...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
How can SSA ancestry=True Negro and Niger Kongo, when....
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] Bass has nothing if he can't produce a verbatim Swenet quote The Peabody Museum thread is a good start to locate something. But as I have said xyyman and others in the forum have different opinions [/qb][/QUOTE]Woman don't make me angry.......... [QUOTE][b]Swenet Member Member # 17303 Rate Member Icon 1 posted September 15, 2018 03:30 Profile for Swenet Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote quote: Volume 57, no. 1. 1966. A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania, by Michael Crichton. Link This is why the Afrocentric argument is bogus. It's clear that in the period between 4000BC and dynastic Egypt, Egypt was closer to late dynastic Egyptians and modern Egyptians than to most other Africans below the Sahara. And it's clear why this is the case. Eurasian migration to Egypt (which eventually gave rise to modern Egyptians) brought back Egyptian ancestry. This is what was explained to people over several years with the breakdown of EEF-related DNA, for instance in the 'when to use black' thread. The recent Keita critique leads nowhere. It changes nothing about the fundamental reality of the dominant ancestry in Egypt and North Africa in general, which was not wiped out by backmigration to Egypt. (A pure form of that ancestry was simply partly replaced with a less pure form of that ancestry, with only some backmigration ancestry actually being Eurasian). You can clearly see this in this paper because the admixed Giza sample is still closer to the Naqada sample than the Bantu-speaking sample is to either. The Bantu sample is not even close. Late Egyptians are not to Naqada what one-drop African Americans are to West Africans. The former hybrids would not pass for relatively 'pure' Eurasians like WHG/SHG/EHG, the way that one-drop Aframs might pass for whites or latinos. The paper shows that admixture in modern or late dynastic Egypt is not an argument that supports Afrocentrism. It's largely irrelevant for the Afrocentric position. It's only relevant in terms of CHANGE over time, but there is nothing supporting change of the biblical proportions that Afrocentrics have in mind when they try to push back against the Abusir results. The gap in between both Egyptian samples and the Bantu-speaking sample is going to be reflected in the genetic results. It's irrelevant what ancient Egyptian aDNA sample (north, south, Old Kingdom, etc.) they publish when it comes to this reality, so I don't see how the Keita critique changes anything that will help an Afrocentric position. You will just get a population somewhere in between an IAM-like and Abusir-like population. Which means the landslide victory that people are seeking against Eurocentrics is not in the data (and has never been). Eurocentrics are just going to keep emphasizing the non-SSA component of these populations, so there is going to be no vindication of any Afrocentric position. Oh, and as far as these papers, they should have never given me access. Harvard better block my IP while they still can. They have no idea... - [/b][/QUOTE]There..... [/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