posted
I've put this topic in Egyptology so that trolls can't hijack it with disruptions because there is moderation in the Egyptology forum. Getting to the Basics......
We've all seen the evidence about so-called "Eurasian" lineages in African Horn and Nile Valley but lets have a good old discussion about it again in old school egyptsearch fashion. My position is that eventhough so called "Eurasian" lineages have come into both the Nile Valley and Horn, they've had relatively moderate to negligible impact on the populations and did *NOT* alter the biological African character of either.
Lets look at the anthropological side, the following quotes from Schepartz et al are very important and merit heavy consideration:
The African Archaeological Review, 6 (1988), pp. 57 72 Who were the later Pleistocene eastern Africans? L . A . SCHEPARTZ
- "Linguistic evidence suggests that, prehistorically, eastern Africa was a place where speakers of at least two other language phyla might have congregated. Ehret's (1974a) reconstruction of proto-Nilotic places Nilo-Saharan-speakers in eastern Africa by at least 4-6000 BP. In keeping with this, Sutton (1974,1977) has suggested that Nilotic language-speakers living in northern Kenya today provide a good analogy for the archaeological remains of semi-permanent lakeshore habitations in the same area dating from between 10,000 and 4000 BP (Owen et al. 1982). Afroasiatic is another language phylum that may have been present early in eastern Africa. Ehret (1974b) suggests Afroasiatic (Southern Cushitic) speakers began moving into eastern Africa at least 5000 years ago and that they may have been responsible for early stone cairn burials in northern Kenya (Stiles and Munro-Hay 1981). Given these linguistic arguments for early populations of Nilo-Saharan and Afroasiatic language-speakers in eastern Africa and their ties with current eastern African populations, it seems more reasonable to regard those groups as the earliest known populations in the region, and to reserve judgement on the role of click language-speakers."
- "If some of the eastern African rock paintings date to the terminal Pleistocene or early Holocene, the tall 'Kolo' peoples may represent groups like the lakeshore fishing folk thought to have been in eastern Africa at least as early as 10,000 BP (Barthelme 1977, 1981; Owen et al. 1982). Human remains from the lakeshore sites of Lothagam, the Lake Turkana Galana Boi beds and Ishango are tall and linear, exactly the features depicted in the 'Kolo' style paintings. This link between the 'Kolo' style paintings and skeletons from the lakeshore sites is supported by other evidence. Archaeologists have proposed that ancestral populations of either Nilo-Saharan (Sutton 1974, 1977) or Afroasiatic language-speakers could have been responsible for these lakeshore sites; and modern speakers of both linguistic phyla are among the tallest and most slender people of eastern Africa (Hiernaux 1968, 1975).
"The role of tall, linearly built populations in eastern Africa's prehistory has always been debated. Traditionally, they are viewed as late migrants into the area. But as there is better palaeoanthropological and linguistic documentation for the earlier presence of these populations than for any other group in eastern Africa, it is far more likely that they are indigenous eastern Africans. I have argued elsewhere (Schepartz 1985) that these prehistoric linear populations show resemblances to both Upper Pleistocene eastern African fossils and present-day, non-Bantu-speaking groups in eastern Africa, with minor differences stemming from changes in overall robusticity of the dentition and skeleton. This suggests a longstanding tradition of linear populations in eastern Africa, contributing to the indigenous development of cultural and biological diversity from the Pleistocene up to the present."
Thus as we can see, population continuity is firmly established and that the Afro-Asiatic and Nilotic speaking populations of East Africa and the Horn are *NOT* morphologically influenced "True Negroids" via mixture from Mediterranean so-called "Caucasoids". If there was any such migration into the Horn and East Africa from the Middle East the population who migrated back in morphologically must have been very similar to the population already there[Natufian type people bearing haplogroup J1-M267?]or was so small numerically that they were absorbed by the indigenous population and left no impact on the indigenous population morphologically.
We now look at the genetic side of things. Honers/East Africans are predominately Haplogroup A, B, and E paternally with J in substantial frequencies in *SELECT* populations[Amhara]. The frequency of J in my opinion is a product of genetic drift and or distinct mating patterns amongst the Amhara based on what was posted above, that the modern populations are morphologically continuous with the prehistoric ones and no skeletal remains resembling those of so called "Caucasoids" have been found in this area. It would appear that a small population of people migrated in and were absorbed by the local population and through distinct mating patterns and genetic drift the frequency of J increased, but enough to erase the pre-existing NRY haplogroup diversity already present. Lets observed this image:
(Source: Ethiopians and Khoisan share the deepest clades of the human Y-chromosome phylogeny, Semino et al, 2002
We see three sets of Ethiopians being used and only the Amhara show any high frequencies of J haplogroups, the Oromo and another set of Ethiopians who ethnicity is not listed show low to negligible frequencies of J, the predominant "Eurasian" lineage in Ethiopians. Could this be evidence of distinct patriarchical marriage among some Amhara?
At any rate we observe that African haplogroups form the predominant Y chromosone variation in Ethiopians, with haplogroups A and B and E2-M75 and various E-M35 derived lineages, thus J and the numerous small Eurasian lineages have had only a relatively moderate to minor impact on the pre-existing African NRY diversity, thus genetic continuity is attested to without any real discontinuity.
More to come.....
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome back, Bass! I for one am glad to see you, and right on time for Christmas!
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Big up to T.Rex, Knowledgeseky, Evergreen, rasol, Supercar, Djheuti and the one that taught me how to do this thing Ausar. Can't forget kenndo too and Myra and Clyde Winters.
Moving on to the Nile Valley, I will do a quick breakdown of the anthropological side of things and let the vets and those in the Inner Circle of Knowledge assist me on the genetic continuity part.
As with the Horn/East Africa, the Egypt and the Nile Valley shows considerable continuity with modern populations of those regions, though Egypt has been heavily impacted by immigration and mixture. A common lie/distortion misperception is that so called "Negroid" traits entered the Egypt through immigration from Nubia and or slaves from sub-Saharan Africa.
We will start by examining a passage from Shomarka Keita regarding so-called "Negroid" traits and the time depth these traits has been in the Nile Valley: The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians Professor S.O.Y. Keita Department of Biological Anthropology Oxford University
Professor A. J. Boyce University Reader in Human Population Oxford University
"Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. 8b]In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times[/b] (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans."
As we can plainly see, so called "Negroid" traits/broad trend African morphotype have been in Egypt/Nile Valley since the earliest antiquity and see clear continuity up and well into the Dynastic period along with the "Elongated African" morphotype, even aftr accounting for geneflow from the Lower Egypt and foreign migration and they can still be observed amongst the modern Upper Egyptians today. Eurocentrists would like for us to believe that the earliest population of Egypt were pure Euro-looking "Caucasoids" and or Syro-Palestine looking people, but no evidence exists for that position.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good work Bass/Priest. Keep it coming. And it appears that those "Eurasian" lineages are comparatively recent, after the first millenium, according to Keita (2004).
Some Horn populations assimilated southwest Asians, and even adopted their languages, which likely began as lingua francas. Certain Ethiopian groups evince substantial frequencies of ‘‘Near Eastern’’ genes (Y chromosome J group lineages), likely due to the assimilation of migrants after the first millennium BC(Munro-Hay, 1991),with some founder effect, but this is not substantially true for Oromo and Somali peoples (see, e.g., Comas et al., 1999; Sistonen et al., 1987). Linguistic evidence does not suggest that Semitic speakers brought agriculture to Ethiopia. (The Ethiopian genetic profile may have valid alternative explanations incorporating bi-directional migrations and settlements of great antiquity, depending on how old linguistics would predict the ancestral Ethio-Semitic language to be, in order to account for the present linguistic variation.) Ancient gene flow from such migrations would have been reworked by the new environment and demographic factors, and thus become a part of African biological history.
It is important to say that there is no evidence to suggest that in the Holocene population replacement occurred in any of these regions as a whole based on the Y chromosome data. Populations should be viewed processually as dynamic entities over time and not ‘‘static’’ entities. The presence of M35/215 lineages and the Benin sickle cell variant in southern Europe illustrates this well. [S. Keita "Exploring Northeast African Metric Craniofacial Variation at the Individual Level: A Comparative Study Using Principal Components Analysis," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 16:679–689 (2004)]
And the data of Tishkoff would also warn against those who attribute variation in how East African look as the product of some kind of simplistic "race mix" with reputed "Caucasoid" migrant or colonists. We all know gene flow occurred over the millenia, particularly in comparatively recent times - Arabs for example. But the notion that such gene flow fundamentally changed the native populations and their built- in diversity is dubious.
"The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)." [Tishkoff et al. (2000) Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins. Am J Hum Genet; 67:901-925]
Grouping DNA samples in advance and labeling them as "black" or "Caucasoid" BEFORE running a DNA analysis seems to be a primary method used to fade out certain populations elements where the East African peoples are concerned. Such manipulations are common. Another manipulation is to exclude East African data from many “comparisons” with so called “African” peoples, so the diversity of the East African region does not complicate the “true negro” slant.
One 1997 review of such studies for example notes that in one of them, Chadic, Omotic and Cushitic speakers were removed from the final analysis set to create the impression that Ethiopians are an anomaly, i.e. Africans who speak the language of Caucasians. When gene-frequency clustering in another survey did not adhere to the designated Caucasian categories (European and Middle Eastern) the study's authors simply excluded the non-European DNA samples to achieve desired results. According to the review: "The data in effect were tailored to fit into the traditional racial schema." (Source: The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544)
Yet another 2004 study claimed that people near Ethiopians like Somalis are closely related to other northeast Africans, who in turn are more closely related to white people than "sub-Saharan" Africans by a 10% margin. However the same study also shows that East Africans (Somalians, Oromos of Ethiopia and North Kenya, etc) are linked with each other to a much higher extent than the 10% differential influence between Eurasians or sub-Saharan Africans, (15% and 5% respectively). Ironically, "northeast Africans" like the Somalians are themselves "sub-Saharan". The so called barrier of the Sahara puts Ethiopians, Somalians etc below the Sahara making THEM sub-Saharan. Thus any “comparisons” of Ethiopians, Nubians, Somalians etc with “sub-Saharan” types contradicts itself.
Also of note is the research of Hiernaux, Excoffier et al. which recognizes that the peoples of Africa, which includes north and northeast Africa surprisingly, have a variety of physical types. As noted by another narrow noses are no Caucasian monopoly, they are routine for the Elongated Africans in the higher altitudes of East Africa. Their presence thus does not signify invading Caucasoids, "Eurasians" or any "race mix." They are part and parcel of built-in African genetic diversity.
On an older thread of ES it was also noted that:
DNA analysis on the key E3b Y-chromosone haplogroup (Cruciani et al, 2004) show that it is the primary genotype of both Elongated and Broad Africans. East Africans for example, who carry E3b don't cluster with Europeans, or Middle Easterners and E3b carrying East Africans such as the Oromo and Borana have little to no European specific Haplotypes. E3b originated in sub-Saharan Africa, is largely confined there and is rare outside Africa. (Fulvio Cruciani, et. al. "Hylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa," Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74:1014-1022, 2004)
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
It is important to say that there is no evidence to suggest that in the Holocene population replacement occurred in any of these regions as a whole based on the Y chromosome data. Populations should be viewed processually as dynamic entities over time and not ‘‘static’’ entities. The presence of M35/215 lineages and the Benin sickle cell variant in southern Europe illustrates this well.
[S. Keita "Exploring Northeast African Metric Craniofacial Variation at the Individual Level: A Comparative Study Using Principal Components Analysis," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 16:679–689 (2004)]
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Some have argued that demic diffusion supports the thesis of a Eurasian influx because:
(a) Many near eastern plants and animals were first domesticated in mesopotamia- like wheat or goats
(b) Said plants and animals later on appeared in the Nile Valley where they were put to use
(c) the movement of said plants and animals had to be accompanied by Caucasoid migrants whose demic expansion replaced the less advanced native cultivators, or mingled with them, until the 'Caucasoid' element became predominant.
(d) Hence this explains the paucity of negroid types in Egypt except further south someplace in Nubia...
I did say this was devil's advocacy.. heh heh
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Devil's advocacy #2: A Caucasian north versus the Negroid south
Under this approach, the north of Egypt had a lighter skinned 'Caucasoid' peoples, with some darker 'tropical' types somewhere south.
Since the north was near the Mediterranean, this explains all those Egyptian advancements, particularly in view of greater trade with Mesopotamia.
Indeed, proponents hold that Keita himself mentions various "northern" variants which thus shows proof of a lighter-skinned Caucasoid north.
heh heh..
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Indeed, proponents hold that Keita himself mentions various "northern" variants which thus shows proof of a lighter-skinned Caucasoid north.
I believe Keita described northern AEs as being intermediate between southern Egyptian/tropical African and European crania. If you're going to use the old "oid" terms, that would make them neither pure "Caucasoid" or "Negroid" but rather somewhere in the middle.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, but "intermediate" in cranial features does not mean 'mixed' as some more 'liberal' Eurocentrics like to suggest. Moreover there are Africans in other parts of the continent that display such "intermediate" traits yet are undeniably black. This was all explained to you before T-rex in a couple of other threads.
Welcome back by the way, Charles.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:One 1997 review of such studies for example notes that in one of them, Chadic, Omotic and Cushitic speakers were removed from the final analysis set to create the impression that Ethiopians are an anomaly, i.e. Africans who speak the language of Caucasians.
Keita was referring here to Sforza, who is gleefully cited by Charlie Brown as "proof" that Europeans are 2/3 Asian and 1/3 African. It is important to note that his "Europeans" here would include North Africans like the Berbers. LOL When you guys wily nilly cut and paste these same scholars you chide for racism you look as stupid as them.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zaharan this will address your advocacy # 1. Btw, adoption doesn't necessarily mean genetic exchange or admixture, as duly noted there was no influx of Arab migrations to affect the North African gene pool until the 7th century C.E.
quote: Christopher Ehret
"Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa DOES NOT SUPPORT demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy. "The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."
quote:Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles
One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East. One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East. Very late in the same span of time, the cultivating of crops began in Egypt. Since most of Egypt belonged then to the Mediterranean climatic zone, many of the new food plants came from areas of similar climate in the Middle East. Two domestic animals of Middle Eastern origin, the sheep and the goat, also entered northeastern Africa from the north during this era. But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.) Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region. From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.
quote:A Conversation with Christopher Ehret Christopher Ehret, UCLA Interviewed by WHC Co-editor Tom Laichas
Ehret: There are at least seven or eight maybe eleven to thirteen world regions which independently invented agriculture. None in Europe, by the way. One, of course, is in the Middle East, and many people still believe that this was the first, from which all the others developed. The idea of diffusion from the Middle East still lingers.
That idea really can't be sustained.
You have, for instance, one independent invention of agriculture in East Asia, maybe two. You have it more widely accepted now that there's an independent invention of agriculture in the interior of New Guinea. People argue about what to make of the Indian materials, but certainly India saw one of the three separate domestications of cattle; there are enough uniquely Indian crops that we might end up with India as another center of independent agricultural innovation. There are different ideas about the Americas, but I think we have two for sure: Mesoamerica and the Andes. There may also be a separate lowland tropical South American development. It also seems that there might be a few things domesticated in the southeastern United States even before there was Mesoamerican stimulus or diffusion. So that makes four.
Here's the point: agriculture was invented in Africa in at least three centers, and maybe even four. In Africa, you find the earliest domestication of cattle. The location, the pottery and other materials we've found makes it likely that happened among the Nilo-Saharan peoples, the sites are in southern Egypt. There is an exceptionally strong correlation between archaeology and language on this issue.
A separate or distinct agriculture arose in West Africa around yams.
A third takes place in southeastern or southern Ethiopia. I've got a student working this year in Ethiopia to see whether we can pin this down more precisely. The Ethiopians domesticated a plant called enset. It's very unique: Ethiopians use the lower stem and the bulb; not the tuber, the fruit, or the greens. Enset grows in a climatic zone distinct from that where cattle were first domesticated; that was further north.
The possible fourth area of agricultural invention would involve people who cultivated grain in Ethiopia. They seem to have begun cultivation of grain independently, but adopted cattle from the Nilo-Saharans of the middle Nile region. To pin this down, we need archaeology from a whole big area, but so far it's missing.
There's another really interesting innovation in Africa: pottery. There are two places in the world which develop pottery really early. One is Japan, where you find pottery before 10,000 BCE, going back to at least 11,000 or 12,000 BCE. And then you've got pottery by 10,500 BCE in the eastern Sahara, and it spreads widely in the southern Sahara. Unlike the Middle Eastern ceramics, where you can see the development of pottery at every stage, the stuff we find in the southern Sahara is already great pottery. So there's probably 500 years we're missing from the archaeological record. So let's say that pottery develops in the southern Sahara 2,500 years before Middle Eastern pottery. The Middle Eastern stuff does look like it was developed independently of the African, but hey, this is really interesting! Africa is not too far away; there may have been some diffusion.
So, in a world history class, I would be talking about the development of agriculture in all the different parts of the world. I'd look at how people developed different kinds of agriculture in response to their particular environmental or demographic challenges. Then I'd look at the independent invention of pottery. In the Japanese case, it's not even connected with agriculture. One could argue that it turns up with cattle-keeping in the Sahara, but it also turns up with people who don't keep cattle, for fishing. So you can open up people's minds to technology: why do you need pottery?
12
WHC: Why do you need pottery?
Ehret: It has to do with sedentarism. You need to store and prepare food. But that doesn't mean that people start with agriculture. When you look at pottery, you are talking about the different ways people responded to the end of the Ice Age, developing more intensive ways of collecting food, or using a more productive method of hunting. Africa gives us particularly good examples. We can see cattle raisers juxtaposed with people who intensively exploited an aquatic resource base. The aquatic resource base works for 2,000 or so years, before the climate gets drier.
WHC: You describe two other groups. One of them is the Afrasans. Can you talk about them for a moment?
Ehret: These are people who have been called Afro-Asiatic and also Afrasian. I'm saying "Afrasan" because I'm trying to get "Asia" out. There is still this idea that the Afro-Asiatic family had to come out of Asia. Once you realize that it's an African family with one little Asian offshoot, well, that itself is a very important lesson for world historians.
We actually have DNA evidence which fits very well with an intrusion of people from northwestern African into southwestern Asia. The Y-chromosome markers, associated with the male, fade out as you go deeper into the Middle East.
Another thing about the Afrasans: their religious beliefs. Anciently, each local group had its own supreme deity. This is called "henotheism." In this kind of religion, you have your own god to whom you show your allegiance. But you realize that other groups have their own deities. The fact that they have deities different from yours doesn't mean their deities don't exist.
This kind of belief still exists. It's fading, maybe on its last legs, in southeastern Ethiopia, among people of the Omati group. They descend from the earliest split in the Semitic family. Way up in the mountains, they have this henotheism. They have a deity of their clan, or their small group of closely related clans. They have their priest-chief who has to see to the rites of that deity.
We see the same kind of thing in ancient Egypt. If we go to there, we discover that the Egyptian gods began as local gods. With Egyptian unification, we move from this henotheism to polytheism. To unify Egypt, after all, you have to co-opt the loyalty of local groups and recognize their gods. We have no direct evidence, but it's certainly implied by the things we learn about the gods in the written records we do have.
21
WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority?
Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people the Mushabaeans? are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.
Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.
And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Few skeletons have been found in the Sahara, and these are hard to date because of soil erosion. In Arabia prehistoric archaeology has barely been started. Yet we can be reasonably confident, until other evidence upsets the theory, that these deserts were the home of the slender variety of Caucasoid man. In East Africa this type has survived among the slender, narrow-faced Watusi and other cattle people.
But ironically Tutsis have ~80% E3a according to published data, and not E3b (E3b that Euro-centrists try to make out as a Caucasoid genetic marker), and no outside admixture at all, yet exhibit features common amongst other Elongated Africans who are falsely called Caucasoid as well.
Btw, This is also why erroneous labels such as Mediterranean or Caucasoid are false.
quote: The Cambridge History of Africa (Hardcover) by J. D. Fage (Editor) Cambridge University Press (March 30, 1979) p.69
Skeletal remains from the Kenya Rift previously considered as 'Afro-Mediterranean' or 'Caucasoid' have now been shown to group with African Negro samples. They date within the first millennium BC and, on physical characteristics, it is suggested that they may be of proto-Nilotic stock. But it is necessary to also make comparisons with Cushitic speakers, since burials found recently in association with a Kenya Capsian-like industry from Lake Besaka in the Ethiopian Rift, dating probably to c. 5000 BC, also show negroid features, and linguistic evidence indicates long history for Cushitic in Ethiopia.
The following comes from a new find in Niger, that was also falsely labeled Mediterranean. Despite the prognathous face etc...
quote: In the Sahara, Stone Age Graves From Greener Days
The first traces of pottery, stone tools and human skeletons were discovered eight years ago at a site in the southern Sahara, in Niger.
(A)-Top view of mid-Holocene adult male (G1B11; ~4645 B.C.E.) buried in a recumbent hyperflexed posture. (B)-Bottom view of burial in A showing a mud turtle carapace (Pelusios adansonii) in contact with the ventral aspect of the pelvic girdle. (C)-Skull from burial in A and B showing high calvarium, narrow zygomatic width and more prognathous face. --Paul C. Sereno
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:One 1997 review of such studies for example notes that in one of them, Chadic, Omotic and Cushitic speakers were removed from the final analysis set to create the impression that Ethiopians are an anomaly, i.e. Africans who speak the language of Caucasians.
Keita was referring here to Sforza, who is gleefully cited by Charlie Brown as "proof" that Europeans are 2/3 Asian and 1/3 African. It is important to note that his "Europeans" here would include North Africans like the Berbers. LOL When you guys wily nilly cut and paste these same scholars you chide for racism you look as stupid as them.
Entire false, Cavalli-Sforza's Europeans does *NOT* include North Africans, you need to seriously get on the ball and stop trolling.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing to stress here people is that because the modern populations are been proven to be continuous with the prehistoric and Upper Pleistocene inhabitants of East Africa the notion that incoming Medit K-zoids brought traits in is refuted.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass:
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:One 1997 review of such studies for example notes that in one of them, Chadic, Omotic and Cushitic speakers were removed from the final analysis set to create the impression that Ethiopians are an anomaly, i.e. Africans who speak the language of Caucasians.
Keita was referring here to Sforza, who is gleefully cited by Charlie Brown as "proof" that Europeans are 2/3 Asian and 1/3 African. It is important to note that his "Europeans" here would include North Africans like the Berbers. LOL When you guys wily nilly cut and paste these same scholars you chide for racism you look as stupid as them.
Entire false, Cavalli-Sforza's Europeans does *NOT* include North Africans, you need to seriously get on the ball and stop trolling.
He does not consider Berbers as "gentically Caucasiod"? And why is North Africa green on his coloring book? Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Youngblood Priest[Formerly The Bass:
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:One 1997 review of such studies for example notes that in one of them, Chadic, Omotic and Cushitic speakers were removed from the final analysis set to create the impression that Ethiopians are an anomaly, i.e. Africans who speak the language of Caucasians.
Keita was referring here to Sforza, who is gleefully cited by Charlie Brown as "proof" that Europeans are 2/3 Asian and 1/3 African. It is important to note that his "Europeans" here would include North Africans like the Berbers. LOL When you guys wily nilly cut and paste these same scholars you chide for racism you look as stupid as them.
Entire false, Cavalli-Sforza's Europeans does *NOT* include North Africans, you need to seriously get on the ball and stop trolling.
He does not consider Berbers as "gentically Caucasiod"? And why is North Africa green on his coloring book?
Cavalli-Sforza did *NOT* consider North Africans as his Europeans when he did the 2/3 173 assessment, you can go an read it for yourself, now stop your trolling or come up with proof.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^You dumb ignorant troll, what he's saying is Berber speakers were not included as Europeans in this test, "genes people and languages" because they are not Europeans. Therefore, your idiocy is completely irrelevant.... Berber speakers are from North Africa, not Europe!!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Stop your trolling redundant runarounds, seriously. Berber speakers were not sampled as European, since Berber speakers are not European. Plain and simple.
This is what you said, and this is what is refuted, end of story....
quote:Jackassoben brays: It is important to note that his "Europeans" here would include North Africans like the Berbers.
^^This above statement from you is false, since Berber speakers were not included as Europeans, in "genes peoples and languages".
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^It seems you've been debunked, and now you're resorting to non sequiturs and red herrings, nothing new from you.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
here we go again...Are Berbers sampled as Africans in Genes Peoples and Languages?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, but "intermediate" in cranial features does not mean 'mixed' as some more 'liberal' Eurocentrics like to suggest. Moreover there are Africans in other parts of the continent that display such "intermediate" traits yet are undeniably black. This was all explained to you before T-rex in a couple of other threads.
Welcome back by the way, Charles.
Yep, in a study on North African crania the "Mechtoid" North African "Mechta-Afalou" type is grouped as "intermediate" - with the modern Dogon of Mali.
On the subject of the Nile Valley (but not the Horn) with respect to these Maghebian and North African types:
quote:Population, Health, and Disease. Over 100 human skeletons of Late Paleolithic age are known from Egypt and adjacent Sudan. Physically, they are all classified as Homo Sapiens. They are grouped with the Mechtoids of the Maghreb, but details of their teeth indicate that they are a separate population, with many similarities to groups in sub-Saharan Africa.
Encyclopedia of Prehistory - Volume 1: Africa Published in conjunction with the Human Relations Area Files (Encyclopedia of Prehistory) (Hardcover) by Peter N. Peregrine (Editor), Melvin Ember (Editor)
This makes sense since there was a gradient of influence (people, culture, language) going from sub-Saharan Africa up through the Nile Valley (which streches from inner Africa) up into the South Western Asia/Western Eurasia.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Indeed, so how about instead of you posting red herrings and questions that do not follow. Maybe you can post something that according to you would be a factual response (something that you think is correct), be specific, so I know exactly what I am to refute you on. I.e, if you think Berber speakers are European or North African, and what your point is? Stop all this redundant runaround nonsense, be clear on what you're trying to say. If you can.........
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ you claim to have read the book, why not answer the question. its a simple one.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not gonna let you stray from the original refutation. So tell me, this has to do with you saying Berber speakers were sampled as European, and would therefore also be 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African, how? Anyway, Berber speakers were sampled as Berber speakers, plain and simple, Berber speakers are from North Africa.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Stop dodging, you claim to have read the book, are Berbers sampled as Africans in Genes Peoples and Languages?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Yes stop dodging, you've failed to explain your point, therefore there is no dodge, your non sequiturs have no bearing on what you said about Berber speakers being sampled as European, and therefore are 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African, as the European population is, which is false, and has been proven false. Berber speakers were not included in the European population sample. Berber speakers were sampled as Berber speakers, North Africans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't know if Berbers were sampled as "Africans" then how do you know if his figures and tree branching is correct?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Yes stop dodging, you've failed to explain your point, therefore there is no dodge, your non sequiturs have no bearing on what you said about Berber speakers being sampled as European, and therefore are 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African, as the European population is, which is false, and has been proven false. Berber speakers were not included in the European population sample. Berber speakers were sampled as Berber speakers, North Africans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poor you. If you actually read Sforza, instead of coat tailing others, you would know that he does not group North Africans especially Berbers as Africans. Of course you don't know this so you are confused by my question. So I ask again, since you claimed to have read the book, were they sampled as "North Africans" and not Africans?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: ^ Stop dodging, you claim to have read the book, are Berbers sampled as Africans in Genes Peoples and Languages?
Can you prove that North Africans were included in the European sample that was determined to be 1/3 African, 2/3 Asian?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, who's trollling who now? Did you not read the book Charlie Brown? You know how Berbers are sampled for the contributions. Why can't you say yes or no? Simple.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben: Poor you. If you actually read Sforza, instead of coat tailing others, you would know that he does not group North Africans especially Berbers as Africans. Of course you don't know this so you are confused by my question. So I ask again, since you claimed to have read the book, were they sampled as "North Africans" and not Africans?
You stupid distortion junkie. No!! Correction what you mean is Sforza has considered Berber speakers to be "Caucasians", and fall closer to Europeans genetically. Of course what you're talking about is genetically Berber speakers have intermixed with Eurasians to the point where they fall closer to Europeans genetically. Berber speakers are not referenced as 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sforza has considered Berber speakers to be "Caucasians", and fall closer to Europeans genetically. Of course what you're talking about is genetically Berber speakers have intermixed wit Eurasians to the point were they lie closer to Europeans genetically. If Berber speakers are not considered north Africans by Sforza, then what are they? Jackass....
Bravo! He does not consider them Africans, I never said he did not consider them N. Africans distortion junkie. He divides Africa into North and "sub sahara" in classic racialist fashion, which is why he has green in North Africa on his coloring book.
And Keita does not offer your rubbish explanation as the reason for their intermediacy. (p. 540)
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bravo! He does not consider them Africans, I never said he did not consider them N. Africans distortion junkie.
Lmao wtf, do you read what you type before you post it? I don't think you do, because there goes that contradiction again. "They're not Africans, they're North Africans"?
They're not bears, they're polar bears...bwahahahaa
quote: He divides Africa into North and "sub sahara" in classic racialist fashion, which is why he has green in North Africa on his coloring book.
This is why you wrongfully thought Berber speakers were included as Europeans, and were therefore 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
God, I hope this isn't going to turn into another long ass thread with akoben.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is why you wrongfully thought Berber speakers were included as Europeans, and were therefore 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African?
Look, you both claim to have read the book, why both of you cannot name the samples for the continents? I even made it easy for Charlie [posted 25 December, 2008 09:58 PM] its a simple god damn question. Whats taking so damn long????
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: He divides Africa into North and "sub sahara" in classic racialist fashion, which is why he has green in North Africa on his coloring book.
quote:Originally posted by akoben:
quote:This is why you wrongfully thought Berber speakers were included as Europeans, and were therefore 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African?
Look, you both claim to have read the book, why both of you cannot name the samples for the continents? I even made it easy for Charlie [posted 25 December, 2008 09:58 PM] its a simple god damn question. Whats taking so damn long????
Stop running from your original distortion.......
quote:Jackassoben brays: It is important to note that his "Europeans" here would include North Africans like the Berbers.
^^This above statement from you as been falsified, since Berber speakers were not included as Europeans, in "genes peoples and languages". Unless you can prove otherwise???
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Berber speakers were not included as Europeans, in "genes peoples and languages".
Stop squirimg boy, its obvious. You claimed to have read the book, were Berbers sampled as Africans for the results "2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African"?
Oh btw Sforza does not say Berbers "lie (now edited to 'fall') closer to Europeans genetically" but that they are genetically Caucasoid. (p. 100)
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:were Berbers sampled as Africans for the results "2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African"?
Wow as always you're forced to complete remedial, and repetitive posts. Berber speakers are North Africans, and are considered North Africans by all studies. Europeans are 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African. Berber speakers are *NOT* 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African. Native Americans are Asian derived, but are considered American natives by all studies.
Remember.......
quote: Bravo! He does not consider them Africans, I never said he did not consider them N. Africans distortion junkie.
Lmao wtf, do you read what you type before you post it? I don't think you do, because there goes that contradiction again. "They're not Africans, they're North Africans"?
They're not bears, they're polar bears...bwahahahaa Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you know why little girls like Charlie Brown are always screaming for a censor/moderator? It is because they want to be left alone to spout their BS. Why cant he answer a simple question about a book he claims to have read? I ask the one simple question and he cannot answer it. Why? If you claim to have read a book why cant you answer a simple question about it? Even you, no surprise, claim to have read the book but unable to answer the question. Are you both charlatans? Why are you misleading ES posing as well read Africanists versed in this and that book and study when all you do is cut and paste from the internet like all amateurs?
Again, are Berbers sampled as Africans in Genes Peoples and Languages?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Yet another insignificant post, asking again, already answered questions..... I'm done with you, my son, you're dismissed, and you've failed.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:Stop dodging
Yes stop dodging, you've failed to explain your point, therefore there is no dodge, your non sequiturs have no bearing on what you said about Berber speakers being sampled as European, and therefore are 2/3rd Asian and 1/3rd African, as the European population is, which is false, and has been proven false. Berber speakers were not included in the European population sample. Berber speakers were sampled as Berber speakers, North Africans.
quote:Jackassoben brays: It is important to note that his "Europeans" here would include North Africans like the Berbers.
^^This above statement from you has been falsified, since Berber speakers were not included as Europeans, in "genes peoples and languages". Unless you can prove otherwise???
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Berber speakers were sampled as Berber speakers, North Africans.
Oh really? What page? Where did he group N. Africans with other Africans (which would be very uncharacteristic of the Italian racist) for the 1/3 African contribution?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic