...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egypt Africa Cultural Diffusion ?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rain King: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Rain King: What the Hell is an "Asian"? An Indian, Han Chinese, a Semitic/mulattocized population, Melanesians? Secondly his skull was analyzed, and reported on over a decade ago (it caused quite a stir here). It was described as some form of "Caucasoid" (I believe "North African"). What we know about African cranial affinities is that outside of the "Niger-Congo"/Bantu generalized morphologies (called "Negroid") other African skulls had at one time been preclassified as some form of Caucasoid alluding to some theory of ancient albinos coming back into Africa and adjusting their prior Negroid affinities. Case and point the Nilotic African is described as having "Caucasoid"/"European" skull shape. Bantu's who have significant admixture with them have distinctive skulls considered "Caucasoid" as well like the Tutsi (around 1/5 Nilotic paternally) [IMG]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/73LvMVKz97yuI9stKwll-kPREm4uKVZkTyFgavQ0ZzC9-Ft8KEH-cBSJn3nrrLB84afkQHeuch3GkIXlOSl6zvaMy_Pd3DQFKtNJ-qBL7HdSKLACgDI58RTaUpqjFi3_LbeaTJnJsHJuqw[/IMG] His skull looks like a mixture of Bantu and a Nilotic element. His cultural affinities show that he sported the noted collars sported by Bantu and Nilotic ethnic groups. [IMG]https://www.osirisnet.net/tombes/pharaons/toutankhamon/photo/tta_titre.jpg[/IMG] What "archaeology" or "linguistic" would you say correlates with cranial affinity with Asians? [/qb][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Notice the bait and switch that Lioness has already pointed out above (using a Nilote to argue a Bantu phenotypes in Egypt). Low key an admission of not being able to deliver on the initial claim.[/QUOTE]The civilization has always been noted to have been a mixture of Bantu, Nilotic and some elements of Cushitic speaking Africans. You cannot find anywhere where I said that it was exclusively Bantu. In fact Nilotic Africans are depicted in many of the cultural comparisons. The Kalejin were even referenced by myself, so you must understand what the fuck you're talking about before trying to discredit my argument. Nilotes were essential to the foundation of Nile Valley civilization, which has been pointed out in early aDNA studies. Now what I do maintain is that Kemet in the scope of Nile Valley civilization was primarily a Bantu civilization. That does not negate the Nilotic presence, but by shear number even today we see that Bantu's vastly outnumber Nilotes. [QUOTE] Just like Yatunde Lisa, Rain King doesn’t understand (the weight of) the data, [/QUOTE]Shut the fuck up. I'm more educated than you. [QUOTE] The affinity with random samples from Europe to Asia is not necessarily a conclusive result that cannot be improved with better North African sampling.[/QUOTE]"Asia" and "Europe" are not people they are geographic locations. What "Asians" are you talking, and from what periods are these sampling supposed to overlap? [QUOTE]It is (to some extent, at least) a function of the weak affinity with the available African (i.e. Bantu) samples. [/QUOTE]Yeah if you put some Nilotes, or "mixed" Bantu's like the Teita that Keita uses then you'll like find a close affinity. Studies have shown that "Niger-Congo" and other "Negroid" groups cluster with pre-dynastic Kemites more than Europeans. [i]Just such a possibility was debunked by Keita (Early Nile Valley Farmers From El-badari, 2005, Journal of Black Studies, 36(2), 191-208). In head to head comparisons, the ancient Badarians of Egypt grouped much more with other Africans than Europeans, including ‘Nordic’ Berg and Norse. Quote: “ [b]The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed .. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series.[/b] " (Keita 2005, “Early Nile Valley farmers..”)[/i] [QUOTE] So, it makes no sense to ask beside-the-point questions about the identity of the European or Asian samples with generic/loose affinity to Egyptians. [/QUOTE]No....What in the fuck is an "Asian" affinity? Indian, Han, Melanesian what? You put your heart and soul into that vague label. [QUOTE] The point is that assorted Eurasian samples generally cover the phenotypical variation of Egyptian mummies better than Bantu samples do. [/QUOTE]ASIANS!!!! [IMG]https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ea81dd019b8abca75dc3ddf21c396420[/IMG] The study from Keita found that the opposite end of the biological phenotypic spectrum (Europeans) had lesser affinity to the Kemites than Niger-Congo/"Negroid" Africans. That leave "Asia". Western Asia is full of nothing but sickle cell carrying half breeds; [IMG]https://oi1067.photobucket.com/albums/u440/Treday90/sickle-cell-haplotype-map-resized_zpsstmn7h8v.jpg[/IMG] [i]"All Semites (Arabs and Jews)…are mixed breeds of Blacks and Whites; the Arab race cannot be conceived as anything but a mixture of Blacks and Whites; the entire Arab people, including the Prophet, are mixed with Negro blood. - C.A. Diop​"[/i] You want to make litmus test with half breeds as a biological standard. You make no sense. Until you define what "Asian" populations to pinpoint an affinity towards then said claim is full of shit. You need to get specific about the people, not an arbitrarily defined landmass. [/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