Near Eastern Neolithic genetic input in a small oasis of the Egyptian Western Desert
Martina Kujanová 1 2, Luísa Pereira 3 4 *, Verónica Fernandes 3, Joana B. Pereira 3, Viktor erný
Abstract The Egyptian Western Desert lies on an important geographic intersection between Africa and Asia. Genetic diversity of this region has been shaped, in part, by climatic changes in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene epochs marked by oscillating humid and arid periods. We present here a whole genome analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and high-resolution molecular analysis of nonrecombining Y-chromosomal (NRY) gene pools of a demographically small but autochthonous population from the Egyptian Western Desert oasis el-Hayez. Notwithstanding signs of expected genetic drift, we still found clear genetic evidence of a strong Near Eastern input that can be dated into the Neolithic. This is revealed by high frequencies and high internal variability of several mtDNA lineages from haplogroup T. The whole genome sequencing strategy and molecular dating allowed us to detect the accumulation of local mtDNA diversity to 5,138 ± 3,633 YBP. Similarly, theY-chromosome gene pool reveals high frequencies of the Near Eastern J1 and the North African E1b1b1b lineages, both generally known to have expanded within North Africa during the Neolithic. These results provide another piece of evidence of the relatively young population history of North Africa.
Am J Phys Anthropol, 2009.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: The whole genome sequencing strategy and molecular dating allowed us to detect the accumulation of local mtDNA diversity to 5,138 ± 3,633 YBP. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2009.
Funny how the earliest date corresponds with Petrie's "dynastic race".. I wouldn't be surprised about the latest. I'm just trying to understand how they calculate these dates.. Maybe The Explorer and others have some relevant in sight or questions about this.
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
The J1 in question could be the Ethiopian M-267 which spread to SE Europe in the Neolithic and is now found in both Arabs and North Africa.
And most of the Hg J EVEN IN North Africa is M267 and last i checked it arrives in historical times and is associated with the Arab/Islamic invasion in North Africa.
So an ancient time frame is a hell of a premise to conflate with a "Near Eastern" source.
Other than that, interesting study. I would have assumed the T was modern or especially medieval [slave trade], or possibly even pharaonic but "evidence of a strong Near Eastern input that can be dated to the Neolithic"? Geez, i'll be excited to learn of the evidence for this possibility !
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Freehand: Other than that, interesting study. I would have assumed the T was modern or especially medieval [sex slave trade], or possibly even pharaonic but "evidence of a strong Near Eastern input that can be dated to the Neolithic"? Geez, i'll be excited to learn of the evidence for this possibility !
This study is all the more interesting because they mention hg T. This is interesting because most carriers of T-M70 are Fula. This does not suggest a back migration in my opinion.
.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
clyde what are you that stupit you are a profesor dont you look carfulley they ment haplogroup T mtdna :haplogroup not the y haplogroup T-m70 read the abstract e3b1c1
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Near Eastern Neolithic genetic input in a small oasis of the Egyptian Western Desert
Martina Kujanová 1 2, Luísa Pereira 3 4 *, Verónica Fernandes 3, Joana B. Pereira 3, Viktor erný
Abstract The Egyptian Western Desert lies on an important geographic intersection between Africa and Asia. Genetic diversity of this region has been shaped, in part, by climatic changes in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene epochs marked by oscillating humid and arid periods. We present here a whole genome analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and high-resolution molecular analysis of nonrecombining Y-chromosomal (NRY) gene pools of a demographically small but autochthonous population from the Egyptian Western Desert oasis el-Hayez. Notwithstanding signs of expected genetic drift, we still found clear genetic evidence of a strong Near Eastern input that can be dated into the Neolithic. This is revealed by high frequencies and high internal variability of several mtDNA lineages from haplogroup T. The whole genome sequencing strategy and molecular dating allowed us to detect the accumulation of local mtDNA diversity to 5,138 ± 3,633 YBP. Similarly, theY-chromosome gene pool reveals high frequencies of the Near Eastern J1 and the North African E1b1b1b lineages, both generally known to have expanded within North Africa during the Neolithic. These results provide another piece of evidence of the relatively young population history of North Africa.
Am J Phys Anthropol, 2009.
Quotes from this study -
"....a recent study of cattle mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) (Achilli et al, 2008) suggests that a seperate focus of African domestication of cattle is unlikely and supports the scenario of its single origin in the Near East."
"Although our sample size may be relatively small, our study revealed important genetic varation within some mtDNA lineages, providing the first genetic insight into settlement history of the Egyptian Western Desert. In particular, we evaluated Paleolithic and Neolithic genetic pools to ascertain the geographical origin of the genetic lineages found amoung autochthonous inhabitants."
"Archaeological excavations have revealed .....Roman and Christian period (30 BC -642 AD) in el-Hayez, although more ancient periods are likely even if still poorly documented by current archaeological excavations."
Population Samples
"Thirty-five unrelated males were selected from el-Hayez oasis..."
"Surprisingly, no other U-lineage (one U3b) is present, in particular U6, which is otherwise frequent throughout North Africa but more so in Western North Africa."
"With our limited sample size, we can tentatively estimate the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for these last two (T) lineages, assuming they evolved in el-Hayez or somewhere in the Eastern Western Desert, as 5,138 +/- 3,633 YBP."
"...the presence of the Near Eastern haplogroup J1 at a frequency of 31% in el-Hayez (similar but somewhat higher than Algerian and Tunisian samples; Semino et al., 2000) attests to gene flow from the Near East during the Neolithic period since its coalesence in North Africa dates from 6,800 to 7,900 YBO (Arredi et al., 2004)."
Conclusions
"The complete mtDNA characterization of 35 unrelated individuals from el-Hayez revealed a local expansion in the last 6,000 years of two lineages belonging to the T1 Neolithic Near Eastern haplogroup. This suggests input of Near Eastern lineages during the Neolithic period in contradiction to the hypothesis that Northeastern Africa was an independent place of cattle domestication, as suggested by thee cultural context."
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
Well, we knew it was coming, they've been iching to go East from the Maghreb.
With the small sample size i wonder how they can be so sure it's Neolithic in arrival.
Other than all that, the Bible does suggest all the cultures in the region had a patriarch (Noah). Or was it in the world?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Freehand: Well, we knew it was coming, they've been iching to go East from the Maghreb.
Evergreen Writes: Good point, Freehand. They couldn't position a European origin to Ancient Egyptian civilization so they are now trying to posit "Near Easterners" in pre-Pharonic Egypt.
This study is poor in so many ways. First of all they admit that their sample size is small. Then they go on to admit that this area only has continous occupation from the Roman era! Heck we all know there was a demographic change in Egypt by the Late Period. Their standard deviation for the T1 lineages range from 8771 YBP to the Arab Conquest(5,138 +/- 3,633 YBP)! Finally, the y-chromosome data ignores Nebel et al.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^So ± is a +/- symbol? LOL.. Their range then is ridiculous. Also, I'm lost in that I don't see what the maternal lineage examined has to do with the Neolithic period, as the title implies.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Sure the small sample size is an issue, but look, the coalescence times [as apparent from the large margins of error] simply tell us when the lineage itself expanded; it doesn't quite tell us when a lineage entered from locale A to locale B, without elaborate cluster information on how lineage 'X' -- unique and respective in distribution pattern to locale A and locale B -- could have entered say, locale B from locale A.
These people ignore Bovine-remains anthropology and DNA data, none of which is consistent with this:
"The complete mtDNA characterization of 35 unrelated individuals from el-Hayez revealed a local expansion in the last 6,000 years of two lineages belonging to the T1 Neolithic Near Eastern haplogroup. This suggests input of Near Eastern lineages during the Neolithic period in contradiction to the hypothesis that Northeastern Africa was an independent place of cattle domestication, as suggested by thee cultural context."
Human skeleton, Y or mtDNA is no substitute for actual cattle markers. It's just common sense.
Archaeological attestations of the considerable distinct time frames of the Levantine agricultural Neolithic economy and that of the Nile Valley is also simply ignored, in lieu for an admittedly small sample of uniparental markers.
Predynastic Nile Valley human remains data is also ignored [as cited in Barry Kemp's publication].
Linguistic indicators [as cited by Keita] shows that words for Levantine domesticates are not loan words from the so-called 'Near East'; recap:
Ovacaprines appear in the western desert before the Nile valley proper (Wendorf and Schild 2001). However, it is significant that ancient Egyptian words for the major Near Eastern domesticates - Sheep, goat, barley, and wheat - are not loans from either Semitic, Sumerian, or Indo-European. This argues against a mass settler colonization (at replacement levels) of the Nile valley from the Near East at this time. This is in contrast with some words for domesticates in some early Semitic languages, which are likely Sumerian loan words (Diakonoff 1981).
This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000).
As for the Y-DNA, Semino et al. 2004 gave a detailed layout of differentiation between Neolithic era J and post-Neolithic J dispersals; their data suggests that most of those J lineages in northern Africa which have counterparts in the so-called Near East, are post-Neolithic or recent dispersals.
To recap from above, the authors say:
"Surprisingly, no other U-lineage (one U3b) is present, in particular U6, which is otherwise frequent throughout North Africa but more so in Western North Africa.
Indeed. U6 seems to factor prominently in these "Neolithic" or else "Paleolithic demic diffusions into northern Africa" proposals, but time and again, its distribution pattern just doesn't seem to comply.
Is it possible that there were predynastic human movements into north Africa proper via the Sinai corridor? Yes, but these apparently didn't have to sort of impact or oomph on the manifestation of autochthonous predynastic Nile Valley cultural development into the dynastic period that the usual "demic diffusion into Nile Valley" crowd would like to see.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Sure the small sample size is an issue, but look, the coalescence times [as apparent from the large margins of error] simply tell us when the lineage itself expanded; it doesn't quite tell us when a lineage entered from locale A to locale B, without elaborate cluster information on how lineage 'X' -- unique and respective in distribution pattern to locale A and locale B -- could have entered say, locale B from locale A.
These people ignore Bovine-remains anthropology and DNA data, none of which is consistent with this:
"The complete mtDNA characterization of 35 unrelated individuals from el-Hayez revealed a local expansion in the last 6,000 years of two lineages belonging to the T1 Neolithic Near Eastern haplogroup. This suggests input of Near Eastern lineages during the Neolithic period in contradiction to the hypothesis that Northeastern Africa was an independent place of cattle domestication, as suggested by thee cultural context."
Human skeleton, Y or mtDNA is no substitute for actual cattle markers. It's just common sense.
Archaeological attestations of the considerable distinct time frames of the Levantine agricultural Neolithic economy and that of the Nile Valley is also simply ignored, in lieu for an admittedly small sample of uniparental markers.
Predynastic Nile Valley human remains data is also ignored [as cited in Barry Kemp's publication].
Linguistic indicators [as cited by Keita] shows that words for Levantine domesticates are not loan words from the so-called 'Near East'; recap:
Ovacaprines appear in the western desert before the Nile valley proper (Wendorf and Schild 2001). However, it is significant that ancient Egyptian words for the major Near Eastern domesticates - Sheep, goat, barley, and wheat - are not loans from either Semitic, Sumerian, or Indo-European. This argues against a mass settler colonization (at replacement levels) of the Nile valley from the Near East at this time. This is in contrast with some words for domesticates in some early Semitic languages, which are likely Sumerian loan words (Diakonoff 1981).
This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000).
As for the Y-DNA, Semino et al. 2004 gave a detailed layout of differentiation between Neolithic era J and post-Neolithic J dispersals; their data suggests that most of those J lineages in northern Africa which have counterparts in the so-called Near East, are post-Neolithic or recent dispersals.
To recap from above, the authors say:
"Surprisingly, no other U-lineage (one U3b) is present, in particular U6, which is otherwise frequent throughout North Africa but more so in Western North Africa.
Indeed. U6 seems to factor prominently in these "Neolithic" or else "Paleolithic demic diffusions into northern Africa" proposals, but time and again, its distribution pattern just doesn't seem to comply.
Is it possible that there were predynastic human movements into north Africa proper via the Sinai corridor? Yes, but these apparently didn't have to sort of impact or oomph on the manifestation of autochthonous predynastic Nile Valley cultural development into the dynastic period that the usual "demic diffusion into Nile Valley" crowd would like to see.
Excellent analysis, along with the other posters above. Amazing how said authors plow ahead to deliver bold "sound bite" quotes about the cattle and other things. In any event, few deny that there was always small scale movement between Near East and Egypt in the formative stages, if only merchants in pursuit of trade, or nomads, or whatever... But even given this, doesn't the "near eastern influx" approach fall flat ideologically if the people "influxing" looked like East Africans to begin with? I mean we see the same thing in Neolithic Europe, where the people there resembled East and NE Africans (Brace 2005) in those early stages, so does not the same scenario apply via Sinai or the other side of the Red Sea, whether by Neolithic or "backflow" migrants millenia before? The "incoming hordes" looked African to begin with, coming back to join other East and NE Africans already in Africa?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
zarahan wrote: ---------------------- where the people there resembled East and NE Africans ----------------------
What does an "east" or "ne" African look like?
PS. Don't run from the question.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
only 35 people were tested in this reasearch not enough to reach conclusion on that i agree with you guys becuase the smaple was to small it is not surprising that u6 wasnt found in this area in either way as the paper mention it is more common on the western part of north africa meaninag the magrheb and we know from previews data it exist there no doubt the egyptions have a lot of western asian blood in them we can see that in there mtdna and also in autosomal test if you will take one and afcorse most of them carry slc24a5 derived allel so calling them black is pure stupidty e3b1c1
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Basically this is just a way to get around the fact that they have no ancient DNA from Nile Valley populations, or any ancient population of Northern Africa from 5,000 years ago, so they can simply play the same old con game. Anything with a +/- of 4,000 for a total 8,000 years is meaningless. That is longer than the time span of dynastic Egypt itself.
But even this one sample is nothing in a vacuum as other populations throughout Egypt can and have been sampled and should be used together with this one if one want to do a real attempt a "guessing" what lineages were present 5,000 years ago. And even then it still is only a reasonable guess.
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Their range then is ridiculous.
LOL their range is hilarious in that it's just an evolution range and not an origination range, and certainly not an introduction into Egypt time frame.
quote:Also, I'm lost in that I don't see what the maternal lineage examined has to do with the Neolithic period, as the title implies.
They tie it and its time-frame to J1 and claim they came with introduced food techniques from the Near East to Africa. They've had to have really been after our asses after Brace et al 2005!
I normally don't say this about anything, but what a crappy study.
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: only 35 people were tested in this reasearch not enough to reach conclusion on that i agree with you guys becuase the smaple was to small it is not surprising that u6 wasnt found in this area in either way as the paper mention it is more common on the western part of north africa meaninag the magrheb and we know from previews data it exist there no doubt the egyptions have a lot of western asian blood in them we can see that in there mtdna and also in autosomal test if you will take one and afcorse most of them carry slc24a5 derived allel so calling them black is pure stupidty e3b1c1
Are you familiar with the medieval slave trade in Euros, or with the fact that what is now Egypt throughout its history has had Circassian slaves?
Heck, this could be two of them here:
Also, i hear Km.t [nwt] would have been a pretty nice place to live. The arrival didn't have to be neolithic.
Also, foreigners from the North would send the native Kings concubines for their harem, though the favor (to the resentment of one writer) wasn't returned.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
circassian i know they were slaves but they carry haplogroups G and J2 both of wich were absent from the samples if you will go to dienekes forum there is frequencies of the haplogroups in el- hayez 2 people were e3a 10 people were e3b1 10 people were e3b2 11 people were j1 2 people were e3b* the underived form this are the real numbers i swere e3b1c1
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Italians google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22slaves+from+italy%22
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
look i dont want to fight you should be happy e3a was found 2/35 were e3a i dont care about slaves from italy iget to my head thats slaves can belong to any haplogroup like the cricassian who were haplogroup G and haplogroup j2 both of them are and remember i am not european so i dont care if europeans were slaves iam e3b1c1 not e3b1a2 the european e3b v13 i have nothing to do with them e3b1c1
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Freehand:
quote:Originally posted by e3b1c1: only 35 people were tested in this reasearch not enough to reach conclusion on that i agree with you guys becuase the smaple was to small it is not surprising that u6 wasnt found in this area in either way as the paper mention it is more common on the western part of north africa meaninag the magrheb and we know from previews data it exist there no doubt the egyptions have a lot of western asian blood in them we can see that in there mtdna and also in autosomal test if you will take one and afcorse most of them carry slc24a5 derived allel so calling them black is pure stupidty e3b1c1
Are you familiar with the medieval slave trade in Euros, or with the fact that what is now Egypt throughout its history has had Circassian slaves?
Heck, this could be two of them here:
Also, i hear Km.t [nwt] would have been a pretty nice place to live. The arrival didn't have to be neolithic.
Also, foreigners from the North would send the native Kings concubines for their harem, though the favor (to the resentment of one writer) wasn't returned.
I don't think that such images can be said to be Circassians as opposed to neighbors in the Levant. In fact Amenhotep III is said to have boasted about the number of captives on an inscription near the now gone temple that stood behind the colossi of Memnon.
quote: Behold, the heart of His Majesty (i.e. I myself) was satisfied with making a very great monument; never has happened the like since the beginning (of time). He made it as his monument for his father Amun -- an august temple ... an eternal, everlasting fortress of fine white sandstone, wrought with gold throughout; its floor is adorned with silver, all its portals with electrum; it is made very wide and large, and established for ever ... It is numerous in royal statues, of elephantine granite, of costly gritstone, of every splendid, costly stone ... Its lake is filled with the great Nile, Lord of fish and fowl ... a store-house is filled with male and female slaves, with children of the princes of all the countries of the captivity of His Majesty. Its storehouses contain all good things, whose number is not known. It is surrounded with settlements of Syrians, colonised with children of princes, its cattle are like the sand of the shore; they make up millions.
Likewise, because the color is pale does not mean that the ladies are necessarily foreign either, as pale or yellow skinned depictions of women are common in ancient Egyptian art from all periods.
Keep in mind that Harems is an ancient African tradition that goes back to Africans having multiple wives and consorts. Originally it represented the vital strength of the king and the sustainment of the family line by ensuring lots of children to guarantee the sustainment of the family and clan. It also was a source of help in hunting, gathering and fishing, which eventually became agriculture. All of this is embodied symbolically in the concepts of the male and female deities and cosmologies of Egypt itself. Just as owning large numbers of cattle is also an ancient African tradition symbolizing wealth and power still seen in many cultures of Africa today.
give me the links they dont work you dont need to prove me anything i know slaves belonged to many haplogroups R1a the word slaves come from slav they were slaves from eastern europe and the turkish slaves from crimea by the abbssaid empire later they became masters who beat the mongols they were calle mamlukes e3b1c1
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
thanks argyle104 but you didnt show me anything that i didnt know but thanks much apricate it e3b1c1
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
e3b1c1 wrote: ---------------------- thanks argyle104 but you didnt show me anything that i didnt know but thanks much apricate it e3b1c1 ----------------------
Folks this is how you administer a scholarly beatdown.
e3b1c1 came into this forum barking like a crazed dog and I have made him tuck his tail between his legs and run for the nearest cover.
Posted by e3b1c1 (Member # 16338) on :
you didnt made me anything i just decided to be nice and all you are loooking is for fight or disagrement i said thanks for the links than shut your mouth and say you welcome it doesnt cost money to be civilized you know e3b1c1
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: [QUOTE] I mean we see the same thing in Neolithic Europe, where the people there resembled East and NE Africans (Brace 2005) in those early stages, so does not the same scenario apply via Sinai or the other side of the Red Sea, whether by Neolithic or "backflow" migrants millenia before? The "incoming hordes" looked African to begin with, coming back to join other East and NE Africans already in Africa?
Evergreen Writes: Excellent question, Zarahan. The genetic data from the y-chromosome E1b1b lineage and skeletal and cranial data from the Mesolithic period allow us to bracket the upper timeframe of movement of Nile Valley Africans into the Levant. There is no evidence of "Eurasian" types moving into NE Africa during this window (Mesolithic) .
The "Eurasian" remains found in early dynastic Nile Valley tombs allows us to bracket the lower timeframe of this movement into the Levant and/or Lower Egypt. It is most probable that these "Eurasian" traits indicate Naqada colonization of Canaan and not a mass migration of Eurasian types into the Nile Valley. Following tradition Egyptian rulers would have taken wives from the leaders of the vassal Canaanite colonies.
As Brace notes: The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.
The next level of study ahead of us requires a more sophisticated modeling and analysis of north Eurasian back migration into the Levant. When did the Sub-Saharan traces dilute in the Levant. This question is pivotal in understanding the genetic and phenetic changes we now see in NE Africa.
Did the change in the Levant take place during the early Neolithic? The late neolithic? The Bronze Age? We need a multidisciplinary approach to answer this question.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]The next level of study ahead of us requires a more sophisticated modeling and analysis of north Eurasian back migration into the Levant. When did the Sub-Saharan traces dilute in the Levant. This question is pivotal in understanding the genetic and phenetic changes we now see in NE Africa.
Evergreen Writes: It is worthwhile pointing out that we can further bracket this change through the analysis of the osteological remains and crania of neolithic Europeans since. There is a positive correlation between distal limb elongation and melanin intensification. In otherwords humans with long tropical limbs also have dark skin.
QUOTE:
Black Athena Revisted
CL Brace
In this regard it is interesting to note that limb proportions of Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be "Super-Negroid," meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans.....skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics.
Population continuity, demic diffusion and Neolithic origins in central-southern Germany: the evidence from body proportions.
Gallagher A, Gunther MM, Bruchhaus H.
Homo. 2009;60(2):95-126. Epub 2009 Mar 4.
The transition to agro-pastoralism in central Europe has been framed within a dichotomy of "regional continuity" versus exogenous "demic diffusion". While substantial genetic support exists for a model of demographic diffusion from an ancestral source in the Near East, archaeological data furnish weak support for the "wave of advance" model. Nevertheless, archaeological evidence attests the widespread introduction of an exogenous "package" comprising ceramics, cereals, pulses and domesticated animals to central Europe at 5600calBCE. Body proportions are under strong climatic selection and evince remarkable stability within regional lineages. As such, they offer a viable and robust alternative to cranio-facial data in assessing hypothesised continuity and replacement with the transition to agro-pastoralism in central Europe. Humero-clavicular, brachial and crural indices in a large sample (n=75) of Linienbandkeramik (LBK), Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age specimens from the middle Elbe-Saale-Werra valley (MESV) were compared with Eurasian and African terminal Pleistocene, European Mesolithic and geographically disparate recent human specimens. Mesolithic Europeans display considerable variation in humero-clavicular and brachial indices yet none approach the extreme "hyper-polar" morphology of LBK humans from the MESV. In contrast, Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age peoples display elongated brachial and crural indices reminiscent of terminal Pleistocene and "tropically adapted" recent humans. These marked morphological changes likely reflect exogenous immigration during the terminal Fourth millennium cal BC. Population expansion and diffusion is a function of increased mobility and settlement dispersal concomitant with significant technological and subsistence changes in later Neolithic societies during the late fourth millennium cal BCE.
J. Lawrence Angel Journal of Human Evolutiom 1972
Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....
Evergreen Writes: This tells us that neolithic populations moving out of SW Asia during the terminal Fourth millennium BC still retained phenetic characteristics indicating affinity with tropical Africans. The cranial remains in First Dynasty Nile Valley tombs also tells us there was diversity in the Levant during this window with an admixed population with African and Eurasian features.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000).
Evergreen Writes: Excellent point, Explorer. Achilli's dna evidence of a single Near Eastern "domestication" of cattle only speaks to a genetic event, not the cultural process of "animal herding" which dates to the early Holocene in Africa.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^^Nice analysis. I wonder if the following study ties in in terms of language too- the author Ene Metspalu found that Arabic for example, arose as a result of East African migrants. The popular notion is usually to see Arabic speakers flowing into Africa, as if they were something totally foreign that sprang up outside the continent. But the DNA evidence amassed by the author shows African OUTFLOW giving rise to Arabic, and it is fairly recent too, not something 400Kya. Hanihara 1996 also notes in his cranial studies that early West Asians looked like Africans. Hence we have East Africans going forth to generate both languages and people looking like them. Any "return to Africa" then, based on the evidence you present, is of people looking like their East African forebears. THe applicable studies are you post are there for all to read, assuming they can read, and not be in constant denial. Your Gallagher and Angel refs for examples show that tropical body plans was one of the characteristics of these older outside-Africa populations, just like their fellow Africans. Furthermore things like narrow noses are ancient and common to places like East Africa, without needing any "incoming Caucasoids" or "Middle Easterners" or "Asiatics" to explain why. Some of the oldest specimens with this are found in Kenya for example, according to Hiernaux 1975. Thus any using "backflow" to bolster a case of incoming Caucasoid hordes, whether they are using DNA percentages or whatever still can't get around these inconvenient facts.
Near Eastern languages came from Africa 10,000 years ago Investigator: Ene Metspalu Tuesday May 28th, 2002 by Laura Spinney
Analysis of thousands of mitochondrial DNA samples has led Estonian archeogeneticists to the origins of Arabic. Ene Metspalu of the Department of Evolutionary Biology at Tartu University and the Estonian Biocentre in Tartu, claims to have evidence that the Arab- Berber languages of the Near and Middle East came out of East Africa around 10,000 years ago. She has found evidence for what may have been the last sizeable migration out of Africa before the slave trade.
Genetic markers transmitted through either the maternal or paternal line have been used to trace the great human migrations since Homo sapiens emerged in Africa. But attempts to trace the evolution of languages have met with less success, partly because of the impact on languages of untraceable political and economic upheavals. Metspalu and colleagues analyzed inherited variations in a huge number of samples - almost 3000 - of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from natives of the Near East, Middle East and Central Asia, as well as North and East Africa.
mtDNA is inherited through the maternal line, and by comparing their data with existing data on European, Indian, Siberian and other Central Asian populations, the researchers were able to create a comprehensive phylogenetic map of maternal lineages diverging from Africa and spreading towards Europe and Asia. Working in collaboration with language specialists, they found that this movement 10,000 years ago, which was probably centred on Ethiopia, could well have been responsible for seeding the Afro- Asiatic language from which all modern Arab-Berber languages are descended.
"This language was spoken in Africa 10,000 or 12,000 years ago," Metspalu told BioMedNet News. "We think it was around that time that carriers brought these Afro-Asiatic languages to the Near East." The language, or its derivatives, later spread much further afield. What could have triggered the movement she can only speculate. One possibility is that increasing desertification was causing famine in Africa and driving hunters further afield in search of animals. Interestingly, the lineages they traced through this 10,000-year-old migration didn't seem to get much further north than modern-day Syria or east of modern-day Iraq. There is no evidence of the lineages in the mtDNA of people from Turkey or Iran, says Metspalu.
"We can't understand why this boundary [to the Arab-Berber speaking world] is so sharp," she said. "They came out of Africa, and when they reached Turkey they just stopped." She believes some kind of physical boundary, now vanished, must have impeded them.
The same genetic detective work has confirmed archeological evidence that the biggest movement out of Africa occurred around 50,000 years ago - which is when Africans first settled in other continents - and that it originated in a small East African population.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: ^^Nice analysis. I wonder if the following study ties in in terms of language too- the author Ene Metspalu found that Arabic for example, arose as a result of East African migrants. The popular notion is usually to see Arabic speakers flowing into Africa, as if they were something totally foreign that sprang up outside the continent. But the DNA evidence amassed by the author shows African OUTFLOW giving rise to Arabic, and it is fairly recent too, not something 400Kya. Hanihara 1996 also notes in his cranial studies that early West Asians looked like Africans. Hence we have East Africans going forth to generate both languages and people looking like them. Any "return to Africa" then, based on the evidence you present, is of people looking like their East African forebears. THe applicable studies are you post are there for all to read, assuming they can read, and not be in constant denial. Your Gallagher and Angel refs for examples show that tropical body plans was one of the characteristics of these older outside-Africa populations, just like their fellow Africans. Furthermore things like narrow noses are ancient and common to places like East Africa, without needing any "incoming Caucasoids" or "Middle Easterners" or "Asiatics" to explain why. Some of the oldest specimens with this are found in Kenya for example, according to Hiernaux 1975. Thus any using "backflow" to bolster a case of incoming Caucasoid hordes, whether they are using DNA percentages or whatever still can't get around these inconvenient facts.
Near Eastern languages came from Africa 10,000 years ago Investigator: Ene Metspalu Tuesday May 28th, 2002 by Laura Spinney
Analysis of thousands of mitochondrial DNA samples has led Estonian archeogeneticists to the origins of Arabic. Ene Metspalu of the Department of Evolutionary Biology at Tartu University and the Estonian Biocentre in Tartu, claims to have evidence that the Arab- Berber languages of the Near and Middle East came out of East Africa around 10,000 years ago. She has found evidence for what may have been the last sizeable migration out of Africa before the slave trade.
Genetic markers transmitted through either the maternal or paternal line have been used to trace the great human migrations since Homo sapiens emerged in Africa. But attempts to trace the evolution of languages have met with less success, partly because of the impact on languages of untraceable political and economic upheavals. Metspalu and colleagues analyzed inherited variations in a huge number of samples - almost 3000 - of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from natives of the Near East, Middle East and Central Asia, as well as North and East Africa.
mtDNA is inherited through the maternal line, and by comparing their data with existing data on European, Indian, Siberian and other Central Asian populations, the researchers were able to create a comprehensive phylogenetic map of maternal lineages diverging from Africa and spreading towards Europe and Asia. Working in collaboration with language specialists, they found that this movement 10,000 years ago, which was probably centred on Ethiopia, could well have been responsible for seeding the Afro- Asiatic language from which all modern Arab-Berber languages are descended.
"This language was spoken in Africa 10,000 or 12,000 years ago," Metspalu told BioMedNet News. "We think it was around that time that carriers brought these Afro-Asiatic languages to the Near East." The language, or its derivatives, later spread much further afield. What could have triggered the movement she can only speculate. One possibility is that increasing desertification was causing famine in Africa and driving hunters further afield in search of animals. Interestingly, the lineages they traced through this 10,000-year-old migration didn't seem to get much further north than modern-day Syria or east of modern-day Iraq. There is no evidence of the lineages in the mtDNA of people from Turkey or Iran, says Metspalu.
"We can't understand why this boundary [to the Arab-Berber speaking world] is so sharp," she said. "They came out of Africa, and when they reached Turkey they just stopped." She believes some kind of physical boundary, now vanished, must have impeded them.
The same genetic detective work has confirmed archeological evidence that the biggest movement out of Africa occurred around 50,000 years ago - which is when Africans first settled in other continents - and that it originated in a small East African population.
Ehret contradicts this idea of an African origin for Arabic:
Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East.
Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Apr 29.
Kitchen A, Ehret C, Assefa S, Mulligan CJ. .
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Why is this idiot E3bc still talking? E3b IS a black African marker along with its sibling E3a. He keeps running away from that fact and associates lineage with a 'race' LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Near Eastern Neolithic genetic input in a small oasis of the Egyptian Western Desert
Martina Kujanová 1 2, Luísa Pereira 3 4 *, Verónica Fernandes 3, Joana B. Pereira 3, Viktor erný
Abstract The Egyptian Western Desert lies on an important geographic intersection between Africa and Asia. Genetic diversity of this region has been shaped, in part, by climatic changes in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene epochs marked by oscillating humid and arid periods. We present here a whole genome analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and high-resolution molecular analysis of nonrecombining Y-chromosomal (NRY) gene pools of a demographically small but autochthonous population from the Egyptian Western Desert oasis el-Hayez. Notwithstanding signs of expected genetic drift, we still found clear genetic evidence of a strong Near Eastern input that can be dated into the Neolithic. This is revealed by high frequencies and high internal variability of several mtDNA lineages from haplogroup T. The whole genome sequencing strategy and molecular dating allowed us to detect the accumulation of local mtDNA diversity to 5,138 ± 3,633 YBP. Similarly, theY-chromosome gene pool reveals high frequencies of the Near Eastern J1 and the North African E1b1b1b lineages, both generally known to have expanded within North Africa during the Neolithic. These results provide another piece of evidence of the relatively young population history of North Africa.
Am J Phys Anthropol, 2009.
I'm already skeptical from the first sentence of the abstract. How does Egypt's Western Desert lie on an intersection between Asia and Africa??!! Is it not entirely in Africa??! The E1b1b1b is expected but how much of this J1 is ancient or prehistoric and how much of it is recent. The same can be said for mthaplotype T. And I agree, what is the cultural input from the 'near east'?? Was not cattle domestication in situ Africa?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Thanks for digging that up. I used to have a little more from Metspalu but now it's lost. Judging from her work I made one of my first posts to ES AE&E in 2004.
I've learned a lot from the vets here since then and now wonder if my old postulation really makes any sense.
Anyway, here's why I imagined Semitic spread was limited:
quote: Semitic speakers started as simply another African people. They didn't originate in Asia as imagined by old school historians, anthropologists, and linguists, or as the new wave Nostratists postulate.
Southern Arabia was Kushite Arabia and in the Arab mind they were the 'Arab ul-'Aribah whereas the 'Arab ul-Muta'aribah and the 'Arab ul-Musta'ribah are acknowledged as northerners mixing with the Kushites or as unmixeds who merely adapted Arab culture.
The eastern Mediterranean is a nexus of three continents. It and the Arabian Peninsula were peopled by other migrant invaders who didn't originally speak in Afrasan. Semitic speakers were among the first but weren't the only inhabitants of the region. Kushitics preceded them. Indo-Europeans, Caucasics, Altaics, etc., came after them probably via the Daryal Gorge through the Caucasus.
From this can be gathered, if anything, that "Semites" are North East Africans who migrated into the Arabian peninsula and moved northward (as far as up to Turkey1) where they met and mingled with and were maybe blocked from further spread by southward invading Eurasian peoples (Altaic and Indo-European speakers) in pre-historic times. Upon the eclipse of the southerners the hybrids and assimilated settlers (beginning circa -1800 with the maryannu caste) became heir to the names and languages of the original people they married into and whose culture they emulated.
. . . .
Linguistics reveals that Semitic is just an Afrasan language and proto-Afrasan dates to origins of 12KYA somewhere in the vicinity of the border between present day Sudan and Ethiopia or perhaps the Kordofanian area. Semitic along with Tamazight are thought to be the last families to diverge from the parent stock hardly allowing either to be older than Kushitic or Egyptian.
The Semitic speakers worked their way up from the Bab-el-Mandeb crossing over from the Horn to the Arabian peninsula and from there moved northward ending their trek at the foot of the mountains of Turkey. If anything, Caucasic, Altaic, and Indo-European speakers moving southbound across the Caucasus met and mingled with the Semitic speakers giving then a much lighter color than their southern ancestors had and still have today.
Well there it is. I await its modifying update or total criticism.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: I wonder if the following study ties in in terms of language too- the author Ene Metspalu found that Arabic for example, arose as a result of East African migrants. ... Hanihara 1996 also notes in his cranial studies that early West Asians looked like Africans. Hence we have East Africans going forth to generate both languages and people looking like them. ... Your Gallagher and Angel refs for examples show that tropical body plans was one of the characteristics of these older outside-Africa populations, just like their fellow Africans. Furthermore things like narrow noses are ancient and common to places like East Africa, without needing any "incoming Caucasoids" or "Middle Easterners" or "Asiatics" to explain why. Some of the oldest specimens with this are found in Kenya for example, according to Hiernaux 1975. Thus any using "backflow" to bolster a case of incoming Caucasoid hordes, whether they are using DNA percentages or whatever still can't get around these inconvenient facts.
Near Eastern languages came from Africa 10,000 years ago Investigator: Ene Metspalu Tuesday May 28th, 2002 by Laura Spinney
Analysis of thousands of mitochondrial DNA samples has led Estonian archeogeneticists to the origins of Arabic. Ene Metspalu of the Department of Evolutionary Biology at Tartu University and the Estonian Biocentre in Tartu, claims to have evidence that the Arab- Berber languages of the Near and Middle East came out of East Africa around 10,000 years ago. She has found evidence for what may have been the last sizeable migration out of Africa before the slave trade.
Genetic markers transmitted through either the maternal or paternal line have been used to trace the great human migrations since Homo sapiens emerged in Africa. But attempts to trace the evolution of languages have met with less success, partly because of the impact on languages of untraceable political and economic upheavals. Metspalu and colleagues analyzed inherited variations in a huge number of samples - almost 3000 - of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from natives of the Near East, Middle East and Central Asia, as well as North and East Africa.
mtDNA is inherited through the maternal line, and by comparing their data with existing data on European, Indian, Siberian and other Central Asian populations, the researchers were able to create a comprehensive phylogenetic map of maternal lineages diverging from Africa and spreading towards Europe and Asia. Working in collaboration with language specialists, they found that this movement 10,000 years ago, which was probably centred on Ethiopia, could well have been responsible for seeding the Afro- Asiatic language from which all modern Arab-Berber languages are descended.
"This language was spoken in Africa 10,000 or 12,000 years ago," Metspalu told BioMedNet News. "We think it was around that time that carriers brought these Afro-Asiatic languages to the Near East." The language, or its derivatives, later spread much further afield. What could have triggered the movement she can only speculate. One possibility is that increasing desertification was causing famine in Africa and driving hunters further afield in search of animals. Interestingly, the lineages they traced through this 10,000-year-old migration didn't seem to get much further north than modern-day Syria or east of modern-day Iraq. There is no evidence of the lineages in the mtDNA of people from Turkey or Iran, says Metspalu.
"We can't understand why this boundary [to the Arab-Berber speaking world] is so sharp," she said. "They came out of Africa, and when they reached Turkey they just stopped." She believes some kind of physical boundary, now vanished, must have impeded them.
The same genetic detective work has confirmed archeological evidence that the biggest movement out of Africa occurred around 50,000 years ago - which is when Africans first settled in other continents - and that it originated in a small East African population.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Many old archaeological and anthropological journals describe the various waves of peoples from farther north who settled the Levant and even deeper into Arabia. Some of these peoples have been described as 'proto-Hurrian' or 'proto-Uratian'.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^^ Looking at both al-Takuri's data and Metspalu ref and Clyde's Ehret reference, Takuri's holding that the original "Semites" are NE Africans who migrated into the Arabian peninsula and moved northward is persuasive, versus a scenario of an incoming 'Aryan' horde from Turkey or some other SW Asiatic location. They may have come later, but the originals flowed from Africa. Recognizable language elements could have evolved in the Arabian area some 6,000 years ago as Ehret suggests, but even then the evolution would have been among people who looked like NE Africans in terms of the tropical adaptations (following Brace 2005, Gallagher 2008, et al). Whatever the true scenario, its still African type peoples involved in jump starting of the process.
On the oasis thing, Explorer's critique rounds up several weaknesses in one neat package:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Sure the small sample size is an issue, but look, the coalescence times [as apparent from the large margins of error] simply tell us when the lineage itself expanded; it doesn't quite tell us when a lineage entered from locale A to locale B, without elaborate cluster information on how lineage 'X' -- unique and respective in distribution pattern to locale A and locale B -- could have entered say, locale B from locale A.
These people ignore Bovine-remains anthropology and DNA data, none of which is consistent with this:
"The complete mtDNA characterization of 35 unrelated individuals from el-Hayez revealed a local expansion in the last 6,000 years of two lineages belonging to the T1 Neolithic Near Eastern haplogroup. This suggests input of Near Eastern lineages during the Neolithic period in contradiction to the hypothesis that Northeastern Africa was an independent place of cattle domestication, as suggested by thee cultural context."
Human skeleton, Y or mtDNA is no substitute for actual cattle markers. It's just common sense.
Archaeological attestations of the considerable distinct time frames of the Levantine agricultural Neolithic economy and that of the Nile Valley is also simply ignored, in lieu for an admittedly small sample of uniparental markers.
Predynastic Nile Valley human remains data is also ignored [as cited in Barry Kemp's publication].
Linguistic indicators [as cited by Keita] shows that words for Levantine domesticates are not loan words from the so-called 'Near East'; recap:
Ovacaprines appear in the western desert before the Nile valley proper (Wendorf and Schild 2001). However, it is significant that ancient Egyptian words for the major Near Eastern domesticates - Sheep, goat, barley, and wheat - are not loans from either Semitic, Sumerian, or Indo-European. This argues against a mass settler colonization (at replacement levels) of the Nile valley from the Near East at this time. This is in contrast with some words for domesticates in some early Semitic languages, which are likely Sumerian loan words (Diakonoff 1981).
This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000).
As for the Y-DNA, Semino et al. 2004 gave a detailed layout of differentiation between Neolithic era J and post-Neolithic J dispersals; their data suggests that most of those J lineages in northern Africa which have counterparts in the so-called Near East, are post-Neolithic or recent dispersals.
To recap from above, the authors say:
"Surprisingly, no other U-lineage (one U3b) is present, in particular U6, which is otherwise frequent throughout North Africa but more so in Western North Africa.
Indeed. U6 seems to factor prominently in these "Neolithic" or else "Paleolithic demic diffusions into northern Africa" proposals, but time and again, its distribution pattern just doesn't seem to comply.
Is it possible that there were predynastic human movements into north Africa proper via the Sinai corridor? Yes, but these apparently didn't have to sort of impact or oomph on the manifestation of autochthonous predynastic Nile Valley cultural development into the dynastic period that the usual "demic diffusion into Nile Valley" crowd would like to see.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Achilli's dna evidence of a single Near Eastern "domestication" of cattle only speaks to a genetic event
Not sure what new ground Achilli breaks, but maybe somebody can point it out. In the meantime...
The following study by Ascunce et al. 2007 for one seems to address issues raised in Achilli et al.'s 2008 publication [excerpt provided below], for Achilli et al. say:
The phylogeny (Figure 1 and Supplemental data) allows one also to evaluate the possibility that T1 and T4 were domesticated independently from aurochs populations living in Africa and East Asia, respectively [4] and [6]. The ancestor of T1 differs by only one mutation (16113) from the ancestor of T1’2’3 and by only two mutations (16113 and 16255) from the ancestor of T3, therefore a domestication of T1 in Africa would require that the B. primigenius populations of North Africa had accumulated no sequence variation in their entire mtDNA (except the T1 marker 16113) relative to the Near Eastern stocks — an unlikely scenario. - Achilli et al. 2008, Mitochondrial genomes of extinct aurochs survive in domestic cattle
They admit the well known fact about lineage differentiations between African domesticates and the so-called Near Eastern bunch, as that begrudgingly tossed out [highlighted] word "except" underlies, and go onto speak of a so-called "unlikely scenario", but to the contrary, it is likely, for we are told here how so...
Concomitantly, selective pressures from domestication and breeding efforts and/or genetic drift may have then led to the final homogenization of this older polymorphism into the current situation of essentially only the T1 haplogroup occurring in Northern Africa. These possibilities reemphasize the fact that both ancient and modern DNA data are of value in the ultimate resolution of the complex history of African cattle (Edwards et al. 2004). - Ascunce et al. 2007, An Unusual Pattern of Ancient Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups in Northern African Cattle
While African specimens may have by default, been included in a pre-existing database used by Achilli et al., the African cattle gene pool doesn't appear to have been the primary center of investigation in their study, as opposed to being primarily geared towards those of European and Near Eastern specimens. Considerations for the African cattle gene seems to be a secondary one, to help explain the Near Eastern and European ones...
Fifty-six mitochondrial genomes from autochthonous taurine breeds across Southern Europe and the Near East were sequenced and compared with 50 sequences available in GenBank (Supplemental data). - Achilli et al. 2008, Mitochondrial genomes of extinct aurochs survive in domestic cattle
In contrast, Honotte et al. seems to have specifically made African cattle populations a primary centre of investigation... for more see: Link Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
This is a no brainer!! R1b, R1a. .. . and HG-I are NOT present in Africa. So they have no agrgument on an European or even a Nordic AE. therefore.. . .
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Freehand: Well, we knew it was coming, they've been iching to go East from the Maghreb.
Evergreen Writes: Good point, Freehand. They couldn't position a European origin to Ancient Egyptian civilization so they are now trying to posit "Near Easterners" in pre-Pharonic Egypt.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
. . .. This is one part of the counter offensive to develop on.. . but where is the proof ??? (Hint) develop on Nefertiti's fake bust.
But we are missing the main counter point.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: [QUOTE] But even given this, doesn't the "near eastern influx" approach fall flat ideologically if the people "influxing" looked like East Africans to begin with? I mean we see the same thing in Neolithic Europe, where the people there resembled East and NE Africans (Brace 2005) in those early stages, so does not the same scenario apply via Sinai or the other side of the Red Sea, whether by Neolithic or "backflow" migrants millenia before? The "incoming hordes" looked African to begin with, coming back to join other East and NE Africans already in Africa?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Sorry . Little late. See you got it already. Nice post.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]The next level of study ahead of us requires a more sophisticated modeling and analysis of north Eurasian back migration into the Levant. When did the Sub-Saharan traces dilute in the Levant. This question is pivotal in understanding the genetic and phenetic changes we now see in NE Africa.
Evergreen Writes: It is worthwhile pointing out that we can further bracket this change through the analysis of the osteological remains and crania of neolithic Europeans since. There is a positive correlation between distal limb elongation and melanin intensification. In otherwords humans with long tropical limbs also have dark skin.
QUOTE:
Black Athena Revisted
CL Brace
In this regard it is interesting to note that limb proportions of Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be "Super-Negroid," meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans.....skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics.
Population continuity, demic diffusion and Neolithic origins in central-southern Germany: the evidence from body proportions.
Gallagher A, Gunther MM, Bruchhaus H.
Homo. 2009;60(2):95-126. Epub 2009 Mar 4.
The transition to agro-pastoralism in central Europe has been framed within a dichotomy of "regional continuity" versus exogenous "demic diffusion". While substantial genetic support exists for a model of demographic diffusion from an ancestral source in the Near East, archaeological data furnish weak support for the "wave of advance" model. Nevertheless, archaeological evidence attests the widespread introduction of an exogenous "package" comprising ceramics, cereals, pulses and domesticated animals to central Europe at 5600calBCE. Body proportions are under strong climatic selection and evince remarkable stability within regional lineages. As such, they offer a viable and robust alternative to cranio-facial data in assessing hypothesised continuity and replacement with the transition to agro-pastoralism in central Europe. Humero-clavicular, brachial and crural indices in a large sample (n=75) of Linienbandkeramik (LBK), Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age specimens from the middle Elbe-Saale-Werra valley (MESV) were compared with Eurasian and African terminal Pleistocene, European Mesolithic and geographically disparate recent human specimens. Mesolithic Europeans display considerable variation in humero-clavicular and brachial indices yet none approach the extreme "hyper-polar" morphology of LBK humans from the MESV. In contrast, Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age peoples display elongated brachial and crural indices reminiscent of terminal Pleistocene and "tropically adapted" recent humans. These marked morphological changes likely reflect exogenous immigration during the terminal Fourth millennium cal BC. Population expansion and diffusion is a function of increased mobility and settlement dispersal concomitant with significant technological and subsistence changes in later Neolithic societies during the late fourth millennium cal BCE.
J. Lawrence Angel Journal of Human Evolutiom 1972
Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....
Evergreen Writes: This tells us that neolithic populations moving out of SW Asia during the terminal Fourth millennium BC still retained phenetic characteristics indicating affinity with tropical Africans. The cranial remains in First Dynasty Nile Valley tombs also tells us there was diversity in the Levant during this window with an admixed population with African and Eurasian features.
Posted by Lord Sauron (Member # 6729) on :
Is it just me or does it seem xyyman is trying to get into alTakruri's good books?
Pikey Kiss Arse! Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
Lord Sauron, you've just noticed this?
While he did wander off into stupidity for a bit, he has previously given a *genuine go* of things. And no i haven't (yet ... ?) read his posts above. I generally read more of argyle's posts than his.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Why is this idiot E3bc still talking? E3b IS a black African marker along with its sibling E3a. He keeps running away from that fact and associates lineage with a 'race' LOL
Well he did get a little excited there at the notion of possibly Neolithic pre-pharaonic Hg J in North Africa and while i agree with you that it's a tad strange for white survivalists to get boners over Hg J in Africa, i don't believe he brought his E1b1b baggage into this thread.
Let's leave the thread-crabbing to the head crab, jackassoben.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Achilli's dna evidence of a single Near Eastern "domestication" of cattle only speaks to a genetic event
Not sure what new ground Achilli breaks, but maybe somebody can point it out. In the meantime...
The following study by Ascunce et al. 2007 for one seems to address issues raised in Achilli et al.'s 2008 publication [excerpt provided below], for Achilli et al. say:
The phylogeny (Figure 1 and Supplemental data) allows one also to evaluate the possibility that T1 and T4 were domesticated independently from aurochs populations living in Africa and East Asia, respectively [4] and [6]. The ancestor of T1 differs by only one mutation (16113) from the ancestor of T1’2’3 and by only two mutations (16113 and 16255) from the ancestor of T3, therefore a domestication of T1 in Africa would require that the B. primigenius populations of North Africa had accumulated no sequence variation in their entire mtDNA (except the T1 marker 16113) relative to the Near Eastern stocks — an unlikely scenario. - Achilli et al. 2008, Mitochondrial genomes of extinct aurochs survive in domestic cattle
They admit the well known fact about lineage differentiations between African domesticates and the so-called Near Eastern bunch, as that begrudgingly tossed out [highlighted] word "except" underlies, and go onto speak of a so-called "unlikely scenario", but to the contrary, it is likely, for we are told here how so...
Simplification for those who might have missed the point of this bit:
That African cattle domesticates are predominantly of the T1 lineage, is a well known fact, which also means that their phylogenetic level from the most common recent ancestor is also well known, be it just a single UEP mutational event away, two or a few more. It doesn't change the fact that this lineage [bovine T1 mtDNA marker] is rather rare elsewhere, save for specialized appearances in those adjoining "non-African" areas where it was introduced later by African pastoralist nomads themselves.
Heck, there are more lactose tolerant and traditionally pastoralist populations in Africa to this day than the so-called Near East, and to reiterate, linguistic examinations on these groups have brought to light "root" lexicon -- lacking borrowed terminology -- that only further attest to just how ancient cattle rearing tradition is in this part of the world.
The Proto-Northern Sudanic language contains root words such as "to drive," "cow, "grain,""ear of grain," and "grindstone." Any of these might apply to food production, but another root word meaning "to milk" is certainly the most convincing evidence of incipient pastoralism.
There are also root words for "temporary shelter" and "to make a pot." In the succeeding Proto-Saharo-Sahelian language, there are root words for "to cultivate", "to prepare field", to "clear" (of weeds), and "cultivated field." this is the first unambiguous linguistic evidence of cultivation. There are also words for "thombush cattle pen," "fence," "yard," "grannary," as well as "to herd" and "cattle." In the following Proto-Sahelian period, there are root words for "goat," "sheep," "ram," and "lamb," indicating the presence of small livestock.
There are root words for "cow," "bull," "ox," and "young cow" or "heifer" and, indeed, a variety of terms relating to cultivation and permanent houses.
On the basis of known historical changes in some of the language, Ehret estimates that the Proto-Northern Sudanic language family, which includes the first root words indicating cattle pastoralism, should be dated about 10,000 years ago. He also estimates that the Proto-Saharan-Sahelian language family, which has words indicating not only more complex cattle pastroalism, but the first indications of cultivation, occurred around 9,000 years ago. He places the Proto-Sahelian language at about 8,500 years ago.
These age estimates are just that, and should not be used to suggest any other chronology. Nevertheless, the sequence of cultural changes is remarkably similar to that in the archeology of the Eastern Sahara and, with some minor adjustments for the beginning of cultivation and for' the inclusion of "sheep" and "goat," reasonably closely to the radiocarbon chronology. - Fred Wendorf & Romuald Schild (Evolutionary Anthropology 3(4), 1994), Are the early Holocene cattle in the Eastern Sahara domestic or wild? Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ It's apparent not only from linguistics but from genetics as well as archaeology even further south in the Sudan and to the west in the Sahara that cattle domestication totally in situ as early as the Mesolithic. Judging by the flaws in their suggestions that you pointed out, it's obvious they are now resorting to grabbing straws in the dark.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
Djehuti, i've been meaning to ask you:
How many cases of indigenous agriculture have arisen outside of the Natufian first farmers in Israel? I know people in the Americas came up with farming on their own (but no specifics) and know/think Europe has never indigenously come up with any farming... and that's basically what i know.
Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: Interesting, as much E3a* as E3b* in the Egyptian Western desert. You'd think since its closer to East than is it to West Africa and therefore closer to the origin point of E3b, there'd be more E3b*.
But then, apparently certain descendents of E3b took over, oh, and there's that [E3a] wet-phase Saharan community too.
I would ask if that ancient Saharan community could be the reason for the abundance of the Western E-M81 but then, isn't that hap only 2,000 years old or so? If so, does this indicate EastWard migration of Imazighen and Tamasheq or their predacessors, just as Southward migration occured around the rest of the mediterranean (do to superior living arrangements?).
^^^Barak Obama's history LOLOL
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^Bumped for newcomers seeking clarification.....
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: On the basis of known historical changes in some of the language, Ehret estimates that the Proto-Northern Sudanic language family, which includes the first root words indicating cattle pastoralism, should be dated about 10,000 years ago. He also estimates that the Proto-Saharan-Sahelian language family, which has words indicating not only more complex cattle pastroalism, but the first indications of cultivation, occurred around 9,000 years ago. He places the Proto-Sahelian language at about 8,500 years ago.
Also of note to add to the linguistics evidence, are the corresponsing changes in the genes noted by Dr Pritchard which are to be expected if people were adapting to specific changes in their environment I.e, due to agriculture (change of diet) etc... Simply more evidence that Africans were adapting to these environmental changes well before Asians and Europeans.
Dr. Pritchard's scan of the human genome differs from the previous two because he has developed a statistical test to identify just genes that have started to spread through populations in recent millennia and have not yet become universal, as many advantageous genes eventually do. The selected genes he has detected fall into a handful of functional categories, as might be expected if people were adapting to specific changes in their environment. Some are genes involved in digesting particular foods like the lactose-digesting gene common in Europeans. Some are genes that mediate taste and smell as well as detoxify plant poisons, perhaps signaling a shift in diet from wild foods to domesticated plants and animals. Dr. Pritchard estimates that the average point at which the selected genes started to become more common under the pressure of natural selection is 10,800 years ago in the African population and 6,600 years ago in the Asian and European populations.
quote:Originally posted by Whatbox: Djehuti, i've been meaning to ask you:
How many cases of indigenous agriculture have arisen outside of the Natufian first farmers in Israel? I know people in the Americas came up with farming on their own (but no specifics) and know/think Europe has never indigenously come up with any farming... and that's basically what i know.
There are at least seven or eight maybe eleven to thirteen world regions which independently invented agriculture. None in Europe, by the way. One, of course, is in the Middle East, and many people still believe that this was the first, from which all the others developed. The idea of diffusion from the Middle East still lingers. That idea really can't be sustained. You have, for instance, one independent invention of agriculture in East Asia, maybe two. You have it more widely accepted now that there's an independent invention of agriculture in the interior of New Guinea. People argue about what to make of the Indian materials, but certainly India saw one of the three separate domestications of cattle; there are enough uniquely Indian crops that we might end up with India as another center of independent agricultural innovation. There are different ideas about the Americas, but I think we have two for sure: Mesoamerica and the Andes. There may also be a separate lowland tropical South American development. It also seems that there might be a few things domesticated in the southeastern United States even before there was Mesoamerican stimulus or diffusion. So that makes four. Here's the point: agriculture was invented in Africa in at least three centers, and maybe even four. In Africa, you find the earliest domestication of cattle. The location, the pottery and other materials we've found makes it likely that happened among the Nilo-Saharan peoples, the sites are in southern Egypt. There is an exceptionally strong correlation between archaeology and language on this issue. A separate or distinct agriculture arose in West Africa around yams. A third takes place in southeastern or southern Ethiopia. I've got a student working this year in Ethiopia to see whether we can pin this down more precisely. The Ethiopians domesticated a plant called enset. It's very unique: Ethiopians use the lower stem and the bulb; not the tuber, the fruit, or the greens. Enset grows in a climatic zone distinct from that where cattle were first domesticated; that was further north. The possible fourth area of agricultural invention would involve people who cultivated grain in Ethiopia. They seem to have begun cultivation of grain independently, but adopted cattle from the Nilo-Saharans of the middle Nile region. To pin this down, we need archaeology from a whole big area, but so far it's missing. --- Christopher Ehret Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
Case and fucking point Middle Easterners have been present in Egypt since Pre-Dynastic times. Keita and Ehret's bullshit about indigenous this and that are fucking dead! Jump off a fucking bridge Afronuts.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
^^Middle Easterners In Kemet since pre historic times...well yeah maybe but prove they were anything other than BLKS returning home White Nerd!! one word Natufians..bytches .. Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Case and fucking point Middle Easterners have been present in Egypt since Pre-Dynastic times. Keita and Ehret's bullshit about indigenous this and that are fucking dead! Jump off a fucking bridge Afronuts.
Wow, someone didn't read the whole thread.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
I'm not buying that ****, the burden of proof is on you all to prove that these Middle Easterners who migrated back were in some twisted fucking way still black. Like always the only response will be a picture spam by Zaharan of the most irrelevant points. Case in point though, Middle Easterners have been on the Nile since Pre-Historic times, putting an end to all of this indigenous black bullshit. Proof is in the fucking pudding, HAVE A NICE DAY!
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^ You sound like a raving lunatic, no doubt a condition of the constant beatdowns you have been given here. First off no one denies that there were small scale movment between folks from the Middle East and Africa, These people could have easily been black due to the relationship between Africans and Near Easterners at this time.
"The Burden of Proof would be on you to prove they were NOT BLACK,"
.... You see how Fallacy arguments driven off emotion works. The fact is this in no way takes credit from the fact that the Egyptians were for the most part Tropical Africans from Southerly Areas.
BTW, the Migrations went both ways, there were blacks up in the Middle East, but Im sure you don't like to talk much about those Migrations do you..
"CASE IN FUCKING POINT" Egypt was a Nilotic Civilization founded by Tropical Africans..
quote:"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas."
Back to your cave...
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
Case and point Levantine influence has been an integral part of Egypt since Pre-dynastic times. Egypt is not an indigenous product of Africa.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ Dude STFU seriously. You are meerly grasping at straws. No claims Egypt had no Levantine Influence, but the fact of the matter is that Egypt's culture comes from within Africa and by Tropically adapted Africans. Greece had influences from Mesopotamia, and Mesopotamia esp. the later cultures were heavily influenced by Egypt.
You Eurocentric wannabe racists annoy me. Every other civilization on Earth was influenced from the outside but only Egypt you all wanna make a big deal about Minoritity of Asiatics and Eurasians.
Egypt is African and a signifigant portion of her people are still African geneticall despite "Arab" admixture. The people of Upper Egypt and Lower Sudan are a good remnant of the founding Dynastic Egyptian population.
Stop being racist against Southern Egyptians by denying their role in Dynastic Egypt.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
Bump...
Middle Easterners have been in Egypt since the Neolithic.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Middle Easterners have been in Egypt since the Neolithic.
^^Of course "Middle Easterners" have been in Egypt since the Neolithic, no one has ever denied that. Your "point", played up as if it were something, is trivial.
The key fact is that non-tropical African derived "Middle Eastern" influence is insignificant in terms of the primary, fundamental population of ancient Egypt, or its culture, until the later periods when Persian, Hyk, Assyrian, Greek, Roman, Arab and other influence held sway. Prior to this though over 2000 years of Egyptian civilization was already 'done'. Credible scholars confirm this fact again and again. No amount of bluster and whining will change it, sorry.
Another way you are again debunked is that some of your precious "Middle Easterners" in the Neolithic and even after resembled tropical Africans. That's right. Your "killer" observation includes people resembling "blacks". Read it and weep. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were there miscellaneous traders, nomads, war captives and other small-time assorted "Middle Easterners" ever in Egypt? Of course. Thanks for the blinding insight, "CAPTAIN OBVIOUS."
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
LMFAO now you dumbasses are admitting that ancient Egypt has been mixed since Pre Dynastic times. It was never a solely African creation as you Afronuts have been advocating for the past decade. Now that genetic evidence has come back to bite you all in the ass you want to play dumb ha ha.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^Captain Obvious- your pathetic strawman ain't washing. No one has ever "denied" that "Middle Easterners" have never been in Egypt. Is this the best strawman you got? Puhleeze fool...
You may get away with such bogus nonsense on the "amen corner" of zetaboards or Dodona but not here. The question is not whether "middle easterners" have ever been in Egypt. Everyone knows they were- just trade goods would tell you small-time merchants and others would have had to enter Egypt. This is news? Let's once again recap your 3-part debunking "Nord"..
Debunk 1-- The "presence of Middle Easterner" strawman is bogus. The key fact is that non-tropical African derived "Middle Eastern" influence is insignificant in terms of the primary, fundamental population of ancient Egypt, or its fundamental culture, until the later periods when Persian, Hyk, Assyrian, Greek, Roman, Arab and other influence held sway. Prior to this though over 2000 years of Egyptian civilization was already 'done'. Credible scholars confirm this fact again and again. No amount of bluster and whining will change it, sorry.
2-- Debunk 2: Another way you are again debunked is that some of your precious "Middle Easterners" in the Neolithic and even after resembled tropical Africans. That's right. Your "killer" "Middle Easterners" includes people resembling "blacks". Read it and weep.
3-- Debunk 3: the "sole African creation" claim is yet another strawman. We all know Egypt had some influences from the outside. The key point is that Egypt is primarily an indigenous, African civilization. Your notion of mythical "Afrocentrists" positing a "sole African creation" - exists only in your addled mind - easy grist for the feverish "white faithful" on Dodona etc, but BS in the real world.
That's three strikes "Nord" .. you out. Find better strawmen next time, will ya.. You are obviously suffering from Clue Deficit Disorder.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
Just as I stated the Near Eastern component is what lead to the creation of ancient Egypt, and is in compliance with earlier research which confirms that Sub Saharan Africans were brought to Egypt as slaves during ROMAN TIMES
"To obtain the frequencies of these mtDNA types, amplification of the HVRI region and three RFLP markers was conducted. The authors succeeded in analysing RFLP markers in 34 samples and HVRI sequences in 18 of the samples. Both populations, ancient and contemporary, fit the north-south clinal distribution of “southern” and “northern” mtDNA types (Graver et al. 2001). However, significant differences were found between these populations. Based on an increased frequency of HpaI 3592 (+) haplotypes in the contemporary Dakhlehian population, the authors suggested that, since Roman times, gene flow from the Sub-Saharan region has affected gene frequencies of individuals from the oasis."
^^Yawn. You are copying and pasting from a thread in which you were completely debunked. Whatsa matta? Running out of bogus material?
And "sub Saharan" Africans migrated into Egypt millenia BEFORE Roman times. Even Mary Lefkowitz says the Nile Valley was populated by people who came south of the Sahara. The study you quote from focuses on the small Dakleh Oasis. WHo do you think you are fooling?
Let's recap your previous debunking where you were caught `out faking study dates.
Originally posted by White Nord: 1) Let me get this straight, you’re having issues with the date and not the content? Ok just wanted to make sureeee! ‘Cause correcting the date does not change the content.
Nord always claims more "recent" studies show white Egypt and Africa, than is why he falsified the dates on the old ones above, and was caught out in a lie...
^^ No matter what bogus date you choose, your still fail, and you have already been debunked on the content. Why are you still running away from your earlier lies in this thread, where you put more recent dates on one of your outmoded studies, trying to pas it off as more recent as everyone saw in the link below? You make a fetish out of “more recent” dates. It is obvious that you were trying to pad the study dates so you could continue this deception. No one is being fooled ace. See: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=001736;p=2
-
hile Arab speakers overall are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. T.. (Population History of North Africa: Evidence from Classical Genetic Markers” Bosch et al. 2001)
^^Why you trying to lie Ace? You do it twice in this post, using 2 different dates, padding the dates to make the study seem more "recent." The study you cite above was done in 1997 not 2001..
9)) Now lets take your bogus claim #9- a few sub-Saharans at an oasis means a;white Egypt; lol
Labeling a scientific study as bogus is hilarious, coming from you.
^^I was referring to your bogus claim 9 made on ES. Didn't say the study was bogus, but your claim, based on the study. And no one is forgetting that earlier you faked dates on different studies to make them appear more recent. -----------------------------------------
Originally posted by Iah/WHITE NORD
... It's all you've got. A "minor" oasis should have seen major Sub Saharan gene flow considering its location and all the time in the world to acquire it. I mean, this is Africa right where you clowns claim only blacks inhabited Africa until recently but apparently blacks did not inhabit this portion of the southern Egyptian desert until recently.
^^The only "insecurity" is yours as in your earlier attempt to make your references seem more current by faking the dates. It still won't work.
As for the oasis, your "rebuttal" is still dubious. The oasis is a minor part of Egyptian territory and Egyptian population. Indeed, people left the oasis precisely because it could not sustain much numbers. Hence your 'buildup 'of it falls flat. In addition, no one here disputed that the oasis had gene flow at some time during its millennia of existence. That gene flow could include Greeks Hyskos, Persians, Romans, etc, etc in their respective eras. Saying that anyone here is "denying" that people other than tropical Africans lived at the oasis at some point over its history is yet another bogus strawman on your part, like your faked study dates, among other things.
Furthermore even your proferred weblink on the oasis fails to support your caucasoid Middle Eastern fantasies. It notes that the oasis has been inhabited a long time. Your other proferred "report" shows that 'sub-Saharan' gene flow increased since Roman times. It does not tell us if the sub-Saharan gene flow was already in place before that. All it tells us is that sub-Saharan flow increased. It does not tell us if your precious "caucasoids" were in place earlier than the tropical Africans at all. Your 'oasis buildup' is thin gruel indeed. If anything, the study of the ancient pre-historic material at Dakhleh indicates contacts with nearby Saharan cultures long BEFORE the Roman period. QUOTE:
"The picture emerging from the study of Dakhla prehistory is not so much that of an oasis isolated within a desert, as one with at least occasional far-flung contacts: with neighboring oases and the Nile Valley, with sites westward across the Sahara and with sub-Saharan Africa." -- Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egyptedited by Kathryn A. Bard, Steven Blake Shubert 1999
And the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities and the Egyptian Museum Fifth International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project, 2006, confirms archaeologist Bard above, showing the site has clear cultural similarities with the tropical Saharan cultures around it as seen in art and iconography, and religious regalia such as masks. If anything the oasis shows clear connection to tropical African cultures. So much for your "ancient caucasoid buildup" at the oasis.
--------------------------------
Originally posted by Iah/WHITE NORD "The Sahara was a strong geographical barrier against gene flow, at least since 5,000 years ago, when desertification affected a larger region" Harich et al, 2010)
^^Again Your proferred quote does nothing to support you. No one ever denied that the Sahara was at times a barrier to convenient movement up to the Mediterranean zone. Produce a statement by any veteran poster denying that. The key points are (a) the peoples in place and in movement BEFORE the drying up, and (b) movement of people actually INSIDE the Sahara to other places.
As Frigi 2010 shows below, there was gene flow in place long before the drying up of the Sahara 5,000 years ago. This defeats your insinuation of some sort of rigid "sub Saharan" barrier to the presence or movement of tropical Africans. And even within the 5000 years, people came into places like the Nile Valley and moved elsewhere FROM the Sahara. The fact that it was drying up aqctually pushed people to settle more in the Nile Valley. It didn't keep them out- rather it helped pushed them in. As Yurco 1992, 1989 notes the Sahara acted climatic pump. So much for your fantasy "Saharan" barrier in terms of hindering movement of tropical African peoples.
Looks like your "Oasis buildup" fails again... "Nord"..
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
..
Posted by BABA '70 (Member # 15917) on :
Neither of them are that hot to be honest. Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Middle Easterners In Kemet since pre historic times...well yeah maybe but prove they were anything other than BLKS returning home
^^Indeed, that is the other aspect of so-called "Middle Easterners." In several cases, they looked like indigenous tropical Africans.
And sure "Middle Easterners" have been in Egypt since early times. No sane person disputes that. WHite Nerd is creating yet another bogus strawman, in which mystical "Afrocentrists" allegedly "deny" this. What total BS. The key point, as always, is not the presence of "middle Easterners" - we all know that small-time traders, nomads, mercenaries etc etc would have been there given almost 4000 millennia. This is news? The key point is that said "Middle Easterners" made up little, and had little overall population effect on the core ancient Egyptian population, which is indigenous, tropical African. Towards the tail end eras of the Dynasties, outsiders like Persians, ROmans Greeks, Arabs etc would have more of an effect but these are latecomers, after over 2,000 years of Egyptian civ wsa already "done.
Cakazoid Egypt cultists claim that the facts above are "impossible". But hard science shows the indigenous African diversity that was ancient Egypt. Let's recap the data for newcomers:
Cakazoid Egypt cultists deny limb proportions data- sorry, but their whining won't change the facts.. They lose..
Cakazoid Egypt cultists deny that Egyptians' are closest ethnically to Nubians - sorry, but their bogus red herrings won't change the facts.. They lose again..
Cakazoid Egypt cultists deny the cranial and dental data- sorry, but their fake claims can't change the facts.. They still lose..
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
Bump Middle Easterners confirmed to be an integral part of Egypt's origins.
Posted by HERU (Member # 6085) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^Yawn. You are copying and pasting from a thread in which you were completely debunked. Whatsa matta? Running out of bogus material?
And "sub Saharan" Africans migrated into Egypt millenia BEFORE Roman times. Even Mary Lefkowitz says the Nile Valley was populated by people who came south of the Sahara. The study you quote from focuses on the small Dakleh Oasis. WHo do you think you are fooling?
Let's recap your previous debunking where you were caught `out faking study dates.
Wow. White Nord is quite the troll.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Bump Middle Easterners confirmed to be an integral part of Egypt's origins.
So thousands of years from now, when say America bites the dust and people are looking for relics of the past, is the fact that Middle Easterners being present going to show that most of America was mixed with European and middle Eastern? No. Prove that an admixture with middle easterners was prominent in most of the population and prove that people living in the middle east at the time were not tropically adapted Africans. If you can't STFU. I'm completely new to science of this nature and even I can tell you're being silly.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
Bump!!
Egypt was never a 100% black African civilization like Afronuts on this site have been claiming it to be for years. Middle Easterners have been there since the beginning. Fucking hilarious and no one pays attention to your irrelevant and tacky graphics Zaharan, so if you have nothing refuting this genetic finding then just STFU.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ Greece, Rome, were never 100% White European nor was anything in the Middle East Pure Eurasian. You had Kushites in Arabia and the upper Echelyons of even the Persian Empire..
LMFAO, Is this all you have Evil Euro, You have finally realized you can't refute the African Origin of Egypt so you spend your time claiming Egypt was not 100% Black...LOL...
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Hetepheres II the ''fair haired daughter of Cheops'' -
The pyramid builders were blonde and sallow-white skinned. They weren't negroes, they were Caucasoids of Nordic phenotype.
Black people don't have fair skin and blonde hair. Those are not your features as much as you crave them out of self-hate.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Bump!!
Egypt was never a 100% black African civilization like Afronuts on this site have been claiming it to be for years. Middle Easterners have been there since the beginning. Fucking hilarious and no one pays attention to your irrelevant and tacky graphics Zaharan, so if you have nothing refuting this genetic finding then just STFU.
What do you think the racial composition of ancient egypt was? I'm interested in hearing.
My own view is that it was predominantly Mediterranean Caucasoid, but with a Nordic and (later) Armenoid ruling elite.
The Negroes just appeared around c. 2000 BC as slaves from the south.
I believe though that predynastic inhabitants were Bushmanoid and Mediterranid, the former being almost entirely replaced.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Bump Middle Easterners confirmed to be an integral part of Egypt's origins.
Yep. What's funny though is that the afronuts admit that virtually all food and domestication came from Asia (wheat, barely, cattle etcetc) as these things were imported and never native to Africans (some dispute the cattle). Yet while they accept a foreign origin of the food & animals, they can't accept the simple fact of a migration wave and settlement from the middle-east. When it comes to black people though they claim they colonised the globe. LOL.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Middle Easterners In Kemet since pre historic times...well yeah maybe but prove they were anything other than BLKS returning home
^^Indeed, that is the other aspect of so-called "Middle Easterners." In several cases, they looked like indigenous tropical Africans.
And sure "Middle Easterners" have been in Egypt since early times. No sane person disputes that. WHite Nerd is creating yet another bogus strawman, in which mystical "Afrocentrists" allegedly "deny" this. What total BS. The key point, as always, is not the presence of "middle Easterners" - we all know that small-time traders, nomads, mercenaries etc etc would have been there given almost 4000 millennia. This is news? The key point is that said "Middle Easterners" made up little, and had little overall population effect on the core ancient Egyptian population, which is indigenous, tropical African. Towards the tail end eras of the Dynasties, outsiders like Persians, ROmans Greeks, Arabs etc would have more of an effect but these are latecomers, after over 2,000 years of Egyptian civ wsa already "done.
Cakazoid Egypt cultists claim that the facts above are "impossible". But hard science shows the indigenous African diversity that was ancient Egypt. Let's recap the data for newcomers:
Cakazoid Egypt cultists deny limb proportions data- sorry, but their whining won't change the facts.. They lose..
Cakazoid Egypt cultists deny that Egyptians' are closest ethnically to Nubians - sorry, but their bogus red herrings won't change the facts.. They lose again..
Cakazoid Egypt cultists deny the cranial and dental data- sorry, but their fake claims can't change the facts.. They still lose..
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^ So called Afrocentric authors such as Diop and Sertima claim the egyptians intermarried with ''Nordic Libyans'' to account for the strong strain of blonde hair in egyptian royalty from as early as the Old Kingdom.
So even militant black afrocentrics have been forced to admit the egyptian royalty was white, or admixed with Nordic blood as early as the 26th century BC...
Hetepheres II ''fair haired daughter of Cheops''
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
It's funny because I can easily go back and quote these dumbass's proclaiming Egypt to be 100% black African. Now that this study has proven them wrong they want to puss out of that stance and claim that they never argued it. Then they bring up Greece and Rome as a diversion tactic from the fact that they have just been debunked on their 100% black Egypt claim as they were notorious for promoting.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
bump
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Bumb
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
Funny how they talk about white supremacist debating tactics, but are unable to see that they are doing the exact same **** that they accuse us as doing. Also notice that not one person has an answer to the study in the op.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Bumper de bump.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Bumb
Afrocentric critic C. Loring Brace's 2005 study groups ancient Egyptian populations like the Naqada closer to Nubians and Somalis than European, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern populations. Brace's study shows that the closest European linking with Africans in Egypt or Nubia are Middle Stone Age Portugese and Neolithics, OLDER populations more closely resembling AFRICANS than modern Europeans. Early Neolithic populations, like the Nautifians, in what is now Israel, show sub-Saharan 'negroid' affinities. (Brace, et al. The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 January 3; 103(1): p. 242-247.)
"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample, both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians, and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa" (Brace, 2005)
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Casshitaraid
quote:So called Afrocentric authors such as Diop and Sertima claim the egyptians intermarried with ''Nordic Libyans'' to account for the strong strain of blonde hair in egyptian royalty from as early as the Old Kingdom. So even militant black afrocentrics have been forced to admit the egyptian royalty was white, or admixed with Nordic blood as early as the 26th century BC... Hetepheres II ''fair haired daughter of Cheops'
Lie I have most of the work of Van Sertima and Diop they said no such thing,and really you think that Queen is Blond?? really?? So that will make these Kushities blonds also?? ..waddan idiot you are.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Casshitaraid
quote:So called Afrocentric authors such as Diop and Sertima claim the egyptians intermarried with ''Nordic Libyans'' to account for the strong strain of blonde hair in egyptian royalty from as early as the Old Kingdom. So even militant black afrocentrics have been forced to admit the egyptian royalty was white, or admixed with Nordic blood as early as the 26th century BC... Hetepheres II ''fair haired daughter of Cheops'
Lie I have most of the work of Van Sertima and Diop they said no such thing,and really you think that Queen is Blond?? really?? So that will make these Kushities blonds also?? ..waddan idiot you are.
So true, lol
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
So White Nord, answer this...
If in your mind Egypt was not 100% black, then in your own words you are admitting Egypt did have a black presence and a black foundation correct..
I await your answer..because If I remember correctly you used to claim the Egyptians were not Niggers...correct..
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: It's funny because I can easily go back and quote these dumbass's proclaiming Egypt to be 100% black African. Now that this study has proven them wrong they want to puss out of that stance and claim that they never argued it. Then they bring up Greece and Rome as a diversion tactic from the fact that they have just been debunked on their 100% black Egypt claim as they were notorious for promoting.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
Notice Afrocentrics still keep avoiding the implications of this finding which proves that what they have been arguing all the way up to the posting of this study is false.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by White Nord: Bump!!
Egypt was never a 100% black African civilization like Afronuts on this site have been claiming it to be for years.
[bfunny how they talk about white supremacist debating tactics, but are unable to see that they are doing the exact same **** that they accuse us as doing. Also notice that not one person has an answer to the study in the op.
Whatsa matta hypocrite? Why are you whining when your own theories, methods and notions are applied to whites? ANd contrary to your bogus claim that "not one person has an answer to the study in the op" - Page one shows quite the opposite. You contradict yourself.
You say: It's funny because I can easily go back and quote these dumbass's proclaiming Egypt to be 100% black African. Now that this study has proven them wrong they want to puss out of that stance and claim that they never argued it.
But up above you claim no one "has an answer". How could they be claiming this and that, when you say "no one has an answer?" Bogus retard, you can't even keep your bogus tale straight. But you still dismally on 3 counts.
1- Strike 1: You say you could "easily" quote the alleged Afrocentrists "proclaiming Egypt to be 100% black African." WHy is it that you can't produce these quotes where people say Egypt is 100% African and "deny" the presence of "Middle Easterners"? Pray tell, WHat's taking you so long moron? Produce these fantasy quotes bout 100% African Egypt. And let's not use your bogus troll accounts as "proof". SHow where Mind, Dje, Sund, Swenet, me, Explorer, Asteneb, etc and other regulars "proclaim" this "100% African" Egypt and "deny" the presence of people from the "Middle East".
Don't take too long. We'll wait... Crickets chirping...
2- Strike 2: The oasis study found some presence of J1 and the North African E1b1b1b lineages in 10 out of 35 samples or about 40%. Hardly earth- shattering for an isolated oasis on the fringes of Egyptian civilization. And E1b1b1b evolved in North Africa, so no matter how you slice it, peoples from the African continent are included in the 10 out of 35. And no one "denies" the presence of people from the "Near East" in Egypt in the Neolithic. This is yet another bogus strawman. We all know traders, nomads, etc could have been flitting in and out of Egypt, moving across the Libyan border for example into the Western Desert. The claim of "denial" of this is yet another moronic strawman you specialize in creating.
3- Strike 3: Overjoyed as you are by the reputed "NEar Eastern" oasis input, it is still trivial in comparison to the main line of Egyptian population, culture and civilization. The setting of a small-time Oasis filled with small-time nomads or farmers, a percentage of which may have had "NEar Eastern" input, is nothing much. Most of the oasis dwellers anyway 60% cluster the other way. Your celebration is of a small time percentage of people who were mostly indigenous African. SOrry. And the genesis of Egyptian civilization is from the South, without relying significantly on any "Middle Eastern" influx.
That's three strikes again Nord, and you STILL ain't worth shiiit.. You lose again.. Now run along.
But
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^ Notice White Nord is avoiding the implications of his remarks which proves that what he has been arguing all along(The Egyptians were not Niggers/Black) is false.
If he, white Nord is now claiming "Egypt is not 100% Black--WHAAAA...WHAAAA" Then in his own words Egypt was a % black and had a Black Presence and Black Foundation..
This is what we have been advocating all along...
You lose/We win..
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
This is dedicated to You White Nord..
Your Nordic Egyptians...
AmunhotepIII
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
All the above^^^^ ancient and modern can be seen either on Nostrand Ave Blkyn or 125 ST. Manhattan, or having lunch at Sylvia's Soul food resturant.. Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: ]Lie I have most of the work
Ok.
would you like then to explain who the Tamahu were?
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Some may have something to do with the sea peoples, in any case there is evidence of folks with partial Euro Asian ancestry in North West Africa, by Dna they have mostly East African Pt Dna and Mt Dna from their mommies, which more than likely is suggestive of trade in White or lite-skinned slave women.. early jungle feva..??? Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
^ Diop and Sertima have claimed a pale white skinned blonde and red haired race moved into Africa as early as the Old Kingdom -
The African origin of civilization: myth or reality, Diop, 1974:
''The Egyptians were so little white, that when they encountered a white person with red hair, they killed him immediately as a sick person unable to adapt to life. This was certainly a regrettable but comprehensible prejudice between two different races during those remote epochs of history.''
So who was this ''other race'' that had pale white skin and red hair in egypt from very early times?
Diop and Sertima have both supported the presence of Nordics in ancient egypt. If you are white though and say this, the afronuts call you a ''neo-nazi'' or ''stormfronter white supremacist''...
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
quote:''The Egyptians were so little white, that when they encountered a white person with red hair, they killed him immediately as a sick person unable to adapt to life.
Now with the above how in hell are you going to get the foundation of Kemetian civ outta that Lol they were friggin strangers and strange to even contemplate!! Dame ur an idiot!! Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Notice Afrocentrics still keep avoiding the implications of this finding which proves that what they have been arguing all the way up to the posting of this study is false.
Many have indeed shown the errors in the study. And questioned the conclusions. Which are left out by the authors.
Maybe you can explain who these middle eastern people were? From where did they come, according to you?
I mean, up till now you only have rant and raved, while the opposite party has analyst the particular paper, then came with conclusions, the errors in place.
Here are the questions I have.*
1). The Egyptian Western Desert lies on an important geographic intersection between Africa and Asia.
*How is it important as a geographic intersection "between" Africa and Asia?
2). Genetic diversity of this region has been shaped, in part, by climatic changes in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene epochs marked by oscillating humid and arid periods.
*Can you explain this any further? How do you interpret this?
3). North African E1b1b1b lineages, both generally known to have expanded within North Africa during the Neolithic.
*How does this fit?
The below, is a very odd sentence...to enclose with.
These results provide another piece of evidence of the relatively young population history of North Africa.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ^ Diop and Sertima have claimed a pale white skinned blonde and red haired race moved into Africa as early as the Old Kingdom -
The African origin of civilization: myth or reality, Diop, 1974:
''The Egyptians were so little white, that when they encountered a white person with red hair, they killed him immediately as a sick person unable to adapt to life. This was certainly a regrettable but comprehensible prejudice between two different races during those remote epochs of history.''
So who was this ''other race'' that had pale white skin and red hair in egypt from very early times?
Diop and Sertima have both supported the presence of Nordics in ancient egypt. If you are white though and say this, the afronuts call you a ''neo-nazi'' or ''stormfronter white supremacist''...
On what page is this written?
From what I know, ancient Egyptians called a particular group of people "devils", in reference to their skin. But I could be mistaken.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
On what page is this written? The racist running dogs most likely are attempting to spin another bogus "quote" - or twist it way out of its original context, as they have so often done in the past. What's taking them so long in producing said quote, and if any quote exists, its proper context? Could it be that the fleeing buffoons have been exposed in another lie?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
can be dated to the Neolithic"? Geez, i'll be excited to learn of the evidence for this possibility ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
