posted
^ I would like to delve deeper into the topic of the Egyptians' own ancestry according to them in the Egyptology section. For now I will say that the Shemawy of Upper Egyptian admit to a dual ancestry-- Anu and Mesenitu. But then the Shemawy in the proto-dynastic texts documenting their conquest of the Delta also describe different ethne inhabiting the Delta as well with Tjehenu (Libyans) in the western part and Rekhety in the eastern part. There's no telling the extent Africans had in the Mediterranean basin itself. But since you're going by the Bible, according to Genesis Mizraim (Egypt) whose name suggests a plurality had 7 sons-- Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim, and Caphtorim. Ludim is often said to be a scribal error of Lubim which suggests a Libyan tribe; Anamim is traced to a people in the western coast of the Delta, the Lehabim are unknown but are also identified with a Libyan group; Naphtuhim is unknown but Torah exegete Saadia Gaon identifies it with another area of the western delta; Pathrusim is identified with the area of "Pathros" which was an area of southern Upper Egypt from Asyut down to Elephantine; the Casluhim are a people of the eastern Delta who interestingly are said to be ancestral to the Philistines, by the way according to many Biblical experts there were 2 groups of Philistines-- an early Bronze Age group said to be allied with the Egyptians and whose king welcomed Abraham and Sarah, and a later Iron Age group who were enemies of the Israelites and identified with Aegean people; Caphtor is the only the only positively identified with an island somewhere in the Mediterranean but it's uncertain where.
Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a future where more extensive comparative genetic studies can be conducted in Egypt, we may find out more details about different ancestry and different groups relatedness to each other. For example which differences could one see in the genetics of people in upper Egypt and people in the Delta? There is work being done in the Delta where Neolithic sites are found and excavated. Also skeletons are found. But it seems no genetic studies have been done yet. We will see if Egyptian authorities will allow such studies in the future.
quote:This article provides an overview of the first results from the archaeological fieldwork conducted at Tell el-Samara by a joint IFAO and Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities mission. Located in the eastern Nile Delta, Tell el-Samara was a settlement inhabited from the late 5h millennium BCE to the end of the Early Dynastic period. The renewed archaeological investigations on the tell have uncovered the remains of one of the most ancient villages known so far in Egypt—providing detailed insights into the onset of Neolithic economy and sedentary village life in Lower Egypt. They have also revealed a continuous occupation sequence from the Neolithic period to the advent of the 1st Dynasty, which provides relevant data on the emergence and further development of a regional culture in the Nile Delta prior to the rise of a monarchy and the political unification of Egypt at the turn of the fourth and 3rd millennium BCE.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 3058 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here is a comparison between an ancient Egyptian painting and a modern farmer from outside Cairo. Not very different. So the idea that the ancient Egyptians just disappeared and was replaced by "white" invaders do not hold up. There have occurred mixing with immigrating and invading peoples but there are still people who seem to correspond with the ancient ones.
Also one could caution about making too many claims about todays North African populations and their phenotypes without having visited any of those countries. It is something one see a lot on the internet among people who in a confident tone tell us how North Africans look like. It can be hard to get a good overview based only on books or information from the net.
I have myself seen a lot of claims on the net that do not correspond at all with what I have seen in different countries. One claim I remember is that the Terracotta Warriors in Xían, China should depict black people and originally been painted black. I have seen them, some of them in close up and have them explained by Chinese archaeologists so those crazy claims on the net can only come from people who never visited China or saw those statues (or people who did but choose to lie about it).
The man on the right has completely different facial features than what is shown in the painting.
Posts: 2755 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here is a comparison between an ancient Egyptian painting and a modern farmer from outside Cairo. Not very different. So the idea that the ancient Egyptians just disappeared and was replaced by "white" invaders do not hold up. There have occurred mixing with immigrating and invading peoples but there are still people who seem to correspond with the ancient ones.
Also one could caution about making too many claims about todays North African populations and their phenotypes without having visited any of those countries. It is something one see a lot on the internet among people who in a confident tone tell us how North Africans look like. It can be hard to get a good overview based only on books or information from the net.
I have myself seen a lot of claims on the net that do not correspond at all with what I have seen in different countries. One claim I remember is that the Terracotta Warriors in Xían, China should depict black people and originally been painted black. I have seen them, some of them in close up and have them explained by Chinese archaeologists so those crazy claims on the net can only come from people who never visited China or saw those statues (or people who did but choose to lie about it).
The man on the right has completely different facial features than what is shown in the painting.
You can find different facial features also in todays Egypt. And you can find facial features in ancient paintings that correspond with todays Egyptians. All Egyptians in antiquity did not look the same, and all Egyptians today do not look the same either. Just visit a museum with Egyptian sculptures and you can see for yourself. One can find statues which correspond with Egyptians today.
I do not think I have to post a lot of examples since I am sure you already seen them.
Which are your nearest museum that holds Ancient Egyptian art? Sometimes it is good to see ancient art in real life, not only on the net.
I did not make the collage, what the maker of that collage wanted to compare was skin color.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Colorlines in Classical North Africa
Anyway, Dr. Futo like many other Classicists make it clear that the so-called 'colorline' separating 'white' from 'black' did not begin "south of the Sahara" as many Euronuts would have everyone believe but began in the Mediterranean Sea.
"Colorline" is not a word and "color line" strongly connotes racial segregation which did not apply to North Africa and the term "Classical North Africa" is also dubious. The word "Classical" strongly implies Greco-Roman but too vaguely. If the intent is "color lines in Greek and Roman colonies in North Africa" that should be spelled out
Greek and Roman "Classical" writers described the color of certain ethnic groups but they did not have the two part categories "white people" and "black people" (similarly "whites" and "blacks") although you might find people described as black skinned
A two part classification system did not exist in Classical writing. It's offensive to even read the the title "Colorlines in Classical North Africa"
quote: Merriam-Webster Dictionary
color line noun variants US color line or British colour line pluralcolor lines : a set of societal or legal barriers that segregates people of color from white people (as by restricting social interaction or requiring separate facilities) and prevents people of color from exercising the same rights and accessing the same opportunities as white people —usually used with the
His father … had grown up in California with Jackie Robinson, who broke the color line in Major League Baseball. —Maureen O'Donnell
Rebecca Futo Kennedy is Associate Professor of Classics, Women's and Gender Studies, and Environmental Studies at Denison University, and the Director of the Denison Museum.[1] Her research focuses on the political, social, and cultural history of Classical Athens, Athenian tragedy, ancient immigration, ancient theories of race and ethnicity, and the reception of those theories in modern race science.
Kennedy completed her BA in Classical Studies at the University of California, San Diego in 1997 and PhD at the Ohio State University in 2003, with a thesis entitled Athena/Athens on Stage: Athena in the Tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles
_____________________
She titles a blog entry "Colorlines in Classical North Africa"
and we are supposed to think this racial segregation, white vs black term "color line" was part of Greco-Roman culture and the rationalization is Futo- Kennedy's argument that Greeks and Romans, she claims, regarded all natives of Africa as "black people".
Thus she is saying the ancient Egyptians were "black people" according to Greek and Roman authors and they had a white/black color line, the Mediterranean Sea
Posts: 43388 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@archeotypery
Why use an image that just compares skin color instead of both skin color and facial features? It's almost as if you're not trying to make a 100% comparison for some reason.
Posts: 2755 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ ^ I recommend you to go to a museum and look at the art. After that you can judge for yourself.
Best for you would be to actually go to Egypt and compare people there with the art you see in the museums. Soon the Grand Egyptian Museum opens, there you will be able to see all kinds of Egyptian art.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 3058 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The man on the right has completely different facial features than what is shown in the painting.
So what?! They're both 'black' people by today's standards. If you're hung up on something as trivial as facial features then you're going to lose to the Euronut warriors.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: In a future where more extensive comparative genetic studies can be conducted in Egypt, we may find out more details about different ancestry and different groups relatedness to each other. For example which differences could one see in the genetics of people in upper Egypt and people in the Delta? There is work being done in the Delta where Neolithic sites are found and excavated. Also skeletons are found. But it seems no genetic studies have been done yet. We will see if Egyptian authorities will allow such studies in the future.
quote:This article provides an overview of the first results from the archaeological fieldwork conducted at Tell el-Samara by a joint IFAO and Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities mission. Located in the eastern Nile Delta, Tell el-Samara was a settlement inhabited from the late 5h millennium BCE to the end of the Early Dynastic period. The renewed archaeological investigations on the tell have uncovered the remains of one of the most ancient villages known so far in Egypt—providing detailed insights into the onset of Neolithic economy and sedentary village life in Lower Egypt. They have also revealed a continuous occupation sequence from the Neolithic period to the advent of the 1st Dynasty, which provides relevant data on the emergence and further development of a regional culture in the Nile Delta prior to the rise of a monarchy and the political unification of Egypt at the turn of the fourth and 3rd millennium BCE.
The skeletal remains of the Delta have already been classified as African.
..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]
As far as genetics is concerned, uniparentals show them to be overwhelmingly African (Y-DNA E-M35 & mt M1 and L2). The only thing left is autosomal DNA which is the only thing left in debate and for obvious reasons. The autosomal DNA shows Natufian/Neolithic Levantine affiliations which many identify as "Eurasian".
quote: That's a 3D interactive PCA (Principal Component Analysis) based on autosomal SNPs made by David Wesolowski who authors the Eurogenes genome blog and ancestry project. What's particularly interesting to me about it are the PCA positions of the Natufians and the Neolithic Levantines... With the *former group pulling southwards toward African populations such as North, East & West-Central Africans.*
Southwest Asian: 54% Mediterranean: 38% East African: 8%
That pull along with the above ADMIXTURE results (via Gedmatch) of one Natufian seem to contradict what Lazaridis et al. was saying about the Natufians lacking African admixture but I would caution against using modern PCA positions (like those of Bedouins) and, of course, modern ADMIXTURE runs (with modern clusters based on modern genetic diversity) to gauge how "African" or "Eurasian/Out-of-Africa" an ~11,000-14,000 year old population was.
I.e. These Natufians are, of course, not "Southwest Asian" + "Mediterranean" but, instead, they're just showing the greatest affinity for these modern clusters. As in, populations probably quite like them to some degree; contributed to the formation of clusters like Southwest Asian & Mediterranean. But, it's still strange that they'd show such an affinity for an African cluster like the East African one.
It's not strange at all if one remembers that there was greater genetic diversity among human populations before the Holocene than today and such was likely the case as it pertains to African populations.
Remember that ANA (Ancestral North African) was originally mistaken to be "Eurasian" as well. LOL It's only going to be a matter of time that this Natufain/Levantine Neolithic as the only hope left of "Hamitic Hypothesis" fails.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have the Neolithic delta populations been genetically sequenced? I think of the finds which was made 2016 to 2019 in for example Tell el-Samara mentioned above. Maybe I just missed those studies.
One can also wonder why there was no discernible link to the Levant? There has been found Neolithic sites on the Sinai peninsula, both in north and also in the southern part. Did the gene flow in some way stop there?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 3058 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tazarah
Why are you stalking my social media?
Member # 23365
posted
@Djehuti
@Archeotypery
The point I'm making is that just because someone is "black" does not mean they are the same people in the ancient paintings.
East indian people could be considered "black" by today's standards but no one would dare say they are the same people in the ancient egyptian artwork.
If you're going to try asserting a certain people group in modern times is the same as the ancient egyptians then why not use an example that has both the same skin color and facial features as the artwork in question?
Posts: 2755 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2021
| IP: Logged |
The man on the right has completely different facial features than what is shown in the painting. So what?! They're both 'black' people by today's standards. If you're hung up on something as trivial as facial features then you're going to lose to the Euronut warriors.
No that egyptian would be seen as "arab" by most europeans and blacks living in the West.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The skeletal remains of the Delta have already been classified as African.
..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]
As usual, you are twisting the authors' statements. You are essentially implying the existence of a single, uniform "African" pattern, even though both you and I are well aware of the significant morphological differences between ancient NAs and SSAs.
As for Northern Egyptians, Neolithic Merimde shows affinities with the Levant and late dynastic egyptians :
quote:The Merimde specimens were tall, with a mean femur length in males of 47.1 cms, compared to 43.6cm at Maadi and 44.7 cm at Byblos (Fig 6.2). They also had long narrow crania, moderately long faces and narrow noses. The last two features distinguish them from Predynastic populations and align them more closely both with later Dynastic populations and with the southern Levant (fig. 6.3). Beck and Klug (1990) described the Maadi and Wadi Digla samples as showing long narrow crania and short faces similar to those of other Predynastic sites in Egypt, but resembling some sites in the Levant in nasal and orbital characteristics.
P. Smith, The Palaeo-Biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millenia BCE, 2002
Your "African" affinity is primarily a result of limb proportions, which we both know are not determined by genetic similarity but rather by adaptations to the climate :
quote: Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. [...] reinforcing the impression of an african rather than a levantine affinity.
P. Smith, The Palaeo-Biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millenia BCE, 2002
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. et al. 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.
Again Maadi and Wadi Digla show affinity with the Southern Levant and Egyptians :
quote:Morphologically, both groups belong to a relatively robust type.…Differences between the Maadi and Wadi Digla series in regard to metric features could not be statistically proven. The results of the supraregional population comparison pointed to similarities with the Palestinian area [Gaza, Israel, the West Bank] in regard to several metric variables …though a clear relationship with Egyptian comparison groups was demonstratable.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As far as genetics is concerned, uniparentals show them to be overwhelmingly African (Y-DNA E-M35 & mt M1 and L2). The only thing left is autosomal DNA which is the only thing left in debate and for obvious reasons. The autosomal DNA shows Natufian/Neolithic Levantine affiliations which many identify as "Eurasian".
Once again, you are providing misleading information to him. These uniparental genetic markers are still present in modern Egypt. Furthermore, the majority of uniparental markers extracted from ancient Egyptian remains are predominantly Eurasian :
quote:However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. [74]). In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy
Results are similar for an upcoming paper spanning 4000 years of History :
quote: We now focus on widening the geographic scope to give a general overview of the population genetic background, focusing on mitochondrial haplogroups present among the whole Egyptian Nile River Valley. We collected 81 tooth, hair, bone, and soft tissue samples from 14 mummies and 17 skeletal remains. The samples span approximately 4000 years of Egyptian history and originate from six different excavation sites covering the whole length of the Egyptian Nile River Valley. NGS based ancient DNA 8 were applied to reconstruct 18 high-quality mitochondrial genomes from 10 different individuals. The determined mitochondrial haplogroups match the results from our Abusir el-Meleq study . Our results indicate very low rates of modern DNA contamination independent of the tissue type.
quote: The proposed sibling relationship between Tutankhamun’s parents, KV55 (Akhenaten) and KV35YL, is further supported. The royal lineage is composed of the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b and the mitochondrial haplogroup K. Population genetics point to a common origin at ca. 14. 000–28. 000 years before present locating to the Near East.
quote:The great-grandfather of Tutankhamun, Yuya, carries a Y-chromosomal signature that could be assigned to the haplogroup G2a. Haplogroup G is an F-affiliated clade (Luis et al. 2004, 532–544; Wood et al. 2005, 867–876), and it is defined by the mutation M201 (Cinnioǧlu et al. 2004, 127–148; Luis et al. 2004, 532–544; Wood et al. 2005, 867–876; Karafet et al. 2008, 830–838). This clade is not globally abundant, and its prevalence is mainly in the Middle East (highest in Druze), the Mediterranean basin and Caucasus Mountains where it exhibits its maximum frequency (Cinnioǧlu et al. 2004, 127–148; Karafet et al. 2008, 830–838; Balanovsky et al. 2011, 18255–18259; Lacan et al. 2011, 2905–2920). The pattern of this haplogroup distribution in the Caucasus suggests a Near Eastern origin (Cinnioǧlu et al. 2004, 127–148; Balanovsky et al. 2011, 18255–18259). The genetic share of the F-affiliated groups (G, H, I, J) is around 40% of the modern Egyptians, with G-M201 representing approximately 9% of the population (Luis et al. 2004, 532–544).
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yet as Ethio-Helix has pointed out:
quote: That's a 3D interactive PCA (Principal Component Analysis) based on autosomal SNPs made by David Wesolowski who authors the Eurogenes genome blog and ancestry project. What's particularly interesting to me about it are the PCA positions of the Natufians and the Neolithic Levantines... With the *former group pulling southwards toward African populations such as North, East & West-Central Africans.*
Southwest Asian: 54% Mediterranean: 38% East African: 8%
That pull along with the above ADMIXTURE results (via Gedmatch) of one Natufian seem to contradict what Lazaridis et al. was saying about the Natufians lacking African admixture but I would caution against using modern PCA positions (like those of Bedouins) and, of course, modern ADMIXTURE runs (with modern clusters based on modern genetic diversity) to gauge how "African" or "Eurasian/Out-of-Africa" an ~11,000-14,000 year old population was.
I.e. These Natufians are, of course, not "Southwest Asian" + "Mediterranean" but, instead, they're just showing the greatest affinity for these modern clusters. As in, populations probably quite like them to some degree; contributed to the formation of clusters like Southwest Asian & Mediterranean. But, it's still strange that they'd show such an affinity for an African cluster like the East African one.
It's not strange at all if one remembers that there was greater genetic diversity among human populations before the Holocene than today and such was likely the case as it pertains to African populations.
Remember that ANA (Ancestral North African) was originally mistaken to be "Eurasian" as well. LOL It's only going to be a matter of time that this Natufain/Levantine Neolithic as the only hope left of "Hamitic Hypothesis" fails. [/QB]
Lmao what you posted literally shows that their african admixture was extremely low ...Modern North Africans literally have more XD
Natufian ancestry peaks in modern day arabs and Natufians didn't cluster with any SSA population :
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
The question of Egyptian self-identity is in my view a complex subject that has a lot of loose ends that would benefit from the excavation of more texts. And even then there may be no guarantee they are going to reflect anthropological reality. For instance, if the phrase T3 Ntr has literal anthro value, parts of Syria (and southern lands on both sides of the Red Sea) could potentially have been considered by AE as ancestral land at some point in their history, by some members of Egyptian society. In that case one would find a self-identity that has drifted from anthropological reality possibly due religious reasons (e.g. they procrured sacred timber and incense from Lebanon). Then there is the unique social organization of Egyptian society around nomes, where different nomes may have had self-identities and myths and legends co-existing even though being in contradiction.
Posts: 8877 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ If Kmt was a multi-ethnic state, which it was then of course there are going to be some contradictions. However, I am going by the primary literature from Ta-Shemawy which make specific claims against the popular dynastic/Hamitic narrative. Speaking of which...
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Lmao what you posted literally shows that their african admixture was extremely low ...Modern North Africans literally have more XD
Natufian ancestry peaks in modern day arabs and Natufians didn't cluster with any SSA population :
Antalas, nobody with moderate intelligence is falling for the the "SSA" a.k.a. IBD Yoruban strawman.
By your logic then, northeast Siberians (and their Eskimo cousins across the straits) have no East Asian ancestry as well if that is to be identified with Chinese.
LMAO indeed! It seems the only one you're fooling is yourself!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The question of Egyptian self-identity is in my view a complex subject that has a lot of loose ends that would benefit from the excavation of more texts. And even then there may be no guarantee they are going to reflect anthropological reality. For instance, if the phrase T3 Ntr has literal anthro value, parts of Syria (and southern lands on both sides of the Red Sea) could potentially have been considered by AE as ancestral land at some point in their history, by some members of Egyptian society. In that case one would find a self-identity that has drifted from anthropological reality possibly due religious reasons (e.g. they procrured sacred timber and incense from Lebanon). Then there is the unique social organization of Egyptian society around nomes, where different nomes may have had self-identities and myths and legends co-existing even though being in contradiction.
This is a good point you raise here. Myths and legends can sometimes refer to real phenomena, but they shouldn’t always be taken at face value. A vocal number of Native Americans in the US don’t like the idea that their ancestors came from anywhere outside the Americas since that contradicts certain creation myths of theirs. Now, while I can understand why indigenous people might not like condescending White anthropologists contradicting them on their own past, you have to admit Natives had to have come from somewhere outside the Americas if they are human like the rest of us.
posted
There are always people among all ethnic groups who are not fond of scientific explanations regarding ancestry, history and different natural phenomena. Thus it is many people (not least in USA) who deny that we humans are a product of evolution.
And a few individuals even believe that the Earth is flat.
It is a bit pity that the original creation myths among many people are disappearing while the Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) versions still are upheld by so many.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 3058 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going back to the topic of possible proto-Afroasiatic enclaves in the Aegean and nearby regions, I remember Djehuti saying that proto-Semitic in western Asia likely descended from a larger complex of Afroasiatic offshoots that had colonized the region from northeast Africa. If that is the case, it could be that this complex from which proto-Semitic (pre-proto-Semitic?) evolved ranged wider and farther across southwestern Eurasia than commonly supposed.
Either that, or some of those enclaves were trading outposts which far-ranging populations of predynastic Nile Valley origin established.
The question of Egyptian self-identity is in my view a complex subject that has a lot of loose ends that would benefit from the excavation of more texts. And even then there may be no guarantee they are going to reflect anthropological reality. For instance, if the phrase T3 Ntr has literal anthro value, parts of Syria (and southern lands on both sides of the Red Sea) could potentially have been considered by AE as ancestral land at some point in their history, by some members of Egyptian society. In that case one would find a self-identity that has drifted from anthropological reality possibly due religious reasons (e.g. they procrured sacred timber and incense from Lebanon). Then there is the unique social organization of Egyptian society around nomes, where different nomes may have had self-identities and myths and legends co-existing even though being in contradiction.
This is a good point you raise here. Myths and legends can sometimes refer to real phenomena, but they shouldn’t always be taken at face value. A vocal number of Native Americans in the US don’t like the idea that their ancestors came from anywhere outside the Americas since that contradicts certain creation myths of theirs. Now, while I can understand why indigenous people might not like condescending White anthropologists contradicting them on their own past, you have to admit Natives had to have come from somewhere outside the Americas if they are human like the rest of us.
We all have our etiological myths. Even those very same anthropologists have in their textbooks Neanderthals as 'cousins' of AMH, when in reality they are differentiated from Sima de Los Huesos predecessors in having tremendous amounts of sapiens ancestry. Or Ust Ishim possibly having the blue eye mutation at 45ky ago, according to the recent Russian article, which is dangerously close to the 55ky OOA date, indicating it did not originate with WHG and that we may need introgression to explain this trait if that remaining 10ky time window keeps shortening. Etc.
Posts: 8877 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Antalas, nobody with moderate intelligence is falling for the the "SSA" a.k.a. IBD Yoruban strawman.
By your logic then, northeast Siberians (and their Eskimo cousins across the straits) have no East Asian ancestry as well if that is to be identified with Chinese.
LMAO indeed! It seems the only one you're fooling is yourself!
What are you even talking about ? It's quite interesting how you seem to be overlooking all the evidence I've presented. Anyway nobody has denied that Natufians had some "African" admixture. As usual you're employing a straw man argument here. As I mentioned before, their African ancestry is actually quite minimal, even lower than mine XD. They cluster more closely with modern Middle Easterners and even Europeans than SSAs. Yet, you persist in portraying them as if they were more closely related to the latter.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Or Ust Ishim possibly having the blue eye mutation at 45ky ago, according to the recent Russian article, which is dangerously close to the 55ky OOA date, indicating it did not originate with WHG and that we may need introgression to explain this trait if that remaining 10ky time window keeps shortening. Etc.
I once drew an Aurignacian person with blue eyes, and a criticism I got was that blue eyes in modern humans would have evolved much more recently in the Black Sea area. Finding out that there were blue eyes among UP Eurasians that far back feels vindicating for me. Would be nice to see if its presence in modern Europeans is the result of admixture with another hominin population (Neanderthals, perhaps?).
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Or Ust Ishim possibly having the blue eye mutation at 45ky ago, according to the recent Russian article, which is dangerously close to the 55ky OOA date, indicating it did not originate with WHG and that we may need introgression to explain this trait if that remaining 10ky time window keeps shortening. Etc.
I once drew an Aurignacian person with blue eyes, and a criticism I got was that blue eyes in modern humans would have evolved much more recently in the Black Sea area. Finding out that there were blue eyes among UP Eurasians that far back feels vindicating for me. Would be nice to see if its presence in modern Europeans is the result of admixture with another hominin population (Neanderthals, perhaps?).
It could also be from AMH already in Eurasia who may have interacted with archaics that may have no longer been around by the time mtDNA N moved into Eurasia 55ky ago. The known upper limit of AMH presence in Eurasia is 410ky as indicated by TMRCA of the Neanderthal mtDNA replacement. Since they keep finding them (latest hype is Dragon Man) who knows what archaics, hybrids and AMH survivals were around then.
Posts: 8877 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The Mediterranean Sea has been a major route for maritime migrations as well as frequent trade and invasions during prehistory, yet the genetic history of the Mediterranean islands is not well documented despite recent developments in the study of ancient DNA. An international team led by researchers from the University of Vienna, Harvard University and University of Florence, Italy, is filling in the gaps with the largest study to date of the genetic history of ancient populations of Sicily, Sardinia and the Balearic Islands, increasing the number of individuals with reported data from 5 to 66.
The results reveal a complex pattern of immigration from Africa, Asia and Europe which varied in direction and its timing for each of these islands. For Sicily the article reports on a new ancestry during the Middle Bronze Age that chronologically overlaps with the Greek Mycenaean trade network expansion.
Sardinians descend from Neolithic farmers
A very different story is unraveled in the case of Sardinia. Despite contacts and trade with other Mediterranean populations, ancient Sardinians retained a mostly local Neolithic ancestry profile until the end of the Bronze Age. However, during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, one of the studied individuals from Sardinia has a large proportion of North African ancestry. Taken together with previous results of a contemporary central Iberian individual and a later 2nd mill. BC Bronze Age individual from Iberia, it clearly shows prehistoric maritime migrations across the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa to locations in southern Europe, affecting more than 1 percent of individuals reported in the ancient DNA literature from this region and time to date.
"Our results show that maritime migrations from North Africa started long before the era of the eastern Mediterranean seafaring civilizations and moreover were occurring in multiple parts of the Mediterranean", says Ron Pinhasi, a co-senior author of the Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Vienna.
During the Iron Age expansion and establishment of Greek and Phoenician colonies in the West Mediterranean islands, the two Sardinian individuals analyzed from that period had little, if any, ancestry from the previous long-established populations. "Surprisingly, our results show that despite these population fluxes and mixtures, modern Sardinians retained between 56-62 percent of ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers that arrived in Europe around 8000 years ago", says David Caramelli a co-senior author, and Director of Department of Biology at the University of Florence.
Migration from the Iberian Peninsula documented
"One of the most striking findings is about the arrival of ancestry from the Steppe north of the Black and Caspian Seas in some of the Mediterranean islands. While the ultimate origin of this ancestry was Eastern Europe, in the Mediterranean islands it arrived at least in part from the west, namely from Iberia", says David Reich, a co-senior author at Harvard University, who is also an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. "This was likely the case for the Balearic Islands, in which some early residents probably derived at least part of their ancestry from Iberia", says first author Daniel Fernandes, of the Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Vienna.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Anyway nobody has denied that Natufians had some "African" admixture. As usual you're employing a straw man argument here. As I mentioned before, their African ancestry is actually quite minimal, even lower than mine XD. They cluster more closely with modern Middle Easterners and even Europeans than SSAs. Yet, you persist in portraying them as if they were more closely related to the latter.
This suggests Natufians were around 50% of African (male side) ancestry genetically
Posts: 43388 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Please stop with the stupid straw dolls. I'm not promoting the concept of 'colorlines' just a scholar's web article that gives a different take to the actually racist views that academia traditionally had.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: What are you even talking about? It's quite interesting how you seem to be overlooking all the evidence I've presented. Anyway nobody has denied that Natufians had some "African" admixture. As usual you're employing a straw man argument here. As I mentioned before, their African ancestry is actually quite minimal, even lower than mine XD. They cluster more closely with modern Middle Easterners and even Europeans than SSAs. Yet, you persist in portraying them as if they were more closely related to the latter.
That you don't know what I mean by the post I made on Asian genetic diversity shows that either you are just dumb OR suffering from severe denial. Your pigeonholing African genetic diversity is the same as one claiming that Evenks and Inuit are not Asian because autosomally they are totally different from Chinese. Nobody uses Chinese as representative of East Asian the way Yoruba IDB is used for all Sub-Saharans let alone Africans in general.
^ Note the wide autosomal distance between black Australasians and black Andamanese despite the close geographic distance. And of course the samples labeled "Africans" on the left corner are actually South Africans with West African between the former and North Africans. So just give up. You lost when you began posting in this forum! LOL
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That you don't know what I mean by the post I made on Asian genetic diversity shows that either you are just dumb OR suffering from severe denial. Your pigeonholing African genetic diversity is the same as one claiming that Evenks and Inuit are not Asian because autosomally they are totally different from Chinese. Nobody uses Chinese as representative of East Asian the way Yoruba IDB is used for all Sub-Saharans let alone Africans in general.
^ Note the wide autosomal distance between black Australasians and black Andamanese despite the close geographic distance. And of course the samples labeled "Africans" on the left corner are actually South Africans with West African between the former and North Africans. So just give up. You lost when you began posting in this forum! LOL [/QB]
What does Yoruba have anything to do with this ? Why do you bring south/west african clusters ? This was by no means the focus of my post. It's important to recognize that if two populations are genetically distant, they are indeed genetically differentiated, regardless of their physical resemblances or geographical proximity.
Returning to the topic and my main point, as we can observe, Natufians are notably distant from any African population. Even modern North Africans, including myself, exhibit a closer genetic affinity with SSAs than Natufians :
Now, go fetch those African figs found in the Middle East and the 6% omotic ancestry...
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ "Natufians are notably distant from any African populations." Any?? So now the Moroccan Iberomaurusian and Moroccan EN in your map are not Africans either?! Where do you think Natufians got their African figs from as well as their African custom of tooth avulsion??
I suggest you stop posting in this blog or any blog for that matter and seek psychiatric help.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ "Natufians are notably distant from any African populations." Any?? So now the Moroccan Iberomaurusian and Moroccan EN in your map are not Africans either?!
I suggest you stop posting in this blog or any blog for that matter and seek psychiatric help.
Yes natufians are notably distant from my iberomaurusian ancestors too :
quote:Although, ADMIXTURE analysis pointed to some relationship between IAM and Levantine aDNA samples, especially the Natufians, this is not supported by FST distances .
Iberomaurusians appear closer to Natufians primarily due to shared ancestry and their non-African ancestry. You're totally humiliated once again and you can't deny the genetic distinction between Natufians and Africans is undeniable. You won't manipulate and africanize/blackwash our ancestors to fit your narrative, attempting to appropriate them and dismiss all the genetic and anthropological evidence.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Yes Natufians are notably distant from my Iberomaurusian ancestors too:
Yet they are still much closer to each other than West African Yoruba and Bantu speaking Himba of South Africa!
But you have no problem putting both Yoruba and Himba together into a monolithic "Sub-Saharan" grouping!
I thought it was made clear to you before but here it is again from Ethio-helix's article Human Genetic Diversity ≠ Discrete or Pure Races: Nevertheless, I suppose one could argue that certain populations are genuinely "discrete" in that they have not shared certain ancestries in well over 35,000 years. For instance, this can be said about West-Central Africans when compared to East Asians but here things do get a bit dicey as well since, while you can assume they're discrete from one another, they themselves are probably not, to some great extent, "pure" or mostly pure entities.
By that I mean... They too are probably, in some part, the result of admixture rather than mostly or entirely being linear developments from a singular ancestral population which is how the old racialist model might paint things.
For example, the quite diverse mtDNA profiles (simply based on their non-M&N lineages) of groups like Omotic speaking Southwestern Ethiopians, Niger-Congo speaking West-Central Africans and Nilo-Saharan speaking Southern Sudanese people tend to imply that they are probably the result of admixture between distinct pre-historic populations within Africa itself. [note]
Some of these ancestral populations were possibly even as distinct from each other as the San are from modern West-Central Africans (time divergence appears greater than the time-divergence between West-Central Africans and the Han-Chinese, and genetic drift (based on Fst) is comparable to the drift between the Han-Chinese and the English).
**Groups that would count as "Negroids" within Africa should also not be seen as some sort of genetic monolith. They're not**... And even the old racialist model didn't truly imply as much. There's often a West-Central African cluster ("Niger-Congo" above) and an East African-cluster ("Nilo-Saharan" above) in ADMIXTURE runs, for instance. The Fst between these two clusters, as an example, is a little over 1/2 the Fst between the East Asian and European clusters above.
Also, based on Haplotypic data, the time divergence between some of these "African" ancestries (i.e. the African elements in Somalis and the African elements in Yorubas) implies they possibly haven't shared ancestry in over 30,000-40,000 years or so which is comparable to the, so far, supposed time-divergence between ENAs and the ancestors of European Hunter-Gatherers.
quote:Iberomaurusians appear closer to Natufians primarily due to shared ancestry and their non-African ancestry. You're totally humiliated once again and you can't deny the genetic distinction between Natufians and Africans is undeniable. You won't manipulate and Africanize/blackwash our ancestors to fit your narrative, attempting to appropriate them and dismiss all the genetic and anthropological evidence.
Again you presume "non-African" ancestry when such has yet to be substantiated unless you disagree with the growing consensus that Basal Eurasian is African. You say there is a distinction between Natufians and Africans yet forget the fact that Egyptians share much of the Natufians' ancestry. But of course Egyptians aren't really African either and neither are the Nubians who also share the same ancestry! LMAO
So no I don't have to "manipulate" anything the way you desperately attempt to distort the findings. No need for me to "Africanize" what is already African and again with that absurd oxymoronic term of "blackwash". You can't wash something "black" but WHITE which is what you are constantly doing. The accurate phrase is 'paint black'. Which I don't have to do because the genetics also show the populations you speak of to be highly melanated.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yet they are still much closer to each other than West African Yoruba and Bantu speaking Himba of South Africa!
But you have no problem putting both Yoruba and Himba together into a monolithic "Sub-Saharan" grouping!
hahaha lmao that's literally the gedmatch version of G25, there is no "Himba" in the Eurogenes database XD
Here distances of Yoruba to different niger-congo communities from East Africa :
As you can observe, despite the significant geographical distances separating them, these populations are far more genetically similar to each other than Natufians and Iberomaurusians
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I thought it was made clear to you before but here it is again from Ethio-helix's article Human Genetic Diversity ≠ Discrete or Pure Races: Nevertheless, I suppose one could argue that certain populations are genuinely "discrete" in that they have not shared certain ancestries in well over 35,000 years. For instance, this can be said about West-Central Africans when compared to East Asians but here things do get a bit dicey as well since, while you can assume they're discrete from one another, they themselves are probably not, to some great extent, "pure" or mostly pure entities.
By that I mean... They too are probably, in some part, the result of admixture rather than mostly or entirely being linear developments from a singular ancestral population which is how the old racialist model might paint things.
For example, the quite diverse mtDNA profiles (simply based on their non-M&N lineages) of groups like Omotic speaking Southwestern Ethiopians, Niger-Congo speaking West-Central Africans and Nilo-Saharan speaking Southern Sudanese people tend to imply that they are probably the result of admixture between distinct pre-historic populations within Africa itself. [note]
Some of these ancestral populations were possibly even as distinct from each other as the San are from modern West-Central Africans (time divergence appears greater than the time-divergence between West-Central Africans and the Han-Chinese, and genetic drift (based on Fst) is comparable to the drift between the Han-Chinese and the English).
**Groups that would count as "Negroids" within Africa should also not be seen as some sort of genetic monolith. They're not**... And even the old racialist model didn't truly imply as much. There's often a West-Central African cluster ("Niger-Congo" above) and an East African-cluster ("Nilo-Saharan" above) in ADMIXTURE runs, for instance. The Fst between these two clusters, as an example, is a little over 1/2 the Fst between the East Asian and European clusters above.
Also, based on Haplotypic data, the time divergence between some of these "African" ancestries (i.e. the African elements in Somalis and the African elements in Yorubas) implies they possibly haven't shared ancestry in over 30,000-40,000 years or so which is comparable to the, so far, supposed time-divergence between ENAs and the ancestors of European Hunter-Gatherers.
Once more, this has nothing to do with the topic or the point I am making. Your responses seem to be veering off-topic and quoting irrelevant information, making it appear as if you are contributing to the conversation. It's clear that your position is invalidated, and it's time to acknowledge that. No one here has claimed that SSAs are a genetic monolith, so using a straw man argument doesn't serve your case.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Iberomaurusians appear closer to Natufians primarily due to shared ancestry and their non-African ancestry. You're totally humiliated once again and you can't deny the genetic distinction between Natufians and Africans is undeniable. You won't manipulate and Africanize/blackwash our ancestors to fit your narrative, attempting to appropriate them and dismiss all the genetic and anthropological evidence. Again you presume "non-African" ancestry when such has yet to be substantiated unless you disagree with the growing consensus that Basal Eurasian is African. You say there is a distinction between Natufians and Africans yet forget the fact that Egyptians share much of the Natufians' ancestry. But of course Egyptians aren't really African either and neither are the Nubians who also share the same ancestry! LMAO
So no I don't have to "manipulate" anything the way you desperately attempt to distort the findings. No need for me to "Africanize" what is already African and again with that absurd oxymoronic term of "blackwash". You can't wash something "black" but WHITE which is what you are constantly doing. The accurate phrase is 'paint black'. Which I don't have to do because the genetics also show the populations you speak of to be highly melanated. [/QB]
It's evident that you find the notion of Eurasian settlement in Africa during that early period unsettling because it challenges the concept of a historically black North Africa. I don't have the inclination or time to craft an extensive argument defending the presence of such admixture. Additionally, the mention of Basal Eurasian seems irrelevant, as they predate the population in question by at least 40k years. Instead, I'll simplify my point with just one image :
It's funny how our ancient African ancestors from the MSA managed to colonize diverse regions worldwide, yet Djehuti finds it implausible that Eurasians could have settled in Northeast Africa via the Sinai and Nile corridor. Djehuti's stance contradicts the findings in both archaeological and genetic research of the past two decades, simply because it doesn't align with his Afrocentric narrative.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
It's funny how our ancient African ancestors from the MSA managed to colonize diverse regions worldwide, yet Djehuti finds it implausible that Eurasians could have settled in Northeast Africa via the Sinai and Nile corridor. Djehuti's stance contradicts the findings in both archaeological and genetic research of the past two decades, simply because it doesn't align with his Afrocentric narrative.
yes but what about the Y-DNA at Taforalt?
Posts: 43388 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
hahaha lmao that's literally the gedmatch version of G25, there is no "Himba" in the Eurogenes database XD
The sample results come from the MDLP K23b database which is relatively better at calculating samples from modern populations than g25. So what?! Unlike you I don't rely on Eurogenes as all Euronuts do for the good reason that you pointed out they lack sample from other areas of Africa.
quote:Here distances of Yoruba to different niger-congo communities from East Africa :
As you can observe, despite the significant geographical distances separating them, these populations are far more genetically similar to each other than Natufians and Iberomaurusians
Nice cherry picks, but we all know that those Kenyan samples (that I presume Eurogenes likes to display) are among the most homogeneous in East Africa.
Meanwhile, you have yet to explain why the Niger-Congo speaking Biaka of Cameroon who border Nigerians are as genetically distant to Nigerians as ancient Moroccans are to Natufians.
Or why the same distance can be found between ancient Mota of Ethiopia and modern Ethiopians
quote:Once more, this has nothing to do with the topic or the point I am making. Your responses seem to be veering off-topic and quoting irrelevant information, making it appear as if you are contributing to the conversation. It's clear that your position is invalidated, and it's time to acknowledge that. No one here has claimed that SSAs are a genetic monolith, so using a straw man argument doesn't serve your case.
That you fail to understand how Ethiohelix's writings relate to what we are speaking of goes to show your ignorance if not lack of intelligence. The only one whose position has been invalidated is YOURS and its been made clear in this forum for a long time now. Even Swenet doesn't take you seriously because your are an ignoramus whose agenda blinds you to the truth. You can't even read your own graphs properly becaue of it! LOL
quote:It's evident that you find the notion of Eurasian settlement in Africa during that early period unsettling because it challenges the concept of a historically black North Africa. I don't have the inclination or time to craft an extensive argument defending the presence of such admixture. Additionally, the mention of Basal Eurasian seems irrelevant, as they predate the population in question by at least 40k years. Instead, I'll simplify my point with just one image:
LOL That North Africa was 'black' has yet to be challenged historically speaking since all the historical texts from Europeans themselves describe the indigenous peoples as exactly that 'melanchroes' 'maures/moors' etc. Even genetic evidence shows the natives to be highly melanated. As for the claims of Eurasian. I never denied Eurasian presence at an early date though I do question some of the claims as many genetic signatures were once labeled as "Eurasian" before-- Y-clade E-M215, ANA, Mota, etc. It's because of these past blunders that I am skeptical. I even question the mitochondrial samples above which appear to be corroded since they can't even tell if it's H or U. It's only recently that many geneticists are realizing that M1 prevalent in the Horn is likely African OR back-migrated from Africans in Arabia due to its different motif from other basal M clades in Eurasia. The same seems to be the case with N1 and who knows what other N derivatives like R0 or even something that may appear to be U at first.
quote:It's funny how our ancient African ancestors from the MSA managed to colonize diverse regions worldwide, yet Djehuti finds it implausible that Eurasians could have settled in Northeast Africa via the Sinai and Nile corridor. Djehuti's stance contradicts the findings in both archaeological and genetic research of the past two decades, simply because it doesn't align with his Afrocentric narrative.
What I find implausible is your pathetic attempt at reviving the Hamitic Hypothesis since those same Eurasians includes Nubias and even some Nilo-Saharans as far south as Tanzania even though their parental lineages and HLA genes show otherwise. Can you explain this??
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Meanwhile, you have yet to explain why the Niger-Congo speaking Biaka of Cameroon who border Nigerians are as genetically distant to Nigerians as ancient Moroccans are to Natufians.
Or why the same distance can be found between ancient Mota of Ethiopia and modern Ethiopians
How does that support your stance ? Yourself admit those are great distances so no, natufians weren't genetically close to iberomaurusians
and again why do you keep avoiding this ? :
quote:Although, ADMIXTURE analysis pointed to some relationship between IAM and Levantine aDNA samples, especially the Natufians, this is not supported by FST distances .
Even worse for you : Iberomaurusians are actually closer to modern North Africans than natufians
quote: When we compare pair-wise FST distances, the most striking result is that IAM presents rather high FST values with all populations except for Taforalt (0.049). The following closest populations are KEB and Guanches (Figure S9.1) with FST values of 0.090 (similar to the distance between Yoruba and Mbuti) and 0.119 (similar to the distance between Somali and Mbuti), respectively. In fact, IAM is in general as distant to other Eurasians as it is the Yoruba population, following the same pattern observed previously for Taforalt. In a detailed population-by-population comparison (Figure S9.2), we can see that IAM is closer to modern North African populations , following the west to east trend described before, in such a way Saharawis and Moroccans are closer than Egyptians (Figure S9.3).
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That you fail to understand how Ethiohelix's writings relate to what we are speaking of goes to show your ignorance if not lack of intelligence. The only one whose position has been invalidated is YOURS and its been made clear in this forum for a long time now. Even Swenet doesn't take you seriously because your are an ignoramus whose agenda blinds you to the truth. You can't even read your own graphs properly becaue of it! LOL
As I mentioned earlier, Ethiohelix's writings are not related to the topic. No one suggested that SSAs constitute a genetic monolith. I can perfectly read my own graphs, Swenet simply proposed a lack of variables, which, although it could have enhanced the precision of the results, does not invalidate the comparison, which is why it was accepted for publication. It appears that you rely on others to challenge my assertions since you are evidently unable to do so yourself. Despite having observed this forum for years, your understanding of physical anthropology remains quite limited.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That North Africa was 'black' has yet to be challenged historically speaking since all the historical texts from Europeans themselves describe the indigenous peoples as exactly that 'melanchroes' 'maures/moors' etc. Even genetic evidence shows the natives to be highly melanated. As for the claims of Eurasian. I never denied Eurasian presence at an early date though I do question some of the claims as many genetic signatures were once labeled as "Eurasian" before-- Y-clade E-M215, ANA, Mota, etc. It's because of these past blunders that I am skeptical. I even question the mitochondrial samples above which appear to be corroded since they can't even tell if it's H or U. It's only recently that many geneticists are realizing that M1 prevalent in the Horn is likely African OR back-migrated from Africans in Arabia due to its different motif from other basal M clades in Eurasia. The same seems to be the case with N1 and who knows what other N derivatives like R0 or even something that may appear to be U at first.
The concept of a "black" North Africa is outdated and does not align with current genetic and anthropological evidence. It relies on modern interpretations of ancient terms. Furthermore, it appears you may not be well-acquainted with NAs, as they, on average, have darker skin tones compared to Europeans. Ancient samples clearly show that their genetic makeup resembles that of modern North Africans, with the presence of light skin alleles dating back 7500 years. Anthropological studies also reveal significant differences between ancient North Africans (even Paleolithic NAs were already very different) and most SSAs. Additionally, historical depictions provide ample evidence in this regard.
The term "highly melanated" lacks precision : Do I become "black" in summer due to my tan? As for the rest, you are justified in questioning the inclination to Eurasianize pretty much everything, but it's essential to acknowledge the substantial Eurasian admixture in the region, which is well-documented and not subject to dispute.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What I find implausible is your pathetic attempt at reviving the Hamitic Hypothesis since those same Eurasians includes Nubias and even some Nilo-Saharans as far south as Tanzania even though their parental lineages and HLA genes show otherwise. Can you explain this??
So, are you suggesting that simply citing genetic research showing varying degrees of eurasian ancestry in East Africans is akin to resurrecting the Hamitic hypothesis ?
A reminder of what the Hamitic Hypothesis is :
quote: The Hamitic hypothesis states that everything of value ever found in Africa was brought there by the Hamites, allegedly a branch of the Caucasian race. This hypothesis was preceded by an earlier theory, in the 16th century, that the Hamites were black savages, 'natural slaves' - and Negroes. This view, which persisted throughout the 18th century, served as a rationale for slavery, using Biblical interpretations in support of its tenets. The image of the Negro deteriorated in direct proportion to the growth of the importance of slavery, and it became imperative for the white man to exclude the Negro from the brotherhood of races. Napoleon's expedition to Egypt in 1798 became the historical catalyst that provided the Western world with the impetus to turn the Hamite into a Caucasian. The Hamitic concept has as its function the portrayal of the Negro as an inherently inferior being and to rationalize his exploitation. In the final analysis it was possible because its changing aspects were supported by the prevailing intellectual viewpoints of the times.
So tell us Djehuti what does this have to do with genetics ? Where did I imply superiority of "hamites" over "Negroes" ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Because you attempt to apply the same type of philosophy or rather mentality on to genetics. You already took a big L by attempting to restrict the color label of "black" on to a racial typology in Sub-Sahara.
S.O.Y. Keita: "Black is not limited to Africa".
Yet you attempt to limit black to only one region of Africa. LOL
Meanwhile, in regards to genetics you have yet to explain why the Niger-Congo speaking Biaka of Cameroon who border Nigerians are as genetically distant to Nigerians as ancient Moroccans are to Natufians.
Or why the same distance can be found between ancient Mota of Ethiopia and modern Ethiopians
Or the fact that despite it not being in the Eurogenes databank the Bantu-speaking Himba are more distant from West Africans.
Why is that?
Dr. Spencer Wells: "There is more genetic diversity in any single African village than in the whole world outside Africa."
posted
Meanwhile the ancient Euros that were the Greeks and Romans did not subscribe to such a division of Africa which is what the topic of this thread is about:
quote: The primary encounter with foreign and unknown nations is clearly and always made through sight. Even if one does not talk to, or trade with, or fight, or approach, other people, a visual impression is made. Accordingly, we find several proverbial expressions related to physical appearance. In Plautus’ Poenulus (‘the little Punic’) Antamonides, a soldier in love with one of two Carthaginian girls, exclaims:
Now that I’m angry I’d like my girlfriend to meet me: with my fists I’ll make sure that she’s black as a blackbird this instant, I’ll fill her with blackness to such an extent that she’s much blacker than the Egyptians (atrior … quam Aegyptini) who carry the bucket round the circus during the games.
(Plaut. Poen. 1288–91)Footnote5 Egyptians thus are presented as a standard for blackness, even if the image is based not on an actual visit to Egypt but on the appearance of Egyptians who were brought to Rome and performed or worked in the circus. Perhaps these implied circumstances emphasized even more the physical difference between locals (Roman city dwellers who attended the theatre) and foreigners (Egyptian slaves). But Egyptians were not the usual symbol of dark complexion. Based on what we have available in writing, other North Africans were more commonly used as proverbial illustrations of black or dark skin.
In the so-called Priapic erotic epigrams, a certain very repulsive girl is said to be ‘no whiter than a Moor’ (non candidior puella Mauro) (46.1). In another Priapic epigram the Moors represent elaborately curly hair when mocking a feminine male who ‘primp[s] his hair with curly irons so he’d seem a Moorish maiden’ (ferventi caput ustulare ferro, ut Maurae similis foret puellae) (45.2–3).Footnote6 The Latin MauriFootnote7 sometimes referred specifically to the inhabitants of the region defined in ancient geographies as Mauritania, or Maurousia in Greek, which is more or less parallel to parts of modern Morocco and Algeria.Footnote8 However, we often find the same terminology applied, especially in poetic works, to Africans in general.Footnote9 Accordingly, the proverbial association of Mauri with dark skin could be understood as pertaining to the inhabitants of north-western Africa or to the inhabitants of the continent as a whole. It seems that even if the crowds had no precise geographical idea of peoples and places, the popular notion of certain groups who have black skin must have been established and transmitted.
The Latin references to Egyptians and Mauri as people with a darker complexion combine to form the traditional and most well-known use of Aethiops as the symbol of black skin already in Greek proverbial applications. The very etymology of the Greek word Αἰθίοψ, denoting a ‘burnt face’ (αἴθω, ὄψ), as well as the Greek idiom ‘to wash an Aethiops white,’Footnote10 must have fixed this image in the minds of the crowds, even those who had never met any person from the relevant African regions. This is quite clear, for instance, in Juvenal’s contrast between ‘white’ and ‘Aethiops’ (derideat Aethiopem albus, Juv. 2.23)
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Because you attempt to apply the same type of philosophy or rather mentality on to genetics. You already took a big L by attempting to restrict the color label of "black" on to a racial typology in Sub-Sahara.
S.O.Y. Keita: "Black is not limited to Africa".
Yet you attempt to limit black to only one region of Africa. LOL
Meanwhile, in regards to genetics you have yet to explain why the Niger-Congo speaking Biaka of Cameroon who border Nigerians are as genetically distant to Nigerians as ancient Moroccans are to Natufians.
Or why the same distance can be found between ancient Mota of Ethiopia and modern Ethiopians
Or the fact that despite it not being in the Eurogenes databank the Bantu-speaking Himba are more distant from West Africans.
Why is that?
Dr. Spencer Wells: "There is more genetic diversity in any single African village than in the whole world outside Africa."
So your attempt to divorce North Africa from the rest of Africa is laughably pathetic...
You have completely ignored my points again and are using straw man arguments. No problem I'll post them again until you'll adress them :
As I mentioned earlier, Ethiohelix's writings are not related to the topic. No one suggested that SSAs constitute a genetic monolith. I can perfectly read my own graphs, Swenet simply proposed a lack of variables, which, although it could have enhanced the precision of the results, does not invalidate the comparison, which is why it was accepted for publication. It appears that you rely on others to challenge my assertions since you are evidently unable to do so yourself. Despite having observed this forum for years, your understanding of physical anthropology remains quite limited.
Yourself admit those are great distances so no, natufians weren't genetically close to iberomaurusians
and again why do you keep avoiding this ? :
quote:Although, ADMIXTURE analysis pointed to some relationship between IAM and Levantine aDNA samples, especially the Natufians, this is not supported by FST distances .
Even worse for you : Iberomaurusians are actually closer to modern North Africans than natufians
quote: When we compare pair-wise FST distances, the most striking result is that IAM presents rather high FST values with all populations except for Taforalt (0.049). The following closest populations are KEB and Guanches (Figure S9.1) with FST values of 0.090 (similar to the distance between Yoruba and Mbuti) and 0.119 (similar to the distance between Somali and Mbuti), respectively. In fact, IAM is in general as distant to other Eurasians as it is the Yoruba population, following the same pattern observed previously for Taforalt. In a detailed population-by-population comparison (Figure S9.2), we can see that IAM is closer to modern North African populations , following the west to east trend described before, in such a way Saharawis and Moroccans are closer than Egyptians (Figure S9.3).
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Meanwhile the ancient Euros that were the Greeks and Romans did not subscribe to such a division of Africa which is what the topic of this thread is about:
Ethnic Types and Stereotypes in Ancient Latin Idioms [QUOTE] The primary encounter with foreign and unknown nations is clearly and always made through sight. Even if one does not talk to, or trade with, or fight, or approach, other people, a visual impression is made. Accordingly, we find several proverbial expressions related to physical appearance. In Plautus’ Poenulus (‘the little Punic’) Antamonides, a soldier in love with one of two Carthaginian girls, exclaims:
Now that I’m angry I’d like my girlfriend to meet me: with my fists I’ll make sure that she’s black as a blackbird this instant, I’ll fill her with blackness to such an extent that she’s much blacker than the Egyptians (atrior … quam Aegyptini) who carry the bucket round the circus during the games.
(Plaut. Poen. 1288–91)Footnote5 Egyptians thus are presented as a standard for blackness, even if the image is based not on an actual visit to Egypt but on the appearance of Egyptians who were brought to Rome and performed or worked in the circus. Perhaps these implied circumstances emphasized even more the physical difference between locals (Roman city dwellers who attended the theatre) and foreigners (Egyptian slaves). But Egyptians were not the usual symbol of dark complexion. Based on what we have available in writing, other North Africans were more commonly used as proverbial illustrations of black or dark skin.
In the so-called Priapic erotic epigrams, a certain very repulsive girl is said to be ‘no whiter than a Moor’ (non candidior puella Mauro) (46.1). In another Priapic epigram the Moors represent elaborately curly hair when mocking a feminine male who ‘primp[s] his hair with curly irons so he’d seem a Moorish maiden’ (ferventi caput ustulare ferro, ut Maurae similis foret puellae) (45.2–3).Footnote6 The Latin MauriFootnote7 sometimes referred specifically to the inhabitants of the region defined in ancient geographies as Mauritania, or Maurousia in Greek, which is more or less parallel to parts of modern Morocco and Algeria.Footnote8 However, we often find the same terminology applied, especially in poetic works, to Africans in general.Footnote9 Accordingly, the proverbial association of Mauri with dark skin could be understood as pertaining to the inhabitants of north-western Africa or to the inhabitants of the continent as a whole. It seems that even if the crowds had no precise geographical idea of peoples and places, the popular notion of certain groups who have black skin must have been established and transmitted.
The Latin references to Egyptians and Mauri as people with a darker complexion combine to form the traditional and most well-known use of Aethiops as the symbol of black skin already in Greek proverbial applications. The very etymology of the Greek word Αἰθίοψ, denoting a ‘burnt face’ (αἴθω, ὄψ), as well as the Greek idiom ‘to wash an Aethiops white,’Footnote10 must have fixed this image in the minds of the crowds, even those who had never met any person from the relevant African regions. This is quite clear, for instance, in Juvenal’s contrast between ‘white’ and ‘Aethiops’ (derideat Aethiopem albus, Juv. 2.23)
Yes I'm sure Romans and Greeks understood "Black" or "Dark skin" as we do today in the West and of course couldn't make the difference between North Africans and Aethiopians. All Africans were pretty much the same (despite the genetic diversity) simply dark skin and the rest let's forget about it it's unimportant. Now as to how dark they were who cares ? We aren't into this "true negro" thing aren't we ? The Sahara never was a geographical barrier, its dessication is very recent and there were remnants of black saharan refugees in the Maghreb and Egypt. Eurasians never impacted much North Africa except after the arab conquest and the Barbary slave trade which brought enormous amount of arab tribes and europeans slaves who intermingled with the black locals. The Slave trade and its millions of slaves is simply a myth since most of those slaves died in the Sahara and the rest were castrated.
This is basically the kind of narrative that Djehuti tries to promote. Cherrypicking and twisting quotes here and there to support his racist ideology. Now let's debunk it again (since he already ignored a similar answer I made a few weeks ago since he had no concrete element to contradict it) :
There was not one "Black" Category and there was also a continuum in the Nile Valley not simply "blacks" :
quote:That Ethiopians were the blackest peoples known to Greeks and Romans is illustrated by a familiar "color-scheme", succinctly stated in the first century C.E. by Manilius (4.722-30), who classified dark- and black-skinned peoples as follows: Ethiopians, the blackest; Indians, less sunburned; Egyptians, mildly dark; and Moors, the lightest. Several classical authors specifically emphasized that Ethiopians were darker than Egyptians. Inhabitants of the area near the Ethiopian-nubian boundary were said by Flavius Philostratus (Life of Apollonius 6.2) to be not fully black, not as black as ethiopians, but blacker than egyptians.
Frank M. Snowden Jr., Bernal's "Blacks" and the afrocentrists,in: Black athena revisited, The university of North Carolina Press, 1996, p. 113
Aethiopians were separated from Libyans :
quote:Ethiopians differed from other dark-skinned peoples (e.g., Egyptians, Moors, and Indians) not only in that they were the blackest of all populations known to Greeks and Romans but also in that their hair was the woolliest or most tightly curled. Herodotus clearly located Ethiopians in the Nile Valley to the south of Egypt (e.g. 2.28-30) and in northwestern Africa to the south of the Libyans (4.197) and described some of the former as the most wolly-haired of all mankind (7.70)
Frank M. Snowden Jr., Bernal's "Blacks" and the afrocentrists,in: Black athena revisited, The university of North Carolina Press, 1996, p. 114
What a coincidence this is exactly what we see today !
Maghrebis despite being described as dark skinned were still clearly differentiated from Aethiopians :
quote: "Ethiopian", the word of crucial import as to the full significance of the ethnic identification of peoples darker than greeks and romans, was applied, with a few poetical exceptions, neither to egyptians nor to inhabitants of northwestern Africa, such as Carthaginians, Numidians, or Moors. In other words, all Ethiopians were black or dark, but with hair, noses, and lips differing from these features in other peoples described as black or dark. And Afri (africans) generally referred to the lighter-skinned populations of countries west of Egypt along the northern coast of Africa - peoples whose physical characteristics Greeks and Romans distinguished from those of the dark-skinned inhabitants of the interior of northwestern Africa.
Frank M. Snowden Jr., Bernal's "Blacks" and the afrocentrists,in: Black athena revisited, The university of North Carolina Press, 1996, p. 114
Again spectrum in the Nile Valley with Egyptians lighter than lower Nubians who in turn were lighter than upper nubians :
quote:Philostratus observed that as one proceeded south of Egypt up the Nile one found that the inhabitants were darker. Those dwelling near the boundaries between Egypt and Ethiopia were not completely black but were half-breeds as to color, in part not so black as Ethiopians but in part blacker than Egyptians. Interesting in this connection is the Barberini mosaic at Palestina depicting Egyptian landscape and the Nile in flood. The figures in the foreground are whites, while hunters on a mountain at the top of the mosaic representing the southernmost figures up the Nile, are blacks.
Frank M. Snowden Jr., Blacks in Antiquity, Harvard University Press, p. 4
He basically described the current situation.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes we know that populations get darker in complexion as one travels up the Nile or as Snowden put it, populations get "blacker" but the Egyptians were still considered "black" to begin with.
As for the Natufians, I never said they were genetically close to ancient Maghrebis. You and then I cited the fst results. My point is that the distance between them is the same as that between Nigerians and Biaka of Cameroon or that between the Mota and present day Ethiopians.
My point is that you try to use genetic distance as a way to pigeonhole African diversity but it isn't working.
One can make similar arguments for Australasian aboriginals.
The Onge are closest to Filipino 'Negritos' yet are closer to Mongols than Australian Aboriginals and closer to Saudi Arabs than Papuans!
Yet Onge, Filipine Negritos, Papuans and Aussi Aboriginals are all Australasians, and they are all BLACK the same way Africans both Sub-Saharan and North Saharan are.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ Yes we know that populations get darker in complexion as one travels up the Nile or as Snowden put it, populations get "blacker" but the Egyptians were still considered "black" to begin with.
As for the Natufians, I never said they were genetically close to ancient Maghrebis. You and then I cited the fst results. My point is that the distance between them is the same as that between Nigerians and Biaka of Cameroon or that between the Mota and present day Ethiopians.
My point is that you try to use genetic distance as a way to pigeonhole African diversity but it isn't working.
One can make similar arguments for Australasian aboriginals.
The Onge are closest to Filipino 'Negritos' yet are closer to Mongols than Australian Aboriginals and closer to Saudi Arabs than Papuans!
Yet Onge, Filipine Negritos, Papuans and Aussi Aboriginals are all Australasians, and they are all BLACK the same way Africans both Sub-Saharan and North Saharan are.
Egyptians were not referred to as "black" in the modern sense. As Snowden points out, anyone with a darker complexion than Southern Europeans might have been described as "black" or "dark-skinned". Furthermore, since when are "North Saharan" populations black ? Such an attempt to group together populations that have little in common may indicate a lack of understanding or simply a mental pathology. Undoubtedly, categorizing all these ethnic groups under a single label, regardless of the substantial differences that may exist among them, is highly advantageous for an Afrocentrist attempting to assert ownership over the history of North Africans.
Placing the Onge people in the same category as the Igbo or Tutsi, for instance, is misleading. And after that you have the audacity to pretend It's me who view "Blacks" as not diverse...
We have concrete evidence in the form of ancient DNA from the region that aligns with the aDNA of contemporary North Africans. Anthropological analyses of both modern and ancient north africans support this connection, and historical depictions of ancient and medieval North Africans consistently resemble their modern counterparts. So why do you persist in this line of thinking ? What drives this obsession ?
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And what is 'black' in a "modern sense" as opposed to in an "ancient sense" when the Greeks and Romans described them as such?? "Negroid"? "Sub-Saharan"? LOL Face it, you are either intellectually dishonest or bankrupt. It's one or the other.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ And what is 'black' in a "modern sense" as opposed to in an "ancient sense" when the Greeks and Romans described them as such?? "Negroid"? "Sub-Saharan"? LOL Face it, you are either intellectually dishonest or bankrupt. It's one or the other.
Yes, in America rightly or wrongly "black person" (formerly "negro") means "Negroid from Africa"
Rather then a more general definition > "Any person with dark skin" OR "A person darker than me"
Posts: 43388 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ But which definition in America? The popular definition or the old Federal Government definition which claims a black or Negro person is one whose ancestry hails from Sub-Saharan Africa while one from North Africa is Caucasian?
It was the Nubian-Egyptian Mostafa Hefny whose lawsuit against the U.S. helped change that insane legal definition.
Even in the 70s when he first came to the U.S. most white Americans thought it was a joke that this black man with an afro could be classified as "white". But of course being a Nubian if his craniofacial morphology was analyzed it would be type B-- N. Saharan and thus "caucasoid". To Antalas and his ilk this means he's not 'black'.
Meanwhile Somalis who share the same facial morphology but have straighter hair would be called "negro" because they are from Sub-Sahara. This shows how irrational racial labels often are.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: But which definition in America?
the one used by most Americans
"black person" (formerly "negro") means "Negroid from Africa or resembling one" (Australians etc)" and this includes phenotypic traits beyond just skin
despite anecdotal examples of individuals certain government officials categorized in inconsistent ways
the exception does not make the rule: The case if Mostafa Hefny and officials attempting to classify him does not change the common usage by the average American of a word
Posts: 43388 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Marincola is the same type of scholar Bernal was exposing throughout his work. If you look at Bernal's wiki page you can see how a tidal wave of 'experts' retaliated and assassinated his character, deliberately magnifying his errors and obscuring the bottom line factual essence of his work.
Whatever may be said about errors in Herodotus and Bernal (e.g. the degree of borrowing), they were not wrong about the essential bottom line of their anthro comments. When I say that, I'm specifically talking about their comments of an Egyptian or perhaps better called Afroasiatic element in the Aegean, and the areas south of the Caucasus (from which the dark skinned element among the Colchians could easily be an offshoot).
Basic Y-chromosomal haplogroups, which have been described in this study, are common for the Caucasus and Europe during the Iron Age period - E1a2a, G2a1a, R1b, and R1a; moreover, R1a and R1b haplogroups have been usually associated with the Indo-European mi- grations (Haak et al., 2015; de Barros Damgaard et al., 2018). Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome diversity of the prehistoric Koban culture of the North Caucasus http://генофонд.рф/wp-content/uploads/1-s2.0-S2352409X20301486-main.pdf
Another example of the academic community's typical pattern of defiance and obfuscation around Afroasiatic outposts/colonies in West Eurasia is the academic rendering of Bronze Age Semites as non-African Middle Easterners, as can be seen in the study of the Afroasiatic language family, in which the word 'Semitic' in 'Hamito-Semitic' was supposed to be the 'white' (and ancestral) component of this language family, while the Hamitic branch was a heavily modified remnant of a white population (e.g. Chadic speakers especially were seen as dubious members of this language family, due to their physical features). Though officially denounced today, these academic aggressions towards Africans still persist as shown by their questioning of ancient observers simply because they witnessed and wrote about Semitic/Afroasiatic enclaves (as if these ancients stand alone, as far as evidence goes ) and the fate of Bernal's work.
You can see why someone who has even a basic background in anthropology can lose respect for these so-called 'experts' ability to do any serious anthropology.
I don't agree with some of the claims attributed to Bernal (e.g. that pharaonic Egyptians or Phoenicians colonized Greece during the Bronze Age and contributed half of ancient Greek vocabulary), but I do believe the whole "Black Athena" drama has done a lot of damage to how the public perceives North African antiquity. It probably has a lot to do with why even those history aficionados who claim to be progressive will write off any narrative that appears vaguely "Afrocentric" as fringe. Even if not everything Bernal said turned out to be correct, the knee-jerk hostility he received from the classicist community did help pollute the atmosphere surrounding the topics he and people whose views overlapped or even just resembled his touched on.
There is one paper that I have laying around somewhere... two papers, in fact, that would have strengthened the anthro side of his work and taken the wind out of some of the criticisms of his work.
BTW, after posting in this thread I came across that Revoiye graphic with ANA percentages. I don't buy those percentages and generally stay away from blogger analyses. But I thought it was interesting that there is noticeable variation in ANA in the Minoan samples.
Posts: 8877 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue is what Bernal faces is similar to that of Diop. Whatever he was correct about tends to get glossed over or ignored and it is his errors that get paraded about with all the attention. An underlying point that Bernal made (the same as Diop) was that there was an Out-of-African expansion that happened in recent prehistoric times. They are just wrong about how it happened with Diop's African Dravidians and Bernal's Afro-Phoenicians.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were Bernal I would have focused on the Caphtorim/Keftiu/Cilicians, who were already showing signs of Aegean culture before classical Greece, and who arrived on the shores of Palestine as Philistines, bringing Aegean culture with them as well as traditions of originating in Egypt (hence biblical tradition of them being a tribe of Egyptians). I would have just stuck with figuring out the timeline of the arrival of these pre-Hellenic Aegeans (ie their antiquity compared to Greeks) and went from there.
Posts: 8877 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: If I were Bernal I would have focused on the Caphtorim/Keftiu/Cilicians, who were already showing signs of Aegean culture before classical Greece, and who arrived on the shores of Palestine as Philistines, bringing Aegean culture with them as well as traditions of originating in Egypt (hence biblical tradition of them being a tribe of Egyptians). I would have just stuck with figuring out the timeline of the arrival of these pre-Hellenic Aegeans (ie their antiquity compared to Greeks) and went from there.
I've never actually gotten around to reading Bernal's writing yet, but I don't know how familiar he was with Aegean archaeology, much less some of the Neolithic Aegean cultures associated with skeletal remains that show African affinities. All I know is that he built a large proportion of his case from Greek mythological traditions and what he perceived to be Egyptian and Semitic cognates in the ancient Greek language.
What I will credit Bernal with is how he laid his cards in an academic context. Way too many people making claims about the history and anthropology of North Africa and the Mediterranean basin depend on social media, blogs, or self-published books to communicate their ideas. Sometimes they find their audience and gain clout among lay enthusiasts, but even the most widely circulated YouTube videos and blog posts aren't going to have the credible veneer of something published in a peer-reviewed journal. The more respectable and trustworthy the source, the more people will believe what it has to say, especially if those people aren't simply reading or hearing what they want to read and hear anyway.
Of course, press attention helps too. If one of us were to get our arguments published in a peer-reviewed journal and it got a lot of coverage from science reporters, I believe that would be the best thing for us. Science reporting itself can be sloppy when summarizing the science, but you got to give it credit for drawing attention to actual research.
posted
^ I've read his work decades ago when I was middle and high school and his wacky linguistic claims and mythological and cultural errors was what the Euronuts had a field day with. This is why accuracy is important in scholarship especially dealing with an ideological paradigm. I mean the guy was not quite but in some regards almost as bad as Clyde Winters. But you tend to get his point about the cultural influence Egypt had in the Mediterranean.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26853 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It seems the only one you're fooling is yourself!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yes we know that populations get darker in complexion as one travels up the Nile or as Snowden put it, populations get "blacker" but the Egyptians were still considered "black" to begin with.
Printer-friendly view of this topic