posted
Okay after reading the studies on the Egyptians mummies by DNAtribe. Are all Africans genetically related? I mean how were west African DNA and south Africans found in the mummies? Does this mean Egypt was populated by different African groups?
And were the west Africans always in AE? People always say Africans are diverse and range in different phenotypes. But are they related to each other? My question is are Africans related to one another, since they are so diverse.
And did AE have some west Africans.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
some suggest that Africans are related by Haplogroup E1b1 (P2, DYS391p); formerly E3
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This question of African population relations has been answered many times before. YES, Africans are indeed very diverse genetically because they are the source population for all mankind. The older a population is, the more accumulation of genetic variation and thus diversity. However, greater diversity does NOT mean less relativity. For example, even among the gene pool of a single isolated population where much inbreeding has occurred there is still some form of variation or diversity. It may not be as much as say a larger population that has much contact and geneflow with other populations. Still even among the gene pool of a single family there is genetic variation also even if all members are related to one another. The same can be said of Africans. Genetically there are many clades and subclades and even variation within subclades that are to be found among Africans, yet just because you have individuals who carry lineages of a certain clade does not mean they are not related or even share other genetic characteristics with individuals who carry lineages of another clade, especially if all these individuals reside within the same community or region. Because Africans have such tremendous genetic diversity, there is actually more genetic variation within a single village in Africa than there is in say a state in the U.S. or a nation in Europe, but that doesn't mean all these villagers have no relation to one another! An even better example would be chimpanzees, our closest related species. The chimp species is even older than humans which is why their genetic diversity is even greater still. Two individual chimpanzees of the same population in the same forest have more genetic variations between them than two individual humans who live in opposite ends of the globe, but that does not mean they are unrelated!
As for Egypt. Geology shows that the Sahara desert did not always exist and North Africa was once green and fertile. Archaeology also shows that the area that is now Egypt has also received migrations of populations from farther west in the central Sahara as North Africa began to dry out and turn to desert. This is supported by genetics such as the fact that Egyptians carry the Benin variety of HBS (sickle cell anemia).
Note that while ancient Egyptians share many cultural features with other east Africans, there are other cultural peculiarities such as ritual masks, dolls, the wearing of wigs, and iconographic styles that are to be found in West Africa.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: some suggest that Africans are related by Haplogroup E1b1 (P2, DYS391p); formerly E3
The PN2 or E clade is just one of many present in Africa, though E appears to be predominant. Within E you have E1, E2, E3 etc and within each subclade there are more divisions and variations. Again E though a significant clade is just one aspect shared by Africans. Another problem in African population studies is the designation of certain clades as non-African or Eurasian. For example the R clade and in particular R1 is classed as Eurasian since that is where its subclades are predominantly found. R1a and R1b for example are carried by eastern and Western Europeans respectively with the former also found in Central Asia etc. Yet there are also subclades of R1 and even underived R1* present in Africa, specifically in West Africa. Yet these lineages are found in rural areas devoid of any European or Eurasian contact. There are some scientists who try to explain this by prehistoric back-migrations from Eurasia yet the problem is the very dating of R1* goes back to the time when humans first left Africa to populate Eurasia. So why can't R1 be defined as African instead of Eurasian?? What's funny is that Eurocentric racialists try to associate any so-called 'Eurasian' lineage in Africa with stereotyped "caucasian" features yet all the carriers of R1 derived haplogroups in West Africa are stereotypically "negroid" in characteristics yet nobody tries to 'relate' these so-called "forest negroes" with indigenous white Europeans who carry share the same clade! LOL In the meantime there are Europeans especially southern Europeans in the Mediterranean who carry E lineages clearly inherited from Africans in the neolithic, yet you hardly hear a peep about African migrations into Europe and African admixture among Europeans when that is clearly the case!
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: I see.
Also I'm just curious but DNAtribes said...the Massai are 30% Arab and Somalis 40% Arab, 30% West African, 30% Sahelian.
I'm just curious.
This is also why I question DNATribes when it comes to how they label or classify things. Exactly what do they mean by 'Arab'?? What haplogroup or other do they refer when they say 'Arab'. Last time I checked the Massai have had no historical contact with Arabs whatsoever yet they are suppose to be 30% 'Arab'?? And what percentage of Europeans like Greeks are African, since again about a third of Europeans in general carry E lineages with about a quarter of Greeks carrying E. Again there is this biased slant to white-wash or rather 'mix-up' Africans but nothing is said about mixed ancestry in Europeans.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This question of African population relations has been answered many times before. YES, Africans are indeed very diverse genetically because they are the source population for all mankind. The older a population is, the more accumulation of genetic variation and thus diversity. However, greater diversity does NOT mean less relativity. For example, even among the gene pool of a single isolated population where much inbreeding has occurred there is still some form of variation or diversity. It may not be as much as say a larger population that has much contact and geneflow with other populations. Still even among the gene pool of a single family there is genetic variation also even if all members are related to one another. The same can be said of Africans. Genetically there are many clades and subclades and even variation within subclades that are to be found among Africans, yet just because you have individuals who carry lineages of a certain clade does not mean they are not related or even share other genetic characteristics with individuals who carry lineages of another clade, especially if all these individuals reside within the same community or region. Because Africans have such tremendous genetic diversity, there is actually more genetic variation within a single village in Africa than there is in say a state in the U.S. or a nation in Europe, but that doesn't mean all these villagers have no relation to one another! An even better example would be chimpanzees, our closest related species. The chimp species is even older than humans which is why their genetic diversity is even greater still. Two individual chimpanzees of the same population in the same forest have more genetic variations between them than two individual humans who live in opposite ends of the globe, but that does not mean they are unrelated!
Interesting.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: some suggest that Africans are related by Haplogroup E1b1 (P2, DYS391p); formerly E3
The PN2 or E clade is just one of many present in Africa, though E appears to be predominant. Within E you have E1, E2, E3 etc and within each subclade there are more divisions and variations. Again E though a significant clade is just one aspect shared by Africans. Another problem in African population studies is the designation of certain clades as non-African or Eurasian. For example the R clade and in particular R1 is classed as Eurasian since that is where its subclades are predominantly found. R1a and R1b for example are carried by eastern and Western Europeans respectively with the former also found in Central Asia etc. Yet there are also subclades of R1 and even underived R1* present in Africa, specifically in West Africa. Yet these lineages are found in rural areas devoid of any European or Eurasian contact. There are some scientists who try to explain this by prehistoric back-migrations from Eurasia yet the problem is the very dating of R1* goes back to the time when humans first left Africa to populate Eurasia. So why can't R1 be defined as African instead of Eurasian?? What's funny is that Eurocentric racialists try to associate any so-called 'Eurasian' lineage in Africa with stereotyped "caucasian" features yet all the carriers of R1 derived haplogroups in West Africa are stereotypically "negroid" in characteristics yet nobody tries to 'relate' these so-called "forest negroes" with indigenous white Europeans who carry share the same clade! LOL In the meantime there are Europeans especially southern Europeans in the Mediterranean who carry E lineages clearly inherited from Africans in the neolithic, yet you hardly hear a peep about African migrations into Europe and African admixture among Europeans when that is clearly the case!
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: I see.
Also I'm just curious but DNAtribes said...the Massai are 30% Arab and Somalis 40% Arab, 30% West African, 30% Sahelian.
I'm just curious.
This is also why I question DNATribes when it comes to how they label or classify things. Exactly what do they mean by 'Arab'?? What haplogroup or other do they refer when they say 'Arab'. Last time I checked the Massai have had no historical contact with Arabs whatsoever yet they are suppose to be 30% 'Arab'?? And what percentage of Europeans like Greeks are African, since again about a third of Europeans in general carry E lineages with about a quarter of Greeks carrying E. Again there is this biased slant to white-wash or rather 'mix-up' Africans but nothing is said about mixed ancestry in Europeans.
So are they really accurate or not accurate?
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I think the question really is what are they accurate about. Clearly their findings on Egyptian STRs shows relation to Africans further south, but what I am skeptical about are their labels.
Look how they label and divide African populations.
Notice that although Egypt is in North Africa, it is classified as part of the Levant. And again I question what they mean by 'Arab'.
And this is the type of Eurocentric racist b.s. I was referring to earlier.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_PrimeIdiot: Bushmen (Capoids) are genetically distinct despite being surrounded by Bantu Negroids.
And exactly how are they genetically distinct? Some Khoisan (Bushmen) carry PN2 (E) lineages associated with other Sub-Saharan Africans. In fact the form found among the Khwe is underived ancestral E1b1b*!
Not to mention the fact that most of the clades found among Khoisan are the oldest-- A and B clades-- which are also found among Pygmies, Ethiopians, and Sudanese peoples. So where pray-tell is the genetic distinction?
Funny how you separate so-called 'Bantu-negroids' and 'Capoids' into two separate races yet you group 'Nordic', 'Alpine', and 'Mediterranean' Euros into the same race despite their differences.
quote:So no, Africans are not close genetically related. You then have genetically distinct Caucasoid populations in the north and east of Africa.
Yeah genetically distinct to so-called 'true negroids' yet genetically related to Europeans, right? So North African Siwa Berbers and East African Somalis despite both being black natives of Africa are more related to Europeans than they are to other Africans. Sure thing.
quote:Scientists find great genetic differences among southern Africans
The genomes of Bushmen and Negroids are poles apart...
I take it you didn't even read the article did you? And if you did, you obviously did not comprehend what was stated. In fact nowhere did that article contradict anything I said in regards to differences NOT equating to no relations.
From the article your cited:
"Two Bushmen from different tribes living within walking distance of each other can have greater genetic differences than a European and an Asian, according to the study published in Thursday's edition of the journal Nature."
So by your twisted logic these two Bushmen who live within walking distance have no relation to each other then or at least as much as between a European and Asian! LOLPosts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's funny is that Eurocentric racialist try to associate any so-called 'Eurasian' lineage in Africa with stereotyped "caucasian" features yet all the carriers of R1 derived haplogroups in West Africa are stereotypically "negroid" in characteristics yet nobody tries to 'relate' these "forest negroes" with indigenous white Europeans who carry share the same clade! LOL In the meantime there are Europeans especially southern Europeans in the Mediterranean who carry E lineages clearly inherited from Africans in the neolithic, yet you hardly hear a peep about African migrations into Europe and African admixture among Europeans when that is clearly the case!
Good summary Djehuti. Using the same Eurocentric methods, then numerous Europeans are not "white" at all but mixed race.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ I think the question really is what are they accurate about. Clearly their findings on Egyptian STRs shows relation to Africans further south, but what I am skeptical about are their labels.
Look how they label and divide African populations.
Don't they go by regions?
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: What's funny is that Eurocentric racialist try to associate any so-called 'Eurasian' lineage in Africa with stereotyped "caucasian" features yet all the carriers of R1 derived haplogroups in West Africa are stereotypically "negroid" in characteristics yet nobody tries to 'relate' these "forest negroes" with indigenous white Europeans who carry share the same clade! LOL In the meantime there are Europeans especially southern Europeans in the Mediterranean who carry E lineages clearly inherited from Africans in the neolithic, yet you hardly hear a peep about African migrations into Europe and African admixture among Europeans when that is clearly the case!
Good summary Djehuti. Using the same Eurocentric methods, then numerous Europeans are not "white" at all but mixed race.
Good post.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: Don't they go by regions?
Yes, but the question is what is the basis of these designated regions?
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This question of African population relations has been answered many times before. YES, Africans are indeed very diverse genetically because they are the source population for all mankind. The older a population is, the more accumulation of genetic variation and thus diversity. However, greater diversity does NOT mean less relativity. For example, even among the gene pool of a single isolated population where much inbreeding has occurred there is still some form of variation or diversity. It may not be as much as say a larger population that has much contact and geneflow with other populations. Still even among the gene pool of a single family there is genetic variation also even if all members are related to one another. The same can be said of Africans. Genetically there are many clades and subclades and even variation within subclades that are to be found among Africans, yet just because you have individuals who carry lineages of a certain clade does not mean they are not related or even share other genetic characteristics with individuals who carry lineages of another clade, especially if all these individuals reside within the same community or region. Because Africans have such tremendous genetic diversity, there is actually more genetic variation within a single village in Africa than there is in say a state in the U.S. or a nation in Europe, but that doesn't mean all these villagers have no relation to one another! An even better example would be chimpanzees, our closest related species. The chimp species is even older than humans which is why their genetic diversity is even greater still. Two individual chimpanzees of the same population in the same forest have more genetic variations between them than two individual humans who live in opposite ends of the globe, but that does not mean they are unrelated!
As for Egypt. Geology shows that the Sahara desert did not always exist and North Africa was once green and fertile. Archaeology also shows that the area that is now Egypt has also received migrations of populations from farther west in the central Sahara as North Africa began to dry out and turn to desert. This is supported by genetics such as the fact that Egyptians carry the Benin variety of HBS (sickle cell anemia).
Note that while ancient Egyptians share many cultural features with other east Africans, there are other cultural peculiarities such as ritual masks, dolls, the wearing of wigs, and iconographic styles that are to be found in West Africa.
based on what you've said here somebody could say no human population is unrelated to any other human population
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:The big division highlighted in this paper is that between the “indigenous” relict populations, the Hazda, Sandawe, Bushmen and Pygmies, and those who belong to the more widespread agriculturalist and pastoralist societies of Africa
Indigenous Africans don't cluster in genetics with Negroids.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: Don't they go by regions?
Yes, but the question is what is the basis of these designated regions?
True.
But were there really west Africans, south Africans and people from the great lake region in Egypt?
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: Don't they go by regions?
Yes, but the question is what is the basis of these designated regions?
True.
But were there really west Africans, south Africans and people from the great lake region in Egypt?
Well you have to understand history before asking this question.
The present populations of West Africa were not there during the time of the Kemetic Empire/State. We don't start seeing modern day west Africans until around the 100 A.D. or some where between year 0 and 100 A.D. I should say. Herodotus relates a story from some Libyans, who say, when they went into the region where the Niger River picks up, in what I assume may have been Mali, there was a kingdom of Batwa people living there. Also, most if not All west African groups have stories of coming from the north from their present locations. Well that or from the east, but again, not local to where they are now.
My assumption is, they were either in present day Mauritania or other north African places, some where in the northern desert, like the Gramatians of southern Libya or in the Nile valley and lake chad areas.
I would love to see they day they really start exploring the Sahara with Satellite or some ground penetrating radar and digging. I have a feeling there is a kingdom there some where, which probably gave rise to Nile valley civilizations. Just a guess on my part, but one I base on what Africans in many areas say of themselves and what archaeologist have found so far. For example, oldest African mummy is in the Algerian desert (yes it was a black child). Pictures carved in rock that seem to depict Anubis as well as Hat Heru (Hathor). There are also writings there which are old, which seem to be older than metu netr.
It is like Dr. Keita said recently (and as I have said all along). You can not just rely on DNA to tell the story, it is going to take history, archaeology etc to piece the story together.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C.[Sedentary farming began in, or around the fifth millennium B.C, as well as the domestication of cattle. By 400 B.C, ironworking technology allowed an expansion of agricultural productivity, and the first city-states formed. This is prior to civilization in West Africa or Egypt
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
As stated, MODERN DAY West Africans did not live there at that time. Just saying "early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C." doesn't refute what I stated. There were people there, namely batwa. However, the people who predominate the area now, were NOT there at that time, this is a undisputed fact. Even the recent academic gathering in Chapel Hill discuss this very fact, that early bones/skulls do not match present day people. Obviously, if Herodotus said the Libyans came across kingdoms of people (batwa), who helped them get back to their homeland, then the area was inhabited, the question is, by WHOM.
Do you have the understanding of history, dna, archaeology etc. to draw an intelligent conclusion?
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: Don't they go by regions?
Yes, but the question is what is the basis of these designated regions?
True.
But were there really west Africans, south Africans and people from the great lake region in Egypt?
Well you have to understand history before asking this question.
The present populations of West Africa were not there during the time of the Kemetic Empire/State. We don't start seeing modern day west Africans until around the 100 A.D. or some where between year 0 and 100 A.D. I should say. Herodotus relates a story from some Libyans, who say, when they went into the region where the Niger River picks up, in what I assume may have been Mali, there was a kingdom of Batwa people living there. Also, most if not All west African groups have stories of coming from the north from their present locations. Well that or from the east, but again, not local to where they are now.
My assumption is, they were either in present day Mauritania or other north African places, some where in the northern desert, like the Gramatians of southern Libya or in the Nile valley and lake chad areas.
I would love to see they day they really start exploring the Sahara with Satellite or some ground penetrating radar and digging. I have a feeling there is a kingdom there some where, which probably gave rise to Nile valley civilizations. Just a guess on my part, but one I base on what Africans in many areas say of themselves and what archaeologist have found so far. For example, oldest African mummy is in the Algerian desert (yes it was a black child). Pictures carved in rock that seem to depict Anubis as well as Hat Heru (Hathor). There are also writings there which are old, which seem to be older than metu netr.
It is like Dr. Keita said recently (and as I have said all along). You can not just rely on DNA to tell the story, it is going to take history, archaeology etc to piece the story together.
interesting...
But some people say west Africans come from the Sahara when it wasn't dry.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
As stated, MODERN DAY West Africans did not live there at that time. Just saying "early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C." doesn't refute what I stated. There were people there, namely batwa. However, the people who predominate the area now, were NOT there at that time, this is a undisputed fact. Even the recent academic gathering in Chapel Hill discuss this very fact, that early bones/skulls do not match present day people. Obviously, if Herodotus said the Libyans came across kingdoms of people (batwa), who helped them get back to their homeland, then the area was inhabited, the question is, by WHOM.
Do you have the understanding of history, dna, archaeology etc. to draw an intelligent conclusion?
What about ancient Ghana? Which stared around 1500 BC(correct me if im wrong).
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This question of African population relations has been answered many times before. YES, Africans are indeed very diverse genetically because they are the source population for all mankind. The older a population is, the more accumulation of genetic variation and thus diversity. However, greater diversity does NOT mean less relativity. For example, even among the gene pool of a single isolated population where much inbreeding has occurred there is still some form of variation or diversity. It may not be as much as say a larger population that has much contact and geneflow with other populations. Still even among the gene pool of a single family there is genetic variation also even if all members are related to one another. The same can be said of Africans. Genetically there are many clades and subclades and even variation within subclades that are to be found among Africans, yet just because you have individuals who carry lineages of a certain clade does not mean they are not related or even share other genetic characteristics with individuals who carry lineages of another clade, especially if all these individuals reside within the same community or region. Because Africans have such tremendous genetic diversity, there is actually more genetic variation within a single village in Africa than there is in say a state in the U.S. or a nation in Europe, but that doesn't mean all these villagers have no relation to one another! An even better example would be chimpanzees, our closest related species. The chimp species is even older than humans which is why their genetic diversity is even greater still. Two individual chimpanzees of the same population in the same forest have more genetic variations between them than two individual humans who live in opposite ends of the globe, but that does not mean they are unrelated!
based on what you've said here somebody could say no human population is unrelated to any other human population
That's precisely what I'm saying. As members of the same species we are ALL related to each other, some populations more so than others and some individuals (families) more so than others.
In the case of Africa, indigenous populations are all related to each other because of constant gene-flow that has occurred throughout the continent such as the PN2 clade that is found from southern Africa all the way to northern Africa, though there are other SNP clades and even other genetic factors like blood groupings, HLA, etc. that show constant gene-flow and interbreeding between various African groups. Geneflow has between different populations has occurred in Eurasia but not to the same extent as Africa due to longer periods of isolation caused by geographical features like extensive mountain ranges etc. But overall Eurasians are all related to each other since they all descend from a small population that left east Africa during the lower paleolithic. This is why East Africans out of all Africans have the most relation to Eurasians NOT because they are Eurasian mixed as some Euronuts believe but because Eurasians descend from them! East Africans themselves are merely a subset of the larger and more extensively diverse genepool of Africans.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The big division highlighted in this paper is that between the “indigenous” relict populations, the Hazda, Sandawe, Bushmen and Pygmies, and those who belong to the more widespread agriculturalist and pastoralist societies of Africa
ROTFLMAOH
The only one mucking around is YOU, you dumbf*ck! The Tishkoff paper merely points out genetic differences between *Bantu* peoples and the indigenous pre-Bantu populations of the area! NOWHERE does she say anything about "Negroids" which is a void racial term! It's funny how cite Tishkoff including Pygmies as part of this distinction when you yourself have stated multiple times that "Negroids" are a mutated form of Pygmy!! LOL
quote:Indigenous Africans don't cluster in genetics with Negroids.
So I take it you don't consider Negroids to be indigenous Africans either. If that's the case then where did they come from? Outer Space?! LMAOPosts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This goes out to all the people with a properly functioning brain (not PrimeIdiots). Genetic differences do NOT mean no relations. Perhaps a simple analogy would be two brothers who look different. Say one brother has blonde hair and blue eyes, is short and has skin that burns easily while the other brother is tall with dark hair and eyes but tans easily. They also have different facial characteristics that one might think they are unrelated yet they have the same mother and father. Obviously the difference in appearance are due to genetic differences, but does that mean they aren't related to each other?? Of course not! The same is true with Africans.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
But were there really west Africans, south Africans and people from the great lake region in Egypt?
Not necessarily. However the Egyptians obviously share a common ancestry with all these groups.
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
As for the Great Lakes Region, are you aware that early Egyptologist Sir E.A. Wallis Budge (1857-1934) held such a theory for Egyptian origins?
It is impossible for me to believe that Egyptian is a Semitic language fundamentally. There are a very large number of words that are not Semitic and were never invented by a Semitic people. These words were invented by one of the oldest African people of the Nile valley of whose written language we have any remains. Their home lay far to the south, and all that we know of Predynastic Egypt suggests that it was in the neighborhood of the Great Lakes. EW Budge, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Dover, 1920.
As for West Africans, as I said two primary strands of genetic evidence is the presence of associated West African lineage E1b1a in southern Egypt as well as Benin form of sickle cell anemia in Egypt especially in the oases areas.
quote:interesting...
But some people say west Africans come from the Sahara when it wasn't dry.
Yes there is an abundance of evidence of occupation in the Sahara during the Holocene wet phase. There are neolithic cemeteries and even megaliths or remnants of such throughout the western Sahara and there are oral legends among West Africans of coming from further north or east. And let's not forget that there are West Africans who speak Afroasiatic languages specifically Chadic languages.
"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know one African who says their tribe or clan is indigenous to West Africa. Even early scholars, though racists, made note that West African and Southern African populations are recent. Some argue even as late of 1000 A.D. I know a Yoruba man and he told me that their clan came from the north. Practically all tribes and nations of west and southern africa came from the north/saharan, central, and/or east Africa. I guess those regions are similar to the Americas. There's really no 'indigenous' Americans. They all migrants.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Now I won't go so far as to say no group in West Africa is indigenous; however, from what I've read here and in other sources, the Guinea region of West Africa during the Green Sahara period was dense forest area that was sparsely inhabited and most habitation occurred in the Sahara itself which was a lush savannah full of rivers and lakes and plenty of wild game.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: [QB] I don't know one African who says their tribe or clan is indigenous to West Africa. Even early scholars, though racists, made note that West African and Southern African populations are recent. Some argue even as late of 1000 A.D.
Early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C.[Sedentary farming began in, or around the fifth millennium B.C, as well as the domestication of cattle. By 400 B.C, ironworking technology allowed an expansion of agricultural productivity, and the first city-states formed. This is prior to civilization in West Africa or Egypt
the Khoisan (the San) may have been one of the first populations to differentiate from the most recent common paternal ancestor of all extant humans, the so-called Y-chromosomal Adam by patrilineal descent, estimated to have lived in Southern Africa 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Now I won't go so far as to say no group in West Africa is indigenous; however, from what I've read here and in other sources, the Guinea region of West Africa during the Green Sahara period was dense forest area that was sparsely inhabited and most habitation occurred in the Sahara itself which was a lush savannah full of rivers and lakes and plenty of wild game.
^I get what you saying about the inhabitants of Sahara when it was green but keep in mind that the whole of the Sahara wasn't inhabited with people even when it was green. Just because a region was lush and green and flowing with water doesn't mean it always had a population. For most part in history, the Western part of Africa (the whole western portion from North to south) was uninhabited. Most of Africa within history was uninhabited or had tiny few people that their nation went unnoticed. Africa just "recently" became populated with tribes and nations. Africans for the most was clustered in Central, Northeast, and East Africa throughout history and the old ages.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
But were there really west Africans, south Africans and people from the great lake region in Egypt?
Not necessarily. However the Egyptians obviously share a common ancestry with all these groups.
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
As for the Great Lakes Region, are you aware that early Egyptologist Sir E.A. Wallis Budge (1857-1934) held such a theory for Egyptian origins?
It is impossible for me to believe that Egyptian is a Semitic language fundamentally. There are a very large number of words that are not Semitic and were never invented by a Semitic people. These words were invented by one of the oldest African people of the Nile valley of whose written language we have any remains. Their home lay far to the south, and all that we know of Predynastic Egypt suggests that it was in the neighborhood of the Great Lakes. EW Budge, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Dover, 1920.
As for West Africans, as I said two primary strands of genetic evidence is the presence of associated West African lineage E1b1a in southern Egypt as well as Benin form of sickle cell anemia in Egypt especially in the oases areas.
quote:interesting...
But some people say west Africans come from the Sahara when it wasn't dry.
Yes there is an abundance of evidence of occupation in the Sahara during the Holocene wet phase. There are neolithic cemeteries and even megaliths or remnants of such throughout the western Sahara and there are oral legends among West Africans of coming from further north or east. And let's not forget that there are West Africans who speak Afroasiatic languages specifically Chadic languages.
"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)
Thanks for the info.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
As stated, MODERN DAY West Africans did not live there at that time. Just saying "early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C." doesn't refute what I stated. There were people there, namely batwa. However, the people who predominate the area now, were NOT there at that time, this is a undisputed fact. Even the recent academic gathering in Chapel Hill discuss this very fact, that early bones/skulls do not match present day people. Obviously, if Herodotus said the Libyans came across kingdoms of people (batwa), who helped them get back to their homeland, then the area was inhabited, the question is, by WHOM.
Do you have the understanding of history, dna, archaeology etc. to draw an intelligent conclusion?
What about ancient Ghana? Which stared around 1500 BC(correct me if im wrong).
Ancient Ghana is around first millennium A.D.
Though there may be a earlier date, that's the earliest I know.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [qb] some suggest that Africans are related by Haplogroup E1b1 (P2, DYS391p); formerly E3 (E3a & E3b)
The PN2 or E clade is just one of many present in Africa, though E appears to be predominant. Within E you have E1, E2, E3 etc and within each subclade there are more divisions and variations. Again E though a significant clade is just one aspect shared by Africans.
what about the idea that E while not being the only clade that Africans have is predominant to the extent that higher percentages of E3a or E3b enable an African to be distinguished from a "Non-African" just by DNA analysis?
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You must also take into account that the African 'E" appears in some European populations rendering Europeans a mixed hybrid population, if Eurocentric race models are applied across the board. The work of Cavalli-Sforza, using other markers, shows that Europeans are hybrids and not at all a primary "race."
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: You must also take into account that the African 'E" appears in some European populations rendering Europeans a mixed hybrid population, if Eurocentric race models are applied across the board. The work of Cavalli-Sforza, using other markers, shows that Europeans are hybrids and not at all a primary "race."
Therefore the "pure non-hybrid whites" are the ones out of the green zones Haplogroup E
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
As stated, MODERN DAY West Africans did not live there at that time. Just saying "early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C." doesn't refute what I stated. There were people there, namely batwa. However, the people who predominate the area now, were NOT there at that time, this is a undisputed fact. Even the recent academic gathering in Chapel Hill discuss this very fact, that early bones/skulls do not match present day people. Obviously, if Herodotus said the Libyans came across kingdoms of people (batwa), who helped them get back to their homeland, then the area was inhabited, the question is, by WHOM.
Do you have the understanding of history, dna, archaeology etc. to draw an intelligent conclusion?
What about ancient Ghana? Which stared around 1500 BC(correct me if im wrong).
Ancient Ghana is around first millennium A.D.
Though there may be a earlier date, that's the earliest I know.
I heard the Soninke people could be found earlier.
And I hear the ancient city of Tichit Walatta dates back 4000 BC - 1100BC.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: You must also take into account that the African 'E" appears in some European populations rendering Europeans a mixed hybrid population, if Eurocentric race models are applied across the board. The work of Cavalli-Sforza, using other markers, shows that Europeans are hybrids and not at all a primary "race."
Therefore the "pure non-hybrid whites" are the ones out of the green zones Haplogroup E
^^Not necessarily because you have missed an elementary point. Haplogroup E is not the only haplogroup Africans carry. Nor have you accounted for haplogroups with high frequencies in Asia overlapping into Europe. Asia was settled before Europe remember by anatomically modern humans.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] You must also take into account that the African 'E" appears in some European populations rendering Europeans a mixed hybrid population, if Eurocentric race models are applied across the board. The work of Cavalli-Sforza, using other markers, shows that Europeans are hybrids and not at all a primary "race."
What are the are the groups below that are most genetically distant from one another, pick 4-5 out of the list
Asians Africans Europeans Europeans that are not part of E haplogroup Amerindians Australian Aborignees Khoisan Pygmy Indian from India East Asian Siberian Oceanic Near Easterner
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: You must also take into account that the African 'E" appears in some European populations rendering Europeans a mixed hybrid population, if Eurocentric race models are applied across the board. The work of Cavalli-Sforza, using other markers, shows that Europeans are hybrids and not at all a primary "race."
E linages do not appear in Northern Europeans, They only appear in Southern Europe at 30%, decreasing going north. Places like France and Germany are 10%, and then Wales 2%, while northern Britain 0% like most of Scandinavia (excluding Finland which is around 1%).
Europedia has E linages by country percentage with sources. Northern Britain and Scandinavia (excluding Finland) are 0%. While southern Britain only 2%.
In the north, there was not a large scale agricultural migrant transition. Instead the indigenous Mesolithic peoples of the north directly themselves evolved agriculturally without a Neolithic replacement by outsiders.
Because very few Neolithic aggriculture settlers moved into Britain, this is why the genepool of the average Briton is indigenous going back to the Ice Age.
The big division highlighted in this paper is that between the “indigenous” relict populations, the Hazda, Sandawe, Bushmen and Pygmies, and those who belong to the more widespread agriculturalist and pastoralist societies of Africa
ROTFLMAOH
The only one mucking around is YOU, you dumbf*ck! The Tishkoff paper merely points out genetic differences between *Bantu* peoples and the indigenous pre-Bantu populations of the area! NOWHERE does she say anything about "Negroids" which is a void racial term! It's funny how cite Tishkoff including Pygmies as part of this distinction when you yourself have stated multiple times that "Negroids" are a mutated form of Pygmy!! LOL
quote:Indigenous Africans don't cluster in genetics with Negroids.
So I take it you don't consider Negroids to be indigenous Africans either. If that's the case then where did they come from? Outer Space?! LMAO
Negroids are recent mutations from Pygmies. We have covered this before.
The *Indigenous* Africans are the hunter-gatherer Pygmies, Hazda and Bushmen.
Around 12k years ago the Negroids mutated from the Pygmies. This is why the earliest Negroid skull is so recent (Phillipson, 2005).
Only 12k years old. lol. Caucasoid Cro-Magnon skulls date back more than 20k years. Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
The *Indigenous* Africans are the hunter-gatherer Pygmies, Hazda and Bushmen.
Around 12k years ago the Negroids mutated from the Pygmies. This is why the earliest Negroid skull is so recent (Phillipson, 2005).
Only 12k years old. lol. Caucasoid Cro-Magnon skulls date back more than 20k years. [/QB]
The "Negroid" is basically a tall Pygmy
Of all people in the world Negroids are most related to the pygmy. It's should come a no surprise since their phenotype is very similar except for stature. And your view it is phenotype that determines race. If a pygmiy's head was enlarged slightly and placed on top of a "Negroid" body no one would no the difference.
Of course in 3 race forensic scheme Pygmies fall undoubtedly into the Negroid category
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
As stated, MODERN DAY West Africans did not live there at that time. Just saying "early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C." doesn't refute what I stated. There were people there, namely batwa. However, the people who predominate the area now, were NOT there at that time, this is a undisputed fact. Even the recent academic gathering in Chapel Hill discuss this very fact, that early bones/skulls do not match present day people. Obviously, if Herodotus said the Libyans came across kingdoms of people (batwa), who helped them get back to their homeland, then the area was inhabited, the question is, by WHOM.
Do you have the understanding of history, dna, archaeology etc. to draw an intelligent conclusion?
What about ancient Ghana? Which stared around 1500 BC(correct me if im wrong).
Ancient Ghana is around first millennium A.D.
Though there may be a earlier date, that's the earliest I know.
I heard the Soninke people could be found earlier.
And I hear the ancient city of Tichit Walatta dates back 4000 BC - 1100BC.
Outside of someone's personal blog, can you site any scholarly research which makes such claims?
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Prime-Idiot: Negroids are recent mutations from Pygmies. We have covered this before.
Yes you have stated this many times yet you have FAILED to provide evidence of this! In the mean time what you have provided is a Tishkoff study that explicitly states there is a large genetic distinction between Pygmies and Bantus (what you call "true negroes")! So how the f*ck could they be a recent genetic mutation from Pygmies if the very study you cite says they are very distinct genetically?!! You stupid sh|t! LOL
quote:The *Indigenous* Africans are the hunter-gatherer Pygmies, Hazda and Bushmen.
You mean these people?:
San (Bushmen)
Pygmies
Hadzabe
Explain how all these people above are 'racially' different from Bantus or "true negroes".
quote: Around 12k years ago the Negroids mutated from the Pygmies. This is why the earliest Negroid skull is so recent (Phillipson, 2005).
Only 12k years old. lol. Caucasoid Cro-Magnon skulls date back more than 20k years.
*Yawn*
Nazlet Khater man was the earliest modern human skeleton found near Luxor, in 1980. The remains was dated from between 35,000 and 30,000 years ago. The report regarding the racial affinity of this skeleton concludes: "Strong alveolar prognathism combined with fossa praenasalis in an African skull is suggestive of Negroid morphology [form & structure]. The radio-humeral index of Nazlet Khater is practically the same as the mean of Taforalt (76.6). According to Ferembach (1965) this value is near to the Negroid average." The burial was of a young man of 17-20 years old, whose skeleton lay in a 160cm- long narrow ditch aligned from east to west. A flint tool, which was laid carefully on the bottom of the grave, dates the burial as contemporaneous with a nearby flint quarry. Thoma A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khater man, Journal of Human Evolution, vol 13, 1984.
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
As stated, MODERN DAY West Africans did not live there at that time. Just saying "early human settlers arrived in West Africa around 12,000 B.C." doesn't refute what I stated. There were people there, namely batwa. However, the people who predominate the area now, were NOT there at that time, this is a undisputed fact. Even the recent academic gathering in Chapel Hill discuss this very fact, that early bones/skulls do not match present day people. Obviously, if Herodotus said the Libyans came across kingdoms of people (batwa), who helped them get back to their homeland, then the area was inhabited, the question is, by WHOM.
Do you have the understanding of history, dna, archaeology etc. to draw an intelligent conclusion?
What about ancient Ghana? Which stared around 1500 BC(correct me if im wrong).
Ancient Ghana is around first millennium A.D.
Though there may be a earlier date, that's the earliest I know.
I heard the Soninke people could be found earlier.
And I hear the ancient city of Tichit Walatta dates back 4000 BC - 1100BC.
Outside of someone's personal blog, can you site any scholarly research which makes such claims?
Thats what I just heard.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay this guy barros serranos from a site called topix was debating with another guy on the DNAtribes studies.
The guy said this-"The AE had southern African, great lakes african and tropical west African DNA. That was proven by DNA tribes. That proves that they were indeed of the same types as other sub-saharan Africans. I have no idea what this eurocentrics Barros argument is. No one is claiming West Africans built ancient Egypt although one can argue that west African tribes such as the yoruba and Akan people may have derived from AE."
Barros said this-"No, moron, all Africans are not alike. If they can differentiate between the 3 origins you cite, then how the hell are Africans all the same? LOL... think about it, moron.
They are overwhelmingly of Nubian affinity, which that data shows, and which I said in the first place. This means that your data only proved me right, but of course you Afronazi subhuman racist culture-vulture lowlife don't have the intelligence or education to recognize that."
Who is right and can you guys explain. Since you guys know a lot about this stuff. Sorry for bothering ya.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anglo-Buffoon said: E linages do not appear in Northern Europeans, They only appear in Southern Europe at 30%, decreasing going north. Doesn't make a dime's worth of difference. Europeans are still a hybrid population per the race category approach.
Negroids are recent mutations from Pygmies. We have covered this before. ^^YEah covered before where you openly lied an falsified scholarship of Cavalli Sforza. LEt's recap:
----------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ANglo-Buffoon/CASSIFAKedes::
quote: The source is Cavalli-Sforza's book on the Pygmies entitled 'African pygmies' (Academic Press, 1986).
This work shows that Negroids mutated from an ancestral pygmy population around 9,000 BC in West Africa. So the 'true' Black African today is a recent mutation. Caucasoids and Mongoloids predate them. [Wink] Negroids only migrated into other parts of Africa during the Bantu expansion or slightly earlier. Prior to them, Caucasoids inhabited North Africa and Bushmen (Capoids) to the south who were displaced by the Caucasoids from the Mediterranean around 12,000 BC.
^^A bogus reference. Why should anyone take your word for it given past bogus references? Quote where Cavalli-Sforza says these so-called "negroids" "mutated" from Pygmies. The burden of proof is on you, since you made the claim.
While you scurry to cover your tracks with yet more bogus claims, Cavali Sforza, in his well known The History and Geography of Human Genes, 1994 Cavalli-Sforza summarizes his 1986 work on Pygmies and specifically debunks the "Pygmy as ancestor" theory held by other older writings. QUOTE:
"It remains difficult to pinpoint an ancient place of origin for the Negroid type which includes all West, Central and South Africans. Contrary to many earlier opinions, modern Pygmies and Khosians are not good candidates for a proto-African population."
--Cavalli Sforza et al, 1994. The history and geography of human genes. 1994
Originally posted by Djehuti: So how the f*ck could they be a recent genetic mutation from Pygmies if the very study you cite says they are very distinct genetically?!! You stupid sh|t! LOL
^^lol, the Anglo-Buffoon debunks hisself once again. He is trolling but he needs to make it more believable.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
As matter of fact, all living creatures of this planet are genetically related. It is only the question of how close or how recent.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KingMichael777: Okay after reading the studies on the Egyptians mummies by DNAtribe. Are all Africans genetically related? I mean how were west African DNA and south Africans found in the mummies? Does this mean Egypt was populated by different African groups?
And were the west Africans always in AE? People always say Africans are diverse and range in different phenotypes. But are they related to each other? My question is are Africans related to one another, since they are so diverse.
And did AE have some west Africans.
Here's the DNA Tribe genetic tree of the world. It shows linkage between people of the world (I added Ancient Egyptian to the graph):
According to DNA Tribes and their samples, this is a genetic tree of the world showing relationships and genetic distances between humans ***genetic**** ethnic group. The groups are genetically derived. There's a subjective aspect into what population (what samples) they consider (or not) native to a particular region when creating their genetic grouping. Or less importantly to the name they give to their grouping. Interesting genetic tree for sure (using autosomal STR)
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
According to the above map, all the Africans are genetically linked to each other. The Eucledian distance is small between all African groups that is Southern Africans, Great Lakes Africans, Tropical West Africans and Sahelian Africans. For Horn Africans they took people in their sample who are really mixed (as I shown in another thread). Probably not as representative of the native Horn Africans as they could be.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic