Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ The Cushitic peoples Beyoku cited as having mtDNA lineages M,N,J, and T. There are also Nilotic people who have hg U. According to the Euronuts this makes them 'Eurasian'.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
[/QUOTE]
quote:Chad affinity is based on = 7 Tubu, 3 Kanembu, 1Kanuri, 4 Buduma, 2 Kuri, 1 Sara, 4 Mundang.
Thus it became possible to draw
conclusions about the affinities the Wadi Howar material shared with prehistoric as well as modern
populations and to answer questions concerning the diachronic links between the Wadi Howar’s
prehistoric populations. When the Wadi Howar remains were positioned in the context of the selected
prehistoric (Jebel Sahaba/Tushka, A-Group, Malian Sahara) and modern comparative samples
(Southern Sudan, Chad, Mandinka, Somalis, Haya) in this fashion three main findings emerged. Firstly,
the series as a whole displayed very strong affinities with the prehistoric sample from the Malian Sahara
(Hassi el Abiod, Kobadi, Erg Ine Sakane, etc.) and the modern material from Southern Sudan and, to a
lesser extent, Chad. Secondly, the pre-Leiterband and the Leiterband sub-sample were closer to the
prehistoric Malian as well as the modern Southern Sudanese material than they were to each other.
Thirdly, the group of pre-Leiterband individuals approached the Late Pleistocene sample from Jebel
Sahaba/Tushka under certain circumstances. A theory offering explanations for these findings was
developed. According to this theory, the entire prehistoric population of the Wadi Howar belonged to a
Saharo-Nilotic population complex. The Jebel Sahaba/Tushka population constituted an old Nilotic and
the early population of the Malian Sahara a younger Saharan part of this complex. The A-Group, on the
other hand, was not a Saharo-Nilotic population . The pre-Leiterband groups probably colonised the
Wadi Howar from the east, either during or soon after the original Saharo-Nilotic expansion. Consequently, they retained stronger affinities with the Late Pleistocene Jebel Sahaba/Tushka
population from the eastern Saharo-Nilotic periphery. Unlike the pre-Leiterband groups, the Leiterband
people originated somewhere west of the Wadi Howar. They entered the region in the context of a later,
secondary Saharo-Nilotic expansion. In the process, the incoming Leiterband groups absorbed many
members of the Wadi Howar’s older pre-Leiterband population. The increasing aridification of the Wadi
Howar region ultimately forced its prehistoric inhabitants to abandon the wadi. Most of them migrated
south and west. They, or groups closely related to them, were the ancestors of the majority of the Nilo-
Saharan-speaking pastoralists of modern-day Southern Sudan and Eastern Chad.
quote:I think there's a typo here. Don't you mean either "northern groups that expanded south" or "southern groups who expanded north"?
Originally posted by beyoku:
[QB]In The time frame in which the lineage likely originated Southern Egypt and Northern Nubia might not even have been inhabited as it was too arid. The entire Saharan was likely not inhabited at certain times too.....SO the lineage has nothing to do with either of these groups as far as where it originated but probably is associated with more southern groups that expanded south.
quote:Good point, but I am curious...exactly what kind of tropical environment do you have in mind as the habitat for these prehistoric ancestors of Nile Valley Africans?
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Truthcentric, Yes Southerners that expanded North. Basically some of the dates they give for an origin of Em78, V12 or V22 - Its almost impossible for these lineages to have originated in Southern Egypt or on the Nile because either there was nobody there, or it was too arid for Humans and the refugium was further south....in Sudan or the Horn. Hence why even Ancient Northern Egyptian body plans are "Tropical" ... The populations in question have a somewhat recent (in evolutionary terms) genesis South and expanded North. Egypt and its environment didnt always have the opportunity for long term settlement to bring about a intermediate type body plan which SHOULD be native to the region outside the tropics.
quote:They were called Nehesi or people from the Kingdoms of Ta Seti, Wawat or Yam.
Originally posted by Son of Ra:
Then what were the 'Nubians' called?
quote:Well I dont think we are talking about one type of African. We could make a really complex argument but in the most simplistic terms There seems to be a Nilotic Saharan population, with affinities to Modern Nilo-Saharan and West African folk. And a Horn/Red Sea populations with affinities to modern Horn Africans. Swenet is his own person and has his own theories, more importantly, none of our hypothesis are mutually exclusive. I hypothesize that the Nilotic element was most important in the past and has reduced over time while IN the lower Nile valley, while the Horn type lineages increased over time. One of the main reasons I believe this is the modern AFRICAN lineages in most samples of Egyptians compared to the and Saharo-Sudanese nature of ancient Nile Valley material culture.
Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Good point, but I am curious...exactly what kind of tropical environment do you have in mind as the habitat for these prehistoric ancestors of Nile Valley Africans?
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Truthcentric, Yes Southerners that expanded North. Basically some of the dates they give for an origin of Em78, V12 or V22 - Its almost impossible for these lineages to have originated in Southern Egypt or on the Nile because either there was nobody there, or it was too arid for Humans and the refugium was further south....in Sudan or the Horn. Hence why even Ancient Northern Egyptian body plans are "Tropical" ... The populations in question have a somewhat recent (in evolutionary terms) genesis South and expanded North. Egypt and its environment didnt always have the opportunity for long term settlement to bring about a intermediate type body plan which SHOULD be native to the region outside the tropics.
There seems to be some disagreement among us over how "indigenous" these people were to the Sahara and Nile Valley area. You're obviously advocating for a more southerly origin here, but I swear I've heard other ES poster (think it was Swenet) argue for an indigenous Saharan heritage based on hair morphology. Or am I misunderstanding something?
quote:Even though its a stretch to say the A-group weren't Nilo-Saharan speakers based on this, in the hypothetical scenario that the A-group and the Malian samples derive from the same proto-Nilo-Saharan community >10kya, this cranio-metric divergence of the A-Group shouldn't be happening. There certainly aren't any ecolocial reasons that would explain it, given the wet Sahara environment that would have been mutual to their ancestors in the early holocene.
The A-Group, on the
other hand, was not a Saharo-Nilotic population .
quote:Didn't you used to post here as 'brick'? You're not fooling anyone. You know what study is being referred to. You were in denial then, and you're still in denial now. Like I said, denial is a hell of a drug.
Originally posted by Firewall:
I have a few questions.
What areas/or region in the middle nile had predominantly wavy hair before the dynastic period of egypt?and what areas you consider the middle nile?
The middle nile is from first cataract to khartoum and pre-dynastic nubia/sudan has not been studied has much,except the lower nubia area.
The areas you are talking about,is that the lower nubian region or the area around Semna? and if lower nubia has whole you talking about are saying that the populations of lower nubia,the A-group population was higher than southern/upper regions? and did most at that time in lower nubia had wavy hair?or was just semna for this limited study on hair?
I know that the lower nubia population had been studied the most before pre-dynastic egypt and if the the rest of nubia had a larger population then lower nubia it could mean that wavy hair was not predominant.
I don't think pre-dynastic A-group lower nubians had wavy hair.
The only study i have seen about a few wavy hair nubians was the Semna region.
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007496
Originally posted by Firewall:
I don't think pre-dynastic A-group lower nubians had wavy hair.
The only study i have seen about a few wavy hair nubians was the Semna region. [/QB]
quote:Denial,about what?i never really talk to you about hair,and have always said most nubians were woolly haired in the past,like most are still today.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Didn't you used to post here as 'brick'? You're not fooling anyone. You know what study is being referred to. You were in denial then, and you're still in denial now. Like I said, denial is a hell of a drug.
Originally posted by Firewall:
I have a few questions.
What areas/or region in the middle nile had predominantly wavy hair before the dynastic period of egypt?and what areas you consider the middle nile?
The middle nile is from first cataract to khartoum and pre-dynastic nubia/sudan has not been studied has much,except the lower nubia area.
The areas you are talking about,is that the lower nubian region or the area around Semna? and if lower nubia has whole you talking about are saying that the populations of lower nubia,the A-group population was higher than southern/upper regions? and did most at that time in lower nubia had wavy hair?or was just semna for this limited study on hair?
I know that the lower nubia population had been studied the most before pre-dynastic egypt and if the the rest of nubia had a larger population then lower nubia it could mean that wavy hair was not predominant.
I don't think pre-dynastic A-group lower nubians had wavy hair.
The only study i have seen about a few wavy hair nubians was the Semna region.
quote:You've already shown that data to him a couple of months ago, and this is not the thread to talk about hair.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007496
Originally posted by Firewall:
I don't think pre-dynastic A-group lower nubians had wavy hair.
The only study i have seen about a few wavy hair nubians was the Semna region.
read post 4
also 1, 2 and 3 [/QB]
quote:sorry, no more hair discussion
Originally posted by Swenet:]You've already shown that data to him a couple of months ago, and this is not the thread to talk about hair. [/QB]
quote:I Agree,it's off topic,and i rather get back on topic.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:sorry, no more hair discussion [/QB]
Originally posted by Swenet:]You've already shown that data to him a couple of months ago, and this is not the thread to talk about hair.
quote:I think it's a wrong assumption based on limited actual data. The only reason you think that is because of sample artifact. Africans/Nilo-Saharans still living in South of North African countries or in the Sahara are not sampled for their DNA in those studies. When they are, they have shown to have some of the highest percentage of e1b1b (M35) lineage in the world!!
Originally posted by beyoku:
Nearly all the material culture in question is linked to Nilo Saharan folks of the Sahara and Sudan. These people are for the most part lacking in E1b1b lineages. They exist but are not dominant.
quote:It says nothing of Northern or Western Sudanese. Also when looking at those Neolithic A-Group remains they too seem to approximate to a more Southern Sudanese Y-chom configuration based on high frequencies of Haplogroup A. But even then, following my post of the thread this just shows the overlapping nature of what is considered an AA lineages vs those typically seen as NS.
They, or groups closely related to them, were the ancestors of the majority of the Nilo-Saharan-speaking pastoralists of modern-day Southern Sudan and Eastern Chad.
quote:Frankly, I think you could have come up with better than this. Anomaly? Sounds like something somebody would says when the data contradicts his prejudice. No value at all. You should simply revised your position when facing contradicting data.
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate - Those Sudanese in a larger picture are kinda like and anomaly as far as the Y-chromosome makeup of Nilo-Saharans as a whole. But even then notice what/who the specific article is speaking of - I guess I should have clarified that:
quote:See also:
These populations are for the most part represented by lineages other than E1b1b. Instead carry A3b2, B2a1a, E1a, E-M2 and R-V88.
quote:Most of the E1b1b lineages that have pushed south outside of the Nile valley have a somewhat recent connection to the Horn and have a White Nile/Blue Nile/ Rift Valley distribution. If E1b1b was included with the lineages that left the Western and Central Sahara that pushed south it surely shows an absence in most Western and Central Sub Saharan Africans. E1b1b shows some discontinuity among NS speakers somewhat like Mtdna M1. But then again I cannot even figure out why you are arguing. IN the very first post I noted the southern Distribution of V12 lineages in an area ("Nubia") usually associated with the speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages? See also:
If E1b1b lineages are the representation of ancient Saharan then where are these lineages in the Sub Saharans that pressed south during the last Arid Episode?
quote:The way I see it, the original Nilo-Saharan speaking population (call them proto-Nilo-Saharan if you feel like it) were composed of many different lineages and the E-M35 was part of them. Other E lineages were also part of their population.
Originally posted by beyoku:
They are not an anomaly because they carry M35 lineages. They are an anomaly because they are overwhelmingly E-M35 carrying Nilo Saharan speakers.
quote:Interesting, prove it! Show me the study, aka the haplogroups frequencies of Nilo-Saharan speakers that display that and I will be able to analyse it.
In a larger picture of Nilo-Saharan samples from the continent they stand out because of this. See my quote:
quote:See also:
These populations are for the most part represented by lineages other than E1b1b. Instead carry A3b2, B2a1a, E1a, E-M2 and R-V88.
quote:There's a lot of ethnic groups still not included in African studies (and their sample size are pretty small). If the Hassan studies wasn't done we wouldn't know Nilo-Saharans are among the biggest carriers of E-M35 in the world.
Most of the E1b1b lineages that have pushed south outside of the Nile valley have a somewhat recent connection to the Horn and have a White Nile/Blue Nile/ Rift Valley distribution. If E1b1b was included with the lineages that left the Western and Central Sahara that pushed south it surely shows an absence in most Western and Central Sub Saharan Africans.
quote:Cushitic speakers? The study you just posted says Nilotic speakers. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by beyoku:
The south African groups in question do not have E-M35* They carry a mutation called E-M293 which was hypothesized to be carried south by Horn African Southern Cushitic speakers.
See:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/31/10693.short
quote:So the Datog who are Nilo-Saharan speakers carries both the highest frequencies and greatest diversity of the E-M35 derived M293 mutation. Demonstrating that they are probably the originator of this haplogroup.
The haplogroup E3b1f distribution spans different language phyla and subsistence economies. When the Wafiome are excluded because of low sample size (n 2), the Tanzanian Datog population has both the highest haplogroup E3b1f-M293 frequency (43%) and Y-STR diversity (Table 1) of any group surveyed. The Datog are pastoralists who speak a Southern Nilotic language.
quote:Same as above.
The high level of Y-STR diversity on the M293 background in the Datog population, coupled with highest frequency, suggests that the Datog have carried M293 longer than any other population.
quote:Thank you.
East African population in our dataset, the Datog dominate the M293(DYS389I-10) diversity (Fig. 1) and overall M293 diversity (Table 1). Newman (36), in his study of the Sandawe subsistence strategies, describes one Sandawe clan, the Alagwa, which is derived from people with Barabaig heritage. Barabaig is a dialect of Datog, a Southern Nilotic language, and Barabaig individuals self-report their ethnicity as Datog. This Barabaig clan became incorporated into the Sandawe because of their purported rainmaking abilities and eventually came to occupy a dominant position within the Sandawe society (36). Ethnographic evidence and shared Y-STR haplotypes support exchange between Tanzanian click-speaking groups and Southern Nilotic-speaking groups in Tanzania (10). Given the high frequency and diversity of E3b1f-M293 in the Datog, our data provide tentative support for a Southern Nilotic linguistic affiliation of the population responsible for introducing pastoralism to southern Africa.
quote:I recall that the trichometer data showed cross-section widths within the "curlier" range for AE mummies, which doesn't exactly jive with your claim. Anyone remember this?
Originally posted by Swenet:
Would have been a reasonable suspicion if it weren't for the fact that hair form is scientifically determined by measuring cross section width. Hair that is chemically treated for aesthetic reasons won’t change in cross section width (so presumably, hair that is altered by post-mortem chemical changes won't either).
quote:What sub-saharan populations called be called euro-asian? the Dato and datog ?
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ So by these accounts then these Sub-Saharan populations could be called 'Eurasian' just like the North African ones.
By the way, I agree with the whole plasticity or rather arbitrariness of Egypt vs. Nubia. Modern day Egypt also comprises ancient Lower Nubia a.k.a. Ta-Seti which was also considered the 1st nome of Kemet (ancient Egypt).
I've been skimming this thread and you guys are going all over the place about 'hair' and SNP groups of predynastic Egyptians and Nubians. What exactly is the issue you are trying to address?
quote:Oh, so you saying anyone that has M,N,J, AND T mtDna lineages euronuts would called them euroasian instead of african,even if they were born in africa and have african Y-DNA?
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ The Cushitic peoples Beyoku cited as having mtDNA lineages M,N,J, and T. There are also Nilotic people who have hg U. According to the Euronuts this makes them 'Eurasian'.
quote:Datog are Nilotic ancestry group and speak a Nilotic language. None of those studies says anything else. I'm sure if we test more Nilotic people we will find many M35 carriers such as Datog, Masalit, Fur, Maasai, Kenyan Nilotes, etc (see studies posted above). Nilotic people are part of the people in which the M35 haplogroup originated. E-P2 carriers.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ See The mtdna of the datog Here
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/10/2180.long
as well as the autosomal profile of the Dato here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947357/
They are a primarily Cushitic ancestry group. More so than even the Maasai. They also have a notable peresence of mtdna M/N/T/J
http://ethiohelix.blogspot.com/2013/01/east-african-mtdna-variation-has.html
quote:Kind of but Not really. I believe as you go back there is not going to be so much of a difference between inhabitants of the Sahara and those below it. One of the reason is because Saharan are possibly the fore-runners of Sub Saharans. ALso due to the Saharan pump there were movements between the "Sahara" and "Sub Sahara". These populations weren't sedentary.
TruthCentric - beyoku seems to be implying a recent sub-Saharan derivation for the AEs' ancestors.
quote:Did you see the autosomal results?
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Datog are Nilotic ancestry group and speak a Nilotic language. None of those studies says anything else. I'm sure if we test more Nilotic people we will find many M35 carriers such as Datog, Masalit, Fur, Maasai, Kenyan Nilotes, etc (see studies posted above). Nilotic people are part of the people in which the M35 haplogroup originated. E-P2 carriers.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ See The mtdna of the datog Here
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/10/2180.long
as well as the autosomal profile of the Dato here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947357/
They are a primarily Cushitic ancestry group. More so than even the Maasai. They also have a notable peresence of mtdna M/N/T/J
http://ethiohelix.blogspot.com/2013/01/east-african-mtdna-variation-has.html
quote:The autosomal results doesn't show that at all. Explain why you think that? Anyway they are not the only M35 carriers. The Masalit, the Fur, Kenyan Nilotes are others ones too. Why the hell do you say Nilotes are lacking in M35 lineages (E1b1b) when it's not true? When I show you Nilotes with E1b1b you say it's an anomaly or try to claim cushitic ancestry.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Did you see the autosomal results?
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Datog are Nilotic ancestry group and speak a Nilotic language. None of those studies says anything else. I'm sure if we test more Nilotic people we will find many M35 carriers such as Datog, Masalit, Fur, Maasai, Kenyan Nilotes, etc (see studies posted above). Nilotic people are part of the people in which the M35 haplogroup originated. E-P2 carriers.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ See The mtdna of the datog Here
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/10/2180.long
as well as the autosomal profile of the Dato here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947357/
They are a primarily Cushitic ancestry group. More so than even the Maasai. They also have a notable peresence of mtdna M/N/T/J
http://ethiohelix.blogspot.com/2013/01/east-african-mtdna-variation-has.html
There were primarily not of "Nilo-Saharan" ancestry.
Also I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers.
quote:
Many Nilo-Saharan–speaking populations in East Africa, such as the Maasai, show multiple cluster assignments from the Nilo-Saharan (red) and Cushitic (dark purple) AACs, in accord with linguistic evidence of repeated Nilotic assimilation of Cushites over the past 3000 years (32) and with the high frequency of a shared East African–specific mutation associated with lactose tolerance (33).
quote:
Additionally, the Nilo-Saharan–speaking Luo of Kenya show predominantly Niger-Kordofanian ancestry in the STRUCTURE analyses (orange) (Figs. (Figs.33 and and4,4, Fig. 5, B and C, and fig. S15) and cluster together with eastern African Niger-Kordofanian–speaking populations in the phylogenetic trees (Fig. 1 and figs. S7 and S8).
quote:What you just proved is that there's no correlation between language groups spoken in Africa and genetic. There's more regional correlation by the effects of geographic distance and regional genetic drift.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Maybe I didnt explain it too well.
Go to the NCBI link. Or just look directly at figure 4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947357/figure/F4/
Take note the Maroon cluster which I believe was Central Sudanic diverges from the Red-Nilo-Saharan. In essence they are both seen as "Nilo-Saharan" ancestry clusters.
Notice the Purple cluster denoting Cushitic.
Compare the absence of the Cushitic AAC in Southern Sudan and Central African AA speakers with its presence in Eastern African Nilo-Sahara and Afro-asiatic speakers.
Notice the Datog, Akie, Mbugu, and particularly the Samburu.........all of which are listed as Nilo-Saharan speakers. All of which lack for the most part the Central Sudanic (Maroon) and Nilotic (Red) Ancestral Clusters found in Southern Sudanese Nilo-Saharans.
Do you think it is possible that the Samburu and the Datog stand out compared to their neighbors because of an excess of Cushitic ancestry (Purple)? Are they fully assimilated Nilo-Saharans or are they language switched Cushites?
Take a look at the Lou, Obabms Daddies Ethnic group. Are they Nilo-Saharna speakers that have been largely assimilated by Niger Kordofanian speakers or are they a Bantu Group that language shifted to Nilo-Saharan?
quote:They don't. They don't even have E-M35 per Hassan. They have a few rather young E-M78 subclades, which, again, testifies to their aquisition of these sub clades through admixture with Afrasan speakers or an intermediate.
Also let's recall that the Masalit and Fur got some of the highest level of E1b1b (E-35) in the world.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:The M and N hgs found in Africa are specifically M1 and N1 and they could be African in origin or they could have originated in Arabia among Out-of-African colonists among M* and N* and then back-migrated to Africa. The other clades-- J and T are definitely downstream Eurasian clades that back-migrated at relatively later dates though still in early times before the Holocene.
Originally posted by Firewall:
quote:Oh, so you saying anyone that has M,N,J, AND T mtDna lineages euronuts would called them euroasian instead of african,even if they were born in africa and have african Y-DNA?
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ The Cushitic peoples Beyoku cited as having mtDNA lineages M,N,J, and T. There are also Nilotic people who have hg U. According to the Euronuts this makes them 'Eurasian'.
I did not read everything in one of the links and i only open one above.
Do most of Dato and datog have those mtDna lineages?
I know that M AND N could be really african, and i think it is.
What do you think?
quote:What about the maternal lineages or autosomal genes Beyoku cited? You can't just rely on one line of genetic evidence and ignore others. You claim the Eurasian clades in Africa are outliers or rare, but they still exist and really they aren't as rare as you make it sound if you include BOTH Y-chromosomal AND mitochondrial along with autosomal. My point is that the division between African and non-African is not as great as some (both Eurocentrics and Africanists) make it out to be.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Datog are Nilotic ancestry group and speak a Nilotic language. None of those studies says anything else. I'm sure if we test more Nilotic people we will find many M35 carriers such as Datog, Masalit, Fur, Maasai, Kenyan Nilotes, etc (see studies posted above). Nilotic people are part of the people in which the M35 haplogroup originated. E-P2 carriers.
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ See The mtdna of the datog Here
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/10/2180.long
as well as the autosomal profile of the Dato here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947357/
They are a primarily Cushitic ancestry group. More so than even the Maasai. They also have a notable peresence of mtdna M/N/T/J
http://ethiohelix.blogspot.com/2013/01/east-african-mtdna-variation-has.html
quote:I agree. Populations are usually composed of a mix of haplogroups, not just one hg lineage (especially non-basal hg). Proto Nilo-Saharans were part of the population in which the E1b1b appeared originally. IMO, the population who was speaking the Negro-Egyptian language determined by Theophile Obenga using the comparative linguistic methodology.
Originally posted by Firewall:
I could be wrong but i thought E1b1b origin was from nilo-saharan speakers and this spread was from them has well.
What is your view on this beyoku and Amun-Ra The Ultimate?
It seems the origin from the map above points to southern ethiopia,a area of Nilo-saharans speakers in ethopia.
The arrow seems to go from lower nubia to western sudan has well where the fur and others live at and it goes from lower nubia(nilo-saharan speakers) to somalia.
Again a area of nilo-saharan speakers.
The are some nubians that live in darfur has well,and chad.
quote:And you alone aren't I suppose?
Originally posted by beyoku:
Yall crazy
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Interesting. Maritime migration from Africa directly to southwestern Europe (not M81 carriers btw). I already mentioned something similar in this forum just looking at the Cruciani study (although he didn't mention it). Now it is confirmed by other genetic observations.
Originally posted by Firewall:
The authors noted that because E-V68* was not found in the Middle Eastern samples, this appears to be evidence of maritime migration from Africa to southwestern Europe.
quote:Don't get mad at Beyoku because y'all don't know what y'all talking about.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:And you alone aren't I suppose?
Originally posted by beyoku:
Yall crazy
Don't forget there's 3 fingers pointing right back at you. You're an "anomaly" no doubt.
quote:I was thinking the same thing about Beyoku which you seem to think needs rescuing from you.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Don't get mad at Beyoku because y'all don't know what y'all talking about.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:And you alone aren't I suppose?
Originally posted by beyoku:
[qb] Yall crazy
Don't forget there's 3 fingers pointing right back at you. You're an "anomaly" no doubt.
quote:How old are you? I made a typo one time but spelled E-M35 like 20 times only in this thread. What are you so mad about?
Originally posted by Swenet:
^LMAO. Rescuing? How can you be so full of yourself and your command of population genetics when you don't even know that 'E-M35' isn't spelled like: 'E-35'. You retards are just learning as you go, parasiting on posters like Beyoku, Djehuti, and others, using the information they post as leads to follow up on, so you can come back to this forum and argue as if you knew it all along. So see-through.
quote:Not sure what else I can add. The only folks that I have seen that seem to be "troubled" by such a strong Nilo-Saharan connection is the few Horn Africans that have some type of complex and feel their genetic connection to Egypt is being usurped.............or the Euroclowns that found it acceptable for a Horn influence but not anything that can be close to a "true Negro" influence.
Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley , and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba / Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13.
quote:The only one who is butt hurt is you. You know Obenga isn't supported by genetics, hence all your acrobatics to make the genetic data fit his work.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:How old are you? I made a typo one time but spelled E-M35 like 20 times only in this thread. What are you so mad about?
Originally posted by Swenet:
^LMAO. Rescuing? How can you be so full of yourself and your command of population genetics when you don't even know that 'E-M35' isn't spelled like: 'E-35'. You retards are just learning as you go, parasiting on posters like Beyoku, Djehuti, and others, using the information they post as leads to follow up on, so you can come back to this forum and argue as if you knew it all along. So see-through.
Stop acting so butt-hurt Swenet. If we all had the same opinions on this forum, this forum would be boring. I don't mind you or beyoku having different opinions than me.
quote:So I was right about the Horn being an early hub for the MRCA of E1b1b. Yet you identify these people with Afrasian speakers. Are we even sure that Afrasian was a major language phylum in that area? I thought Afrasian originated in the Sudan-Egypt region.
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Djehuti - The highest frequencies of E-M35* are usually found in Ethiopians . As far as subclades: E-M81 has been found at 100% in Tunisians Berbers. Also southern Africans have little to No E-m35*. Nearly all of it has been reclassified as E-m293.
New research shows the diversity of Ethiopian E-m35 particularly in southern Ethiopia to be Very high.
http://ethiohelix.blogspot.com/2012/11/extensive-doctoral-thesis-on-ethiopian.html#more
quote:Not that I agree with Amun-Ra about the Nilotic thing concerning E-M35 or that I disagree with your assertion that Afrasian speakers weren't there in the Horn during the time of E-M35 hearth in the Horn but I am curious about the A and B lineages associated with Neolithic Nubians and associated culture similar to that found in Uganda(?)
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate
I dont know if I can help you dude. There is pretty much established research that E-m35 lineages that spread from the Horn of Africa have a clear correlation with Afro-Asiatic languages that also spread from the horn of Africa. It has also been acknowledge that A3b2 and B2a1a are the core lineages of Eastern Nilo-Saharan speakers, especially Southern Nilotics. There are some clear overlaps looking at an E-m35 / M1 mtdna (other lineages not to be excluded) combination with the spread of Afroasiatic languages.
quote:I totally concur. In fact I myself have posted several times the linguistic evidence of Nilo-Saharan influence on Egyptians and other Afrasian speakers when it comes to neolithic culture, but hunting and gathering terms are still Afrasian.
There is also an ABSENCE of Nilo-Saharan related early cultural material in areas known to have been inhabited by the core Afrasian/E-m35 populations. IE - E-m35 lineages are present very early in the Levant and of course the Horn where they have their origin yet these population are at the tail end of a Sudanic pottery tradition. The horn is at the tail end of a Nilo-Saharan affiliated Pastoral tradition. The horn is at the tail end as far as being he RECIPIENT of Sudanic and Sahelian Crops. I shouldn't have to post it again but even EGYPTIAN languages shows influence from Nilo-Saharan in refernce to Cattle Domestication and food production.
quote:LOL Indeed, the Euronuts and their Horn-supremacist useful idiot cronies are in deep doo-doo.
I guess some of the strongest evidence to drive the point home would be the analysis of Ancient Egyptians closest Neighbors - Nubians. Remember the analysis of Stone Aged Neolithic Nubians = Predominance of A-M91.
Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley, and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba / Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13.
Not sure what else I can add. The only folks that I have seen that seem to be "troubled" by such a strong Nilo-Saharan connection is the few Horn Africans that have some type of complex and feel their genetic connection to Egypt is being usurped.............or the Euroclowns that found it acceptable for a Horn influence but not anything that can be close to a "true Negro" influence.
quote:I don't know about the relationship between the Jordanians and Noba.
Originally posted by mena7:
Great info Clyde Im happy to learn that the word Nubian is synonimous to Nobatai.The Nubian/Nobatae and the Kushite/Meroe were different black tribes of Soudan. Clyde are the words Nobatae and Nabatean of the Nabatean Kingdom of Jordan similar?.There was a Nobata Christian kingdom in Medieval Nubia.The word Napata seem similar to Nobatai.
quote:This seems to be right.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
While E-M78 is carried by many Nilo-Saharan speakers, E-M35 and other branches of E1b1b are carried by Afrasian speakers. As I mentioned the highest concentration of E1b1b carriers in the world is in the Horn specifically Somalia. And then E1b1b* original has its highest frequency among Khwe bushmen who are Khoisan speakers!
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate
I dont know if I can help you dude. There is pretty much established research that E-m35 lineages that spread from the Horn of Africa have a clear correlation with Afro-Asiatic languages that also spread from the horn of Africa. It has also been acknowledge that A3b2 and B2a1a are the core lineages of Eastern Nilo-Saharan speakers, especially Southern Nilotics. There are some clear overlaps looking at an E-m35 / M1 mtdna (other lineages not to be excluded) combination with the spread of Afroasiatic languages.
quote:I don't need help at all. You're the one who need some help. I never argued that Cushite or Chadic people didn't have M35. I just argued that the original Nilo-Saharans like the original Cushite and Chadic people were also M35 carriers. You said so yourself!!!: "I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers." That means you admit yourself that M35 was an original lineages among the original Nilo-Saharan speakers. That's the only thing I'm saying here. Really!
Originally posted by beyoku:
Also I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers.
quote:I don't know why you say Afrasian/E-M35 when you admit yourself Nilo-Saharan where part of the original carriers of M35, but yes Cushite and Chadic people too were carriers of M35 too if that's what you mean. At one point, Cushite and Chadic people separated from the Negro-Egyptian homeland which led to the dialectisation and ultimately to the creation of distinct proto-cushite and proto-chadic languages while proto-Nilo-Saharan did the same. This dialectisation is characterized evidently by relative isolation and thus the creation of distinct culture like the Nilo-Saharan with the Wavy line pottery making tradition and the creation of the food producing culture (which you call just below Sudanic and Sahelian cattle domestication and food production) .
There is also an ABSENCE of Nilo-Saharan related early cultural material in areas known to have been inhabited by the core Afrasian/E-m35 populations. IE - E-m35 lineages are present very early in the Levant and of course the Horn where they have their origin yet these population are at the tail end of a Sudanic pottery tradition. The horn is at the tail end of a Nilo-Saharan affiliated Pastoral tradition.
quote:That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
The horn is at the tail end as far as being he RECIPIENT of Sudanic and Sahelian Crops. I shouldn't have to post it again but even EGYPTIAN languages shows influence from Nilo-Saharan in refernce to Cattle Domestication and food production.
I guess some of the strongest evidence to drive the point home would be the analysis of Ancient Egyptians closest Neighbors - Nubians. Remember the analysis of Stone Aged Neolithic Nubians = Predominance of A-M91.
quote:Not sure what else I can add. The only folks that I have seen that seem to be "troubled" by such a strong Nilo-Saharan connection is the few Horn Africans that have some type of complex and feel their genetic connection to Egypt is being usurped.............or the Euroclowns that found it acceptable for a Horn influence but not anything that can be close to a "true Negro" influence.
Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley , and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba / Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13.
quote:
Originally posted by Firewall:
Don't mean to change the subject since it was brought up,but i just want to make this clear.You guys could go back to main topic after this.
T.kendall
Quote-
Are the modern Nubians descendents of the ancient?
The modern Nubians are surely descended from the ancient peoples of Kush. Judging from the well preserved bodies of bowmen found in graves at Kerma and dating to about 2000 BC, the people of Nubia have changed very little physically from then to now, a fact which is also verified by the representations of Nubians in Egyptian art. Just as modern Arabic has almost eradicated the old Nubian language, so did the tongue of the ancient "Noba" eradicate very rapidly the ancient Meroitic language after the collapse of the Kushite monarchy in the fourth century AD. Although the Noba and the Kushites were separate language and culture groups, they had probably co-existed in the region for centuries, and physically they were probably indistinguishable. When the power of Meroe declined, the two groups surely intermingled, if they had not done so earlier; the Noba may have assumed dominance, but they retained close ties to their Meroitic roots. One way of being certain of this is from the fact that many Nubians, even now, still wear the same facial scars that can be seen on the images of the Kushite rulers on their monuments at Meroe and other sites. These marks are handed down through families from one generation to the next and identify one's tribal affiliation. Obviously they have passed down to the present from remote antiquity, transcending dynastic, tribal, cultural, religious, and linguistic change.
_____________________________________________
The kushites mostly remain were they at,some like the noba spread to other areas of sudan and nearby countries but most became nobaized and some intermarried.
That's why today's nubians could say they were kushites and the noba.
They were of the same ethnic group but they were different sub-groups or tribes or sub-ethnic groups,because they share the same basic culture and are closely related . The only difference was the language but everything thing else was basically the same in culture of course some variations but They still belong to the same ethnic group,just different tribes, like greeks and macedonians
Nubian scholars know this and it was mention before from a nubian scholar i talked to years ago.
We do know the name of the main ethnic group they belong ,but egyptians called them all Neshesi.One day we may learn the NAME of main ethnic group the kasu and noba called themselves but i think we already know.
More on that below.
They were something like the mande groups.,but at least we know the that bambara,and mandinka etc belong to a main ethnic group called mande.
Of course we may already know whay the ethnic group the kushite(kasu) and noba belong too.Remember that names and groups like kushite and noba are sub-ethinc groups or tribes that belong to a main or bigger group called NEHESI,NEHASYU etc..
This can't be ignored anymore.
Historical Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Nubia
By Richard A. Lobban Jr.
page- 382
quote-
TA-Nehesi,TA-NEHESIU,TA-NEHASYU,NEHESI.This middle and new kingdom egyptian reference to nubia means the "the land of nehesi,"Unlike the word "Ta-Setiu,' or land of the bowmen,' this appears to be an ethnic reference and may represent a term used by nubians for themselves.Some speculate that word "nehes" survives in modern nubians ethnic nomenclature as the :mahas." One delta king,nehesy(q.v.) is known in the second intermediate period,and one late viceroy of nubia,pa-nehesia(qq.v.)is believed to have been of nubians origin,judging from this root in his name.
___________________________________________________________________________
David O' CONNER
Ancient nubia:Egypt's Rival in Africa
page 74
QUOTE-
Yet by christian times nubian,was spoken throughout nubia,and it's existence has been detected as early has the late bronze age.did meriotic and nubian speakers share the nubian nile?
David O'Conner was talking about meroite nubians,not the noba nubians.
page 72
quote-
By A.d. 200 settlement in both both roman and meroitic lower nubia became tense.
Most of the dodekaschoenos'inhabitants were in fact probably nubian (and roman and meroitic officials collaborated in thier governance)but they adopted a romano-egyptian culture very different from that of meroitic lower nubia.
__________________________________________________________________________
Derek A. Welsby
THE KINGDOM OF KUSH -THE NAPATAN AND MEROITIC EMPIRES BOOK
Kushies on the world stage
page-71
Two third-century kings of the kushites are recorded at philae,one in a graffito,the other in an inscription.The earlier of the may be the graffito recording in demotic the name of king Tqrrm,who has been identified with the Teqerideamani buried in pyramid Beg.N.23 at Meroe.It dates from the third year of the roman emperor trebonianus gallus(AD 253).
The other king 'Yesbokheamani' the name written above the figure of a king who is also named at Qasr Ibrim.It has been suggested that this king reigned from AD 283-300 and that during that period there may have been a Kushite reoccupation of lower nubia after diocletian withdrew roman forces back to aswan AD 298.
Others noting the activities of kushites,including officials of the king,in the dodekaschoinos has far north as the sanctuary of philae,have envisaged a de facto kushite control of that area for at least part of the third century.Diocletian is credited with a victory over the kushites and blemmyes in AD 297 but the where abouts of the fighting is not clear.
Diocletian's withdrawal from the dodekaschoinos may have been a formal acceptance of the status quo,in the same way that the emperor aurelian in AD 270 had been forced to acknowledge officially the loss of dacia.
The sixth-century roman historian procopius mentions that diocletian's agreement was with the nobate and not with that of the kushites.
By the end of third century the stability of the northern frontier zone was under threat from other peoples,but this story belongs to that of the decline an fall of the kushite kingdom.
A good book dealing with this too is
At Empire's Edge: Exploring Rome's Egyptian Frontier.
Robert B. Jackson - 2002
The decline and fall of the kushite kingdom
page-196
QUOTE-
It's end is shrouded in as mystery as it's beginnings well over a thousand years ago.
It is clear,certainly,that no natural disaster stimulated these events.
The nubia of the early medieval period was a similar place,with the same potential for agriculture and settlement as the late period of the kushite period.
The period were also largely the same and there is little evidence for massive movements of population.
In the past the theory of mass migration theories are now out of fashion in the in archaeology the world over.
Continuity is seen as the normal state of cultural development.To some extent the end of the kushite state is now discounted altogether.
Lower nubia
page 196-197
QOUTE-
The byzantine historian procopius,writing in the mid-sixth century AD,records that diocletian withdrew the frontier to the first cataract and called upon the nobate to occupy and defend the vacated territory against the hostile desert tribes collectively called the blemmyes.
There is no mention of the kushites and it is generally assumed that they were no postion to play in the occupation of the old roman province.Althought there are some obvious errors in procopius account,the sequence of events has rarely been challenged.A close scrutiny of what little additional literary evidence there is indicates that probably at least as late as AD 336,the kushites were still a force to be reckoned with in the affairs of lower nubia.
A joint embassy to the emperor constantine,probaby on the occasion of his tricennalia,the thirtieth anniversary of his accession to power,came from the Ethiopians(kushites) and the blemmyes.
With the withdrawal of the roman frontier to the first cataract,it may have been the kushites who stepped in to fill the political vacuum,the situation recorded by procopius being more relevant to his time when the kushites had faded into history.The archaeological evidence may be interpreted to support the argument for a kushite presence in the fourth century.
The discovery of stone lion at qasr ibrim bearing the name of the kushite king Yesbokheamani (Amain-Yeshbehe), who is generally dated to the period AD 283-300,and the presence of his name philae and in the lion temple at meroe,indicate the territorial integrity of the kushite state at this time.
page 202
Continuity and change
David O' Conner shares this view
QUOTE-
In the fourth and fifth centuries we are faced with the apparent contradiction of strong evidence for continuity and equally strong evidence for change.Some aspects of kushite life continued into this period while others disappeared entirely.Many of the discontinuities are in fact a re-emergence of very ancient local traditions.The most obvious of these is the use of tumuli as royal funerary monuments.This is the type of royal funerary monument we see at Kerma in the cemetery of the Kerma Kings.,and el kurru in the burials of early kushite rulers.
page 203
QUOTE-
there was a gradual assimilation of of peoples from the east and west of into the nile valley,most notably the noba.These peoples will have been partly acculturated and influences emanating from them,like those coming from the north,will have been instrumental in bringing about developments in kushite culture.
quote:What are these elements? The vast majority of Egyptian terms are related to the Niger-Congo group.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
quote:Interesting post,and i am still learning about this dna stuff.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate
I dont know if I can help you dude. There is pretty much established research that E-m35 lineages that spread from the Horn of Africa have a clear correlation with Afro-Asiatic languages that also spread from the horn of Africa. It has also been acknowledge that A3b2 and B2a1a are the core lineages of Eastern Nilo-Saharan speakers, especially Southern Nilotics. There are some clear overlaps looking at an E-m35 / M1 mtdna (other lineages not to be excluded) combination with the spread of Afroasiatic languages.quote:I don't need help at all. You're the one who need some help. I never argued that Cushite or Chadic people didn't have M35. I just argued that the original Nilo-Saharans like the original Cushite and Chadic people were also M35 carriers. You said so yourself!!!: "I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers." That means you admit yourself that M35 was an original lineages among the original Nilo-Saharan speakers. That's the only thing I'm saying here. Really!
Originally posted by beyoku:
Also I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers.
I just didn't understood why you were saying it's rare or something, when clearly it isn't. If M35, like you say, were part of the lineage of the original Nilo-Saharan speakers, then there's no way for you (or me) to know what percentages it had at that time (it was small at one time then has grown by definition of any genetic lineages) and recent percentages shows that some Nilo-Saharan people like the Masalit and Fur, Nilo-Saharan from Kenya to a lower degree, got some of the highest level of M35 in the world. That's fact.
You say "anomaly" but why do you say that when you admit yourself M35 were part of the original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers. That's what I don't understand. Please explain that to me.
If M35 were part of the original genetic lineages of the Nilo-Saharans then its perfectly normal, not an anomaly at all, if some Nilo-Saharans speakers got 70%+ of M35 while others have 30%+ and others maybe 2% or even 0%. Perfectly normal, low level, genetic drift effect created by geographic isolation from the motherland and the founder effect.
That's what I want you to explain to me. Why do you think the high percentage of M35 in Nilo-Saharan is an anomaly when you admit yourself than the original Nilo-Saharan people were M35 carriers? You're contradicting yourself.
What happened is that Cushite, Chadic, and Nilo-Saharan speakers were all original carriers of M35 mutations. Now they have different percentage of it due to the effect of genetic drift, founder effect, geographical distance and isolation from their ancestral homeland.
quote:I don't know why you say Afrasian/E-M35 when you admit yourself Nilo-Saharan where part of the original carriers of M35, but yes Cushite and Chadic people too were carriers of M35 too if that's what you mean. At one point, Cushite and Chadic people separated from the Negro-Egyptian homeland which led to the dialectisation and ultimately to the creation of distinct proto-cushite and proto-chadic languages while proto-Nilo-Saharan did the same. This dialectisation is characterized evidently by relative isolation and thus the creation of distinct culture like the Nilo-Saharan with the Wavy line pottery making tradition and the creation of the food producing culture (which you call just below Sudanic and Sahelian cattle domestication and food production) .
There is also an ABSENCE of Nilo-Saharan related early cultural material in areas known to have been inhabited by the core Afrasian/E-m35 populations. IE - E-m35 lineages are present very early in the Levant and of course the Horn where they have their origin yet these population are at the tail end of a Sudanic pottery tradition. The horn is at the tail end of a Nilo-Saharan affiliated Pastoral tradition.
quote:That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
The horn is at the tail end as far as being he RECIPIENT of Sudanic and Sahelian Crops. I shouldn't have to post it again but even EGYPTIAN languages shows influence from Nilo-Saharan in refernce to Cattle Domestication and food production.
I guess some of the strongest evidence to drive the point home would be the analysis of Ancient Egyptians closest Neighbors - Nubians. Remember the analysis of Stone Aged Neolithic Nubians = Predominance of A-M91.
quote:Not sure what else I can add. The only folks that I have seen that seem to be "troubled" by such a strong Nilo-Saharan connection is the few Horn Africans that have some type of complex and feel their genetic connection to Egypt is being usurped.............or the Euroclowns that found it acceptable for a Horn influence but not anything that can be close to a "true Negro" influence.
Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley , and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba / Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
Euroclown and horn supremacists can just eat it!!
In the other thread, as you now, I characterize that ancient Saharan culture and show the linkage between it and the Ancient Egyptians as you just pointed out. I will have to post that genetic linkage you just pointed out here in that thread too. It's also interesting that the pottery making tradition in Africa started in Mali (they have the oldest pottery in Africa), themselves influenced by the very ancient West African microlithic technocomplex culture. It's crazy to see how African people are all interrelated.:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008330
quote:The elements are predominance of A-M91 among the Neolithic Nubians(Kushite) aDNA, food producing, religious and cattle domestication culture transferred to the Ancient Egyptians.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:What are these elements? The vast majority of Egyptian terms are related to the Niger-Congo group.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
.
quote:Notice I said the "CORE" E-m35 carriers. E-m35 originated in the Horn of Africa and could have spread to Nilo or Proto-Nilo-Saharans much earlier than the influence of Nilo-Saharan technology the other way. A-m91 would still be indicative of a Core Nilo Saharan population while E-m35 a core Proto-AfroAsiatic one. If the core E-m35 population in the horn were Nilo-Saharan then they would not be lacking in Nilo Saharan technology. Southern Nilotics of Sudan are seen as the best population representing the Remnant of the Sudanic pastoral complex. They are overwhelmingly A and B. If anything the reverse is true and A-M91 has a longer presence among Afroastic speakers but that is s different argument for a different day.
There is also an ABSENCE of Nilo-Saharan related early cultural material in areas known to have been inhabited by the core Afrasian/E-m35 populations . IE - E-m35 lineages are present very early in the Levant and of course the Horn where they have their origin yet these population are at the tail end of a Sudanic pottery tradition. The horn is at the tail end of a Nilo-Saharan affiliated Pastoral tradition. - Beyoku
quote:Now remember what one of the first articles I linked to said about how the population of Wadi Hower in ANCIENT Sudan were the Ancestors of SOUTHERN Sudanese and Chadian Nilo-Saharan speakers. E1b1b lineages are not Key in Southern Sudanese or Chadians Nilo-Saharans. IN fact the mutation of V32 found in Modern Sudan didn't even exist at some of these early dates.
The Eastern Sahara of Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Chad was home to nomadic people who followed rains that turned the desert into grassland. When the landscape dried up about 7,000 years ago, there was a mass exodus to the Nile and other parts of Africa.
quote:This is somewhat indicative of the Entire Sahara. Research does not indicate E-M35 lineages in Africa push from from some Central Sub Saharan or even East Central sub Saharan source. Instead E-m35 has a clear northward migration associated with areas of the Horn and Red Sea. Most of the research do date does not show E-m35 having some kind of Ancient East to West Sahelian migration. Furthermore, during these early dates the core E-m35 region on in the Horn does not even have pottery, nor do they have cattle this early.
Nomadic human settlers moved in from the south, taking up residence beside rivers and lakes. They were hunter-gatherers at first, living off plants and wild game. Eventually they became more settled, domesticating cattle for the first time, and making intricate pottery.
quote:Again, E-M35 lineages do not show a distribution of being pushed into the Nile AND to "other parts of the African continent" (Think West and Central Sub Saharan Africa) E-M35 shows a Magreb, Horn, and Nile valley distribution pushing south mainly through the Nile Basin and Rift Valley only. E-M2, A3b2, and B2a1a show a wide distribution and would better fit such a hypothesis.
Humid conditions prevailed until about 6,000 years ago, when the Sahara abruptly dried out. There was then a gradual exodus of people to the Nile Valley and other parts of the African continent.
quote:That's not what I ask you anyway. I didn't ask you to agree with me on all points. You simply avoid answering my simple question.
Originally posted by beyoku:
@ Amun-Ra The Ultimate . I am not about to reply to all of your Gobbledygook.
quote:
You say the high percentage of M35 among Masalit and Fur nilotic speakers is an "anomaly" but why do you say that when you admit yourself M35 were part of the original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers. That's what I don't understand. Please explain that to me.
If M35 were part of the original genetic lineages of the Nilo-Saharans then its perfectly normal, not an anomaly at all, if some Nilo-Saharans speakers got 70%+ of M35 while others have 30%+ and others maybe 2% or even 0%. Perfectly normal, low level, genetic drift effect created by geographic isolation from the motherland and the founder effect.
quote:Sure they could. Both ancient Nilo-Saharans and ancient Cushitic/Chadic people lived somewhere in Eastern Africa(Sudan,Ethiopia, etc), lets say horn Africa to make you happy, that is before they developed their languages , many of them had M35 mutations (not all of them), then they separated from each others by migrating to other regions. It is after the migration to other region that Nilo-saharan developed their Nilo Saharan technology. It's also where they developed their proto-Nilo-Saharan language.
Originally posted by beyoku:
If the core E-m35 population in the horn were Nilo-Saharan then they would not be lacking in Nilo Saharan technology.
quote:None of what you said contradict anything I said in my reply to Clyde Winters. It does seem that M35 carriers whether they were Nilotic speakers or Chadic/Cushitic speakers eventually move more northward or stayed in the East African region (for example Masalit and Fur either stayed or migrated and stayed to North-Western Sudan). They don't seem to have migrated to Western or Central Africa in great numbers. At least that's the data we have at the moment (the samples of those regions in the Sahara are still scarce). While E-M2, A3b2, and B2a1a carriers speaking Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Kordofanian language migrated to central Sahara and West Africa among other places. It is those people who developed pottery and cattle domestication in the Sahara and Sudanese region. The earliest pottery in Africa can be found in Mali. Horn Africans were on the receiving side of those technology as you said earlier.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Addressing your Climate controlled Occupation of the Egyptian Sahara:
This is some of what Kropelin and Kuper state:
quote:Now remember what one of the first articles I linked to said about how the population of Wadi Hower in ANCIENT Sudan were the Ancestors of SOUTHERN Sudanese and Chadian Nilo-Saharan speakers. E1b1b lineages are not Key in Southern Sudanese or Chadians Nilo-Saharans. IN fact the mutation of V32 found in Modern Sudan didn't even exist at some of these early dates.
The Eastern Sahara of Egypt, Sudan, Libya and Chad was home to nomadic people who followed rains that turned the desert into grassland. When the landscape dried up about 7,000 years ago, there was a mass exodus to the Nile and other parts of Africa.
quote:This is somewhat indicative of the Entire Sahara. Research does not indicate E-M35 lineages in Africa push from from some Central Sub Saharan or even East Central sub Saharan source. Instead E-m35 has a clear northward migration associated with areas of the Horn and Red Sea. Most of the research do date does not show E-m35 having some kind of Ancient East to West Sahelian migration. Furthermore, during these early dates the core E-m35 region on in the Horn does not even have pottery, nor do they have cattle this early.
Nomadic human settlers moved in from the south, taking up residence beside rivers and lakes. They were hunter-gatherers at first, living off plants and wild game. Eventually they became more settled, domesticating cattle for the first time, and making intricate pottery.
quote:Again, E-M35 lineages do not show a distribution of being pushed into the Nile AND to "other parts of the African continent" (Think West and Central Sub Saharan Africa) E-M35 shows a Magreb, Horn, and Nile valley distribution pushing south mainly through the Nile Basin and Rift Valley only. E-M2, A3b2, and B2a1a show a wide distribution and would better fit such a hypothesis.
Humid conditions prevailed until about 6,000 years ago, when the Sahara abruptly dried out. There was then a gradual exodus of people to the Nile Valley and other parts of the African continent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5192410.stm
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:The elements are predominance of A-M91 among the Neolithic Nubians(Kushite) aDNA, food producing, religious and cattle domestication culture transferred to the Ancient Egyptians.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:What are these elements? The vast majority of Egyptian terms are related to the Niger-Congo group.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
.
I think the Nile Valley and the Sahara were zones of linguistic and cultural compression and decompression related to climatic changes. This idea is discuss here in Anselin.
Consider this map:
At one point, Nilotic speakers as well as Chadic, Cushitic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers were "compressed" in one areas at the source of the Nile/Ethiopian/Sudan/East African approximate region. All those languages have their homeland in this area. This correspond to the A map in the image above. That is before 8500 BC. Maybe at 8500BC there was already some dialectisation of the Negro-Egyptian language, but that's beside the point. *Before* 8500BC, the A map, Nilotic, Chadic, Cushite, Niger-Kordofanian speakers were all compressed in one area. Their linguistic (thus genetic) homeland.
Then when the Sahara got green due to the shifting of the Monsoon rains, they separated from each others leading to full dialectisation and thus distinct language creation. The creation (or full blossoming) of proto-Nilotic, proto-Chadic, proto-Cushitic and proto-Niger Kordofanian languages. That is the decompression phases. B and C on the above map.
Then when the Sahara got dry again, all those "newly" distinct languages and people had to move back toward the Nile and other regions of Africa in search of greener pastures. The re-compression phase we see at D.
So before and during the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state, the D map, Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic speakers were now compressed along the Nile. Laying their genetic, linguistic and cultural influences in the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state. Ancient Egyptians were a melting pot composed by those people (and unified under one state by Narmer).
At one point, those people choose a language to be their lingua franca. They have chosen the proto-Ancient Egyptian language. A language influenced by ancient Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic languages (probably closer to Chadic and Cushitic though).
IMO, it's pretty normal for people like you to see some Niger-Congo (Niger-Kordofanian) words in Ancient Egyptians because some of their speakers were compressed along the Nile. Same as people can see Nilo-Saharan, Chadic and Cushite words in Ancient Egyptian. For the same reasons. They also share words from their Negro-Egyptian days (which also explain why Africans, that is Nilo-saharan, Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic speakers who didn't migrate all toward the Nile Valley during the desertification D map re-compression phase also share words and grammar forms. That is even when you don't take account the linguistic compression along the Nile Valley, those language groups still share many words and grammar forms). The Nile Valley after the desertification of the Sahara during the late Holocene became a zone of linguistic and cultural compression. All those languages (thus people) influenced to various degree the Ancient Egyptian lingua franca language as well as the culture they were all part of.
quote:http://bhusers.upf.edu/dcomas/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/molbev.msr089.full_.pdf
East Africa. The sub-clade A3b2 is present at high frequencies in Eastern African populations, in particular among Nilo-Saharan speakers. Based on the analysis of this lineage in Uganda, Gomes et al. 2010 proposed its association with this linguistic phylum. Our estimates of A3b2 antiquity (9 Kya; CI 3.7-20.2 Kya) do not refute this hypothesis, as they are broadly in agreement with the initial date for the spread of Nilo-Saharan phylum approximately between 12 and 18 Kya (Ehret 2000; Blench 2006).
quote:Thanks means a lot coming from you. Much of what I said was inspired by what the Anselin paper said.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Great paper. Thanks.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:The elements are predominance of A-M91 among the Neolithic Nubians(Kushite) aDNA, food producing, religious and cattle domestication culture transferred to the Ancient Egyptians.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:What are these elements? The vast majority of Egyptian terms are related to the Niger-Congo group.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
.
I think the Nile Valley and the Sahara were zones of linguistic and cultural compression and decompression related to climatic changes. This idea is discuss here in Anselin.
Consider this map:
At one point, Nilotic speakers as well as Chadic, Cushitic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers were "compressed" in one areas at the source of the Nile/Ethiopian/Sudan/East African approximate region. All those languages have their homeland in this area. This correspond to the A map in the image above. That is before 8500 BC. Maybe at 8500BC there was already some dialectisation of the Negro-Egyptian language, but that's beside the point. *Before* 8500BC, the A map, Nilotic, Chadic, Cushite, Niger-Kordofanian speakers were all compressed in one area. Their linguistic (thus genetic) homeland.
Then when the Sahara got green due to the shifting of the Monsoon rains, they separated from each others leading to full dialectisation and thus distinct language creation. The creation (or full blossoming) of proto-Nilotic, proto-Chadic, proto-Cushitic and proto-Niger Kordofanian languages. That is the decompression phases. B and C on the above map.
Then when the Sahara got dry again, all those "newly" distinct languages and people had to move back toward the Nile and other regions of Africa in search of greener pastures. The re-compression phase we see at D.
So before and during the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state, the D map, Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic speakers were now compressed along the Nile. Laying their genetic, linguistic and cultural influences in the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state. Ancient Egyptians were a melting pot composed by those people (and unified under one state by Narmer).
At one point, those people choose a language to be their lingua franca. They have chosen the proto-Ancient Egyptian language. A language influenced by ancient Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic languages (probably closer to Chadic and Cushitic though).
IMO, it's pretty normal for people like you to see some Niger-Congo (Niger-Kordofanian) words in Ancient Egyptians because some of their speakers were compressed along the Nile. Same as people can see Nilo-Saharan, Chadic and Cushite words in Ancient Egyptian. For the same reasons. They also share words from their Negro-Egyptian days (which also explain why Africans, that is Nilo-saharan, Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic speakers who didn't migrate all toward the Nile Valley during the desertification D map re-compression phase also share words and grammar forms. That is even when you don't take account the linguistic compression along the Nile Valley, those language groups still share many words and grammar forms). The Nile Valley after the desertification of the Sahara during the late Holocene became a zone of linguistic and cultural compression. All those languages (thus people) influenced to various degree the Ancient Egyptian lingua franca language as well as the culture they were all part of.
quote:Why don't we talk about the content of the Anselin paper itself? Related to the topic of this thread. Have you read it? What do you think about it? I find the concept of linguistic and cultural compression, decompression and re-compression very interesting among other things. It seems to goes in line with the archeology of the region among other things.
Originally posted by beyoku:
When did you read the Anselin paper for the first time?
quote:Well you cannot even seem to get past the basics which is the association of E-m35 with the migration of Afroasiatic speakers.........As well as the recent origin and migration of E-V32. Also I noted some clear autsomal affinities of the populations you are arguing about and you still fail to grasp it or you are stubbornly arguing against it - Right now I am not sure which one.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Why don't we talk about the content of the Anselin paper itself? Related to the topic of this thread. Have you read it? What do you think about it? I find the concept of linguistic and cultural compression, decompression and re-compression very interesting among other things. It seems to goes in line with the archeology of the region among other things.
Originally posted by beyoku:
When did you read the Anselin paper for the first time?
quote:A lot of fluff for nothing. My reply to Clyde Winters got nothing to do with the M35 among Cushitic/Chadic and Nilo-Saharan speakers. Even yourself agrees with me that E-M35 is part of the original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers. But yes it does seems that Chadic, Cushitic and Berber speaking people too carry a great proportion of E-M35. E-M35 predates the dialectisation/creation of those language groups.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Also I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers.
quote:LOL, Becuase I didnt argue it wasn't an original lineages does not mean I would argue it was. I am keeping my neutrality on an issue like that. And of course ALL these lineages predate and language families but they can still be utilized to point to some of the CORE carriers and what can be an indication of admixture or absorption of some of these Carriers. Haplogroup J and T2 are found in Ethiopian Afroasiatic speakers at even higher frequency than E-m35 lienages are found in Nilo-Saharans!.........Do you hypothesize these lineages were integral in spreading Afroasiatic languages and were "Original lineages" of Afroasiatic speakers?
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:A lot of fluff for nothing. My reply to Clyde Winters got nothing to do with the M35 among Cushitic/Chadic and Nilo-Saharan speakers. Even yourself agrees with me that E-M35 is part of the original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers. But yes it does seems that Chadic, Cushitic and Berber speaking people too carry a great proportion of E-M35. E-M35 predates the dialectisation/creation of those language groups.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Also I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers.
quote:Given your interest in the work of Anselin you may want to check out his journal i-Medjet.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Thanks means a lot coming from you. Much of what I said was inspired by what the Anselin paper said.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Great paper. Thanks.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:The elements are predominance of A-M91 among the Neolithic Nubians(Kushite) aDNA, food producing, religious and cattle domestication culture transferred to the Ancient Egyptians.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:What are these elements? The vast majority of Egyptian terms are related to the Niger-Congo group.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
That's definitely something we can agree on. Nilo-Saharan had a great influence/dominance in the formative years of Ancient Egypt in term of pastoral tradition, religion and food producing culture. Horners were definitely at the tail end of it.
"historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley"
Very interesting indeed that some ancientDNA can confirm this great Nilotic dominance in the early state formation in the Nile Valley. People should note the word: dominance.
Indeed the Ancient Egyptian language have many Nilo-Saharan words. Their culture and religion is **strongly** linked with them.
.
I think the Nile Valley and the Sahara were zones of linguistic and cultural compression and decompression related to climatic changes. This idea is discuss here in Anselin.
Consider this map:
At one point, Nilotic speakers as well as Chadic, Cushitic and Niger-Kordofanian speakers were "compressed" in one areas at the source of the Nile/Ethiopian/Sudan/East African approximate region. All those languages have their homeland in this area. This correspond to the A map in the image above. That is before 8500 BC. Maybe at 8500BC there was already some dialectisation of the Negro-Egyptian language, but that's beside the point. *Before* 8500BC, the A map, Nilotic, Chadic, Cushite, Niger-Kordofanian speakers were all compressed in one area. Their linguistic (thus genetic) homeland.
Then when the Sahara got green due to the shifting of the Monsoon rains, they separated from each others leading to full dialectisation and thus distinct language creation. The creation (or full blossoming) of proto-Nilotic, proto-Chadic, proto-Cushitic and proto-Niger Kordofanian languages. That is the decompression phases. B and C on the above map.
Then when the Sahara got dry again, all those "newly" distinct languages and people had to move back toward the Nile and other regions of Africa in search of greener pastures. The re-compression phase we see at D.
So before and during the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state, the D map, Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic speakers were now compressed along the Nile. Laying their genetic, linguistic and cultural influences in the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state. Ancient Egyptians were a melting pot composed by those people (and unified under one state by Narmer).
At one point, those people choose a language to be their lingua franca. They have chosen the proto-Ancient Egyptian language. A language influenced by ancient Nilo-Saharan, Chadic, Niger-Kordofanian and Cushitic languages (probably closer to Chadic and Cushitic though).
IMO, it's pretty normal for people like you to see some Niger-Congo (Niger-Kordofanian) words in Ancient Egyptians because some of their speakers were compressed along the Nile. Same as people can see Nilo-Saharan, Chadic and Cushite words in Ancient Egyptian. For the same reasons. They also share words from their Negro-Egyptian days (which also explain why Africans, that is Nilo-saharan, Niger-Kordofanian, Cushitic and Chadic speakers who didn't migrate all toward the Nile Valley during the desertification D map re-compression phase also share words and grammar forms. That is even when you don't take account the linguistic compression along the Nile Valley, those language groups still share many words and grammar forms). The Nile Valley after the desertification of the Sahara during the late Holocene became a zone of linguistic and cultural compression. All those languages (thus people) influenced to various degree the Ancient Egyptian lingua franca language as well as the culture they were all part of.
quote:That's ridiculous. Why tell people on this forum that you "never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers", if that's what you think and what you're actually arguing? You're dishonest and ridiculous.
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:LOL, Becuase I didnt argue it wasn't an original lineages does not mean I would argue it was.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:A lot of fluff for nothing. My reply to Clyde Winters got nothing to do with the M35 among Cushitic/Chadic and Nilo-Saharan speakers. Even yourself agrees with me that E-M35 is part of the original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers. But yes it does seems that Chadic, Cushitic and Berber speaking people too carry a great proportion of E-M35. E-M35 predates the dialectisation/creation of those language groups.
Originally posted by beyoku:
[qb]
Also I never argued that E-m35 was not an original lineages of Nilo-Saharan speakers.
quote:LMAO. I can distinctly remember you equating what used to be unresolved Khoisan E-M35 with E-M35 itself a few weeks ago. When are you going to stop acting like you knew all of this all along, when everyone knows you get everything you know from Googling the pieces of information you find here? Why are you masquaring as a know it all, when you're just a fraud who comes here to debate what he picks up as here learns?
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
While interesting, I don't bank too much on paragroups as they are often simply haplogroups waiting to be defined (by genetic analysis).
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Also note in the same table the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung, Khwe and Bantu populations. Since they have no E-M78 in their population they likely acquired the M35 mutation within a population which didn't have the M78 mutation yet. A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation. The Khwe got the highest frequency of E-M35* haplogroup in the world.
quote:That's what I just said in the post above. While I didn't know the paragroup of the Southern African population was already defined as M293, I knew it could have already been defined without me knowing about it or could be in the future, so I took good care in my post in mentioning that the main aspect was them not having receiving it from M78 carrying population (or other already defined M35 descendant haplogroups) as just stated in the post above. Which of course is still true. They received it from Nilo-Saharans populations carrying M35 who didn't carried M78 mutations (nor E-V32 for that matter).
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:LMAO. I can distinctly remember you equating what used to be unresolved Khoisan E-M35 with E-M35 itself a few weeks ago. When are you going to stop acting like you knew all of this all along, when everyone knows you get everything you know from Googling the pieces of information you find here? Why are you masquaring as a know it all, when you're just a fraud who comes here to debate what he picks up as here learns?
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
While interesting, I don't bank too much on paragroups as they are often simply haplogroups waiting to be defined (by genetic analysis).
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Also note in the same table the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung, Khwe and Bantu populations. Since they have no E-M78 in their population they likely acquired the M35 mutation within a population which didn't have the M78 mutation yet. A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation. The Khwe got the highest frequency of E-M35* haplogroup in the world.
quote:Any other population (hint: including Cushitic speakers too)!! So Nilo-Saharan Datog received an older form of M35 and are the originator of the M293. Same way as Hassan suggest Masalit "proximity to the origin of the [E-V32] haplogroup".
The high level of Y-STR diversity on the M293 background in the Datog population, coupled with highest frequency, suggests that the Datog have carried M293 longer than any other population.
quote:I knew about it but had forgotten about it. Thank you for the link.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Given your interest in the work of Anselin you may want to check out his journal i-Medjet.
Check it out below:
http://www.culturediff.org/english/iMedjat10.htm
.
quote:Stop lying. Back then you thought that the aterisk meant that the clade being referred to was the most upstream version. **I** was the one who told you that the Khoisan specific E-M35 was not native to them and unresolved E-M35.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
That's what I just said in the post above.
quote:That is not what you were saying. You're such a lying lamo. You CLEARLY said that Khoisan E-M35* HAD to be basal, because the Khoisan lack of E-M78 is testament to the non-existence of E-M78 back then. Otherwise, you wouldn't even have referred to this E-M35 as ''E-M35 that's close to E-P2''. This is another example of you being schooled on this forum, googling information, and then acting like you knew it all along a couple of days later.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I knew it could have already been defined without me knowing about it or could be in the future, so I took good care in my post in mentioning that the main aspect was them not having receiving it from M78 carrying population
quote:Your reasoning is too retarded for words. The entire E-M35 phylogenetic tree connects all individuals within Afrasan speaking groups, from the tips of various twigs at the bottom (E-M81, E-M34), to the roots at the top (E-M215). You then find a tiny, young, twig somewhere near the bottom of this clearly intrinsically Afrasan tree, and you then claim that this haplogroup can just magically appear in the Nilo-Saharan phylogenetic tree, independent of Afrasan admixture. If I didn't know any better I'd say you're an Euronut trying to make a caricature out of Afronuts by making them look super dumb. But no, you're actually obtuse enough to think that it makes sense that individual sub-clades of E-M35 can appear in Nilo-Saharans, without them possessing the necessary ancestors clades. According to you, haplogroups can just magically appear in any population; they don't need to be present in an ancestral state first, right?
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
They received it from Nilo-Saharans populations carrying M35 who didn't carried M78 mutations (nor E-V32 for that matter).
quote:See what I write above. You don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
So Nilo-Saharan Datog received an older form of M35 and are the originator of the M293.
quote:LMAO. Do you think that Hassan excerpt is in agreement with you? I feel sorry for you, because you clearly have an impaired frontal lobe, lol.
Same way as Hassan suggest Masalit "proximity to the origin of the [E-V32] haplogroup".
quote:Of course you do. That's why, ever since you went outside of the bounds of your picture thread, you've been arguing with established ES posters (who have a much longer history of reading and analysing research than you do), about the most basic, accepted scientific tenets.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
For the record, I never pretended to know it all
quote:This never happened, if it did show us where (what post number in this thread ,or some other thread). You're delusional. The rest of the post is crap too. I don't know why you so mad and why you so butt-hurt about my posts but you need to lay off the emotional baggage from other threads. Can't we just have adult and fun discussions and have different opinions without you throwing a fit every time somebody disagree with you? That type of posts you're making make you sound retarded and juvenile. If you were truly confident about your positions you wouldn't have to do that.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Stop lying. Back then you thought that the aterisk meant that the clade being referred to was the most upstream version. **I** was the one who told you that the Khoisan specific E-M35 was not native to them and unresolved E-M35.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
That's what I just said in the post above.
quote:the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung (....) A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:N.B Swenet won't be able to produce where this has happened because this isn't true and he's delusional.
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Stop lying. Back then you thought that the aterisk meant that the clade being referred to was the most upstream version. **I** was the one who told you that the Khoisan specific E-M35 was not native to them and unresolved E-M35.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
That's what I just said in the post above.
quote:How do you know Borgu got the E-M35* paragroup?
Originally posted by beyoku:
Borgu which have a significant amount of E-M35*
quote:Well, let's wait and see. At the moment, Nilotic Datog seems to have the highest frequency and diversity of it (as far as I know of course).
Originally posted by beyoku:
^ E-M293 is also found in Ethiopia as well. When the New data from that plaster et al paper undergoes full resolution it would be quite apparent of its spread.
quote:M35 did originate in Eastern Africa, among pre-nilotic but also pre-chadic and pre-Cushitic people, who were "unified"/interrelated and spoke one common language, so many groups there could have developed later on their own more recent mutations of M35. Nilo-Saharans but also other East Africans like Horn Africans for example. This doesn't contradict me. As I already said, M35 predates the dialectisation/creation of those languages.
Originally posted by beyoku:
Also you need to see its phylogeny as it relates to other E-m35 subclades that are found in Afro-asiatic speakers - E-Z830. It is a brother clade to more exclusive Horn specific and lineages associated with Afroasiatic speakers.
quote:Again, I don't see how this contradict me. Masalit still got some of the highest amount M78 in the world. If not the highest, the second highest (as far as I know of course, there's always new studies). They carry both V22 and V32 mutations (descendant of E-M78). BTW, the Hassan study in Sudan came after the Cruciani study so Cruciani didn't take it into account. So it's perfectly plausible for them having transmitted those haplogroup to other East Africans earlier or at the same time they transmitted their food producing and pottery making technology. The datation seems to in fact coincide with this. Not only do the highest frequency of M78 is an indication they could be originator of that haplogroup. The food producing/pottery making technology provide an archeological explanation for it (which Horn Africans were on the receiving end). Thus Horn Africans could be on the receiving hand of M78/V32 too. Which is something pretty common. That is being on the receiving end of food producing technology as well as geneflow (haplogroups). Because food producing technology provide some reproductive advantages which Nilotic had.
Looking at the assumed dates of E-m78 subclades you can get an idea of what could be some of the earliest divergences between The V22 and V12 lineages that are found in the more Homogenous Southern Sudanese, vs the recent V32 lineage that is found in high abundance in Western Sudanese and other Ethnic groups in Kenya.
quote:the presence of the E-M35* paragroup in South African !kung (....) A population close to the E-P2* who just got introduced the M35 mutation.
Swenet You deliberately misquote me using ellipses
quote:We could get back to that but first you are going to have to take some time out to differentiate the most likely aboriginal groups, and what lineages these group carried to know what is considered admixture upon what base.
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Let's recall the topic of this thread:
I would like to use this thread as a repository on:
-The interconnection and plasticity of "Nubia/Nubians" and "Ancient Egypt"....Particularly Ancient Southern Egypt.
-The plasticity on what/who is considered Nilo-Saharan vs that of Afro-Asiatic.
-The hypothesized distinct or overlapping territory of the two groups.
-The distinct or overlapping genetics of the two groups in terms of Ancient and Modern DNA.
-The Biohistorical affiliation of Ancient Saharans and their relations to these two (and other) groups.
-Cultural/Genetic influences of Saharans/Egytians/Sudanese on each other.
quote:I'm currently playing with the idea that the Jebel Sahaba population weren't Nilo-Saharan speakers either. I base this 1) on their age (aren't they too old and too far up North to represent off-shoots of the originally equatorial early Nilo-Saharan speakers?), 2) their seeming morphometric continuity with earlier Nile Valley skulls (e.g., Wadi-Kubbaniya and the Esna skulls) which seems to predate the Nilo-Saharan linguistic clade 3) their very obviously highly local backed bladelet industry and subsistence strategies 4) the fact that Nilotic people seem to already have been identified as the LSA Elmenteita populations who are much closer to the proposed Nilo-Saharan urheimhat than Lower Nile Valley populations are. What do you make of this?
Originally posted by Truthcentric:
BUMP
Given the observation in post #2 that A-Group Nubians had a physical morphology distinct from that of other Nile Valley peoples, I wonder if they represent the proto-Afroasiatic element instead of the Nilo-Saharan one?
quote:
Originally posted by Evergreen:
Population continuity after all? Potential late Pleistocene dental ancestors of Holocene Nubians have been found!
JOEL D. IRISH. Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
Since the mid-1960s, some anthropologists have posited biological continuity in late Pleistocene through recent Nubians. However, subsequent dental and skeletal research revealed that a broad range of Holocene samples, all of which share appreciable spatiotemporal phenetic homogeneity, differ significantly from those at the Late Paleolithic sites of Wadi Halfa and Jebel Sahaba. If the latter two Lower Nubian samples are representative of local peoples at that time, then post-Pleistocene discontinuity is implied.
Who, then, were the ancestors of Holocene Nubians? A preliminary comparison of dental nonmetric data in 15 late Pleistocene through early historic Nubian samples (n=795 individuals) with recently discovered remains from al Khiday in Upper Nubia may provide the answer. Dating to at least 9,000+ BP, the new sample (n=40) may be the first of Late Paleolithic age recovered in >40 years; however, until additional fieldwork and dating are conducted, the excavators prefer the more conservative term of "pre-Mesolithic."
Using the Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System to record traits and multivariate statistics to estimate pairwise affinities, it is evident that al Khiday is closely akin to most Holocene samples. It is widely divergent from Jebel Sahaba. As such, there does appear to be long-term biological continuity in the region after all – though with late Pleistocene Upper- instead of Lower Nubians. While it cannot be proven that the al Khiday people were directly related, they are, minimally, indicative of what such an ancestor would be like – assuming that phenetic affinities are indicators of genetic variation.
Thanks to Sandro Salvatori and Donatella Usai, Archaeological Mission at El Salha, Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, and Tina Jakob, Durham University. Funding provided by the National Science Foundation (BNS-0104731), Wenner-Gren Foundation (#7557), National Geographic Society (#8116-06), and Institute for Bioarchaeology.
quote:Considering that the al Khiday site is located all the way down in Central Sudan near Khartoum, I'd say this attests to people from the south moving downriver. Beyoku may be onto something when he proposes northward movements of people from the Sudanic area into the Nile Valley.
Originally posted by Swenet:
Its very very likely that the A-group Nubians were genetically different from the earlier Jebel Sahaba populations (though not necessarily Afrasan speakers). The al-Kiday Nubian population is, skeletally speaking, a much better ancestral population for mid-holocene Nubians (A, C-group and later Nile Valley Nubians) than Jebel Sahabans. Unfortunately, not much is known about the biological affiliations of the al-Khiday population. Perhaps you're able to dig something up in your library?
quote:
Originally posted by Evergreen:
Population continuity after all? Potential late Pleistocene dental ancestors of Holocene Nubians have been found!
JOEL D. IRISH. Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
Since the mid-1960s, some anthropologists have posited biological continuity in late Pleistocene through recent Nubians. However, subsequent dental and skeletal research revealed that a broad range of Holocene samples, all of which share appreciable spatiotemporal phenetic homogeneity, differ significantly from those at the Late Paleolithic sites of Wadi Halfa and Jebel Sahaba. If the latter two Lower Nubian samples are representative of local peoples at that time, then post-Pleistocene discontinuity is implied.
Who, then, were the ancestors of Holocene Nubians? A preliminary comparison of dental nonmetric data in 15 late Pleistocene through early historic Nubian samples (n=795 individuals) with recently discovered remains from al Khiday in Upper Nubia may provide the answer. Dating to at least 9,000+ BP, the new sample (n=40) may be the first of Late Paleolithic age recovered in >40 years; however, until additional fieldwork and dating are conducted, the excavators prefer the more conservative term of "pre-Mesolithic."
Using the Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System to record traits and multivariate statistics to estimate pairwise affinities, it is evident that al Khiday is closely akin to most Holocene samples. It is widely divergent from Jebel Sahaba. As such, there does appear to be long-term biological continuity in the region after all – though with late Pleistocene Upper- instead of Lower Nubians. While it cannot be proven that the al Khiday people were directly related, they are, minimally, indicative of what such an ancestor would be like – assuming that phenetic affinities are indicators of genetic variation.
Thanks to Sandro Salvatori and Donatella Usai, Archaeological Mission at El Salha, Istituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, and Tina Jakob, Durham University. Funding provided by the National Science Foundation (BNS-0104731), Wenner-Gren Foundation (#7557), National Geographic Society (#8116-06), and Institute for Bioarchaeology.
quote:
Originally posted by Evergreen:
Population continuity after all? Potential late
Pleistocene dental ancestors of Holocene Nubians
have been found!
JOEL D. IRISH. Department of Anthropology,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK.
Since the mid-1960s, some anthropologists have
posited biological continuity in late Pleistocene
through recent Nubians. However, subsequent
dental and skeletal research revealed that a
broad range of Holocene samples, all of which
share appreciable spatiotemporal phenetic
homogeneity, differ significantly from those at
the Late Paleolithic sites of Wadi Halfa and
Jebel Sahaba. If the latter two Lower Nubian
samples are representative of local peoples at
that time, then post-Pleistocene discontinuity is
implied.
Who, then, were the ancestors of Holocene
Nubians? A preliminary comparison of dental
nonmetric data in 15 late Pleistocene through
early historic Nubian samples (n=795 individuals)
with recently discovered remains from al Khiday
in Upper Nubia may provide the answer. Dating to
at least 9,000+ BP, the new sample (n=40) may be
the first of Late Paleolithic age recovered in
>40 years; however, until additional fieldwork
and dating are conducted, the excavators prefer
the more conservative term of "pre-Mesolithic."
Using the Arizona State University Dental
Anthropology System to record traits and
multivariate statistics to estimate pairwise
affinities, it is evident that al Khiday is
closely akin to most Holocene samples. It is
widely divergent from Jebel Sahaba. As such,
there does appear to be long-term biological
continuity in the region after all – though with
late Pleistocene Upper- instead of Lower
Nubians. While it cannot be proven that the
al Khiday people were directly related, they are,
minimally, indicative of what such an ancestor
would be like – assuming that phenetic affinities
are indicators of genetic variation.
Thanks to Sandro Salvatori and Donatella Usai,
Archaeological Mission at El Salha, Istituto
Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, and Tina
Jakob, Durham University. Funding provided by the
National Science Foundation (BNS-0104731),
Wenner-Gren Foundation (#7557), National
Geographic Society (#8116-06), and Institute for
Bioarchaeology.
quote:[/qb][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by white nubian:
Nubians were originally Caucasoid People, who became darker over time by mixing with some Black Africans. Their Genes and DNA tell us these facts!! We should not close our eyes to the truth, when doing so will always be a Coward's Way Out of Seeing The Writing On The Wall.!!!!!
quote:White Nubian Wins Again!!!!
Originally posted by white nubian:
George Zimmerman Will Be Found: "Not Guilty", by reason of "Sanity". Riots will occur and a few victims will be done in, but eventually the truth will defeat the hasty "rush to convict" crowds of "who cares about the truth, we just want justice "our way or no way"......and a little fame and attention.
Thanks Stanley For Helping People Understand The Fake Science of Afrocentrism.
quote:[/
Originally posted by userman:
Stanley Crouch
The Afrocentric Hustle
Though their claims have little intellectual substance, advocates of Afrocentrism press their agenda by appealing to resentment and guilt.
Our democracy is founded in tragic optimism, an acceptance of human frailty that is not defeatist. Like the blues singer, our American job is to address the universal limitations of life and the foibles of human character while asserting a lyrical but unsentimental high-mindedness. Like the doctor, our democracy must face the unavoidable varieties of disease, decay, and death, yet maintain
commitment to birth, to health, to the infinite possibilities and freedoms that can result from successful research and experimentation.
It is, therefore, our democratic duty to cast a cold eye on the life of our policies. We have to weed out corruption whenever we encounter it and redeem ourselves from bad or naive policy, either by making fresh experiments or by returning to things that once worked but were set aside for new approaches that promised to do the job better. If we don’t accept these democratic duties, we will continue to allow intellectual con artists and quacks to raise their tents and hang their shingles on our campuses.
The emergence of Afrocentrism has revealed a continuing crisis in the intellectual assessment of race, history, and culture in our nation. It is another example of how quickly we will submit to visions that are at odds with the heroic imperative of uniting our society. Quite obviously, when it comes to skin tone and complaint, we remain ever gullible, willing to sponsor almost any set of conceptions that makes fresh accusations against our society. In that sense, Afrocentrism is also a commentary on the infinite career possibilities of our time. Just as almost anything can be sold as art, almost any idea capable of finding a constituency can make its way onto our campuses and into our discussions of policy.
In the interest of doing penance, we will accept a shaky system of thought if it makes use of the linguistic pressure points that allow us to experience the sadomasochistic rituals we accept in place of the hard study and responsible precision that should be brought to the continuing assessment of new claims and new ideas. Our desperate good will pushes us to pretend that these flagellation rituals have something to do with facing the facts about injustice in our country and in the history of the world. The refusal to accept the tragic fundamentals of human life has led to our bending before a politics of blame in which all evil can be traced to the devil’s address, which is, in some way, the address of the privileged and the successful. We have borrowed from the realm of therapy the idea that our parents are to blame for our problems, and projected it onto the larger society, absolving the so-called oppressed from responsibility for their actions. We don’t understand—as did the geniuses who shaped the Constitution—that we must always be so cynical about new ways of abusing power that we remain ever wary of intellectual and political pollution.
As a movement, Afrocentrism is another of the clever but essentially simple-minded hustles that have come about over the last 25 years, promoted by what was once called “the professional Negro”—a person whose “identity” and “struggle” constituted a commodity. James Baldwin was a master of the genre, as a writer, public speaker, and television guest, but he arrived before his brand of engagement by harangue was institutionalized. Now, as for most specious American ideas claiming to “get the story straight,” the best market for this commodity is our universities, where it sells like pancakes, buttered by the naive indignation of students and sweetened by gushes of pitying or self-pitying syrup.
Though at its core Afrocentrism has little intellectual substance, it has benefited from the overall decline of faith that has caused intellectuals to fumble the heroic demands of our time. The discontinuity of ideals and actions and the long list of atrocities committed in the name of God and country have convinced many Western intellectuals that the only sensible postures are those of the defeatist and the cynic. Like the tenured Marxist, the Afrocentrist will use the contradiction to define the whole; he or she asserts that Western civilization, for all its pretty ideas, is no more than the work of imperialists and racists who seek an invincible order of geopolitical domination, inextricably connected to profit and exploitation of white over black. The ideals of Western democracies that have struggled to push their policies closer to the universal humanism of the Enlightenment are scoffed at. Where the Marxist looks forward to a sentimental paradise of workers uber alles, the Afrocentrist speaks of a paradise lost and the possibility of a paradise regained—if only black people will rediscover the essentials of their African identity.
For all its pretensions to expanding our vision, the Afrocentrist movement is not propelled by a desire to bring about any significant enrichment of our American culture. What Afrocentrists almost always want is power—the power to be the final arbiter of historical truth, no matter how flimsy their case might be. Like most conspiracy theorists, Afrocentrists accept only their own sources of argument and “proof”; all else is defined as either willfully flawed or brought to debate solely to maintain a vision of history and ideas in which Europe is preeminent. Thus, the worst insult is that critics are “Eurocentric.” Further, when charged with shoddy scholarship, the Afrocentrist retorts that his purportedly revolutionary work uses means of research and assessment outside “European methodology.” However superficial that defense might seem, an important tradition in our country’s history makes it seem at least plausible at first glance. Americans have, from the sciences to the arts, as often as not had to invent the forms that allowed for the purest expressions of our political imagination, national sensibility, and multiethnic history. The Gettysburg
Address, the Second Inaugural of March 1865, the electric fight, the phonograph, the motion picture camera, the grammar of film, and the improvisational riches of jazz are the creations of homegrown geniuses such as Lincoln, Edison, Griffith, and Armstrong, who made it abundantly clear that the academy isn’t the only path to grand accomplishment.
Jazz is one of the most important examples of this. It is a perfectly democratic music that reached its peaks outside of “European methodology. “ It has both intuitive geniuses like Louis Armstrong and Billie Holiday and unarguable intellectuals like Duke Ellington and Dizzy Gillespie. Both were rejected by the academy once upon a twentieth-century time. Those with a simple explanation attribute it all to race, which can by no means be left out of the discussion. But we must remember that white jazz musicians were not embraced either, no matter how popular, and that most major aesthetic movements of this century were controversial worldwide. In short, the academic and critical resistance met by jazz musicians was also met by Picasso, Joyce, and Stravinsky.
Jazz musicians weren’t initially accepted in academic circles because, though they could hear harmonic structures perfectly, the intuitives didn’t use theoretical terminology. The intellectuals could, but it took both to make jazz. The intuitives and the intellectuals had one thing in common, however—the ability to achieve objective aesthetic logic. That is why the music grew with such speed and drew depth and breadth from every kind of talent.
So when Afrocentrists defend low-quality work with assertions about the limitations of “European methodology,” they arc drawing upon the American tradition of achievements in political thought, technology, cinema, and jazz that were developed outside the academy to defend themselves. They ignore, however, the objective quality of those achievements. As Gerald Early points out, Afrocentrists have bootlegged the deconstructionist idea that there is no such thing as objective value; a thing’s “value” is merely the reflection of a cultural consensus.
Afrocentrists also reject education as “Eurocentric indoctrination.” They maintain that Western history as written is an unrelenting cultural war that aims to justify and maintain the subjugation of African peoples, and, when literal subjugation is not the goal, to impose upon them a self-hating idolatry of all that is European or European-derived. Afrocentrism, then, presents itself as ethnic liberation, a circling of the wagons within the academy, a bringing down of Eurocentric authority by black intellectual rebellion.
At the same time, Afrocentrists—like those who promote other protest versions of study—want the respect given to traditional disciplines without having to measure up to the standards of traditional research. Though ever scoffing at the academy, they want the prestige and the benefits that come of being there. Thus, Afrocentrism is the career path of a purported radical who seeks tenure. Its proponents justify this on the grounds that the campaign is at least partially one of evangelizing black people about their African heritage. What better battlegrounds than the campuses of tenuring institutions?
A central tenet of Afrocentrism is that Egypt was black and that Greco-Roman civilization was the result of its influence. The foundation of Western civilization, therefore, is African. This is a relatively sophisticated version of Elijah Muhammad’s Yacub myth in which the white man is invented by a mad black scientist determined to destroy the world through an innately evil creature. Why this obsession with Egypt being African and black? Firstly, monuments. There is no significant African architecture capable of rivaling the grand wonders of the world, European or not. Secondly, Africa has no body of thought comparable to that upon which Western civilization has developed its morality, governmental structures, technology, economic systems, and its literary, dramatic, plastic, and musical arts. None of these facts bespeaks an innate black inferiority, but they were used to justify the barbaric treatment of subject peoples by colonial powers waging ruthless campaigns for chattel labor and natural resources.
In fact, the Afrocentrist argument is not with the Western tradition of inquiry, not with the democratic belief that greatness can arise from any point on the social spectrum, and not with the ideas of the Enlightenment that led to the abolition of slavery. Afrocentrism is a debate with the colonial vision of non-Europeans as inferior that has long been under attack from within Western democracies themselves. The Afrocentrist arguments, which are rooted in nationalism, pluralism, and cultural relativity, have their origins in the Western tradition of critical discourse. Afrocentrism is absolutely Western, despite the name changes and African costumes of its advocates.
Afrocentrism benefits from the obsession with “authenticity” of this mongrel nation of ours. More than a few of us yearn for an aristocratic pedigree. If family won’t do, then we might snatch the unwieldy crown of race to distinguish ourselves. This has been the appeal of both the Ku Klux Man and the Nation of Islam. Membership allows one to rise from the bottom and suddenly become part of an elite. Poor “white trash” become “real” white men when performing violent acts in defense of “white civilization.” Negro criminals, embracing a distorted version of Islam, come to understand that the white man is “the devil” and that the black race is the original parent of humankind. College students swallow Afrocentrism and conclude that all their problems are the result of not possessing an “African-centered” worldview.
These are also responses to humiliation. That humiliation is the source of the hysteria that gives such a terrible aspect to the desire to be done with all niceties, to utterly destroy the structure that has engendered the feeling of inferiority or of helplessly being had from the first encounter up to the present. Such response is an expression of having taken the insults of the opposition too seriously, a retreat from engagement, a dismissal of complexity in favor of the home team, a racial isolationist policy.
To justify the myopic vision that emerges requires a list of atrocities—real, exaggerated, and invented. The great tragedies of the white South were the loss of the Civil War and the humiliations of Reconstruction; for the black nationalist, the great tragedies were slavery, the colonial exploitation of Africa, and the European denial of the moral superiority of African culture and civilization, beginning with Egypt.
Our list of grievances may be specific to our particular ethnic or regional history, but the ideas that lie beneath our response evolved from the conflicts between the French and the Germans following the Thirty Years War. When Frederick the Great invited the French into Germany in the eighteenth century, French culture was the most admired in Europe, while Germany had contributed very little to the Renaissance. In today’s terminology, Germany was “underdeveloped.” Eventually, a whole school of rebellious German thought came into being, attacking the French worship of reason and the idea that there was one cultural standard by which all good, mediocrity, and baseness could be judged. When Isaiah Berlin describes outraged German thinking in The Crooked Timber of Humanity, he could be speaking as easily of Afrocentrism and the cultural relativism that has been absorbed by Western society in general from the discipline of anthropology:
The sages of Paris reduce both knowledge and life to systems of contrived rules, the pursuit of external goods, for which men prostitute themselves, and sell their inner freedom, their authenticity; men, Germans, should seek to be themselves, instead of imitating—aping—strangers who have no connection with their own real natures and memories and ways of life. A man’s powers of creation can only be exercised fully on his own native heath, living among men who are akin to him, physically and spiritually, those who speak his language, amongst whom he feels at home, with whom he feels that he belongs. Only so can true cultures be generated, each unique, each making its own peculiar contribution to human civilization, each pursuing its own values its own way, not to be submerged in some general cosmopolitan ocean which robs all native cultures of their particular substance and colour, of their national spirit and genius, which can only flourish on its own soil, from its own roots, stretching back into a common past.
Afrocentrism’s success is due to the fact that it reiterates those arguments, which have become central to the Western cultural debate. But we fail ourselves if we give in to the idea that because all human communities have equal access to greatness all cultures are equal. They are not, and the ignorance, squalor, and disease of the Third World make that quite obvious, just as the rise of the Third Reich and the recent slide into overt tribalism in Eastern Europe prove that no ideas or traditions make us forever invincible to the barbarian call of the wild. Yet if there were not something intrinsically superior about the way in which the West has gathered and ordered knowledge, other cultures wouldn’t so easily fall under the sway of what André Malraux called “The Temptation of the West.” The West has put together the largest and richest repository of human culture, primarily because the vision of universal humanism and the tradition of scientific inquiry have led to the most impressive investigations into human life and the natural world. It is Western curiosity and the conscience of democracy that have made so many inroads against barbarism within and without.
This is obvious to Afrocentrists, but it is not in their career interests to look with equal critical vision at the West and the rest of the world; it would make things less reducible to soap opera politics, to the maudlin elevation of simplistic good and evil. Then the real question of bringing together one’s ethnic heritage with one’s human heritage would need to be addressed. It wouldn’t be so easy to manipulate the emotions of administrators and insecure students. Embracing a circumscribed ethnic identity wouldn’t be seen as a form of therapy, a born-again experience enabling one to cease being an American shackled by feelings of inferiority and to become a confident, wise African.
The Afrocentrist goal is quite similar to that of the white South in the wake of Reconstruction. Having lost the shooting war, white racists won the policy war, establishing a segregated society in which racial interests took precedence over the national vision of democratic rights. The result was nearly a century of struggle before the Constitution—through blood, thunder, and jurisprudence—took its rightful place as the law of the land, with no states’ rights arguments accepted. Knowingly or not, the Afrocentrist responds to the fact that black nationalists and their “revolutionary” counterparts lost the struggle for the black community in the Sixties. In the wake of submission at a latter-day Appomattox—the dissolution of black nationalism and groups like the Black Panthers—the Afrocentrist wishes to replicate the success of white segregationists. Like the segregationist, the Afrocentrist wants to benefit from the power and prosperity of the country while holding at arm’s length anything incompatible with a vision of race as a social absolute. The Afrocentrist is waging a policy war through a curriculum that preaches perpetual alienation of black and white, no matter how far removed from the truth it may be. By attempting to win the souls of black college students and to fundamentally influence what is taught to black children in public schools, the Afrocentrist seeks a large enough constituency to bring about what white segregationists once promised—a society that is “separate but equal.”
Yet the central failure of Afrocentrism is that it doesn’t recognize what Afro-Americans have done, which is to realize over and over, and often against imposing obstacles, the possibilities inherent in democratic society. Lincoln recognized this when he told his secretary that, given his point of social origin, Frederick Douglass was probably the most meritorious man in the entire United States. Originating in tribes whose levels of sophistication were laughable compared to the best of Europe, black Americans have risen to the top of every profession in our society—as scientists, educators, aviators, politicians, artists, lawyers, judges, athletes, military leaders, and so on.
This achievement was hard-won. At its root was a cultural phenomenon. Instead of expressing their submission to white people by embracing Christianity, as black nationalists always claim, Afro-Americans recognized the extraordinary insights into human frailty that run throughout the Old Testament, and the fact that the New Testament contains perhaps the greatest blues line of all time—”Father, why hast thou forsaken me?” In essence, the harsh insights of the Bible were perfectly compatible with the cold-eyed affirmation of the blues, and from those spiritual and secular foundations an indelibly American sensibility evolved, one perfectly suited to the demands of this society. The result is an incredibly long line of achievements that predate the narrow black nationalism that would segregate the world and its culture into the Eurocentric or Afrocentric, and which are the very best arguments against all forms of prejudice.
We all deny that tradition of hard-won achievement whenever our conciliatory cowardice gets the best of us and we treat black people like spoiled children who shouldn’t be asked to meet the standards that the best of all Americans have met. When the records need to be set straight, set them straight. When there is new information that will enrich our understanding of human grandeur and human folly, make that information part of the ongoing dialogue that has shaped Western civilization’s conscience and will. But we can never forget that our fate as Americans is, finally, collective, and that we fail our mission as a democratic nation whenever we remake the rules or distort the truth in the interest of satisfying a constituency unwilling to assert the tragic optimism so intrinsic to the blues and to the Constitution.
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:[/qb
Originally posted by Toilet Patty:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Toilet Patty:
[qb]
http://imalqata.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/aiii-mccm-2009-1-5-1-bwfront-view_0000-2.jpg
quote:Well considering that racial groups like "caucasoid" don't exist, pray tell which genes and DNA are you referring to?! LMAO
Originally posted by white nobody:
Nubians were originally Caucasoid People, who became darker over time by mixing with some Black Africans.
Their Genes and DNA tell us these facts!!
We should not close our eyes to the truth, when doing so will always be a Coward's Way Out of Seeing The Writing On The Wall.!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^^ Another reason why you are so obtuse, Xyz. Let's NOT call them "caucasoid" because there is NO SUCH THING!
Racial groupings are not scientifically valid for the very reason that it is totally subjective and specious and not based on objective parameters.
This was already explained in Tukulor's thread stickied to the top of this forum section called Why we don't play the caucasus and other -oid games.
But apparently the "we" in Tukulor's title excludes YOU.
That Euronuts continue to play the silly debunked game is their problem.
For them to try to engage us in the game is only a minor problem or rather nuisance we can easily debunk.
But for you to join them and play their game means you haven't risen above the nonsense and are still share in their narrow mindedness little intellect.
quote:Well considering that racial groups like "caucasoid" don't exist, pray tell which genes and DNA are you referring to?! LMAO
Originally posted by white nobody:
Nubians were originally Caucasoid People, who became darker over time by mixing with some Black Africans.
Their Genes and DNA tell us these facts!!
We should not close our eyes to the truth, when doing so will always be a Coward's Way Out of Seeing The Writing On The Wall.!!!!!
Indeed we should not close our eyes to the truth!
So please point out what evidence you are talking about!
I certainly hope you aren't referring to the sources cited by Swenet (originally Evergreen) since they say NOTHING about "Caucasoids" or even genetics.
Plus, the skeletal remains are still very much tropically adapted and were found to the SOUTH in central Sudan,
meaning they were still BLACK and African and were not "mixed" and have nothing to with non-African immigrants at least from the evidence thus far!
So perhaps you should take your own advise and see the "writings on the wall" i.e. scientific evidence,
and stop running from it like the coward you are!
as usually the "delusional white nobody" will insert something but without giving any solid peer reviewed references. quote:--Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60
Northern Egypt near the Mediterranean shows the same pattern- limb length data puts its peoples closer to tropically adapted Africans that cold climate Europeans
"[...]sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.
The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
quote:--Barry Kemp. (2006) Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. p. 54
"When the Elephantine results were added to a broader pooling of the physical characteristics drawn from a wide geographic region which includes Africa, the Mediterranean and the Near East quite strong affinities emerge between Elephantine and populations from Nubia, supporting a strong south-north cline."
quote:--Meredith F. Small* et al.
Morphological variation of the skeletal remains of ancient Nubia has been traditionally explained as a product of multiple migrations into the Nile Valley. In contrast, various researchers have noted a continuity in craniofacial variation from Mesolithic through Neolithic times.
This apparent continuity could be explained by in situ cultural evolution producing shifts in selective pressures which may act on teeth, the facial complex, and the cranial vault.
A series of 13 Mesolithic skulls from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, are compared to Nubian Neolithic remains by means of extended canonical analysis. Results support recent research which suggests consistent trends of facial reduction and cranial vault expansion from Mesolithic through Neolithic times.
quote:Be patience, it will pay off well.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Hey Swenet, it's funny that you cited that info on early Nubians in regards to their relationship to Nilo-Saharans
as well as the relationships between them i.e. late Pleistocene vs. Holocene,
because I've been meaning to create a thread on the topic of 'Pre-Nilotic' peoples in the Nile Valley.
Of course I'm waiting for a more opportune time in which I don't have to worry about Euronut trolls screwing up my thread.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:(Keita 1996; Rethelford, 2001; Bianchi 2004, Yurco 1989; Godde 2009)
"African peoples are the most diverse in the world whether analyzed by DNA or skeletal or cranial methods. The peoples of the Nile Valley vary but they are still related. The people most related ethnically to the ancient Egyptians are other Africans like Nubians not cold-climate/light skinned Europeans or Asiatics.