...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Because some fools don't know how to make their own thread about the race of kemet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] Cass is either an outright liar OR totally deluded and misguided. Either way, he is erroneous! [QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [qb] You're mistaken; Egypt is a trans-continental country. Even if it wasn't (and Sinai Peninsula was classified as Africa), we would still expect Levant ties to Lower Egypt based on geographical closeness; north Egypt and south Levant are not discontinuous landmasses, they're connected, i.e. the Sinai Peninsula is a land-bridge between the two continents - Eurasia and Africa.[/qb][/QUOTE]Correction. Egypt lies squarely in Africa with the exception of the Sinai which is truly transcontinental, however Egypt is a little more transcontinental than the nation of Djibouti which almost touches Yemen. The fact that Egypt does touch the Levant (which geologically along with Arabia was once part of the African tectonic plate) only means that it was easier for populations to cross which they indeed did, but to presume that the populations of ancient Egypt especially in its early period was somehow more related to Eurasians than other Africans is an outdated fallacy. [QUOTE][qb]You repeat these claims, but they're unsubstantiated. Metrics vs. non-metrics has been debated since at least the 1960s; I would argue the former are more reliable, not latter. This is because non-metrics don't capture the complete morphology/surface-area of the skull, so they aren't an accurate measure of overall similarity; most non-metrics in studies are confined to limited cranial areas, particularly the jaw.[/qb][/QUOTE][b]LOL[/b] My claims have been substatiated by hundreds of studies and it is pretty much consensus in bio-anthropology that metric traits while helpful in assessing populations to an extent is still not as accurate as non-metric traits because metric traits are more typological than they are genetical and metric traits from one population may closely resemble those of another population without close genetic ties. Non-metric traits on the other hand are genetical and correspond more closely to direct heredity, though not as accurate as molecular genetics, they provide better assessment of population genetics than metric traits for reasons I will show. [QUOTE][qb]Who is geographically closer? For example I predict Somalis are closer genetically to Italians, than Zulu or Bushmen. Depends what western African populations, because like you said West Africa includes sub-Saharan and Saharan (north) populations.[/qb][/QUOTE]Idiot, population relations are not based solely on geographic distance or proximity but rather genetics via recent common ancestry and/or gene-flow. The irony is that [i]some[/i] Italians, particularly those in the southern areas and especially in Sicily are indeed related to Africans such as Somalis via their African E-M78 paternal lineage but then again so too are certain South African bushmen such as the !Kung and especially the Khwe via their E-M35 paternal lineage. The difference is that the former are Europeans admixed with recent (black) Africans whereas the latter case is Africans mixing with fellow Africans. [b]LOL[/b] And just to prove how inferior craniometrics are in assessing genetic relations and how useless geographic distance is, let’s turn to a favorite tool that you Euronuts use, namely the MCLUST algorithm results based on Howells’ data set and the centroid value distances between the clusters: [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/TP5wU-TMXJI/AAAAAAAADAM/T5FWY0cIZz8/s1600/distance.png[/IMG] The first thing that immediately stands out is that the racial group of “Caucasoid” is inflated in diversity by being split into two clusters—“Linear Caucasoid” and “Lateral Caucasoid”—while there is only a single “Negroid” cluster with “Bushmen” forming their own cluster and interestingly no “mongoloid” cluster but instead an “East Asian” one and the Buriat Mongols forming their own cluster. I’m assuming the “Amerindians” cluster is based on the Howells Arikara sample which is separate from the “Santa Cruz” sample even though both are Amerindians. Neanderthals as an entirely separate species is of course an outlier most distant to all other human clusters. All this aside note the discrepancies of some of the values. 1.The distance between “Negroid” and “Bushman” clusters is 24.5, but the cluster to which the Negroid one is closest to is the “East Asian” one at a value of 17.6. The second least distant clusters are the “Linear Caucasian” and “Andaman” at the same value of 19.8. Obviously these values contradict the actual genetic relations of these populations much less the vast geographic distances. 2.The Andamanese though both geographically and genetically closest to indigenous Australians of all the clusters listed only match the “Australoid” at 29.2 after “Amerindian” (28.4), “Santa Cruz” (26.6), “Linear Caucasoid” (23.4), and “East Asian” (21.1), with the “Negroid” cluster being the closest again at 19.8. 3.Australoids are closest to “Negroids” (22.4), then “Linear Caucasoids” (24.6), then “Santa Cruz” (25.4), then “East Asian” at 27.3. 4.East Asians are closest to “Linear Caucasoids” (16.2), then “Negroids” (17.6), then Mokapu/Easter Islanders (17.7), then Amerindians (18.1), then “Andaman” (21.1). Excluding Neanderthals, the most distant cluster is the Buriat (32.9) even though they are closest to the “East Asians” and technically [i]are[/i] East Asians, then “Bushmen” (32.7), then “Eskimo” (27.8), then “Australoid” (27.3), then Santa Cruz (22.4), then “Lateral Caucasoid” (22.1). 5.The value between “Amerindians” and “Santa Cruz” is 14.7, the former then clusters with “Linear Caucasoids” (17.8), then East Asians (18.1), then “Lateral Caucasoid” (18.5). The latter then clusters with “Linear Caucasoids” (20.7), then East Asians (22.4), then “Lateral Caucasoid” (23.6). Despite their geographic proximity, the “Eskimo” clusters with “Amerindians” at a value of 42 and with “Santa Cruz” at a value of 38.8. All in all, the values do NOT correspond with actual genetics or with even geographic distance and note that the two divisions of “Caucasoid” used conveniently clusters with disparate populations across the board. [QUOTE][qb]The Sahara desert as a barrier or non-barrier is irrelevant (and I've actually argued since 2013 it was [i]not[/i] a barrier), those populations in north Africa are distinguishable to those further south. Nothing falsifies Brace's model of clines.[/qb][/QUOTE]Yes, North Africans craniometrically are as distinguishable from sub-Saharans as northeast Asians are from southeast Asians but this does not mean genetically disparate. Also, there is more genetic distinction between Maghrebi (western) North Africans and Mashriqi (eastern) North Africans than there is between Maghrebi and sub-Saharan West Africans and between Mashriqi and sub-Saharan East Africans. And I not only showed how relying on metrics is flawed but Brace’s model of clines has been falsified by many studies showing recent gene-flow that refutes clinal models. [QUOTE][qb]I don't believe in OOA. I've always criticized it. I'm arguing for a long-term isolation-by-distance model. Also, Brace is a critic of Out of Africa.[/qb][/QUOTE]OOA is almost consensus in bio-anthropology as proven by molecular genetics as shown time and again in this very forum. [URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005130]The theory that all humans have African roots[/URL]; [URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008310;p=1]Archaeological Revelation in Oman Changes Views on OOA Migrations[/URL]; [URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000851;p=1]Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity[/URL]; [URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009481]Migration Route Out of Africa Unresolved - Keita 2016[/URL]; [URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=006653]OUT-OF-AFRICA, the peopling of continents and islands: tracing uniparental gene trees[/URL] [QUOTE][qb]Depends what populations you mean, but I generally disagree with this.[/qb][/QUOTE]The populations I mean are predynastic to dynastic ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans in general but mainly Sub-Saharan east Africans. Your disagreement with this is based on what again? I already showed you genetic evidence of Egyptians and their Nubian kin sharing maternal clades (Hpa I) and paternal clades (haplotype IV) as well as Benin variety of sickle-cell disease with sub-Saharan West Africans, can you show such genetic ties with modern Middle Easterners much less Europeans?? And now I just showed you how using craniometrics to prove genetic relations is faulty and especially using the Howells dataset. [IMG]https://s21.postimg.org/b1yib660n/MAP.png[/IMG] Funny that you posted the above map on MCLUST from Dienekes’ site as proof that ancient Egyptians cluster closer to those European populations i.e. Zalavar and Berg than to sub-Saharans, yet we have the below from [URL=http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/world-craniometric-analysis-with-mclust.html]Dienekes himself[/URL]: Ashraf said: [i]If I am not mistaken the first table shows that African Egyptians' skulls are from the same type of the European norses(cluster 1)and different from the African Zulus and Bushmen skulls(cluster 13) although 4 Egyptians and 1 Norse cluster with the Africans!!![/i] To which Dienekes said: [i]Yes, with Zalavar too, [b]but remember that this is a single Egyptian series and there is variability in the ancient Egyptian osteological material.[/b][/i] Of course Dienekes is in his own opaque way is being modest by telling only half the truth. As I and others have said, the Egyptian series in the Howells data set is from northern Lower Egypt from the late periods of Egyptian history and is actually [i]atypical[/i] of native Egyptians. Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski said it better herself: [i] Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations,[b] mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.[/b] The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. [b]These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample.[/b] Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples. The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. [b]Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample *cannot be considered* to be a typical Egyptian series.[/b][/i] So you can give it up with the Howells crap. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3