...
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] [/qb]But pre-5000BC ancient Egyptians (e.g. Nazlet) have no problem being assigned SSA affinity, either by visual sorting or FORDISC-like DFA. So, no. It's only the post-5000BC Egyptians that generally fail to cluster with 90% of all African populations, and only cluster with 10% of all African populations. Or maybe the ratio is 80/20 or 70/30. It doesn't matter. But it has nothing to do with FORDISC.[/QUOTE]Keita says the opposite here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW4b0UmCJ1w&t=1476s He says that the ancient Egyptians crania cluster with Northeast African cranial, and is in line with local diversity in that place IN THAT TIME! Who does Keita say was in "Northeast Africa" in that place, and in that time? [i]The Distribution of E-M2 and it clades in Central and Southern Africa has usually been explained by the ‘‘Bantu migrations" (which occurred 3000-2500 B.C), in which agriculture and iron technologies spread from the Bantu's homeland located in the Benue complex i.e. Nigeria/Cameroon’’ [b]But their presence in the Nile Valley and in other Non-Bantu speakers Can Not be explained in this way. E-M2 distribution is probably explained by their presence in the populations of the “Early Holocene Sahara”, Who went on to people the Nile Valley in The mid-Holocene era[/b] (12,000 B.P.) according to Hassan (1988). Keita and Boyce; Boyce, A. J. (Anthony J.) (2005). "Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation".[/i] We have further evidence confirming the presence of the signature "Niger-Congo" E-M2 paternal lineage in "post 5,000 BC Egypt". In the formative period we find that one of the key groups of pre-dynastic Kemites cluster with "Niger-Congo" populations over "Europeans". That eliminates that claim of a closer "Eurasian" phenotype, and that simply leaves Asia as the only primary affinity according to your claim. Can you cite a study that shows that the Kemites had a phenotype closer to selected Asian populations over the "Northeast Africans" of that time, and specifically Bantu or Nilotic? I can cite a study that shows that the contemporary "MENA" phenotype do not have a closer affinity to the Kemites than southern "Negroid" populations. [i]In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges.In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with [b]the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.[/b] ---Pierre M. Vermeersch in Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt[/i] [IMG]https://britishmuseumblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/gm_2_arrows_544.jpg?w=544&h=615[/IMG] [QUOTE]And, let me reiterate that no one thinks Egyptian mummies look like Bantus. [/QUOTE]I'm not an eyeball anthropologist, but nothing here seems out of the ordinary in the wide range of our common facial-cranial phenotype. [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Seti_II_mummy_head.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Thutmose_II_mummy_head.png/800px-Thutmose_II_mummy_head.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Thutmose_III_Head.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Thutmose_I_mummy_head.png/800px-Thutmose_I_mummy_head.png[/IMG] [IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mummy_Ahmose-Nefertari_Smith.JPG[/IMG] The closest thing that we have to specifying the geographic populations affinity is DNAtribes, and the closest populations to Kemetic royalty show affinities BAR NONE with Bantu's. [IMG]https://oi1067.photobucket.com/albums/u440/Treday90/dnatribes_zpskmijm0ui.jpg[/IMG] You can cry all you want about this study, but the data is the data. The Bantu affinity was consistent for every mummy tested. We have oral traditions of Bantu ethnic groups claiming particular pharaohs as their own. The evidence on the first page of cultural continuity agrees with the data. The interesting thing about all the people who bitch about this fact being pointed out is that, THEY DON'T HAVE THE BALLS....to pinpoint another SPECIFIC geographic population to attribute primary Kemetic affinities to. This is called GASLIGHTING! Even members on this site avoid images of mummies. I know I've seen Yatunda Lisa try to deny Yuya's mummy is really Yuya because of what his mummy looks like. So what is FORDISC supposed to say? It's supposed to not match what people see in his face, and we're supposed to tweak and 'fix' FORDISC algorithm until it says what some want it to say? [/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