posted
Keita is an afrorcentric fraud who distorts evidence; he misquoted Strouhal as saying that 80% of all predynastic Badarian hair was Negroid in origin:
Strouhal (1971) also analyzed hair in his study of 117 Badari crania, in which he concluded that >80% were Negroid; most of these were interpreted as being hybrids. In some of the Badarian crania hair was preserved, thanks to good conditions in the desert sand. In the first series, according to the descriptions of the excavators, they were curly in 6 cases, wavy in 33 cases and straight in 10 cases. They were black in 16 samples, dark brown in 11, brown in 12, light brown in 1 and grey in 11 cases.
Not once in the original study by Strouhal does it ever indicate that 80% of the hair examined was Negroid in origin!
nowhere in this passage does it ever say that 80% of Badarian hair was Negroid, as Keita falsely claimed!
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read the full study and don't know of anyone who has access to it online but not much can be gathered by that tiny quote from Strouhal. Keita is a respected anthropologist so until I see the entire study with my own eyes and it's clear that he is misrepresenting sources I will not pass judgment on him over this issue.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
realone - Did you join this forum to annoy us, or just so that you could make a fool of yourself. Your answer to this question will tell all.
Your quote: "according to the descriptions of the excavators, they were curly in 6 cases, wavy in 33 cases and straight in 10 cases. They were black in 16 samples, dark brown in 11, brown in 12, light brown in 1 and grey in 11 cases."
Question; how would straight, curly, wavy, tightly curled - whatever texture hair.
Or, black, dark brown, brown, light brown, grey, whatever color in hair, impact on the race of the people????
Oh gosh! don't tell me, you didn't get the memo that all Black people don't look alike - I feel for you man. Made a fool of yourself for nothing.
Well just so that doesn't happen again, why not take a peek at Kings African picture thread - they're all there in all their Black, Brown skinned, wavy haired, straight haired, tightly curled haired glory. The only type that you won't find, is the White Skinned type. Those types are from our defective Albino populations, we kicked them out, but alas, they returned.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I haven't read the full study and don't know of anyone who has access to it online but not much can be gathered by that tiny quote from Strouhal. Keita is a respected anthropologist so until I see the entire study with my own eyes and it's clear that he is misrepresenting sources I will not pass judgment on him over this issue.
FULL STUDY th the aim of elucidating the question of the morphological character of the Badarians,I studied both Badarian series,the first one in Duckworth Laboratory at Cambrige[53 skulls]and the second one in the Insitute of Anatomyat Kasr El-Aini,Unversity of Cairo[64 skulls],making a total of 117 skulls of adult and juvenile individuals.
Of the total of 117 skulls,15 were found to be markedly Europoid,9 of these were of the gracile Mediterranean type.....6 were of very robust structure reminiscent of the North African Cro-Magnoid type. Eight skulls were clearly negriod........and were close to the Negro types occuring in East Africa. The majority of 94 skulls showed mixed Europoid-Negriod features in different combinations and with different shares of both components,either well balanced or with characters of the neautral range,common to both racial groups. We may conclude that the share of both components was nearly the same,with some overweight to the Europoid side.
In some of the Badarian crania hair was preserved,thanks to good conditions in the desert sand.
In the first series ,according to the description of the excavators,they were curly in 6 cases,wavy in 33 cases,straight in 10 cases.
They were black in 16 samples ,dark brown in 11,brown in 12,light brown in ,and gray in 11 cases.......
I was able to take samples of seven of the racially mixed Badarian indivduals which were macroscopically curly[spirals of 10-20mm in diameter]or wavy in [25-35 mm].
They were studied microscopically by S. Tittlebacchova from the Institute of Anthropology of the Charles Unversity,who found in five out of seven samples a change in the thickness of the hair in the course of its length ,sometimes with simultaneous narrowing of the hair pitch.
The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened ,with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show Negriod influence among the Badarians.
{Thus] the Negriod component amung the Badarians is anthropologically well based. Even though the share of ''pure'' Negores is small[6.8 percent],being half that of Europoid forms[12.9 percent],the hig majority of mixed forms [80.3 percent] suggest a long-lasting dispersion of Negriod genes in the population. It can be interpreted by the supposition that the mixture of both components began many generations previously.....
We still donot know exactly when neolithic farmers first settled in the Nile Valley,nor from whence they came. A date in the sixth millennium B.C. is most likley the sources of the settlement may probally be found in the eastern Mediterraneanarea. At the same period,however,with the begginings of the Makalian wet phases ,the Niegro populations of the Sudanic savannah belt would have started its movement towards the north,into Saharan latitudes,which then,for the last time became open to human occupation. Maybe some of these emigrant groups penetrated down the Nile as far as Upper Egypt,thus providing one of the oldest known biological contacts between Negriods and Europoids,the ultimate evidence of which appears some 1,000-1,500 years later in skeletons preserved in the Badarian cemetaries.
In this connection,we have to mention the Egyptologist have found in Badarian and other pre-dyanstic cultures of Upper Egypt some materials and idelogical evidence of southern or Sudanic African elements. The Badarian pottery is connected with the pottery of the Khartoumn neolithic culture,which originated probally from cermacis of the early Khartoumn culture.
Some authors postulate the direct derivation of Badarian pottery from the Khartoumn neolithic pottery. While in Egypt pottery of this type was later replaced by other ceramic forms,often under the influence of the Middle East,in the Sudan this arhaic pottery persisted flor along time,and was form there later introduced on several occasions by southern immigrants into Nubia and even[though in small quanities] into Egypt.
Fishing hooks were also found in Badari ,typologically similar to Khartoumn neolithic hooks,but more developed,and therefore pobally younger. To this connection between the Khartoumn neolithic and Badarian cultures it is necessary to add that,according to present--unfortunatley still very poor----evidence,the population of the Khartoumn neolithic was negriod.
Badarian flint instruments are of suprisingly poor quality. They were made from free-lying boulders,regardless of the fact that in the living area of the Badarians plenty of superb flints could have been collected from limestone layers.
This provides an argument for the arrival of Badarian people from area lacking limestones with flints e.g.,from more southern areas ,where,starting with 25 degrees N. latitude in the Eastern Desert and Esna in the Nile Valley,the limestone relief comes o an end.
In some of the BAdarian graves,conical buttons made from fine polished cermaics were found which were probally worn in the earlobes or in the nasal wings.......The custom of wearing ornaments in the nose or ears can be considered in this region also being of African origin.
In the pre-dyanstic cultures of Upper Egypt Alderd found evidence of the cult of ceslsetial and astral deities ,as well as of the idea of the leader]later deified king],and the ''rainmaker''.
This is also an old African conception ,which may be connected with the original home of the Upper Egyptian populations [or part of it] in a region dependking motr on rainfall than on the Nile floods.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by realone: Of the total of 117 skulls,15 were found to be markedly Europoid,9 of these were of the gracile Mediterranean type.....6 were of very robust structure reminiscent of the North African Cro-Magnoid type. Eight skulls were clearly negriod........and were close to the Negro types occuring in East Africa. The majority of 94 skulls showed mixed Europoid-Negriod features in different combinations and with different shares of both components,either well balanced or with characters of the neautral range,common to both racial groups. We may conclude that the share of both components was nearly the same,with some overweight to the Europoid side.
Well I guess that locks it up. Keita was telling the truth..... Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
real one said: Keita is an afrorcentric fraud who distorts evidence; he misquoted Strouhal as saying that 80% of all predynastic Badarian hair was Negroid in origin:
The only fraud is you and your own quote kills your claim. Your "hair" argument is warmed over bullshiit from Madilda, using E. Stouhal's long defunct early 1970s approach. Is this all you got? In his writing, Keita referred to how certain scholars never develop a "true white" stereotypical model as they do with blacks. If they did, then all hair not meeting a long, straight caucasoid "true" type would be "Negro."
But in any event your "point" and that of tired Madilda is bogus, and revealed by your own quote. Note Keita says that "most of these were interpreted as being hybrids." He never claims Stouhal said they were "pure negro" this is something added on by madilda and you to create a bogus "talking point." And if Strouhal's says they were "mixed Negroid-Europid" origin, then that makes them non-white. Either way, they aren't white. In fact, Strouhal points out the long standing African elements not only physically but culturally as well- i.e. the rainmaker.
Ironically, Strohal takes pains to point out how the Badarian are linked to african groups, such as in the Sudan. Keita in 2005 put this to the test, making a head to head comparison with whites, blacks and the Badari. Results showed the Badari link much more closely with Africans than white groups, confirming more scientifically, with a bigger sample, the close links noted by Strouhal. Both Strouhal and Keita agree that they had close links to Africans. QUOTE:
"An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series."(S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data. Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)
Brace 1993, so often quoted by Eurocentrics specifically and conveniently EXCLUDED the Badari ensuring the results were skewed a certain way.
Are you aware that your own quote undermines your argument. Look at it again:
{Thus] the Negriod component amung the Badarians is anthropologically well based. Even though the share of ''pure'' Negores is small[6.8 percent],being half that of Europoid forms[12.9 percent],the hig majority of mixed forms [80.3 percent] suggest a long-lasting dispersion of Negriod genes in the population. It can be interpreted by the supposition that the mixture of both components began many generations previously.....
Your own Strouhal's quote shows him saying 6.9% pure negro, 12.9 Europid, and the majority (quote) "majority of mixed forms [80.3 percent] suggest a long-lasting dispersion of Negriod genes in the population."
Bingo. Strouhal is saying that most were mixed, and that the data suggested not a preponderance of white people, but a long standing negroid component in the population, something he takes pains to note. This is exactly what Keita is pointing out. Keita is advancing no claim of any "pure negroes" (there is no such thing in any case. He is saying that Strouhal said most were mixed, and that is exactly what is demonstrated by the Strouhal quote above. All can see it.
Madilda's claim and yours, is STRAWMAN, and clearly and totally bogus, revealed by the very same quotes you are peddling as "evidence." You shot yourself in the foot again, with your own "evidence."
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually you haven't even got this right. Strouhal says 80% was hybrid, and he takes pains to point out that that the data suggested long standing negroid elements in the population. Your own quote undermines your claim.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by realone: 94% of them were found MIXED not negroid.
He said that over 80% were found to be Negroid and that most of these were interpreted as being hybrids. Obviously Keita is applying the One-Drop Rule. In any case Northeast African hair is highly variable as Keita notes.....
Strouhal (1971) microscopically examined some hair which had been preserved on a Badarian skull. The analysis was interpreted as suggesting a stereotypical tropical African-European hybrid (mulatto). However, this hair is grossly no different from that of Fulani, some Kanuri, or Somali and does not require a gene flow explanation any more than curly hair in Greece necessarily does. Extremely "woolly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa. This is not to say that gene flow (admixture) never occurred, but only to reit- erate that natural variation should be considered the first line of explanation. This kind of hair, and the lack of appreciation of the Elongated African con- cept (see Hiernaux 1975), have led some (e.g., Robins and Shute 1986) to fail to view their data in an adaptive context. This results in implying that southern early Egyptians were not part of the Saharo-tropical group which includes "Negroes."- Keita (1993)Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stated by un real-one:black egypt is a myth to make black kids feel good.
^^Yep!!! Guys N Gals...the ol Blacks with low self-esteem thingy...and you still think you are dealing with some new unknown who just wanna set the record straight for Kemet...Dispite me calling this MF out earlier on exactly what he is going to say next he couldn't resist couldn't deivate...weak sauce really weak sauce. now he starts with the picture spam...I have an idea lets call him Sir Spam-AーＬｏｔ Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by realone: I don't see any niggers here.
RACIST ALERT!!!!
What's wrong, Realone? You're getting your ass kicked in debate so you resort to picture spamming?
What I see in your picture spam is a Fayum Portrait which dates to the GRECO-ROMAN period, some Black Egyptians on a wall-painting (women were symbolically painted light to constrast genders) and an unpainted bust that probably looks like a Caucasian to you but is likely not given that the Ancient Egyptians were not of Eurasian descent based on all the anthropological, linguistic, archeological and genetic data.
Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.- Keita
See any Blacks in this art?
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
BLACK EGYPT IS IMPOSSIBLE!! CT is the ancestral haplogroup from which DE eventually diverged, but CT, CF, and C have never been detected in Africa, with these haplogroups only reaching their highest frequencies and greatest diversity in Asia. How could CT be ancestral to DE, but CT/CF/C be completely absent from the continent of Africa? Therefore, it should be obvious that E is of Asian origin. Similarly, D is much older than E and is geographically restricted only to Asia; it is impossible that DE originated in Africa, because D has never been detected in Africa; on the other hand, Asia has the greatest amount of YAP(+) diversity, with all three forms of YAP(+) being present, meaning that Asia is the likely birthplace of DE.
Now let's look at what Underhill et. al. said about the conditions necessary for an Asian origin of YAP(+) with the full quotation before us, from his 2001 paper: One prediction of this model is that the ancestral state of this lineage, which would be YAP(+) but ancestral for both the eastern (M174C) and western (M96C) sublineages , should be found in the Asian population(s) where the insertion originally occurred.
Then there was this discovery made by Shi et. al. in 2008, sometime after the Underhill et. al. paper:
In surprise, we observed two DE* in the Tibetan samples, which was previously only observed in Africa (Nigerians), but not in other world populations.
North eastern Africans share the same Eurasian mtDNA/Y-DNA sequences (such as Y-DNA Hg J and T, mtDNA Hg M and U) with North Africans and other white Mediterraneans, much of which dates from long after the OOA migration, up until the Neolithic period. The fact that North eastern Africans are more related to Caucasoids than Negroids clearly demonstrates that they belong to the Caucasoid race. Even Hanihara et. al. (2003) admits that sub-Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
sir-spa malot ur busted..dusted can't be trusted now we are in to the N..word ...oooh scary an pissture spam oh how original...yes i said pissture as My pissture is longer than yours. dude getta life!!! Or "DIE" Pluzzeze.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
North eastern Africans share the same Eurasian mtDNA/Y-DNA sequences (such as Y-DNA Hg J and T, mtDNA Hg M and U) with North Africans and other white Mediterraneans, much of which dates from long after the OOA migration, up until the Neolithic period. The fact that North eastern Africans are more related to Caucasoids than Negroids clearly demonstrates that they belong to the Caucasoid race. Even Hanihara et. al. (2003) admits that sub-Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians.
North East Africans ARE Sub Saharan Africans dumbass.
quote: The fact that North eastern Africans are more related to Caucasoids
AND
quote: sub-Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians.
Cannot fit in the same paragraph and make sense.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by realone: BLACK EGYPT IS IMPOSSIBLE!! CT is the ancestral haplogroup from which DE eventually diverged, but CT, CF, and C have never been detected in Africa, with these haplogroups only reaching their highest frequencies and greatest diversity in Asia. How could CT be ancestral to DE, but CT/CF/C be completely absent from the continent of Africa? Therefore, it should be obvious that E is of Asian origin. Similarly, D is much older than E and is geographically restricted only to Asia; it is impossible that DE originated in Africa, because D has never been detected in Africa; on the other hand, Asia has the greatest amount of YAP(+) diversity, with all three forms of YAP(+) being present, meaning that Asia is the likely birthplace of DE.
Now let's look at what Underhill et. al. said about the conditions necessary for an Asian origin of YAP(+) with the full quotation before us, from his 2001 paper: One prediction of this model is that the ancestral state of this lineage, which would be YAP(+) but ancestral for both the eastern (M174C) and western (M96C) sublineages , should be found in the Asian population(s) where the insertion originally occurred.
Then there was this discovery made by Shi et. al. in 2008, sometime after the Underhill et. al. paper:
In surprise, we observed two DE* in the Tibetan samples, which was previously only observed in Africa (Nigerians), but not in other world populations.
North eastern Africans share the same Eurasian mtDNA/Y-DNA sequences (such as Y-DNA Hg J and T, mtDNA Hg M and U) with North Africans and other white Mediterraneans, much of which dates from long after the OOA migration, up until the Neolithic period. The fact that North eastern Africans are more related to Caucasoids than Negroids clearly demonstrates that they belong to the Caucasoid race. Even Hanihara et. al. (2003) admits that sub-Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians.
This pathetic troll is quoting verbatim the ramblings of some racist Eurocentrist on another site.
posted
Morphus you don't get it all this was pointed the first 200th times he posted under different names...ur wasting ur time he will never read what you wrote or post...don't take him seriously,
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
deleted
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
If you have any original arguments to make about DNA let us know
Stupid nigger, I use whatever tactics it takes to destroy afronuts and gnyphobic is the TOP Afrocentric debunker, so I use his words a lot?
I do what it takes to defend WHITE EGYPT!
The Tombos Stela of Thutmose I reads:
- “He hath overthrown the chief of the Nubians; the Black is helpless, defenseless, in his grasp. He hath united the boundaries of his two sides, there is not a remnant among the curly-haired, who came to attack; there is not a single survivor among them…They fall by the sword…the fragments cut from them are too much for the birds.”
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by realone: Stupid nigger, I use whatever tactics it takes to destroy afronuts and gnyphobic is the TOP Afrocentric debunker, so I use his words a lot?
I do what it takes to defend WHITE EGYPT!
The Tombos Stela of Thutmose I reads:
- “He hath overthrown the chief of the Nubians; the Black is helpless, defenseless, in his grasp. He hath united the boundaries of his two sides, there is not a remnant among the curly-haired, who came to attack; there is not a single survivor among them…They fall by the sword…the fragments cut from them are too much for the birds.”
In other words you're just a stupid, two-bit racist troll who cannot come up with an original argument of his own so he posts ramblings from Eurocentrists.
Your next source comes straight from White-History.com. Translation comes from Breasted but is highly suspect. Cheihk Anta Diop refuted the notion that the Ancient Egyptians used racial epithets against their Southern Neighbors.
In any case you have no answer for the ANTHROPOLOGICAL evidence that we have posted so I suggest quitting before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.
White Egypt? LMAO! What a joke!
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by realone: Stupid nigger, I use whatever tactics it takes to destroy afronuts and gnyphobic is the TOP Afrocentric debunker, so I use his words a lot?
I do what it takes to defend WHITE EGYPT!
The Tombos Stela of Thutmose I reads:
- “He hath overthrown the chief of the Nubians; the Black is helpless, defenseless, in his grasp. He hath united the boundaries of his two sides, there is not a remnant among the curly-haired, who came to attack; there is not a single survivor among them…They fall by the sword…the fragments cut from them are too much for the birds.”
In other words you're just a stupid, two-bit racist troll who cannot come up with an original argument of his own so he posts ramblings from Eurocentrists.
Your next source comes straight from White-History.com. Translation comes from Breasted but is highly suspect. Cheihk Anta Diop refuted the notion that the Ancient Egyptians used racial epithets against their Southern Neighbors.
In any case you have no answer for the ANTHROPOLOGICAL evidence that we have posted so I suggest quitting before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.
White Egypt? LMAO! What a joke!
He can use my words all he wants they aren't copyrighted. The claim that niggers built ancient Egypt is both laughable and preposterous. Have niggers built anything comparable in other parts of sub-Saharan Negroid Africa? Well, obviously not! As a matter of fact, never have sub-Saharan Negroids ever built anything that even remotely compared to the magnificent art, architecture and civil engineering projects of ancient Egypt; never have niggers ever produced a body of written literature or a culture that is as rich or even as diverse and complex as that of the ancient Egyptians. Even the Nubians, a people of mixed Caucasoid/Negroid origin who became substantially Egyptianized due to frequent exposure to the cultures of the Nile valley, never constructed anything as magnificent or as grandiose. Given the fact that niggers have an IQ of 70, which is a level of intelligence that is indicative of borderline mental retardation, it is highly unlikely that niggers played any role in the establishment of Egyptian civilization, except as slaves and indentured servants to Mediterranean Caucasoid slave masters.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The predynastic Egyptians, that is to say, that stratum of them which was indigenous to North Africa, belonged to a white or light-skinned race with fair hair, who in many particulars resembled the Libyans, who in later historical times lived very near the western bank of the Nile." [E. A. W. Budge, Egypt in the Neolithic and Archaic Periods (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trübner, 1902), p. 49.]
In 1925, the Oxford don L. H. Dudley Buxton, wrote the following concerning ancient Egyptian crania:
"Among the ancient crania from the Thebaid in the collection in the Department of Human Anatomy in Oxford, there are specimens which must unhesitatingly be considered to be those of Nordic type. If this is so, it would seem that they probably entered Egypt with the other alien elements which began to filter in from Asia in early dynastic times. How far the Nordics ever formed any appreciable element in the population is doubtful, but these specimens prove their existence." [L. H. D. Buxton, The Peoples of Asia (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trübner, 1925), p. 50.]
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gynphobic: He can use my words all he wants they aren't copyrighted. The claim that niggers built ancient Egypt is both laughable and preposterous. Have niggers built anything comparable in other parts of sub-Saharan Negroid Africa? Well, obviously not! As a matter of fact, never have sub-Saharan Negroids ever built anything that even remotely compared to the magnificent art, architecture and civil engineering projects of ancient Egypt; never have niggers ever produced a body of written literature or a culture that is as rich or even as diverse and complex as that of the ancient Egyptians. Even the Nubians, a people of mixed Caucasoid/Negroid origin who became substantially Egyptianized due to frequent exposure to the cultures of the Nile valley, never constructed anything as magnificent or as grandiose. Given the fact that niggers have an IQ of 70, which is a level of intelligence that is indicative of borderline mental retardation, it is highly unlikely that niggers played any role in the establishment of Egyptian civilization, except as slaves and indentured servants to Mediterranean Caucasoid slave masters.
LMAO! You racist vermin are a hoot! What were Europeans doing during the thousands of years that Ancient Egypt was flourishing? Nothing of significance! I recommend that you read Black, Spark White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? by Richard Poe to learn about the debt that Western Civilization owes Ancient Egypt which is acknowledged by the Ancient Greeks.
Of particular interest is the 1st chapter Darkest Europe which documents the culture of Central and Northern Europe before the spread of Greco-Roman civilization. They were savages who practiced all manner of barbarism including cannibalism and beastiality. They were regarded as inferior by their Southern neighbors who held Northeast African Blacks in much higher esteem.
The development of civilization is very complex and history itself does not support racial hierarchies. Only insecure racist losers like yourself need to identify themselves with the accomplishments of others to mask your personal failings in life. That's why you troll the internet all day looking down on other people. Because you are a LOSER and that's all you're ever going to be.
Don't even start with that IQ nonsense we've got plenty of counter sources for that garbage. For instance:
quote: Traits that are clinally distributed are under the control of selective forces that are distributed in graded fashion. Traits that cluster in certain regions are simply the results of relatedness and are not adaptively important. Traits that are of equal survival value for all human populations should show no average difference from one population to another. Human cognitive capacity, founded on the ability to learn a language, is of equal survival value to all human groups, and consequently there is no valid reason to expect that there should be average differences in intellectual ability among living human populations. The archaeological record shows that, at any one time during the Pleistocene, survival strategies were essentially the same throughout the entire range of human occupation. Both archaeological and biological data contribute to the picture of the slow emergence of human linguistic behavior and its subsequent maturation. The similarities in human capability were not the result of a sudden, recent, and localized common origin. Instead, the widely shared common human condition was the consequence of a long-term adaptation to common conditions during which specific unity was maintained by low but nontrivial rates of genetic exchange among groups. The differences in human lifeways that have arisen since the end of the Pleistocene-and in most instances much more recently-have had too little time to have had any measurable effect on the generation of inherited differences in intellectual ability. When average group differences in intelligence test scores are encountered, the first conclusion to be drawn is that the circumstances under which intellectual capabilities are nurlured and developed are not the same for the groups in question. Where such tests show different racial averages in test scores, this should be taken as an index of the continuing effects of race prejudice and not of inherent differences in capability.
Source: An anthropological perspective on race and intelligence : The non-clinal nature of human cognitive capabilities
Even Hanihara et. al. (2003) admits that sub-Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians. -----------------
Wrong again. Actually Hanihara 2003 shows that Egyptians group first with other AFRICANS including Nubians than with whites or Middle Easterners. And as was pointed out, North East Africans like Ethiopians or Somalis ARE Sub Saharan Africans.
No matter how you slice it- the first link for ancient Egyptians is other Africans, including other Egyptians and Nubians.
As regards the Nubians, two eminent mainstream scholars show that they are the closest ethnically to the Egyptians, a point confirmed by cranial studies:
quote: "Among the foreigners, the Nubians were closest ethnically to the Egyptians. In the late predynastic period (c. 3700-3150 B.C.E.), the Nubians shared the same culture as the Egyptians and even evolved the same pharaonic political structure." - (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989)
Quote: "the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region. As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne. Especially interesting, it was a member of this dynasty- that decreed that no Nehsy (riverine Nubian of the principality of Kush), except such as came for trade or diplomatic reasons, should pass by the Egyptian fortress at the southern end of the Second Nile Cataract. Why would this royal family of Nubian ancestry ban other Nubians from coming into Egyptian territory? Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?', Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5, 1989)
quote: “The ancient Egyptians referred to a region, located south of the third cataract the Nile River, in which Nubians dwelt as Kush.. Within such context, this phrase is not a racial slur. Throughout the history of ancient Egypt there were numerous, well documented instances that celebrate Nubian-Egyptian marriages. A study of these documents, particularly those dated to both the Egyptian New Kingdom (after 1550 B.C.E.) and to Dynasty XXV and early Dynasty XXVI (about 720-640 BCE), reveals that neither spouse nor any of the children of such unions suffered discrimination at the hands of the ancient Egyptians. Indeed such marriages were never an obstacle to social, economic, or political status, provided the individuals concerned conformed to generally accepted Egyptian social standards. Furthermore, at times, certain Nubian practices, such as tattooing for women, and the unisex fashion of wearing earrings, were wholeheartedly embraced by the ancient Egyptians." (Bianchi, 2004: p. 4)
'It is an extremely difficult task to attempt to describe the Nubians during the course of Egypt's New Kingdom, because their presence appears to have virtually evaporated from the archaeological record.. The result has been described as a wholesale Nubian assimilation into Egyptian society. This assimilation was so complete that it masked all Nubian ethnic identities insofar as archaeological remains are concerned beneath the impenetrable veneer of Egypt's material; culture.. In the Kushite Period, when Nubians ruled as Pharaohs in their own right, the material culture of Dynasty XXV (about 750-655 B.C.E.) was decidedly Egyptian in character.. Nubia's entire landscape up to the region of the Third Cataract was dotted with temples indistinguishable in style and decoration from contemporary temples erected in Egypt. The same observation obtains for the smaller number of typically Egyptian tombs in which these elite Nubian princes were interred. (Bianchi, 2004, p. 99-100)
- Robert Bianchi ( 2004). Daily Life of the Nubians. Greenwood Publishing Group
As regards modern y-DNA data on Egyptians the closest link is with other Africans not European whites or Middle Easterners:
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see the vermin have a taste for quoting Budge, I myself find Budge contemptable but here is some of what he has to say in the preface to Osiris or the Egyptian Religon of Resurrection
quote:It may be objected that the modern beliefs and superstitions of the Sudan and Congo-land and Dahomey are survivals of ancient Egyptian religious views and opinions, but the objection seems to me to possess no validity. The oldest and best forms of the Egyptian religion died more than 3000 years ago, and many of the most illuminating facts for comparative and illustrative purposes are derived from the Religions of peoples who live in parts of Africa into which Egyptian influence never penetrated. The power of Egypt reached no farther than the “Island” of Meroe, and it was not truly effective beyond Napata, the modern Marawi, near the foot of the fourth cataract. Modern Sudani beliefs are identical with those of ancient Egypt, because the Egyptians were Africans and the modern peoples of the Sudan are Africans.
Written September 1911 Preface pg xx Kessinger Publishing.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The writing of the Introductions brought me face to face with the difficulty in explaining the belief in the existence of the Dual Soul, and the extraordinary ideas as to its functions and capabilities which underlie the Chapters of the Heart, and the Chapters of Transformations, and ancient Egyptian psychology and eschatology in general. None of the existing works on the ancient Egyptian Religion explained the difficulties, but a perusal of the articles which Professor Maspero had contributed to the Revue Des Religions showed that this eminent Egyptologist had battled with the same difficulties, and that he, like myself, was disposed to explain them by references to the beliefs of the modern African peoples in the Sudan and West Africa. Moreover, the writings of the late E. Lefebure and of Professor Wiedemann, of Bonn, contained evidence that they share the same view.
Preface page xx
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The predynastic Egyptians, that is to say, that stratum of them which was indigenous to North Africa, belonged to a white or light-skinned race with fair hair, who in many particulars resembled the Libyans, who in later historical times lived very near the western bank of the Nile." [E. A. W. Budge, Egypt in the Neolithic and Archaic Periods (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trübner, 1902), p. 49.]
Quoting out of context is equivalent to lying. The full context is that Budge believed that there was a light skinned stratum of predynastic people who inhabited lower Egypt but were conquered by a "New Race" who came from the south.
Also regarding the "fair hair" they forget to quote waht Budge writes just a few lines below:
quote:Prof. Virchow (Abhandlunrien der KiJnigl. Preus. Alad. der W issenschaften, Berlin, 1899) declares that the light colour of the hair found on predynastic bodies is due to the action of the salt in the soil, and that the hair was originally black.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Good points all. It is ironic that they are quoting Budge when Budge's own quotes undermine their bogus white Egypt approach. As you show above, Budge found Egyptian religion more closely related to that of Africans. Data by modern scholars have found the same thing, putting another spike in the bogus Aryan model.
Budge sez (circa 1911): t may be objected that the modern beliefs and superstitions of the Sudan and Congo-land and Dahomey are survivals of ancient Egyptian religious views and opinions, but the objection seems to me to possess no validity. The oldest and best forms of the Egyptian religion died more than 3000 years ago, and many of the most illuminating facts for comparative and illustrative purposes are derived from the Religions of peoples who live in parts of Africa into which Egyptian influence never penetrated. The power of Egypt reached no farther than the “Island” of Meroe, and it was not truly effective beyond Napata, the modern Marawi, near the foot of the fourth cataract. Modern Sudani beliefs are identical with those of ancient Egypt, because the Egyptians were Africans and the modern peoples of the Sudan are Africans.
"A large number of gods go back to prehistoric times. The images of a cow and star goddess (Hathor), the falcon (Horus), and the human-shaped figures of the fertility god (Min) can be traced back to that period. Some rites, such as the "running of the Apil-bull," the "hoeing of the ground," and other fertility and hunting rites (e.g., the hippopotamus hunt) presumably date from early times.. Connections with the religions in southwest Asia cannot be traced with certainty."
"It is doubtful whether Osiris can be regarded as equal to Tammuz or Adonis, or whether Hathor is related to the "Great Mother." There are closer relations with northeast African religions. The numerous animal cults (especially bovine cults and panther gods) and details of ritual dresses (animal tails, masks, grass aprons, etc) probably are of African origin. The kinship in particular shows some African elements, such as the king as the head ritualist (i.e., medicine man), the limitations and renewal of the reign (jubilees, regicide), and the position of the king's mother (a matriarchal element). Some of them can be found among the Ethiopians in Napata and Meroe, others among the Prenilotic tribes (Shilluk)."
Frankfort's study of near eastern religion found Egyptian religion very different from that of Mesopotamia and demonstrated that it was more linked to the native religions of East Africa than to any Middle Eastern or European influences.
quote:
"Egypt too reflected the natural rhythms of the seasons in the course of the official year. There were annual festivals connected with the rise of the Nile and the end of the inundation, with the resurrection of Osiris; and with the completion of the harvest. But these celebrations, which articulated the progression of the community through the year, differ profoundly in spirit from their Mesopotamian counterparts...
.. In this respect there is also a complete contrast between Egypt and Mesopotamia. The earliest Mesopotamian term for king expresses a viewpoint.. lugal means "great man". In Egypt, on the other hand, one of the gods descended among men... there are alive today in Africa groups of people who are true survivors of that great East African substratum out of which Egyptian culture arose.."
(--Frankfort, H. 1978 "Kingship and the gods. A study of ancient Near Eastern religion as the integration of society and nature." Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.)
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:^^ Good points all. It is ironic that they are quoting Budge when Budge's own quotes undermine their bogus white Egypt approach. As you show above, Budge found Egyptian religion more closely related to that of Africans. Data by modern scholars have found the same thing, putting another spike in the bogus Aryan model.
Budge sez (circa 1911):
t may be objected that the modern beliefs and superstitions of the Sudan and Congo-land and Dahomey are survivals of ancient Egyptian religious views and opinions, but the objection seems to me to possess no validity. The oldest and best forms of the Egyptian religion died more than 3000 years ago, and many of the most illuminating facts for comparative and illustrative purposes are derived from the Religions of peoples who live in parts of Africa into which Egyptian influence never penetrated. The power of Egypt reached no farther than the “Island” of Meroe, and it was not truly effective beyond Napata, the modern Marawi, near the foot of the fourth cataract. Modern Sudani beliefs are identical with those of ancient Egypt, because the Egyptians were Africans and the modern peoples of the Sudan are Africans.
"A large number of gods go back to prehistoric times. The images of a cow and star goddess (Hathor), the falcon (Horus), and the human-shaped figures of the fertility god (Min) can be traced back to that period. Some rites, such as the "running of the Apil-bull," the "hoeing of the ground," and other fertility and hunting rites (e.g., the hippopotamus hunt) presumably date from early times.. Connections with the religions in southwest Asia cannot be traced with certainty."
"It is doubtful whether Osiris can be regarded as equal to Tammuz or Adonis, or whether Hathor is related to the "Great Mother." There are closer relations with northeast African religions. The numerous animal cults (especially bovine cults and panther gods) and details of ritual dresses (animal tails, masks, grass aprons, etc) probably are of African origin. The kinship in particular shows some African elements, such as the king as the head ritualist (i.e., medicine man), the limitations and renewal of the reign (jubilees, regicide), and the position of the king's mother (a matriarchal element). Some of them can be found among the Ethiopians in Napata and Meroe, others among the Prenilotic tribes (Shilluk)."
Frankfort's study of near eastern religion found Egyptian religion very different from that of Mesopotamia and demonstrated that it was more linked to the native religions of East Africa than to any Middle Eastern or European influences.
quote:
"Egypt too reflected the natural rhythms of the seasons in the course of the official year. There were annual festivals connected with the rise of the Nile and the end of the inundation, with the resurrection of Osiris; and with the completion of the harvest. But these celebrations, which articulated the progression of the community through the year, differ profoundly in spirit from their Mesopotamian counterparts...
.. In this respect there is also a complete contrast between Egypt and Mesopotamia. The earliest Mesopotamian term for king expresses a viewpoint.. lugal means "great man". In Egypt, on the other hand, one of the gods descended among men... there are alive today in Africa groups of people who are true survivors of that great East African substratum out of which Egyptian culture arose.."
(--Frankfort, H. 1978 "Kingship and the gods. A study of ancient Near Eastern religion as the integration of society and nature." Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.)
Precisely Zarahan. They ignore a mountain of evidence that Egyptians were indigenous, predominantly black Africans, and focus on anthills. Budge in his earlier writings expresses statements regarding the "race" of the Egyptians that are often confusing but in his more mature writings he is firm in his opinion that Egyptians were Africans. In Osiris or the Egyptain Religion of Resurrection he even gives vent to crude racist statements against the Egyptians because he believed they were African.
You're quite right however Zarahan bringing us up to date with the more relevant findings of the last few decades. The quotes from Budge above were just meant to blunt the solace the vermin found in quoting him.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dare you to find me one statement in the 2003 Hanihara et. al. study which indicates that Egyptians cluster more with sub-Saharan Negroids than Europeans/Middle Easterners. As far as I'm concerned, even Hanihara et. al. (2003) admits that sub-Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians:
Applying the neighbor-joining method to the MMD distances results in the dendrogram illustrated in Figure 3. The initial split, suggesting the greatest dissimilarity, is between Subsaharan Africans and the rest of the world. The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. Oceania and the Southeast Asian groups form a separate branch that is separated from a large grouping of Central and East/Northeast Asian, Arctic, and New World series clusters. And by the way, Nubians aren't a Negroid population.
According to the 2005 study of Brace et. al., Somalis are a non-Negroid population.
Nigger, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
The Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin
According to a recent study by Arredi et. al. (2004), in Table A1 of that study entitled SNP Haplogroup Frequencies in the Five North African Population Samples and Other Published Samples, has determined that out of 26 sub-Saharan Negroid lineages, not a single one was present in either the Upper Egyptian or Lower Egyptian population samples, except for Hg A3b2* which was found in one individual from the Lower Egyptian sample.
This phylogeny of Y-chromosomal haplogroups (fig. 1B of the 2004 study) clearly demonstrates that the researchers Arredi et. al. did not uncover any sub-Saharan Negroid lineages in either Northern or Southern Egypt, with the exception of Hg A3b2*. Note that the Egyptian population is genetically distinct from the populations of sub-Saharan Africa but very similar to those of other North Africans, meaning that they are of full Eastern Mediterranean Caucasoid origin.
The authors of the study write that North Africans (including Egyptians) are largely genetically distinct from both Europeans and sub-Saharan Negroids. According to Arredi et. al. in the study A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa (2004):
First, as shown in fig. 1B, the lineages that are most prevalent in North Africa are distinct from those in the regions to the immediate north and south: Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. This is illustrated by even a cursory examination of the commonest haplogroups: E3b2 is the most common haplogroup in North Africa, forming 42% of the combined sample. In contrast, R1b made up 55% of a mixed European sample (Underhill et al. 2000) and was even higher (77%) in the Iberian sample examined by Bosch et al. (2001), whereas E3a predominates in many sub-Saharan areas, being present at 64% in a pooled sample (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002). Such a finding is not surprising, in the light of the earlier genetic studies, but has an important implication: despite haplogroups shared at low frequency, suggesting limited gene flow, North African populations have a genetic history largely distinct from both Europe and sub-Saharan Africa over the timescales needed for the Y-chromosomal differentiation to develop.
Actually, according to those graphs Egyptians cluster the closest with Tasmanians. Does that mean that Egyptians are Tasmanians now? Not to mention the fact that none of the populations that Egyptians cluster the closest with, such as other North Africans or European Mediterraneans, are even mentioned or included on those graphs!
quote: The only fraud is you and your own quote kills your claim. Your "hair" argument is warmed over bullshiit from Madilda, using E. Stouhal's long defunct early 1970s approach. Is this all you got? In his writing, Keita referred to how certain scholars never develop a "true white" stereotypical model as they do with blacks. If they did, then all hair not meeting a long, straight caucasoid "true" type would be "Negro."
But in any event your "point" and that of tired Madilda is bogus, and revealed by your own quote. Note Keita says that "most of these were interpreted as being hybrids." He never claims Stouhal said they were "pure negro" this is something added on by madilda and you to create a bogus "talking point." And if Strouhal's says they were "mixed Negroid-Europid" origin, then that makes them non-white. Either way, they aren't white. In fact, Strouhal points out the long standing African elements not only physically but culturally as well- i.e. the rainmaker.
Ironically, Strohal takes pains to point out how the Badarian are linked to african groups, such as in the Sudan. Keita in 2005 put this to the test, making a head to head comparison with whites, blacks and the Badari. Results showed the Badari link much more closely with Africans than white groups, confirming more scientifically, with a bigger sample, the close links noted by Strouhal. Both Strouhal and Keita agree that they had close links to Africans. QUOTE:
"An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series."(S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data. Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)
None of this proves that Strouhal said that >80% of Badarian hair is of Negroid origin.
Nigger, you conveniently avoided answering my questions:
Can you find me a single passage in Strouhal's 1971 report in which he concludes that >80% of Badarian hair is Negroid?
This is obviously a gross distortion on Keita's part, especially after Strouhal concluded that less than 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin.
If 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin, then how can >80% of Badarian hair be of Negroid origin, as Keita falsely maintains, especially given the fact that the Badarians were more Europoid than Negroid?
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gynphobic: According to a recent study by Arredi et. al. (2004), in Table A1 of that study entitled SNP Haplogroup Frequencies in the Five North African Population Samples and Other Published Samples, has determined that out of 26 sub-Saharan Negroid lineages, not a single one was present in either the Upper Egyptian or Lower Egyptian population samples, except for Hg A3b2* which was found in one individual from the Lower Egyptian sample.
Uh, E3b is of sub-Saharan African origin, and it's represented quite a bit in the Egyptian population.
Posts: 7072 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I dare you to find me one statement in the 2003 Hanihara et. al. study which indicates that Egyptians cluster more with sub- Saharan Negroids than Europeans/Middle Easterners. As far as I'm concerned, even Hanihara et. al. (2003) admits that sub- Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians:
Applying the neighbor-joining method to the MMD distances results in the dendrogram illustrated in Figure 3. The initial split, suggesting the greatest dissimilarity, is between Subsaharan Africans and the rest of the world. The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. Oceania and the Southeast Asian groups form a separate branch that is separated from a large grouping of Central and East/Northeast Asian, Arctic, and New World series clusters. And by the way, Nubians aren't a Negroid population.
Gyno-boy.. It was explained to your dull brain time and time again by other people, but in case you can't read dummy, let me break it down for you, cause I can see that on a good day you;re not only a half-wit but a dumb twit as well. Hanihara clusters Egyptians with Nubians and other Egyptians first, not your precious Aryans or Mediterraneans. right off the bat that sinks your "Mediterranean" theory fool. Furthermore Hanihara the dissimilarity between sub-Saharans and the rest of the world is due to the greater genetic diversity in Africa. As other non- Africans split off they developed LESS diversity. You dumb fack- it has nothing to do with your race fantasies. The greater genetic diversity of Africans means that they vary more than other populations, that is why narrow noses or loose hair is nothing special in Africa. It has all been built-in from day 1, and is not due to your fantasy Aryans or 'Mediterraneans'.
Don't let your mind wander "Gyno" it's far too small to be let out on its own.
Now back to the lesson fool. Hanihara also used Howell's database and grouped based based on series aggregation. But when the same database is broken out by individual craniometric traits, Egyptians group more closely with African populations than with your precious Europeans.
According to the 2005 study of Brace et. al., Somalis are a non-Negroid population.
lol...I don't know what makes you so dumb "Gyno" boy but it really works. Brace 93 did not say Somalis were a "non-negroid" population. He said that they were not as related to the ancient Egyptians as the other groups he presented. You are lying and making things up people never said. In fact Brace put the Somalis as as sub-Saharan population. Your lies are not fooling anyone.
The Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin.
lol... Don't try to run away from your claim. Let's see your 'Mediterranean' proof. Show us a scholarly research study saying that Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin. We are waiting, "Gyno" boy ....
According to a recent study by Arredi et. al. (2004), in Table A1 of that study entitled SNP Haplogroup Frequencies in the Five North African Population Samples and Other Published Samples, has determined that out of 26 sub-Saharan Negroid lineages, not a single one was present in either the Upper Egyptian or Lower Egyptian population samples, except for Hg A3b2* which was found in one individual from the Lower Egyptian sample.
The fallacy of your lying approach is the term you use "sub-Saharan Negroid lineages" - a term Arredi does not use or define as you do. You basically arbitrarily define a narrow range of certain genes as "negroid" to sustain your 'mediterranean' fantasy. But once you are exposed, your stack of lies collapses. In fact Haplogroup E is most prevalent in Africa as shown by your own map, and the PN2 clade unites numerous African peoples. Your notion of "negroid genes" is plain and simple bullshiit. The bulk of what is in the Nile Valley is not your precious Mediterranean but E- which is found most in Africa. Once again, the closest link is with Africa not 'Mediterraneans". Arredi is not talking about any "Mediterraneans." You conveniently forget to quote some other things from Arredi which show no "Mediterranean" influx. In fact, Arredi mentions LOCAL development in Africa for several lineages, not origins from your mysterious "Mediterraneans." quote:
“Under the hypothesis of a Neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate EITHER a LOCAL CONTRIBUTION to the North African Neolithic OR an earlier migration INTO the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion BACK into Africa.”
“A clinal pattern of haplography variation like the one we observe can be expected from and EAST-TO-WEST population expansion, and the finding of LOWER E3b2 STR variation in the west than in central North Africa, accompanied by a substantial increase in frequency of this haplography, is most readily explained by expansion into virtually UNINHABITED terrain by populations experiencing increasing drift.”
“In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is RARE in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.”
“These people COULD have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, AFTER which the M81 mutation arose WITHIN North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population INTO an environment containing FEW Humans.”
Where is the scholarly proof of your "Mediterreans" Gyno-boy? We are still waiting...
Actually, according to those graphs Egyptians cluster the closest with Tasmanians. Does that mean that Egyptians are Tasmanians now? Not to mention the fact that none of the populations that Egyptians cluster the closest with, such as other North Africans or European Mediterraneans, are even mentioned or included on those graphs!
You dummy.. Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today? The ancient Egyptians cluster closest with other tropically-adapted peoples. This means dark-skinned peoples adapted to tropical environments, which include not not forest, but dry and semi-arid regions like the Sahara. Tasmanians are one such dark-skinned tropically adapted people, but there is no record of them moving into Egypt. However the record does show OTHER similar people geographically closer to the Egyptians. What other people are closest to the ancient Egyptians, Gyno-boy? Wait for it fool.. yes.. OTHER AFRICANS.. like Pygmies, San and South Africans.
and that's just cranial info. When LIMB PROPORTIONS are considered, Egyptians, or and modern, cluster closer to other tropically-derived African peoples like Black Americans than to your precious white 'mediterraneans".You can't escape the facts, no matter how much you dodge and duck Gyno-boy.
QUOTE: "The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.
None of this proves that Strouhal said that >80% of Badarian hair is of Negroid origin. .. Can you find me a single passage in Strouhal's 1971 report in which he concludes that >80% of Badarian hair is Negroid? This is obviously a gross distortion on Keita's part, especially after Strouhal concluded that less than 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin. If 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin, then how can >80% of Badarian hair be of Negroid origin, as Keita falsely maintains, especially given the fact that the Badarians were more Europoid than Negroid?
Gyno boy, read both Keita's quote and Strouhal again. As it says above- quote:
Note Keita says that "most of these were interpreted as being hybrids." He never claims Stouhal said they were "pure negro" this is something added on by madilda and you to create a bogus "talking point." And if Strouhal's says they were "mixed Negroid-Europid" origin, then that makes them non-white. Either way, they aren't white. In fact, Strouhal points out the long standing African elements not only physically but culturally as well- i.e. the rainmaker. Ironically, Strohal takes pains to point out how the Badarian are linked to African groups, such as in the Sudan. Keita in 2005 put this to the test, making a head to head comparison with whites, blacks and the Badari. Results showed the Badari link much more closely with Africans than white groups, confirming more scientifically, with a bigger sample, the close links noted by Strouhal. Both Strouhal and Keita agree that they had close links to Africans.
Gyno-boy, you said that "The Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin." We await scholarly proof of your assertion.
The Areddi study says nothing about your "Mediterraneans" and in fact, points to local diversity in several places. Keita and Strouhal agree. Indeed your claim is undermined by both cranial studies and limb proportion studies. But we await this "new" evidence. Let's see what you got. What's taking so long Gyno-boy? Surely you are not too pussy-whipped to directly back up your claim with scholarly proof. We are waiting Gyno-fool...
Posts: 124 | From: Zurich | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
"haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval."
Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild - 2007
A nutshell!...of what has essentially been more elaborately demonstrated about said markers several times before on this site. Oh, yeah -- I have not come across a single genetic journal yet the says different about CF origin...
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yql718: Originally posted by Gynphobic:
I dare you to find me one statement in the 2003 Hanihara et. al. study which indicates that Egyptians cluster more with sub- Saharan Negroids than Europeans/Middle Easterners. As far as I'm concerned, even Hanihara et. al. (2003) admits that sub- Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians:
Applying the neighbor-joining method to the MMD distances results in the dendrogram illustrated in Figure 3. The initial split, suggesting the greatest dissimilarity, is between Subsaharan Africans and the rest of the world. The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. Oceania and the Southeast Asian groups form a separate branch that is separated from a large grouping of Central and East/Northeast Asian, Arctic, and New World series clusters. And by the way, Nubians aren't a Negroid population.
Gyno-boy.. It was explained to your dull brain time and time again by other people, but in case you can't read dummy, let me break it down for you, cause I can see that on a good day you;re not only a half-wit but a dumb twit as well. Hanihara clusters Egyptians with Nubians and other Egyptians first, not your precious Aryans or Mediterraneans. right off the bat that sinks your "Mediterranean" theory fool. Furthermore Hanihara the dissimilarity between sub-Saharans and the rest of the world is due to the greater genetic diversity in Africa. As other non- Africans split off they developed LESS diversity. You dumb fack- it has nothing to do with your race fantasies. The greater genetic diversity of Africans means that they vary more than other populations, that is why narrow noses or loose hair is nothing special in Africa. It has all been built-in from day 1, and is not due to your fantasy Aryans or 'Mediterraneans'.
Don't let your mind wander "Gyno" it's far too small to be let out on its own.
Now back to the lesson fool. Hanihara also used Howell's database and grouped based based on series aggregation. But when the same database is broken out by individual craniometric traits, Egyptians group more closely with African populations than with your precious Europeans.
According to the 2005 study of Brace et. al., Somalis are a non-Negroid population.
lol...I don't know what makes you so dumb "Gyno" boy but it really works. Brace 93 did not say Somalis were a "non-negroid" population. He said that they were not as related to the ancient Egyptians as the other groups he presented. You are lying and making things up people never said. In fact Brace put the Somalis as as sub-Saharan population. Your lies are not fooling anyone.
The Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin.
lol... Don't try to run away from your claim. Let's see your 'Mediterranean' proof. Show us a scholarly research study saying that Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin. We are waiting, "Gyno" boy ....
According to a recent study by Arredi et. al. (2004), in Table A1 of that study entitled SNP Haplogroup Frequencies in the Five North African Population Samples and Other Published Samples, has determined that out of 26 sub-Saharan Negroid lineages, not a single one was present in either the Upper Egyptian or Lower Egyptian population samples, except for Hg A3b2* which was found in one individual from the Lower Egyptian sample.
The fallacy of your lying approach is the term you use "sub-Saharan Negroid lineages" - a term Arredi does not use or define as you do. You basically arbitrarily define a narrow range of certain genes as "negroid" to sustain your 'mediterranean' fantasy. But once you are exposed, your stack of lies collapses. In fact Haplogroup E is most prevalent in Africa as shown by your own map, and the PN2 clade unites numerous African peoples. Your notion of "negroid genes" is plain and simple bullshiit. The bulk of what is in the Nile Valley is not your precious Mediterranean but E- which is found most in Africa. Once again, the closest link is with Africa not 'Mediterraneans". Arredi is not talking about any "Mediterraneans." You conveniently forget to quote some other things from Arredi which show no "Mediterranean" influx. In fact, Arredi mentions LOCAL development in Africa for several lineages, not origins from your mysterious "Mediterraneans." quote:
“Under the hypothesis of a Neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate EITHER a LOCAL CONTRIBUTION to the North African Neolithic OR an earlier migration INTO the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion BACK into Africa.”
“A clinal pattern of haplography variation like the one we observe can be expected from and EAST-TO-WEST population expansion, and the finding of LOWER E3b2 STR variation in the west than in central North Africa, accompanied by a substantial increase in frequency of this haplography, is most readily explained by expansion into virtually UNINHABITED terrain by populations experiencing increasing drift.”
“In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is RARE in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.”
“These people COULD have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, AFTER which the M81 mutation arose WITHIN North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population INTO an environment containing FEW Humans.”
Where is the scholarly proof of your "Mediterreans" Gyno-boy? We are still waiting...
Actually, according to those graphs Egyptians cluster the closest with Tasmanians. Does that mean that Egyptians are Tasmanians now? Not to mention the fact that none of the populations that Egyptians cluster the closest with, such as other North Africans or European Mediterraneans, are even mentioned or included on those graphs!
You dummy.. Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today? The ancient Egyptians cluster closest with other tropically-adapted peoples. This means dark-skinned peoples adapted to tropical environments, which include not not forest, but dry and semi-arid regions like the Sahara. Tasmanians are one such dark-skinned tropically adapted people, but there is no record of them moving into Egypt. However the record does show OTHER similar people geographically closer to the Egyptians. What other people are closest to the ancient Egyptians, Gyno-boy? Wait for it fool.. yes.. OTHER AFRICANS.. like Pygmies, San and South Africans.
and that's just cranial info. When LIMB PROPORTIONS are considered, Egyptians, or and modern, cluster closer to other tropically-derived African peoples like Black Americans than to your precious white 'mediterraneans".You can't escape the facts, no matter how much you dodge and duck Gyno-boy.
QUOTE: "The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.
None of this proves that Strouhal said that >80% of Badarian hair is of Negroid origin. .. Can you find me a single passage in Strouhal's 1971 report in which he concludes that >80% of Badarian hair is Negroid? This is obviously a gross distortion on Keita's part, especially after Strouhal concluded that less than 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin. If 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin, then how can >80% of Badarian hair be of Negroid origin, as Keita falsely maintains, especially given the fact that the Badarians were more Europoid than Negroid?
Gyno boy, read both Keita's quote and Strouhal again. As it says above- quote:
Note Keita says that "most of these were interpreted as being hybrids." He never claims Stouhal said they were "pure negro" this is something added on by madilda and you to create a bogus "talking point." And if Strouhal's says they were "mixed Negroid-Europid" origin, then that makes them non-white. Either way, they aren't white. In fact, Strouhal points out the long standing African elements not only physically but culturally as well- i.e. the rainmaker. Ironically, Strohal takes pains to point out how the Badarian are linked to African groups, such as in the Sudan. Keita in 2005 put this to the test, making a head to head comparison with whites, blacks and the Badari. Results showed the Badari link much more closely with Africans than white groups, confirming more scientifically, with a bigger sample, the close links noted by Strouhal. Both Strouhal and Keita agree that they had close links to Africans.
Gyno-boy, you said that "The Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin." We await scholarly proof of your assertion.
The Areddi study says nothing about your "Mediterraneans" and in fact, points to local diversity in several places. Keita and Strouhal agree. Indeed your claim is undermined by both cranial studies and limb proportion studies. But we await this "new" evidence. Let's see what you got. What's taking so long Gyno-boy? Surely you are not too pussy-whipped to directly back up your claim with scholarly proof. We are waiting Gyno-fool...
You haven't provided me with any credible evidence, except the usual denial and distortion. Nigger, I know why you desperately need to claim Egypt as a black civilization; it's because you realize subconsciously that the negro has contributed nothing to world civilization and you have developed a relatively severe inferiority complex because of it. So what do you do in order to increase your already low self-esteem? You go out and steal someone else's culture in order to feel good about yourself. Talk about classic TNB.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
hey!!!Vagynaphobic...Back with the same ol same ol...ur friends over @ squallfront..boring u to tears?? why u back??
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yql718: [QB] Originally posted by Gynphobic:
I dare you to find me one statement in the 2003 Hanihara et. al. study which indicates that Egyptians cluster more with sub- Saharan Negroids than Europeans/Middle Easterners. As far as I'm concerned, even Hanihara et. al. (2003) admits that sub- Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians:
Applying the neighbor-joining method to the MMD distances results in the dendrogram illustrated in Figure 3. The initial split, suggesting the greatest dissimilarity, is between Subsaharan Africans and the rest of the world. The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. Oceania and the Southeast Asian groups form a separate branch that is separated from a large grouping of Central and East/Northeast Asian, Arctic, and New World series clusters. And by the way, Nubians aren't a Negroid population.
Gyno-boy.. It was explained to your dull brain time and time again by other people, but in case you can't read dummy, let me break it down for you, cause I can see that on a good day you;re not only a half-wit but a dumb twit as well. Hanihara clusters Egyptians with Nubians and other Egyptians first, not your precious Aryans or Mediterraneans. right off the bat that sinks your "Mediterranean" theory fool. Furthermore Hanihara the dissimilarity between sub-Saharans and the rest of the world is due to the greater genetic diversity in Africa. As other non- Africans split off they developed LESS diversity. You dumb fack- it has nothing to do with your race fantasies. The greater genetic diversity of Africans means that they vary more than other populations, that is why narrow noses or loose hair is nothing special in Africa. It has all been built-in from day 1, and is not due to your fantasy Aryans or 'Mediterraneans'.
Don't let your mind wander "Gyno" it's far too small to be let out on its own.
Now back to the lesson fool. Hanihara also used Howell's database and grouped based based on series aggregation. But when the same database is broken out by individual craniometric traits, Egyptians group more closely with African populations than with your precious Europeans.
According to the 2005 study of Brace et. al., Somalis are a non-Negroid population.
lol...I don't know what makes you so dumb "Gyno" boy but it really works. Brace 93 did not say Somalis were a "non-negroid" population. He said that they were not as related to the ancient Egyptians as the other groups he presented. You are lying and making things up people never said. In fact Brace put the Somalis as as sub-Saharan population. Your lies are not fooling anyone.
The Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin.
lol... Don't try to run away from your claim. Let's see your 'Mediterranean' proof. Show us a scholarly research study saying that Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin. We are waiting, "Gyno" boy ....
According to a recent study by Arredi et. al. (2004), in Table A1 of that study entitled SNP Haplogroup Frequencies in the Five North African Population Samples and Other Published Samples, has determined that out of 26 sub-Saharan Negroid lineages, not a single one was present in either the Upper Egyptian or Lower Egyptian population samples, except for Hg A3b2* which was found in one individual from the Lower Egyptian sample.
The fallacy of your lying approach is the term you use "sub-Saharan Negroid lineages" - a term Arredi does not use or define as you do. You basically arbitrarily define a narrow range of certain genes as "negroid" to sustain your 'mediterranean' fantasy. But once you are exposed, your stack of lies collapses. In fact Haplogroup E is most prevalent in Africa as shown by your own map, and the PN2 clade unites numerous African peoples. Your notion of "negroid genes" is plain and simple bullshiit. The bulk of what is in the Nile Valley is not your precious Mediterranean but E- which is found most in Africa. Once again, the closest link is with Africa not 'Mediterraneans". Arredi is not talking about any "Mediterraneans." You conveniently forget to quote some other things from Arredi which show no "Mediterranean" influx. In fact, Arredi mentions LOCAL development in Africa for several lineages, not origins from your mysterious "Mediterraneans." quote:
“Under the hypothesis of a Neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate EITHER a LOCAL CONTRIBUTION to the North African Neolithic OR an earlier migration INTO the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion BACK into Africa.”
“A clinal pattern of haplography variation like the one we observe can be expected from and EAST-TO-WEST population expansion, and the finding of LOWER E3b2 STR variation in the west than in central North Africa, accompanied by a substantial increase in frequency of this haplography, is most readily explained by expansion into virtually UNINHABITED terrain by populations experiencing increasing drift.”
“In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is RARE in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.”
“These people COULD have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, AFTER which the M81 mutation arose WITHIN North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population INTO an environment containing FEW Humans.”
Where is the scholarly proof of your "Mediterreans" Gyno-boy? We are still waiting...
Actually, according to those graphs Egyptians cluster the closest with Tasmanians. Does that mean that Egyptians are Tasmanians now? Not to mention the fact that none of the populations that Egyptians cluster the closest with, such as other North Africans or European Mediterraneans, are even mentioned or included on those graphs!
You dummy.. Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today? The ancient Egyptians cluster closest with other tropically-adapted peoples. This means dark-skinned peoples adapted to tropical environments, which include not not forest, but dry and semi-arid regions like the Sahara. Tasmanians are one such dark-skinned tropically adapted people, but there is no record of them moving into Egypt. However the record does show OTHER similar people geographically closer to the Egyptians. What other people are closest to the ancient Egyptians, Gyno-boy? Wait for it fool.. yes.. OTHER AFRICANS.. like Pygmies, San and South Africans.
and that's just cranial info. When LIMB PROPORTIONS are considered, Egyptians, or and modern, cluster closer to other tropically-derived African peoples like Black Americans than to your precious white 'mediterraneans".You can't escape the facts, no matter how much you dodge and duck Gyno-boy.
QUOTE: "The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.
None of this proves that Strouhal said that >80% of Badarian hair is of Negroid origin. .. Can you find me a single passage in Strouhal's 1971 report in which he concludes that >80% of Badarian hair is Negroid? This is obviously a gross distortion on Keita's part, especially after Strouhal concluded that less than 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin. If 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin, then how can >80% of Badarian hair be of Negroid origin, as Keita falsely maintains, especially given the fact that the Badarians were more Europoid than Negroid?
Gyno boy, read both Keita's quote and Strouhal again. As it says above- quote:
Note Keita says that "most of these were interpreted as being hybrids." He never claims Stouhal said they were "pure negro" this is something added on by madilda and you to create a bogus "talking point." And if Strouhal's says they were "mixed Negroid-Europid" origin, then that makes them non-white. Either way, they aren't white. In fact, Strouhal points out the long standing African elements not only physically but culturally as well- i.e. the rainmaker. Ironically, Strohal takes pains to point out how the Badarian are linked to African groups, such as in the Sudan. Keita in 2005 put this to the test, making a head to head comparison with whites, blacks and the Badari. Results showed the Badari link much more closely with Africans than white groups, confirming more scientifically, with a bigger sample, the close links noted by Strouhal. Both Strouhal and Keita agree that they had close links to Africans.
Gyno-boy, you said that "The Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin." We await scholarly proof of your assertion.
The Areddi study says nothing about your "Mediterraneans" and in fact, points to local diversity in several places. Keita and Strouhal agree. Indeed your claim is undermined by both cranial studies and limb proportion studies. But we await this "new" evidence. Let's see what you got. What's taking so long Gyno-boy? Surely you are not too pussy-whipped to directly back up your claim with scholarly proof. We are waiting Gyno-fool...
You haven't provided me with any credible evidence, except the usual denial and distortion. Nigger, I know why you desperately need to claim Egypt as a black civilization; it's because you realize subconsciously that the negro has contributed nothing to world civilization and you have developed a relatively severe inferiority complex because of it. So what do you do in order to increase your already low self-esteem? You go out and steal someone else's culture in order to feel good about yourself. Talk about classic TNB.
------ Why you trying to backtrack now Gyno-boy? Whya re you trying to duck and dodge? You claimed: quote:
"The Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin."
But have yet to prevent any credible proof of any credible modern scholar to back up your assertion. Whats matter? Why are you taking so long? Why are you hiding now? Are you too pussy-whipped to back up your BS? We are still waiting GYNO-BOY....
Posts: 124 | From: Zurich | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: you, cause I can see that on a good day you;re not only a half-wit but a dumb twit as well. Hanihara clusters Egyptians with Nubians and other Egyptians first, not your precious Aryans or Mediterraneans. right off the bat that sinks your "Mediterranean" theory fool. Furthermore Hanihara the dissimilarity between sub-Saharans and the rest of the world is due to the greater genetic diversity in Africa. As other non- Africans split off they developed LESS diversity. You dumb fack- it has nothing to do with your race fantasies. The greater genetic diversity of Africans means that they vary more than other populations, that is why narrow noses or loose hair is nothing special in Africa. It has all been built-in from day 1, and is not due to your fantasy Aryans or 'Mediterraneans'.
Don't let your mind wander "Gyno" it's far too small to be let out on its own.
Now back to the lesson fool. Hanihara also used Howell's database and grouped based based on series aggregation. But when the same database is broken out by individual craniometric traits, Egyptians group more closely with African populations than with your precious Europeans.
code:
Must I repeat myself over and over again or do you need to work on your reading comprehension skills? I suspect the latter:
I dare you to find me one statement in the 2003 Hanihara et. al. study which indicates that Egyptians cluster more with sub- Saharan Negroids than Europeans/Middle Easterners. As far as I'm concerned, even Hanihara et. al. (2003) admits that sub- Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians:
Applying the neighbor-joining method to the MMD distances results in the dendrogram illustrated in Figure 3. The initial split, suggesting the greatest dissimilarity, is between Subsaharan Africans and the rest of the world. The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. Oceania and the Southeast Asian groups form a separate branch that is separated from a large grouping of Central and East/Northeast Asian, Arctic, and New World series clusters. And by the way, Nubians aren't a Negroid population.
Your chart is meaningless as body limb proportions are adaptations to the external environment and are not ancestry informative.
quote: Brace 93 did not say Somalis were a "non-negroid" population. He said that they were not as related to the ancient Egyptians as the other groups he presented. You are lying and making things up people never said. In fact Brace put the Somalis as as sub-Saharan population. Your lies are not fooling anyone. /QUOTE] The 2005 study of Brace et. al. said that the Somali and Naqada Bronze samples may possess a "hint" of sub-Saharan Negroid ancestry, but that this was unlikely given how closely the non-Negroid Algerian Neolithic sample clustered with the Naqada Bronze, meaning that Somalis and ancient Naqadans are both non-Negroid peoples.
[QUOTE]The fallacy of your lying approach is the term you use "sub-Saharan Negroid lineages" - a term Arredi does not use or define as you do. You basically arbitrarily define a narrow range of certain genes as "negroid" to sustain your 'mediterranean' fantasy. But once you are exposed, your stack of lies collapses. In fact Haplogroup E is most prevalent in Africa as shown by your own map, and the PN2 clade unites numerous African peoples. Your notion of "negroid genes" is plain and simple bullshiit. The bulk of what is in the Nile Valley is not your precious Mediterranean but E- which is found most in Africa. Once again, the closest link is with Africa not 'Mediterraneans". Arredi is not talking about any "Mediterraneans." You conveniently forget to quote some other things from Arredi which show no "Mediterranean" influx. In fact, Arredi mentions LOCAL development in Africa for several lineages, not origins from your mysterious "Mediterraneans." quote:
“Under the hypothesis of a Neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate EITHER a LOCAL CONTRIBUTION to the North African Neolithic OR an earlier migration INTO the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion BACK into Africa.”
“A clinal pattern of haplography variation like the one we observe can be expected from and EAST-TO-WEST population expansion, and the finding of LOWER E3b2 STR variation in the west than in central North Africa, accompanied by a substantial increase in frequency of this haplography, is most readily explained by expansion into virtually UNINHABITED terrain by populations experiencing increasing drift.”
“In addition, g enetic evidence shows that E3b2 is RARE in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.”
The chart of Arredi et. al. (2004) clearly demonstrates that the sub-Saharan Negroid contribution to the Egyptian gene pool is almost non-existent at best (only a single subclade of Hg A was ever detected), with Egyptians being genetically similar to other Mediterraneans and therefore, having absolutely nothing in common with Negroids. The authors of the study write that North Africans (including Egyptians) are genetically distinct from both Europeans and sub-Saharan Negroids. According to Arredi et. al. in the study A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa (2004):
First, as shown in fig. 1B, the lineages that are most prevalent in North Africa are distinct from those in the regions to the immediate north and south: Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. This is illustrated by even a cursory examination of the commonest haplogroups: E3b2 is the most common haplogroup in North Africa, forming 42% of the combined sample. In contrast, R1b made up 55% of a mixed European sample (Underhill et al. 2000) and was even higher (77%) in the Iberian sample examined by Bosch et al. (2001), whereas E3a predominates in many sub-Saharan areas, being present at 64% in a pooled sample (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002). Such a finding is not surprising, in the light of the earlier genetic studies, but has an important implication: despite haplogroups shared at low frequency, suggesting limited gene flow, North African populations have a genetic history largely distinct from both Europe and sub-Saharan Africa over the timescales needed for the Y-chromosomal differentiation to develop.
E3b is not a sub-Saharan Negroid marker, stupid nigger, and Hg E is of Asian origin.
quote:You dummy.. Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today? The ancient Egyptians cluster closest with other tropically-adapted peoples. This means dark-skinned peoples adapted to tropical environments, which include not not forest, but dry and semi-arid regions like the Sahara. Tasmanians are one such dark-skinned tropically adapted people, but there is no record of them moving into Egypt. However the record does show OTHER similar people geographically closer to the Egyptians. What other people are closest to the ancient Egyptians, Gyno-boy? Wait for it fool.. yes.. OTHER AFRICANS.. like Pygmies, San and South Africans.
Body limb proportions are adaptations to the external environment and are not ancestry informative
quote: "The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.
Having a super-Negroid body plan, as Robins and Shute explained in their original 1986 study, does not make one a negro
quote:He never claims Stouhal said they were "pure negro" this is something added on by you to create a bogus "talking point."
You still haven't answered my questions, you ****-skinned, bubble-lipped 'groid! Well, here it is again:
None of this proves that Strouhal said that >80% of Badarian hair is of Negroid origin.
Nigger, you conveniently avoided answering my questions:
Can you find me a single passage in Strouhal's 1971 report in which he concludes that >80% of Badarian hair is Negroid, as Keita falsely claimed in a 1990 report?
This is obviously a gross distortion on Keita's part, especially after Strouhal concluded that less than 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin.
If 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin, then how can >80% of Badarian hair be of Negroid origin, as Keita falsely maintains, especially given the fact that the Badarians were more Europoid than Negroid?
S.O.Y. Keita is a lying niggercentric fraud!
I have provided a mountain of evidence which clearly indicates that the Egyptians are a white Mediterranean folk, whereas you have only countered this massive amount of evidence with the usual denial and distortion. You obviously have difficulty interpreting written information, but since you come from a racial group that typically displays a double digit IQ cognition, this should come as no surprise. The 2004 Arredi et. al. study clearly demonstrates that North Africans (Mediterraneans), including Egyptians, are not genetically related to sub-Saharan African Negroids. Since you are obviously functionally illiterate (like the majority of negroes), I'll repeat the same quote from the Arredi et. al. study for the nth time:
First, as shown in fig. 1B, the lineages that are most prevalent in North Africa are distinct from those in the regions to the immediate north and south: Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. This This is illustrated by even a cursory examination of the commonest haplogroups: E3b2 is the most common haplogroup in North Africa, forming 42% of the combined sample. In contrast, R1b made up 55% of a mixed European sample (Underhill et al. 2000) and was even higher (77%) in the Iberian sample examined by Bosch et al. (2001), whereas E3a predominates in many sub-Saharan areas, being present at 64% in a pooled sample (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002). Such a finding is not surprising, in the light of the earlier genetic studies, but has an important implication: despite haplogroups shared at low frequency, suggesting limited gene flow, North African populations have a genetic history largely distinct from both Europe and sub-Saharan Africa over the timescales needed for the Y-chromosomal differentiation to develop.
Now put that in your crack pipe and smoke it, nigger.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gynphobic: You haven't provided me with any credible evidence, except the usual denial and distortion. Nigger, I know why you desperately need to claim Egypt as a black civilization; it's because you realize subconsciously that the negro has contributed nothing to world civilization and you have developed a relatively severe inferiority complex because of it. So what do you do in order to increase your already low self-esteem? You go out and steal someone else's culture in order to feel good about yourself. Talk about classic TNB.
This is common behavior for defeated opponents. Rather than have the integrity to concede defeat they attempt to personally attack their adversary, distracting from the debate.
Noone here is trying to steal Ancient Egyptian civilization from modern Egyptians. It is White racists who claim that modern Egyptians are the mongrelized Low IQ descendants of Caucasoid Ancient Egyptians with Semites and Negroids.
What most of us are doing is simply putting Ancient Egypt's people in proper historical context. They were a Black African people. Many modern Egyptians still are and identify as such. One of them is a moderator of this board!
Yes, I know the fact that Ancient Egypt being a Black African civilization destroys your racist world view. That's why it upsets you so much.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is common behavior for defeated opponents. Rather than have the integrity to concede defeat they attempt to personally attack their adversary, distracting from the debate.
Noone here is trying to steal Ancient Egyptian civilization from modern Egyptians. It is White racists who claim that modern Egyptians are the mongrelized Low IQ descendants of Caucasoid Ancient Egyptians with Semites and Negroids.
What most of us are doing is simply putting Ancient Egypt's people in proper historical context. They were a Black African people. Many modern Egyptians still are and identify as such. One of them is a moderator of this board!
Yes, I know the fact that Ancient Egypt being a Black African civilization destroys your racist world view. That's why it upsets you so much.
All of the most recent DNA evidence conclusively demonstrates that Egyptians always cluster genetically with other Mediterraneans, but never with sub-Saharan African Negroids. What more proof do you need? Unlike your cretinous negro self, I have already provided a mountain of evidence which you have simply ignored, probably because your primitive negro brain is incapable of formulating an adequate response to the many lines of evidence I have already offered. I can obviously see that you are a card-carrying member of the Proud Protruding Buttocks School of Negro Epistemology. Also the "black" moderator of the site is really a nubian. Nubians are black skinned whites.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gynphobic:Your chart is meaningless as body limb proportions are adaptations to the external environment and are not ancestry informative.
Limb proportions are relevant to biogeographic origin:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.- Keita & Boyce
quote:E3b is not a sub-Saharan Negroid marker, stupid nigger, and Hg E is of Asian origin
Haplogroup E is of East African origin:
Both phylogeography and microsatellite variance suggest that E-P2 and its derivative, E-M35, probably originated in eastern Africa. This inference is further supported by the presence of additional Hg E lineal diversification and by the highest frequency of E-P2* and E-M35* in the same region. The distribution of E-P2* appears limited to eastern African peoples. The E-M35* lineage shows its highest frequency (19.2%) in the Ethiopian Oromo but with a wider distribution range than E-P2*. Indeed, it is also found at high frequency (16.7%) in the Khoisan of South Africa (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002) (suggesting, once again, their ancient relationship with Ethiopians) and observed in southern Europe (present study).- Semino (2004)
quote:Originally posted by Gynphobic: All of the most recent DNA evidence conclusively demonstrates that Egyptians always cluster genetically with other Mediterraneans, but never with sub-Saharan African Negroids. What more proof do you need? Unlike your cretinous negro self, I have already provided a mountain of evidence which you have simply ignored, probably because your primitive negro brain is incapable of formulating an adequate response to the many lines of evidence I have already offered. I can obviously see that you are a card-carrying member of the Proud Protruding Buttocks School of Negro Epistemology.
Do you get drunk while you're at the computer? Your dumb racist ass hasn't provided any evidence that the Ancient Egyptians were "Mediterranean Caucasoids".
Cite one study which contends that the Ancient Egyptians were Medi K-Zoids.
All you've done is distorted the research of several studies to back up you assertions which makes you a LIAR! Others have already exposed your lies.
quote:Also the "black" moderator of the site is really a nubian.
He's an Egyptian. Are you trying to tell people who they are now?
quote:Nubians are black skinned whites.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
I dare you to find me one statement in the 2003 Hanihara et. al. study which indicates that Egyptians cluster more with sub- Saharan Negroids than Europeans/Middle Easterners. As far as I'm concerned, even Hanihara et. al. (2003) admits that sub- Saharan African populations are biologically distinct from all other populations including Egyptians:
Applying the neighbor-joining method to the MMD distances results in the dendrogram illustrated in Figure 3. The initial split, suggesting the greatest dissimilarity, is between Subsaharan Africans and the rest of the world. The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. Oceania and the Southeast Asian groups form a separate branch that is separated from a large grouping of Central and East/Northeast Asian, Arctic, and New World series clusters. And by the way, Nubians aren't a Negroid population.
Gyno-boy.. It was explained to your dull brain time and time again by other people, but in case you can't read dummy, let me break it down for you, cause I can see that on a good day you;re not only a half-wit but a dumb twit as well. Hanihara clusters Egyptians with Nubians and other Egyptians first, not your precious Aryans or Mediterraneans. right off the bat that sinks your "Mediterranean" theory fool. Furthermore Hanihara the dissimilarity between sub-Saharans and the rest of the world is due to the greater genetic diversity in Africa. As other non- Africans split off they developed LESS diversity. You dumb fack- it has nothing to do with your race fantasies. The greater genetic diversity of Africans means that they vary more than other populations, that is why narrow noses or loose hair is nothing special in Africa. It has all been built-in from day 1, and is not due to your fantasy Aryans or 'Mediterraneans'.
Don't let your mind wander "Gyno" it's far too small to be let out on its own.
Now back to the lesson fool. Hanihara also used Howell's database and grouped based based on series aggregation. But when the same database is broken out by individual craniometric traits, Egyptians group more closely with African populations than with your precious Europeans.
According to the 2005 study of Brace et. al., Somalis are a non-Negroid population.
lol...I don't know what makes you so dumb "Gyno" boy but it really works. Brace 93 did not say Somalis were a "non-negroid" population. He said that they were not as related to the ancient Egyptians as the other groups he presented. You are lying and making things up people never said. In fact Brace put the Somalis as as sub-Saharan population. Your lies are not fooling anyone.
The Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin.
lol... Don't try to run away from your claim. Let's see your 'Mediterranean' proof. Show us a scholarly research study saying that Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin. We are waiting, "Gyno" boy ....
According to a recent study by Arredi et. al. (2004), in Table A1 of that study entitled SNP Haplogroup Frequencies in the Five North African Population Samples and Other Published Samples, has determined that out of 26 sub-Saharan Negroid lineages, not a single one was present in either the Upper Egyptian or Lower Egyptian population samples, except for Hg A3b2* which was found in one individual from the Lower Egyptian sample.
The fallacy of your lying approach is the term you use "sub-Saharan Negroid lineages" - a term Arredi does not use or define as you do. You basically arbitrarily define a narrow range of certain genes as "negroid" to sustain your 'mediterranean' fantasy. But once you are exposed, your stack of lies collapses. In fact Haplogroup E is most prevalent in Africa as shown by your own map, and the PN2 clade unites numerous African peoples. Your notion of "negroid genes" is plain and simple bullshiit. The bulk of what is in the Nile Valley is not your precious Mediterranean but E- which is found most in Africa. Once again, the closest link is with Africa not 'Mediterraneans". Arredi is not talking about any "Mediterraneans." You conveniently forget to quote some other things from Arredi which show no "Mediterranean" influx. In fact, Arredi mentions LOCAL development in Africa for several lineages, not origins from your mysterious "Mediterraneans." quote:
“Under the hypothesis of a Neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate EITHER a LOCAL CONTRIBUTION to the North African Neolithic OR an earlier migration INTO the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion BACK into Africa.”
“A clinal pattern of haplography variation like the one we observe can be expected from and EAST-TO-WEST population expansion, and the finding of LOWER E3b2 STR variation in the west than in central North Africa, accompanied by a substantial increase in frequency of this haplography, is most readily explained by expansion into virtually UNINHABITED terrain by populations experiencing increasing drift.”
“In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is RARE in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage.”
“These people COULD have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, AFTER which the M81 mutation arose WITHIN North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population INTO an environment containing FEW Humans.”
Where is the scholarly proof of your "Mediterreans" Gyno-boy? We are still waiting...
Actually, according to those graphs Egyptians cluster the closest with Tasmanians. Does that mean that Egyptians are Tasmanians now? Not to mention the fact that none of the populations that Egyptians cluster the closest with, such as other North Africans or European Mediterraneans, are even mentioned or included on those graphs!
You dummy.. Are you always this stupid or are you making a special effort today? The ancient Egyptians cluster closest with other tropically-adapted peoples. This means dark-skinned peoples adapted to tropical environments, which include not not forest, but dry and semi-arid regions like the Sahara. Tasmanians are one such dark-skinned tropically adapted people, but there is no record of them moving into Egypt. However the record does show OTHER similar people geographically closer to the Egyptians. What other people are closest to the ancient Egyptians, Gyno-boy? Wait for it fool.. yes.. OTHER AFRICANS.. like Pygmies, San and South Africans.
and that's just cranial info. When LIMB PROPORTIONS are considered, Egyptians, or and modern, cluster closer to other tropically-derived African peoples like Black Americans than to your precious white 'mediterraneans".You can't escape the facts, no matter how much you dodge and duck Gyno-boy.
QUOTE: "The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.
None of this proves that Strouhal said that >80% of Badarian hair is of Negroid origin. .. Can you find me a single passage in Strouhal's 1971 report in which he concludes that >80% of Badarian hair is Negroid? This is obviously a gross distortion on Keita's part, especially after Strouhal concluded that less than 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin. If 6-8% of the Badarian crania were determined as being of Negroid origin, then how can >80% of Badarian hair be of Negroid origin, as Keita falsely maintains, especially given the fact that the Badarians were more Europoid than Negroid?
Gyno boy, read both Keita's quote and Strouhal again. As it says above- quote:
Note Keita says that "most of these were interpreted as being hybrids." He never claims Stouhal said they were "pure negro" this is something added on by madilda and you to create a bogus "talking point." And if Strouhal's says they were "mixed Negroid-Europid" origin, then that makes them non-white. Either way, they aren't white. In fact, Strouhal points out the long standing African elements not only physically but culturally as well- i.e. the rainmaker. Ironically, Strohal takes pains to point out how the Badarian are linked to African groups, such as in the Sudan. Keita in 2005 put this to the test, making a head to head comparison with whites, blacks and the Badari. Results showed the Badari link much more closely with Africans than white groups, confirming more scientifically, with a bigger sample, the close links noted by Strouhal. Both Strouhal and Keita agree that they had close links to Africans.
Gyno-boy, you said that "The Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin." We await scholarly proof of your assertion.
The Areddi study says nothing about your "Mediterraneans" and in fact, points to local diversity in several places. Keita and Strouhal agree. Indeed your claim is undermined by both cranial studies and limb proportion studies. But we await this "new" evidence. Let's see what you got. What's taking so long Gyno-boy? Surely you are not too pussy-whipped to directly back up your claim with scholarly proof. We are waiting Gyno-fool... [/qb][/QUOTE] ------------
^^lol.. his pussy whipped punk azz made the false 'mediterranean" claim, and when called on it, he is trying to duck, dodge and backtrack. But his diversionary attempts aren't fooling anyone. He is trying desperately to cover.
The issue is simple. He claimed:
"The Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin."
He has presented no credible evidence by credible modern scholars. All he can do now is try to create a fog of vacuous blather. If he weren't already an idiot, he has made a world-class effort at simulating one. We again ask GYNO-BOY, where are your "mediterranean" "lines of evidence"? Are you a professional fool, or is this your first audition? What's taking so long?
Posts: 124 | From: Zurich | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
"haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval."
Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations
Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild - 2007
A nutshell!...of what has essentially been more elaborately demonstrated about said markers several times before on this site. Oh, yeah -- I have not come across a single genetic journal yet the says different about CF origin...
Excellent point. As Underhill et. al say- inside Africa. But GYNO-BOY has his "Mediterranean" theory that would locate this evolution elsewhere, like the Mediterranean. We again await presentation of credible evidence by credible scholars to back up his claim, to wit:
"The Egyptians are a Mediterranean population of non-Negroid origin."
What's taking so long pussy boy? Getting clearance from your boss "Matilda"?
Posts: 124 | From: Zurich | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans. - Keita & Boyce
Body limb proportions are adaptations to the external environment and are not ancestry informative. You need to work on your reading comprehension because even your own sources refute you. And stop quoting that afrocentic fraud!
Strouhal (1971) also analyzed hair in his study of 117 Badari crania, in which he concluded that >80% were Negroid; most of these were interpreted as being hybrids.
^No where in Stroal's study did he say 80% of the crania were negroid.
Both whites and blacks can have tropical body plans. So?
As you can see from the chart of Hanihara et. al. (2003), the Egyptian samples cluster with Europeans, but not Negroes:
And by the way, all of the DNA evidence clearly demonstrates that the Egyptians always cluster genetically with other Mediterraneans, but never with Negroids.
Nigger, this is too easy. Go take a course in reading comprehension.
quote:Haplogroup E is of East African origin:
Both phylogeography and microsatellite variance suggest that E-P2 and its derivative, E-M35, probably originated in eastern Africa. This inference is further supported by the presence of additional Hg E lineal diversification and by the highest frequency of E-P2* and E-M35* in the same region. The distribution of E-P2* appears limited to eastern African peoples. The E-M35* lineage shows its highest frequency (19.2%) in the Ethiopian Oromo but with a wider distribution range than E-P2*. Indeed, it is also found at high frequency (16.7%) in the Khoisan of South Africa (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002) (suggesting, once again, their ancient relationship with Ethiopians) and observed in southern Europe (present study). - Semino (2004)
Again, all of the latest research demonstrates that Hg E is of Asian origin.
Posts: 69 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic