, 1975; Excoffier et al, 1987; Roychoudhury and Nei, 1988; Lipschultz, 1996; among others) and as noted in this and previous studies (Irish, 1993b, 1997, 1998a), North Africans are genetically and phenetically allied with Europeans and western Asians. North African dental frequencies are similar to those of Europeans, except for some traits that show apparent sub-Saharan influence. Such a North/ Sub-Saharan African combination is also evident in many genetic systems (e.g., Roychoudhury and Nei, 1988). Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which parallels that of Europeans, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans.
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).
Irish Joel D. Dental morphological affinities of Late Pleistocene through recent sub-Saharan and north African peoples. In: Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d'anthropologie de Paris, Nouvelle Série. Tome 10 fascicule 3-4, 1998.
Here from Irish 2010, we see that the SSA cluster plots far from Ethiopians, Ancient Egyptians and maghrebis who all plot much closer to the european series :
Furthermore, do not fall into the misconception that the inhabitants of the Nile Valley shared a uniform appearance. Throughout both contemporary and ancient periods, there has consistently existed a spectrum of diversity.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Furthermore, do not fall into the misconception
Probably is not going to do me any good to point this out (I have already pointed this out to you, before, and pointing things out on anthro fora is generally a waste of time in my experience as shown by explained subjects reverting back to square one, like the Groundhog Day movie). But if you want to talk about misconceptions...
If you look at the Taf and Afa samples in that Irish PCA, that's roughly where 'unmixed' Europeans and Middle Eastern Mesolithic HGs would be, before the homogenization of West Eurasia that took place in the holocene. So Nubians plotting where they do with respect to SSA samples is part of a larger set of reasons that also involves Europeans and Middle Easterners no longer being anywhere close to West Eurasian hgs.
At this point, you're just exploiting false appearances that are a recent thing (they only arose in the holocene and have no real antiquity as shown by the large distance of the pre-holocene Afa and Taf samples in your PCA). At least Nubians can be linked to populations in Africa dated to at least 17ky ago. What Palaeolithic populations can modern European and Middle Easterners be linked to? Nothing older than Natufians, and even Natufians don't look like modern Euros or Middle Easterners, as I've already explained to you. Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Probably is not going to do me any good to point this out (I have already pointed this out to you, before, and pointing things out on anthro fora is generally a waste of time in my experience as shown by explained subjects reverting back to square one, like the Groundhog Day movie). But if you want to talk about misconceptions...
If you look at the Taf and Afa samples in that Irish PCA, that's roughly where 'unmixed' Europeans and Middle Eastern Mesolithic HGs would be, before the homogenization of West Eurasia that took place in the holocene. So Nubians plotting where they do with respect to SSA samples is part of a larger set of reasons that also involves Europeans and Middle Easterners no longer being anywhere close to West Eurasian hgs.
At this point, you're just exploiting false appearances that are a recent thing (they only arose in the holocene and have no real antiquity as shown by the large distance of the pre-holocene Afa and Taf samples in your PCA). At least Nubians can be linked to populations in Africa by 17ky ago. What Palaeolithic populations can modern European and Middle Easterners be linked to? Nothing older than Natufians, and even Natufians don't look like modern Euros or Middle Easterners, as I've already explained to you. [/QB]
How does this relate to any points raised in this thread ? And in what way does it dispute the content of my previous post ? Your response seems to lack concrete arguments to challenge the clear fact that whether you like it or not none of these ancient populations align with the majority of modern SSAs.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: At least Nubians can be linked to populations in Africa by 17ky ago. What Palaeolithic populations can modern European and Middle Easterners be linked to? Nothing older than Natufians, and even Natufians don't look like modern Euros or Middle Easterners
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by this, as such links can be inferred for most global populations. However, when it comes to certain aspects of their morphology, there is no apparent connection, and the distinctions are quite evident when compared to their Mesolithic ancestors :
quote:Here we investigated the patterns of craniofacial and mandibular variation from Mesolithic hunting-gathering to late farming (in Lower Nubia), a period spanning 11,000 years. … Our results highlight a strong morphometric distinction between Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and farmers … This study corroborates a major biological change during the transition from hunting to farming (…) Our results clearly depict a strong craniofacial and mandibular distinction in size and shape components between Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and early and late farmers. ... the cranial results align with the predictions of the “population influx” hypothesis at the point of transition from hunter-gathering to farming
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
quote:Specifically, he suspected that population replacement or genetic swamping occurred in Nubia sometime in the early Holocene (Irish, 2005). The current results are in agreement with this finding , with one subtle distinction. The current body shape results seem to place the time of the genetic discontinuity to a period subsequent to the mid-Holocene (i.e. after 4000 years ago),as opposed to the early Holocene.
T.W. Holliday, Population affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal sample : Limb Proportion Evidence, 2013
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: How does this relate to any points raised in this thread ? And in what way does it dispute the content of my previous post ? Your response seems to lack concrete arguments to challenge the clear fact that whether you like it or not none of these ancient populations align with the majority of modern SSAs.
Let me make this simple. Moments ago, you said that certain Africans "fall inside North African variation". I more or less agree with that (enough to not make it an issue). Let me now ask you, whose variations modern Europeans, North Africans and Middle Easterners fall into?
Can you point to relevant Palaeolithic West Eurasian samples anticipating the variations of the populations in the center of your Irish PCA occupied by Egyptians, modern Maghreb, Nubians, Europeans, etc? Because, as I'm sure you know, there is a population in Sudan (pre-Mesolithic al Khiday) that already anticipates the morphology of Nubians and predynastics, and it dates to the Palaeolithic.
quote: Originally posted by Antalas: I'm not sure what you mean exactly by this, as such links can be inferred for most global populations. However, when it comes to certain aspects of their morphology, there is no apparent connection, and the distinctions are quite evident when compared to their Mesolithic ancestors
What I mean is that the PCA space in the center of your Irish graph, that I've just mentioned, is not occupied by Palaelithic Europeans or Maghrebis or Middle Easterners. At least Nubians do have a Palaeolithic population that plots nearby. So, do you see where this is going? No one is going to like where this ancient DNA is going in the end. You're not going to like it either.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's move forward in baby steps. You said, that certain Africans fall inside North African variations. But what Palaeolithic North African populations are ultimately ancestral? Please name the oldest North African (or Middle Eastern/Euro) fossils that are relevant to this morphology.
BTW, if you don't answer/evade my questions and respond instead to trivial things in my post that I never intended to discuss right now, I'll just move on from the conversation because this was already explained in the 3 abstracts thread, so it's nothing that warrants a long discussion.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
EDIT: Wrong thread.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: How does this relate to any points raised in this thread ? And in what way does it dispute the content of my previous post ? Your response seems to lack concrete arguments to challenge the clear fact that whether you like it or not none of these ancient populations align with the majority of modern SSAs.
Let me make this simple. Moments ago, you said that certain Africans "fall inside North African variation". I more or less agree with that (enough to not make it an issue). Let me now ask you, whose variations modern Europeans, North Africans and Middle Easterners fall into?
Can you point to relevant Palaeolithic West Eurasian samples anticipating the variations of the populations in the center of your Irish PCA occupied by Egyptians, modern Maghreb, Nubians, Europeans, etc? Because, as I'm sure you know, there is a population in Sudan (pre-Mesolithic al Khiday) that already anticipates the morphology of Nubians and predynastics, and it dates to the Palaeolithic.
quote: Originally posted by Antalas: I'm not sure what you mean exactly by this, as such links can be inferred for most global populations. However, when it comes to certain aspects of their morphology, there is no apparent connection, and the distinctions are quite evident when compared to their Mesolithic ancestors
What I mean is that the PCA space in the center of your Irish graph, that I've just mentioned, is not occupied by Palaelithic Europeans or Maghrebis or Middle Easterners. At least Nubians do have a Palaeolithic population that plots nearby. So, do you see where this is going? No one is going to like where this ancient DNA is going in the end. You're not going to like it either.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's move forward in baby steps. You said, that certain Africans fall inside North African variations. But what Palaeolithic North African populations are ultimately ancestral? Please name the oldest North African (or Middle Eastern/Euro) fossils.
BTW, if you don't answer/evade my questions and respond instead to trivial things in my post that I never intended to discuss right now, I'll just move on from the conversation because this was already explained in the 3 abstracts thread, so it's nothing that warrants a long discussion.
I see where this is going. Attempting to categorize this "NA variation" solely as an African phenomenon, while positing that the Eurasian pattern is simply derivative of it, is a perspective further supported by the belief that there is no Paleolithic fossil outside Africa anticipating this morphology like the Al Khiday. This is despite the understanding that Eurasian ancestry did indeed spread in Africa during that period.
I won't delve deeply into this, but once again, how does this oppose the factual reality that, whether in contemporary times or antiquity, African populations residing in North Africa and a significant portion of the Horn are/were morphologically distinct from the majority of modern SSAs ?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I was getting ready to grab my popcorn, too. But looks like Antalas is already copping out after realizing he can't name one relevant Maghrebi, Middle Eastern or Euro fossil that shows Palaeolithic/autochtonous Euros, Maghrebi or West Asians used to resemble NE Africans.
Antalas knows this already because he's been saying that Taforalt and Afalou resemble Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, and we can see where the Afalou and Taforalt are in his PCA. This is why Antalas last post is such a contradiction. He says I'm wrong because it's a fact that Eurasian ancestry came into Africa (which I agree that it did), but the recipients of this Eurasian ancestry (ie the Taforalt and Afalou samples) at best show only vague hints of affinity to predynastics/Nubians (hence, Briggs finding Type B among Afalou/Taforalt, but only as a minority component). In other words, Palaeolithic Eurasian ancestry does not help Africans become more similar to predynastics.
Antalas' only hope is that Loosdrecht's recently excavated Taforalt sample is different from the Taforalt and Afalou samples excavated in the 20th century. Like that daily mail race war article, he can place his bets on such Maghrebis being a better/more pristine example, compared to more eastern samples bearing this general phenotype. But we now know Loosdrecht's Taforalt carry E-M78, which looks like it came from somewhere west of the Red Sea (not the Maghreb or Levant), and I bet their ANA, being only distantly related to modern populations, belongs to robust/mechtoid populations. so good luck with banking on that sample to fill the gap between predynastics and palaeolithic Eurasians.
Like I said, it's not just his 'Afrocentrics' that he loves to lecture about genetic distance, who have misconceptions. He's not going to like the outcome, either.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Like I said, it's not just his 'Afrocentrics' that he loves to lecture about genetic distance, who have misconceptions. He's not going to like the outcome, either.
I notice Anty keeps strawmanning you, DJ, and others by insisting on how different these ancient North African populations would have looked from SSA. You'd think by now he would have gotten wise to what your positions actually are, but so far he hasn't. Dude is willfully blind at this point.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I just ignore it because I'm not going to jump through his hoops and fetch quotes of me saying the opposite, whenever he feels like accusing me. But yes, I asked him to quote me on saying that, and he admitted he doesn't have quotes of me saying that, but then he does it again. I assume he's just doing that to divert the attention away from his cognitive biases/blindspots/the elephant in the room that he doesn't want to address.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ More like the whale in the room in his case. Anty boy thinks he's talking to Afrocentrics stuck on outdated racial models where North African is the same as cranial "true negroid" and genetic IBD "Sub-Saharan". Nobody in here says that and the only one who keeps bringing up that model is him! LOL So by his own silly standard even Pygmies aren't genetically SSA and why he avoids Elijah's bloggers & laymen thread like the plague.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I was getting ready to grab my popcorn, too. But looks like Antalas is already copping out after realizing he can't name one relevant Maghrebi, Middle Eastern or Euro fossil that shows Palaeolithic/autochtonous Euros, Maghrebi or West Asians used to resemble NE Africans.
Antalas knows this already because he's been saying that Taforalt and Afalou resemble Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, and we can see where the Afalou and Taforalt are in his PCA. This is why Antalas last post is such a contradiction. He says I'm wrong because it's a fact that Eurasian ancestry came into Africa (which I agree that it did), but the recipients of this Eurasian ancestry (ie the Taforalt and Afalou samples) at best show only vague hints of affinity to predynastics/Nubians (hence, Briggs finding Type B among Afalou/Taforalt, but only as a minority component). In other words, Palaeolithic Eurasian ancestry does not help Africans become more similar to predynastics.
Like I said, it's not just his 'Afrocentrics' that he loves to lecture about genetic distance, who have misconceptions. He's not going to like the outcome, either.
Right so in other words Pre-Dynastic Egyptians/Nubians were craniometrically distinct from palaeolithic Taforalt and Alou?
How about the Neolithic version of Taforalt and Alou/Maghrebis (whatever they're known as) is there any increase or decrease with cranio affinities with Pre-Dynasitc Egyptians/Nubians?
So in closing and again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but what I'm getting from your and Djheutis responses to Antalas is that you're essentially saying Pre-Dynastic Egyptians/Nubians despite being very different from most Sub-Saharan Africans are still just as African as any "Sub-Saharan" African and that in contrast Maghrebis aren't due to them having Eurasian ancestry? Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I was getting ready to grab my popcorn, too. But looks like Antalas is already copping out after realizing he can't name one relevant Maghrebi, Middle Eastern or Euro fossil that shows Palaeolithic/autochtonous Euros, Maghrebi or West Asians used to resemble NE Africans.
Antalas knows this already because he's been saying that Taforalt and Afalou resemble Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, and we can see where the Afalou and Taforalt are in his PCA. This is why Antalas last post is such a contradiction. He says I'm wrong because it's a fact that Eurasian ancestry came into Africa (which I agree that it did), but the recipients of this Eurasian ancestry (ie the Taforalt and Afalou samples) at best show only vague hints of affinity to predynastics/Nubians (hence, Briggs finding Type B among Afalou/Taforalt, but only as a minority component). In other words, Palaeolithic Eurasian ancestry does not help Africans become more similar to predynastics.
Antalas' only hope is that Loosdrecht's recently excavated Taforalt sample is different from the Taforalt and Afalou samples excavated in the 20th century. Like that daily mail race war article, he can place his bets on such Maghrebis being a better/more pristine example, compared to more eastern samples bearing this general phenotype. But we now know Loosdrecht's Taforalt carry E-M78, which looks like it came from somewhere west of the Red Sea (not the Maghreb or Levant), and I bet their ANA, being only distantly related to modern populations, belongs to robust/mechtoid populations. so good luck with banking on that sample to fill the gap between predynastics and palaeolithic Eurasians.
Like I said, it's not just his 'Afrocentrics' that he loves to lecture about genetic distance, who have misconceptions. He's not going to like the outcome, either.
There's easily more than 10 000 years between these fossils, with a Neolithic revolution occurring in between. So, what is your argument precisely ? Are all anatomical changes attributed solely to admixture ? Seems like you're only arguing for the sake of arguing, perhaps due to discomfort that these ancient populations had minimal connections with most SSAs.
Let's acknowledge two points you've previously agreed upon: these individuals had Eurasian ancestors and exhibited an overall Caucasoid morphology, aligning them more closely with Eurasians than other Africans. Suggesting a potential distant Paleolithic African origin for this morphology doesn't contradict either of these points and unlike what you implied this eurasian influx isn't only restricted to the Paleolithic.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
I actually emailed C Loring Brace 18 years ago regarding the notion of "Caucasoid" Nubians and here is what he said:
quote:Somehow the Groves and Thorne paper never came through, but I went to the library and read it there. Their results are similar to ours in many ways. And you're right, there is no evidence of for "Caucasoids" in Nubia. We have Bronze Age Nubians and more recent ones, and they are essentially the same, a whiff of sub-Saharan Africa is there in both although not nearly so clear as in the Late Pleistocene Wadi Halfa sample.
C. L. Brace
--On Monday, October 10, 2005 10:02 AM -0700 Charles Rigaud <cr_rigaud@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Dr. Brace its me Charles Rigaud once again. I > have another question for you. In Eugen Strouhal's > work, "Evidence of the Early Penetration of Negroes > into Prehistoric Egypt", he makes the following > statement: > > "In Nubia, according to the results of the analysis of > physical anthropology, the original Europoid > (Caucasoid) stock of the population was several times > overrun by Negroid waves, flowing in from the south." > > This seems to be a bit of a stretch here, but it > sounds to me like old anthropological lore when > Nubians were thought to be Caucasoids. From the > anthropological I've viewed[COLIN P. GROVES AND ALAN > THORNE 1999 The Terminal Pleistocene and > Early Holocene Populations of Northern Africa. Homo > 50(3):249-262.] the early prehistoric Nubians at jebel > Sahaba and Tushka on the Egyptian-Sudanese border were > most certainly not Caucasoids. I wonder which original > Europoid Nubians is Strouhal referring to? Enclosed is > a copy of Groves and Thorne's study also. Thanks in > advance. > > > Best Regards, > > Charles Rigaud
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Antalas, you're writing words but you're not saying anything, but somehow you still think you're backing me in a corner by holding me to my acknowledgement of Eurasian ancestry in Africa.
Eurasians did bring U6, and so on. One example of a Euro U6 carrier is Peştera Muierii 1. So how are you going to get me in trouble by using my statement against me, when you can't even explain how you go from Peştera Muierii 1 to NE Africans?
Alkhiday pushes back predynastics from a purely holocene population, to a palaeolithic population, and so you can't point to holocene Eurasian populations to explain predynastics. But then you can't point to Palaeolithic MENA and European populations either because the populations from that era don't even resemble the modern people who live there today (do I need to post the Natufian morphometric presentation slide again?). So you have a problem in that the holocene Eurasians are younger than alKhiday, while the Paleolithic West Eurasians populations are a dead end or absorbed into modern populations. Either way, modern West Eurasians being near NE Africans in your Irish graph doesn't bode well for your positions because their palaeolithic predecessors are much more distant.
Or maybe I give you too much credit in thinking you can figure out yourself what it means that your Irish graph has modern West Eurasians are closer to Africans than palaeolithic West Eurasians are to Africans. You can't figure out what that means?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Antalas, you're writing words but you're not saying anything, but somehow you still think you're backing me in a corner by holding me to my acknowledgement of Eurasian ancestry in Africa.
Eurasians did bring U6, and so on. One example of a Euro U6 carrier is Peştera Muierii 1. So how are you going to get me in trouble by using my statement against me, when you can't even explain how you go from Peştera Muierii 1 to NE Africans?
Alkhiday pushes back predynastics from a purely holocene population, to a palaeolithic population, and so you can't point to holocene Eurasian populations to explain predynastics. But then you can't point to Palaeolithic MENA and European populations either because the populations from that era don't even resemble the modern people who live there today (do I need to post the Natufian morphometric presentation slide again?). So you have a problem in that the holocene Eurasians are younger than alKhiday, while the Paleolithic West Eurasians populations are a dead end or absorbed into modern populations. Either way, modern West Eurasians being near NE Africans in your Irish graph doesn't bode well for your positions because their palaeolithic predecessors are much more distant.
Or maybe I give you too much credit in thinking you can figure out yourself what it means that your Irish graph has modern West Eurasians are closer to Africans than palaeolithic West Eurasians. You can't figure out what that means?
What you still haven't understood is that you haven't contradicted any of my points at all, and you're completely missing the point, thinking that I would be bothered by the Al Khiday sample and its implications.
Irish 2021 has demonstrated that the El Khiday sample doesn't align with the clustering of Nubians, let alone Ethiopians and other Sub-Saharan Africans. Therefore, I fail to see why you're drawing a direct connection between the two, especially considering I've previously shared citations emphasizing a significant influx from the Near East during the mid-Holocene that extended into the Nile Valley and reached as far as Nubia. Consequently, a profile like that of Al Khiday doesn't necessarily imply a direct and unaltered descent from those origins. Your argumentation is clearly highly conjectural and biased.
It would be like claiming that a mixed-race individual (West African - European) descends from Ethiopians simply because they cluster together... What kind of amateurism is this ?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: What you still haven't understood is that you haven't contradicted any of my points at all, and you're completely missing the point, thinking that I would be bothered by the Al Khiday sample and its implications.
Irish 2021 has demonstrated that the El Khiday sample doesn't align with the clustering of Nubians, let alone Ethiopians and other Sub-Saharan Africans. Therefore, I fail to see why you're drawing a direct connection between the two, especially considering I've previously shared citations emphasizing a significant influx from the Near East during the mid-Holocene that extended into the Nile Valley and reached as far as Nubia. Consequently, a profile like that of Al Khiday doesn't necessarily imply a direct and unaltered descent from those origins. Your argumentation is clearly highly conjectural and biased.
Have you even read Irish 2021? It clearly states this:
quote:In summary, the most parsimonious explanation is ancestors of Holocene agriculturalists were in Nubia—just not at Wadi Halfa, Gebel Sahaba, and Tushka. Although cultural diffusion with the incorporation of non-local resources occurred, with perhaps some immigration, it is unnecessary to hypothesize a significant post-Pleistocene influx of agriculturalists. The results suggest most future Nubian agriculturalists were in residence the entire time, though previously in the guise of Neolithic agro-pastoralists and intensive collectors. It would seem likely that, soil deflation aside, more Late Palaeolithic skeletal remains akin to Al Khiday may yet be discovered, possibly including Lower Nubia. So, long-term population continuity appears likely after all, perhaps including in situ selection for a reduction in cranial robusticity, as well as dental size (only), during the transition from hunting–gathering to agriculture.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Antalas, you're writing words but you're not saying anything, but somehow you still think you're backing me in a corner by holding me to my acknowledgement of Eurasian ancestry in Africa.
Eurasians did bring U6, and so on. One example of a Euro U6 carrier is Peştera Muierii 1. So how are you going to get me in trouble by using my statement against me, when you can't even explain how you go from Peştera Muierii 1 to NE Africans?
Alkhiday pushes back predynastics from a purely holocene population, to a palaeolithic population, and so you can't point to holocene Eurasian populations to explain predynastics. But then you can't point to Palaeolithic MENA and European populations either because the populations from that era don't even resemble the modern people who live there today (do I need to post the Natufian morphometric presentation slide again?). So you have a problem in that the holocene Eurasians are younger than alKhiday, while the Paleolithic West Eurasians populations are a dead end or absorbed into modern populations. Either way, modern West Eurasians being near NE Africans in your Irish graph doesn't bode well for your positions because their palaeolithic predecessors are much more distant.
Or maybe I give you too much credit in thinking you can figure out yourself what it means that your Irish graph has modern West Eurasians are closer to Africans than palaeolithic West Eurasians. You can't figure out what that means?
What you still haven't understood is that you haven't contradicted any of my points at all, and you're completely missing the point, thinking that I would be bothered by the Al Khiday sample and its implications.
Irish 2021 has demonstrated that the El Khiday sample doesn't align with the clustering of Nubians, let alone Ethiopians and other Sub-Saharan Africans. Therefore, I fail to see why you're drawing a direct connection between the two, especially considering I've previously shared citations emphasizing a significant influx from the Near East during the mid-Holocene that extended into the Nile Valley and reached as far as Nubia. Consequently, a profile like that of Al Khiday doesn't necessarily imply a direct and unaltered descent from those origins. Your argumentation is clearly highly conjectural and biased.
It would be like claiming that a mixed-race individual (West African - European) descends from Ethiopians simply because they cluster together... What kind of amateurism is this ?
Dental affinities and cranial affinities are well, they don't always line up, the earliest Nubians were "Negroid" and you're not going to like this if you keep being stubborn. I have data from a study that supports my position.
The terminal Pleistocence and early Holocene populations of northern Africa
Colin Groves, Alan Thorne
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I was getting ready to grab my popcorn, too. But looks like Antalas is already copping out after realizing he can't name one relevant Maghrebi, Middle Eastern or Euro fossil that shows Palaeolithic/autochtonous Euros, Maghrebi or West Asians used to resemble NE Africans.
Antalas knows this already because he's been saying that Taforalt and Afalou resemble Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, and we can see where the Afalou and Taforalt are in his PCA. This is why Antalas last post is such a contradiction. He says I'm wrong because it's a fact that Eurasian ancestry came into Africa (which I agree that it did), but the recipients of this Eurasian ancestry (ie the Taforalt and Afalou samples) at best show only vague hints of affinity to predynastics/Nubians (hence, Briggs finding Type B among Afalou/Taforalt, but only as a minority component). In other words, Palaeolithic Eurasian ancestry does not help Africans become more similar to predynastics.
Like I said, it's not just his 'Afrocentrics' that he loves to lecture about genetic distance, who have misconceptions. He's not going to like the outcome, either.
Right so in other words Pre-Dynastic Egyptians/Nubians were craniometrically distinct from palaeolithic Taforalt and Alou?
How about the Neolithic version of Taforalt and Alou/Maghrebis (whatever they're known as) is there any increase or decrease with cranio affinities with Pre-Dynasitc Egyptians/Nubians?
So in closing and again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but what I'm getting from your and Djheutis responses to Antalas is that you're essentially saying Pre-Dynastic Egyptians/Nubians despite being very different from most Sub-Saharan Africans are still just as African as any "Sub-Saharan" African and that in contrast Maghrebis aren't due to them having Eurasian ancestry?
The 20th century Taforalt and Afalou and NE Africans are distinct, but in the bigger scheme of things (ie in a context with global populations), the former will likely possess some distant affinities with populations who have the Natufian-like component. Keith explained it as follows:
When we take into consideration the distance of Algeria from Palestine, and the antiquity of the two peoples we are considering—for the Capsian culture of North Africa is regarded as contemporary with the later Aurignacian of Europe—it is remarkable to find such a degree of correspondence between the cultures of Algeria and Palestine—particularly that they should have the practice of incisor extraction in common. Were the two peoples the same? They were certainly not of the same physical type, and yet may well have been branches of the same human stock—the Mediterranean New discoveries relating to the antiquity of man https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002696519&view=1up&seq=1 Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Dental affinities and cranial affinities are well, they don't always line up, the earliest Nubians were "Negroid" and you're not going to like this if you keep being stubborn. I have data from a study that supports my position.
The terminal Pleistocence and early Holocene populations of northern Africa
Colin Groves, Alan Thorne [/QB]
"Terminal Pleistocene Nubians" aren't similar to later Nubians :
quote:Assuming phenetic affinities reflect genetic relatedness, Gebel Sahaba appears too divergent to be ancestral to succeeding Nubians —differing significantly based on 36 and 21 traits. Such findings were reported previously [22-30,33-34]. These same studies indicate the Gebel Sahaba/Tushka/Wadi Halfa population was not indigenous to Nubia or the region, instead showing affinities to sub-Saharan Africans, notably West Africa. This too is not new, and two earlier studies reported cranial similarities with sub-Saharan samples: West African Ashanti [41], and late Palaeolithic Ishango, Democratic Republic of the Congo [40, also see 64]
quote:As such, this finding contradicts the idea of genetic continuity (see above) between Late Paleolithic and recent populations (i.e., Meroitic, X-Group, and Christian) (e.g., Greene, 1972; Carlson and Van Gerven, 1977;Small, 1981; Smith and Shegev, 1988; Calcagno, 1989),and instead suggests discontinuity (e.g., Irish and Turner,1990; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997,1998a,b,d). In accordance with the latter model, it is then implied that replacement or genetic swamping of an existing gene pool by an outside group, or groups, occurred after the Pleistocene (Irish and Turner, 1990; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Irish, 1998d).
quote:To illustrate, it was demonstrated that traits characterizing the Late Paleolithic sample are common in recent populations south of the Sahara (Irish and Turner, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997, 1998a–d). A sub-Saharan affinity was also reported by workers using nondental data (de Heinzelin, 1957; Wendorf, 1968; Hiernaux, 1975; Franciscus, 1995, personal communication in 1995; Holliday, 1995; Groves and Thorne, 1999). On the other hand, traits shared by Final Neolithic and later Nubians more closely emulate those found among groups originating to the north, i.e., in Egypt and, to a diminishing degree, greater North Africa, West Asia, and Europe (Irish and Turner, 1990; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997, 1998a–d).
J.D. Irish, Population continuity vs discontinuity revisited: dental affinities among late palaeolithic through christian-era nubians, 2005
quote:[...]principal coordinates analysis with minimum spanning tree and neighbour-joining cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba humans is most similar to that of recent sub-Saharan Africans and different from that of either the Levantine Natufians or the northwest African ‘Iberomaurusian’ samples. Importantly, these results corroborate those of both Irish and Franciscus, who, using dental, oral and nasal morphology, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent sub-Saharan Africans and morphologically distinct from their penecontemporaries in other parts of North Africa or the groups that succeed them in Nubia.
T.W. Holliday, Population affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal sample : Limb Proportion Evidence, 2013
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Dental affinities and cranial affinities are well, they don't always line up, the earliest Nubians were "Negroid" and you're not going to like this if you keep being stubborn. I have data from a study that supports my position.
The terminal Pleistocence and early Holocene populations of northern Africa
Colin Groves, Alan Thorne
"Terminal Pleistocene Nubians" aren't similar to later Nubians :
quote:Assuming phenetic affinities reflect genetic relatedness, Gebel Sahaba appears too divergent to be ancestral to succeeding Nubians —differing significantly based on 36 and 21 traits. Such findings were reported previously [22-30,33-34]. These same studies indicate the Gebel Sahaba/Tushka/Wadi Halfa population was not indigenous to Nubia or the region, instead showing affinities to sub-Saharan Africans, notably West Africa. This too is not new, and two earlier studies reported cranial similarities with sub-Saharan samples: West African Ashanti [41], and late Palaeolithic Ishango, Democratic Republic of the Congo [40, also see 64]
quote:As such, this finding contradicts the idea of genetic continuity (see above) between Late Paleolithic and recent populations (i.e., Meroitic, X-Group, and Christian) (e.g., Greene, 1972; Carlson and Van Gerven, 1977;Small, 1981; Smith and Shegev, 1988; Calcagno, 1989),and instead suggests discontinuity (e.g., Irish and Turner,1990; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997,1998a,b,d). In accordance with the latter model, it is then implied that replacement or genetic swamping of an existing gene pool by an outside group, or groups, occurred after the Pleistocene (Irish and Turner, 1990; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Irish, 1998d).
quote:To illustrate, it was demonstrated that traits characterizing the Late Paleolithic sample are common in recent populations south of the Sahara (Irish and Turner, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997, 1998a–d). A sub-Saharan affinity was also reported by workers using nondental data (de Heinzelin, 1957; Wendorf, 1968; Hiernaux, 1975; Franciscus, 1995, personal communication in 1995; Holliday, 1995; Groves and Thorne, 1999). On the other hand, traits shared by Final Neolithic and later Nubians more closely emulate those found among groups originating to the north, i.e., in Egypt and, to a diminishing degree, greater North Africa, West Asia, and Europe (Irish and Turner, 1990; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997, 1998a–d).
J.D. Irish, Population continuity vs discontinuity revisited: dental affinities among late palaeolithic through christian-era nubians, 2005
quote:[...]principal coordinates analysis with minimum spanning tree and neighbour-joining cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba humans is most similar to that of recent sub-Saharan Africans and different from that of either the Levantine Natufians or the northwest African ‘Iberomaurusian’ samples. Importantly, these results corroborate those of both Irish and Franciscus, who, using dental, oral and nasal morphology, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent sub-Saharan Africans and morphologically distinct from their penecontemporaries in other parts of North Africa or the groups that succeed them in Nubia.
T.W. Holliday, Population affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal sample : Limb Proportion Evidence, 2013 [/QB]
Thats because of gracilisation, not lack of common ancestors, not an influx of Eurasians. And the dental morphology doesn't refute the cranial morphology. Afalou was intermediate
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Antalas is going to do the ugly cry meme once it hits him that his genetics program tools are leaving him with no recourse, and that his "Caucasoid admixture" from Palaeolithic times are only going to lead to robust populations rather than get him closer to something resembling NE Africans.
And this was already realized in the 20th century by capable anthropologists, before anthropologists botched the proper reconstruction of Natufian population affinity, so that Natufian is today is sometimes synonymous with Eurasian.
When we take into consideration the distance of Algeria from Palestine, and the antiquity of the two peoples we are considering—for the Capsian culture of North Africa is regarded as contemporary with the later Aurignacian of Europe—it is remarkable to find such a degree of correspondence between the cultures of Algeria and Palestine-particularly that they should have the practice of incisor extraction in common. Were the two peoples the same? They were certainly not of the same physical type, and yet may well have been branches of the same human stock—the Mediterranean. We have to remember the tendency which every isolated community has to differen- tiate into a local type, and also the fact that neither Dr. Cole nor the writer had at their disposal skulls and limb bones which were intact and undisturbed. Nevertheless, the Shukbah people differed from the Algerian type in the narrowness of their skulls and in the profile of their heads. The midden people had bigger and wider heads; their brows tended to recede, and their occiputs to be high and rather steep. A similar type can be recognized in some of the living Kabyle of North Africa. On the other hand, the Shukbah people seem to me to find their nearest analogues in the predynastic type of Egypt. Certain it is that so far we have found no suggestion of the Cromagnon type of Europe in either the prehistoric people of North Africa or of Palestine. New discoveries relating to the antiquity of man https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015002696519&view=1up&seq=1
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Those "Sub-saharan African groups" you highlight fall into the North african variation and are physically/genetically much closer to North Africans and eurasians than the rest of SSA.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Thats because of gracilisation, not lack of common ancestors, not an influx of Eurasians. And the dental morphology doesn't refute the cranial morphology. Afalou was intermediate
IMO, the fact that late Pleistocene Al-Khiday remains already resemble historic Egypto-Nubians means that the latter can't simply be gracilized descendants of Jebel Sahabans etc. However, it's also inconvenient for Anty's narrative because it indicates that a phenotype related to that of historic Egypto-Nubians was already in the region prior to the Holocene. Combine that with what Swenet mentioned about Pleistocene West Eurasians not resembling Egypto-Nubians that much and you can see how he can't really claim the Al-Khiday phenotype to have originated through admixture with Pleistocene back-migrants.
This is the key passage from Irish et al 2021 that I notice Anty didn't address (even though, amusingly enough, it's one of the papers he quoted in response to you):
quote:In summary, the most parsimonious explanation is ancestors of Holocene agriculturalists were in Nubia—just not at Wadi Halfa, Gebel Sahaba, and Tushka. Although cultural diffusion with the incorporation of non-local resources occurred, with perhaps some immigration, it is unnecessary to hypothesize a significant post-Pleistocene influx of agriculturalists. The results suggest most future Nubian agriculturalists were in residence the entire time, though previously in the guise of Neolithic agro-pastoralists and intensive collectors. It would seem likely that, soil deflation aside, more Late Palaeolithic skeletal remains akin to Al Khiday may yet be discovered, possibly including Lower Nubia. So, long-term population continuity appears likely after all, perhaps including in situ selection for a reduction in cranial robusticity, as well as dental size (only), during the transition from hunting–gathering to agriculture.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^This search alluded to in your Irish quote was even acknowledged in the widely circulated Lawrence Angel quote where he connects his el Wad Natufian sample to Africa "via the unknown predecessors of Badarians and Tasians". A decades long search followed by a breakthrough with the alKhiday sample is nothing to sneeze at or take lightly. Lets you know the kind of blind faith Antalas has in his ideology to ignore all this context.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
This comes to show just how foolishly ignorant Anty is when it comes to North African history. I remember decades ago in this forum the old moderator Ausar kept reminding people that despite the geographic label of 'North Africa', the bioanthropological history of the Maghreb (Northwest Africa) is very different from that of Northeast Africa. But apparently Anty doesn't know that, or does he? Since in another thread he wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Yes Natufians are notably distant from my Iberomaurusian ancestors too:
To Lo Stranger, Anty is correct that the narrow so-called "caucasoid" facial form is not limited to North Africa but East Africa as well which is in the paper I cited in my last post of the previous page.
But of course he is dead wrong to attribute this morphology to "Eurasians". As Swenet points out, such morphology is indigenous to Africa and the earliest evidence is found in Sub-Sahara i.e. Al Khiday in central Sudan.
quote: She was one of the first generation of high-profile black supermodels and although attitudes have changed since 1975, she insists that the fashion industry is inherently racist. Then, she was treated as some kind of exotic alien. 'Oh, you're so beautiful,' was one comment, 'you must be half-white.' Her reply? 'I don't have a drop of white blood in me. I'm beautiful because I am black and I am Somali.'
Jean Hiernaux Peoples of the World Series: The People of Africa (1975) The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions............. From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.
Of course Hiernaux's 'Elongated African' theory was that such populations were simply "negroids" who developed narrow facial forms but non-metric traits suggested a much greater/older genetic divergence that was later confirmed by DNA.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ... how you go from Peştera Muierii 1 to NE Africans?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ...and that his "Caucasoid admixture" from Palaeolithic times are only going to lead to robust populations rather than get him closer to something resembling NE Africans.
For those who want to learn more, here is something that has helped me years ago, to better understand the concept of robusticity and how this in itself can be used as a marker of population affinity, in some contexts (e.g. in this context where it's claimed that populations that are very robust, were directly involved in producing populations that are not nearly as robust, i.e. certain Africans under discussion):
From these data it is clear that females are more gracile than the males of their own population, although there is overlap between the sexes (more in Inuits). However, the gracile and robust character of each group is maintained. Male Inuit skulls show ‘‘robusticity scores’’ similar to female Fueguian crania and no Inuit skull is as robust as Fueguian males. Plotting the ‘‘robusticity scores’’ of the unsexed populations used in this study (the complete series) further confirms the identification of gracile (sub-Saharan African, Southeast Asian, East Asian, European, Natufian) and robust (Australian, and to a less extent Afalou/Taforalt) groups, with fossil European crania falling in the robust end of the scale (Figure 10). The question of robusticity and the relationship between cranial size and shape in Homo sapiens https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248496900561
The especially relevant parts:
gracile (sub-Saharan African
and robust (Australian, and to a less extent Afalou/Taforalt) groups, with fossil European crania falling in the robust end of the scale (Figure 10).
Looking at all of this, can we say the data is consistent with relatively gracile African groups largely absent from the big population centers in the Maghreb and the Nile Valley during the palaeolithic, but present in more southern regions in Africa as well as in refugia in North Africa, were involved in the gracialization of Egypt, the Maghreb and Palestine—places that were formerly inhabited by mechtoid (or just robust) populations? I would say, yes. Can we say that palaeolithic Europeans were in a position to introduce relatively gracile populations to the Levant and North Africa to produce less robust population like NE Africans and certain Natufians? I would say no.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Also, we do know Al Khiday was found at the Nile, and they resemble Bronze Age Egypto-Nubians non-metrically (and presumably also metrically)
Swenet I got this quote from you from a completely different thread. By any chance are you able to provide a graph showing Al Khiday clustering with Bronze Age Egypto-Nubians? I've looked all over the forum but can't find this.
Thank You
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Brandon posted the Irish non-metric study. See the link in his post to Antalas.
Fantastic thank you so much. You're an absolute star mate.
Anyway for any newbies like me reading. This data from the Irish 2021 study basically shows how Nile Valley populations cluster with one another and how there has been population continuity between Nile Valley populations all the way from the Paleoithic 12th Millennium BCE (Al Khiday) to other Nile Valley populations such as Bronze Age Kerma (1750-1500 BCE) and Bronze Age A Group Nubians (3800-2900 BCE) which in turn has been shown to cluster with Pre-Dynastic Badari and Naqada Egyptians (4500-3000 BCE)
Note: The only outlier is the reamins at Jebel Sahaba (GSA) and this was due largely to their "West African" like affinities.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Brandon posted the Irish non-metric study. See the link in his post to Antalas.
Fantastic thank you so much. You're an absolute star mate.
Anyway for any newbies like me reading. This data from the Irish 2021 study basically shows how Nile Valley populations cluster with one another and how there has been population continuity between Nile Valley populations all the way from the Paleoithic 12th Millennium BCE (Al Khiday) to other Nile Valley populations such as Bronze Age Kerma (1750-1500 BCE) and Bronze Age A Group Nubians (3800-2900 BCE) which in turn has been shown to cluster with Pre-Dynastic Badari and Naqada Egyptians (4500-3000 BCE)
Note: The only outlier is the reamins at Jebel Sahaba (GSA) and this was due largely to their "West African" like affinities.
You have this misinterpreted. I suggest you change the way you think about population affinity regarding Africans in general. Through out this thread it has been clear that there is a temporal gap that exaggerates affinity (or lack there of) of populations between varying time periods. Antalas posted the Irish 2010 figure in this very thread a page ago. Modern pooled Equatorial Africans are closer to the centroid including Horners and Predynastics than Jebel Sahaba(JSA) . It is not "West-African" like Affinities that draws JSA away, JSA isn't West African. It is extinct metrics including traits such as robusticity associated with an entirely different population history than the Paleolithic samples in question (Al-Khiday) which drew it away. The inclusion of JSA-like or related ancestry (or continuity) in modern African populations draws them away form biological North Africans.
The other samples in this analyses all directly have ancestry from a source related to the Paleolithic NE Africans in question. Also you can see evidence of the homogenization in the 3D pca as well. Examine the positioning of the older samples; Gebel Ramleh and Al-Khiday, who both hold outlying positions.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@LoStranger
I see you've just got your a-ha moment re: the importance of the alKhiday population, and how it changes things as far as demystifying what predynastic populations were like in the palaeolithic and confirming they were primarily indigenous by all indications.
Some of that thanks should also go to others who contributed to your thread, which I did see you thank people for their contributions several times.
I don't know about the other contributors, but for me the best reward is when newer people actually learn and take the evidence as it is without relapsing to dated notions or pet theories projecting racial ideas and populations back to ancient times. See what I mean here, here and here. Ancient Africa, especially palaeolithic Afirca, was nothing like modern Africa, so the best way forward is to leave behind all preconceptions.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Antalas, you're writing words but you're not saying anything, but somehow you still think you're backing me in a corner by holding me to my acknowledgement of Eurasian ancestry in Africa.
Eurasians did bring U6, and so on. One example of a Euro U6 carrier is Peştera Muierii 1. So how are you going to get me in trouble by using my statement against me, when you can't even explain how you go from Peştera Muierii 1 to NE Africans?
Alkhiday pushes back predynastics from a purely holocene population, to a palaeolithic population, and so you can't point to holocene Eurasian populations to explain predynastics. But then you can't point to Palaeolithic MENA and European populations either because the populations from that era don't even resemble the modern people who live there today (do I need to post the Natufian morphometric presentation slide again?). So you have a problem in that the holocene Eurasians are younger than alKhiday, while the Paleolithic West Eurasians populations are a dead end or absorbed into modern populations. Either way, modern West Eurasians being near NE Africans in your Irish graph doesn't bode well for your positions because their palaeolithic predecessors are much more distant.
Or maybe I give you too much credit in thinking you can figure out yourself what it means that your Irish graph has modern West Eurasians are closer to Africans than palaeolithic West Eurasians are to Africans. You can't figure out what that means?
Notice the same itcouldbeisms for the same exact subject albeit from a different discipline. What he's about to realize was already broken down for him. There's some sort of mental block that didn't allow him to see that he was arguing for paleolithic Eurasian ancestry which is easily detectable across all disciplines to explain away discrete components with Ancient North African Distribution. See the teal component.
How he doesn't come back from his trip like Dr. Steven Strange is beyond me... Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Some individuals are enslaved by their ideologies to the point that they ignore reality and therefore suffer delusion.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Fantastic thank you so much. You're an absolute star mate.
Anyway for any newbies like me reading. This data from the Irish 2021 study basically shows how Nile Valley populations cluster with one another and how there has been population continuity between Nile Valley populations all the way from the Paleoithic 12th Millennium BCE (Al Khiday) to other Nile Valley populations such as Bronze Age Kerma (1750-1500 BCE) and Bronze Age A Group Nubians (3800-2900 BCE) which in turn has been shown to cluster with Pre-Dynastic Badari and Naqada Egyptians (4500-3000 BCE)
Note: The only outlier is the reamins at Jebel Sahaba (GSA) and this was due largely to their "West African" like affinities.
Irish specializes in odontology namely dental nonmetrics. I suggest you look here-- Odontology Findings Same as Genetics! Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@elMaestro
The writing was already on the wall since the time of Coon in the old days, when it was stated that a 'race' connected to predynastics originated either in Africa or the Levant, and became very visible in the archaeological record in many places, at the end of the palaeeolithic.
So the early date of the al Khiday sample further reduces options for people like Antalas, in a context where his options were already limited (ie it was either Africa or the Levant, like I aaid, and the Levant has E1b, we now know, go figure).
So if he's going to keep this up, I would just like Antalas to make a serious attempt at reconciling al Khiday having primacy over Natufians and Taforalt and other available samples. And to do it in a way that makes sense, without deflecting/playing forum games.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @elMaestro
The writing was already on the wall since the time of Coon in the old days, when it was stated that a 'race' connected to predynastics originated either in Africa or the Levant, and became very visible in the archaeological record in many places, at the end of the palaeeolithic.
So the early date of the al Khiday sample further reduces options for people like Antalas, in a context where his options were already limited (ie it was either Africa or the Levant, like I aaid, and the Levant has E1b, we now know, go figure).
So if he's going to keep this up, I would just like Antalas to make a serious attempt at reconciling al Khiday having primacy over Natufians and Taforalt and other available samples. And to do it in a way that makes sense, without deflecting/playing forum games.
All I'm seeing here is pure straw man. What I think is that you got bored and decided to discuss with me because you thought I was your usual anthrotard racist user.
Are you implying that I support the Dynastic race theory ? Honestly, I couldn't care less whether there's continuity or a Near Eastern influx predating Predynastic Egypt by millennia. What I've pointed out, and you can't really dispute, is that those Nubian samples align more with the North African variation. they are not associated/Similar to most modern SSAs no matter how "african" they are.
It's amusing how certain Afrocentrist members believe that pointing out a potential African substrate on a given population automatically establishes them as "black" or connected to their ancestors. It's like this odd pan-African perspective, treating all Africans as if they're one uniform black entity. Now, you can very well claim not to subscribe to such an opinion, but many members here support this idea, and obviously, you never contradict them.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: All I'm seeing here is pure straw man. What I think is that you got bored and decided to discuss with me because you thought I was your usual anthrotard racist user.
Are you implying that I support the Dynastic race theory ? Honestly, I couldn't care less whether there's continuity or a Near Eastern influx predating Predynastic Egypt by millennia. What I've pointed out, and you can't really dispute, is that those Nubian samples align more with the North African variation. they are not associated/Similar to most modern SSAs no matter how "african" they are.
It's amusing how certain Afrocentrist members believe that pointing out a potential African substrate on a given population automatically establishes them as "black" or connected to their ancestors. It's like this odd pan-African perspective, treating all Africans as if they're one uniform black entity. Now, you can very well claim not to subscribe to such an opinion, but many members here support this idea, and obviously, you never contradict them.
> Accuses Swenet of strawmanning him. > Proceeds to then strawman his opponents once again. Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
I'm glad I kept these old emails from anthropologists I communicated over the years. Anyways:
> -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Rigaud [mailto:cr_rigaud@yahoo.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2005 6:29 AM > To: Colin Groves > Subject: Prehistoric East Africans > Both Rightmire and Hiernaux > concluded that prehistoric East Africans are ancestral > to the above stated modern living East African > populations.
I think you're right about this. The Howells huge dataset does have some holes in it, and the Nilotic and other North East African populations constitute one of them. Rightmire, in particular, has shown that these do not really fall outside the subsaharan sphere of morphology. It would be good if Phil Rightmire would add his measurements, where compatible, to the Howells dataset (which is available for free on the web, by the way), so that we could see where these fit.
So much for Northeast Africans like Nubians having zero overlap with so called "sub-Saharans," what Antalas dubs as True Negroes. I guess Groves, Rightmire and Hiernaux are all raging "Afrocentrists."
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: All I'm seeing here is pure straw man. What I think is that you got bored and decided to discuss with me because you thought I was your usual anthrotard racist user.
Are you implying that I support the Dynastic race theory ? Honestly, I couldn't care less whether there's continuity or a Near Eastern influx predating Predynastic Egypt by millennia. What I've pointed out, and you can't really dispute, is that those Nubian samples align more with the North African variation. they are not associated/Similar to most modern SSAs no matter how "african" they are.
It's amusing how certain Afrocentrist members believe that pointing out a potential African substrate on a given population automatically establishes them as "black" or connected to their ancestors. It's like this odd pan-African perspective, treating all Africans as if they're one uniform black entity. Now, you can very well claim not to subscribe to such an opinion, but many members here support this idea, and obviously, you never contradict them.
> Accuses Swenet of strawmanning him. > Proceeds to then strawman his opponents once again.
Why does this guy have this weird obsession with "Afrocentrists?" In Keita's study he has shown that Egyptian crania and Maghreb crania aren't necessarily the same.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Why does this guy have this weird obsession with "Afrocentrists?" In Keita's study he has shown that Egyptian crania and Maghreb crania aren't necessarily the same.
Notice he gives DJ a hard time for describing certain North African populations as "black" even though the latter has consistently used that term in a chromatic sense (i.e. as a superlative for darker skin) rather than a racial one (as in "the Black race"). The whole kinship BS is just another of Anty's straw men, and we all know what he and people like him really care about is lookership anyway. They just don't want prestigious North Africans to look "black" or be associated with "Black people", however you define those terms.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Notice he gives DJ a hard time for describing certain North African populations as "black" even though the latter has consistently used that term in a chromatic sense (i.e. as a superlative for darker skin) rather than a racial one (as in "the Black race").
Yeah yeah simply a superlative for darker skin (which btw has no use as I've pointed out many times). We can see that .
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: The whole kinship BS is just another of Anty's straw men, and we all know what he and people like him really care about is lookership anyway. They just don't want prestigious North Africans to look "black" or be associated with "Black people", however you define those terms. [/QB]
Yeah a "straw men" hence why they get so emotional when I simply highlight obvious facts. It's pretty ironic how you're suggesting I'm only concerned with "lookership" when you just pointed out how someone like Djehuti uses "black" solely in a chromatic sense. The real culprits here for fixating on appearances are those who consistently overlook genetic results and categorize people solely based on skin tone.
And what's the deal with calling some North Africans "prestigious"? That sounds like a pretty loaded and possibly racist term, don't you think ?
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
It's amusing how certain Afrocentrist members believe that pointing out a potential African substrate on a given population automatically establishes them as "black" or connected to their ancestors. It's like this odd pan-African perspective, treating all Africans as if they're one uniform black entity. Now, you can very well claim not to subscribe to such an opinion, but many members here support this idea, and obviously, you never contradict them.
I don't think it's entirely an outrageous position "Black" at it's fundamental core is just a skin color. So if genetics end up showing the Early Ancient Egyptians to be mostly indigenous to Africa and if they're also shown to be largely dark skinned I don't see why that would disqualify them from "Blackness." in an African context.(Even if they're distinct from modern day Sub-Saharan Africans)
Remember Sub-Saharan Africans TODAY are among the most genetically diverse people in the world. A Yoruba, Pygmy, Hazda and Nilote all differ from each other genetically but all could be considered "Black Africans" due to them possessing dark skin.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
It's amusing how certain Afrocentrist members believe that pointing out a potential African substrate on a given population automatically establishes them as "black" or connected to their ancestors. It's like this odd pan-African perspective, treating all Africans as if they're one uniform black entity. Now, you can very well claim not to subscribe to such an opinion, but many members here support this idea, and obviously, you never contradict them.
I don't think it's entirely an outrageous position "Black" at it's fundamental core is just a skin color. So if genetics end up showing the Early Ancient Egyptians to be mostly indigenous to Africa and if they're also shown to be largely dark skinned I don't see why that would disqualify them from "Blackness." in an African context.(Even if they're distinct from modern day Sub-Saharan Africans)
Remember Sub-Saharan Africans TODAY are among the most genetically diverse people in the world. A Yoruba, Pygmy, Hazda and Nilote all differ from each other genetically but all could be considered "Black Africans" due to them possessing dark skin.
It's problematic since the use of this term is profoundly oversimplifying certain realities and misleading. Moreover, it can be employed in deeply racist ideological discourses seeking to appropriate the heritage of other populations. As I have emphasized many times, there is no reason to associate populations solely based on a shared dark skin color if they do not share a genetic heritage, culture, or even certain anatomical traits. The term "black", as understood today, is defined not only by dark skin but also by particular hair types and distinctive physical features. That's why today you have populations with very dark skin in North Africa, Arabia, or India, yet no one considers them black, and they can be distinguished quite well. In genetics as well, it is quite straightforward to differentiate a component shared by many Eurasian and North African populations from that found in West or Central Africa. A Berber with light skin from the remote mountains of the Atlas is genetically and physically closer to these Nubians than a West African, and yet, with the label "black", one would think the opposite...
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
It's problematic since the use of this term is profoundly oversimplifying certain realities and misleading. Moreover, it can be employed in deeply racist ideological discourses seeking to appropriate the heritage of other populations. As I have emphasized many times, there is no reason to associate populations solely based on a shared dark skin color if they do not share a genetic heritage, culture, or even certain anatomical traits. The term "black", as understood today, is defined not only by dark skin but also by particular hair types and distinctive physical features. That's why today you have populations with very dark skin in North Africa, Arabia, or India, yet no one considers them black, and they can be distinguished quite well. In genetics as well, it is quite straightforward to differentiate a component shared by many Eurasian and North African populations from that found in West or Central Africa. A Berber with light skin from the remote mountains of the Atlas is genetically and physically closer to these Nubians than a West African, and yet, with the label "black", one would think the opposite...
Ok that's it.
Define here and now, what makes a Black person
I want a concrete definition from you of what makes a Black person and why your definition is the one true one.
No picture shows. No deflections.
I'm not going to do like last time going back and forth with you.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Ok that's it.
Define here and now, what makes a Black person
I want a concrete definition from you of what makes a Black person and why you're definition is the one true one.
No picture shows. No deflections.
I'm not going to do like last time going back and forth with you; I'll just ban you immediately.
I have previously proposed a definition, but it seems to be challenging for some African Americans to understand, as they perceive it as denying the diversity of black africans. Many Afro-americans make the mistake of equating the diversity of their phenotypes (often resulting from numerous mixtures with Europeans or even Latinos/Amerindians) with that prevailing in Africa.
My own personal definition of "black" :
A person of African origin with dark skin, kinky hair, a morphology distinct from that prevailing in Eurasia, and a genetic profile showing little to no influence from the OOA or Late Paleolithic/Holocene back-to-Africa migrations.
Also : The exception does not make the rule. Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
My own personal definition of "black" :
A person of African origin with dark skin, kinky hair, a morphology distinct from that prevailing in Eurasia, and a genetic profile showing little to no influence from the OOA or Late Paleolithic/Holocene back-to-Africa migrations.
1. What point of skin pigmentation meets the threshold of dark?
2.Eurasia is a huge span of territory. What is the specific morphological characteristics that prevail in Eurasia?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
1. What point of skin pigmentation meets the threshold of dark?
The skin can be described as dark in my definition if it conforms to the pigmentation that predominates in sub-Saharan Africa :
I also want to emphasize that my definition is not limited to skin color alone.
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: 2.Eurasia is a huge span of territory. What is the specific morphological characteristics that prevail in Eurasia?
Here are some morphological traits that characterize Eurasians :
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: It's problematic since the use of this term is profoundly oversimplifying certain realities and misleading. Moreover, it can be employed in deeply racist ideological discourses seeking to appropriate the heritage of other populations.
I don't disagree with this and this is precisely the reason why modern anthropologists have abandoned using terms like "Black/White/Negroid/Caucasoid to describe especially ancient populations.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: As I have emphasized many times, there is no reason to associate populations solely based on a shared dark skin color if they do not share a genetic heritage, culture, or even certain anatomical traits.
Again I think what is truly at the heart of this issue is what is biologically an African and what is not. Association with skin color of course is problematic since there are SO many populations outside of Africa with darker skin colours. That's why I think it's important to emphasize skin colour AND "Africaness" (genetically)
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The term "black", as understood today, is defined not only by dark skin but also by particular hair types and distinctive physical features.
This part I disagree with. That's not what the term "Black" means that's what the term "Negroid" means. This is why I can't fault Afrocentrics for playing the "African Skin color game" because it's no different to what Europeans did. Notice how people had no issue with defining "Blackness" by Negroidness however when people expand Blackness to in-cooperate non-Negroid populations of Africa then all of a sudden folks don't like it.
Remember when folks use to refer to the Nubians as "The Black slaves of Non-Black Caucasoid Egyptians" I'm sorry but they shouldn't have started this game if they didn't want to play it all the way. Like don't pick up your ball and leave now that folks have found a way to fight back against these classifications that black people didn't even start.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: That's why today you have populations with very dark skin in North Africa, Arabia, or India, yet no one considers them black, and they can be distinguished quite well. In genetics as well.
I partially agree with this point. While different skin colours and features can span many different populations. The major difference is those populations you mentioned particularly Arabia and India aren't Africans. The genetic and biology of North Africans are not as a cut and dry of course but large portions of their ancestry are also Non-African even in (Ancient times). It's sort of like how you can get some phenotype crossover between West/Central Africans and Melaniasians/Ogne obviously these people are not Africans despite them sometimes resembling West and Central Africans. because they lack African DNA.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: it is quite straightforward to differentiate a component shared by many Eurasian and North African populations from that found in West or Central Africa.
Yes that's true but the keyword here is Eurasian Of course an African can't claim any Eurasianess because it's an ancestry which came outside of continent. However I employ the words of Keita:
There is more then one way to be African
Again if folks have an issue with West Africans claiming Ancient Nubians through the lens of "Pan-Blackness" then folks need to show that same concern with other groups too like Nilotes, Pygmy's Sandawes and San Bushmen since they're genetically different to West and Central Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: A Berber with light skin from the remote mountains of the Atlas is genetically and physically closer to these Nubians than a West African, and yet, with the label "black", one would think the opposite...
Berbers with fair skin are largely Eurasian descended and have been for a long time honestly. What a West African shares with a Nubian (if they in fact turn out to mostly genetically African) is that they're both indigenous Africans.
BTW before you mention the Eurasian genetics of Nubians. There's just too many holes in Ancient African genetic substructures at the moment. These populations as well as Ancient Egyptians could very well have copious amounts of Ancestral North African genetic markers. Also let us not forget Basal Eurasian which is another genetic marker that could be within groups like Ancient Egyptians, Nubian, Horners. could very well be African we just don't know yet.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
Edit:
Just for clarity.
The point of the previous exercise was to get out of Antalas his specific and personal definition so people knew exactly how he was employing that term instead of getting caught up in pitfalls from lack of concrete definition.
Carry on
Actually Edit2 @Antalas: for even more clarity, I think it would be beneficial for you to post the list of African characteristics from the same source you pulled the European and Asian/Native American characteristics from, just so we have a better idea of "African physiology" according to you. Also the name of the work you got those images from.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: This part I disagree with. That's not what the term "Black" means that's what the term "Negroid" means. This is why I can't fault Afrocentrics for playing the "African Skin color game" because it's no different to what Europeans did. Notice how people had no issue with defining "Blackness" by Negroidness however when people expand Blackness to in-cooperate non-Negroid populations of Africa then all of a sudden folks don't like it.
Are you from a North American background? I can assure you that this is how most people interpret it where I live. It's highly unlikely to find someone here asserting that dark-skinned Indians or mulattoes are categorically "black". While it's true that Horn Africans, despite their Caucasoid morphology, are sometimes labeled as black, many instances involve people claiming they're mixed or labelling them as half-Arab. Additionally, it's worth noting that Horn Africans often have kinky hair, which can impact their view.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Yes that's true but the keyword here is Eurasian Of course an African can't claim any Eurasianess because it's an ancestry which came outside of continent. However I employ the words of Keita:
There is more then one way to be African
Again if folks have an issue with West Africans claiming Ancient Nubians through the lens of "Pan-Blackness" then folks need to show that same concern with other groups too like Nilotes, Pygmy's Sandawes and San Bushmen since they're genetically different to West and Central Africans.
I agree, but what truly bothers them is that behind this appropriation of the Nubians, there lies an intent of claiming and associating that serves ideological interests. Just as we would be more disturbed by a Swede exaggerating the similarities of his people with the Minoans rather than the Russians or Serbs. Also, let's be honest, we don't see many Afrocentrists appropriating the Nilotes, San, or Sandawe.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Berbers with fair skin are largely Eurasian descended and have been for a long time honestly. What a West African shares with a Nubian (if they in fact turn out to mostly genetically African) is that they're both indigenous Africans.
BTW before you mention the Eurasian genetics of Nubians. There's just too many holes in Ancient African genetic substructures at the moment. These populations as well as Ancient Egyptians could very well have copious amounts of Ancestral North African genetic markers. Also let us not forget Basal Eurasian which is another genetic marker that could be within groups like Ancient Egyptians, Nubian, Horners. could very well be African we just don't know yet.
Here again listen to Keita. Indians and Japanese are both indigenous Asians, yet you won't find anyone excessively exaggerating the connections between these two populations or even attempting to associate them, as both groups are well aware of their differences.
So the fact that both are indigenous Africans doesn't inherently make them more closely related, and in this case, it becomes even more complex because it is evident that Nubians do have non-African ancestry. The extent of this ancestry is another question altogether.
Your line of reasoning would be akin to attempting to associate Afghans and Chinese solely based on the fact that both are indigenous Asians, disregarding the greater genetic proximity of the former to Europeans or even North Africans.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
Elongated African and "Caucasoid" morphology are not the same so its foolish to say Horners have caucasoid morphology when the origin of their traits have nothing to do with so called "Caucasoids," Hiernaux makes this point in his book and DJ posted it earlier.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Edit:
Just for clarity.
The point of the previous exercise was to get out of Antalas his specific and personal definition so people knew exactly how he was employing that term instead of getting caught up in pitfalls from lack of concrete definition.
Carry on
Actually Edit2 @Antalas: for even more clarity, I think it would be beneficial for you to post the list of African characteristics from the same source you pulled the European and Asian/Native American characteristics from, just so we have a better idea of "African physiology" according to you. Also the name of the work you got those images from.
No problem :
The source is : Fundamentals of Forensic Anthropology by Linda L. Klepinger
Posted by Forty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
^^ requires this nonsense. Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
@Antalas:
The skull traits list says African-Americans.
Where is the list for Africans?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: @Antalas:
The skull traits list says African-Americans.
Where is the list for Africans?
You have a list for africans just below and are you suggesting that African-Americans do not have traits characteristic of Africans ? Did African-Americans develop their own traits distinct from Eurasians and Africans ? If yes, post any evidence pls.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
No I asked for a list for Africans similar to the lists for Caucasians and Asian/Native Americans. Interestingly the one for African-Americans isn't written as "African-Americans/Africans" like the Asian/Native American one.
So where is that list from that book? Or is such a list not there?
You deflect and throw things into my question that weren't there again instead of a direct answer to what is actually being asked and you'll be on vacation.
Edit @Elmaestro:
I know what I'm doing here.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
The last few posts was a clear regression in the thread.
It had been established that the morphological as well as Genetic variation (While still very high) in Africa has been significantly watered down since prehistoric times. In any which case where there are a selection of Africans who have a subset of traits whether unique or overlapping with non Africans, there is likelihood that their ancestry is passed down in extant populations.
Instead of asking Antalas what his definition of black is and giving credence to his practice of lookership. We should be asking him to explain how/why individuals like this young lady isn't black by his definition. Watch how all of his traits he listed will go out the window when really pressed ("see! the exception doesn't make the rule.")
"A person of African origin with dark skin, kinky hair, a morphology distinct from that prevailing in Eurasia, and a genetic profile showing little to no influence from the OOA or Late Paleolithic/Holocene back-to-Africa migrations." -Antalas
Watch as how the part of this definition he'd adjust to exclude this girl, will exclude 90% of African Americans and maybe even some or all of black Africans depending on how little is too little influence from Paleolithic OOA back migrants in his view. All things considered, he pointed out Neanderthal ancestry in the same thread I linked earlier to highlight the prevalence of Paleolithic Eurasian ancestry in Africans.
He has no standard definition. Please stop asking him about what he think is black. It stifles everything and goes nowhere.
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
@Antalas:
So my patience is wearing thin and I previewed the book myself on google. Of course there is no such list for Africans as Klepinger did a snapshot based off the most studied US populations. So you're using a 2006 Forensic Anthropology work(last time I checked there are much newer works in the field) that only included African-Americans to make part of your argument on what pure/near pure "Black" people across the whole swath of dark blue and black areas of Africa on the map you posted look like morphologically.
Ok.
Now how is your definition the one true one that is more objective and less arbitrary than DJ or any other poster?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: He has no standard definition. Please stop asking him about what he think is black. It stifles everything and goes nowhere.
You're right, but seeing him perform mental gymnastics as he tries to pretend his definition of "black" somehow has more weight than DJ's or that of other posters is an amusing diversion nonetheless. The very fact that he has no standard definition of "black" (besides thinking of it as an association he wants to exclude certain ancient North Africans from) is part of the fun.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
And BTW...
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: And what's the deal with calling some North Africans "prestigious"? That sounds like a pretty loaded and possibly racist term, don't you think ?
Don't play dumb with me. I was referring to widely celebrated North African civilizations like Egypt, Carthage, and Kush/Nubia. You know, the ones that appear most often in history books and other media. Those are the ones you have insisted weren't really "black".
I will let DJ defend himself with regards to your attempt to accuse him of hypocrisy with regards to his usage of "black", if he cares to respond to you again in this thread.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: He tries to pretend his definition of "black" somehow has more weight than DJ's or that of other posters is an amusing diversion nonetheless. The very fact that he has no standard definition of "black" (besides thinking of it as an association he wants to exclude certain ancient North Africans from) is part of the fun.
This is what in part and parcel is part of the issue. The definition of what "Black" is has always been arbitrary ever since it's inception. For example the Greeks called some of the populations of Africa "Atheiops" (Burnt-Faced) that would've included some "North African" groups such as the Nubians.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: This is what in part and parcel is part of the issue. The definition of what "Black" is has always been arbitrary ever since it's inception. For example the Greeks called some of the populations of Africa "Atheiops" (Burnt-Faced) that would've included some "North African" groups such as the Nubians.
Truth be told, we wouldn't even be entertaining the "what is 'black'" digression again in this thread had Anty not insisted on ancient North Africans not being "black" or "SSA" as if that were some sort of rebuttal to the arguments Swenet and other opponents were making against him. It's all a desperate attempt by him to caricature his opponents' position. He's drowning and he knows it. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @elMaestro
The writing was already on the wall since the time of Coon in the old days, when it was stated that a 'race' connected to predynastics originated either in Africa or the Levant, and became very visible in the archaeological record in many places, at the end of the Palaeeolithic.
So the early date of the al Khiday sample further reduces options for people like Antalas, in a context where his options were already limited (ie it was either Africa or the Levant, like I aaid, and the Levant has E1b, we now know, go figure).
So if he's going to keep this up, I would just like Antalas to make a serious attempt at reconciling al Khiday having primacy over Natufians and Taforalt and other available samples. And to do it in a way that makes sense, without deflecting/playing forum games.
I remember ages ago in this forum like it was yesterday when the troll EvilEuro, an acolyte of Dienekes, would post his mentor's theory of 'Prehistoric East African Caucasoids'! LOL Even then they admitted that such populations originated in Africa and were awaiting for the skeletal confirmation.
So if according to Antalas only Sub-Saharans with 'true negroid' morphology should be called 'black', then all these people below are non-black.
Egyptians
Negev Bedouin
Giza workman
Luxor schoolboy
North Sudanese
Nubian boy
Zeinab Bedawi
Berbers
Coon’s example of a “gracile Mediterranean” (Shluh of Morocco)
Ghadames man
Somali
Yeah nothing black about these people. LOL Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Many Afro-americans make the mistake of equating the diversity of their phenotypes (often resulting from numerous mixtures with Europeans or even Latinos/Amerindians) with that prevailing in Africa.
This is incorrect. By the way for most african americans that do have native american or europan admixture,the admixture did not impact phenotype just like for most white americans that have african and native american admixture.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] The last few posts was a clear regression in the thread.
It had been established that the morphological as well as Genetic variation (While still very high) in Africa has been significantly watered down since prehistoric times. In any which case where there are a selection of Africans who have a subset of traits whether unique or overlapping with non Africans, there is likelihood that their ancestry is passed down in extant populations.
Instead of asking Antalas what his definition of black is and giving credence to his practice of lookership. We should be asking him to explain how/why individuals like this young lady isn't black by his definition. Watch how all of his traits he listed will go out the window when really pressed ("see! the exception doesn't make the rule.")
"A person of African origin with dark skin, kinky hair, a morphology distinct from that prevailing in Eurasia, and a genetic profile showing little to no influence from the OOA or Late Paleolithic/Holocene back-to-Africa migrations." -Antalas
Watch as how the part of this definition he'd adjust to exclude this girl, will exclude 90% of African Americans and maybe even some or all of black Africans depending on how little is too little influence from Paleolithic OOA back migrants in his view. All things considered, he pointed out Neanderthal ancestry in the same thread I linked earlier to highlight the prevalence of Paleolithic Eurasian ancestry in Africans.
He has no standard definition. Please stop asking him about what he think is black. It stifles everything and goes nowhere.
Alright, it's evident that you don't embrace my definition, and according to your statements, it isn't comprehensive enough. Now, I'm curious to understand why you prefer linking this young girl to sub-Saharan populations that share little in common with her, rather than populations that are genetically and morphologically more similar. If your response is solely based on her skin color, then let me inquire: what specific insights can be gleaned from such information in the context of a study on population kinship? Doesn't this approach also run the risk of being misleading and advantageous for certain ideological movements? I pose these questions, fully aware that, much like Djehuti, you may choose not to respond not because you disagree, but because admitting it might be uncomfortable for you, given that you perceive me as "obviously anti-black".
By asserting that the Nubians are "black," we are not just emphasizing their pigmentation, but we are also implying that they would be related to black African populations as a whole and not to other populations living further north. It's a term lacking in nuance. That's why it's imperative to propose a clear definition that allows us to understand that beyond their pigmentation, Nubian populations exhibit a morphology that could be described as intermediate and a genetic profile that shows both African and Eurasian substrates or even better a substrate that is shared by Nubians and Eurasians but not SSAs.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: @Antalas:
So my patience is wearing thin and I previewed the book myself on google. Of course there is no such list for Africans as Klepinger did a snapshot based off the most studied US populations. So you're using a 2006 Forensic Anthropology work(last time I checked there are much newer works in the field) that only included African-Americans to make part of your argument on what pure/near pure "Black" people across the whole swath of dark blue and black areas of Africa on the map you posted look like morphologically.
Ok.
Now how is your definition the one true one that is more objective and less arbitrary than DJ or any other poster?
The features listed for African Americans are characteristic of black African populations, and here she chose to use African Americans as an example since there is extensive documentation available. You may not be familiar enough with anthropological studies to know these traits and their presence in Africa. In the second image I posted, you can clearly see that it is written, "African origin", yet you prefer to ignore it. I posted Linda's work because it is one of the few that extensively covers many characteristic traits of African populations, which are, of course, also found in African Americans. The fact that you disagree implies that you perceive African Americans as morphologically very different from sub-Saharan Africans, so that's why I asked you which traits African Americans have that sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans do not possess ?
My definition is more objective because it better reflects certain realities. It is more nuanced and allows for a better delineation of certain meta-ethnicities, whereas Djehuti's definition is very vague, simplistic, and inclusive. It is solely based on the darkness of the skin and rejects any genetic, anthropological, or cultural reality. Djehuti's definition associates Papuans, Indians, certain Arab populations, all black Africans, Australian Aborigines, etc., while denying all the differences that distinguish them from each other.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The last few posts was a clear regression in the thread.
It had been established that the morphological as well as Genetic variation (While still very high) in Africa has been significantly watered down since prehistoric times. In any which case where there are a selection of Africans who have a subset of traits whether unique or overlapping with non Africans, there is likelihood that their ancestry is passed down in extant populations.
Instead of asking Antalas what his definition of black is and giving credence to his practice of lookership. We should be asking him to explain how/why individuals like this young lady isn't black by his definition. Watch how all of his traits he listed will go out the window when really pressed ("see! the exception doesn't make the rule.")
"A person of African origin with dark skin, kinky hair, a morphology distinct from that prevailing in Eurasia, and a genetic profile showing little to no influence from the OOA or Late Paleolithic/Holocene back-to-Africa migrations." -Antalas
Watch as how the part of this definition he'd adjust to exclude this girl, will exclude 90% of African Americans and maybe even some or all of black Africans depending on how little is too little influence from Paleolithic OOA back migrants in his view. All things considered, he pointed out Neanderthal ancestry in the same thread I linked earlier to highlight the prevalence of Paleolithic Eurasian ancestry in Africans.
He has no standard definition. Please stop asking him about what he think is black. It stifles everything and goes nowhere.
Alright, it's evident that you don't embrace my definition, and according to your statements, it isn't comprehensive enough. Now, I'm curious to understand why you prefer linking this young girl to sub-Saharan populations that share little in common with her, rather than populations that are genetically and morphologically more similar. If your response is solely based on her skin color, then let me inquire: what specific insights can be gleaned from such information in the context of a study on population kinship? Doesn't this approach also run the risk of being misleading and advantageous for certain ideological movements? I pose these questions, fully aware that, much like Djehuti, you may choose not to respond not because you disagree, but because admitting it might be uncomfortable for you, given that you perceive me as "obviously anti-black".
By asserting that the Nubians are "black," we are not just emphasizing their pigmentation, but we are also implying that they would be related to black African populations as a whole and not to other populations living further north. It's a term lacking in nuance. That's why it's imperative to propose a clear definition that allows us to understand that beyond their pigmentation, Nubian populations exhibit a morphology that could be described as intermediate and a genetic profile that shows both African and Eurasian substrates or even better a substrate that is shared by Nubians and Eurasians but not SSAs.
You responded with yet another strawman argument, what you are doing is projecting YOUR thoughts onto others. At this point I don't even understand why people waste their time going back and forth with you.
Now getting back on topic, so called "Negroid" traits, or what Antalas likes to term as "sub-Saharan, have been noted not only in Nubians and seen in the artwork that depicts Nubians, but have been noted in Egyptian crania, imposing YOUR definition of what black is isn't going to make those traits and DNA go away.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I remember ages ago in this forum like it was yesterday when the troll EvilEuro, an acolyte of Dienekes, would post his mentor's theory of 'Prehistoric East African Caucasoids'! LOL Even then they admitted that such populations originated in Africa and were awaiting for the skeletal confirmation.
So if according to Antalas only Sub-Saharans with 'true negroid' morphology should be called 'black', then all these people below are non-black.
Egyptians
Negev Bedouin
Giza workman
Luxor schoolboy
North Sudanese
Zeinab Bedawi
Berbers
Coon’s example of a “gracile Mediterranean” (Shluh of Morocco)
Ghadames man
Somali
Yeah nothing black about these people. LOL [/QB]
Are those populations more closely related to their "light" skinned neighbours or West/central/south Africans (who are also described as "black") ?
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
Take this man right here,
This man is a Tutsi from Rwanda and not the exception among his people in terms of phenotype but the rule. If you measured up his skull and compared it to some broad trend sub-Saharan Africans and people in the Nile Valley and the Horn, he would cluster with Horn and Nile Valley peoples and he would plot in an intermediate position, but he is 100% sub-Saharan African and lives even further below the Sahara than West Africans, so having a metric phenotype that's intermediate does not equal having zero affinities with sub-Saharan African people.
Too many of you are wasting your time arguing with that troll who is only going to shift goalposts on his definition of what black to conveniently suit his agenda deny blacks in North Africa, its a waste of time
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Don't get why people have'nt figured this out yet....Iv'e been down this road with Antalas, he literally thinks people below the SSA desert all look alike unless they have Kakazoid Eurasian ancestry...You can see here where he alludes to his def. of SSA....he's said this to me a few other times..Its basically why people like him use SSA as a racial identifier. Basically gives him the fuel to promote true negroidism, while at the same time giving him the ability to use excuses and claim he does'nt believe in true negroidism
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
Too many of you are wasting your time arguing with that troll who is only going to shift goalposts on his definition of what black to conveniently suit his agenda deny blacks in North Africa, its a waste of time [/qb]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Are those populations more closely related to their "light" skinned neighbours or West/central/south Africans (who are also described as "black") ?
Of course the former because those light skinned neighbors-- both Southwest Asians & Europeans-- have admixture from North Africans. That still doesn't change the fact that those North Africans are still black.
Now answer me this, are West/Central Africans more closely related to North and East Africans or the light-skinned click-speaking populations of Southern Africa??
And for a bonus is this couple black?
And who are they most related to??
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Don't get why people have'nt figured this out yet....Iv'e been down this road with Antalas, he literally thinks people below the SSA desert all look alike unless they have Kakazoid Eurasian ancestry...You can see here where he alludes to his def. of SSA....he's said this to me a few other times..Its basically why people like him use SSA as a racial identifier. Basically gives him the fuel to promote true negroidism, while at the same time giving him the ability to use excuses and claim he does'nt believe in true negroidism
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
Too many of you are wasting your time arguing with that troll who is only going to shift goalposts on his definition of what black to conveniently suit his agenda deny blacks in North Africa, its a waste of time
[/QB]
Yeah let's throw mulattoes, indians, Griffe, Quadroon, Rashaida, Soqotri, Pygmies, Nilote, etc all in the same bag or else it's "true negroidism"...
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of course the former because those light skinned neighbors-- both Southwest Asians & Europeans-- have admixture from North Africans. That still doesn't change the fact that those North Africans are still black.
Do they lack Eurasian admixture altogether ? Additionally, if their genetic makeup aligns more closely with the former, wouldn't labeling them simply as "black" be potentially misleading ? It could imply a closer relationship with other populations identified as black no ? Furthermore, considering their dark skin complexion, how is this relevant in discussions about kinship ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Now answer me this, are West/Central Africans more closely related to North and East Africans or the light-skinned click-speaking populations of Southern Africa??
Isn't their light skin due to eurasian introgression ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And for a bonus is this couple black?
And who are they most related to?? [/QB]
How can they be black if they aren't african ? Those people are definitely much closer to Chinese or even me than any black african. There is no reason to associate both of them.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Don't get why people have'nt figured this out yet....Iv'e been down this road with Antalas, he literally thinks people below the SSA desert all look alike unless they have Kakazoid Eurasian ancestry...You can see here where he alludes to his def. of SSA....he's said this to me a few other times..Its basically why people like him use SSA as a racial identifier. Basically gives him the fuel to promote true negroidism, while at the same time giving him the ability to use excuses and claim he does'nt believe in true negroidism
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
Too many of you are wasting your time arguing with that troll who is only going to shift goalposts on his definition of what black to conveniently suit his agenda deny blacks in North Africa, its a waste of time
I'm not trying to defend Antalas here or anything but a part of me gets where he's coming from.
He isn't entirely wrong that some traits within groups such as Nubians and Horners such as cranial traits, dental traits, genetics (partial) and language family (in the case of Horners and Ancient Egyptians but not Nubians) are closer to modern North Africans compared to modern Sub-Saharan Africans.
Even if genetic markers like "ANA" and Basal Eurasian do end up originating in Africa wouldn't they still technically be more Eurasian shifted compared to West/Central Africans?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @elMaestro
The writing was already on the wall since the time of Coon in the old days, when it was stated that a 'race' connected to predynastics originated either in Africa or the Levant, and became very visible in the archaeological record in many places, at the end of the palaeeolithic.
So the early date of the al Khiday sample further reduces options for people like Antalas, in a context where his options were already limited (ie it was either Africa or the Levant, like I aaid, and the Levant has E1b, we now know, go figure).
So if he's going to keep this up, I would just like Antalas to make a serious attempt at reconciling al Khiday having primacy over Natufians and Taforalt and other available samples. And to do it in a way that makes sense, without deflecting/playing forum games.
All I'm seeing here is pure straw man. What I think is that you got bored and decided to discuss with me because you thought I was your usual anthrotard racist user.
Are you implying that I support the Dynastic race theory ? Honestly, I couldn't care less whether there's continuity or a Near Eastern influx predating Predynastic Egypt by millennia. What I've pointed out, and you can't really dispute, is that those Nubian samples align more with the North African variation. they are not associated/Similar to most modern SSAs no matter how "african" they are.
It's amusing how certain Afrocentrist members believe that pointing out a potential African substrate on a given population automatically establishes them as "black" or connected to their ancestors. It's like this odd pan-African perspective, treating all Africans as if they're one uniform black entity. Now, you can very well claim not to subscribe to such an opinion, but many members here support this idea, and obviously, you never contradict them.
If it's just a strawman, you should have no problem doing what I've asking you to do. You said, certain Sub-Saharan Africans fall into North African variations. What North African fossils did you have in mind when you said that, and can you give a list of fossils with these variations in the last 20ky?
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Don't get why people have'nt figured this out yet....Iv'e been down this road with Antalas, he literally thinks people below the SSA desert all look alike unless they have Kakazoid Eurasian ancestry...You can see here where he alludes to his def. of SSA....he's said this to me a few other times..Its basically why people like him use SSA as a racial identifier. Basically gives him the fuel to promote true negroidism, while at the same time giving him the ability to use excuses and claim he does'nt believe in true negroidism
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
Too many of you are wasting your time arguing with that troll who is only going to shift goalposts on his definition of what black to conveniently suit his agenda deny blacks in North Africa, its a waste of time
I'm not trying to defend Antalas here or anything but a part of me gets where he's coming from.
He isn't entirely wrong that some traits within groups such as Nubians and Horners such as cranial traits, dental traits, genetics (partial) and language family (in the case of Horners and Ancient Egyptians but not Nubians) are closer to modern North Africans compared to modern Sub-Saharan Africans.
Even if genetic markers like "ANA" and Basal Eurasian do end up originating in Africa wouldn't they still technically be more Eurasian shifted compared to West/Central Africans?
Again, what are YOU defining as "MODERN sub-Saharan/ Yall have got to stop falling into those traps, "sub-Saharan" is not defined by one certain set of stereotypical traits or set traits, and if Basal Eurasian and ANA do end up being African why call them "Eurasian shifted" to begin with?
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
Question, I have a son and grandchild. If they dig up our remains a thousand years from now and did DNA tests, would my son be more "shifted" towards my grandson genetically, or would my grandson be more shifted genetically towards my son? would my grandson and son being more closely related imply that me and my grandson have no close relationship? Now insert sub-saharan Africa next to my name, make Northeast Africa my son, and my "Eurasia" my grandson.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @elMaestro
The writing was already on the wall since the time of Coon in the old days, when it was stated that a 'race' connected to predynastics originated either in Africa or the Levant, and became very visible in the archaeological record in many places, at the end of the Palaeeolithic.
So the early date of the al Khiday sample further reduces options for people like Antalas, in a context where his options were already limited (ie it was either Africa or the Levant, like I aaid, and the Levant has E1b, we now know, go figure).
So if he's going to keep this up, I would just like Antalas to make a serious attempt at reconciling al Khiday having primacy over Natufians and Taforalt and other available samples. And to do it in a way that makes sense, without deflecting/playing forum games.
I remember ages ago in this forum like it was yesterday when the troll EvilEuro, an acolyte of Dienekes, would post his mentor's theory of 'Prehistoric East African Caucasoids'! LOL Even then they admitted that such populations originated in Africa and were awaiting for the skeletal confirmation.
There is a certain type of anthropology commentator, with otherwise Eurocentric views, who'll agree that the population arose in Africa or areas directly adjacent to Africa, that were in genetic contact with palaeolithic Africans. These types of admissions simply reflect a common sense interpretation of the fossil situation which allows big regions (eg the steppes, Europe, etc) to be excluded from consideration.
Migration could have come from those regions, but the ancient morphotype itself was not a transplant from those regions. As I mentioned elsewhere, the palaeolithic populations in question were changing due to admixture with some 'southern' types of ancestry, that imparted shorter faces and shorter stature, especially in Badarians and Tenereans. Which is yet another clue that they were in Africa, even in between the al Khiday and predynastic time interval in which this transformation must have happened, but in which we can't seem to find much evidence of their whereabouts.
Things like that is why even some of those people I mentioned, with Eurocentric views, know better.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Again, what are YOU defining as "MODERN sub-Saharan/ Yall have got to stop falling into those traps, "sub-Saharan" is not defined by one certain set of stereotypical traits or set traits, and if Basal Eurasian and ANA do end up being African why call them "Eurasian shifted" to begin with?
Sorry I meant to say modern "West/Central Africans" Overall Antalas position is not completely incorrect because based on the traits I outlined in my previous post his people do line up with Nubians/Horners and Ancient Egyptians more so than West/Central Africans.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Again, what are YOU defining as "MODERN sub-Saharan/ Yall have got to stop falling into those traps, "sub-Saharan" is not defined by one certain set of stereotypical traits or set traits, and if Basal Eurasian and ANA do end up being African why call them "Eurasian shifted" to begin with?
Sorry I meant to say modern "West/Central Africans" Overall Antalas position is not completely incorrect because based on the traits I outlined in my previous post his people do line up with Nubians/Horners and Ancient Egyptians more so than West/Central Africans.
West/Central Africans are diverse themselves, but no one has said Nile Valley and Northwest Africans are very closely related. Seems like there are many different ways of saying "true Negro."
Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [The features listed for African Americans are characteristic of black African populations, and here she chose to use African Americans as an example since there is extensive documentation available. You may not be familiar enough with anthropological studies to know these traits and their presence in Africa. In the second image I posted, you can clearly see that it is written, "African origin", yet you prefer to ignore it. I posted Linda's work because it is one of the few that extensively covers many characteristic traits of African populations, which are, of course, also found in African Americans. The fact that you disagree implies that you perceive African Americans as morphologically very different from sub-Saharan Africans, so that's why I asked you which traits African Americans have that sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans do not possess ?
My definition is more objective because it better reflects certain realities. It is more nuanced and allows for a better delineation of certain meta-ethnicities, whereas Djehuti's definition is very vague, simplistic, and inclusive. It is solely based on the darkness of the skin and rejects any genetic, anthropological, or cultural reality. Djehuti's definition associates Papuans, Indians, certain Arab populations, all black Africans, Australian Aborigines, etc., while denying all the differences that distinguish them from each other.
1. I majored in Anthropology, took classes in forensic and biological anthropology, and continue to read studies on African populations. I asked you for those traits as I wanted what they were in your own words.
2. I asked you for the list for Africans from that book as I found it curious she listed Native Americans ans Asians together but not African-Americans and Africans. You could've simply said she only used African Americans as those were the most studied in the US(which she clearly stated in her book). You instead throw your own opinions in there and deflect from questions I'm asking you about the source you're using.
3. So once again intentional vagueness while you criticize others. "Certain realities"? What realities? In what specific ways is it more nuanced? What certain meta-ethniticies? And you chide DJ for being vague?
4. Since you clearly cannot follow a simple request(directly answering what I asked you instead of throwing all types of things into it that were neither said nor asked), maybe some time off will do you good.
Enjoy your vacation.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
No one is denying this, the point is that its simplistic and basically ignores the variation and complexity in both so called SSAs and Eurasian Africans.
If you or Antalas or anyone else wants to die on the hill of Eurasian=the reason for physical variation, just call it what it is, True Negroidism. Weird how some of the purest Eurasians such as Negritos etc. look like Typical SSAs physically, weird how Massa Kakazoid didn't bestow them with non SSA negroid features its almost as its more complex than wandering Kakazoids bestowing features on Negroid Africans...
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Don't get why people have'nt figured this out yet....Iv'e been down this road with Antalas, he literally thinks people below the SSA desert all look alike unless they have Kakazoid Eurasian ancestry...You can see here where he alludes to his def. of SSA....he's said this to me a few other times..Its basically why people like him use SSA as a racial identifier. Basically gives him the fuel to promote true negroidism, while at the same time giving him the ability to use excuses and claim he does'nt believe in true negroidism
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite:
Too many of you are wasting your time arguing with that troll who is only going to shift goalposts on his definition of what black to conveniently suit his agenda deny blacks in North Africa, its a waste of time
I'm not trying to defend Antalas here or anything but a part of me gets where he's coming from.
He isn't entirely wrong that some traits within groups such as Nubians and Horners such as cranial traits, dental traits, genetics (partial) and language family (in the case of Horners and Ancient Egyptians but not Nubians) are closer to modern North Africans compared to modern Sub-Saharan Africans.
Even if genetic markers like "ANA" and Basal Eurasian do end up originating in Africa wouldn't they still technically be more Eurasian shifted compared to West/Central Africans?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Thats because "His People" end up having a much closer shared Ancestry with Afro-Asiatic people, and the Genetics of so called SSAs is much older and more varied
Here is how some so called "Eurasian" NHSY people were depicted in A. Egypt
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.
Gee I guess their Euasianess did'nt stop them from being Abid True N#gger examples for Antalas to contrast the A. Egyptians with, Miro even said these are ADOS Ancestors in A. Egypt....Weird were NHSY War Captives West Africans now...How odd..
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: his people do line up with Nubians/Horners and Ancient Egyptians more so than West/Central Africans.
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
In all of my years on egyptsearch I would have never thought that people today still hold on to variations of truenegroidism and Hamitic hypothesis(Eurasian mix is reason for variation). These days they just calling SSA, West/Central Africa, or even worse Niger-Congo people, as if there is no variation in that area and the people all just look alike and have the same genetics.
Look at this plot at the bottom, look at the variation with West and Central Africa itself and the Bantus, PLEASE STOP WITH SSA=ONE STEREOTYPICAL PHENOTYPE. There's just as much variation there as there is in Northeast Africa, even more.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Question, I have a son and grandchild. If they dig up our remains a thousand years from now and did DNA tests, would my son be more "shifted" towards my grandson genetically, or would my grandson be more shifted genetically towards my son? would my grandson and son being more closely related imply that me and my grandson have no close relationship? Now insert sub-saharan Africa next to my name, make Northeast Africa my son, and my "Eurasia" my grandson.
I believe a better analogy would be to treat modern populations as the granchildren and ancient ones as the sons and fathers.
That is to say, the father would be basal AMH, and his two children would be ancient West Africans on the one hand and ancient Northeast Africans on the other. Modern West Africans would be the children of ancient West Africans, and both modern Northeast Africans and modern Eurasians would be the children of ancient Northeast Africans.
It's still an overly simplified model, but I hope you're still able to get the idea. Maybe a visual tree diagram would help?
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Question, I have a son and grandchild. If they dig up our remains a thousand years from now and did DNA tests, would my son be more "shifted" towards my grandson genetically, or would my grandson be more shifted genetically towards my son? would my grandson and son being more closely related imply that me and my grandson have no close relationship? Now insert sub-saharan Africa next to my name, make Northeast Africa my son, and my "Eurasia" my grandson.
I believe a better analogy would be to treat modern populations as the granchildren and ancient ones as the sons and fathers.
That is to say, the father would be basal AMH, and his two children would be ancient West Africans on the one hand and ancient Northeast Africans on the other. Modern West Africans would be the children of ancient West Africans, and both modern Northeast Africans and modern Eurasians would be the children of ancient Northeast Africans.
It's still an overly simplified model, but I hope you're still able to get the idea. Maybe a visual tree diagram would help?
I can't remember whether it was you or DJ who posted it years ago on here, but it was a diagram posted that shows Sub-Saharans, then Northeast Africans branching off from them, then all non-Africans branching off from Northeast Africans. My position is that Northeast Africans and Southwest Asians are close in SOME respects because of shared common ancestry with the OOA population as well as TWO WAY gene flow between the two, but if you take the word of Antalas that gene flow only went one way into Africa. I believe he says that because the papers published by a lot of these geneticists push that one way narrative of Africa only being the recipient of gene flow as well as his own biased ignorance.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: If you or Antalas or anyone else wants to die on the hill of Eurasian=the reason for physical variation, just call it what it is, True Negroidism.
I don't disagree with this. In my second response to Antalas I explained that Black does not mean " "Negroid." As black is simply a skin color. A "Black African" can encompass a variety of craniofacial types and genetic clusters. With that said Antalas still isn't completely wrong in what's he's saying either. That's the thing with "Race" grouping people racially has no real concrete definition. Neither of us are truly wrong here. It's the reason why you see questions like "Are Somalis, Ethiopians Black?" Speak to a 100 Ethiopians and and Somalis and they'll all tell you something different.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Weird how some of the purest Eurasians such as Negritos etc. look like Typical SSAs physically, weird how Massa Kakazoid didn't bestow them with non SSA negroid features its almost as its more complex than wandering Kakazoids bestowing features on Negroid Africans...
This is very true and I actually made this point to Antalas earlier in this thread:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: It's sort of like how you can get some phenotype crossover between West/Central Africans and Melaniasians/Ogne obviously these people are not Africans despite them sometimes resembling West and Central Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Moreover such conventions used a red type of skin tone similar to what many modern egyptians [b]have not black like their nubian neighbours and let alone the traits who were typically caucasoid in contrast to the negroids from Nubia.
OK I wasn't aware he said this. This is a contradiction as he now he appears to be arguing Ancient Nubians have nothing to do with "Negroid" Africans. I'll admit there's definitely a "Negroid" bias with Antalas which he seems to exclusively equate with black and now seemingly with Nubian for some reason.
As for Miro C he's talking non-sense. There's zero proof that the "ancestors" of West Africans and by extension the ancestors of "ADOS" were ever in the Nile Valley during the Dynastic period. What is more likely though is that HIS ancestors were captured and kept as slaves by the Ancient Egyptians.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: I explained that Black does not mean " "Negroid." As black is simply a skin color. A "Black African" can encompass a variety of craniofacial types and genetic clusters. With that said Antalas still isn't completely wrong in what's he's saying either. That's the thing with "Race" grouping people racially has no real concrete definition. Neither of us are truly wrong here.
If "black" means "any person with dark skin" to you and not "Negroid" but there is no concrete definition,
then it is better to not use the word black in anthropological discussions and instead use "dark skinned" or "Negroid" or "African" which also have subjective aspects but are at least less ambiguous than "black"
Posted by Elijah The Tishbite (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: I explained that Black does not mean " "Negroid." As black is simply a skin color. A "Black African" can encompass a variety of craniofacial types and genetic clusters. With that said Antalas still isn't completely wrong in what's he's saying either. That's the thing with "Race" grouping people racially has no real concrete definition. Neither of us are truly wrong here.
If "black" means "any person with dark skin" to you and not "Negroid" but there is no concrete definition,
then it is better to not use the word black in anthropological discussions and instead use "dark skinned" or "Negroid" or "African" which also have subjective aspects but are at least less ambiguous than "black"
"Negroid" is a racially loaded term, which if in the strict sense were used would exclude most Africans.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Then it is better to not use the word black in anthropological discussions and instead use "dark skinned" or "Negroid" or "African" which also have subjective aspects but are at least less ambiguous than "black"
I personally like to use the term "Black African" as it describes both skin color (darker skin) and either exclusive or majority African genetic ancestry.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Here is another word. This was posted in another thread awhile ago.
Africoid peoples Part 1
quote: Africoid peoples are human populations of varying phenotypes who are considered black regardless of recent African ancestry..Rashidi, Runoko. The Global African Community. "The African Perspective in India." 1998. September 2, 2007. [http://saxakali.com/Saxakali-Publications/runoko19.htm] ] Bioanthropologist S.O.Y. Keita however, uses the term to describe African descent populations whose morphological variants originate exclusively within the African continent.S.O.Y. Keita. "Studies and Comments on The Biological Relationships of Ancient Egyptians". History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)]
An inclusive term? A broad usage of the term, "Africoid" is used not only to describe peoples of African descent, but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have in the past termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain craniofacial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to so-called "Negroid" peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent prognathismFact|date=February 2008, a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people). Polynesians are seen as part Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics. The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, [ Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books: 1974)] and Chancellor Williams. [Chancellor Williams, The Destruction of Black Civilization, (Third World Press: new ed. 1987)] Those such as Keita however, see little value in overextending the term to include relationships among genetically distinct peoples, such as Africans and "Australoids", preferring to use the term in context with biohistorical African populations of recent African extraction.
Users of the term point to Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalis and Nubians who exhibit phenotypical traits such as orthognathism [Hanihara et al. (2000), [http://www.femininebeauty.info/hanihara.flatness.pdf Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations] Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105] , non-kinky hair texture,Carleton S. Coon, [http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XI8.htm "The Origin of Races"] , (New York: Knopf, 1962), chapter XI, section 8.] and keen facial features seen by some as being exclusive to Caucasoid peoples. They contend such variations are indigenous to these groups and cannot be attributed to invasions from outside Caucasoid peoples as suggested under the Dynastic Race Theory and in more recent biological studies. [Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242] Such phenotypical variations, they argue, often occur within nuclear family groups and are inherent to Africoid peoples, much as there are broad variations in physical stature and body proportions between the Pygmies of the Congo, who generally reach a height of 4.5 feet, and of the Dinka or Tutsi of Rwanda, whose average height is 6.5 feet and who are described as "gracile", or gracefully slender. [Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books (July 1, 1989), pp. 37-279] Similarly, they continue, African peoples commonly considered "Negroid" such as the Senegalese also may lack prognathism. [ Jean Hiernaux, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Jun., 1976)] .
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Then it is better to not use the word black in anthropological discussions and instead use "dark skinned" or "Negroid" or "African" which also have subjective aspects but are at least less ambiguous than "black"
I personally like to use the term "Black African" as it describes both skin color (darker skin) and either exclusive or majority African genetic ancestry.
This is why "black" shouldn't be used. If Antalas means "Negroid" he should say "Negroid" not black
And you may not be conscious of it or not but you moved the goal post
First you said " black is simply a skin color"
Now you change it to African ancestry + skin color.
Doug might say no, Asians with no African ancestry can be black. BUT rather than having an unresolvable endless new conversation about if Asians can be black (let's not) if you don't use "black" then the semantic diversion is eliminated
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
I've come to believe that "black" for chuds like Antalas is little more than something they just don't want applied to people from charismatic North African civilizations. I haven't forgotten how vehemently he denied that Paleolithic to Copper Age inhabitants of North Africa would have had "dark to black" skin as suggested by genetic software and instead insisted that they must really have been just tan-skinned. He knows that, were ancient North Africans substantially darker-skinned than tan, then at least some people out there (e.g. DJ) would describe them as black or black-skinned no matter what their genetic affinities actually were.
It also explains why he gets upset when people like DJ apply "black" to darker-skinned peoples around the world, accusing them of trying to link those populations to "sub-Saharan" Africans somehow. It's all about association for him, as if "black" were some social club he wanted to keep his precious North Africans out of. Dudes like him just want to keep blackness, however one defines it, away from the parts of North African history he is invested in.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Do they lack Eurasian admixture altogether?
Who? North Africans? If you mean ancient/indigenous North Africans that is looking more and more like that isn't the case. It used to be thought that ANA was "Eurasian" until it was discovered that it wasn't. Now the only allegedly "Eurasian" admixture is that of Natufian/Levant-Neolithic. But if Swenet is correct about the African parental lineages, skeletal features, etc. then that too is likely of African origin. Western Eurasians (both Europeans and SW Asians) show admixture of both ANA and Natufian.
quote:Additionally, if their genetic makeup aligns more closely with the former, wouldn't labeling them simply as "black" be potentially misleading? It could imply a closer relationship with other populations identified as black no? Furthermore, considering their dark skin complexion, how is this relevant in discussions about kinship?
"Black" is a label based on color on appearance NOT kinship or genetic lineage you dummy! A Nubian is equally as black as a Nigerian, as is a Bhil aboriginal of India or Melanesian. Nobody limits a color label by ancestry alone except for you! LOL
quote:Isn't their light skin due to Eurasian introgression?
You did not answer my question as to whom are West/Central Africans closer related to. And NO, I've already proven here that Khoisan light complexion has nothing to do with Eurasians as was already explained in the correction to the Mota error.
Even Loosdrecht's autosomal study shows this:
Whatever true Eurasian admixture that is present is miniscule overall and is limited near areas where "Coloured" populations reside. Though it's interesting how there are clusters of Natufian brown even though there are NO Eurasian parental lineages amongst them. Not to mention the fact that in most autosomal fst charts, Khoisan are the MOST distant of any African group to Eurasians.
quote:How can they be black if they aren't African? Those people are definitely much closer to Chinese or even me than any black african. There is no reason to associate both of them.
Because again 'black' is a reference to SKIN COLOR not ancestry or geography, you moron! Do you have any idea what Chinese call those people related to them??!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: There is a certain type of anthropology commentator, with otherwise Eurocentric views, who'll agree that the population arose in Africa or areas directly adjacent to Africa, that were in genetic contact with Palaeolithic Africans. These types of admissions simply reflect a common sense interpretation of the fossil situation which allows big regions (eg the steppes, Europe, etc) to be excluded from consideration.
Migration could have come from those regions, but the ancient morphotype itself was not a transplant from those regions. As I mentioned elsewhere, the palaeolithic populations in question were changing due to admixture with some 'southern' types of ancestry, that imparted shorter faces and shorter stature, especially in Badarians and Tenereans. Which is yet another clue that they were in Africa, even in between the al Khiday and predynastic time interval in which this transformation must have happened, but in which we can't seem to find much evidence of their whereabouts.
Things like that is why even some of those people I mentioned, with Eurocentric views, know better.
What comes to mind is when Tukuler once reminded me of what Guiseppi Sergi's 'Brown Mediterranean Race' concept actually was. It wasn't part of the "Caucasoid" or "Caucasian" race but was its own entity that developed in Africa NOT Eurasia. Sergi theorized that this population was a branch of a larger group called "Eurafricans" which in turn diverged from the Paleolithic common African stock which also gave rise to the "Negro" race. The more I thought about it, I realized the skeletal evidence supports Sergi's claims and now molecular evidence does as well.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
@LostStranger If you grasp some of the ideas that had been thrown around in this thread (Paleolithic Morphological Variation in Africa) you wouldn't think he had much of a point. But I won't harken on him since he's banned and can't defend himself. I would like to pivot and talk about Anthrotardology in general. And how simple concepts can get obfuscated in ways to make them seem more complex. And complex realities are dumbed down in real time.
The concept of black and race is not complicated. It's often made complicated by an agenda. Especially online. I, and I'm sure you have noticed, that talking about these things in real life under a calm setting almost leads to 0 confusion. In fact, it doesn't even matter if you're a race realist or not. It's not a complex issue. People in general mainly use black to denote one of two things... African ancestry or phenotype. Once people say which one they are using to describe blackness it's fairly easy to understand. Case in point, in Malaysia, I tried to explain to a Somali Arab (a Somalian man who grew up in Saudi Arabia), that he's more related to Caucasians than he is to the Negritos or dark skin South East Asians we'd very often see. He was livid at the idea and told me "There's no way under Alah that I'm more related to a white European than I am to another black person." And this was despite all of his buddies were clear Caucasians. He didn't like the idea of being told he had "White blood." He eventually got the concept I was breaking down after 30 minutes of explanation, however from the very beginning, I knew what he meant by black.
Now here's a more complex example. With the exception of South African Natives (who could have through European Ancestry), all Modern day Africans likely have ancestry from an Ancestral North African source. We have morphological types who'd cluster with non Africans of today buried deep below the equator of Africa. Archaeologists then knew better than to attribute them as being non African. We also know now that lightskin mutations are recent, and not likely associated with those skulls.
quote:An Afro-Mediterranean stock in North Africa (Columnata, Taforalt, Malou) and East Africa (Gamble's Cave, Bromhead, Olduvai 1, Naivasha) extending to the Great Lakes region. A Negroid stock in western Africa (Two Eleru), in the Sahara (Asselar and some Neolithic sites), in the northeast (Khartum, Jebel Sahaba, Wadi-Halfa), in the east (Kangatotha, Lukenya Hill), in Zaire (Ishango), and in South Africa (Bushman Rock Shelter). A Rhoisan stock in southern Africa (Fish Hoek, Maties River Cave, Mumbwa Cave) and eastern Africa covering also Tanzania and Kenya. Brauer
L. EXCOFFIER, 1987
So if we take these broad classifications for ancient Samples into context. Which explanation can you provide that will allow you to say the East African Mediterranean stock is less "black" than the Negroid & the Khoisan? Which definition of black allows for that dichotomy? If you claim that it's genetic closeness to Eurasians, then by default you are claiming that Negroids are less black than the Khoisan stock. And the Negroid populations not of Africa such as Austorlasians/Melanasians are the antithesis of black - as they are the furthest from Africans in general. If you want to base it strictly on Negroid morphology, then you'd have to concede that the Khoisan aren't black and samples like that of the Afro-Mediterranean aren't black or that they're mixed. In that case which arm chair anthropologist who uses the term black would ever claim KNM-KX 2 wasn't black or less black than some Modern Egyptians for example.
quote:Pairwise tests were not used for the cranial metric analyses because the Kisese II sample only consisted of one individual. The Taita, Early Holocene/LSA, Pastoral Neolithic, and KNM- KX 2 all had a similar ratio of maximum cranial breadth and length compared to the other modern African populations. Dimensions of the nasal aperture for KNM-KX 2 were smaller than most of the modern African populations but overlapped with Egyptian individ- uals. Kruskal-Wallis
[..]
Although there was overlap between groups, most mesiodistal and buccolingual measures varied chronologically such that the early Holocene/LSA Holocene/LSA (?10.0–4.0 ka) individuals had the largest teeth followed by early pastoralists. The smallest teeth are found in the Pastoral Neolithic (?3.5–2.0 ka) sample (Figure 4). With the exception of the mesiodistal length of the upper canine and lower second incisor, there were no significant differences in measurements for the incisors and canines.
With a date of ?7.1 ka, dental measurements of KNM-KX 4/5/6 are expected to be most similar to the early Holocene comparative sample. However, buccolingual and mesiodistal dental measures of KNM-KX 4/5/6, as well as KNM-KX 1 and KNM-KX 2, were closest to the Pastoral Neolithic sample, broadly dated from 4–1.5 ka (Figure 4). This suggests the individuals from Kisese II had relatively smaller dentitions than early Holocene foragers, but similar to those of early pastoralist and Pastoral Neolithic eastern Africans. If KNM-KX 1 and KNM-KX 2 are substantially younger than KNM-KX 4/5/6, the Kisese II samples would imply the relative persistence of small teeth at the site across the Holocene
Human burials at the Kisese II rockshelter, Tanzania 10.1002/ajpa.24253
Genetics:I8821 (Kisese II)
quote: In model 1, along with other populations, we included three geographically and genetically diverse ancient eastern and south-central African individuals with high sequencing coverage: I4426 (Fingira, about 2.5 ka), I8821 (Kisese II) and I8808 (Jawuoyo). On the basis of the results in the previous section, we hypothesized that they could be fit with mixtures of three ancestry components: one related to the Mota individual (representing an ancient group of foragers from the northern part of eastern Africa), one related to central African foragers (represented by present-day Mbuti) and one related to southern African foragers (represented by four ancient individuals from South Africa). Indeed, we obtained a good fit to the data in model 1 (max residual Z = 2.0), even when specifying identical sources for all three individuals, and the relative ancestry proportions were as expected: Mota-related ancestry decreased from north to south, and Jawuoyo (I8808) had the highest ratio of central-African-related ancestry to southern-African-related ancestry. Omitting any of the three components for any of the individuals results in a poor fit (Z ≥ 4.0) (Supplementary Note 6). As in ref. 16 , we also estimated around 30% of a separate and deeply diverged ‘ghost’ ancestry component in the Mota individual (replicated here using new higher-coverage diploid whole-genome data)
And there will be more an more examples like this in the future. If you take into account what was being said in this thread; when we account for clear Non-African ancestry we get morphology that is distinct from the populations in question (North East Africans.) All this time the armchair guys hiding behind the the subjectivity of blackness, used Non-African ancestry to try to explain the differences between Modern African's and ancient North Africans and North Africans. The argument was that it was non-African ancestry that made people look physically and genetically close or far from other samples. The reality is that it was post OOA African ancestry outside of Africa that brought Middle easterners closer to each other and even closer to SSA despite having negligible SSA over time.
The whole, "closer to Natufian" thing that people have been doing for 10 years was a ruse. This is how we can have a scenario where we'd attribute west African innovation to Eurasian occupation (since you wanna bring up Miro C.) Once it's clear that Africans have ancestry that doesn't look "SSA" in the future but more "Natufian-like" would you join in and say something as silly as, "The real west Africans were more close to Modern people of Socotra or Sicily because of genetic distance?"
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Case in point, in Malaysia, I tried to explain to a Somali Arab (a Somalian man who grew up in Saudi Arabia), that he's more related to Caucasians than he is to the Negritos or dark skin South East Asians we'd very often see. He was livid at the idea and told me "There's no way under Alah that I'm more related to a white European than I am to another black person." And this was despite all of his buddies were clear Caucasians. He didn't like the idea of being told he had "White blood." He eventually got the concept I was breaking down after 30 minutes of explanation, however from the very beginning, I knew what he meant by black.
Wow, you had a Somali guy claim closer kinship to melanated people all over the world, including Asian Negritos, than to "Caucasoids"? He would be shocked to see what some of his ethnic compatriots in the online anthro fandom have been saying.
I guess it goes to show you that not every trend you observe online necessarily has that much significance in the offline world.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ You'd be surprise how many people (black and non-black) alike think that all black populations around the globe are closely related. I've seen one too many videos from black Americans claiming black aboriginal types of Southeast Asia and Oceania as "Africans outside of Africa" or "Africans around the world". I've even heard some whites say that Melanesians like Fijians are "African" because of their black appearance. Yet we have Antalas who claims that the only 'black' people are West/Central Africans! LOL Make that make sense. Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Case in point, in Malaysia, I tried to explain to a Somali Arab (a Somalian man who grew up in Saudi Arabia), that he's more related to Caucasians than he is to the Negritos or dark skin South East Asians we'd very often see. He was livid at the idea and told me "There's no way under Alah that I'm more related to a white European than I am to another black person." And this was despite all of his buddies were clear Caucasians. He didn't like the idea of being told he had "White blood." He eventually got the concept I was breaking down after 30 minutes of explanation, however from the very beginning, I knew what he meant by black.
Wow, you had a Somali guy claim closer kinship to melanated people all over the world, including Asian Negritos, than to "Caucasoids"? He would be shocked to see what some of his ethnic compatriots in the online anthro fandom have been saying.
I guess it goes to show you that not every trend you observe online necessarily has that much significance in the offline world.
For the most part the internet is quite an illusion. The loud minority will always paint the narrative. That being said, my friend grew up in Saudi Arabia and I know his experiences there shaped his world view a bit.
And speaking of online MENA wannabes. The tribalism is Africa has always been a thing, but I believe the Natufian study is 110% the reason for what we're seeing now from both North and East Africans (not wanting to be associated with Africa.) It's one of the most damaging studies in recent times in my opinion and it's for so many technical reasons.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
@ DJ I've seen more than my fair share of melanophobic racists posting photos or video footage of Papuan people in traditional getup to prove "natural Black African backwardness". I guess the 4C hair and certain facial features (e.g. broad noses and full lips) fools them into thinking the subjects are African instead of Melanesian. TBH, Melanesia and its cultures aren't even that well-represented in mainstream Western media, especially compared to neighboring Polynesia, so a lot of Westerners probably don't even know such populations (or Asian Negritos for that matter) even exist.
@Elmaestro The claims that such and such African population are X% "Natufian" are annoying, but I suspect those guys would have appropriated any finding to justify their antipathy. Melanophobia is at its core an emotional phenomenon, not a rational one.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
But getting back to the topic, for some context...
Here is the Al-Khiday site.
Note that it's just southwest of Khartoum along the White Nile.
Here is the Kadruka site.
Kadruka is right beside the town of Dongola. I already cited the Hassan 2009 study on the Neolithic Kadruka men all carrying A-M13 even though they all exhibit the typical North African 'Type A' morphology. The Al-Khiday remains date to the Epipaleolithic and exhibit the same morphology so what are the chances that they too carry A-M13??
Again, here is the modern distribution of hg A.
^ Note again a significant frequency in northern Ethiopia which is predominantly populated by 'Type A' morphology
Though Ethiohelix shows that the highest frequency occurs among Wolayta of southwest Ethiopia.
The prevalence of this haplogroup in Ethiopia has always been known to us, however the extremely high frequency in the Wolayta is quite a surprise, this could be due to the relatively small sample size however, as the much higher sample size of the Wolayta found in the Plaster thesis, only showed 13% of A-M13.
But then we have Beyoku's Ancient Egyptian FBD results from the Old and Middle Kingdoms.
quote: OK A-M13, L3f Ok A-M13, L0a1 OK B-M150, L3d OK E-M2, L3e5 OK E-M2, L2a1 OK E-M123, L5a1 OK E-M35, R0a OK E-M41, L2a1 OK E-M41, L1b1a OK E-M75, M1 OK E-M78, L4b OK J-M267, L3i OK R-M173, L2 OK T-M184, L0a
Although A is a minority, the point is the majority of male lineages are African which is why Eurocentrics are turning to autosomal data. They think that the Natufian/Neolithic Levant ancestry is Eurasian, but how true is that? As Swenet has pointed out, the Natufians and other ENF related material display many African features and carry African parental lineages yet we are to assume their autosomal signature is Eurasian.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Although A is a minority, the point is the majority of male lineages are African which is why Eurocentrics are turning to autosomal data. They think that the Natufian/Neolithic Levant ancestry is Eurasian, but how true is that? As Swenet has pointed out, the Natufians and other ENF related material display many African features and carry African parental lineages yet we are to assume their autosomal signature is Eurasian.
Very good point but the answer that is usually given for the presence of E Haplogroups in Natufians is them being mixed with ANA.
quote: Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians)Lazaridis_2018
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, but as I explained to Antalas, even ANA was originally thought to be "Eurasian" until it was discovered it wasn't. Do you remember that even haplogroup E was originally labeled as "Eurasian" as well. My point is that ENF is the last hope these Euronuts have, but that hope could very well fade as Swenet points out.
And what about the HBS (sickle cell)?
There is evidence that Natufians and even Neolithic Iranians had it.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, but as I explained to Antalas, even ANA was originally thought to be "Eurasian" until it was discovered it wasn't. Do you remember that even haplogroup E was originally labeled as "Eurasian" as well. My point is that ENF is the last hope these Euronuts have, but that hope could very well fade as Swenet points out.
And what about the HBS (sickle cell)?
There is evidence that Natufians and even Neolithic Iranians had it.
Yeah I have to agree with everything you said there. I do remember the days when Euronuts kept trying to Eurasianize Haplogroup E especially E1b1b (E3b).
My only concern going forward is euronuts and their African lapdogs using genetic distance as an argument. For example saying Basal Eurasian or ANA is closer to Eurasian or is more "Eurasian shifted" compared to West Africans. In a matter of fact I had this very same thing said to me personally by a Nigerian Fulani who I was discussing on whether Ancient Nubians were a mostly genetically indigenous population or heavily genetically Eurasian admixed population.
This is what he wrote to me in a series of replies:
quote:Genetic and linguistic studies have demonstrated that Nubian people in Northern Sudan and Southern Egypt are an admixed group that started off as a population closely related to Nilotic people.This population later received significant gene flow from west Asia and other east africans
quote:"Even if it is African (ANA or Basal Eurasian) they were still shifted towards Eurasian and far distinct from ghanians and people in the Congo"
quote:You simply don’t want to accept it, either way the picture is clear. Later middle Stone Age North Africans especially in the Paleolithic was already shifted towards Eurasians and some segments did drift back. The picture is clear and obvious. Africa is a continent with differences
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Why be concerned? It IS a fact that some Africans are more related to Eurasians than others for the simple fact that Eurasians descend from a specific subset of Africans, namely in northeast Africa.
I've already explained here that even within Africa certain populations are going to be less related to others. That doesn't mean they are any less African.
This is why West Africans are closer in genetic distance to Eurasians than they are to South African Khoisan.
The same also holds true with Eurasian populations.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Why be concerned? It IS a fact that some Africans are more related to Eurasians than others for the simple fact that Eurasians descend from a specific subset of Africans, namely in northeast Africa.
I've already explained here that even within Africa certain populations are going to be less related to others. That doesn't mean they are any less African.
This is why West Africans are closer in genetic distance to Eurasians than they are to South African Khoisan.
The same also holds true with Eurasian populations.
Of course!! I'm so stupid it works both ways. So if a Euronut says something like "Well who cares if Ancient Egyptians/Nubians are "African" or "Black" genetically they're still more Eurasian shifted compared to us. One can easily turn around and say well certain Eurasian populations are more African shifted so there...
Thnx man Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, but as I explained to Antalas, even ANA was originally thought to be "Eurasian" until it was discovered it wasn't. Do you remember that even haplogroup E was originally labeled as "Eurasian" as well. My point is that ENF is the last hope these Euronuts have, but that hope could very well fade as Swenet points out.
And what about the HBS (sickle cell)?
There is evidence that Natufians and even Neolithic Iranians had it.
Yeah I have to agree with everything you said there. I do remember the days when Euronuts kept trying to Eurasianize Haplogroup E especially E1b1b (E3b).
My only concern going forward is euronuts and their African lapdogs using genetic distance as an argument. For example saying Basal Eurasian or ANA is closer to Eurasian or is more "Eurasian shifted" compared to West Africans. In a matter of fact I had this very same thing said to me personally by a Nigerian Fulani who I was discussing on whether Ancient Nubians were a mostly genetically indigenous population or heavily genetically Eurasian admixed population.
This is what he wrote to me in a series of replies:
quote:Genetic and linguistic studies have demonstrated that Nubian people in Northern Sudan and Southern Egypt are an admixed group that started off as a population closely related to Nilotic people.This population later received significant gene flow from west Asia and other east africans
quote:"Even if it is African (ANA or Basal Eurasian) they were still shifted towards Eurasian and far distinct from ghanians and people in the Congo"
quote:You simply don’t want to accept it, either way the picture is clear. Later middle Stone Age North Africans especially in the Paleolithic was already shifted towards Eurasians and some segments did drift back. The picture is clear and obvious. Africa is a continent with differences
Just ask him if Natufians are more SSA than Taforalt. The former is more shifted towards Yoruba. I don't get how any of his replies answer whether or not Nubians were indigenous though. Reiterating genetic distance is not particularly forthcoming at all. This is especially useless once you realize he's stating the parent component is "shifted towards" the child. That's like saying TianYuan man is more Native American than he is Eurasian. Also, which "Nubians" were you guys talking about?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Well this thread in particular is referring to A-Group Nubians and their kinsmen.
I know in the past Antalas liked to bring up the Kulubnarti Christian era Nubians as an example of having Eurasian introgression. Though this introgression was said to come directly from Egyptians.
I was just reading through this thread again and wanted to ask about the Al-Khiday remains again.
It has been mentioned throughout this thread that Late Pleistocene populations such as Taforalt, Afalou, West Asians, as well as Upper Palaeolithic Europeans are distinct from the Nubian Al-Khiday remains and thus Egyptian/Nubian pre-dynastics. My two questions are:
1. Which population(s) exactly are the Late-Pleistocene West Asians? Are they Natufians or were there more?
2. What proof or evidence is there that that these Eurasian populations didn't enter Africa at some point at or even prior to the Late Pleistocene and admix with Negroid or other some other indigenous Sub-Saharan population to create the Al-Khiday morphology/population?
Is there any chance the Al-Khiday morphology/population could've originated as a combination of an older Eurasian population AND an indigenous African population which would explain why Al-Khiday differs to Late Pleistocene Taforalt, Afalou, Western Asians and even Late Pleistocene Nubians (Jebel Sahaba) in the first place?
As Always thank you for your continued support.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: I was just reading through this thread again and wanted to ask about the Al-Khiday remains again.
It has been mentioned throughout this thread that Late Pleistocene populations such as Taforalt, Afalou, West Asians, as well as Upper Palaeolithic Europeans are distinct from the Nubian Al-Khiday remains and thus Egyptian/Nubian pre-dynastics. My two questions are:
1. Which population(s) exactly are the Late-Pleistocene West Asians? Are they Natufians or were there more?
2. What proof or evidence is there that that these Eurasian populations didn't enter Africa at some point at or even prior to the Late Pleistocene and admix with Negroid or other some other indigenous Sub-Saharan population to create the Al-Khiday morphology/population?
Is there any chance the Al-Khiday morphology/population could've originated as a combination of an older Eurasian population AND an indigenous African population which would explain why Al-Khiday differs to Late Pleistocene Taforalt, Afalou, Western Asians and even Late Pleistocene Nubians (Jebel Sahaba) in the first place?
As Always thank you for your continued support.
What evidence do you have that Al-Khiday is a mixture of Iberomaurasians and local Africans? Or Which West Asian population would you consider to be the Eurasian predecessor? The proof is that West Eurasians without signs of a Basal Eurasian didn't have the features we now associate with med-Africans, meanwhile we have evidence that pleistocene Africans did.
As far as proof, no proof can be given that al Khiday is unmixed. It's not about being unmixed either; it's about being predominantly African and it's about the fact that those phenotypes do not match anything we have outside of Africa. What Eurocentrics are doing, is they take samples younger than alKhiday, and then they try to say alKhiday is mixed with them, which they're also doing with Taforalt, when they say Taforalt is part Natufian, even though Loosdrecht's Taforalt sample is older than Natufians. They don't come with samples older than Taforalt and Al Khiday, because Ice Age Eurasian populations without Basal Eurasian looked very different. You can see that in the link to bodyplan data below, where the Mesolithic/Epipalaeolithic population from the Levant, is more distant to Africans. Modern people from this region are closer to Africans.
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: 1. Which population(s) exactly are the Late-Pleistocene West Asians? Are they Natufians or were there more?
It sounds like you're quoting a paper when you're using that phrase (Brace et al 2005?). I would need to see the context to see what they mean, but there are samples of the predecessors of Natufians. See the link below (where they're labeled 'Epipalaeolithic') to see their affinities to Africans (e.g. predynastics) and Natufians, in terms of bodyplan.
Lostranger says in another thread, sth that I might as well address here, since I'm already on a related topic:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Great find! I've only seen excerpts of that old Braeur study. So according to that graph Asselar is indeed close to Badarians as I suspected and if I'm reading it correctly Asselar falls squarely in the 'Negrid' column whereas the Badarian is intermediate between 'Negrid' and 'Europid' while the Kenyan Elmenteita and Gamble's Cave fall squarely in the latter. But note how both Wadi Halfa and Jebel Sahaba are also in the same intermediate area as Badarian.
What's even more interesting is despite Taforalt being classified as "Europid" we now it's has around 50% ANA or 1/3 SSA ancestry. Who's to say Badari won't score an even higher African percentage especially since it's closer to being "Negroid" than Taforalt.
That Taforalt sample is a 20th century Taforalt sample that Kefi et al tested for mtDNA and came out with what seems to be almost fully Eurasian mtDNA Hvsi haplotypes. This is not the Loosdrecht Taforalt sample, which was excavated shortly before the Loosdrecht et al 2018 paper. Other than the date of that decades old Brauer article you were responding to, you can tell the samples are different by looking at the Brauer graphic Brandon posted, where has the Taforalt sample dating to ~11 000 BC, which is younger than the oldest Iberomaurusian samples we have (e.g. Loosdrecht's Taforalt sample or Algeria's Taza I sample).
The site was first excavated by Armand Ruhlmann between 1944 and 1947, and subsequently by Jean Roche between 1951 and 1955, and 1969 and 1976. Archaeological deposits span the Aterian (Middle Stone Age, MSA) and Iberomaurusian (Later Stone Age, LSA) and the transition between these two periods (Fig. S3). The Roche excavations uncovered an extensive series of Iberomaurusian burials from the uppermost grey ashy deposits in two contiguous areas situated toward the back of the cave, designated Necropolis I and Necropolis II (49, 50). Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar8380
[...]
New work on the Iberomaurusian sequence at Taforalt was conducted between 2003 and 2017 (10, 33, 43, 51). Excavation trenches were located on the south side of the cave (Sector 8), at the front of the cave (Sector 9) and a recess at the back of the cave in an area of restricted height (Sector 10). Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar8380
[...]
Excavations in Sector 10 revealed a series of closely spaced and inter-cutting primary burials within the uppermost grey ashy deposits. The distribution of articulated and disarticulated bones in Sector 10 indicates intensive use and reuse of the area, with earlier burials disturbed or truncated by subsequent burials (52, 54). Twelve partially articulated skeletons (7 adults and 5 infants) were recovered, together with another reasonably complete but disturbed infant skeleton, and an intrusive broken adult cranium and associated mandible (Individual 10). With the exception of Individual 10, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the bodies were incomplete or disarticulated at the time of deposition. Most of the individuals were buried in a seated or semi- reclined position, with the pelvis, feet and often the hands at the base of the grave and the head and knees uppermost. The adults and some of the infants were buried facing approximately towards the cave entrance. The partial loss of anatomical articulation of skeletal elements within many of the burials indicates that the bodies were surrounded by pockets of empty space during decomposition. This suggests that the bodies were loosely wrapped or covered by an organic material. The infant and adult burials were associated with a variety of funerary objects including horn cores, ochre stained stones and marine shells. Sector 10 and Necropolis I and II originally formed a contiguous and spatially demarcated collective burial area.
The sequence of burials in Sector 10 could be partly resolved based on their spatial relationships and the distribution of disturbed and undisturbed bones (Fig. S5). The burials comprise two main groups. The first group to be excavated was situated closer to the cave entrance and comprises Individuals 1-5 and Individuals 7 and 8. Individual 6 lay alongside the first group but its chronological relationship to those burials could not be established. The second group of burials 6 was situated close to the rear cave wall and comprises Individuals 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14. The intrusive skull of Individual 10 lay directly above the burials of individual 14, 13 and 11 but it may have been removed or displaced from an earlier burial.
The Iberomaurusian part of the sedimentary sequence in Sector 8 (Grey and upper Yellow Series) has been dated by radiocarbon accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) using ultrafiltration, producing dates on bone and wood charcoal that span the period 20,500–12,600 yBP (10). Within Sector 8 there is a major stratigraphic division in the Iberomaurusian part of the sequence between the Grey Series (Roche’s ashy deposits) and an underlying Yellow Series. The earliest calibrated age for the Grey Series is 15,204–14,261 cal. yBP. Seven human bone samples from Sector 10 have been directly dated by AMS using ultrafiltration (Table S1, (52)) These have yielded age estimations between 15,077 cal. yBP and 13,892 cal. yBP corresponding to the lower part the Grey Series deposits in Sector 8. All samples had good collagen preservation (>2% collagen bwt), carbon content (41-47%), and CN ratio (3.1-3.2). The sample from Individual 7 (OxA-16663) was small and the age estimate has a high standard error. The stratigraphic matrix, in combination with overlapping standard errors for the AMS radiocarbon dates for the directly dated individuals, suggests that all the Taforalt individuals reported here may have died within 200 years from one another Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human populations https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar8380 Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^Correct. It has already been addressed.
As far as proof, no proof can be given that al Khiday is unmixed. It's not about being unmixed either; it's about being predominantly African and it's about the fact that those phenotypes do not match anything we have outside of Africa. What Eurocentrics are doing, is they take samples younger than alKhiday, and then they try to say alKhiday is mixed with them, which they're also doing with Taforalt, when they say Taforalt is part Natufian, even though Loosdrecht's Taforalt sample is older than Natufians. They don't come with samples older than Taforalt and Al Khiday,
Wait I think I'm starting to understand now. Basically the fact modern North Africans (Meds) and modern Middle Easterners craniometrically link closer with NE Africans compared to their older Upper Palaeolithic variants is proof that THEIR the ones that could be admixed with Upper Palaeolithic North East Africans (Al-Khiday) AND not the other way around as most European geneticist/scholars put it.
In other words it was "Basal Eurasian" rich Middle Easterners that in fact got a large proportion of their direct genetic DNA from Sub-Saharan Africans in the first place and not the other way around.
Is this correct?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: because Ice Age Eurasian populations without Basal Eurasian looked very different. You can see that in the link to bodyplan data below, where the Mesolithic/Epipalaeolithic population from the Levant, is more distant to Africans. Modern people from this region are closer to Africans..
Ok so what genetic lineage did these Mesolithic/Epipalaeolithic Levantine populations have if they didn't have Basal Eurasian?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Yes. But NE Africans also have admixture, so I personally wouldn't say that the drawing together of MENA is specifically because Middle Easteners have NE African ancestry.
For instance, though I believe Basal Eurasian is African, I do not believe that Africans with Basal Eurasian got all of it from their African side. Some of it left Africa, then came back. This is possible because by Neolithic times, all Eurasian populations in contact with Egypt, had Basal Eurasian. This is how you can get an Egyptian sample like Abusir, with a 'whitewashed' mtDNA profile, but with Basal Eurasian and other African ancestry still present.
This is why it means something significant that Nuerat Egyptians and Socotrians need Natufian to be modeled properly (rather than PPN)--it's a sign that their Basal Eurasian is more pristine although no doubt also mixed when compared to older African groups, which you can tell from the dynastic Egyptian mtDNA profiles.
quote:Ok so what genetic lineage did these Mesolithic/Epipalaeolithic Levantine populations have if they didn't have Basal Eurasian?
I doubt they completely lacked Basal Eurasian or African ancestry (the TMRCA of Y-DNA E-M123 in the Middle East is older than Natufians), but it would have been drastically less than what Natufians have. Although Natufians themselves varied in African ancestry (e.g. early el Wad, less African, later el Wad Natufian, more African).
^Natufians in an African direction in terms of brachial index (arm proportions), nose size, head measurements, compared to their own predecessors in the region.
So it seems to make sense that these predecessors would just be like Natufians, but with less African ancestry.
Some Natufians, like the woman below, give off the impression of having more ancestry from that older population:
Morphologically, this skull is perfectly European and belongs without question to the general Upper Palaeolithic type. It would also fit metri- cally into the female range for this group. It would, however, fit equally well into the North African series of Afalou bou Rummel, except that it is somewhat narrower nosed than the females of that group as known at present. The Races Of Europe https://archive.org/stream/racesofeurope031695mbp/racesofeurope031695mbp_djvu.txt Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Might the relatively robust features of “mechtoid” populations in North Africa like the Iberomaurusians reflect the Eurasian (as in Villabruna-like) ancestry we know they did have?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
It would help if we had robusticity info of more groups. Right now we just know some groups are relatively robust, others are relatively gracile, but with no good resolution of robusticity details in North Africa as a whole. But to answer your question we'd need to know specific data, as the quote about robust Taforalt applies to the 20th century Taforalt excavated by Roche (see quote about Taforalt excavations, above), not necessarily to Loosdrecht's Taforalt with some degree of Villabruna.
Aside from Loosdrecht's Taforalt morphological affinities being unknown, they're also taking surprisingly long with full examination of al Khiday remains (only teeth, so far; no body proportions, cranio-facial analyses, etc). But I remember Irish saying that their teeth were relatively robust compared to later Nubians, so you can see that there is lots of missing information. The main takeaway, though, is that there are levels of robusticity, with alKhiday (and African ancestors of Natufians) being less robust than Mesolithic Nubians, Afalou and Roche's Taforalt.
But my own view is that robusticity in North Africa does not come from outside (although outside groups may have contributed to it, here and there, locally). But I think most of it comes from populations holding the major population centers in North Africa easily accessible to excavators, while the gracile populations in North Africa come from places to the south and from refugia in North Africa that have proved more elusive to excavators.
Even though we haven't found those refugia yet, they must exist because these gracile groups with recognizably ancient Egyptian/Nubian features come out of the woodworks (Wengrow's cultural convergence of primary pastoral community) after big climatic pressures (e.g. Wild Nile, the 5.9 kiloyear event), implying that groups from unknown places eventually succeeded in taking control of the Nile and other population centers, from the older groups. Hence, the extreme visibility from that point on (in terms or archaeological finds), of pastoralist, Nubians, predynastics Egyptians, dynastics, etc. indicates some kind of transfer of control of population centers, to gracile groups that must have come from elsewhere.
This implies that the robusticity is mainly associated with African ancestry, perhaps ANA, Takarkori, etc (not Villabruna), otherwise all those population centers would have to be admixed with UP Europeans:
They are all assigned to a very distinctive and robust form of modern human, the Mechta-Afalou type or "Mechtoid." In fact, all human remains from North Africa from the period of the backed-bladelet industries are Mechtoid (Wendorf et al. 1986:73), closely resembling each other and differing from all but one of the few remains known from earlier periods (Vermeersch et al. 1998:481). The exception is the skeleton probably associated with the Upper Paleolithic chert mines at Nazlet Khater (see above) (Vermeersch et al. 1984). If the association is good, then the skeleton, which has been called "Mechtoid" (Vermeersch 1992:122), predates the backed-bladelet industries by some ten millennia Backed Bladelets Are a Foreign Country https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1525/ap3a.2002.12.1.31 Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Issues of robust vs. gracile populations can also be seen among East Eurasians populations as well like Sahulese/Australasians vs. Sundanese/'Negritos'.
But judging by everything pointed out about this gracile African type, this just confirms Tukuler's point about Sergi vindicated on the 'Mediterranean race' originating in Africa, which was later echoed by Carleton Coon even though he classified them as "caucasoid" or "white men" as seen in his work The Races of Europe particularly in Chapter 4 section 2-- Mediterranean Proper (hereafter meant when the word "Mediterranean" is used alone): Short stature, about 160 cm.; skull length 183-187 mm. male mean; vault height 132-137 mm. mean; cranial index means 73-75; browridges and bone development weak, face short, nose leptorrhine to mesorrhine. Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency.
Even Coon spoke of the spread of the Neolithic around the Mediterranean basin as being the result of the type above he calls "Proto-Mediterraneans". Cheikh Diop and others keenly pointed out that such types are merely a variant of African which Diop equates with "Negro" and even Dana Marniche described it in her 1994 paper "The Myth of the Mediterranean Race" which she references in her thread on Neolithic invasions.
So yeah I am beginning to agree that some of these experts are trying to pull a fast one when they cherry pick which skeletal remains they want to represent for that culture and which they want to extract DNA from. I notice that before the advent of molecular genetics the selections were far greater in terms of representation but now all of a sudden there are slim pickings??
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
There are probably some cherry picking going on (one must always make a selection) but one shall not forget that not all human remains contain enough useful DNA. Often the DNA can be so degraded that it is useless, or it can be heavily contaminated. And the economic resources around an excavation does maybe not always allow sampling for things like DNA, stable isotopes or other laboratory methods. But as the methods improve (and become cheaper) more samples will probably be taken of ancient DNA.
In certain countries there can also be political or religious obstacles for DNA-sampling and similar analyzes.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Issues of robust vs. gracile populations can also be seen among East Eurasians populations as well like Sahulese/Australasians vs. Sundanese/'Negritos'.
But judging by everything pointed out about this gracile African type, this just confirms Tukuler's point about Sergi vindicated on the 'Mediterranean race' originating in Africa, which was later echoed by Carleton Coon even though he classified them as "caucasoid" or "white men" as seen in his work The Races of Europe particularly in Chapter 4 section 2-- Mediterranean Proper (hereafter meant when the word "Mediterranean" is used alone): Short stature, about 160 cm.; skull length 183-187 mm. male mean; vault height 132-137 mm. mean; cranial index means 73-75; browridges and bone development weak, face short, nose leptorrhine to mesorrhine. Type already met in Portugal and Palestine in Late Mesolithic. Represents the paedomorphic or sexually undifferentiated Mediterranean form, and often carries a slight negroid tendency.
Even Coon spoke of the spread of the Neolithic around the Mediterranean basin as being the result of the type above he calls "Proto-Mediterraneans". Cheikh Diop and others keenly pointed out that such types are merely a variant of African which Diop equates with "Negro" and even Dana Marniche described it in her 1994 paper "The Myth of the Mediterranean Race" which she references in her thread on Neolithic invasions.
So yeah I am beginning to agree that some of these experts are trying to pull a fast one when they cherry pick which skeletal remains they want to represent for that culture and which they want to extract DNA from. I notice that before the advent of molecular genetics the selections were far greater in terms of representation but now all of a sudden there are slim pickings??
Keep in mind that, strictly speaking, there is little population affinity in gracile vs robust morphology (AFAIK), so I wouldn't speak of a gracile African type. It just so happens that the end of the Ice Age in MENA coincides with the decline of robust populations (Roche's Taforalt, Afalou, Mesolithic Nubians, Kiffians), and the spread of more gracile populations (Natufians, predynastics, Tenereans, and, no doubt, some SSA groups that ventured north). It's only because representatives of both morphologies show change in archaeological visibility (one less visible, the other more visible), that this comparison between robust vs gracile becomes useful for population affinity:
Phase 3 humans have more gracile skeletons and shorter stature for both males and females. They are buried most commonly in semi-flexed postures on either left or right sides (Figure 5D, E). Their crania are long, high and narrow, and their faces are taller with considerable alveolar prognathism (Figure 5C). Principal components analysis of craniometric data clearly distinguishes the mid-Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-m) from all other sampled populations, including the early Holocene population at Gobero, Iberomaurusian and Capsian populations from the Maghreb, ‘‘Mechtoids’’ from Mali and Mauritania, as well as much older Aterian samples (Figure 6). The morphological isolation of the mid-Holocene population from Gobero is particularly noteworthy, as several of the other populations sampled (WMC, Mali, Maur) are believed to be mid-Holocene contemporaries. Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002995
On the other hand, An- derson found similarities between the site 117 material [Mesolithic Nubians] and the European 'Cro-Magnon type' based on mor- phological traits: "In general morphology the skulls from site 117 resemble those of the so called Cro- Magnon type. All share a long and robust neurocra- nium, a short face with broad zygomatic arch, well developed continuos supraorbital ridges, and low rec- tangular orbits". However, these morphological simi- larities are rather non-distinct and thus can be detected in any prehistoric population. R. Pinhasi in: Palaeolithic Quarrying Sites in Upper and Middle Egypt https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9789058672667/palaeolithic-quarrying-sites-in-upper-and-middle-egypt/#bookTabs=1
BTW, included among the gracile populations, are Sub-Saharan African populations (not just N Africans). See the Lahr and Wright quote in the original post, that elMaestro quoted, for larger context.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes I understand that Sergi and Coon's Mediterranean grouping is based on more than just being gracile but a number of other metric traits. By the way, gracility seems to be the trend in all human populations.
Amerindians
Even among Sub-Saharans "negroes" are differing degrees of gracility with some skulls being robust while others look like the Kenyan man below.
The Kenyan male skulls is so gracile and pedomorphic that the features are are sexually ambiguous similar to predynastic Badarians.
In regards to Epipaleolithic Nubians like Jebel Sahaba, though these crania have been generally classified as "negroid" they clearly display other metric features that make them more racially ambiguous as well as the Braeur 1984 study shows.
Speaking of which, recall the findings on the Qarunian Woman by Keita. Upon her discovery, her features were said match those of modern negroes due to her gracility. Indeed, although Keita's findings show that the closest group tempero-spatially is that of Jebel Sahabans, overall the closest group are modern day Kenyans and Tanzanians which makes her appearance somewhat enigmatic. Jebel Sahabans themselves are nonmetrically an outlier compared to other Sub-Saharans.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: I was just reading through this thread again and wanted to ask about the Al-Khiday remains again.
It has been mentioned throughout this thread that Late Pleistocene populations such as Taforalt, Afalou, West Asians, as well as Upper Palaeolithic Europeans are distinct from the Nubian Al-Khiday remains and thus Egyptian/Nubian pre-dynastics. My two questions are:
1. Which population(s) exactly are the Late-Pleistocene West Asians? Are they Natufians or were there more?
2. What proof or evidence is there that that these Eurasian populations didn't enter Africa at some point at or even prior to the Late Pleistocene and admix with Negroid or other some other indigenous Sub-Saharan population to create the Al-Khiday morphology/population?
Is there any chance the Al-Khiday morphology/population could've originated as a combination of an older Eurasian population AND an indigenous African population which would explain why Al-Khiday differs to Late Pleistocene Taforalt, Afalou, Western Asians and even Late Pleistocene Nubians (Jebel Sahaba) in the first place?
As Always thank you for your continued support.
If you acknowledge that Late Pleistocene Maghrebis and West Asians look different from Al-Khiday then why would say the last is somehow an "admixture"?? Why does admixture need to account for diversity of morphological features in Africans, especially since Africa is supposedly the biological birthplace of humanity and thus harboring the most genetic diversity??
Funny how there are morphological differences in Eurasian populations including some in Southeast Asia who look 'Sub-Saharan' yet nobody is saying these Eurasians have African admixture. just a glaring double-standard I've noticed.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: There are probably some cherry picking going on (one must always make a selection) but one shall not forget that not all human remains contain enough useful DNA. Often the DNA can be so degraded that it is useless, or it can be heavily contaminated. And the economic resources around an excavation does maybe not always allow sampling for things like DNA, stable isotopes or other laboratory methods. But as the methods improve (and become cheaper) more samples will probably be taken of ancient DNA.
In certain countries there can also be political or religious obstacles for DNA-sampling and similar analyzes.
But as Swenet has pointed out, cherry picking samples can skew the data both in anthropometry as well as genetics. Why for example are Late Period Abusir Egyptians who are very likely of foreign ancestry suppose to represent all ancient Egyptians since the Pyramid Age??
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Funny how there are morphological differences in Eurasian populations including some in Southeast Asia who look 'Sub-Saharan' yet nobody is saying these Eurasians have African admixture. just a glaring double-standard I've noticed.
It's partly because almost everyone is trained to think that modern Africans are linked to the African continent by some sort of eternal essentialism, rather than having inherited it over time after the decline of populations that were dominant in the palaeolithic.
Hence, people tend to only try to make sense of palaeolithic African populations by referencing the variation in modern Africa. Recall Rightmire who can see no alternative other than applying this either/or paradign where Rift Valley populations can only be either negro or caucasoid, because he will not let palaeolithic variations speak for themselves, and let them be their own thing:
This is especially clear in the case of individuals from Bromhead's Site, Willey's Kopje, and Nakuru, and the evidence hardly suggests post-Pleistocene domination of the Rift and surrounding territory by “Mediterranean” Caucasoids, as has been claimed. Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330420304
It's really sad that phds apparently cannot figure out some of the things we've been talking about in many places, but especially in a number of recent threads (e.g. the 3 abstracts thread). So, of course, the quality of many conversations elsewhere, especially in yt and the blogs, stoops to low levels. Given the quality of the conversations elsewhere, it's no wonder that LoStranger doesn't seem satisfied with info already posted (no offense to LoStranger). You only have to click away from ES and visit another site, to find some slick talking influencer online who gives off the impression of expertise. We've talked about the negative effects of the blogs, in the 3 abstracts thread.
Bottom line is, we can't find modern Africans in the available Palaeolithic populations. The sensible interpretation from this is that the Africans you do find, are predominantly indigenous; not that the Africans you do find, are hybrids with Eurasians. If this is not the sensible interpretation, the bloggers and phds can come here and tell us which palaeolithic Africans are the Africans then, because modern Africans as we know them, largely aren't there. Even in South Africa, far away from any likely scenario of Eurasian migration, palaeolithic remains like Hofmyer or Fishhoek or Boskop, don't look like Khoisan or Bantu speakers.
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: I was just reading through this thread again and wanted to ask about the Al-Khiday remains again.
It has been mentioned throughout this thread that Late Pleistocene populations such as Taforalt, Afalou, West Asians, as well as Upper Palaeolithic Europeans are distinct from the Nubian Al-Khiday remains and thus Egyptian/Nubian pre-dynastics. My two questions are:
1. Which population(s) exactly are the Late-Pleistocene West Asians? Are they Natufians or were there more?
2. What proof or evidence is there that that these Eurasian populations didn't enter Africa at some point at or even prior to the Late Pleistocene and admix with Negroid or other some other indigenous Sub-Saharan population to create the Al-Khiday morphology/population?
Is there any chance the Al-Khiday morphology/population could've originated as a combination of an older Eurasian population AND an indigenous African population which would explain why Al-Khiday differs to Late Pleistocene Taforalt, Afalou, Western Asians and even Late Pleistocene Nubians (Jebel Sahaba) in the first place?
As Always thank you for your continued support.
If you acknowledge that Late Pleistocene Maghrebis and West Asians look different from Al-Khiday then why would say the last is somehow an "admixture"?? Why does admixture need to account for diversity of morphological features in Africans, especially since Africa is supposedly the biological birthplace of humanity and thus harboring the most genetic diversity??
Funny how there are morphological differences in Eurasian populations including some in Southeast Asia who look 'Sub-Saharan' yet nobody is saying these Eurasians have African admixture. just a glaring double-standard I've noticed.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: There are probably some cherry picking going on (one must always make a selection) but one shall not forget that not all human remains contain enough useful DNA. Often the DNA can be so degraded that it is useless, or it can be heavily contaminated. And the economic resources around an excavation does maybe not always allow sampling for things like DNA, stable isotopes or other laboratory methods. But as the methods improve (and become cheaper) more samples will probably be taken of ancient DNA.
In certain countries there can also be political or religious obstacles for DNA-sampling and similar analyzes.
But as Swenet has pointed out, cherry picking samples can skew the data both in anthropometry as well as genetics. Why for example are Late Period Abusir Egyptians who are very likely of foreign ancestry suppose to represent all ancient Egyptians since the Pyramid Age??
I get the double standard trust me. I've seen some pictures of Melanesians that look almost indistinguishable from West/Central Africans and you're completely right on that point.
But we gotta be honest in saying when we look at populations from Lower Nubia/Upper Egypt as well as folk from the Horn Of Africa we do see a lot Eurasian ancestry.
I'm not saying that this craniometric diversity isn't all the way completely indigenous to Africa it could very well be. But I get why many people question the indigenous "claim". Nile Valley Africans (excluding Nilotics) and Horn Africans ARE an admixed group. We literally have the genetic evidence for this via Hodgson 2014, Hollfelder et al. (2017) and Sirak et al. 2021 and we've no real evidence to counter the strong possibility they've always been a mixed African-Eurasian population.
Ask yourself, if this craniology is indeed indigenous to Africa because of Al-Khiday. Why hasn't it changed drastically with the addition of large Eurasian ancestry entering into Nile Valley and Horn populations? The fact Al-Khiday resembles Bronze Age Nile Valley populations and by extension Horn populations wouldn't this suggest their genetic legacy also is somewhat similar, ie: having significant Eurasian admixture?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: I get the double standard trust me. I've seen some pictures of Melanesians that look almost indistinguishable from West/Central Africans and you're completely right on that point.
But we gotta be honest in saying when we look at populations from Lower Nubia/Upper Egypt as well as folk from the Horn Of Africa we do see a lot Eurasian ancestry.
I'm not saying that this craniometric diversity isn't all the way completely indigenous to Africa it could very well be. But I get why many people question the indigenous "claim". Nile Valley Africans (excluding Nilotics) and Horn Africans ARE an admixed group. We literally have the genetic evidence for this via Hodgson 2014, Hollfelder et al. (2017) and Sirak et al. 2021 and we've no real evidence to counter the strong possibility they've always been a mixed African-Eurasian population.
Ask yourself, if this craniology is indeed indigenous to Africa because of Al-Khiday. Why hasn't it changed drastically with the addition of large Eurasian ancestry entering into Nile Valley and Horn populations? The fact Al-Khiday resembles Bronze Age Nile Valley populations and by extension Horn populations wouldn't this suggest their genetic legacy also is somewhat similar, ie: having significant Eurasian admixture? [/QB]
I don't think you get it.
Here's why.
Remember when I posted this as a response to your assessment of Jebel Sahaba. I noticed your questions have the same undertone despite being given clarity since then. Once you know what you should know and get what you claim to get, seeing clearly admixed Nubian samples should raise obvious questions. None of which you are asking.
Craniometric diversity has been shifting and has been homogenized since the Neolothic. In my response to you I pointed it out. Continuous bidirectional admixture in more recent times caused the decrease in both Morphological diversity and Genetic diversity, Which is why Modern populations outside of Africa are closer to Africans (including Yoruba) than their paleolithic counterparts.
Alkhiday as well as Gebel Ramlah having relatively outlying positions compared to more recent samples is clear evidence of that as well.
These clearly mixed African samples your alluding to, have clear dates for their Eurasian admixture, none of which approaches the age of Al-Khiday. They also carry Eurasian haplogroups with young ages in comparison to Paleolithic Africans, so why would any of those inferences be relevant to explain morphological diversity absent from modern day populations.
And lastly which is the most important, and as Swenet points out just a couple posts above. Modern Africans have developed since the late pleistocene. So using the traits of modern Africans to retroactively and anachronistically determine the "Africanity" of older populations is erroneous. Which is what you tried to do with Jebel Sahaba before and you're still doing it.
Quick question.. Do you know that our earliest West African Negroid can cluster with Iberomaurasians and Capsians? Do you know that Tenereans would look more stereotypically negroid than Kiffians though the former is related to predynastics and the later to Bantu's. How do you personally reconcile with these facts?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: But we gotta be honest in saying when we look at populations from Lower Nubia/Upper Egypt as well as folk from the Horn Of Africa we do see a lot Eurasian ancestry.
I'm not saying that this craniometric diversity isn't all the way completely indigenous to Africa it could very well be. But I get why many people question the indigenous "claim". Nile Valley Africans (excluding Nilotics) and Horn Africans ARE an admixed group. We literally have the genetic evidence for this via Hodgson 2014, Hollfelder et al. (2017) and Sirak et al. 2021 and we've no real evidence to counter the strong possibility they've always been a mixed African-Eurasian population.
Ask yourself, if this craniology is indeed indigenous to Africa because of Al-Khiday. Why hasn't it changed drastically with the addition of large Eurasian ancestry entering into Nile Valley and Horn populations? The fact Al-Khiday resembles Bronze Age Nile Valley populations and by extension Horn populations wouldn't this suggest their genetic legacy also is somewhat similar, ie: having significant Eurasian admixture?
When do you propose this Eurasian ancestry entered North Africa, especially if you're suggesting the pre-Mesolithic al-Khiday population could have had it and then passed down to historical populations in the region?
Posted by LoStranger (Member # 23740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Craniometric diversity has been shifting and has been homogenized since the Neolothic. In my response to you I pointed it out. Continuous bidirectional admixture in more recent times caused the decrease in both Morphological diversity and Genetic diversity, Which is why Modern populations outside of Africa are closer to Africans (including Yoruba) than their paleolithic counterparts.
Ok but if this diversity has been homogenized since the Neolithic (which I can fully accept) how does this change the fact of my claim about Bronze Age Pre-Dynastics being admixed with Eurasians? The only thing that would change in my position is that certain Eurasian populations are also admixed too (with Africans) due to bi-directional gene flow.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: These clearly mixed African samples your alluding to, have clear dates for their Eurasian admixture, none of which approaches the age of Al-Khiday.
Eurasian back-flow into Africa has been happening since the Upper-Palaeolithic.
Who is to say it couldn't have penetrated deeper into Africa and affected certain populations ie: Al Khiday? I acknowledge such an event would not affect Al-Khiday as deeply as it would effect Coastal Maghrebis/Lower Egyptians course.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: And lastly which is the most important, and as Swenet points out just a couple posts above. Modern Africans have developed since the late pleistocene. So using the traits of modern Africans to retroactively and anachronistically determine the "Africanity" of older populations is erroneous. Which is what you tried to do with Jebel Sahaba before and you're still doing it.
Ok I think I get this point. To use an analogy is it sort of like when people used Kennewick man to prove he was a Caucasoid and not Native American? Even though subsequent dna analysis eventually proved that he was related to Native Americans?
Just curiously why then do people use Negroid Jebel Shaba to use paint the idea they were a "West African like" Black population who were victims of a race war by craniometrically distinct Eurasian/Levantine population?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Quick question.. Do you know that our earliest West African Negroid can cluster with Iberomaurasians and Capsians? Do you know that Tenereans would look more stereotypically negroid than Kiffians though the former is related to predynastics and the later to Bantu's. How do you personally reconcile with these facts?
Wouldn't the fact that earliest West Negroid clusters with Iberoumaurians and Caspians indicate some Eurasian admixture within them? We know the even the modern day Yoruba have around 12.5% Iberoumaurian admixture via Lazaridis 2018. Who is to say earlier West African negroids don't have higher Iberoumaurian admixture since you're saying they cluster with them.
As for Tenerians yes I knew they looked more stereotypically Negroid than Kiffians. However I have never seen/read a study that indicates them being close to Pre-Dynastic Nile Valley populations which study shows this? Furthermore I've also never heard of the Kiffian being more related to Bantu/recent Sub-Saharan West/Central Africans than the Tenerians. I thought the Tenerians were closer to recent Bantus due to them being shorter than Kiffians, prognathous and more more gracile.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: Ok but if this diversity has been homogenized since the Neolithic (which I can fully accept) how does this change the fact of my claim about Bronze Age Pre-Dynastics being admixed with Eurasians? The only thing that would change in my position is that certain Eurasian populations are also admixed too (with Africans) due to bi-directional gene flow.
Eurasian back-flow into Africa has been happening since the Upper-Palaeolithic.
Who is to say it couldn't have penetrated deeper into Africa and affected certain populations ie: Al Khiday? I acknowledge such an event would not affect Al-Khiday as deeply as it would effect Coastal Maghrebis/Lower Egyptians course.
Ok I think I get this point. To use an analogy is it sort of like when people used Kennewick man to prove he was a Caucasoid and not Native American? Even though subsequent dna analysis eventually proved that he was related to Native Americans?
Just curiously why then do people use Negroid Jebel Shaba to use paint the idea they were a "West African like" Black population who were victims of a race war by craniometrically distinct Eurasian/Levantine population?
Wouldn't the fact that earliest West Negroid clusters with Iberoumaurians and Caspians indicate some Eurasian admixture within them? We know the even the modern day Yoruba have around 12.5% Iberoumaurian admixture via Lazaridis 2018. Who is to say earlier West African negroids don't have higher Iberoumaurian admixture since you're saying they cluster with them.
As for Tenerians yes I knew they looked more stereotypically Negroid than Kiffians. However I have never seen/read a study that indicates them being close to Pre-Dynastic Nile Valley populations which study shows this? Furthermore I've also never heard of the Kiffian being more related to Bantu/recent Sub-Saharan West/Central Africans than the Tenerians. I thought the Tenerians were closer to recent Bantus due to them being shorter than Kiffians, prognathous and more more gracile.
Bronze age Egyptians have clear Eurasian admixture, I don't think there's a place to insert any counterclaim to that fact. But we're telling you that certain components of the past existed in Africa before neighboring regions outside and yet with no evidence you're attributing these components to admixture from outside. The admixture dates for Eurasian admixed east Africans are all young (relatively speaking.) And the markers associated with them are also young not only in Africa, but in general (see A.Egyptian mtDNA profile. and Y-Macrohaplogroup J)
Think about what you're insinuating. Asselar is classified as morphologically Negroid not morphologically mixed. Before you were trying to attribute Al-khiday's morphology to foreign admixture. So are you now saying that Eurasian admixture is responsible for negroid morphology (keeping in mind Iberomaurasian/Asselar's and Jebel Sahaba can cluster) or B-group/East African Capsian morphology seen in Al-khiday? You can't have it both ways this is the exact same thing Antalas tried.
We have clear Eurasian backmigrants represented in the morphology of Iberomaurasians, from robusticity to post cranial traits (cold adaptation). And we have pre-Natufian samples who don't trend in the direction of Africans in general. The main pervasive Eurasian component is the Natufian component. And just a quick heads up: Those couple of traits you listed distinguishing Tenereans from Kiffians describes how Natufians changed from their local Eurasian predecessors. There's no space for a Eurasian population to simultaneously bring robust mechtoid traits in the West and Afro-Med traits in the east, especially if we can't find one or the other or both in Eurasia prior.
Your question about the race war also doesn't make sense. The reason why people would paint that scenario that way is because they want to believe that, but Jebel-Sahaba falls out of the range of modern African variation. And continuously stating that those East Africans were West African makes no sense to me. In fact JS and Mesolithic Nubians could have been related to the ancestors of modern day pastoral-nilotic populations of S.Sudan, there's only evidence that suggest the more gracialized "Saharo-complex" populations came from west, including samples from the Malian Sahara. See pre-Leiterband. You seem stuck in true negroland my freind.
Also some information for you regarding Gobero; Kiffian/Tenerian:
"A thriving pastoral economy focused on cattle thrived in the central Sahara during the seventh to sixth millennia b.p., associated with the Tenerian lithic industry (Carter and Clark 1976; Paris 2000; Roset 1987; Tixier 1962). At Adrar Bous, which is in the process of another round of radiocarbon dating, the Tenerian fauna is almost exclusively cattle, with no caprines, no fish, and some hartebeest (Alcelaphus), and gazelle species. The Tenerian is marked by special handling of cattle remains. At Adrar Bous, cattle body segments were reassembled after meat was consumed, and/or bones burned well beyond the stage expected in simple roasting (Gifford-Gonzalez n.d.; Paris 2000). In other cases entire animals, usually young cows, were interred (Paris 2000). The well-known young cow from Adrar Bous (Carter and Clark 1976) was interpreted as a natural death based on its position and lack of a discernible pit. However, interment of young cows has also been noted in the “Late Neolithic” of Nabta Playa in the Egyptian Eastern Desert, where a heifer was found buried under a megalithic construction (Applegate et al. 2001; Wendorf and Schild 1998); other localities have interred body segments. Some Predynastic sites also have cow interments (F. Hassan, pers. comm. 1997), a practice that continues in association with temple construction into the Dynastic era." African Archeology Stahl 2005
---
The Kiffians and the Tenerians represent two distinct physical types, associated with very different subsistence patterns. Artefacts associated with the Phase II occupation at Gobero include microliths, bone harpoons and hooks, dotted wavy-line pottery, and zigzag impressed motifs. It is therefore likely that the Phase II occupants were fisher-gatherers, hunting hippos and (perhaps) Nilo-Saharan speaking. As the region aridified the Kiffians disappeared and were replaced a millennium later by the Tenerians. A very small amount of cattle bones were recovered, leading to controversy about their pastoralist lifestyle. Garcea (2013) strongly asserts this was the case, but an alternative interpretation is that they were hunters who were trading with pastoralists further north. The the Evolution of Foraging and the Transition To Pastoralism in the Sahara. R. Blench 2019
---
Around 8,000 BP (ca. 7,000 calBC) worsening desiccation of the Sahara forced proto-Bantu precursors (Figure 1) south into Nigeria and Cameroon. Between 4,000-3,000 BP (ca. 2500-1200 calBC) this now- agriculturalist proto-Bantu population began to expand outward. Initial movement may have been bidirectional: some moved south along the coast and others skirted the forest toward eastern Africa. This purported, initial east/west dichotomy yielded two streams of migration, i.e., the “Western” and “Eastern” Bantu. [..] For an initial impression of affinities a full 36-trait MMD comparison was undertaken; the distance matrix is illustrated in Figure 4. Some affinities support the above origin/migration scenario in that the oldest, Western Sahara sample from Gobero (GOK) is close to some from West Africa to which they purportedly migrated (i.e., GHA, TOB and NIC samples); some grouping of Western and Eastern Bantu samples is evident. Figure Tracing the Bantu Expansion from it's Source Irish 2016
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: But we gotta be honest in saying when we look at populations from Lower Nubia/Upper Egypt as well as folk from the Horn Of Africa we do see a lot Eurasian ancestry.
What do you mean by "a lot"? Exactly how much Eurasian ancestry are we talking about, especially from ancient times?? I think one problem is that Eurasian admixture in Africa tends to be exaggerated or overstated.
Take for example the Horn of Africa. It often gets touted that populations in that region have Eurasian ancestry 40-50 percent.
Yet here is a more accurate breakdown based on autosomal DNA.
^ Note the groups with the highest Eurasian ancestry are those closest to the coast particularly Eritrea and northern Ethiopia the bulk of ancestry in the Horn is still African. Even then, when it comes to autosomal markers there is still question as to how much of that allegedly Eurasian ancestry is Eurasian considering that according to that chart Wolayta are 34% 'Eurasian'.
Wolayta
Yet according to Ethiohelix's data in regards to their uniparental lineages..
The Wolayta have 0% Eurasian paternal lineages
And whatever Eurasian maternal lineages they have does not even reach 20%.
And it's not just the Wolayta, when uniparental markers are used for other groups the amount of Eurasian ancestry is lower in those populations compared to when autosomal markers are used.
Then there's the issue of how early this back-migration happened.
quote:Eurasian back-flow into Africa has been happening since the Upper-Palaeolithic.
Who is to say it couldn't have penetrated deeper into Africa and affected certain populations ie: Al Khiday? I acknowledge such an event would not affect Al-Khiday as deeply as it would effect Coastal Maghrebis/Lower Egyptians course.
I assume the above is based on the Mota genome study which turned out have an error. This is why according to that study even Southern African Aboriginal Khoisan groups were initially mistaken to have "Eurasian" ancestry. As far as I know all the accurate data shows Eurasian ancestry (pre-Islamic times) is limited to the Horn region with the earliest dating to late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age times. So again, while I'm not denying Eurasian genetic influence, I do question how much and how early it was there.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by LoStranger: [qb] But we gotta be honest in saying when we look at populations from Lower Nubia/Upper Egypt as well as folk from the Horn Of Africa we do see a lot Eurasian ancestry.
What do you mean by "a lot"? Exactly how much Eurasian ancestry are we talking about, especially from ancient times?? I think one problem is that Eurasian admixture in Africa tends to be exaggerated or overstated.
Take for example the Horn of Africa. It often gets touted that populations in that region have Eurasian ancestry 40-50 percent.
Yet here is a more accurate breakdown based on autosomal DNA.
^ Note the groups with the highest Eurasian ancestry are those closest to the coast particularly Eritrea and northern Ethiopia the bulk of ancestry in the Horn is still African. Even then, when it comes to autosomal markers there is still question as to how much of that allegedly Eurasian ancestry is Eurasian considering that according to that chart Wolayta are 34% 'Eurasian'.
Yet according to Ethiohelix's data in regards to their uniparental lineages..
The Wolayta have 0% Eurasian paternal lineages
And whatever Eurasian maternal lineages they have does not even reach 20%.
And it's not just the Wolayta, when uniparental markers are used for other groups the amount of Eurasian ancestry is lower in those populations compared to when autosomal markers are used.
Then there's the issue of how early this back-migration happened.
Autosomal percentage often don't parallels the sex chromosome. So you can take both into consideration (unless you have an argument one is better than the other)
Tracing the Route of Modern Humans out of Africa by Using 225 Human Genome Sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians Luca Pagani 2014
Figure S2. Frequency of African (shades of green) and non African (shades of grey) mtDNA (A) and Ychr (B) haplotypes.
____________________________
I was going to make an image of both A and B of that chart but decided not to because I cannot find an version of the A part of the chart (including enlarging it with the pdf controls) could not find a version where you can distinguish what color is what near the beginning of the color key Its too hard to distinguish the color differences between X,T, R0 and K, the resolution is not good enough although it can be seen here what they are calling Eurasian," shades of gray" (including what appear to be black), that these total virtually 15% of the Wolyata mtDNA and nothing Eurasian for Y groups (as compared to the 34.1% in the autosomal)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ It's not a matter of just "sex chromosomes" but other evidence of ancestry from uniparental lineages which include mitochondrial DNA. Yes, I'm aware uniparental lineages don't necessarily match autosomal markers exactly in proportion, they are still good indicators nonetheless. The Wolayta are just one example, but there are others.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary of the error found in the Mota study. Aboriginal Southern Africans are genetically the most distant to Eurasians with West Africans being closer in relation to Eurasians so obviously the claim of Eurasian ancestry among them is false.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ It's not a matter of just "sex chromosomes" but other evidence of ancestry from uniparental lineages which include mitochondrial DNA. Yes, I'm aware uniparental lineages don't necessarily match autosomal markers exactly in proportion, they are still good indicators nonetheless. The Wolayta are just one example, but there are others.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary of the error found in the Mota study. Aboriginal Southern Africans are genetically the most distant to Eurasians with West Africans being closer in relation to Eurasians so obviously the claim of Eurasian ancestry among them is false.
While you are correct about the call back on the results of the Mota study, I wouldn't rule out all possible Eurasian ancestry in West Africa by conduit of North West Africa. However like I been saying for a couple of years, Eurasian ancestry of that nature is irrelevant. We'll eventually learn that the bulk of the ancestry regardless of what it looks like (see comments/abstract on Takarkori) is African anyways. They'll continue to hype up similarities to Iberomaurasians and Natufians in the meantime but we should all know wassup at this point.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Then there's the issue of how much of that "Eurasian" ancestry is proto-OOA that originated in Africa.
I think this is the theory that Swenet is suggesting which explains why populations like the Dogon show 'Eurasian' autosomal signals despite beign 100% African in uniparental lineages.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Bottom line is, we can't find modern Africans in the available Palaeolithic populations. The sensible interpretation from this is that the Africans you do find, are predominantly indigenous; not that the Africans you do find, are hybrids with Eurasians. If this is not the sensible interpretation, the bloggers and phds can come here and tell us which Palaeolithic Africans are the Africans then, because modern Africans as we know them, largely aren't there. Even in South Africa, far away from any likely scenario of Eurasian migration, Palaeolithic remains like Hofmyer or Fishhoek or Boskop, don't look like Khoisan or Bantu speakers.
What's funny is that many years ago in this forum the troll EvilEuro kept bringing up the notion that the modern 'Negro' racial type is something relatively recent in terms of geological time. What you're saying seems to concur with that. Then again the same can be said of other so-called 'racial' types.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I just busted your ass for posting only 1/3 of Hanihara's PCO chart! LOL Whereas I did not omit anything since the quote I cited was Irish's own summary describing the nonmetric nature of North Africans alone NOT Africans from the Horn who are geographically Sub-Saharan but since you bring them up, it's interesting that although nonmetrically they are 'North African' metrically they are considered intermediate between microdontic North Africans and other East Africans who are mesodontic.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
So you cite a source supporting my whole argument that Egyptians as North Africans are biologically intermediate between Sub-Saharans and Eurasians but are still Africans. I guess this is the cunning of reason. LOL 
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
