OK so I was able to track down Dr. Keita's email and he was kind enough to answer my questions. Alot of people have been interpreting Keita's research on this site and expressed different opinions about his conclusions. I felt that these three questions were important enough to ask him directly about.
Question #1: Is the light skin of many North Africans a local adaptation or was it introduced to the region from Eurasian migrants (if the latter during what time period)?
Keita's answer:
The DNA work has not been done to determine if the light skin in northern Africa is something that emerged there or came in by intermarriage. African variability. Perhaps you will do this. We should expect African variability to be great--ask yourself this: why is it so hard for some to accept the reality or likelihood of African variability in modern sapiens, when in fact the hominid evolution of new genus occurred in Africa. So if such great changes occurred why the doubt about little changes?
Question #2: Were the Ancient Egyptians predominately dark-skinned throughout the Dynastic period and were they predominately African biologically (a pictorial reference to modern populations to illustrate what the majority looked like would be helpful)?
Keita's answer: No one can say exactly what colour they were, but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country.
Question #3: Why do some of the mummies of the Ancient Egyptians have light (yellow, red etc.) hair?
Keita's answer:
The hair colour question is no doubt difficult and has many answers--some related to artificial colouring, some related to different folk being in Egypt, some related natural variation. Remember there are dark skinned Australian Aborigines and New Guineans with blond hair.
Here's a final message from Keita that I think can apply to everyone interested in the topic:
I hope that this helps. Be scientific in all of your work. Understand evolution. Understand also the racist history of ideas that tried to remove Egypt from Africa.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Question #1: Is the light skin of many North Africans a local adaptation or was it introduced to the region from Eurasian migrants (if the latter during what time period)?
Keita's answer:
The DNA work has not been done to determine if the light skin in northern Africa is something that emerged there or came in by intermarriage. African variability. Perhaps you will do this. We should expect African variability to be great--ask yourself this: why is it so hard for some to accept the reality or likelihood of African variability in modern sapiens, when in fact the hominid evolution of new genus occurred in Africa. So if such great changes occurred why the doubt about little changes?
Is Keita implying that he's open to the possibility that light skin in North Africa is some that evolved in situ? If so, I don't really agree with him. I don't think UV levels in North Africa are so low that any population living there after migrating from equatorial Africa would experience more than a very slight depigmentation (e.g. ebony to mahogany brown). Therefore, I think the light skin is something that was brought in by a back-migration at some point.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Is Keita implying that he's open to the possibility that light skin in North Africa is some that evolved in situ? If so, I don't really agree with him. I don't think UV levels in North Africa are so low that any population living there after migrating from equatorial Africa would experience more than a very slight depigmentation (e.g. ebony to mahogany brown). Therefore, I think the light skin is something that was brought in by a back-migration at some point.
I asked them that comment specifically because of the comment he gave at the Cambridge University lecture.
It does seem strange to me that North Africans would evolve such light skin but then again there are light skinned people in Southwest Asia at the same latitude and the Khoisan deep in the heart of Africa have light skin so it is plausible.
I've brought this issue up on Egyptsearch before and people usually reply with genetic data but I did not save those sources so I am not all that familiar with the theories on this.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Both of you losers are braindead.
What exactly is light skin?
If its so foreign to Africa, why are there albinos everywhere?
Why are there beige and yellow Nigerians, Congolese, Ethiopians, Eritreans, and elsewhere throughout Africa?
Get out of the house and quit sitting around saying the same dumb things day in and day out?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: It does seem strange to me that North Africans would evolve such light skin but then again there are light skinned people in Southwest Asia at the same latitude and the Khoisan deep in the heart of Africa have light skin so it is plausible.
Well, as one would have to be more specific when asking questions, being that a question beating around the bush wouldn't be met with as much clarity as a straight forward one.
Meaning that when you ask Keita about the light skin of northern Africans being in situ evolution etc.. its not very clear and his answer will most likely be on that can be left open for interpretation.
So with that said, note the following genetic information, note that the genes for pale skin which evolved in situ Europe are accounted for in geographically proximate populations in North Africa, the Middle east and Pakistan.
Genetic Evidence for the Convergent Evolution of Light Skin in Europeans and East Asians Heather L. Norton,*1 Rick A. Kittles
In contrast, the **ancestral allele** associated with **dark pigmentation** has a shared high frequency in **sub- Saharan African and Island Melanesians**.A notable exception is the relatively lightly pigmented San population of Southern Africa where the **derived allele** predominates (93%), although this may be simply due to small sample size (n514). The distributions of the **derived and ancestral alleles** at TYR A192C, MATP C374G, and SLC24A5 A111G are consistent with the FST results suggesting strong Europeans pecific divergence at these loci. The *derived allele* at TYR, 192*A (previously linked with lighter pigmentation [Shriver et al. 2003]), has a frequency of 38% among European populations but a frequency of only 14% among non-Europeans. The differences between Europeans and non-Europeans for the MATP 374*G and SLC24A5 111*A alleles (both derived alleles associated with lighter pigmentation) were even more striking (MATP European 5 87%; MATP non-European 5 17%; SLC24A5 European 5 100%; SLC24A5 non-European 5 46%). The frequency of the SLC24A5 111*A allele outside of Europe is largely accounted for by high frequencies in geographically proximate populations in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Pakistan (ranging from 62% to 100%).
The virtual absence of MATP 374*G–derived allele in the sub-Saharan African populations that we examined in the CEPH-Diversity Panel is consistent with the origin of this mutation outside of Africa after the divergence of modern Asians and Europeans. In contrast, the SLC24A5 111*A–derived allele is found at low frequencies in several sub-Saharan populations including the West African Mandenka and Yoruba, the Southern African San , and SouthWest Bantu. The relatively high frequencies of the derived allele in Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and North Africa seem likely to be due to gene flow with European populations. Similarly, the presence of the derived allele (albeit at low frequencies) in some sub-Saharan African populations may be due to recent gene flow from European and Central Asian populations. Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
OK so the gene for light skin evolved in Europe.
How was it introduced to Southwest Asia and North Africa? When was it introduced?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
As in regards to north Africa check this thread....
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^Well, original Berber speakers came from the Eastern Sahara, and these populations also have a predominantly Neolithic origin for their Y chromosome lineages.
The NW African Y chromosomes are predominantly African in origin, while their maternal lineages are predominantly non African (Eurasian).
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations
Alternatively, these exchanges could have occurred during history, with the invasion and the occupation during nearly seven centuries (from the 8th to the 15th century) of the Iberian Peninsula by Almoravide then Almohade Muslim Berber troops.
Which is were this above alternative theory is more plausible and the maternal gene flow most likely did occur in historic times.
Most likely during the Moorish/Muslim era. Where Muslims practiced polygamy and would of taken many wives.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: "Trafficking of women from the other side of the Mediterranean sea as slaves surely must have left its own mark. This coupled with a tradition of polygamy [especially amongst those sections of north African populations which were Muslim-converts] would have facilitated households with sizeable headcount of offspring per a single male 'owner'. Then there were also sudden waves of migration to the north African coast during the fall of direct northwest African rule in the Iberian peninsula; no doubt families who reached the north African coast had left some genetic imprint therein. And of course, genetic drift has its own role to play in all this. All that aside, a look at samplings so far undertaken in coastal northwest Africa suggests that these have generally relied on sampling small, scattered populations [see Cherni et al. 2005], giving fragmented or incomplete picture of northwest African maternal gene pool structure."
The caveat here is that, if Imazighen populations had found some "white European" groups upon arriving in the northwest African coast, then it certainly doesn't appear to have been one of a large population, with a sizeable European male demography. Contemporary Imazighen speakers of the North African coast have very little to essentially neglegable European male contribution in their gene pool.
Pardon me, this is the link....
Posted by Yom (Member # 11256) on :
Berbers' mtDNA diversity is mainly Paleolithic in origin, at least as it relates to the Eurasian contribution. Haplogroups H (mainly H1 and H3) and V combined are around 40-50% of their mtDNA and represent a contribution of Paleolithic Europeans to their gene pool. These two haplogroups came from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge area (a refugium during the Last Glacial Maximum when most of Europe was covered by glaciers) ca 10-11kya.
Check out Cherni et al. 2009. The studies by Turchi et al. 2009 and Coudray et al. 2009 make the same proposal and are good studies to read as well.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Actually that makes no sense because it depends on WHICH PEOPLE are being identified as "Berber". The problem with these genetic studies of "Berbers" is
1) "Berber" is a language not a genotype. 2) The range of Berber speaking people is FAR LESS than it was 2,000 years ago. Meaning that the distribution of MODERN Berber speakers do not necessarily match that of ancient Berber speakers. 3) ONLY using modern populations as a basis of DNA samples is only showing PART of the whole picture. Ancient populations and historical movements are not being sampled (and cant be). 4) Berber languages did not ORIGINATE in Eurasia, therefore the presence of Eurasian genes in MODERN Berber speaking populations does not "signal" the arrival of Berber LANGUAGES to Africa. 5) In fact, there was NO BERBER language 10,000 years ago, so tying Berber languages to the POSSIBLE spread of Eurasian haplogroups to North Africa 10,000 years ago is nonsense to begin with. 6) That is a fake artificially created historical identity with no basis in reality as "Berber" is only evidenced to about 2-3,000 years, based on physical artifacts. 7) Linguistically Berber is dated to far less than 10,000 years ago. 7) White skin and European ancestry does not define what is "Berber" because the Berber languages did not start among white skinned European people.
Anytime you hear geneticists trying to tie a language to a genotype you know it is nonsense. The origin and spread of a language cannot be dated purely based on genetic sequences and normally it is not. However, extrapolations of linguistic data can be corrolated with genetic data in order to help provide supporting evidence. However, in the case of Berber, there is no linguistic data supporting a 10,000 year old origin of Berber languages or culture in Eurasia.
Therefore, Eurasian migrants into North Africa did not necessarily bring Berber languages there and if anything, they most likely adopted it from the natives already there. However, since many Europeans seem obsessed with making Berber synonymous with "white", they will always twist the data to make it seem as if Berber languages originated with white Eurasian migrations to North Africa 10,000 years ago. But the linguistic data does not support this.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
I recently got back in contact with Dr. Keita to ask him for a bit more detail about the Ancient Egyptian phenotypes, specifically about skin color and the impact that foreign invasions had on the country. This is what he said in reply:
Without an analysis of histology of the skin and accurate portraits one cannot say exactly how they looked. We can only extrapolate by looking at the variability of the modern Egyptian with a focus on Upper Egypt, considering a predictive approach based on latitude, and imagining what they would have been like without the gene flow from the Near East and Europe over thousands of years. This will help you conceptualize the variability of the Nile indigenous population.
My research cannot indicate skin color in any empirical sense. Body build has been known for some time, see the work of Sonia Zakrezewski's and others--it is tropical in the earliest formative times. In fact you should write everyone who has written on the biology of the Egyptians recently and pose your questions.
My advice is to think in evolutionary terms--but also accept that like the Roman empire that foreigners were absorbed into Egypt.
In my reply I asked him about the Mekota and Vermehren study and its implications. I'm awaiting his response on that. But it's very clear from this latest statement that he feels that Upper Egypt is most representative of the physical diversity of Ancient Egypt and that foreign settlement over thousands of years from Europe and the Near East did have a significant impact on the population.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Doctoris Scientia said Mozabite Berbers are 80% African and it may be due to sexual selection as well as latitude.
I don't know if I believe it because the hair is also be different.
We also have the Tassili Ladies who could have also been migrants but in the region as afr back as 3,000 years ago but it is not clear starting when
The Tassili Ladies, approx 3,000 BC from Southern Algeria.
I believe that in the same caves they depict two different types of people living in the area.
I haven't seen pictures of the darker skinned types riding the animals.
None of this resolves the issue though
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Morpheus
Great Post. Keita is so big on putting AE in It's proper context.
This puts to rest what Salassin did in his interview with Keita when he was leading him in a way that made it seem that AE was not Black African.
Keep up the Good Work.
Peace
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
Thanks King.
I just got a response from Keita. He found the Mekota citation to be interesting and I have sent him the full study which he was previously unaware of. He cautioned that one mummy would ofcourse not be enough and that you would need to study groups of mummies from all social classes, periods, and regions, of those whom one thinks are native Egyptians as opposed to immigrants. He asked me at the end of this latest email not to repost emails as he wants correspondence between parties to be private so I will not reprint anymore emails.
I don't think he liked the fact that Salsassin recorded their phone conversation and posted it on the internet. Knowing that will probably make him careful about what he says and who he trusts with personal communication on the topic in the future.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Lioness, your silliness is getting out of hand: you're quoting Doctoris Scientia???
Damn you're stupid.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
So basically Keita is saying that most Egyptians were medium brown to black color?
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: So basically Keita is saying that most Egyptians were medium brown to black color?
He explained to me that his research was always about presenting accurate information Ancient Egyptian biological relationships based on sound evolutionary interpretative models not on saying what skin color or external features they had. His research can only make educated guesses on that.
I created these screenshots before he told me not to post any emails and have posted them elsewhere so I might as well share them here.....
Keita on skin color:
Keita on cranial affinities:
Keita on Facial Conformation:
Keita on Statuary:
In the last email what I asked him about was how he could tell that the elongated traits of Ancient Egyptians statues were "Somali-like" as he said in the Cambridge videos.
What I gathered from all of this was that his research can tell us in an empirical sense which populations Ancient Egyptians were biologically closet to and that we would have to rely on the appearance of modern living populations to determine external phenotype.
But it's very clear that he sees the Ancient Egyptians as a tropically adapted indigenous Northeast African people and that the region absorbed immigrants over time just like people have been saying on this board for years.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
Hey Morpheus, thanks for that information. I am in college currently and I have gotten into debates with people about Egypt and almost all of them view them as either white or Arab.
Also there has been debates about when did ancient Egypt start to change in terms of its fundamental African origin into a the melting pot we see today. Everybody knows that there were invasions from the Hyskos, Greeks, Assyrians, Arabs etc. When did they start to effect the makeup of the Egyptians. Did ancient Egypt remain a overwhelmingly black African civilization until its fall?
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: Hey Morpheus, thanks for that information. I am in college currently and I have gotten into debates with people about Egypt and almost all of them view them as either white or Arab.
Also there has been debates about when did ancient Egypt start to change in terms of its fundamental African origin into a the melting pot we see today. Everybody knows that there were invasions from the Hyskos, Greeks, Assyrians, Arabs etc. When did they start to effect the makeup of the Egyptians. Did ancient Egypt remain a overwhelmingly black African civilization until its fall?
That's a good question and I have been investigating that subject myself. Aside from the racist Eurocentrists who refuse to accept any notable Black presence in Ancient Egypt the greatest skepticism from the average laymen seems to be that Egyptians on average don't look Black today, so what reason do we have to believe they looked Black in antiquity? When you tell them that the invasions and subsequent immigration effected the demographics they remain skeptical and argue that the invasions could not possibly have brought in enough people to turn the population from Black to what it looks like today.
It has been said on this board that there is empirical evidence in the form of a difference in craniometric trends during the Late Period for a population change in Egypt. I've been looking for exact quotes and citations and have been told that one of the relevant studies is Zakrzewski (2007). This is the most suggestive quote I found from this study:
When Mahalanobis D2 was used, the Naqadan and Badarian Predynastic samples exhibited more similarity to Nubian, Tigrean, and some more southern series than to some mid- to late Dynastic series from northern Egypt (Mukherjee et al., 1955). The Badarian have been found to be very similar to a Kerma sample (Kushite Sudanese), using both the Penrose statistic (Nutter, 1958) and DFA of males alone (Keita, 1990). Furthermore, Keita considered that Badarian males had a southern modal phenotype, and that together with a Naqada sample, they formed a southern Egyptian cluster as tropical variants together with a sample from Kerma.
If anyone has better quotes and sources let me know. As you can see in my email exchanges Keita speaks of gradual immigration into Egypt from Europe and the Near East over the course of its history. He makes it clear in literature that this immigration likely had a major genetic impact on the population:
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
The Hyksos are the first notable foreign people to have entered Egypt and there is evidence that during the New Kingdom period there were a series of settlements in Egypt when it became an empire. After that immigration was likely gradual due to invasions. I can't say for certain when these immigrants became significantly numerous but we know that by the Roman Period the faces of Egypt had changed from the brown-skinned depictions you see on the temple walls to faces like these (portraits from Fayum):
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
It is in fact possible for the aboriginal phenotype in a region to become the minority with enough admixture with foreigners over time. For instance, Native Americans with little to no European or other non-Native ancestry constitute only 30% of the Mexican population, with most of the rest being Mestizos, even though Mexico is a much larger area than the Egyptian Nile Valley and has been occupied by non-Natives for a much shorter period of time (500 years as opposed to 2,500).
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: If anyone has better quotes and sources let me know.
See if you can find the PDF file for this:
Zakrzewski, Sonia R. "Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania." In Program of the Seventy-Third Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 215. Tampa, FL: American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 2004
It shows that Late Period Egyptian crania are distinct enough from earlier Egyptian crania to be considered "not typically Egyptian".
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: See if you can find the PDF file for this:
Zakrzewski, Sonia R. "Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania." In Program of the Seventy-Third Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 215. Tampa, FL: American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 2004
It shows that Late Period Egyptian crania are distinct enough from earlier Egyptian crania to be considered "not typically Egyptian". [/QB]
The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series. This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (Bioarchaeology Panel), Durham University (Addison-Wheeler Fellowship) and by University of Southampton. Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
Morpheus and Truthcentric
I believe that the Hyskos could not have had a significant impact on the gene pool due to the fact that they only controlled the northern area of Egypt. It was only a hundred years and I have not seen anything saying that they mixed extensively with them. I don' think there was any significant cranial change after the Hyskos that could not be called typically Egyptian. ( I have not seen any study that says so) I think that the cranial changed happened during the time with all the other invasions that happened during the late period, which was about during the very end of Egypt. I think its safe the say that Egypt overwhelming remained a black African civilization until its fall.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: Morpheus and Truthcentric
I believe that the Hyskos could not have had a significant impact on the gene pool due to the fact that they only controlled the northern area of Egypt. It was only a hundred years and I have not seen anything saying that they mixed extensively with them. I don' think there was any significant cranial change after the Hyskos that could not be called typically Egyptian. ( I have not seen any study that says so) I think that the cranial changed happened during the time with all the other invasions that happened during the late period, which was about during the very end of Egypt. I think its safe the say that Egypt overwhelming remained a black African civilization until its fall.
This is what I believe as well. I mentioned the Hyksos because they were the first notable foreign people to occupy Egypt. They likely brought some Asiatics in but they were also expelled from the region. I think Egypt remained predominately Black until after the New Kingdom period when it fell into decline and was conquered by a series of invaders.
By the Roman period it is clear that the demographic of Northern Egypt had changed considerably. Even more immigrants came to Egypt during the Islamic period from the Arab conquest during the 600s A.D. to the present.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
The Egyptians did have a practice of enslaving Asiatic prisoners of war during the New Kingdom. I don't know how many were brought in, but if it was a significant number I would not be surprised if some lighter-skinned Egyptians today can trace their ancestry back to these slaves.
And then there's the foreign mercenaries which made up an increasingly high proportion of the Egyptian army later in Egyptian history...
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
Morpheus
I think there is so much evidence for a Black Egypt,I don't think ti is Afrocentric to say it was, but people will call you Afrocentric.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: Morpheus
I think there is so much evidence for a Black Egypt,I don't think ti is Afrocentric to say it was, but people will call you Afrocentric.
Is it Eurocentric to say that Rome was a White civilization? Is it Asiacentric to say that China was an Asian civilization? Is it Amerocentric to say that the Mayan civilization was Native American? If you say no to these, than you should not consider declaring Egypt a Black civilization to be Afrocentric. It is simply a statement of fact.
I would use the term "Afrocentric" to describe people like Mike111 and Clyde Winters who think that virtually every significant civilization in history was built by Black people. I don't hold that view; I believe that people of every skin tone have had civilization. The story of civilization is truly a multiracial one.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
I believe there to be enough evidence to suggest that even in the predynastic history of Egypt there was an outside influence. Like it or not plain and simple.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
Afrocentrism has been turned into a buzzword to describe anything critics regard as pseudohistorical in relation to Black contributions to history.
Martin Bernal describes Mary Lefkowitz application of Afrocentric as describing anyone whose views she opposes including people like himself who simply maintain that Africans and people of African descent made significant contributions to world progress.
The term Afrocentrism was coined by Molefi Kete Asante (author of The Afrocentric Idea) to describe a world view point that emphasizes looking at the world through an African lens and refuting Eurocentric distortions of reality.
As Keita says, it's not Afrocentric to view early Egypt in its African context.
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: I believe there to be enough evidence to suggest that even in the predynastic history of Egypt there was an outside influence. Like it or not plain and simple.
Outside influence from where and what is your evidence?
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: Morpheus
I think there is so much evidence for a Black Egypt,I don't think ti is Afrocentric to say it was, but people will call you Afrocentric.
Is it Eurocentric to say that Rome was a White civilization? Is it Asiacentric to say that China was an Asian civilization? Is it Amerocentric to say that the Mayan civilization was Native American? If you say no to these, than you should not consider declaring Egypt a Black civilization to be Afrocentric. It is simply a statement of fact.
I would use the term "Afrocentric" to describe people like Mike111 and Clyde Winters who think that virtually every significant civilization in history was built by Black people. I don't hold that view; I believe that people of every skin tone have had civilization. The story of civilization is truly a multiracial one.
Morpheus and Truth centric
I know I don't believe that Rome was an African civilization or that the ancient Greeks were black. That to me is Afrocentric.
Why is that people like to divide Africa up with rigid boundaries? Like if its in the Sahara that it is some how not really African? There isn't a Sub anything in Europe, they don't divide southern Europe from northern Europe. Some people even try to say east Africans are not true black Africans even though they cluster a lot more so with black Africans then they do with other OOA groups. Like if the person has a narrow nose then all of a sudden they are mixed with Eurasians. Its a double standard
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: I believe there to be enough evidence to suggest that even in the predynastic history of Egypt there was an outside influence. Like it or not plain and simple.
Even if there was some Southwest Asian influence, Egyptian culture in the main developed in Upper (i.e. southern) Egypt. In fact the Upper Egyptian culture came to replace the Lower Egyptian culture during the late Predynastic.
For most of the Predynastic period, most of the Delta was an uninhabitable swamp anyway.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: I know I don't believe that Rome was an African civilization or that the ancient Greeks were black. That to me is Afrocentric.
Then you're much saner than some other people on this board.
quote:Why is that people like to divide Africa up with rigid boundaries? Like if its in the Sahara that it is some how not really African?
Egypt has never been totally isolated from sub-Saharan Africa anyway. Not only was the Sahara a savanna when Egypt was being peopled but even after the desertification travelers could always walk alongside the Nile River.
BTW, Nubia, a civilization that almost everyone but the most hardcore Eurocentrics acknowledge as black, is in North Africa too.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
Racism is the reason for these double standards.
When Europeans traveled to Africa during the so-called Age of Discovery they encountered cultures that were less technologically advanced than themselves and developed the belief that this disparity between their culture and those people was because of physical differences.
Even though these people were very culturally diverse they defined them by their anatomical traits, notably skin color and developed the concept of race.
The distortion of the African historical record were designed to promote the myth of African inferiority. That's how all this garbage about the "True Negro" and "wandering Hamites/Caucasoids founding African civilizations" got started.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: I know I don't believe that Rome was an African civilization or that the ancient Greeks were black. That to me is Afrocentric.
Then you're much saner than some other people on this board.
quote:Why is that people like to divide Africa up with rigid boundaries? Like if its in the Sahara that it is some how not really African?
Egypt has never been totally isolated from sub-Saharan Africa anyway. Not only was the Sahara a savanna when Egypt was being peopled but even after the desertification travelers could always walk alongside the Nile River.
BTW, Nubia, a civilization that almost everyone but the most hardcore Eurocentrics acknowledge as black, is in North Africa too.
I have seen some people on this board claiming that Rome was a black African civilization, yes obviously with the Roman empire controlling parts of North Africa there were going to be black Africans in Rome's population but say that it was started by them or they were Rome's core population is just simply not true.
About the hardcore euro-centrics, you can't debate with people like that because no matter what you say they are going to believe what they want to. If someone tries to argue that Nubian aren't black Africans you shouldn't even debate them. You should not take someone seriously who says that Rome and Greece were predominantly black African civilizations.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Racism is the reason for these double standards.
When Europeans traveled to Africa during the so-called Age of Discovery they encountered cultures that were less technologically advanced than themselves and developed the belief that this disparity between their culture and those people was because of physical differences.
Even though these people were very culturally diverse they defined them by their anatomical traits, notably skin color and developed the concept of race.
The distortion of the African historical record were designed to promote the myth of African inferiority. That's how all this garbage about the "True Negro" and "wandering Hamites/Caucasoids founding African civilizations" got started.
Your right but just rewind a couple or few hundred years ago before the Renaissance age in Europe and you hit the Dark ages or the middle ages. During this time the middle east was a lot more advanced then Europe in many different ways. Just like the Romans were a lot more advanced then the Germanic tribes that surrounded them during that time. So when people say well Egypt could not have been black African because it was so much more advanced then its surrounding neighbors you can say the same thing about Rome
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar:
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Racism is the reason for these double standards.
When Europeans traveled to Africa during the so-called Age of Discovery they encountered cultures that were less technologically advanced than themselves and developed the belief that this disparity between their culture and those people was because of physical differences.
Even though these people were very culturally diverse they defined them by their anatomical traits, notably skin color and developed the concept of race.
The distortion of the African historical record were designed to promote the myth of African inferiority. That's how all this garbage about the "True Negro" and "wandering Hamites/Caucasoids founding African civilizations" got started.
Your right but just rewind a couple or few hundred years ago before the Renaissance age in Europe and you hit the Dark ages or the middle ages. During this time the middle east was a lot more advanced then Europe in many different ways. Just like the Romans were a lot more advanced then the Germanic tribes that surrounded them during that time. So when people say well Egypt could not have been black African because it was so much more advanced then its surrounding neighbors you can say the same thing about Rome
Yes.
And I do point that out to people that history does not show a pattern of racial hierarchies.
Racism began as cultural prejudice with the assumption that observable anatomical traits correlated with mental ability.
The key to refuting racists when they bring up history is to use historical facts against them.
That's actually how I got involved with this subject.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: The key to refuting racists when they bring up history is to use historical facts against them.
That's actually how I got involved with this subject.
I became interested in the ethnic makeup of ancient Egypt for the same reason. I recall that back in eighth grade I wanted to refute the white supremacists' assertion that blacks could not build civilizations, so I decided to Google whether or not Egypt was really a Mediterranean Caucasoid civilization as they claimed. I found an essay on Egyptsearch that showed the bio-anthropological evidence for a Black Egypt and I became intrigued by the subject ever since.
Of course another reason I care so much about this debate is that presenting ancient Egypt as black is simply more accurate. I am just as sick of seeing Egyptians being portrayed as White or Middle Eastern as paleontologists are of seeing Velociraptors reconstructed as featherless.
Unfortunately I am not sure how to get the message across to a large number of people. It's one thing to post arguments in favor of Black Egypt on message boards and Youtube, but not everyone visits those message boards or Youtube. Maybe I should write a book about it or set up a website.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
Truth-centric and Morpheus
I am became interested in it too because throughout my life I encountered an ingrained prejudice aganist black African achievements. There is this notion in western society that Africa has always be poor and backward and that blacks should be thankful that they were taken out of the jungle and given civilization. When I was younger I thought that black Africans were all tribal and never had any civilizations because you will end up thinking that if you don't do any research for yourself. I live in America so that's how it is over here. Just go on you tube and you will see tons of videos talking about how blacks are inferior in almost every way.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
I'm an African-American and was actually raised with the belief that Africans had "Great" Civilizations. My parents bought me children's books at a young age that talked about some of the various African kingdoms. They also bought the Great Kings and Queens of Africa series which had descriptions of African historical figures. So I was not raised with the impression at all that Africans were inferior.
I knew that my African ancestors had been enslaved and brought to America from a young age and knew that racist White people hated Blacks and thought they were better than Blacks but I didn't make the connection between racism and the notion of inferiority based on cultural achievement, honestly until I started reading about racism on the internet (which was in my senior year of high school!).
When I joined Mootstormfront, an anti-racist message board and started debating racist topics the cultural achievement disparity would always come up and that's when I started to debate about African civilizations. I was actually shocked to see not only the racists denying the Egyptians were Black but Egalitarians as well. I recalled hearing as a child my mom once saying to some friends that, "White people are obsessed with claiming that the Ancient Egyptians weren't Black!"
But I honestly had no idea that this was regarded as a fringe view in Western academia. I took it as a given that the Original Egyptians were Black and Arabs conquered North Africa the way Europeans conquered America displacing the natives. And at the same time I was reading all of this bullshit on White-history.com trying to claim that the Ancient Egyptians were not Black.
Finding Egyptsearch was like a breath of fresh air to all the insanity.
I've learned a lot about racism and the history of racist ideas through this topic. I'm greatful to have found this board.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: I'm an African-American and was actually raised with the belief that Africans had "Great" Civilizations. My parents bought me children's books at a young age that talked about some of the various African kingdoms. They also bought the Great Kings and Queens of Africa series which had descriptions of African historical figures. So I was not raised with the impression at all that Africans were inferior.
I knew that my African ancestors had been enslaved and brought to America from a young age and knew that racist White people hated Blacks and thought they were better than Blacks but I didn't make the connection between racism and the notion of inferiority based on cultural achievement, honestly until I started reading about racism on the internet (which was in my senior year of high school!).
When I joined Mootstormfront, an anti-racist message board and started debating racist topics the cultural achievement disparity would always come up and that's when I started to debate about African civilizations. I was actually shocked to see not only the racists denying the Egyptians were Black but Egalitarians as well. I recalled hearing as a child my mom once saying to some friends that, "White people are obsessed with claiming that the Ancient Egyptians weren't Black!"
But I honestly had no idea that this was regarded as a fringe view in Western academia. I took it as a given that the Original Egyptians were Black and Arabs conquered North Africa the way Europeans conquered America displacing the natives. And at the same time I was reading all of this bullshit on White-history.com trying to claim that the Ancient Egyptians were not Black.
Finding Egyptsearch was like a breath of fresh air to all the insanity.
I've learned a lot about racism and the history of racist ideas through this topic. I'm greatful to have found this board.
I am African American too. I grew up in a all white area in New Jersey for the first 12 years of my life. I experienced a lot of direct and in direct racism there, and when I look back on it I internalized a lot of it. I had weird tastes when I was younger, when I was in 4th grade I liked fiance and I was interested in how fighter jets were engineered. Going to an all white school all I heard was that blacks were slaves and then they eventually were freed and a little paragraph about the civil rights movement. If that's all you here about black history then you are going to end up thinking that Europeans were the ones who introduced civilizations and African were running around in clothes chasing lions.
This educational system is euro centric and you really have to do your on research.
And reading websites like White History.com can really **** with your mind if you don't have the proper tools to refute it or if you already know its B.S
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
I think a lot of those so called "anti-racists" that want to ferociously deny any black presence in Egypt are just subconscious paternalistic racists. These type of people to me are worst then the outright bigots because deep down inside even though they preach everybody is they believe blacks are not intellectually capable to produce something like ancient Egypt.
It is the type of person who believes in the "White mans Burden"
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
I'm Anglo-American, and I'm happy to say that my parents not only raised me to dislike racism but actually read books to me about slavery and discrimination against black people. Unfortunately I was not taught very much about African civilizations outside of Egypt in school. As for the Egyptians, until eighth grade I grew up imagining them as looking like they did in the Dreamworks animated movie Prince of Egypt.
That said, when I learned about ancient Egypt in grade school, there was never any mention of their "racial" affinities. We simply took the idea of a non-black Egypt for granted. It is not true that White people are obsessed with denying the Egyptians' black heritage.
Nor is it true that all white people are close-minded about this. I've managed to convince my family and some of my friends that the Egyptians were Black, and I even got an essay about the issue published on a history website (link). I would not be surprised if a lot more white people would actually embrace Black Egypt if only they were exposed to the idea.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I'm Anglo-American, and I'm happy to say that my parents not only raised me to dislike racism but actually read books to me about slavery and discrimination against black people. Unfortunately I was not taught very much about African civilizations outside of Egypt in school. As for the Egyptians, until eighth grade I grew up imagining them as looking like they did in the Dreamworks animated movie Prince of Egypt.
That said, when I learned about ancient Egypt in grade school, there was never any mention of their "racial" affinities. We simply took the idea of a non-black Egypt for granted. It is not true that White people are obsessed with denying the Egyptians' black heritage.
Nor is it true that all white people are close-minded about this. I've managed to convince my family and some of my friends that the Egyptians were Black, and I even got an essay about the issue published on a history website (link). I would not be surprised if a lot more white people would actually embrace Black Egypt if only they were exposed to the idea.
Yeh man I don't believe that all white people are close minded about it. Sometimes you can run into euro-centric black people to.
Hey I was reading your article on the site and you said that Egyptian cranial structure started to significantly change after the Hyskos invasions. I thought it started to chagne significantly change during the late period? I haven't read anything about the Egyptians mixing extensively with the Hyskos?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: Hey I was reading your article on the site and you said that Egyptian cranial structure started to significantly change after the Hyskos invasions. I thought it started to chagne significantly change during the late period? I haven't read anything about the Egyptians mixing extensively with the Hyskos?
It may not have been the Hyksos per se. There were Asiatic immigrants pouring into Egypt during the Middle Kingdom before they took over.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: Hey I was reading your article on the site and you said that Egyptian cranial structure started to significantly change after the Hyskos invasions. I thought it started to chagne significantly change during the late period? I haven't read anything about the Egyptians mixing extensively with the Hyskos?
It may not have been the Hyksos per se. There were Asiatic immigrants pouring into Egypt during the Middle Kingdom before they took over.
Ok,
Lol you were talking about ridiculous Afrocentric and the like, I just ran across and extremely euro centric blog called Matilda blog, claiming that the ancient Nubian were 70% Eurasian! Even when the tiskoff study states that east Africans have very little Eurasian DNA.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Thankfully she does not update her blog anymore.
Posted by Ceasar (Member # 18274) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Ceasar: Hey I was reading your article on the site and you said that Egyptian cranial structure started to significantly change after the Hyskos invasions. I thought it started to chagne significantly change during the late period? I haven't read anything about the Egyptians mixing extensively with the Hyskos?
It may not have been the Hyksos per se. There were Asiatic immigrants pouring into Egypt during the Middle Kingdom before they took over.
Ok, was the change enough not to be considered typically Egyptian anymore? Also I assume crania change some over time over periods of thousands of years
According to another source I think posted by Morpheus it states that the late period had such a change that it fell out of the range of African variability, did the study that you saw state that?
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: See if you can find the PDF file for this:
Zakrzewski, Sonia R. "Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania." In Program of the Seventy-Third Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 215. Tampa, FL: American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 2004
It shows that Late Period Egyptian crania are distinct enough from earlier Egyptian crania to be considered "not typically Egyptian".
The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series. This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (Bioarchaeology Panel), Durham University (Addison-Wheeler Fellowship) and by University of Southampton. [/QB]
Ok so you guys bitch and moan about the Egyptian samples in the Howells database but ignore the fact that in studies like Hanihara 03 both kerma and naqada samples grouped away from sub saharan Africans and instead with west eurasians. Not to mention Keitas study on badari crania he uses Howells data base. So according to your own logic those findings are invalid. Not to mention he uses a small set of variables for that analysis.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^^ lol "Nord" when will you learn? Kerma & Naqada are both tropically-adapted African variants, just like the other variants called "sub Saharan". No matter how you slice it the data is all with tropically adapted Africans. The term "Sub-Saharan" as such means little since you are dealing with tropical African variants across the board.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kemp's dendrograms show this..
And in Hanihara 2003, Somalians group with other east Africans like Kenyans, undermining the "white Somalian" argument you have made elsewhere. Your own references keep debunking you "Nord," when will you learn?
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
Limb proportions are an adaptive trait and not indicative of ancestry nice try though.
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Limb proportions are an adaptive trait and not indicative of ancestry......
^ False.
Traits indicate ancestry because they are proven to be inherited, and *not* because they are presumed to be 'non adaptive'.
According to anthropologist's tropical limb ratios do indicate tropical ancestry, which is exactly what Dr. Keita is saying.
You are just running away from this fact because tropically adapted is a nice way of refuting delusions of "Nordic" origins.
Probably the most famous thing to originate in Norway - is the Norway rat.
You may take credit for that.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL
By the way, I am an Asian American with an interest in world history. I got interested in the black African identity of ancient Egypt way back when I was in high school and had to do a report on the origins of Egypt. Even most of the sources of that time showed Egypt's culture being indigenous to Africa which made me question the traditional 'Western' portrayals of the Egyptians as 'Middle Eastern' or whites with tans! So I did more research, and the more I dug the more I realized the GREAT LIE of history or the GREAT COVER up or WHITE WASH, whatever you want to call it. This is one of the worst legacies of racism is the blatant historiographical lies. Though I should point out even Asian history has been affected by such white-washing, it pales in comparison to Africa and the Middle East. This sick twisted mentality can be seen par exemplar with posters like White Nord, Non Prophet, and Simple Girl. They practically live their lies based on racist lies, and when their delusions get threatened they go on the attack. Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
According to 99, "Traits(limb proportions) indicate ancestry because they are proven to be inherited...tropical limb ratios do indicate tropical ancestry" so you conclude that limb ratios or proportions indicate closer genetic or phylogenetic distance between all or some tropical groups? You know Old Kingdom Egypt is in the sub-tropics like most of the Near East and is a desert climate and is cool to cold especially in the early AM or late PM. Cite the peer-reviewed source to show these adaptive traits are linked genetically between tropical groups.
quote:Originally posted by 99:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Limb proportions are an adaptive trait and not indicative of ancestry......
^
False. Traits indicate ancestry because they are proven to be inherited, and *not* because they are presumed to be 'non adaptive'.
According to anthropologist's tropical limb ratios do indicate tropical ancestry, which is exactly what Dr. Keita is saying.
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
quote:so you conclude that limb ratios or proportions indicate closer genetic or phylogenetic distance between all or some tropical groups
^ Feel free to cite where "I" concluded that.
Again Dr Keita concludes:
quote:...tropical limb ratios do indicate tropical ancestry.
^ Can you site an anthropologist who can refute the above?
No?
Didn't think so.
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: You know Old Kingdom Egypt is in the sub-tropics
^ You know, that is precisely the point that Dr. Keita makes.
"The early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics" - The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians Professor S.O.Y. Keita Department of Biological Anthropology Oxford University
^ Do the implications of the above statement by Dr. Keita go over your head completely?
Apparently so.
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
quote:They practically live their lies based on racist lies, and when their delusions get threatened they go on the attack
^ Yes, but they are not very good at it.
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by 99:
quote:They practically live their lies based on racist lies, and when their delusions get threatened they go on the attack
^ Yes, but they are not very good at it.
Yo, Get real brotha. Many unrelated people globally have tropical limb proportions and only Egocentrists like to imply the tropical limb ratio to AE genetic link. The modern Egyptians have closer limb ratios to the AE than your people who consider them 'Arab invaders' and 'Turk mutts.' Keita is a dressed up milder, non-militant version of an Afrocentric pseudo-scholar fraud. He likes to spin other studies and never has any original research or theories. Ya no wat im sayin, HTP
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
quote:They practically live their lies based on racist lies, and when their delusions get threatened they go on the attack
quote:Yes, but they are not very good at it.
And their frustrated non responsive replies are a perfect example of their "not being very good at it". ->
quote:Many unrelated people globally have tropical limb proportions
^ This irrelevant non sequitur is supposed to make us forget the questions he couldn't answer:
quote: Again Dr Keita concludes:
quote: ...tropical limb ratios do indicate tropical ancestry. ^ Can you site an anthropologist who can refute the above?
No?
Didn't think so.
^ Still waiting. Looks like you can't answer?
Also.....
quote:The early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics" - The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians Professor S.O.Y. Keita Department of Biological Anthropology Oxford University
^ Do the implications of the above statement by Dr. Keita go over your head completely?
Apparently so.
^
You are required to do precisely two things:
1) Cite the anthropologist who can refute Keita.
2) Explain the meaning of the citation from Keita.
You've done neither.
Why don't you just respond by saying that you are quite clueless and can't answer?
It'd save you time and frustration.
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
^ Deafening silence, while the Nordicentrists search for an irrelevant strawman in a futile attempt to hide their lack of answers.
quote:Yes, but they are not very good at it.
->
ON cue, a non-sequitur from non-prophet ->
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
Why don't the SSA 'tropically adapted limbed' people cluster closer genetically to the Upper Egyptians than the Eurasians? Where is pseudo-scholar Keita's spin on this study?
Genetic variation of 15 autosomal STR loci in Upper (Southern) Egyptians
Ghada A. OmranaCorresponding Author Informationemail addressemail address, Guy N. Ruttya, Mark A. Joblingb
Received 1 March 2008; accepted 12 May 2008. published online 03 July 2008. Abstract
A sample of 265 unrelated individuals inhabiting five governorates in Upper (south) Egypt was collected with informed consent. The samples were amplified using the AmpFℓSTR®Identifiler™PCR Amplification Kit (containing 15 loci: D8S1179, D21S11, D7S820, CSF1PO, D3S1358, TH01, D13S317, D16S539, D2S1338, D19S433, vWA, TPOX, D18S51, D5S818 and FGA), and genotyped subsequent to capillary electrophoresis. Statistical analysis of the generated data indicated neither departure from expectation of Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) in most of the tested loci nor dependence of alleles between loci. All tested loci were polymorphic; the most discriminating is D18S51 while the least is TPOX. The combined power of exclusion was 0.99999868 and the combined match probability was 1.93×10−18. The genetic diversity of the Upper Egyptians was compared with those of other populations at the local, regional and global levels.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Why don't the SSA 'tropically adapted limbed' people cluster closer genetically to the Upper Egyptians than the Eurasians?
Of course it takes being an idiot like yourself to post a genetic study and ask about limb proportions. Lol
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
^ LOL.
What choice do they have?
When you can't answer the question - change the subject.
quote:Yes, but they are not very good at it.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Limb proportions are an adaptive trait and not indicative of ancestry nice try though.
Traits "adaptive" to climate are also passed on genetically "Nord". That is why you have white skin, which evolved as an environmental adaptation and was passed on to you by your white ancestors, even if they move to the tropics. This is basic biology 101. Your "Nordic" science is bogus.
"Adaptive traits accumulate within a population. As a result of natural selection, various traits become more or less common in a population, and the overall character of the individuals within that population changes. For example, if a long bill is both heritable and adaptive, then over time, more hummingbirds will have the longer bill. In this example, the genetic traits that allow a hummingbird to get more nectar faster are adaptive traits. They are traits that allow it to reproduce more successfully than birds with shorter bills." --Tobin and Dusheck, 2004, Asking about life. pg 322
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Why don't the SSA 'tropically adapted limbed' people cluster closer genetically to the Upper Egyptians than the Eurasians? Where is pseudo-scholar Keita's spin on this study?
Genetic variation of 15 autosomal STR loci in Upper (Southern) Egyptians
Ghada A. OmranaCorresponding Author Informationemail addressemail address, Guy N. Ruttya, Mark A. Joblingb
Received 1 March 2008; accepted 12 May 2008. published online 03 July 2008. Abstract
A sample of 265 unrelated individuals inhabiting five governorates in Upper (south) Egypt was collected with informed consent. The samples were amplified using the AmpFℓSTR®Identifiler™PCR Amplification Kit (containing 15 loci: D8S1179, D21S11, D7S820, CSF1PO, D3S1358, TH01, D13S317, D16S539, D2S1338, D19S433, vWA, TPOX, D18S51, D5S818 and FGA), and genotyped subsequent to capillary electrophoresis. Statistical analysis of the generated data indicated neither departure from expectation of Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) in most of the tested loci nor dependence of alleles between loci. All tested loci were polymorphic; the most discriminating is D18S51 while the least is TPOX. The combined power of exclusion was 0.99999868 and the combined match probability was 1.93×10−18. The genetic diversity of the Upper Egyptians was compared with those of other populations at the local, regional and global levels.
Already debunked.
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
^ It is almost cruel of us to toy with these fools.
quote: "In this regard it is interesting to note that limb proportions of Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be "Super-Negroid," meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans.....skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics." (C.L. Brace, 1993. Clines and clusters..")
^ "It is noteworthy- that Egypt, is not actually in the tropics." - Keita.
^
quote:Look up Allen's rule.
We already know Allen's rule.
We know it doesn't help you in any way.
And we know you haven't a prayer of showing otherwise.
You're getting killed here, you know that don't you? Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
Idiots,
Look up Allen's rule.
You people are too stupid to notice the 'tropical adapted limbed' UE clustering closer to 'cold-adapted' East Asians than your Yoruban and Mande 'tropically limbed' brothas.
Ya no wat im sayin, aiight, HTP
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
Define 'closer' in your comic spam zarahan without spamming again.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan:
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Why don't the SSA 'tropically adapted limbed' people cluster closer genetically to the Upper Egyptians than the Eurasians? Where is pseudo-scholar Keita's spin on this study?
Genetic variation of 15 autosomal STR loci in Upper (Southern) Egyptians
Ghada A. OmranaCorresponding Author Informationemail addressemail address, Guy N. Ruttya, Mark A. Joblingb
Received 1 March 2008; accepted 12 May 2008. published online 03 July 2008. Abstract
A sample of 265 unrelated individuals inhabiting five governorates in Upper (south) Egypt was collected with informed consent. The samples were amplified using the AmpFℓSTR®Identifiler™PCR Amplification Kit (containing 15 loci: D8S1179, D21S11, D7S820, CSF1PO, D3S1358, TH01, D13S317, D16S539, D2S1338, D19S433, vWA, TPOX, D18S51, D5S818 and FGA), and genotyped subsequent to capillary electrophoresis. Statistical analysis of the generated data indicated neither departure from expectation of Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) in most of the tested loci nor dependence of alleles between loci. All tested loci were polymorphic; the most discriminating is D18S51 while the least is TPOX. The combined power of exclusion was 0.99999868 and the combined match probability was 1.93×10−18. The genetic diversity of the Upper Egyptians was compared with those of other populations at the local, regional and global levels.
Already debunked.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Of course it takes being an idiot like yourself to post a genetic study and ask about limb proportions. Lol [/QB]
^^The above flew clear over your head. You can't take a genetic map and discuss the relationship of limb proportions fool. Lol @ your ineptness showing again.
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
quote:Non Prophet writes: Define 'closer'
^ Closer as in, you're not any closer to providing the requested answers, even after several pointless ranting replies.
->
quote:Originally posted by 99:
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: You know Old Kingdom Egypt is in the sub-tropics
^ You know, that is precisely the point that Dr. Keita makes.
"The early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics" - The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians Professor S.O.Y. Keita Department of Biological Anthropology Oxford University
^ Do the implications of the above statement by Dr. Keita go over your head completely?
Apparently so.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
The only idiot is you. Allen's rule states states that among warm-blooded animals, individuals in populations of the same species living in warm climates near the equator tend to have longer limbs than do populations living further away from the equator in colder environments. This is due to the fact that a body with relatively long appendages is less compact and subsequently has more surface area. The greater the surface area, the faster body heat will be lost to the environment. This is precisely why Egyptians in the arid tropics of their country have tropical limb proportions dummy, more similar to limb proportion of other more southerly tropical Africans. Such tropical Africans do live close to Egypt dummy.
And your diagram is not analyzing limb proportions fool, as Mind has already pointed out.
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
Some of you guys are obvious white boy gamer Afroimposter trolls like MOM718, who wrote about black inferiority and was serious, or either too stupid to understand. Do we have to remind all of your antics, MOM718?
zarahan, where is your spam on your youtube account? Define 'closer to tropical peoples like Africans' in what specific terms? Only limb ratios? And if so what is the implication?
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Some of you guys are obvious white boy gamer Afroimposter trolls
Whoever they are. They are kicking your rear end, and you are clearly in full retreat.
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by 99:
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: [QB] Some of you guys are obvious white boy gamer Afroimposter trolls
Whoever they are. They are kicking you're rear end.
So you obviously don't care to align yourself with secret Nazis who pretend to be Afrocentric? Are you one? WoW gamer guild name?
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
^ Who are we?
We are the ones putting the beat down on you.
You are the one getting beat down.
Now that we know who everyone is......
quote:Non Prophet whines: Define 'closer to tropical peoples like Africans' in what specific terms? Only limb ratios? And if so what is the implication?
^ Implication of illiteracy, on your part??
--->
quote: "In this regard it is interesting to note that limb proportions of Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be "Super-Negroid," meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans.....skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics." (C.L. Brace, 1993. Clines and clusters..")
^ "It is noteworthy- that Egypt, is not actually in the tropics." - Keita.
^ Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Some of you guys are obvious white boy gamer Afroimposter trolls like MOM718, who wrote about black inferiority and was serious, or either too stupid to understand. Do we have to remind all of your antics, MOM718?
LoL nice or should I say poor try at a diversion, you can feel free to quote me on this, I'll wait. Please, I implore you to show where I wrote about black inferiority.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
“Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.“ --Keita
Keita is right, and is backed by Zarkewski, and Raxter/Ruff. Those who populated ancient Egypt came primarily from the tropical zones to the south, adjacent to Egypt. It should also be noted however that part of southern Egypt falls directly within the tropical zone.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Zaharan
When you say part of southern Egypt is in the tropical zone, does this include ancient Egypts southern borders?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: “Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.“ --Keita
Keita is right, and is backed by Zarkewski, and Raxter/Ruff. Those who populated ancient Egypt came primarily from the tropical zones to the south, adjacent to Egypt. It should also be noted however that part of southern Egypt falls directly within the tropical zone.
You think in binary terms only that populations have either cold or tropically adapted limb ratios without recognizing the natural gradation range even within indigenous local populations. Also you neglect the cultural inventions that allow migrating people to adapt to new environmental conditions. What is the cutoff point between a cold and tropically adapted limb ratio? Limb ratio is an adaptive trait only that is not correlated with modern phylogenetics. If you think otherwise, point to a recent peer-reviewed study that claims genetic linkage between populations based on limb proportions and/or other phenotypes.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
What's taking you so long nonprophet?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Some of you guys are obvious white boy gamer Afroimposter trolls like MOM718, who wrote about black inferiority and was serious, or either too stupid to understand. Do we have to remind all of your antics, MOM718?
LoL nice or should I say poor try at a diversion, you can feel free to quote me on this, I'll wait. Please, I implore you to show where I wrote about black inferiority.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: You think in binary terms only that populations have either cold or tropically adapted limb ratios without recognizing the natural gradation range even within indigenous local populations. Also you neglect the cultural inventions that allow migrating people to adapt to new environmental conditions. What is the cutoff point between a cold and tropically adapted limb ratio?
Here's the thing you fail to understand which is that the ancient Egyptian's limb proportional indices are actually higher than in many African populations, indicating an extreme adaptation to the tropical environment, they're not merely tropically adapted, instead they're extremely tropically adapted.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Thnx MOM
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Limb ratio is an adaptive trait only that is not correlated with modern phylogenetics. If you think otherwise, point to a recent peer-reviewed study that claims genetic linkage between populations based on limb proportions and/or other phenotypes.
The correlation of limb proportions here is to show that the ancient Egyptians came from a tropical environment, just like other indigenous Africans, and had resided in this tropical environment for a very long time.
Noted below by 99;
quote: "In this regard it is interesting to note that limb proportions of Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be "Super-Negroid," meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans.....skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics." (C.L. Brace, 1993. Clines and clusters..")
^
As also noted, they're limb proportional indices are higher than in many African populations. This indicates they were from tropical Africa. How many times did you fail the first grade?
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Limb ratio is an adaptive trait only that is not correlated with modern phylogenetics. If you think otherwise, point to a recent peer-reviewed study that claims genetic linkage between populations based on limb proportions and/or other phenotypes.
The correlation of limb proportions here is to show that the ancient Egyptians came from a tropical environment, just like other indigenous Africans, and had resided in this tropical environment for a very long time.
Noted below by 99;
quote: "In this regard it is interesting to note that limb proportions of Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be "Super-Negroid," meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans.....skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics." (C.L. Brace, 1993. Clines and clusters..")
^
As also noted, they're limb proportional indices are higher than in many African populations. This indicates they were from tropical Africa. How many times did you fail the first grade?
What is the point? How does it answer my questions? So what if some may have been super-tropically adapted. Tropically and super-tropically adapted people are found all over in multiple ethnic groups in subtropical and temperate zones. What does this imply phylogenetically? Are you extrapolating that all were super-tropical and that there was no random variation or epigenetic influence? Are you also going to imply a link with AE by the Sickle cell disease trait? LOL
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Zarahan,MOM,your constant beat-downs of Non prophet and White Nord is too much it's almost bullying why can't you guys be nice and let them win one..
Casar and 99 I grow-up in a family that had an African centered outlook,my country of origin Jamaica was the birth place of Garvey and I am partially descended from the eastern Maroons,a people who won their freedom through force of arms. people like the Ashanti and kromanti we claim descent from,My uncles are Rastas so Ethiopia was important to them,me learning about Ethiopia I learnt about Kemet thus began my journey. Btw when you have a chance visit and sign-up to the sister site to this one,many of us post back and forth here and there http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: You think in binary terms only that populations have either cold or tropically adapted limb ratios without recognizing the natural gradation range even within indigenous local populations. Also you neglect the cultural inventions that allow migrating people to adapt to new environmental conditions. What is the cutoff point between a cold and tropically adapted limb ratio?
Here's the thing you fail to understand which is that the ancient Egyptian's limb proportional indices are actually higher than in many African populations, indicating an extreme adaptation to the tropical environment, they're not merely tropically adapted, instead they're extremely tropically adapted.
No one can miss the point of 'super-negroid' propaganda you people keep regurgitating ad nauseam.
Where is the recent peer-reviewed study that shows limb ratio and genetic correlation?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^ What it does, is it excludes so called Caucasians from being a significant factor in peopling of ancient Egypt.
It also shows what we already know about cranio-facial features, ie, that the intermediate cranio-facial position of Northeast Africans between the stereotyped African variants and Europeans has zero to do with admixture. Because after all:
quote:An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 19341, but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. - C. Loring Brace
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Zarahan,MOM,your constant beat-downs of Non prophet and White Nord is too much it's almost bullying why can't you guys be nice and let them win one..
Casar and 99 I grow-up in a family that had an African centered outlook,my country of origin Jamaica was the birth place of Garvey and I am partially descended from the eastern Maroons,a people who won their freedom through force of arms. people like the Ashanti and kromanti we claim descent from,My uncles are Rastas so Ethiopia was important to them,me learning about Ethiopia I learnt about Kemet thus began my journey. Btw when you have a chance visit and sign-up to the sister site to this one,many of us post back and forth here and there http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi
^Cheerleading brown nosing idiot who doesn't understand the real issue. The only benefit ES has over ESR is I wouldn't be allowed to type this message.
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^ What it does, is it excludes so called Caucasians from being a significant factor in peopling of ancient Egypt.
It also shows what we already know about cranio-facial features, ie, that the intermediate cranio-facial position of Northeast Africans has zero to do with admixture. Because after all:
quote:An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 19341, but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions.C. Loring Brace
Are you quoting zarahan's peer-reviewed spam?
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
GO Mom GO!! GO Zarahan GO!!.. Gimmie a M..M!! gimmie a O..O!! Gimmie a M..M!! wadda u get?? MOM!! Zarahan!! Zarahan!! Zarahan!! Yeaaaaa!!!! .who go get deh ass kicked every day Nonprophet!! who get deh ass kicked nite N day Nonprophet who? Nonprophet..booo ..
NonProphet Cheerleading brown nosing idiot who doesn't understand the real issue. The only benefit ES has over ESR is I wouldn't be allowed to type this message. I understand the issue only too well you trying your dumbest best to make Africans non Africans by any means necessary but lack the intellect to do so,so you get frustrated and spam like you did recently,you just can't beat the mountains of evidence whether biological,cultural,or just logical.. Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^ What it does, is it excludes so called Caucasians from being a significant factor in peopling of ancient Egypt.
It also shows what we already know about cranio-facial features, ie, that the intermediate cranio-facial position of Northeast Africans has zero to do with admixture. Because after all:
quote:An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 19341, but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions.C. Loring Brace
Are you quoting zarahan's peer-reviewed spam?
^Are you trying to pass talking out of your ass for a refutation?
Although 99 is a junior, he was very quick to catch onto what we already know about you. You have an endless supply of irrelevant crap to spout when you sense another spanking approaching. I'm sure he'll get aquanted with the rest of your Modus operandi, as more of your self defeating notions surface.
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^ What it does, is it excludes so called Caucasians from being a significant factor in peopling of ancient Egypt.
It also shows what we already know about cranio-facial features, ie, that the intermediate cranio-facial position of Northeast Africans has zero to do with admixture. Because after all:
quote:An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 19341, but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions.C. Loring Brace
Are you quoting zarahan's peer-reviewed spam?
^Are you trying to pass talking out of your ass for a refutation?
My 'ass' talk is refuting AfroNazi Logic. How would you like to stand two inches away when I'm ready to give a long 'winded' speech? Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^LOL. I knew you just wanted to be down.
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^LOL. I knew you just wanted to be down.
Weak comeback and no sense of humor.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^How about you bring in something that refutes this post? I promise, laughter will follow, though you won't be on the laughing end.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^ What it does, is it excludes so called Caucasians from being a significant factor in peopling of ancient Egypt.
It also shows what we already know about cranio-facial features, ie, that the intermediate cranio-facial position of Northeast Africans between the stereotyped African variants and Europeans has zero to do with admixture. Because after all:
quote:An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 19341, but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. - C. Loring Brace
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
ROTFLMAOH
Well come aboard 99, and please feel free to lay waste to idiot trolls like NonProphet any time!
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ I say the same thing. We need more sane/intelligent people on this site.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Where is the recent peer-reviewed study that shows limb ratio and genetic correlation?
While it's true that limb proportions do not indicate genetic relationships by themselves, they can tell us what kind of environment a given population is adapted to. The ancient Egyptians having super-tropical limb proportions indicates that they came from further south, and Sudan just happens to be the region that lies south of Egypt. Therefore, we can infer that the Egyptians would have resembled Sudanese populations (particularly northern Sudanese), who are black-skinned. You understand now?
Posted by NonProphet (Member # 17745) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Where is the recent peer-reviewed study that shows limb ratio and genetic correlation?
While it's true that limb proportions do not indicate genetic relationships by themselves, they can tell us what kind of environment a given population is adapted to. The ancient Egyptians having super-tropical limb proportions indicates that they came from further south, and Sudan just happens to be the region that lies south of Egypt. Therefore, we can infer that the Egyptians would have resembled Sudanese populations (particularly northern Sudanese), who are black-skinned. You understand now?
Didn't address any of my questions and only regurgitates the ES party line. Where are all the critical 'out of the box' thinkers on ES?
To ALL, if you can't address my questions with an intelligent reply than don't even bother.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: Where is the recent peer-reviewed study that shows limb ratio and genetic correlation?
While it's true that limb proportions do not indicate genetic relationships by themselves, they can tell us what kind of environment a given population is adapted to. The ancient Egyptians having super-tropical limb proportions indicates that they came from further south, and Sudan just happens to be the region that lies south of Egypt. Therefore, we can infer that the Egyptians would have resembled Sudanese populations (particularly northern Sudanese), who are black-skinned. You understand now?
So by what you are saying, the northern Sudanese must live within the most tropical area of Africa?
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^^It's simple even you can understand, the ancient Egyptians exhibited tropically adapted limbs, this tells the anthropologist analyzing the bones that they came from areas further south being that much of Egypt does not lie in the tropics. The closest tropics in Africa would be straight to the south towards Sudan, in combination with the evidence from Qustul showing the ancient Egyptians first Pharaohs to rule in Qustul with a progression going from south to north. The south of Egypt is where the earliest evidence of Pharaonic rule then shows up after Qustul, wherein the unification of upper and lower Egypt was achieved by the south. Its really quite simple from therein.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Zaharan
When you say part of southern Egypt is in the tropical zone, does this include ancient Egypts southern borders?
I only see climate maps based on the modern borders but a slice of southern Egypt does lie within what the climatologists call the tropical zone. Most of Egypt is not directly in the tropic zone, but is immediately adjacent in the sub-tropics, or as some climatologists say- the arid tropics. The exact bisect coordinates are given below.
The map above shows the narrow bisect of Southern Egypt more clearly. But even this line may not indicate the true extent of the tropical range into Egypt. As one book on the tropics says:
"The general understanding is that the area within the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn belong to the tropical climatic zone. However latitude is not the only parameter which can govern the climatic boundary. Typical tropical climate can be found beyond 23o 26'." --Tropical urban heat islands: climate, buildings and greenery. By Nyuk Hien Wong, Yu Chen 2008
We know the Sahara was once a lush greenbelt extending over a third of the continent. This makes the modern concept of "sub Saharan Africans" who are conveniently supposed to be behind some neat dividing line a dubious one. Tropically adapted Africans over the span of history in Africa could be anywhere- from the coasts of the Mediterranean, to the Nile Valley, on into Southern Africa.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^It's simple even you can understand, the ancient Egyptians exhibited tropically adapted limbs, this tells the anthropologist analyzing the bones that they came from areas further south being that much of Egypt does not lie in the tropics. The closest tropics in Africa would be straight to the south towards Sudan, in combination with the evidence from Qustul showing the ancient Egyptians first Pharaohs to rule in Qustul with a progression going from south to north. The south of Egypt is where the earliest evidence of Pharaonic rule then shows up after Qustul, wherein the unification of upper and lower Egypt was achieved by the south. Its really quite simple from therein.
The egyptians having a super-tropical body plan must have came from one if not the most tropical areas of Africa. That must be northern Sudan, am I right?
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
Does anyone know where the most tropical area of Africa would be at?
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
We must find the most tropical area of Africa, and then we'll know where the Egyptians came from originally.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
As all of you bozos can clearly note the ancient Egyptians cluster away from Sub Saharan Africans including Somalians in dental traits.
Oh Zaharan spare me that worthless "refutation" in those cheesy graphics you plaster in every post.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
White Nord please refrain. All we must do is find the most tropical area in Africa and we'll find the most tropically adapted people. There you will find where the ancient Egyptians came from. Simple as that.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
I assume that super-tropical means they came from the most tropical area of Africa, or is there a super duper-tropical people?
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: Does anyone know where the most tropical area of Africa would be at?
There is no single most tropical area except literally by geography - the equator.
The point is that anthropologists generally agree that Nile Valley civilization is indigenous to Africa and does not stem from migrants from the North.
White Nords self delusions find no currency among scholars or educated peoples, but rather only in certain trailer parks in the United States.
His desperation is boundless as he now posts a dental trait chart where Somalia is closer to China, than France is to Greece, and so implying..... absolutely nothing.
Which is why he can't explain that result.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Indeed, WhiteNerd, NonProof, and others are fighting a war that was loss long ago due to scientific evidence as well as historical facts.
quote:There is no single most tropical area except literally by geography - the equator.
Correct. There are varying degrees of tropical adaptation. Many West and Central Africans and their descendants-- African Americans, have limb proportions that are less tropically adapted when compared to people like the ancient Egyptians, and Africans indigenous to the subtropics like the Khoisan peoples of Southern Africa even less so. Since most of Egypt is in the subtropics, one would expect its populations to have limb proportions similar to the Khoisan peoples of Southern Africa, yet theirs is supra-tropical adapted indicating recent ancestry from equatorial regions i.e. southern Sudan and other areas like southern Chad (archaeology shows multiple waves of migration from equatorial areas into North Africa during the end of the last glacial period when North Africa was green and fertile.) If there were aboriginal groups with subtropical adaptation, they either left or were assimilated. By the way, those that left no doubt made their way into the Middle East mixing with people there if the Natufian remains are to be said as evidence.
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
As all of you bozos can clearly note the ancient Egyptians cluster away from Sub Saharan Africans including Somalians in dental traits.
Oh Zaharan spare me that worthless "refutation" in those cheesy graphics you plaster in every post.
Lol Notice the afronuts cannot refute hanihara's dental traits findings that egyptians cluster no where near sub saharan africans including somalians. They will simply rely on zaharan to spam his mindless and irrelevant photoshopped graphic which provide no real answer as to why "tropical" egyptians have non tropical affinities when it comes to their denal traits
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
Also Arabians and Yemeni people are tropically adapted which makes Afronuts limb prortion claims dubious.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Also Arabians and Yemeni people are tropically adapted which makes Afronuts limb prortion claims dubious.
And you know this how? Those populations are certainly not black.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl: White Nord please refrain. All we must do is find the most tropical area in Africa and we'll find the most tropically adapted people. There you will find where the ancient Egyptians came from. Simple as that.
Tropical savanna is probably the biome that stays the most consistently hot. There's also tropical rainforest, but the heat is reduced by the jungle canopy and the cloud cover.
By the way, 99, have you posted here before? Your lexical fingerprints remind me of an old-timer named rasol.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
^I thought the same, just like rasol. If it is glad to have him back, if not regardless good to see another fellow intellectual.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Also Arabians and Yemeni people are tropically adapted which makes Afronuts limb prortion claims dubious.
And you know this how? Those populations are certainly not black.
dana would take issue with this statement
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed, WhiteNerd like many of his ilk are totally unaware that the indigenous populations of Arabia were black also which isn't surprising considering that Arabia is right next to Africa.
Of course the matter is which Arabians including Yemenis he is referring to since Arabia including Yemen was subject to many immigrations and invasions from the north.
Perhaps the studies on tropically adapted Arabians referred to these people.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^I thought the same, just like rasol. If it is glad to have him back, if not regardless good to see another fellow intellectual.
Yeah, I miss the guy. The forum isn't quite the same without him, but if not, at least another sane intelligent person is here.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
...
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
People like Barry Kemp have described the samples analyzed for limb proportions being very small.
Everybody here knows that illustrations like the above show the Egyptians often portraying themselves as medium dark reddish brown while the Kushites as jet black, not in every single case but it is more common than not. How do you explains this if the Egyptians, based on small sample generalizations were supposedly even more tropically adapted, "super tropical" ?
Pertinent to this discussion:
1) Southern Arabia, Yemen, Oman and South India are around the same longitude as the Northern half of Sudan. Therefore some of these people could fall into the same conditions of people most often rendered darker than the Egyptians, the Kushites.
2) How long does it take for environmental conditions take to alter the limb proportions of a population? The mechanisms involved cannot be assumed to parallel the length of time melanin based skin pigmentation takes to adapt.
3) When a person with tropical limbs has a child with a person with cold adapted limbs what is the nature of the resulting child's limbs?
4)The Ju/'hoansi, San people in the deserts of Botswana, Namibia, and Anglola, and the Aborigines of Australia usually respond physiologically to the cold in a different way. Thick fat insulation develops around the vital organs of the chest and abdomen. In addition, their skin cools due to vasoconstriction . As a result, heat loss is reduced and the core body temperature remains at normal levels. However, the skin feels very cold. This response would not be adaptive if the Kung and the Aborigines lived in consistently freezing environments because the concentration of body heat in their torsos would allow the loss of fingers, toes, and other appendages from frostbite. Their physiological adaptation is to environments that rarely stay below freezing long and that do not have abundant high calorie fatty foods.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Everybody here knows that illustrations like the above show the Egyptians often portraying themselves as medium dark reddish brown while the Kushites as jet black, not in every single case but it is more common than not. How do you explains this if the Egyptians, based on small sample generalizations were supposedly even more tropically adapted, "super tropical" ?
Who says the Egyptians were more tropically adapted than the Kushites?
quote:When a person with tropical limbs has a child with a person with cold adapted limbs what is the nature of the resulting child's limbs.
You appear to not understand an important thing about evolution: it usually happens gradually over many generations. A tropically adapted person might have a child with slightly stubbier limbs, but you'll need generations of natural selection for cold-adapted limb proportions to be the norm in a population.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: 3) When a person with tropical limbs has a child with a person with cold adapted limbs what is the nature of the resulting child's limbs.
You appear to not understand an important thing about evolution: it usually happens gradually over many generations. A tropically adapted person might have a child with slightly stubbier limbs, but you'll need generations of natural selection for cold-adapted limb proportions to be the norm in a population.
I understand that point perfectly and I have pointed it out in numerous posts, the gradualism of evolution. That point has nothing to do with the question of what are limb proportions of a child of parents each with significantly different limb proportions, tropical and cold adapted.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: You appear to not understand an important thing about evolution:
She does not understand much about anything, I say just leave her to wallow in her own ignorance, nobody elses fault.
Of course she posed this same question before and received an answer which explained that a first generational child of one tropically adapted and a cold adapted parent would likely be an intermediate index.
P.S. We already know these questions are simply distractions from having to deal with the facts posted on the A. Egyptians.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: [qb] You appear to not understand an important thing about evolution:
She does not understand much about anything, I say just leave her to wallow in her own ignorance, nobody elses fault.
Of course she posed this same question before and received an answer which explained that a first generational child of one tropically adapted and a cold adapted parent would likely be an intermediate index.
"would likely be" is not good enough
Posted by White Nord (Member # 14093) on :
Lioness notice how these Afronuts pick and chose what they want to respond to. Notice how no one has a damn explanation as to why Egyptians group away from Sub Saharans in dental affinity. They run away like bitches haha.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord:
As all of you bozos can clearly note the ancient Egyptians cluster away from Sub Saharan Africans including Somalians in dental traits.
Oh Zaharan spare me that worthless "refutation" in those cheesy graphics you plaster in every post.
Lol Notice the afronuts cannot refute hanihara's dental traits findings that egyptians cluster no where near sub saharan africans including somalians. They will simply rely on zaharan to spam his mindless and irrelevant photoshopped graphic which provide no real answer as to why "tropical" egyptians have non tropical affinities when it comes to their denal traits
^^"Nord" you keep posting this same graphic like some sort of magical "Odin" charm. But here's your same screenshot and it is clear that you are only presenting a one sided picture. There is nothing "photoshopped". As with almost all of my diagrams, it is the exact same screenshots posted by you, Madilda and/or Dinkenkes (thanks much), with clear annotations and DIRECT quotes or citations anyone can verify, debunking your claims. Quit crying and face up to the music. Odin ain't gonna save you.
^^You are also always posting Hanihara, 2003. But again, you are debunking yourself with your own "evidence." The Egyptians group with other tropical Africans like Nubians and guess what? Your "white" Somalids, just as in your dental screenshot, cluster nearer to Africans than your beloved Europeans or "Middle easterners." There's another one of your claims, debunked with your own screenshot.
As for your "dental" proof, we have already dispensed with your original diagram but lets look at dental studies. One of the key dental studies in the field actually clusters the key Egyptian Badarian group with tropical Africans rather than your beloved "Caucasoids".. Look, Nurd, look..
dental study...
and where does the data cluster "Nord"?
That's multiple times at bat, and you still fail "Nord"..
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Lioness notice how these Afronuts pick and chose what they want to respond to. Notice how no one has a damn explanation as to why Egyptians group away from Sub Saharans in dental affinity. They run away like bitches haha.
I contend that many ancient Egyptians were black people other ancient Egyptians not. There are little skeletal remains to be sure one way or the other. If you look at the art there is a degree of variance, even within a royal lineages before late dynasties that suggests a diversity of types that go beyond the diverse types found in Africa. To go from Egypt to Jordan or Syria is closer than to go to Southern Sudan and Ethiopia. To do so the continent switches from Africa to Asia is an irrelevant name change.
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
^ Flawed logic, and "special pleading".
Africa and Asia are not just irrelevant 'name changes', they are continents. This has huge implications for all of biology.
Continents form population bottlenecks and barriers for species of plants and animals.
It's true the the Levant is closer to Africa than it is to Europe.
It's also true the Italy is closer to Africa than it is to Norway.
But the peoples of Italy come primarily from Northern Europe - not from Africa.
And this is why Italians speak a European [Latin] language and have a European culture.
Funny how you don't claim that "Europe" has no bological, cultural or historical meaning other than an irrelevant name change - why is that?
Likewise northern China has closer proximity to Russia than to Southern China or Hong Kong.... so is "China" somehow irrelevant too?
Conversely the Levantine's native "Semitic" language is *African* in origin, and reflects the reality of the African migrations INTO the Levantine.
So Ancient Egypt is as African as Rome was European, and China is Asian.
Ancient Egypt's African identity cannot be qualified because of it's physical proximity to the Levantine, without engaging in blatant hypocrisy.
This form of hypocrisy is called "special pleading".
It means that unequal standards are applied to similar conditions in order to provide fake justification for a pre-existing bias, and that's what you just did.
-> Now see the following post, again from MindoverMatter.
There is a *reason* that AE were physiologically tropical.
It is not "irrelevant".
Posted by 99 (Member # 18402) on :
quote:It's simple even you can understand, the ancient Egyptians exhibited tropically adapted limbs, this tells the anthropologist analyzing the bones that they came from areas further south being that much of Egypt does not lie in the tropics.
^ Intelligent post.
Thank you for answering the query that caused White Nord and Non Prophet to 'plead clueless"
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Let me add that from a geological perspective, Africa truly is a distinct continent. It has its own tectonic plate for crying out loud:
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: To go from Egypt to Jordan or Syria is closer than to go to Southern Sudan and Ethiopia. To do so the continent switches from Africa to Asia is an irrelevant name change.
But Nubia is closest of all to Egypt---in fact, Nubia is just upriver of Egypt! You don't have to cross hundreds of miles of barren desert to get to Egypt from Nubia, you just have to go down the Nile Valley.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: To go from Egypt to Jordan or Syria is closer than to go to Southern Sudan and Ethiopia. To do so the continent switches from Africa to Asia is an irrelevant name change.
But Nubia is closest of all to Egypt---in fact, Nubia is just upriver of Egypt! You don't have to cross hundreds of miles of barren desert to get to Egypt from Nubia, you just have to go down the Nile Valley.
You can't discount the possibility of input coming from any region no referred to as bordering to Egypt, including Nubia, Libya, The Middle East. Sources you use note very small sample size. Ramesses II considered to one of the most prominent Pharaohs does not conform to tropical limb proportions. That is remarkable.
Continents have certain characteristics but genetic bottleneck is also physical bottleneck in the case of Egypt. It's the only land bridge between the two continents. So this is the area where most human interaction between the continents is to occur. That is a concentrated point which focuses trade and other interactions of a wide variety of people from above and below that physical bottleneck. Likewise genetic admixture is most likely to occur in this area, Egypt.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: You can't discount the possibility of input coming from any region no referred to as bordering to Egypt, including Nubia, Libya, The Middle East.
There's an important difference between Nubia and those other two regions. To get to Egypt from Nubia you only have to travel downriver. You are next to a fresh water source the whole time. On the other hand, getting to the Egyptian Nile Valley from Libya or the Middle East requires crossing hundreds of miles of desert without a convenient fresh water source. Therefore, it is much easier to get to Egypt from Nubia than it is to get there from Libya or the Middle East.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: You can't discount the possibility of input coming from any region no referred to as bordering to Egypt, including Nubia, Libya, The Middle East.
There's an important difference between Nubia and those other two regions. To get to Egypt from Nubia you only have to travel downriver. You are next to a fresh water source the whole time. On the other hand, getting to the Egyptian Nile Valley from Libya or the Middle East requires crossing hundreds of miles of desert without a convenient fresh water source. Therefore, it is much easier to get to Egypt from Nubia than it is to get there from Libya or the Middle East.
You have to look at it in context of the climate at the time
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: You can't discount the possibility of input coming from any region no referred to as bordering to Egypt, including Nubia, Libya, The Middle East.
There's an important difference between Nubia and those other two regions. To get to Egypt from Nubia you only have to travel downriver. You are next to a fresh water source the whole time. On the other hand, getting to the Egyptian Nile Valley from Libya or the Middle East requires crossing hundreds of miles of desert without a convenient fresh water source. Therefore, it is much easier to get to Egypt from Nubia than it is to get there from Libya or the Middle East.
You have to look at it in context of the climate at the time
Do you know how the Sahara became a grassland during the Neolithic in the first place?
I'll tell you: it was the northward movement of the monsoon from sub-Saharan Africa. That means that the majority of people following the monsoon into the Sahara would have come from the south. Even if there was a little movement into Egypt from the Middle East and Mediterranean littoral, it would have paled in comparison to the large numbers of southerners.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: You can't discount the possibility of input coming from any region no referred to as bordering to Egypt, including Nubia, Libya, The Middle East.
There's an important difference between Nubia and those other two regions. To get to Egypt from Nubia you only have to travel downriver. You are next to a fresh water source the whole time. On the other hand, getting to the Egyptian Nile Valley from Libya or the Middle East requires crossing hundreds of miles of desert without a convenient fresh water source. Therefore, it is much easier to get to Egypt from Nubia than it is to get there from Libya or the Middle East.
You have to look at it in context of the climate at the time
Do you know how the Sahara became a grassland during the Neolithic in the first place?
I'll tell you: it was the northward movement of the monsoon from sub-Saharan Africa. That means that the majority of people following the monsoon into the Sahara would have come from the south. Even if there was a little movement into Egypt from the Middle East and Mediterranean littoral, it would have paled in comparison to the large numbers of southerners.
This may be the case but to say definitively that Egyptian civilization including the early and middle dynastic period had no Asians in the citizenry or government is a political position having to do with racial exclusivity.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Consider this: the limb proportions of Southwest Asians have been found to be somewhat cold-adapted, which is very different from the super-tropical limb proportions of the Egyptians (yes, even the Lower Egyptians). If there was an Asian presence at all, it was very minor.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^^Of course. ^^No one ever said that there would be no 'Asians' in Egypt. "No Asians" is creating a bogus strawman to argue against. There was always small scale movement from the Levant and Mesopotamia, if only for trade purposes, or via use of mercenaries, slaves, etc etc. Small localized pools of foreigners were always possible. The key point is that such movement was minor until the late stages of Egyptian civilization and had little impact overall on the fundamental indigenous tropical African population of ancient Egypt. This has been explained time and time again.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
I wonder if lioness thinks that there was a significant Asian presence in ancient Greece? Greece is after all next door to Asia.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Thus is the very crux of the matter. There were black Africans present in ancient Rome also, even in high positions such as emperor Septimius Severus. Yet nobody is crazy enough to call Rome a "multi-racial" or multicultural society because the people were overwhelmingly European and so was their culture! Indeed, we have more evidence of Asiatic influence both genetically and culturally in Greece than we do have for Egypt, yet I don't hear you call Greece "mixed" or "multicultural"! In fact I pointed this out to Lynass several times before only to be ignored. Not surprising.
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: ...Ramesses II considered to one of the most prominent Pharaohs does not conform to tropical limb proportions. That is remarkable.
Again, says only YOU! When will you stop lying and illogically pleading and just submit to the TRUTH for once in you pathetic life?? Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Indeed, we have more evidence of Asiatic influence both genetically and culturally in Greece than we do have for Egypt, yet I don't hear you call Greece "mixed" or "multicultural"!
You know, Greece could just as easily be divorced from the rest of Europe as people try to divorce Egypt from the rest of Africa. You only have to do the following:
1) Point out the geographic barrier between Greece and inner Europe (in this case mountains)
2) Define "true Europeans" as being blond-haired, blue-eyed, and very pale, which most Greeks were not. Argue that dark-haired, dark-eyed inner Europeans are the product of Asiatic migration.
3) Point out the technological gap between the ancient Greeks and northern Europeans living at the same time.
4) Overemphasize cultural similarities between Greece and the Near East while writing off cultural similarities between Greece and the rest of Europe as coincidential. Ignore the fact that Indo-European, the language phylum to which Greek belongs, originated in northeastern Europe.
Does any of the above sound familiar?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I wonder if lioness thinks that there was a significant Asian presence in ancient Greece? Greece is after all next door to Asia.
yes
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Well that's a start. Too bad the same cannot be said for Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: You know, Greece could just as easily be divorced from the rest of Europe as people try to divorce Egypt from the rest of Africa...
Actually more easily if one simply looks at the archaeological and historical records of the ancient Greeks themselves. Even the Greeks say that much of their culture comes from pre-Greek ancestors from the east in Anatolia as well as the south from Africa.
quote:Originally posted by 99: Conversely the Levantine's native "Semitic" language is *African* in origin, and reflects the reality of the African migrations INTO the Levantine.
Not only are African derived (Semitic) languages spoken in the Levant as well as Arabia, but we have evidence from both archaeology as well as bio-anthropology of migrations FROM Africa INTO Asia. Where is such evidence of the opposite in regards to Egypt? Were there any Asian derived languages in Egypt? Any Asian derived traits or lineages?? So far her Lyingass fails to provide ANYTHING in this regard.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Indeed, we have more evidence of Asiatic influence both genetically and culturally in Greece than we do have for Egypt, yet I don't hear you call Greece "mixed" or "multicultural"!
You know, Greece could just as easily be divorced from the rest of Europe as people try to divorce Egypt from the rest of Africa. You only have to do the following:
1) Point out the geographic barrier between Greece and inner Europe (in this case mountains)
2) Define "true Europeans" as being blond-haired, blue-eyed, and very pale, which most Greeks were not. Argue that dark-haired, dark-eyed inner Europeans are the product of Asiatic migration.
3) Point out the technological gap between the ancient Greeks and northern Europeans living at the same time.
4) Overemphasize cultural similarities between Greece and the Near East while writing off cultural similarities between Greece and the rest of Europe as coincidential. Ignore the fact that Indo-European, the language phylum to which Greek belongs, originated in northeastern Europe.
Does any of the above sound familiar?
^^ Hmm, you may be on to something. After all the Greeks even borrowed their alphabet from the Near Eastern peoples.
Here is one conservative scholar on Greek borrowing from Egypt and the Near east. HEs lists the adoption of writing as of crucial development to Greek civ, and points out that the Greeks did not invent their own alphabet but copied that of the Phonecians, peoples of a Near eastern and North African locale..
Another key influence, the introduction of iron technology was again, not a Greek invention but came from elsewhere.
The conservative also questions the "Greek Miracle.."
Below is another conservative writer. He is a staunch supporter of Greek philosophy, but even he notes that the Greeks STYLE of philosophy was different, not that they invented the subject. He notes that peoples of the Near East and Egypt already had their own philosophy. It is a matter of style, and Greek preferences, and how "philosophy" is defined. The conservative writer openly admits this. quote: "the perspective from which I discussed philosophy- was very much a Greek one."
Incidentally the same author also notes that questioning the degree to which Greek civ is derivative is something longstanding in some of the "classics" literature.
Here's another conservative scholar:
---------------------------------------------- Yet another mainstream scholar says:
"No aspect of this question is more discussed at present than the relation between Greece and the near East, especially Egypt. Some nineteenth-century scholars wished to downplay or deny any significant cultural influence of the Near East on Greece, but that was plainly not the ancient Greek view of the question. Greek intellectuals of the historical period proclaimed that Greeks owed a great deal to the older civilization of Egypt, in particular in religion and art. Recent research agrees with this ancient opinion. Greek sculptors in the Archaic Age chiseled their statutes according to a set of proportions established by Egyptian artists. Greek mythology, the stories that the Greeks told themselves about their deepest origins and their relations to the gods, was infused with stories and motifs of Near Eastern origin. The clearest evidence of the influence of Egyptian culture in Greek is the store if seminal religious ideas that flowed from Egypt to Greece: the geography of the underworld, the weighing of the souls of the dead in scales, the life-giving properties of fire as commemorated in the initiation ceremonies of the international cult of the goddess Semeter of Eleusis (a famous site in Athenian territory), and much more. These influences are not surprising because archaeology reveals that the population inhabiting Greece had diplomatic and commercial contact with the Near East as early as the middle of the second millennium B.C... When the Greeks learned from the peoples of the Near East, they made what they learned their own. This is how cultural identity is forged, not by mindless imitation or passive reception. (pg. 21)
"The civilizations of Mesopotamia and Anatolia particularly overshadowed those of Crete and Greece in the size of their cities and the development of extensive written legal codes. Egypt remained an especially favored destination of Mycenean voyagers throughout the late Bronze Age because they valued the exchange of goods and ideas with the prosperous and complex civilization of that land." (pg 30)
-- (From: Thomas R. Martin (2000) Ancient Greece: From Prehistoric to Hellenistic Times. Yale University Press, pg 21, 30)
--------------------
And the Greeks were not always the paragons of reason and rationality so often touted, as Greek medicinal practice attests:
"Drugs were applied not because of a belief that they had natural healing properties, but following the tenets of primitive medicine, because they had magical powers. he Greek word pharmakon, usually translated as "drug: originally designated a substance with magic powers. These powers, however, did not need to be therapeutic, (a pharmakon could be a poison or could turn humans into animals) but were originally considered to me magic..
Supernaturalistic medicine is characterized by a multiplicity of powers that can heal and kill. Primitive Greek medicine was no exception and many Greek gods had healing functions: Apollo, the first deity invoked in the Hippocratic oath; Vulcan, worshipped in Lemnos, gave his healing powers to terra lemmnia, Juno, Jupiter's wife assisted women in childbirth.. In addition some of the gods could cause sudden death: for example, both Apollo and Diana could shoot lethal darts at humans.." (--A history of medicine by Plinio Priorescho 2004) -----------------------------------------------------------------
See what you can dig up on Near Eastern or Egyptian influences on ancient greece Truth. You will shake up a lot of people, maybe even more than the ancient Egyptian info. Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
/close thread
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by 99: Conversely the Levantine's native "Semitic" language is *African* in origin, and reflects the reality of the African migrations INTO the Levantine.
Additionally this shows not only from which way this end of the Asian continent has been influenced, but from where this part of the world's influence comes from...
Surrounding areas are Africa, Europe and the rest of the Asian continent.
There's no other language in the Asian continent that is linguistically connected to the Semitic language which derives from Africa.
If the original people of southwest Asia were "Aryans" why don't they speak an Indo-European language instead of the African Semtic?
Of course those up to date know why, which again is because the influence has been from Africa and not the other around.
Southwest Asia has been noted archaeologically, linguistically and bio-anthropologically to have received multiple migrations from Africa since A.M.H.'s started leaving Africa successfully some 60kya+.
The Semitic language, is simply more recent evidence of this influence and migration from Africa into southwest Asia.
Coincidentally (to some), where anatomically modern humans derive (Africa), is where most if not all of the significance in culture and civilization around the ancient world has been found.
From ancient Sudan, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia on to Greece, Rome etc... have all arisen around Africa.
Questions for nonprophet, white nord et al.. follow below;
Why wouldn't these ancient civilizations spring up elsewhere around the world?
Why would all the ancient civilzations arise so close around the home of anatomically modern humans?
Why would there be so much evidence of influence from Africa in to Southwest Asia and Europe, yet so little can be conversely shown into Africa?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
there's no point
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Why would there be so much evidence of influence from Africa in to Southwest Asia and Europe, yet so little can be conversely shown into Africa?
posted 20 December, 2010 02:23 AM
^Ok, and anything to add? I mean anything?
A point somewhere you wish to make??
I doubt it.
P.S. I see you edited your post from originally citing the time that I posted as noted in my quote of your original post above; to something differently showing your true colors below...
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: there's no point
^Of course you had no point!
Figures.
Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
@ Lyinass;
Did you forget the point you were trying to make with that post of yours?
If not, what's taking you so long?
Just like being shown to be a fool don't ya?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: see,
the Egyptians like to mingle wit the Greeks,
/close thread
Yeah, in GREECE! This is why about a quarter of lineages there are African in origin! You're dismissed!
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
.
Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed, WhiteNerd like many of his ilk are totally unaware that the indigenous populations of Arabia were black also which isn't surprising considering that Arabia is right next to Africa.
Of course the matter is which Arabians including Yemenis he is referring to since Arabia including Yemen was subject to many immigrations and invasions from the north.
Perhaps the studies on tropically adapted Arabians referred to these people.
What a lot of people do not get as well is, Africans ruled over Arabia for a VERY VERY long time. The Quran talks about this in Surat al fil. My point is, with those rulers came African immigrations with it. So some of the "black Arabs" are of recent African immigration do to them (Africans) ruling over the Arabs.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Lioness notice how these Afronuts pick and chose what they want to respond to. Notice how no one has a damn explanation as to why Egyptians group away from Sub Saharans in dental affinity. They run away like bitches haha.
I contend that many ancient Egyptians were black people other ancient Egyptians not. There are little skeletal remains to be sure one way or the other. If you look at the art there is a degree of variance, even within a royal lineages before late dynasties that suggests a diversity of types that go beyond the diverse types found in Africa. To go from Egypt to Jordan or Syria is closer than to go to Southern Sudan and Ethiopia. To do so the continent switches from Africa to Asia is an irrelevant name change.
Until the proof is found within the genetic and skeletal evidence based on genetically determined traits your great white hope and desire will remain a null and void proposition along with those of the other Neandernuts.
Both dental studies and skeletal studies as far as I know show that ancient Egyptians almost invariably fell with in the range of ancient Ethiopians, Eritreans, Beja etc.
"Using this material, an analysis of the dental morphology of ancient Egyptian and Nubian populations (Badarian, Merotic, X-Group and Christian) indicates that the Nile corridor showed considerable biological continuity through space and time and that there is little evidence for mass movements of intrusive peoples into the area as is sometimes argued." Dental Anthropology of Early Egypt and Nubia D.L. Greene, Journal of Human Evolution Vol. 1, Issue 3. Abstract
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL Indeed. Lyinass's contentions are nothing more than wishful LIES. Again she relies on artwork which she claims show variance beyond native African diversity, though virtually ALL the artwork show features not atypical at all of Africans. She claims that skeletal remains are few. Is this b|tch for real?! LMAO Not only do we have many mummies of the elite--both royal and noble-- but the vast majority of remains come from the common people and they ALL show African NOT Eurasiatic affinities. The number of mummies Egyptologists discovered was far greater than the ones surviving since so many were destroyed by natives and Euro-colonists alike with most being burned as fuel for trains while some were sold as medicine to be eaten!! However, the analysis of all these mummies by early Western anthropologists came to the same conclusion-- that they were of the 'Abyssinian' or Ethiopian type.
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: What a lot of people do not get as well is, Africans ruled over Arabia for a VERY VERY long time. The Quran talks about this in Surat al fil. My point is, with those rulers came African immigrations with it. So some of the "black Arabs" are of recent African immigration do to them (Africans) ruling over the Arabs.
True. Africans have had long-standing relations with Arabia next door, but one has to ask, is there a fundamental difference between indigenous Africans and indigenous Arabians? We know science has proven that humankind originated in Africa and left Africa via Arabia. We also know from recent genetic studies that more recent migrations from Africa into Arabia took place again. So where exactly is the split between Africa and Arabia?
Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL Indeed. Lyinass's contentions are nothing more than wishful LIES. Again she relies on artwork which she claims show variance beyond native African diversity, though virtually ALL the artwork show features not atypical at all of Africans. She claims that skeletal remains are few. Is this b|tch for real?! LMAO Not only do we have many mummies of the elite--both royal and noble-- but the vast majority of remains come from the common people and they ALL show African NOT Eurasiatic affinities. The number of mummies Egyptologists discovered was far greater than the ones surviving since so many were destroyed by natives and Euro-colonists alike with most being burned as fuel for trains while some were sold as medicine to be eaten!! However, the analysis of all these mummies by early Western anthropologists came to the same conclusion-- that they were of the 'Abyssinian' or Ethiopian type.
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: What a lot of people do not get as well is, Africans ruled over Arabia for a VERY VERY long time. The Quran talks about this in Surat al fil. My point is, with those rulers came African immigrations with it. So some of the "black Arabs" are of recent African immigration do to them (Africans) ruling over the Arabs.
True. Africans have had long-standing relations with Arabia next door, but one has to ask, is there a fundamental difference between indigenous Africans and indigenous Arabians? We know science has proven that humankind originated in Africa and left Africa via Arabia. We also know from recent genetic studies that more recent migrations from Africa into Arabia took place again. So where exactly is the split between Africa and Arabia?
Djehuti EXACTLY!
I don't know what the answer is. I mean, we can say this one is a true Arab and that one is a true Arab, but who is to say? In Sirat Muhammad it defines the clans who were considered true Arabs back then. So I guess you have to sort out who they are, their descendants and then see what they look like? Even then that could be a bad marker because of so much time laps. My wife lived in Egypt and when she visited the Coptic monastery on Mt. Sinai, she saw a painting of the prophet Mohammad (saw) on a leather parchment. It was when he gave them a letter of protection, which the coptics say was painted back during the time the Prophet Muhammad (saw) actually lived/was there. She said the figure looked like a black man, probably the complexion of Anwar Sadat or somewhere around there, with a Afro (shrugs). That would make a great research project though, to sort out what the original Arabs may have looked like.
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
quote: Mt. Sinai, she saw a painting of the prophet Mohammad (saw) on a leather parchment. It was when he gave them a letter of protection, which the coptics say was painted back during the time the Prophet Muhammad (saw) actually lived/was there.
Back to reality...
The Prophet Muhammad (AD 570-632), the founder of the Islamic religion, was white skinned. A contemporary freedman, by the name of Umar, describes the Prophet thus:
"his face was not fat nor rounded; it was white tinged with red". [Guillaume (1987) 726.]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ First off, there are many hadith and other extra-Quranic texts that describe Muhammad, and not all of them are consistent.
Second off, the text you just posted Anglo-idiot, how reliable is the translation? Dana has pointed out multiple times how the Arab word for fair-skinned or light gets mistranslated as 'white'.
Third off, whatever Muhammad's appearance, non of this changes the fact that indigenous Arabians looked no different from indigenous Africans i.e. BLACK. In fact Ubaidian skulls were also classified as "negroid"! Though no doubt your lying twisted ass will try to say these were 'Capoids'. LOL
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Djehuti EXACTLY!
I don't know what the answer is. I mean, we can say this one is a true Arab and that one is a true Arab, but who is to say? In Sirat Muhammad it defines the clans who were considered true Arabs back then. So I guess you have to sort out who they are, their descendants and then see what they look like? Even then that could be a bad marker because of so much time laps. My wife lived in Egypt and when she visited the Coptic monastery on Mt. Sinai, she saw a painting of the prophet Mohammad (saw) on a leather parchment. It was when he gave them a letter of protection, which the coptics say was painted back during the time the Prophet Muhammad (saw) actually lived/was there. She said the figure looked like a black man, probably the complexion of Anwar Sadat or somewhere around there, with a Afro (shrugs). That would make a great research project though, to sort out what the original Arabs may have looked like.
Of course graven images are forbidden in Islam and the fact that such a portrait was made means it was done by new converts who were ignorant of such an Islamic law. It's possible this portrait of Muhammad was depicted in the image of the native Egyptian people, the same way Jesus was portrayed as Greek and Roman by the new converts to Christianity in Greece and Rome.
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
quote:Third off, whatever Muhammad's appearance, non of this changes the fact that indigenous Arabians looked no different from indigenous Africans i.e. BLACK.
The natives are Veddoid, not Negroid.
Veddoid of Arabia
''Note the great prognathism, the ringlet hair form, the extreme nasion depression, and the general form of the nose and lips. Except for his light unexposed skin color, this individual, who is quite brown where exposed, could pass for an Australian aborigine.'' (Coon, 1939)
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
quote:In fact Ubaidian skulls were also classified as "negroid"!
wtf... no.
- Discoveries in the Wâdī ed-Dâliyeh Paul W. Lapp and Nancy L. Lapp The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 41, (1974)
PM/M - Mediterranid AM/PN - Atlanto-Med/Proto-Nordic Alp - Alpine Ar - Armenoid
All the Ubaid crania cluster as Mediterranid. They have no Negroid affinities.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Wrong again Bogus boy. "EUrAfrican" category includes "Negroid" features, but in any case "Negroid" features vary widely from narrow noses, to light skin. Tropical Africans are the most diverse people on the planet as credible scholars show time and time again.
carelton coon debunked. He was forced to admit that his "Mediterranean" classification did have so-called "negroid" traits.
Nordic Mesopotamia? Across the web Neo-Nazis and Human Biodiversity proponents (HBD) wage an arcane war of “racial science” built around claimed superiority of cold-climate “Nordic” peoples. Tropical areas it is claimed produced little civilization until the coming of cold-climate Asiatics and Europeans? But is this “the truth” as claimed? HBD proponents reference US anthropologist Carelton Coon heavily, a supporter of the southern segregationist cause during the 1960s (Caspari 2003). Coon and other of his ilk make 3 claims:
--The Sumerians may have been vaguely "Mediterranean" but part Negroid --The Sumerians were identical to Englishmen --the Sumerians were of "Aryan" or "Nordic" stock
--Natufians negroids who may be mediterraneans or quasi negroids claimed:
As to the Palestinian area of Greater Mesopotamia, Coon (1939 ‘Races of Europe) held that skulls indicate a vague "Mediterranean type" with minor negro admixture, although contradictorily noting the prognathism of the specimens gives “a somewhat negroid cast to the face.”
--"English" Sumerians and European' stock claimed in Mesopotamia: As to the Sumerians, Coon asserted that "Sumerians who lived over five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia are almost identical in skull and face form with living Englishmen."
---- Blue-eyed "Nordics" for the Mesopotamian Sumerians: L. A. Waddell (1930- Egyptian Civilization Its Sumerian Origin..) held that the Nile Valley civilization was due to the Sumerians and that t he first dynastic Pharaoh of Egypt, Menes, was identical to the son of Sargon the Great of Sumeria, and that a great empire extended from India in the east to Britain in the west and that it was ruled over by Sargon I and later by his son Manis Tusu, whom he equates with the Menes of the Egyptian kingdom. The actual Sumerians who controlled this world-girdling empire, Waddell maintained, were of blue-eyed Nordic Aryan stock. [quote:] "The unity as regards type and source of the ancient civilizations of Sumerian Mesopotamia, India, Egypt is in keeping with the physique of the ruling people in all countries, which is shown by their portraits, sculptures and skeletal remains to have been of the long-headed, fair, grey or blue-eyed type recognized by moderns as marking the Aryan section of the caucasian race." (Waddell 1930)
The only thing wrong with the three "HBD" or "biodiversity" approaches above is that they are nonsense. If anything the peoples of greater Mesopotamia more closely resemble the tropical variants of Africa than any reputed Europeans or "Nordics" as shown below.
==================================
Debunking 1: Greater Mesopotamia (Palestine, Iraq, Syria, southwestern Iran) falls within the Subtropic/Tropic Arid Zone, NOT the cold-climate zones of Europe or Asia. The subtropics are the geographical and climatic zone of the Earth immediately north and south of the tropical zone, at latitudes 23.5°N and 23.5°S. The Greater Mesopotamian area is assigned to the subtropics or the arid tropics by modern climatologists. (See: Troll and Pfaffen, 1964. ‘Seasonal patterns of the earth and Thompson, A. (1997) Applied climatology: pg 179;
Debunking 2: Peoples of the Palestine area, and the Sumerians did NOT look like cold-clime “white Nordics” or Asiatics. Modern data shows a wide range with more links to African sub-Saharan elements.
===================================
DETAILS: THE NATUFIANS
Modern scholars dismiss Coons “racial” analysis but confirm the sub-Saharan elements in the Natufians. [quote:]
“A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998).
"This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005)..” --F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology. 80:5, pp. 535-564
Other scholars on the Natufians:
Larry Angel (1972): "one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.(McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians..."
C.L. Brace (2005): "If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."
DETAILS: THE SUMERIANS
The Sumerians had a range of physical variation with clear resemblances to tropical Africans on 4 counts. They do not have to be 100% identical. Several scholars shows some resemblances.:
Count 1- Linkages to other tropically adapted peoples and Upper Egypt: Sir Arthur Keith (1934 - Al-'Ybaid: 216,240) also held that the Sumerians were related to Englishmen. [Quote:] "The Neolithic people of English long barrows are also related to them- perhaps distantly" Such resemblances between older tropically adapted Europeans and peoples outside Europe, such as in Africa, has been noted by Brace 2005 (The Questionable Contribution of the Neolithic) and by Hanihara (1996) as to the resemblance of other peoples in the greater Mesopotamian area to tropical Africans (Hanihara 1996- Comparison of craniofacial..') Keith speculates as to links between the Sumerians and Afghanistan and Baluchistan, but in actual comparison of data, Keith notes that Sumerian specimens he examined showed some resemblance to specimens from tropical Upper Egypt (described by researcher Dr. Fouquet in Vol II of Morgan's 'Sur les Origines de l'Egypt- 1896) but had no resemblance to other Egyptian specimens. [Quote:] "They were akin to the predynastic people of Egypt described by Dr. Foquet, but differed from all other predynastic and dynastic Egyptians." (Keith 1934, in Al-'Ubaid, pp. 216,240)
Count 2- Dolichocephalic crania of the negroid "EurAfrican" type: Dolichocephalic crania in older analyses are often seen as a marker of "negroid" or African variants, not "Nordics." Buxton and Rice (1931- 'Excavations at Kish') examined 26 Sumerian crania and calculated 17 as Eurafrians, five Mediterraneans/Australoid, and four Armenoid, showing that long-headed people were the dominant element in Sumeria. Penniman (1923-33) excavated 14 crania at Kish, describing 2 as brachycephalic and eight dolichocephalic or EuraAfrican type adn 4 miscellaneous.
Dolichocephalic crania in older analyses are generally considered a marker of "negroid", mulatto or sub-Saharan variants. [quote:] "The peoples in north-western Europe.. are medium-headed, on the average.. Head shapes vary outside the "White Race" too. Most members of the "Black Race" are long or medium-headed and most members of the "Yellow-Brown Race' are short-headed." (Boyd, W. races and People. 1955).
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913- "Human Race") also notes dolichocephaly as a marker of "blacks", asserting as to "the Ethiopian race" that: "the skull is dolichocephalic, the forehead full, the cheek-bones prominent, the nostrils wide, the alveolar arch narrow and prominent, the jaws prognathous, and the lower jaw large and strong."
Count 3 - Sumerian specimens likened to Egyptians of the Western Desert. [quote by Penniman at Kish excavations:] "First there is the Eurafrican.. In ancient times, this type is found in Mesopotamia and Egypt and may be compared with the Ombe Capelle skull. It is possibly identical with men who lived in the high desert west of the Nile in paleolithic times.." (-Penniman, T.K. "A Note on the Inhabitants of Kish.." Excavations at Kish, 1923-33 Vol 4. pp 65-72)
Comparison of Sumerians to people of the western Desert - One recent (2008) study notes: "..the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens.This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators.." --Ricaut and Walekens (2008) 'Cranial Discrete traits..' Human Biology, 80:5, pp. 535-564
Quote on Qarunian (Faiyum) desert area remains (c. 7000 BC) "The body was that of a forty-year old woman with a height of about 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic 'Mechtoid' of the Fakhurian culture (see pp. 65-6), being generally more gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern 'negroid' type." (Beatrix Midant-Reynes, Ian Shaw (2000). The Prehistory of Egypt. Wiley-Blackwell. pg. 82)
Count 4 - Link of Mesopotamian U'baid culture with tropical African phenotype: (quote) "Another impression that arose on the first examination was that the Eridu skulls showed a marked prognathism .. ." --Cambridge Ancient Hist, Vol 1, Part I, 1970, p. 348; 358.
The Sumerians called themselves "the black headed people." They had nothing do do with any blond "Nordics", as shown in their song: "Lament for Urim"
Quote: "Sumerian literature itself refers more often to 'the Land' that it does to 'Sumer', and to its inhabitants as 'the black-headed people.' (Black, Cunningham and Robson, 2006. pg- 1)
Lament For Urim "The scorching potsherds made the dust glow (?) -- the people groan. He swept the winds over the black-headed people -- the people groan. Sumer was overturned by a snare -- the people groan. It attacked (?) the Land and devoured it completely. Tears cannot influence the bitter storm -- the people groan.
The Land's judgment disappeared -- the people groan. The Land's counsel was swallowed by a swamp -- the people groan. The mother absconded before her child's eyes -- the people groan. The father turned away from his child -- the people groan. In the city the wife was abandoned, the child was abandoned, possessions were scattered about. The black-headed people were carried off from their strongholds. " Forkm: --Jeremy Black, Graham Cunningham, Eleanor Robson. The Literature of Ancient Sumer. (2006) Oxford University Press. 250,12,309,
Sumerian summary: While they were their own variant and not absolutely 100% identical to other tropicals, several excavations and analyses link the Sumerians with tropical African types much more than Europeans in terms of (a) resemblance to Upper Egypt predynastic specimens, (b) dolichocephalic features, and (c) resemblance to tropical peoples of the Western Desert, and (4) similarities of the Mesopotamian U'baid specimens to other tropicals in terms of prognathism, wide noses and other features. This is consistent with the pattern shown in items a, b and c above.
The Penniman excavation of Sumerians found 8 out of 14, or 57% to be dolichocephalic, suggesting again the range of variation in the ancient Sumerians including tropical African features. Buxton and Rice found 17 out of 26 crania or 65% to be a similar tropical variant. This links again with the observations of Keith and the resemblance between Sumerian skulls and those of tropical Upper Egypt. Modern reanalyses of the data find both the Rice-Buxton and the Peniman data falling within the range for Saharao-tropical variant Africans (Van Sertima and Rashidi, 1987, p.23), confirming the Upper Egyptian matches with the Upper Egypt data of Fouquet reported by Keith (1934), and Penniman's Egyptian linkage. Ricaut and Walekens show that data in the Western Desert points once again to linkages with an African tropical variant, and the Cambridge History shows the Mesopotamian U'baids, precurors of the Sumerians to have a similar tropical affinity.
5) Modern research comparisons of Sumerians with Mediterraneans dismiss any close affinity. Osteological remains from "48 local populations from Southern Europe and the Middle East, ranging in time from 3100 B.C. to 200 A.D.," disconfirms the two regions "as a single interbreeding group of populations. " -- (Finkel D. 1978. Spatial and temporal dimensions of Middle Eastern skeletal populations. JR Hum Evo, 7:3. 217-229)
Keita 1992 also dismisses notions of a "Mediterranean race": “Mediterranean,” connoting a “race,” “one interbreeding population,” at the craniometric level, is questionable as defining the “Middle East” during the Bronze Age (Finkel, 1974,1978), invalid as a term linking geography to a uniform external phenotype (see Snowden, 1970; MacGaffey, 1966; Keita, 1990), inaccurate as a metric taxon for many groups previously assigned to it (Rightmire, 1975a,b), and problematic as a bony craniofacial morphotype denoting a “race” or mendelian population because of its varied soft-part trait associations and wide geographical distribution (see “Hamitic” in Coon et al., 1950; Gabel, 1966; MacGaffey, 1966; Hiernaux, 1975; Rightmire, 1975a).
“Hamitic”, a label once used for some African groups (Fulani, Galla, Beja, southern ancient Egyptian), is seen by some as equivalent to “Mediterranean White” (e.g., Vercoutter, 1978), but Hiernaux (1975) points out that it is incorrect to view fossil and living groups once so designated as being “closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.” The term “Hamitic” has been dropped by linguists and historians as well as by anthropologists because of its contradictions, its inadequacies, and the theory of race and race history to which it was attached (McGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Hiernaux, 1975). Likewise “Brown Race” is sometimes used as a synonym for Mediterranean White, though this interpretation is historically somewhat inaccurate (MacGaffey, 1966). Sergi (1901), perhaps the father of the original Mediterranean Race concept (Angel, 1983, personal communication), saw this taxon as being “autonomous” in origin, not of the Black or White “races.” Physical anthropologists express divergent views on the characteristic bony craniofacial morphology which is to define the “Mediterranean type” (personal correspondence from the late J.L. Angel, M-C. Chamla, and A. Wiercinski)."
-- Keita S. 1992. Further Studies of ancient crania from North Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254 (1992)
6) Modern CAT SCAN analysis of early Iranians shows a population with dolichcephaly and broad noses. "it has been suggested based on archeological data that the population of Mesopotamia began to be influenced by Persians after the Achaemenean domination.. this study depicts the dolichocranic population as tending to have a relatively lower orbit and broader (lower) nose, and vice versa in the brachycranic population." -- Naomichi O, et al. 2009. Geometric morphometric study.. An Sci 117
GREATER MESOPOTAMIA - OTHER PLACES- IRAN- still show links to tropical Africans
In addition to the Palestinian data, data from Iran show that early West Asians looked like today’s sub-Saharan Africans.
quote: "Distance analysis and factor analysis, based on Q-mode correlation coefficients, were applied to 23 craniofacial measurements in 1,802 recent and prehistoric crania from major geographical areas of the Old World. The major findings are as follows: 1) Australians show closer similarities to African populations than to Melanesians. 2) Recent Europeans align with East Asians, and early West Asians resemble Africans. 3) The Asian population complex with regional difference between northern and southern members is manifest. 4) Clinal variations of craniofacial features can be detected in the Afro-European region on the one hand, and Australasian and East Asian region on the other hand. 5) The craniofacial variations of major geographical groups are not necessarily consistent with their geographical distribution pattern. This may be a sign that the evolutionary divergence in craniofacial shape among recent populations of different geographical areas is of a highly limited degree. Taking all of these into account, a single origin for anatomically modern humans is the most parsimonious interpretation of the craniofacial variations presented in this study." (Hanihara T. Comparison of craniofacial features of major human groups. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Mar;99(3):389-412.)
7. Keita's studies show that what were clearly "negroid" remains were deliberately reclassified as "Mediterranean" by some white archaeology operations. African remains on the ground were also EXCLUDED from excavation write-ups by white archaeologists, presenting a skewed picture. - QUOTE:
"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." --(S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)
Conclusion: The HBD claim is false. Tropical peoples did indeed develop advanced civilizations without needing cold-climate "role models". Mesopotamia is in the Arid tropic (subtropical) zone and developed advanced civilizations long before reputed European or Asiatic cold-climate “leaders”. The peoples who developed these ancient civilizations did NOT look like cold-climate “Nordics" or Eastern Asiatics. Instead, they show a range of variation, including clear resemblance on some counts to other tropically adapted peoples like those of Africa. Scholars who deny these findings are inconsistent - like Coon above. Resemblances between Sumerians and other tropical peoples covers (a) Upper Egyptians, (b) dolichocephalism, (c) high desert Egyptians, and (d) U'baid specimens showing prognathism and other features within the range of tropical variants. The "Mediterranean" alternative to Nordics is similarly debunked by detailed analysis (Finkel 1978, Keita 1992) and modern CatScan data again shows a range falling within tropical variants ((Naomichi Ogihara 2008).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidiot: The natives are Veddoid, not Negroid.
Veddoid of Arabia
''Note the great prognathism, the ringlet hair form, the extreme nasion depression, and the general form of the nose and lips. Except for his light unexposed skin color, this individual, who is quite brown where exposed, could pass for an Australian aborigine.'' (Coon, 1939)
Yes Australian aborigines and the 'Veddoid' people of India are not black but "brown". LOL
Meanwhile, anthropologists have cited in their studies of early Arabian remains, that the natives of Arabia are diverse comprising not only "Veddoid" but "Negroid" and "Hamitic" types as well. But of course all but the "negroids" are 'brown'. LOL
quote:
quote:In fact Ubaidian skulls were also classified as "negroid"!
wtf... no.
- Discoveries in the Wâdī ed-Dâliyeh Paul W. Lapp and Nancy L. Lapp The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Vol. 41, (1974)
PM/M - Mediterranid AM/PN - Atlanto-Med/Proto-Nordic Alp - Alpine Ar - Armenoid
All the Ubaid crania cluster as Mediterranid. They have no Negroid affinities.
Sorry dimwit, but "Mediterranean" was a catchphrase early biased anthropologists used for any remains outside of Sub-Sahara that had "negroid" features, just as Zarahan has shown.
"..the Ubaid skeletons are large bodied, large headed, dolicocephalic with long wide noses and accompanying prognathism. For that reason, A. Sayce had described them as “Negroid". Keith's interesting conclusions—that the skulls of the ancient Sumerians were relatively narrow, that they were dolichocephalic, a large-headed, large-brained people, approaching or exceeding in these respects the longer-headed races of Europe, and that the men's noses were long and wide—is applicable to some of the 'Ubaid dead of the latter half of the third and the beginning of the second millennium B.C." The Cambridge Ancient History, Iorwerth Eiddon Stephen Edwards, 1970, p. 358. "Another impression that arose on the first examination was that the Eridu skulls showed a marked prognathism…”
As for the related Umm An-Nar people:
"In particular the enormously large size of the upper and lower jaws and of the mastoid process. They were also tall (171-182 cm), significantly higher than modern Al-Ain inhabitants. All other measurements confirm they were evidently larger in all dimensions than today's population in the same area...The prognathism is very noticeable and the heads are a little narrower, longer, and with some projection of the forehead. These are traits found in individuals with African origin..." p. 39 Ahmoud Y. El-Najjar, "An Anthropological Study of Skeletal Remains from Tomb A, Hili North" in Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates (AUAE) 4, 1985
Yes very 'Mediterranean Caucasian' indeed. Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ First off, there are many hadith and other extra-Quranic texts that describe Muhammad, and not all of them are consistent.
Second off, the text you just posted Anglo-idiot, how reliable is the translation? Dana has pointed out multiple times how the Arab word for fair-skinned or light gets mistranslated as 'white'.
Third off, whatever Muhammad's appearance, non of this changes the fact that indigenous Arabians looked no different from indigenous Africans i.e. BLACK. In fact Ubaidian skulls were also classified as "negroid"! Though no doubt your lying twisted ass will try to say these were 'Capoids'. LOL
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: Djehuti EXACTLY!
I don't know what the answer is. I mean, we can say this one is a true Arab and that one is a true Arab, but who is to say? In Sirat Muhammad it defines the clans who were considered true Arabs back then. So I guess you have to sort out who they are, their descendants and then see what they look like? Even then that could be a bad marker because of so much time laps. My wife lived in Egypt and when she visited the Coptic monastery on Mt. Sinai, she saw a painting of the prophet Mohammad (saw) on a leather parchment. It was when he gave them a letter of protection, which the coptics say was painted back during the time the Prophet Muhammad (saw) actually lived/was there. She said the figure looked like a black man, probably the complexion of Anwar Sadat or somewhere around there, with a Afro (shrugs). That would make a great research project though, to sort out what the original Arabs may have looked like.
Of course graven images are forbidden in Islam and the fact that such a portrait was made means it was done by new converts who were ignorant of such an Islamic law. It's possible this portrait of Muhammad was depicted in the image of the native Egyptian people, the same way Jesus was portrayed as Greek and Roman by the new converts to Christianity in Greece and Rome.
I am a Muslim, so let me explain our religion. The issue of whether or not a image is allowed or not has to do with sect. If you are a Shi'a, then paintings of people are not forbidden (we call it "haram" in Arabic). However, both schools agree the Holy Prophet (saw) image should not be painted, or if it is painted, the face should be rendered as light. For the Shi'a they extend this to the Imams . Well Some of the Marji'a (scholars) do.
As for the image on Mt. Sanai, it is a christian monastery and Christians who painted it, as I pointed out earlier, so regardless of what either Islamic School of thought we are talking about, it didn't have any bearing on the Christians and them painting the Prophet. Under Islamic law the dhimmi (christian/jew/sabean etc) is protected and subject to the laws of his holy book, not the laws of Islam. Also, at that time there were no shi'a or Sunni, and the ruling that paintings are haram is based on a hadith which the Shi'a see as weak.
As said all that to say, Islamic rulings on painting persons or living things doesn't have any bearing in this case.
Also, even if new converts painted the picture (which they didn't it was christians), you can't compare the paintings of Jesus to the Prophet Muhammad. 1. there is no proof Prophet Jesus exited during the time of the Romans and the people who painted him never saw him, so they had room to take liberties with how he was portrayed. Where as the painting of Mt Sinai was done by Christians who saw the Prophet Muhammad and had the painting done to commemorate the occasion.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I stand corrected.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed, WhiteNerd like many of his ilk are totally unaware that the indigenous populations of Arabia were black also which isn't surprising considering that Arabia is right next to Africa.
Of course the matter is which Arabians including Yemenis he is referring to since Arabia including Yemen was subject to many immigrations and invasions from the north.
Perhaps the studies on tropically adapted Arabians referred to these people.
What a lot of people do not get as well is, Africans ruled over Arabia for a VERY VERY long time. The Quran talks about this in Surat al fil. My point is, with those rulers came African immigrations with it. So some of the "black Arabs" are of recent African immigration do to them (Africans) ruling over the Arabs.
Africans ruled Arabia because they were indigenous to it. It as James Brice was known as Ethiopia to the Greeks and Sudan to writers like Ibn Khakldun. Even the "Habesh" that ruled laterduring the Christian era had some Arabian roots supposedly. Throughout the early historic period Arabians were mostly emigrating t outside of the peninsula back into Africa, Northward into Syria and eastward into Iran and India.
Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Indeed, WhiteNerd like many of his ilk are totally unaware that the indigenous populations of Arabia were black also which isn't surprising considering that Arabia is right next to Africa.
Of course the matter is which Arabians including Yemenis he is referring to since Arabia including Yemen was subject to many immigrations and invasions from the north.
Perhaps the studies on tropically adapted Arabians referred to these people.
What a lot of people do not get as well is, Africans ruled over Arabia for a VERY VERY long time. The Quran talks about this in Surat al fil. My point is, with those rulers came African immigrations with it. So some of the "black Arabs" are of recent African immigration do to them (Africans) ruling over the Arabs.
Africans ruled Arabia because they were indigenous to it. It as James Brice was known as Ethiopia to the Greeks and Sudan to writers like Ibn Khakldun. Even the "Habesh" that ruled laterduring the Christian era had some Arabian roots supposedly. Throughout the early historic period Arabians were mostly emigrating t outside of the peninsula back into Africa, Northward into Syria and eastward into Iran and India.
I think you mean Habashi? Habashi is the person and Al Habasha is the land they came from (yes I know arabic). Habashi people were/are africans, they were not Arabs and I think a lot of these photos that people are trying to pass off as Arabs, are the descendants of these Habashi people. Do you have any scholarly reference works that proves Habashi people were descendent from Arabs either partly or otherwise? They (Habashi) ruled over Arabs for a very long time and as such there would have been mixing with their subjects. Unless you are referring to the eurocentric hypothesis which I utterly reject, that states semites floated over to Aksum, mixed with the local population, taught the local population how to be saebeans, even though the Saebean monuments are older in present day ethiopia than they are in Arabia; oh and taught the people of Aksum how to build a great civilization that they didn't even posses back in their native land, then these mixed people went back over to middle east and ruled together. If that is the notion your referring to, its a lie. If I have time I will post a great article from the british museum talking about the Habashi rule over arabia and addresses the racist notions of the past that have been debunked.
Now I am not saying there wasn't a black presence in Arabia in antiquity that was indigenous, but posting some random photos isn't going to prove that. Because there is no way to know from some flickr picture who is a recent immigrant, who is indigenous and who is the descendent of the habashi rulers.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
It's been several years since I asked Dr. Keita any questions. I very recently had a debate where an opponent asked me for sample size of the Egyptian series Keita studied which would support my position that Ancient Egypt was at least 90% Black.
I decided to ask Keita himself for references. This is our exchange so far:
quote:From: (Morpheus) To: "Shomarka Keita" <soykeita@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 7:58 PM Subject: Sample Sizes of Egyptian Series
Dr. Keita I would like to ask about one other thing. I'm reading over your articles namely Keita (1990) and Keita (1993). I would like to know what the sample sizes were of the Egyptian series you studied and how representative of the Ancient Egyptian population they are.
Thank you for your time.
From: "Shomarka Keita" <soykeita@yahoo.com> To: (Morpheus) Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Sample Sizes of Egyptian Series
Sample sizes were given in the work, and represent particular regions and times. The 1993 piece was a review so the samples were those that were given in the reviewed studies. Curious that you did not see this.
See Howells Cranial Variation in Man 1973. Look at his sample sizes for various groups and look at his results and how they vary by clustering method.
Also look at sample sizes in Brace et al and any others to get a feeling about what is available. Also speak with statistician about what they think is enough for morphometrics. In some cases you can only study what is available and that may not be amenable to standard statistical thinking. Do you know how many Homo erectus or habilis fossils exist? A narrative has been constructed from these.
The AJPA work is peer reviewed
What is your view of the Brace et al piece 1993?
There is some concern in some segments of the community about a range of issues related to the sociology of knowledge.
quote: From: (Morpheus) To: soy keita <soykeita@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 9:00 PM Subject: Re: Sample Sizes of Egyptian Series
Thank you Dr. Keita,
I figured that the sample sizes were mentioned in the reviewed studies. I was just wondering if you had access to the numbers. You reviewed a lot of studies in the 1993 piece. In the 1993 piece you reach the conclusion that the Southern pre-Dynastic Egyptians were Saharo-tropical variants. I'd like to know how representative of the general Ancient Egyptian population this is from say the Early Dynastic to New Kingdom period. As for Brace (1993) I read that as well. Brace seemed to reach the conclusion that the Ancient Egyptians had connections to neighboring populations including more Southerly Africans but rejected a relationship with West Africans. I also read a paper that I believe is by you titled, "The Misrepresentation of Diop's Views." It was very critical of the Brace (1993) piece. Richard Poe dedicates entire chapters in his book "Black Spark, White Fire" to this subject relying heavily on your work. I have this book. What I am really interested in is African cultures in general and Ancient Egypt in particular. I want to know what the biological affinities of the Ancient Egyptians were. Were they basically the same as modern Egyptians or did invasions affect the population so much that the average Egyptian looks significantly different from their ancient ancestors?
I asked you about the sample size because I'm trying to get some idea of how representative your research is of the biological affinities of the Ancient Egyptians as a population. I will try to investigate this matter as thoroughly as possible. Any guidance you can give me would be greatly appreciated.
From: soy keita <soykeita@yahoo.com> To: (Morpheus) Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Sample Sizes of Egyptian Series
Sample sizes were given in the AJPA pieces--as would be required in peer reviewed work. As noted in bioarchaeology one uses what is available--you may also look at samples in the work of others. Samples in my work were those used previously elsewhere--but I did not use females.
Population geneticists have ideas about how large a sample is needed to be representative and you can see how their samples vary and they do work on current living groups.
For the reviewed studies in History in Africa--you will need to refer back to the original studies--this is a good academic exercise. See the work in the AJHB on a PCA analysis using individuals in northeast Africa
See modern genetics pieces that use the Y chromosome. You might also be interested in Y chromosome pieces that I have done, as well as the NHGC piece that I coauthored "Conceptulaizing human variation" as well as the piece with Kittles....
In terms of West Africans--which I don't know why that has any particular meaning--since West Africans have no special place in the notion of Africanity in any truly critical scientific eval. One could of course be simply interested. See the collection of Berry and Berry pieces, especially the one in the book "Population Biology of Ancient Egyptians" --there you will see an interesting relative affinity of a West African population--the Ashanti. You may also look at Mukherjee Rao and Trevor--The Ancient Inhabitants of Jebel Moya--orgainze the distance matrix--see if the early groups--Badarian, Naqadan are more similar to other Africans than to the northern late Egyptians-Sedement, Gizeh E series....
Brace et al's piece is often cited in particular ways. What are you criticisms of it?
As to your interest about the population or biogeographical affinities of modern Egyptians you might need to think critically about core concepts. See the recent Pagani et al piece-on migration routes out of Africa. In that piece they comment on gene flow into Egypt modifying the population. Of course if your concern is phenotype there is no comment on this. Also you need to understand and hold in your head that indigenous Africans are very variable, that all populations everywhere have been subject to gene flow, and that biological affinities can change for a group that carries on the same culture and language--see the Comment on the Fulani in the AJPA by Keita et al.
This should help ground you in making assessments for yourself.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
^ But why are we still asking these types of question in 2015? Is there any correspondence you can share that doesn't involve something that has been rehashed here ad infinitum over the past 10 years?
EDIT: If dont mind sharing I would be interesting in where the argument took place?. Also I can help to say I am becoming increasingly critical biological affinity arguments.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
I was participating in the debate too. It was in the Opposing Views section of the VNN forum.
What do you mean by "critical of biological affinity" arguments, beyoku?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Morpheus
Not sure if you have permission to publish this, but.. when you talk to Keita, you use proper non-racial terminology ("Saharo-Tropical variants"), but when you're here you say "90% black". Any particular reason for this? I think it's because you know saying that to him would have been begging for your emails going straight to his trash bin.
Look at the questions you're asking regarding population affinity. How come you're still caught up in these questions. Is this your level of progress in 2015?
I want to ask Bass the same question after his latest thread.
The topic of this email conversation, the questions asked, the papers discussed and the "90% black" thing read like the email conversation took place in 2001.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I was participating in the debate too. It was in the Opposing Views section of the VNN forum.
What do you mean by "critical of biological affinity" arguments, beyoku?
Its just all coming to a head right now. Right now I am extra critical of all arguments about Ancient Egyptian biological affinity.
On one level seems to draw in a bunch of wing nuts and ding bats. Folks that want to fuse the study of Ancient Egypt with that of Melanism, Black Hebrew Israelites or other foolish ideas that humans were around since the Pangea!......folks that think that Lucy was human.
The you have a second groups of people that have stunted growth by arguing on websites like 'Topics' and 'Stormfront'....sure that stuff was "Fun" for a few years but you dont learn anything other than how to argue with the same tools over and over.....that is because the opposition is lacking in knowledge. Its akin to sharpening a very short dagger for years while sparring and planning for war. While the dagger is extremely sharp....once you step into the intellectual arena you notice other folks have guns and swords hypothetically speaking. You are then required to to get help and assistance from folks armed with knowledge that for all intents and purposes"you should know by now".....you dont know it because you wasted years arguing with the brainless mass that is Topics and stormfront.
Right now we have folks that should be pretty seasoned self researchers asking questions that seem as if they went through and intellectual time warp. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the text above that we didn't know 10/15 years ago. Why even pose a question that you already know the answer to? Just to hear "They was black"
@ Morpheus. Are their any questions regarding the peopling of Egypt and migrations that you actually DO NOT KNOW and would like some insight to?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Its just all coming to a head right now. Right now I am extra critical of all arguments about Ancient Egyptian biological affinity.
On one level seems to draw in a bunch of wing nuts and ding bats. Folks that want to fuse the study of Ancient Egypt with that of Melanism, Black Hebrew Israelites or other foolish ideas that humans were around since the Pangea!......folks that think that Lucy was human.
The you have a second groups of people that have stunted growth by arguing on websites like 'Topics' and 'Stormfront'....sure that stuff was "Fun" for a few years but you dont learn anything other than how to argue with the same tools over and over.....that is because the opposition is lacking in knowledge. Its akin to sharpening a very short dagger for years while sparring and planning for war. While the dagger is extremely sharp....once you step into the intellectual arena you notice other folks have guns and swords hypothetically speaking. You are then required to to get help and assistance from folks armed with knowledge that for all intents and purposes"you should know by now".....you dont know it because you wasted years arguing with the brainless mass that is Topics and stormfront.
Right now we have folks that should be pretty seasoned self researchers asking questions that seem as if they went through and intellectual time warp. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the text above that we didn't know 10/15 years ago. Why even pose a question that you already know the answer to? Just to hear "They was black"
You have a good point. Honestly I only got involved in the VNN thread because I was bored and wanted to help Morph troll some stupid people (though his thread started out as criticizing "race realism" in general; the Egyptian issue was only invoked later). But you are right, it's useless for actual learning.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
Truthcentric,
As I said on VNN Forum my use of Black is everyday speech. When I talk to a scholar like Keita of course I'm going to try to use the language he uses. This sample size business is a new issue for me so I don't feel my progress on the topic is stuck in 2001, I'm just trying to get straight answers.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Truthcentric,
As I said on VNN Forum my use of Black is everyday speech. When I talk to a scholar like Keita of course I'm going to try to use the language he uses. This sample size business is a new issue for me so I don't feel my progress on the topic is stuck in 2001, I'm just trying to get straight answers.
I believe you meant to address Swenet. But yes, I know that's what you meant by "Black". I should mention to the ES readership that the guys over at VNN were labeling Papuans and Aboriginal Australians "Negroes", so they didn't seem to delimit it to any particular African ancestry.
As for the sampling issue, I don't think there is any reason to believe those samples are unrepresentative of the larger Egyptian population. The burden of proof would be on the opposition to show they're not representative.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Truthcentric,
As I said on VNN Forum my use of Black is everyday speech. When I talk to a scholar like Keita of course I'm going to try to use the language he uses. This sample size business is a new issue for me so I don't feel my progress on the topic is stuck in 2001, I'm just trying to get straight answers.
Your progress is stuck in 2001 because you asked a question that was redundant. The question you asked regarding samples size could have been found in the actual article. The question asked about biological affinity is something we have known about for the last 10-15 years. You have been an Egyptsearch member all of this time....who do you think you are kidding?
You asked an absolute layman question....I wont call out your motive but usually its so the answer can be taken and posted in a forums saying 'see Keita said they was black'. I will ask again?:
Are their any questions regarding the peopling of Egypt and migrations that you actually DO NOT KNOW and would like some insight to....or do you pretty much know it all?
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
I believe you meant to address Swenet. But yes, I know that's what you meant by "Black". I should mention to the ES readership that the guys over at VNN were labeling Papuans and Aboriginal Australians "Negroes", so they didn't seem to delimit it to any particular African ancestry.
As for the sampling issue, I don't think there is any reason to believe those samples are unrepresentative of the larger Egyptian population. The burden of proof would be on the opposition to show they're not representative.
You're right Truthcentric it was Swenet, my bad.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You are right B. It does not matter what Keita says or what label he uses. In fact none of them. This has been long resolved.
Many of us have moved on from Keita and outgrown all that "affinity" nonsense and mis-direction.
Those who cannot accept the fact AEians were indigenous Africans in all aspects ...never will. Useless having a discussion with them.
There is other work to be done. eg mapping out the migration pattern of ancient Africans.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
@Morpheus........Are their any questions regarding the peopling of Egypt and migrations that you actually DO NOT KNOW and would like some insight to....or do you pretty much know it all? Nothing?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Xyyman.
If labels don't matter, and it's just a bunch of "nonsense and misdirection", please describe this East African individual's genome in terms "black" and "white":
Using "black" and "white" terminology, this person is 14% "black", 82% "white" and 4% "yellow". Please elaborate.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
That is the type of question Lioness would ask. Like "is Obama black, white or mixed?" ......"are Ethiopians Black , white or mixed"
Plus your image is not showing up. When you post it and I will give it a shot.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
It's not the same. I'm not asking you what they are. I already know what they are. I don't need you or a professor to tell me that.
Since you say labels are irrelevant, I'm challenging you to describe this East African person's chromosome segments in percentages of "black" and "white" without making a complete fool of yourself.
Here is the full image. Not that I'm still waiting on your answer, 'cause I can already see where this is going. By dancing around it, you basically answered my question anyway. Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Bro. I need to see the picture. It is not showing on any device I am using. Fix the link.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: It's been several years since I asked Dr. Keita any questions. I very recently had a debate where an opponent asked me for sample size of the Egyptian series Keita studied which would support my position that Ancient Egypt was at least 90% Black.
I decided to ask Keita himself for references. This is our exchange so far:
quote:From: (Morpheus) To: "Shomarka Keita" <soykeita@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 7:58 PM Subject: Sample Sizes of Egyptian Series
Dr. Keita I would like to ask about one other thing. I'm reading over your articles namely Keita (1990) and Keita (1993). I would like to know what the sample sizes were of the Egyptian series you studied and how representative of the Ancient Egyptian population they are.
Thank you for your time.
From: "Shomarka Keita" <soykeita@yahoo.com> To: (Morpheus) Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Sample Sizes of Egyptian Series
Sample sizes were given in the work, and represent particular regions and times. The 1993 piece was a review so the samples were those that were given in the reviewed studies. Curious that you did not see this.
See Howells Cranial Variation in Man 1973. Look at his sample sizes for various groups and look at his results and how they vary by clustering method.
Also look at sample sizes in Brace et al and any others to get a feeling about what is available. Also speak with statistician about what they think is enough for morphometrics. In some cases you can only study what is available and that may not be amenable to standard statistical thinking. Do you know how many Homo erectus or habilis fossils exist? A narrative has been constructed from these.
The AJPA work is peer reviewed
What is your view of the Brace et al piece 1993?
There is some concern in some segments of the community about a range of issues related to the sociology of knowledge.
quote: From: (Morpheus) To: soy keita <soykeita@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2015 9:00 PM Subject: Re: Sample Sizes of Egyptian Series
Thank you Dr. Keita,
I figured that the sample sizes were mentioned in the reviewed studies. I was just wondering if you had access to the numbers. You reviewed a lot of studies in the 1993 piece. In the 1993 piece you reach the conclusion that the Southern pre-Dynastic Egyptians were Saharo-tropical variants. I'd like to know how representative of the general Ancient Egyptian population this is from say the Early Dynastic to New Kingdom period. As for Brace (1993) I read that as well. Brace seemed to reach the conclusion that the Ancient Egyptians had connections to neighboring populations including more Southerly Africans but rejected a relationship with West Africans. I also read a paper that I believe is by you titled, "The Misrepresentation of Diop's Views." It was very critical of the Brace (1993) piece. Richard Poe dedicates entire chapters in his book "Black Spark, White Fire" to this subject relying heavily on your work. I have this book. What I am really interested in is African cultures in general and Ancient Egypt in particular. I want to know what the biological affinities of the Ancient Egyptians were. Were they basically the same as modern Egyptians or did invasions affect the population so much that the average Egyptian looks significantly different from their ancient ancestors?
I asked you about the sample size because I'm trying to get some idea of how representative your research is of the biological affinities of the Ancient Egyptians as a population. I will try to investigate this matter as thoroughly as possible. Any guidance you can give me would be greatly appreciated.
From: soy keita <soykeita@yahoo.com> To: (Morpheus) Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Sample Sizes of Egyptian Series
Sample sizes were given in the AJPA pieces--as would be required in peer reviewed work. As noted in bioarchaeology one uses what is available--you may also look at samples in the work of others. Samples in my work were those used previously elsewhere--but I did not use females.
Population geneticists have ideas about how large a sample is needed to be representative and you can see how their samples vary and they do work on current living groups.
For the reviewed studies in History in Africa--you will need to refer back to the original studies--this is a good academic exercise. See the work in the AJHB on a PCA analysis using individuals in northeast Africa
See modern genetics pieces that use the Y chromosome. You might also be interested in Y chromosome pieces that I have done, as well as the NHGC piece that I coauthored "Conceptulaizing human variation" as well as the piece with Kittles....
In terms of West Africans--which I don't know why that has any particular meaning--since West Africans have no special place in the notion of Africanity in any truly critical scientific eval. One could of course be simply interested. See the collection of Berry and Berry pieces, especially the one in the book "Population Biology of Ancient Egyptians" --there you will see an interesting relative affinity of a West African population--the Ashanti. You may also look at Mukherjee Rao and Trevor--The Ancient Inhabitants of Jebel Moya--orgainze the distance matrix--see if the early groups--Badarian, Naqadan are more similar to other Africans than to the northern late Egyptians-Sedement, Gizeh E series....
Brace et al's piece is often cited in particular ways. What are you criticisms of it?
As to your interest about the population or biogeographical affinities of modern Egyptians you might need to think critically about core concepts. See the recent Pagani et al piece-on migration routes out of Africa. In that piece they comment on gene flow into Egypt modifying the population. Of course if your concern is phenotype there is no comment on this. Also you need to understand and hold in your head that indigenous Africans are very variable, that all populations everywhere have been subject to gene flow, and that biological affinities can change for a group that carries on the same culture and language--see the Comment on the Fulani in the AJPA by Keita et al.
This should help ground you in making assessments for yourself.
Looking at your question it seems you should have first gone directly to the studies Keita cited and calculated sample sizes from there. I would not have expected Keita to go and dig up his 1992 and 1993 papers from over 20 years ago. He apparently wasn't anxious either, hence the tenor of his replies basically reshifting the burden. But then again some of these studies cannot be obtained unless you have a university connection to get behind the paywalls, and if Keita could have given you a quick summary, I can see why you write him. It is not a bad thing to get clarification from the source direct.
The database we have on such questions I don't think would support a rigid claim of 90 percent, without close qualification of what makes up the 90% and the time frame. I think you might have been better off to speak of a PRIMARY affinity. No doubt, and contrary to those who carelessly throw around the word "black", you may have specifically said that you are using the term "black" in terms of the social construct, and that if said construct is applied to ancient Egypt, then indeed, the Egyptians were black. On this even people like Mary Lefkowitz and other Egypologists like Tyson-Smith have conceded and have put that on record, as documented extensively here. ANd if by black you reference specific physical or genetic characteristics found in Africans of that broad region, you have data there as well in support, though again, the term is a weak one to accurately describe African diversity. Maybe you should think of posting links to the forum where these debates are ongoing here on ES to get added insights. Others might only be too happy to hammer some of the BS you are confronting as they have and are doing in various venues.
Having seen your debates elsewhere I commend you for doing combat in these other forums, rather than simply compiling and burying. Like it or not, combat is a large part of the field- whether it be taking on the extreme "afro-enthusiasts" on one hand, or right wing racists/"biodiversity" types on the other, or the deceptive "stealth" moles on Wikipedia. Re some "afro" venues- some people are not bolstering their arguments with ENOUGH hard data. I can't tell you the number of black History Month things I see where people are still using Diop 1974 as their Primary cites. Diop is part of the foundation to be sure and still relevant on several counts but there is much else beyond 1974. So there is an educational need out there as well. There are many indications however that the educational effort is spreading more. See the reasonable YouTuber "Lashideu" below who is now using the data in her videos. I asked her sometime ago to consider incorporating more into what she was doing and she is now beginning to do so. More power to her, and this is exactly what is needed, and we need to maintain links with such people. http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/2023/lashide4u-aga in
And even apart from confrontation there is general distortion as we have seen with such mainstream vehicles as National Geographic. And of course Myra Wysinger's website was a great source as well, making accessible several scientific papers, as well as good general pages. All this gets the data out into the filed where it can be widely used and understood. The growing and deeply embedded "biodiversity" networks are keeping up their distortions 24/7. They are doing an excellent job spreading their distortions of African peoples and their bio-history. They have to be confronted. And confrontation is not "useless". To the contrary. The many debates here on ES, and in the past between "White Nord", SuperCar, etc, etc were excellent learning tools, bringing out data or arguments that simply would never have made much appearance. This is precisely why we have an adversarial legal process, to get that information out.
You mentioned to Keita that he wrote a paper called "The Misrepresentation of Diop's Views." Keita did not write the paper. It was written by Clyde Walker in Journal of Black Studies 1995, and it is a fair paper by the way, showing how the academy and various opponents distort numerous aspects of what Diop was saying. Walker exposes some of the contradictions in Brace as you say. Brace called Diop an "inverted racist" for example but uses a milder term for JP Rushton. But in fact Diop is far from a Rushton- he specifically disavowed racism and even married a white woman, something Rushton and his ilk would hardly do in reverse. The "equivalence" Brace tries to make between the two is part and parcel of his distorted "spin" in 1993 in support of the Lefkowitz era brigade.
These people have not disappeared- they have updated their bogus claims and are pushing them. In fact even now on the web many in the "biodiversity" brigade seek to justify racism, calling Jim Crow "necessary" or "good" for black people for example. Walker also notes Brace's heavy reliance on the stereotypical "true negro" construct which he admits in part elsewhere. But anyway at this point you don't need Keita on such fundamentals. You already know them as can be attested in your debates. Keep up the good work in taking on the distorters of African bio-history. And don't bother being polite with them. Yes their moderators too often are playing the same cynical "banning" game when their regulars are getting their clocks cleaned. But to hell with that. "Banning" will not slow down the flow of info, or the debunking of their claims.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ Swenet. I am seeing the image now. I am not sure what you are asking? You just proved my point.
If this person(assuming Ethiopian)IS 82% "European", 14% "African" and 4% "asian". He IS that. That does not mean Europeans back migrated to Ethiopia. Why? No modern Europeans lineage is found in Ethiopia. So the LABEL European is erroroneous. It is misleading and it is mis-direction as I said.
The two go hand in hand. SNPs/AIM and YDNA/MtDNA
Bro. You need to look at this holistically. It is a package.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
I should not need to explain this to a vet like you.
If you ignore Sex-related haplogroups and only working with AIM/SNPs then you need other tools to determine "direction". ADMIXTURE tell you only so much ie only "shared" ancestry. That is where TreeMix and other DIRECTIONAL tools come in.
Example this new tool from Busby et al Oct 2015
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xxyman: He IS that.
Do you consider the chromosome segments designated "African" the only segments that originated on the African continent? Just give me a yes or no.
The sequenced genomes of individuals with roots in countries with a Cushitic speaking majority typically come out looking similar to this. Often the percentage designated "African" is just a meager 10-40%, so you can't write this off as just a unique case (if that's what you were thinking).
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
"Yes and No"? another Lioness type question.
It is not unique it is what it is.
Understand that all chromosomes originated IN Africa. ALL. Some segments are labeled "European" simply because it has HIGHEST frequency IN Europe NOT that it originated IN Europe.
That is why ALL populations are a sub-set of Africans. This is how isolation-by-distance works.
I should not be explaining this to anyone who have been here for so long.
A few genetic authors have made that clear many times. IIRC Rosenberg et al 2002.
Labels! Labels! Labels!.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
*Scratch my head*. What?
Look at the cans of worms you're opening and fictitious things you're saying. I'm not even going to get into that. I'm just here to make a quick point and leave this thread.
Let me rephrase my question, because I see I apparently can't ask it the way I would normally without opening the floodgates to all this other stuff.
Do you consider the chromosome segments designated "African" the only segments that never left the African continent?
quote:Originally posted by Xyyman: If you ignore Sex-related haplogroups and only working with AIM/SNPs then you need other tools to determine "direction". ADMIXTURE tell you only so much ie only "shared" ancestry. That is where TreeMix and other DIRECTIONAL tools come in.
I agree, mostly. But that isn't the whole story either. Treemix edges and other "directional" tools don't always accurately depict historical events as we know them.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
To emphasize the point. Using frequency to determine origin is “outdated technology”. 15 years ago Achilli came up with that idiotic approach. The net result was the stupid Ice Age Refugia Theory. Remember he and Torronni back in the late 1990’s assumed that since Iberians has the highest FREQUENCY of mtDNA hg-H then the haplogroup originated IN Iberia. Of course many geneticists ran with it, even today some still repeat that garbage, and he even went to assume that mtDNA hg-H in Africa was due to back-migration. Things started changing when higher resolution technology started emerging. Also new population were sampled and added to the databases.
With this new high resolution technology we now know that, yes, European females carry a high frequency of hg-H BUT Africans carry unique and private haplotypes of hg-H. In other words, Africans carry ALL haplotypes of hg-H found in Europe but there are haplotypes ONLY found in Africa and not in Europe. That is indicative of an African origin. “Pillars of Hercules” paper started the trend and Kefi new paper sampling ALL populations North and South of the Medit Sea closed the deal. They have given up on mtDNA hg-H having a European origin. This has been borne out also by the high frequency of mtDNA hg-U in Paleolithic “post ice-age” sampling of Europeans. In other words hg-H was not in Europe during and immediately after the Ice Age. There couldn’t be a Refugia. Lol! The jig is up.
Further more – there are now new techniques and tools being developed to determine “direction”. Remember IBD length? That is an old but basic tool used by Henn to conclude it was Africans migrating to Southern Europe and not the other way around. TreeMix is another. I remember when TreeMix came out Dienekes was shyting bricks when he saw results showing “pygmy” migration to Spain. Back then he “explained” it as “noise”. LOL! This new Busby technique concluded the same thing. I agree with Busby on the SSA migrating. Lazaridis paper used West Africans- via Bedouins as a proxy to come up with the so-called Basal Eurasian. Why? Because he realized through statistical manipulation Bedouins shifted as West African shifted. They were intricately linked.
I don’t need to explain this to vets. Leave these types of questions for the newbies. Hit me up if you have more questions.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: " Understand that all chromosomes originated IN Africa.
What does this gobbledygook even mean? Define "all chromosomes"? Are you telling me Y Chromosomes Q, S, M, P and mtdna A,B,C,D,E,Z "originated IN Africa."?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: [QB] To emphasize the point. Using frequency to determine origin is “outdated technology”. 15 years ago Achilli came up with that idiotic approach. The net result was the stupid Ice Age Refugia Theory. Remember he and Torronni back in the late 1990’s assumed that since Iberians has the highest FREQUENCY of mtDNA hg-H then the haplogroup originated IN Iberia. Of course many geneticists ran with it, even today some still repeat that garbage, and he even went to assume that mtDNA hg-H in Africa was due to back-migration. Things started changing when higher resolution technology started emerging. Also new population were sampled and added to the databases.
With this new high resolution technology we now know that, yes, European females carry a high frequency of hg-H BUT Africans carry unique and private haplotypes of hg-H. In other words, Africans carry ALL haplotypes of hg-H found in Europe but there are haplotypes ONLY found in Africa and not in Europe.
Frequency + diversity is suggestive of origin
Europe doesn't need to be mentioned beacause the origin of Haplogroup H is thought to be the the Near East
You routinely exclude the Near East in your erratic commentaries Why? Your model is always either Africa or Europe The Near East is too complicated for your ass
Of the various H carrying regions Africa has the lowest diversity. You will not be able to produce a sourced quote saying otherwise
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ok. One at a time. First B.
Your buddy who used the term “chromosome”. And yes, All chromosomes,all 46 of them, originated in Africa. Now……if you are talking SNPs ie haplogroups that is different story. So…make up your mind…What are you all asking? Chromosomes or SNPs? You guys confer and get back to me. I am getting tired of your whining. If you have something to contribute or discuss, I am open. As I said. I own you.
gaableygook by your buddy. Not sure it was a poor attempt at a trick question. SMH
quote:
[[[[Do you consider the chromosome segments designated "African" the only segments that originated on the African continent? Just give me a yes or no.
]]]]
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Now onto Lioness.
Did you read the "Pillars of Hercules" paper?
Did you read Kefi's new paper?
Did you read and understand Ennaffa(sp) paper?
If you did you would know why the Middle East/Near East is NOT in the conversation.
You too, get back to me when you have read them....and understand it.
You do know Lazaridis also concluded it was a North South Cline NOT a South East to North West Cline-as previously thought for many years. Want me to explain why?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
To those who read and did NOT understand Ennaffas paper on mtDNA hg-H. Let me break it down for you. Her premise is very simple. She did high resolution analysis on hg-H on populations from Iberia, Near East and North Africa. She concluded that North Africans/Tunisians especially, through mtDNA H, has CLOSER “affinity” (there is that word again) to Europeans than they are to Near Easterners. She came to that conclusion based upon more closely matching haplotypes of haplogroup H between Europeans and North Africans than between Near Easterners and North Africans. In other words The near East was NOT the source of North African mtDNA hg-H. She “implied” it may have been Europe based upon the matching haplotypes. So the Near East is not in the conversation.
Now the “pillars of Hercules” paper took it a step deeper as did Kefi 2014 paper. The result? Europe was not the source of mtDNA H in North Africa.
Big picture secret Agent woman! Big picture!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
@ B. instead of bitching and whining why don't you post some stuff to help Newbies get on board?
Trying to find fault with what I post is not going to get you anywhere. I am light years ahead of you. Help the newbies out.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Xyyman: To emphasize the point. Using frequency to determine origin is “outdated technology”.
Frequency is irrelevant. We're talking about the phylogenetic relationships between autosomal haplotypes, not their frequency. Australian-specific autosomal haplotypes don't occur more in Europe than in Sub-Saharan Africa, but these haplotypes have an affinity with Europe-specific haplotypes and so they'd cluster with Europe before Sub-Saharan Africa. Likewise, frequency in Europe has nothing to do with why a good portion of that 82% was designated "European". If Europe was left out of the equation, it would still cluster with some other Eurasian region before Sub-Saharan Africa.
As for my question, again, you're not answering it. Does that mean you're not going to? If not, just say so. No need to make this drag on any longer than necessary.
Do you consider the chromosome segments designated "African" the only segments that never left the African continent? --Swenet
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ok. Let me rephrase your question and answer it. Using words to please Beyoku(sic).
[[[Do you consider the chromosome segments designated "African" the only segments that never left the African continent? --Swenet]]]
Do you consider the genetic material labeled "African" the only genetic segments that never left the African continent? --xyyman
Answer: Even the “African” segment left Africa. So what you are asking does not make sense. “African” segments are found in Africa and as far as the Americas. Native Americans or non-African segments are also found in the deepest tropical areas of Africa. The labels are applied based upon frequency…FREQUENCY!! Non-African segments only means it is found at higher frequency in populations outside of Africa not that it is not found IN Africa.
This is elementary. I hope this is not a trick question. eg look at the latest chart by Busby et al. FigS2. Notice at K2 , light blue is found at high frequency IN Africa and East Asia. And at K3 the pink “East Asian” genetic material is found in West Africa/Africans BUT at low frequency. Isolation by distance brotha!
So..Your question makes no sense. There is no African segment because ALL segments are African. It is a mater of amount ie frequency. That is how the “label” is applied. Don’t get caught up in the “labels” bro!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
All cluster charts show the same pattern. Especially at K2.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Ok. One at a time. First B.
Your buddy who used the term “chromosome”. And yes, All chromosomes,all 46 of them, originated in Africa. Now……if you are talking SNPs ie haplogroups that is different story. So…make up your mind…What are you all asking? Chromosomes or SNPs? You guys confer and get back to me. I am getting tired of your whining. If you have something to contribute or discuss, I am open. As I said. I own you.
gaableygook by your buddy. Not sure it was a poor attempt at a trick question. SMH
quote:
[[[[Do you consider the chromosome segments designated "African" the only segments that originated on the African continent? Just give me a yes or no.
]]]]
Now your Bullshitting. In commenting on Swenet's questions you were speaking of SNP's that is why I asked you to clarify. If not then what exactly is the point of saying "all chromosomes originated IN Africa" which is simply another way of saying Homo Sapien is an African species? We were not talking about the origin on human Chromsomes which goes back millions of years! The discussion was speaking specifically on SNP's and how they can be classified. The fact our chromosomes originate in Africa millions of years ago has no bear on that really.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Xyyman
It's no use asking you this question, because you reject basic population genetics tenets. This allows you to simply write everything off as African via some as of yet unsubstantiated explanation. The basic question I've asked you several times assumes that you subscribe to population genetics theory, not Xyymanology.
The moral of the story is this:
If you use racial language like "white" and "black" to describe the ancestry of North Africans, like, say, the Beja, you're going to arrive at something preposterous like 33% "black" and 67% "white" or "other" or "non-black". But we know this is not the only African ancestry they have, so, it clearly does matter what labels one uses; it's not a bunch of "nonsense" and "misdirection".
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Ok! Since Beyoku would not step up and help the newbies out. I will kick it off.
What these Cluster charts( eg K2, K3 etc) are doing is filtering or separating SNPs from the human genome into GROUPs. Keep in mind the human genome contains millions of SNP.
So at K2, the simplest grouping, they are asking the computer algorithm to divide up the chosen SNPs into TWO(ie 2 clusters ie 2 colors) groups. So if they included peoples from all over the world a simple pattern emerges. It is illustrated in TWO colors. Usually Africans will have a high frequency of one color and Asians/Native Americans will have a high frequency of another color. Europeans will be in between. NO population will have ONLY one color. Because no one is PURE.
Typically one color is “labeled” African and the other labeled “non-African” based upon frequency.
Now at K3 there be THREE groupings with 3 colors. And so on. The bottomline is ALL colors will be found in ALL population, the difference will be the amount/frequency.
That is why the question Swenet asked made no sense.
End of Class.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Listen brotha I don’t know what is a Mande, Beja or Kikuyu. If one walk in front of me and hit across the head I wouldn’t know. I don’t really care. They are all Africans. Lol!. I am discussing the data as published and what it means. Saying a Beja is 50% whit e or black has no meaning to me. The data is what it is. It does not change the fact what I am saying is correct.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Stop changing the goal post, bro. You said it doesn't matter which labels one uses and that Keita was talking nonsense and engaging in misdirection when he talks about staying away from racial language.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Ok! Since Beyoku would not step up and help the newbies out. I will kick it off.
What these Cluster charts( eg K2, K3 etc) are doing is filtering or separating SNPs from the human genome into GROUPs. Keep in mind the human genome contains millions of SNP.
So at K2, the simplest grouping, they are asking the computer algorithm to divide up the chosen SNPs into TWO(ie 2 clusters ie 2 colors) groups. So if they included peoples from all over the world a simple pattern emerges. It is illustrated in TWO colors. Usually Africans will have a high frequency of one color and Asians/Native Americans will have a high frequency of another color. Europeans will be in between. NO population will have ONLY one color. Because no one is PURE.
Typically one color is “labeled” African and the other labeled “non-African” based upon frequency.
Now at K3 there be THREE groupings with 3 colors. And so on. The bottomline is ALL colors will be found in ALL population, the difference will be the amount/frequency.
That is why the question Swenet asked made no sense.
End of Class.
Captain obvious....Not "millions of SNPs".....There are about 3 Billion base pairs. Your entire argument is gobbledygook because it fails to account for "private" SNPs....You act as if they dont exist. You act as if there is no such thing as "Ancestry Informative Markers."?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
As I kicked in earlier in this thread, Keita made his contribution…we don’t really need him anymore. If he is scared of the establishment for whatever reason. To state the facts. We thank him and move on.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
You just would not grow up would you? You just won’t let it go. I stand corrected “OVER Millions of SNPs”. Happy now? (Rolling eyes).
Yes, there are private SNPs but only at higher Ks it will be picked up becomes noticeable. Here is an idea. Instead of getting into a pissing contest with me, one you cannot possibly win, why don’t you educate the newbies. I can’t do the all the heavy lifting.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Ok! Since Beyoku would not step up and help the newbies out. I will kick it off.
What these Cluster charts( eg K2, K3 etc) are doing is filtering or separating SNPs from the human genome into GROUPs. Keep in mind the human genome contains millions of SNP.
So at K2, the simplest grouping, they are asking the computer algorithm to divide up the chosen SNPs into TWO(ie 2 clusters ie 2 colors) groups. So if they included peoples from all over the world a simple pattern emerges. It is illustrated in TWO colors. Usually Africans will have a high frequency of one color and Asians/Native Americans will have a high frequency of another color. Europeans will be in between. NO population will have ONLY one color. Because no one is PURE.
Typically one color is “labeled” African and the other labeled “non-African” based upon frequency.
Now at K3 there be THREE groupings with 3 colors. And so on. The bottomline is ALL colors will be found in ALL population, the difference will be the amount/frequency.
That is why the question Swenet asked made no sense.
End of Class.
Captain obvious....Not "millions of SNPs".....There are about 3 Billion base pairs. Your entire argument is gobbledygook because it fails to account for "private" SNPs....You act as if they dont exist. You act as if there is no such thing as "Ancestry Informative Markers."?
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Nice seeing you guys getting in-depth in this...as black people .....and a white. For the record, K = more specifcally is cluster. ie grouping of specific SNPs.
However the researchers are trying to identify(isolate) population(and events) using this technique.
So by some measure both are correct. But more accurately K = cluster.
For the record.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
^ Right and you and Amun Ra thought you could pull Y chromosome results from Autosomal STRs. Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Did you read what I posted back then. Lol! you got a serious problem man. See a therapist. I am not at the same level with AMRTU. And I am not at the same level with you. You do realize that?!
Don't want to insult you but, is English your first language?
the reason I am asking is because you refrenced a thread I participated in, quoted what I said and you come up with these wacky accusations. It is as if you did not comprehend what I just posted.
It is like when you go into those Chinese corner store and ask for Red Bull and they give you a pack of cigarettes. You tell them that is not what you ask for, they nod, say yes and still give you the Cigarettes. "Yes" is an English word but did they understand?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ Right and you and Amun Ra thought you could pull Y chromosome results from Autosomal STRs.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @Morpheus........Are their any questions regarding the peopling of Egypt and migrations that you actually DO NOT KNOW and would like some insight to....or do you pretty much know it all? Nothing?
I don't have any questions at the moment. If I think of any I will let you know. I don't know it all, I'm always eager to learn.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique
You mentioned to Keita that he wrote a paper called "The Misrepresentation of Diop's Views." Keita did not write the paper. It was written by Clyde Walker in Journal of Black Studies 1995, and it is a fair paper by the way, showing how the academy and various opponents distort numerous aspects of what Diop was saying.
I have the article on my computer. The author is actually named J.D. Walker of Oxford University. Dr. Keita earned his PhD at Oxford. Several webpages on the internet say that Keita's (who is African-American) original name is Jon Derryll Walker. When I searched for Keita's email years ago I came across a webpage that listed relatives of his and as I recall several if not all of them had the last name Walker. I think Walker and Keita are one and the same. I could ask him about this but he might deem it too personal.
At any rate thanks for the words of encouragement on combating racists.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Yes, did not notice that- haven't really looked at Keita's bio in detail. But it is also interesting that its the same Journal of Black Studies in which "Walker" wrote, that Keita writes a decade later, further debunking Brace in more comprehensive technical fashion. You have made a perceptive observation above.
And I notice how Keita presses you twice for your thoughts on Brace 93. Even after you mention Walker's critique, he still comes back to Brace even circa 2015. Clearly he does not simply dismiss such queries. Also interesting is how he sidesteps any possible debates re "West Afri-Egyptianism", but at the same time refers you specifically to data that mentions West African links- a subtle move. There is a method to Keita's "remoteness." The same thing can be seen in some of his videos. He refuses to be drawn into a semantic debate on the word "black" in one, but then turns around and talks about things like tropical limb proportions- in keeping with a more empirical umbrella, so to speak.
The issue of distortion and misrepresentation of African peoples runs throughout his work, and he specifically mentions these themes in recent papers and his video series. These are current concerns he recognizes, right now in the field. Keita of course wants good data, and good analysis and his "balanced package" approach is a solid one in this area- relying not on one line of evidence but several that are mutually supporting. I have seen you use these multiple lines in various venues, which is exactly what Keita advocates.
But in any event keep up the good work, and keep on putting the hammer down. I don't understand sometimes how you stay so polite in dealing with some of these people but hey, more power to you. Another nice thing about what you are doing is the data is being picked up across a wide spectrum. People no longer need a direct link to an ES page- the quotes you are posting slaps the data down in situ, which in turn is being picked up by again by Google. Keep doing that by all means. Also aside from the usual guys who have been putting the hammer down ("Slugger", "Too Tall Jones" "MKGlouis", etc etc) in various forums, more newcomers like Ladieshu on YouTube are now incorporating more hard data in her series. I am gonna send you some new info debunking recent "biodiversity" claims on a number of fronts. Keep up the good work!
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
Thanks Zaharan. Please send your links by PM.
Dr. Keita replied again. He refused to answer personal questions about his name but sent me an article by Wengrow about cultural connections between Egypt and other areas of Africa.
He expressed concern about the editing of his videos on Youtube. He says he does not read message boards or blogs. He did say that he was planning a critique of Brace on multiple levels.
I agree with your assessment on his methods. Keita is an objective scientist who has done alot to combat bias in scholarship. We need more scholars like him.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Indeed. I tried PM but it says your mailbox full. PS: what article- was it the Cultural Convergence one?
quote: "We conclude by emphasising that our definition of a ‘primary pastoral community’ in the Nile Valley is a holistic one, giving equal weight to empirically observable uniformities in ritual practice, material culture and ecology. As such it stands in contrast to the recent and narrower focus on environmental stress as a long-term driver of cultural change in north-east Africa. It seems important to insist on this methodological distinction, not least because such recent catastrophes as the genocide in Darfur have been linked to what are supposedly millennia-old cycles of climate-driven demographic change (Kuper & Kroepelin 2006: 807). From an archaeological point of view we hope, at the very least, to have demonstrated that alternative interpretations of Africa’s deep past—and hence of its more immediate future—are not only possible, but also plausible." Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
I just deleted my PMs. Try again and I will send you a proper email address.
Yes, that quote is from the article Keita sent me.
This is the title:
Cultural convergence in the Neolithic of the Nile Valley: a prehistoric perspective on Egypt’s place in Africa
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
OK, cool- will do.
And the fact that Keita would send such to you shows these issues you wrote about are very much alive, as Keita himself has written about and noted recently.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Veddoid of Arabia 
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)