mtDNA analysis in ancient Nubians supports the existence of gene flow between sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile valley
quote:The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa 1 (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68.7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.
I can't wrap my mind around why this paper is so undercited, aside from Cuckoo Mathilda and her confused puppets. Notice I'm not saying that this paper has been ignored by ES members, as its potential to be misconstrued has been nipped in the bud several times. But why isn't it pro-actively quoted as much as, say, DNA Tribes' Amarna analysis?
First of all, judging by the abstract, the authors aren't even saying that these Nubians had 61% non-African mtDNAs, and secondly, their title and abstract are suggesting that they were testing the contributions of Niger Congo speaking Africans in the ancient Nile Valley genepool (which doesn't make sense due to the fact that these lineages predate anything Niger-Congo, but oh well..):
Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39%
^They clearly aren't counting Northeast African specific mtDNA Ls (which we now know, are prominent).
Thirdly, it is NORMAL for Sudanese to only have ~30% hpa I np 3592 associated uniparentals (L1 and L2):
quote:For mtDNA analysis, a total of 56 haplotypes were observed, all belonging to the major sub-Saharan African and Eurasian mitochondrial macrohapolgroups L0, L1, L2, L4, L5, L3A, M and N in frequencies of 12.1, 11.9, 22, 4.2, 6.2, 29.5, 2, and 12.2% respectively.
--Hassan, 2009
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I thought this issue was discussed several times before where the Euronuts tried to claim non-Hpal (np3,592) lineages as 'Caucasian' even though these same lineages are common in Sudan as you say.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Will Smith doesn't look Nubian - Mary
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Getting back to the topic, are there any studies on Hpal frequencies of modern Sudanese populations?? The Euronuts keep touting Hpal as evidence of lack thereof 'negroes' but those of us in the know, know otherwise.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Modern sudan Now this is paternal only.
Sample Nubians taken(Nile Valley) Nubians (Agriculturists; n=39; Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic) 3/39 = 7.7% B-M60 - Nilotic 3/39 = 7.7% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M7.8. North East Africa 5/39 = 12.8% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa 1/39 = 2.6% E1b1b1a1b-V32 North East Africa 4/39 = 10.3% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) Western Asia 2/39 = 5.1% I-M170 - Near East 16/39 = 41.0% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) - Arabic 1/39 = 2.6% J2-M172 -Arabic 4/39 = 10.3% R1b1-P25 - Chadic
Nuba Hill Nubians and others.(Central sudan) (Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic) 46 % A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 14.2% B-M60 - Nilotic 14.2% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M7.8. - North East Africa 25 % E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa
Beja (Pastoralists; n=42; Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic?) 2/42 = 4.8% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 7/42 = 16.7% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M7.8. - North East Africa 2/42 = 4.8% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa 13/42 = 31.0% E1b1b1a1b-V32 -North East Africa 15/42 = 35.7% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic 1/42 = 2.4% J2-M172 -Arabic 2/42 = 4.8% R1b1-P25 - Chadic
Arabs/Gaalien (Agriculturists; n=50; Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) 3/50 = 6.0% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 3/50 = 6.0% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa 3/50 = 6.0% E1b1b1a1b-V32 North East Africa 3/50 = 6.0% E1b1b1a3-V22 North East Africa 5/50 = 10.0% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M 170, J-12f2, K-M9)Western Asia 2/50 = 4.0% I-M170 Near East 18/50 = 36.0% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic 2/50 = 4.0% J2-M172 Arabic 3/50 = 6.0% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) Southwestern Asia 1/50 = 2.0% R1-M173(xR1b1-P25) Chadic 7/50 = 14.0% R1b1-P25 - Chadic
Arabs/Meseria (Nomadic Pastoralists; n=28; Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) 1/28 = 3.6% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa 3/28 = 10.7% E1b1b1a1b-V32 North East Africa 3/28 = 10.7% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) Western Asia 2/28 = 7.1% I-M170 - South West Asia 12/28 = 42.9% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic 7/28 = 25.0% R1b1-P25 - Chadic
Arabs/Arakien (Agriculturists; n=24; Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) 2/24 = 8.3% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 1/24 = 4.2% E1b1b1a1b-V32 North East Africa 1/24 = 4.2% E1b1b1a3-V22 North East Africa 2/24 = 8.3% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) West Asia 16/24 = 66.7% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic 2/24 = 8.3% R1b1-P25 Chadic
Sudanese Arab total: 3/102 = 2.9% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 6/102 = 5.9% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 7/102 = 6.9% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/102 = 3.9% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 10/102 = 9.8% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) West Asia 4/102 = 3.9% I-M170 South West Asia 46/102 = 45.1% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic 2/102 = 2.0% J2-M172 - Arabic 3/102 = 2.9% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) - South west Asia 1/102 = 1.0% R1-M173(xR1b1-P25) - Chadic 16/102 = 15.7% R1b1-P25 - Chadic
Masalit (Agriculturists; n=32; Nilo-Saharan, Maban) 6/32 = 18.8% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 1/32 = 3.1% B-M60 - Nilotic 1/32 = 3.1% E1b1b1a-M78(xE1b1b1a1-V12, E1b1b1a2-V13, E1b1b1a3-V22, E1b1b1a4-V65) - North East Africa 17/32 = 53.1% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 5/32 = 15.6% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 2/32 = 6.3% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic
Fur (Agriculturists; n=32; Nilo-Saharan, Fur) 10/32 = 31.3% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 1/32 = 3.1% B-M60 - Nilotic 13/32 = 40.6% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 6/32 = 18.8% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 2/32 = 6.3% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) - Arabic
Copts (Agriculturists; n=33; Afro-Asiatic, Ancient Egyptian > Semitic) 5/33 = 15.2% B-M60 - Nilotic 2/33 = 6.1% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M7.8. - North East Africa 5/33 = 15.2% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa 13/33 = 39.4% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic 2/33 = 6.1% J2-M172 - Arabic 1/33 = 3.0% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) - South West Asia 5/33 = 15.2% R1b1-P25 -- Chadic
Sudanese (Pastoralist/AgriPastoralist Nilotes (Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk) Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic) A3B2 (28/53 = 52.8%), - Nilotic B(16/53 = 30.2%), -Nilotic E1b1b1a1 (V12+V22 +32)- 9/53 = 17.0%. - North East Africa
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: Haplogroup J in itself is most likely African. J* peaks in territories near in or around Africa.
J2-M172 is African ... J (Y-DNA), more than likely originated in East Africa also.
J1 moved into Yemen, While J2 spread from Egypt into the Levant
J1 were Nomads similar to the Beja and Tigre, While J2 were farmers in affiliation to Nile Valley populations.
Areas like Socotra (a few miles outside off of Somalia) still have the highest % of J*.
Both J1 and J2 have African origins... J*(xJ1, J2) is the oldest form of J ever found, it was found in and near Africa.
70% J* in Socotra (Cerny) 7.7% J* in Oman (Di Giacomo)
According to the most recent studies, most of the "Eurasian" tagged haplogroups developed either in Africa or originated among populations who spanned between both "Southwest Asia" and Africa.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Early sudan
Genetic Patterns of Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Variation, with Implications to the Peopling of the Sudan
Regions with significant populations Nile Valley, African Great Lakes, southwestern Ethiopia
Languages Nilo-Saharan languages
Religion traditional religion, Christianity
1st row: Milton Obote • Alek Wek
2nd row: Salva Kiir Mayardit • Daniel arap Moi
Cross country world champion and record holder Lornah Kiplagat, one of many prominent Nilotic distance runners.
Pokot women trekking through the Kenya outback.
Nilotic men in Kapoeta, South Sudan.
Dinka politician John Garang amongst Nilotic supporters in South Sudan.
Genetics
A Y-chromosome study by Wood et al. (2005) tested various populations in Africa for paternal lineages, including 26 Maasai and 9 Luo from Kenya and 9 Alur from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The signature Nilotic paternal marker Haplogroup A3b2 was observed in 27% of the Maasai, 22% of the Alur, and 11% of the Luo. Haplogroup B, another characteristically Nilotic paternal marker according to Gomes et al. (2010), was found in 22% of Wood et al.'s Luo samples and 8% of the studied Maasai. The E1b1b haplogroup was also observed in 50% of the Maasai, which is indicative of substantial gene flow into this population from Cushitic males. In addition, 67% of the Alur samples possessed the Sub-Saharan E2 haplogroup.
Another study by Hassan et al. (2008) analysed the Y-DNA of populations in the Sudan region, with various local Nilotic groups included for comparison. The researchers found the signature Nilotic A and B clades to be the most common paternal lineages amongst the Nilo-Saharan speakers, except those inhabiting western Sudan, where an appreciable North African influence was noted. Haplogroup A was observed amongst 62% of Dinka, 53.3% of Shilluk, 46.4% of Nuba, 33.3% of Nuer, 31.3% of Fur and 18.8% of Masalit. Haplogroup B was found in 50% of Nuer, 26.7% of Shilluk, 23% of Dinka, 14.3% of Nuba, 3.1% of Fur and 3.1% of Masalit. The E1b1b clade was also observed in 71.9% of the Masalit, 59.4% of the Fur, 39.3% of the Nuba, 20% of the Shilluk, 16.7% of the Nuer, and 15% of the Dinka. Hassan et al. attributed the atypically high frequencies of the haplogroup in the Masalit to either a recent population bottleneck that likely altered the community's original haplogroup diversity or to geographical proximity to E1b1b's place of origin in North Africa, where the researchers suggest that the clade "might have been brought to Sudan from[...] after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000–8,000 years ago". Henn et al. (2008) similarly observed Afro-Asiatic influence in the Nilotic Datog of northern Tanzania, 43% of whom carried the M293 sub-clade of E1b1b.
mtDNA
Unlike their paternal DNA 543, the maternal lineages of Nilotes in general show low-to-negligible amounts of Afro-Asiatic and other extraneous influences. An mtDNA study by Castri et al. (2008) examined the maternal ancestry of various Nilotic populations in Kenya, with Turkana, Samburu, Maasai and Luo individuals sampled. Almost all of the tested Nilotes belonged to various Sub-Saharan macro-haplogroup L sub-clades, including L0, L2, L3, L4 and L5. Low levels of maternal gene flow from North Africa and the Horn of Africa were also observed in a few groups, mainly via the presence of mtDNA haplogroup M and haplogroup I lineages in about 12.5% of the Maasai and 7% of the Samburu samples, respectively.
Autosomal DNA The autosomal DNA of Nilotic peoples has been examined in a comprehensive study by Tishkoff et al. (2009) on the genetic affiliations of various populations in Africa. According to the researchers, Nilotes generally form their own Sub-Saharan genetic cluster. The authors also found that certain Nilotic populations in the eastern Great Lakes region, such as the Maasai, showed some additional Afro-Asiatic affinities due to repeated assimilation of Cushitic-speaking peoples over the past 5000 or so years.
Anthropology Physically, Nilotes are noted for their typically very dark skin color and slender, tall bodies. They often possess exceptionally long limbs, particularly vis-a-vis the distal segments (forearms, calves). This characteristic is thought to be a climatic adaptation to allow their bodies to shed heat more efficiently.
Sudanese Nilotes are regarded as one of the tallest people in the world. Roberts and Bainbridge (1963) reported average values of 182.6 cm (71.9") for height and 58.8 kg (129.6 lbs) for weight in a sample of Sudanese Shilluk. Another sample of Sudanese Dinka had a stature/weight ratio of 181.9 cm/58.0 kg (71.6"/127.9 lbs), with an extremely ectomorphic somatotype of 1.6-3.5-6.2.
In terms of facial features, Hiernaux (1975) observed that the nasal profile most common amongst Nilotic populations is broad, with characteristically high index values ranging from 86.9 to 92.0. He also reported that lower nasal indices are often found amongst Nilotes who inhabit the more southerly Great Lakes region, such as the Maasai, a fact which he attributed to genetic differences.
Additionally, it has been remarked that the Nilotic groups presently inhabiting East Africa are sometimes also smaller in stature than those residing in the Sudan region. Campbell et al. (2006) recorded measurements of 172.0 cm/53.6 kg (67.7"/118.2 lbs) in a sample of agricultural Turkana in northern Kenya, and of 174.9 cm/53.0 kg (68.8"/116.8 lbs) in pastoral Turkana. Hiernaux similarly listed a height of 172.7 cm (68") for Maasai in southern Kenya, with an extreme trunk/leg length ratio of 47.7.
Many Nilotic groups also excel in long and middle distance running. It has been argued that this sporting prowess stems from their exceptional running economy, which in turn is a function of slim body morphology and slender legs, as well as a culture of running to school from a young age. A study by Pitsiladis et al. (2006) questioning 404 elite Kenyan distance runners found that 76% of the international-class respondents hailed from the Kalenjin ethnic group and that 79% spoke a Nilotic language.
Some References
^ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2004). "Nilotic". Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Retrieved 11 January 2013.
^ a b c Elizabeth T Wood, Daryn A Stover, Christopher Ehret et al., "Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome and mtDNA variation in Africa: evidence for sex-biased demographic processes", European Journal of Human Genetics (2005) 13, 867–876. (cf. Appendix A: Y Chromosome Haplotype Frequencies)
^ Gomes V, Sánchez-Diz P, Amorim A, Carracedo A, Gusmão L, Digging deeper into East African human Y chromosome lineages, Hum Genet. 2010 Mar;127(5):603-13. Epub 2010 Mar 6.
^ Cruciani et al., "Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa", Am J Hum Genet. 2004 May; 74(5): 1014–1022
^ Hassan, Hisham Y. et al. (2008), Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History, American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2008), Volume: 137, Issue: 3, Pages: 316-323
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Has for the nuba it seems they are treated has one group,but within the group there are differences.
There are different cultures,that's why i read awhile ago they were not a ethnic group,but different groups within the region.
They seem more of a regional group,that's why they are treated has one.
Nuba peoples Nuba is a collective term used here for the peoples who inhabit the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan state, in Sudan. Although the term is used to describe them as if they composed a single group, the Nuba are multiple distinct peoples and speak different languages. Estimates of the Nuba population vary widely; the Sudanese government estimated that they numbered 1.07 million in 2003.
Languages Most of the Nuba peoples speak one of the many languages in the geographic Kordofanian languages group of the Nuba Mountains. This language group is in the major Niger–Congo languages family. Several Nuba languages are in the Nilo-Saharan languages family. Over one hundred languages are spoken in the area and are considered Nuba languages, although many of the Nuba also speak Sudanese Arabic, the official language of Sudan.
Note- there number is higher then what is said above.they maybe close to 2million or more.
The man at rescuenubia.com told me there maybe up to 5 million of them,because the sudanese government before south sudan split and further nuba full blown rebellion did not count enough of them. Who knows.
Anyway they are working together and with the darfur rebels and eastern front and they doing a good job so far defending themselves from the arabized africans.
I wanted to see a separted dna profile for hill nubians,the Midob,the Birgid,and those of kenya etc..
# Nobiin (previously known by the geographic terms Mahas or Fadicca/Fiadicca). # Midob (Meidob) in and around the Malha volcanic crater in North Darfur. # Kenzi-Dongolawi, the largest Nubian language, with over a million speakers. May be closest to Birgid.
# Birgid – originally spoken north of Nyala around Menawashei until the 1970s. The last surviving aged speakers were interviewed by Thelwall at this time. Some equally aged speakers on Gezira Aba just north of Kosti on the Nile south of Khartoum were interviewed by Thelwall in 1980.
# Hill Nubian – a group of closely related dialects spoken in various villages in the northern Nuba Mountains – in particular Dilling, Debri, and Kadaru. The Midob.there languages is not extinct.
The Birgid language is mostly exinct but the not culture the the people.many of them live in chad it seems.
That's why i would like to have each group break down,and know the dna info for each instead of the nuba being treated has a ethnic group,because they are not. They seem to be more of a region group and force to be closer because of the arab raids and the ARABIZED blacks treat them has one but they are different ethnic groups in the nuba hills.
That's were the confusion for some come in.
The nuba are treated has one,but they are different ethnic groups.
The hill nubians,i would like to know their dna profile separately from the other nuba.
I WOULD like to know the dna profile of nubians in darfur but i have not seen any info so for.it would be basically the same has the hill nubians and the rest of nuba but i would at least like to see that info.
Check the info below Has for the nuba.
This info goes into more detail on why the nuba is not a ethnic group but just a regional group treat has one because that how the arabs see them and they were forced to work together.
I WISH MORE AFRICANS or blacks worldwide were more like them.
We NEED MORE UNITY,AND THEY ARE A GOOD EXAMPLE.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Hill Nubian languages Hill Nubian is a dialect continuum of Nubian languages spoken in the Nuba Hills of Sudan.
The ethnically and linguistically fragmented situation indicates that the Nuba Mountains have in all probability served as a retreat area. This may have happened at various times in history for basically two reasons. The first would be climatological: the desiccation of the Sahara has certainly time and again impelled people to migrate in search of more abundant water, either to remaining rivers and lakes, or just more generally southwards. In a more close-up perspective the driving forces are on the whole politico-economical. Looking at the map it is not difficult to find the areas of power concentrations from which people might have found it expedient to seek refuge. To the north, the Sahel empires have succeeded each other for centuries. The period of intensive slave-raids over a century ago was a severe threat and a bitter experience for the southern neighbours of Kordofan (i.e., El Obeid). South of the Nuba Mountains, the large and compact area occupied by Dinka and Nuer speakers also has the appearance of a relatively recent centre of expansion. Therefore, we should not overlook the possibility that some present-day inhabitants of the Nuba Mountains came there from the south.
2. The Evidence
The ten language groups established by the MacDiarmids (1931) can serve us well as a point of departure. They are lexicostatistically definable as having an internal cohesion of not less than 45%, based on a 100-word list. The groups and their internal distances (rounded off to multiples of five) are:
Stevenson (1956-57) summarizes all significant research on Nuba Mountain language to that date, and is also based on his immense collection of manuscript data, largely unpublished, though summary extracts form the main basis for the relevant sections in Tucker and Bryan (1956, 1966). Those publications also contain detailed maps of distribution on which our Map 1 is based. Thelwall (1978, 1981a,b) and Schadeberg (1981a,b) provide subclassifications of most language groups, which will be summarized further on.
The first eight groups listed above are confined to the Nuba Mountains; Daju and Nubian are the only ones that have close connections outside. Our argumentation makes critical use of such information. However, the fact that Nyimang, Temein, Daju and Nubian have all been classified - together with Nilotic and several other language groups - as Eastern Sudanic has no consequence in our present context. Different branches of Eastern Sudanic are very distant from each other; they generally share less than 20% in lexicostatistic terms. Since there are no indications that the Nuba Mountains were the original home of Eastern Sudanic such distant genetic links are judged to be unconnected with the appearance of those four language groups in the Nuba Mountains.
The affiliation of Kadugli is presently open (see Schadebert 1981c). Again, nothing in our argumentation depends on remote possible links with Nilo-Saharan. On the other hand, the fact that groups (1) through (5) may be classified as Kordofanian, and that all Kordofanian languages are spoken exclusively within the Nuba Mountains is certainly relevant. Our hypotheses about the relative chronology of the influx of the various groups are based on these three types of clues about each language group: (i) internal diversity, (ii) immediate external genetic links, and (iii) geographical distribution. Naturally, other evidence such as loanwords and historical traditions should be taken into account as they become available.
3. Hill Nubian Figure 1: Subclassification of Nubian
Nubian is a language group which presently spreads from Darfur to the Nile (see Map 2). The most prudent interpretation of our lexicostatistical data (Thelwall 1978, 1981a) leads to the subclassification shown in figure 1.
4. Daju Figure 2: Subclassification of Daju
For the Daju also we have good linguistic evidence and scanty but cogent historical tradition. Languages of the Daju group are presently spoken in Wadai, Darfur, the Nuba Mountains and Bahr el Ghazal (see Map 2). The subclassification in Figure 2 emerges from the work of Thelwall (1978, 1981a,b).
5. Nyimang; Temein; Kadugli Figure 3: Subclassification of Nyimang and Temein
Nyimang and Temein are two small language families, each consisting of two or three languages, all spoken exclusively in the Nuba Mountains. They have been classified as two (out of ten) branches of Eastern Sudanic. Genetic relationships within Eastern Sudanic are too distant - and too uncertain - as to permit any inferences about migration at the time depth with which we are here concerned. We can only note that both groups show an internal divergence of about 60% (see Figure 3). The data are taken from Thelwall (1981a).
Figure 4: Subclassification of Kadugli Note that Stevenson's division into Eastern, Central and Western Kadugli is only in part borne out by this calculation; in particular, his Eastern division consisting of Keiga, Kamdang and Kanga/Kufa appears to be non-coherent.
Figure 5: The major branches of Kordofanian
The outside relations of Kordofanian are too distant to be relevant in the present context. The whole Kordofanian language family is located within the Nuba Mountains where it occupies the most central and most widespread geographical position (see Map 1). There appears to be a continuous history of branching, beginning with a (presently assumed) four-way split into Katla, Heiban, Talodi and Rashad. This primary split must have preceded the subsequent split of Talodi into Tegem and Narrow Talodi (25%). On the basis of this evidence it is clearly indicated that the development of Kordofanian occurred in the Nuba Mountains, and that Kordofanian has the longest linguistic history in this area.
1. Kordofanian
2. Nyimang; Temein; Kadugli 3. Daju I: Shatt, Liguri 4. Hill Nubian 5. Daju II: Lagawa
Map 1: Language distribution in the Nuba Mountains
Map 2: The distribution of the Nubian and Daju language groups
_______________________
History of the Nuba, part I Introduction
The Nuba are a group of peoples who share a common geography in Sudan’s Southern Kordofan Province, known as Jibal al-Nuba or Nuba Mountains. The origins of most Nuba peoples are obscure, but there is no doubt that they are Africans. They arrived to the area from various directions and in the course of thousands of years. Today there are over fifty Nuba tribes, who speak as many different languages. Their combined number is estimated at 2.5 million people.
3. The Nuba on the Nile and the Nuba in the Mountains. Of course it’s tempting to draw a line from the Nile south-eastward. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to provide the Nuba with an ancestry that goes well beyond the arrival of the Arab conquerors? Al right: the Nuba came to the Nile Kingdoms after the time of the Pharaohs, so we forget about Kush and the rule over Egypt… but three ancient Kingdoms that lasted from roughly 400 to 1600 BC wouldn’t be bad, would it?
Well, to begin with: for the majority of the Nuba tribes there is nothing to suggest a relationship with the Nuba on the Nile. No archaeological finds, no linguistic relationships. The only Nuba tribes that can be linked to the Nuba on the Nile, are those speaking one of the Nubian languages. In order to understand more about the relationship between the two groups, we need to look into linguistics classifications.
The basic idea behind linguistic classification is that people speaking the same language can drift apart, after which the language develops differently in the two groups. After so many hundreds of years this leads to the creation of two different languages. Linguists look at lexicological, grammatical and structural aspects of different languages to group them according to affiliation. With the help of standard word lists they can determine the level of proximity between two affiliated languages.
Researchers of the nineteenth century already acknowledged the linguistic affiliation between the Nuba on the Nile, several Nuba tribes in the Mountains and some scattered communities in Darfur.12 They all speak Nubian languages, classified with the Eastern Sudanic branch of the Nilo-Saharan language family. For a long time, the burning question was: did the Nuba in the Mountains come from the Nile, or did the Nuba on the Nile come from the west?
Despite the Arab conquest of Egypt and the ensuing Islamisation, the people along the Nile in Lower Nubia retained their original language, known as Nubian, or Nobiin for linguists. Closely related to Nobiin is Dongolawi, spoken up the river around Dongola in present day Sudan. Nobiin and Dongolawi probably drifted apart about 1100 years ago – give or take a century or two. Their languages, and specially Nobiin, are considered to be remnants of Old-Nubian, spoken in the Chrsitian Kingdoms of Nobatia, Dongola and Alwa.
Both Nobiin and Dongolawi are related to the so-called Hill Nubian languages of the Nuba Mountains and Darfur. The tribes that speak Hill-Nubian include those of Dilling, Kadaru and Ghulfan; Wali, Karko, Habila, Debri and some tribes more to the West like Tabag and Abu Jinuk.13 Looking at their geographical dispersion, you can imagine them coming from the northeast, some entering the Nuba Mountains from the side of Kadaru, some moving on westward around the Nyimang hills.
This combines well with events at the Nile in the 13th century AD. After centuries of stability, Bedouin tribes driven south by the Mameluks14 , started raiding Makuria. To the east the Beja were harassing Egypt and the Mameluks decided that if Makuria couldn’t keep the Beja in check, it was time to take matters in their own hands. The region was completely destabilised and we can imagine the people from Makuria fleeing south, until they found refuge in the Nuba Mountains. Makes sense, doesn’t it?
Well… to make a long story longer: linguistic evidence rules against it. Apart from Nobiin, Dongolawi and Hill-Nubian, there are two other Nubian language group: Birgid and Meidob, found further to the west scattered over Darfur (Meidob being extinct by now). Combining linguistic data from the different Nubian languages, J.H. Greenberg concluded that ‘to assume any split between Hill Nubian and Nile Nubian more recent than 2,500 years B.P. [before present] would be incorrect.’
Of course we can’t give up a beautiful ancestry that easily: C. Herzog noticed that some Hill-Nubian languages have Christian words for days of the week, and other loan words too: the Nuba in Kordofan came from the Nile after all! But R. Thelwall wasn’t impressed:
We are very confident that Nobiin (and later Dongolawi) came to the Nile from a centre of dispersion in Darfur-Kordofan which they occupied and controlled for perhaps 4000 years. We know that there were Nubian speakers on the Nile at least as early as the 500s CE and probably much earlier. The fact that the Hill Nubian languages have words for the days of the week dating back to Christian Nubian indicates that these languages were in contact at least during the Christian Nubian period which probably covers 500 CE - 1400 CE. This does not necessarily mean that the Hill Nubians did more than expand from central Kordofan into the NubaMountains during the period of Nubian political dominance from Aswan to Kosti (at least). But given the location of the Hill Nubian speakers (Dair, Dilling, Karko etc) along the NE edge of the Mountains it appears that they were "incomers" settling among the existing Nyima and Temein groups who were there before them.
2. The classification of Nuba languages Maybe systematic archaeological research could shed more light on the origins of the Nuba people, but right now we will have to concentrate on linguistic findings. Linguistics is a complex field, not very sexy to be honest, but in many cases, it’s all we have. So we will first look at the classification of the different Nuba languages, and then move on to the question of who came to the Mountains at what time.
The Nuba Languages can be classified into members of two or perhaps three language families: Nilo-Saharan and Kordofanian.
A. The Kordofanian languages consist of four groups located in the southern and eastern areas of the Nuba Mountains: Heiban, Talodi, Rashad and Katla. Kordofanian languages are considered a branch of the Niger-Congo family, which encompasses all Bantu languages, and in general most of the languages spoken in Sub-Saharan Africa. The only thing is: Kordofanian doesn’t resemble any of the other Niger-Congo languages closely. It constitutes a group of its own and geographically also, Kordofanian is isolated. In other words: we don’t have a clue as to how these Kordofanian speaking Nuba ended up in the Nuba Mountain.
B. The Kadugli Group is located in the south east central fringe area near Kadugli. It was earlier classified as part of Kordofanian but is currently considered part of Nilo-Saharan. This is another large phylum: Dinka and Nuer are Nilo-Saharan languages, and so are many languages of Chad and Congo, as well as several languages spoken in Nigeria.
C. The rest of the Nuba languages are classified as part of a major sub-group of Nilo-Saharan called Eastern Sudanic. They consist of Hill Nubian, Daju, Timein and Nyimang. The tribes speaking Eastern Sudanic languages can be found in the north western areas of the Mountains.
3. Linguistic settlement
As we’ve just seen in the case of the Nubian speakers, shifts in related languages can tell us something about how long ago the speakers of those languages went their own way. Unfortunately this is not very exact, as Robin Thellwall explained to me:
[the] reconstructions are based minimally on linguistic distance and extrapolated onto a fairly speculative time frame (glotto-chronology). Such a time framework is only a provisional and relative model to be tested against other evidence (archaeology, oral traditions, blood types, climate history, agricultural and animal husbandry terminology etc). This has not happened for the NubaMountains.
However, for ‘The Linguistic Settlement of the Nuba in the Mountains’ Thelwall and Schadeberg20 analysed all the available data from the Nuba languages, and they came up with the following hypothesis regarding the relative chronology of the linguistic settlement of the Mountains:
1. Kordofanian language speakers came earlier than all the others
2. Nyimang; Temein and Kadugli language groups followed them
3. Daju speakers of Shatt and Liguri were next
4. Hill Nubian speakers – probably somewhere between 500 and 1400 AD
5. Daju speakers around Lagawa, who settled there relatively recently.
4. Kordofanian
Heiban, Katla, Rashad and Talodi are the current names for the different groups of Kordofanian languages that cover the eastern half of the Nuba Mountains and a large part of the centre. Within the language group, differentiation has progressed much further than in the other Nuba language groups. According to R. Thelwall ‘the family has a time depth of a minimum of 6000 years.’21 This means that you would have to go back at least 6000 years in time to find all Kordofanian speakers speaking the same language. Kordofanian is classified with the Niger-Congo languages, and the nearest Niger-Congo speaking people would be found over the border of Sudan in southern Chad, in Central African Republic and in the Congo. The relationship between Kordofanian and the rest of Niger-Congo is not clear. The current subdivision of Kordofanian is as follows:
5. Nyimang, Temein and Kadugli
These three language groups are unique, like the Kordofanian languages, in the fact that they are only spoken in the Nuba Mountains. Judging from the large internal linguistic diversity within each group, the Nyimang, Temein and Kadugli speaking tribes might well have been in the Mountains for more than 2000 years.30 They seem to have come to the Nuba Mountains in tough times, with a lot of people on the move, losing touch with one another. In the words of Thellwal and Schadeberg:
6. Hill Nubian
As discussed at length above, the Hill Nubian speaking tribes came to the Mountains from the North, probably before 1400 AD. The different languages are classified as follows:
Ghulfan and Kadaru are grouped together. Ghulfan is spoken in Ghulfan Kurgul and Ghulfan Morung; Kadaru in the hill communites of Kadaru, Kururu, Kafir, Kurtala, Dabatna and Kuldaji. Dilling is spoken in the town and the surrounding villages
Dair, in the western and southern parts of Jebel Dair
Karko in the Karko Hills and Dulman; maybe also Abu Jinik and Tabaq.
Wali in the Wali Hills
Thelwall and Schadeberg can’t say more as to why or when exactly the Hill Nubians migrated south:
Whether this occurred due to pressure from Arab nomads as Arkell proposes, or whether an earlier date should be assumed is not clear. The relative closeness of the Hi1l Nubian dialects to each other does not suggest the presence of isolated Nubian communities in these hills for several millennia. It was probably a gradual process. R. C. Stevenson writes:
Nubian speech was brought to the northern NubaMountains by tribal movements accelerated by the Arab influx during the past few centuries. In Rüppell’s time (mid 1820s) it was still spoken on the plains south of El Obeid.
7. The Daju speaking tribes
The Daju speaking tribes came to the Nuba Mountains from the west, from a Daju Kingdom that we know conveniently little about. The Kingdom was based, as early perhaps as 1200 AD, in Jebel Marrah, a rain-fed mountain range in an otherwise arid country. The Daju controlled the area between southern Jebel Marra and the western edges of the Nuba Mountains. They were displaced by the Tunjur at the end of the fourteenth century, and left no records besides a list of kings that ends with King Kasi Furogé. The Daju were scattered by the Tunjur and we find them back in some isolated pockets across a wide area of Chad and Sudan, in the regions of Kordofan, Darfur, and Wadai.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ There's so much info you posted Firewall. Too much for me to address at one time, though I've been meaning to address your first post of the genetic data. I will say that the Nilo-Saharan language phylum tends to displays the most diversity in Sudan, especially in the Kordofan province of central Sudan which holds a number of long isolated cultural groups and languages. The Kordofan region itself is a sprachbund (group of languages of diverse origins that have developed some striking structural similarities over time) area holding some Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, and a few isolates.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Modern sudan
Huhmmmm, some Arabic tribes moved into Africa recently. Hence the o.p. posted Sample of Arab Nubians taken. You took out the Arab part, for some funny reason.
I wouldn't be surprised if most of the data and claims, would actually represent these recent immigrate populations.
quote:
Nubians possess more tropically adapted leg limbs and a more linear body plan compared to Egyptians. This was expected since Nubians are situated further south and closer to Sub-Saharan Africa.
Brachial index, crural index, bi-iliac breadth, and body surface area to body mass (BSA/BM) were analyzed by region to test whether Upper Egyptians and Nubians possess a more tropical body plan compared to populations from the northern region of Egypt. These were compared to indices from archaeologically derived skeletons from various parts of the world (data from Holliday 1995).
--Raxter Egyptian Body Size: A Regional and Worldwide Comparison
quote:"Analysis of Predinastic skeletal material showed tropical African elements in the population of the earliest populations of the earliest Badarian culture" [...]
--Frank Yurco
quote:Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations.
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski, American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 121, Issue 3, pages 219–229, July 2003
quote:The results indicate overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process. Nevertheless, significant differences were found in morphology between both geographically-pooled and cemetery-specific temporal groups, indicating that some migration occurred along the Egyptian Nile Valley over the periods&time; studied.
--Am J Phys Anthropol, 2007.
Recent immigrants also can carry aDNA.
For example an Nigerian immigrant in the U.S.A. carries aDNA. Guess which?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
[*]Nubians possess more tropically adapted leg limbs and a more linear body plan compared to Egyptians. This was expected since Nubians are situated further south and closer to Sub-Saharan Africa. [*]Brachial index, crural index, bi-iliac breadth, and body surface area to body mass (BSA/BM) were analyzed by region to test whether Upper Egyptians and Nubians possess a more tropical body plan compared to populations from the northern region of Egypt. These were compared to indices from archaeologically derived skeletons from various parts of the world (data from Holliday 1995). [/list]
--Michelle Raxter Egyptian Body Size: A Regional and Worldwide Comparison
Holliday et al 2013
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]. - Holliday et al. (2009)
I don't know about the European element but these Holliday articles are not corresponding to Raxter Holliday places Nubians with a less tropical body plan than Egyptians and Kermans on the other hand, with a more tropical body plan than Egyptians. Did he use the same Nubian data in 2013 that was in the 2009 article? I don't know
________________________________
- the Raxter quote also indicates:
"these were compared to indices from archaeologically derived skeletons from various parts of the world (data from Holliday 1995)."
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Modern sudan
Huhmmmm, some Arabic tribes moved into Africa recently. Hence the o.p. posted Sample of Arab Nubians taken. You took out the Arab part, for some funny reason.
I believe the sample was for the nubians of the nile valley that's why i took out the arab part,but you could be right and these could be the arab nubians,but one problem sudan does not have arab nubians in the census,only egypt has that.
Sudan have arabized nubians but most are called arabs first like Gaalien etc...,but these would be called arabized nubians,but on the census they are just called arabs and not arab nubians.
There are arabized hill nubians and darfur nubians but the only thing really arabized about then is that they speak arabic mostly first,but they still speak thier nubian language and thie rculture still still nubian,so i do not why they called arabized because thier culture is still mostly nubian,and they see themselves has nubian and in the census still are nubians.
So arabized could mean varied things it seem.
The sample was for the nile valley modern nubians of sudan.
The other interesting thing is that there are more nubians outside the nile valley in sudan then in the nile,like the darfur nubians and hill nubians.
I should have posted them instead,but some nubians of the nile valley of sudan do look like white arabs or turks so i guess when they i mean nubian these days it could be white or black,like hispanic,so i agree we have to be careful on who they are testing just like they do with late ancient egypt or modern egypt.
Of course most nubians are still black but you do have some that do not look black in egypt and sudan and i was shocked when i first saw them on tv a few years ago calling themselves nubians,but they do not call themselves black i heard recently.
So you do have nile nubians of egypt and sudan that are not really black,but nubians outside the nile in sudan,kenya,chad etc...are only black and i do not see any arab white looking types in those nubian groups.
I GUESS they had enough of the few whites coming into the nile, like those arab invaders overtime and thier the brainwashed black arabs so they went further south and south west years to better protect themselves and doing a good job at.
Here are links with out the arab part below dealing with the nile valley. Check it out.
Oh,that first link in my last post i did post already in this thread,i almost forgot i did that.
Lucky i looked again.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
[*]Nubians possess more tropically adapted leg limbs and a more linear body plan compared to Egyptians. This was expected since Nubians are situated further south and closer to Sub-Saharan Africa. [*]Brachial index, crural index, bi-iliac breadth, and body surface area to body mass (BSA/BM) were analyzed by region to test whether Upper Egyptians and Nubians possess a more tropical body plan compared to populations from the northern region of Egypt. These were compared to indices from archaeologically derived skeletons from various parts of the world (data from Holliday 1995). [/list]
--Michelle Raxter Egyptian Body Size: A Regional and Worldwide Comparison
Holliday et al 2013
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]. - Holliday et al. (2009)
I don't know about the European element but these Holliday articles are not corresponding to Raxter Holliday places Nubians with a less tropical body plan than Egyptians and Kermans on the other hand, with a more tropical body plan than Egyptians. Did he use the same Nubian data in 2013 that was in the 2009 article? I don't know
________________________________
- the Raxter quote also indicates:
"these were compared to indices from archaeologically derived skeletons from various parts of the world (data from Holliday 1995)."
As usually you tweak and twist. Which again speaks against you. Proving that the immigrant population was cold adapted.
Explore:
"Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]. - Holliday et al. (2009)"
quote:"Analysis of Predinastic skeletal material showed tropical African elements in the population of the earliest populations of the earliest Badarian culture" [...]
--Frank Yurco
quote:Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations.
--Sonia R. Zakrzewski, American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 121, Issue 3, pages 219–229, July 2003
quote:The results indicate overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process. Nevertheless, significant differences were found in morphology between both geographically-pooled and cemetery-specific temporal groups, indicating that some migration occurred along the Egyptian Nile Valley over the periods&time; studied.
--Am J Phys Anthropol, 2007.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Ps. Nubians are within the same line of the dendrogram. As the assumed populations with similar postcranial variable set..
Anyway, I can't see what this variable set implies, do you?
In older studies the author Holliday TW. clearly shows that Africans, historically, overall are tropical adapted. Whereas Arabs and Europeans aren't. Raxter also indirectly stated the same, by implying they became "quickly tropical" thou I think she had different intentions. LOL
quote: Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess "tropical" body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations.
--Holliday TW J Hum Evol. 1997 May;32(5):423-48. Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins.
quote:What we can say, however, is that in the Holocene, humans from southwest Asia do not exhibit tropically adapted body shape (Crognier 1981; Eveleth and Tanner 1976; Schreider 1975).... "
---Trenton Holliday (2000) Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia. American Anthropologist. New Series, Vol. 102, No. 1, 54-68
quote: In fact, in terms of body shape, the European and the Inuit samples tend to be cold-adapted and tend to be separated in multivariate space from the more tropically adapted Africans, especially those groups from south of the Sahara.
--Holliday TW, Hilton CE. Body proportions of circumpolar peoples as evidenced from skeletal data: Ipiutak and Tigara (Point Hope) versus Kodiak Island Inuit.
quote: Migration within a larger time framework took place ca. 15,000--18,000 BP, when the first Asian populations crossed the Bering Strait, ultimately founding the modern Amerindian population. Despite having as much as 18,000 years of selection in environments as diverse as those found in the Old World, body mass and proportion clines in the Americas are less steep than those in the Old World (Newman, 1953; Roberts, 1978). In fact, as Hulse (1960) pointed out, Amerindians, even in the tropics, tend to possess some ''arctic'' adaptations. Thus he concluded that it must take more than 15,000 years for modern humans to fully adapt to a new environment (see also Trinkaus, 1992). This suggests that body proportions tend not to be very plastic under natural conditions, and that selective rates on body shape are such that evolution in these features is long-term."
-- Holliday T.(1997). Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins. Jrnl Hum Evo. 32:423-447
quote:Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans should not exhibit tropically-adapted limb proportions, since, even assuming replacement, their ancestors had experienced cold stress in glacial Europe for at least 12 millennia. [...] Additionally, brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length, and thus, while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. [...] The somewhat paradoxical retention of "tropical" indices in the context of more "cold-adapted" limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe.
--Holliday TW J Hum Evol. 1999 May;36(5):549-66. Brachial and crural indices of European late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Modern sudan
Huhmmmm, some Arabic tribes moved into Africa recently. Hence the o.p. posted Sample of Arab Nubians taken. You took out the Arab part, for some funny reason.
I believe the sample was for the nubians of the nile valley that's why i took out the arab part,but you could be right and these could be the arab nubians,but one problem sudan does not have arab nubians in the census,only egypt has that.
Sudan have arabized nubians but most are called arabs first like Gaalien etc...,but these would be called arabized nubians,but on the census they are just called arabs and not arab nubians.
There are arabized hill nubians and darfur nubians but the only thing really arabized about then is that they speak arabic mostly first,but they still speak thier nubian language and thie rculture still still nubian,so i do not why they called arabized because thier culture is still mostly nubian,and they see themselves has nubian and in the census still are nubians.
So arabized could mean varied things it seem.
The sample was for the nile valley modern nubians of sudan.
The other interesting thing is that there are more nubians outside the nile valley in sudan then in the nile,like the darfur nubians and hill nubians.
I should have posted them instead,but some nubians of the nile valley of sudan do look like white arabs or turks so i guess when they i mean nubian these days it could be white or black,like hispanic,so i agree we have to be careful on who they are testing just like they do with late ancient egypt or modern egypt.
Of course most nubians are still black but you do have some that do not look black in egypt and sudan and i was shocked when i first saw them on tv a few years ago calling themselves nubians,but they do not call themselves black i heard recently.
So you do have nile nubians of egypt and sudan that are not really black,but nubians outside the nile in sudan,kenya,chad etc...are only black and i do not see any arab white looking types in those nubian groups.
I GUESS they had enough of the few whites coming into the nile, like those arab invaders overtime and thier the brainwashed black arabs so they went further south and south west years to better protect themselves and doing a good job at.
Here are links with out the arab part below dealing with the nile valley. Check it out.
Yeah, you're right that Nubian is just a cluster name.
One should keep in mind that "Nubians", Southern Egyptians are endogamous people (who don't easily marry out) and always have been.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
[*]Nubians possess more tropically adapted leg limbs and a more linear body plan compared to Egyptians. This was expected since Nubians are situated further south and closer to Sub-Saharan Africa. [*]Brachial index, crural index, bi-iliac breadth, and body surface area to body mass (BSA/BM) were analyzed by region to test whether Upper Egyptians and Nubians possess a more tropical body plan compared to populations from the northern region of Egypt. These were compared to indices from archaeologically derived skeletons from various parts of the world (data from Holliday 1995). [/list]
--Michelle Raxter Egyptian Body Size: A Regional and Worldwide Comparison
Holliday et al 2013
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]. - Holliday et al. (2009)
I don't know about the European element but these Holliday articles are not corresponding to Raxter Holliday places Nubians with a less tropical body plan than Egyptians and Kermans on the other hand, with a more tropical body plan than Egyptians. Did he use the same Nubian data in 2013 that was in the 2009 article? I don't know
________________________________
- the Raxter quote also indicates:
"these were compared to indices from archaeologically derived skeletons from various parts of the world (data from Holliday 1995)."
quote: Bivariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from recent North or sub-Saharan African samples
T. W. Holliday* 2013 Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Bivariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from recent North or sub-Saharan African samples T. W. Holliday* 2013 Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence [/QB]
The dendogram is distingusihing Nubians from Jebel Sahabans. Why I don't know. I thought Jebel Sahabans were Nubians yet this chart indicates some sort of difference. I think it must be that Jebel Sahabans are Upper Paleolithic whereas what is labeled here "Nubians" are later Merotic people with a different morphology Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Troll Patrol: In older studies the author Holliday TW. clearly shows that Africans, historically, overall are tropical adapted. Whereas Arabs and Europeans aren't. Raxter also indirectly stated the same, by implying they became "quickly tropical" thou I think she had different intentions. LOL
^The new post cranial proxy data again casts doubt on the recent claims of Raxter. It is using post cranial proxies as a stand in for direct limb measurements and this might not be as strong as direct limb data, but the overall pattern confirms previous studies, which did use direct limb measurement data.
RECAP for new readers:
Better nutrition does not necessariy mean intensive sedentary agriculture. Better foraging and resources bases can boost nutrition as well. In the Nile Valley, a substantial, mixed subsistence economy was long in place. The ancient Egyptian Badarian, who in numerous studies cluster with tropical Africans had a subbstantial population and resource base- reflecting rich subsistence foraging and haversting, not merely sedentary agriculture. Such mixed economies including harvesting of wild grains and tubers is an early development in Africa and the Nile Valley scholars show, without needing any outside settlers. QUOTE:
"Here we demonstrate that this transition is also associated with a modest reduction and subsequent improvement in stature and body mass. This trend could be broadly interpreted in the context of models of relationship between body size and nutrition. In this case, the greater body size of early hunter-gatherers may reflect the benefit of broadly based hunting and gathering subsistence... Archaological evidence suggest that the Badarian civilization had higher population density than did other contemporaneous civilizations (Gabriel, 1987; Hassan 1988)." --Pihnasi and Stock (2011) Human Bioarchaeology of the Transition to Agriculture
“The adoption of this broad adaptive strategy provided the large food supply needed by a growing population, but achieving maximum production called for a good deal of planning and the management of labour. This marks the beginning of an organized food-producing system: agriculture.” “Dating from more than 15,000 years ago, the evidence from the Nile valley is arguably the earliest comprehensive instance of an organized food-producing system known anywhere on Earth.” --Africa: A Biography of the Continent, by John Reader, 1998, pp. 120-173
The transition to better nutrition & agriculture is associated with increases in sexual dimorphism, a pattern also occurring in the studies of ancient Americans. Quote: "The OK possesses the highest SDS of all temporal groups, including individual Predynastic sites (Table 10; Figure 10). The greatest increase in SDS is thus from the Predyn to OK." --Raxter 2011.
-----New World data - same pattern associated with better nutrition not influxes of outsiders
"Finally body mass has long been recognized as a morphological trait amongst humans that relates to ecogeographic patterns in association with climate (Holliday, 1997, Rull 1994). However, Auerbach (2007) found that the relationship between climatic factors and body mass amongst a broad sample of New World groups was inconsistent and may have been influenced by subsistence.. ..there is a similar trend amongst both males and females: the agriculturalists are taller and more massive, on the average. This is identical to patterns of diachronic change in stature documented using different samples from the southeast... There is also a coincident slight increase in sexual dimorphism among the agriculturalist samples, accompanied by a slight increase in overall variance in stature, body mass and bi-iliac breath.. In short, the long temporal perspective on the development of agriculture in the Southeast may be characterized by significant overall increases in body size for both males and females." -- Pinhasi and Stock (2011). Human Bioarchaeology of the Transition to Agriculture
A rich, indigenous foraging and harvesting strategy is old news in boosting better nutrition in ancient Africa.
“The adoption of this broad adaptive strategy provided the large food supply needed by a growing population, but achieving maximum production called for a good deal of planning and the management of labour. This marks the beginning of an organized food-producing system: agriculture.” “Dating from more than 15,000 years ago, the evidence from the Nile valley is arguably the earliest comprehensive instance of an organized food-producing system known anywhere on Earth.” --Africa: A Biography of the Continent, J. Reader, 1998, 120-173
Long native settlement- No mass influx of outsiders-
QUOTE: “Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa does not support demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially incorporated Near Eastern domesticates into an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only over time developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more abrupt change in subsistence strategy. "The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt..”
--Ehret, Keita, Newman, Bellwood (2004). The Origins of Afroasiatic Science 3 v306, n5702, p1680 ------------------------------------------------------
Raxter 2011 unpublished dissertation posits close relations between Mediterraneans and Middle Easterners based on body mass indices. But such connections in any mass way are dubious, and changes in body mass- are associated with a shift to agriculture. Adaptation to cooler, more temperate Nile Valley climes over millennia would also play a part in any body changes. In short, there is no need for any mass movement of "Mediterraneans" or "Middle Easterners" to give the Nile Valley natives diversity in body mass. They already had it as adapting to temperate climes and taking on more agriculture.
per Raxter: "Ancient Egyptians as a whole generally exhibit intermediate body breadths relative to higher and lower latitude populations, with Lower Egyptians possessing wider body breadths, as well as lower brachial and crural indices, compared to Upper Egyptians and Upper Nubians. This may suggest that Egyptians are closely related to circum-Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern groups, but quickly developed limb length proportions more suited to their present very hot environments. These results may also reflect the greater plasticity of limb length compared to body breadth.
^1-- Actually it doesn't automatically "suggest" AEs are "closely related to circum-Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern groups." [/b] Connections between regions occurred in all eras but the body mass data also shows that the peoples of the Nile Valley had built-in native variation as expected for the many different climes of Africa. Tropical people adapted in Europe. They also adapted in the Nile Valley, as they did on East African mountains, as they did in humid jungle and dry savannah.
And as noted below, bi-ilac ranges/breadth are also correlated with several other things such as changes in diet and lifestyle as other scholars show. For example agriculturalists tend to have greater body breath than exclusively foraging/hunting peoples. It does not automatically follow that greather breadth ranges mean "circum-Mediterranean" relations. Rather the shift to more dynastic agriculture, from a more mixed pre- dynastic economy can well accommodate changes in body breath without the need for any mass influx of "Near Easterners."
Bi-iliac ranges are correlated with many things including thermoregulation and locomotion. They are also correlated with stature, and with a shift to agriculture. Hence an "intermediate" bi-iliac range could be easily due to any of the above, including a shift from the mixed economy pre-dynastics, to the more agricultural early dynastic/dynastic types.
QUOTES: "Furthermore bi-iliac breadth appears to change slowly over time, likely due to multiple factors (thermoregulation, obstetrics, locomotion) influencing its shape (Ruff 1994; Auerback 2007).."
"Generally narrower body breaths of the foragers contrast markedy with the wider-bodied agriculturalists. Although bi-iliac breadth has been argued to be stable over long periods of time (Auerbach, 2007), this shift in mean body breath may be indicative of changes correlated with subsistence economy."
"Any use of the bi-iliac breath/stature body mass estimations would inherently reflect changes in stature.."
"In this study, skeletal measures of body size were analysed to evaluate the long-term impact of the transition to agriculture in the Nile Valley.. Here we demonstrate that this transition is also associated with a modest reduction and subsequent improvement in stature and body mass. This trend could be broadly interpreted in the context of models of relationship between body size and nutrition." -- Pinhasi & Stock. 2011. Human Bioarchaeology of the Transition to Agriculture
And it should be noted that the pre-Dynastic Badari, who cluster with tropical Africans were ALREADY farming and stock-raising with some hunting/ foraging on the side. In other words, tropical African variants were ALREADY engaging in the agricultural practices that are correlated with greater bi-iliac ranges. "Diffusion" from the Middle East of plants such as wheat, is just that, diffusuion that was adopted by the indigenous tropical variants on their own terms. They could grow wheat or peas, on their own ground, without needing any "wandering Caucasoids" to be present. This is the precise point stated by Keita 2005,et al
QUOTE: Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa does not support demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially incorporated Near Eastern domesticates into an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only over time developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more abrupt change in subsistence strategy. "The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were gradually adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P." --Source: The Origins of Afroasiatic Christopher Ehret, S. O. Y. Keita, Paul Newman;, and Peter Bellwood Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1680 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEr Raxter: 2--Stature regression equations derived from American Black populations may therefore not be appropriate to estimate the statures of ancient Egyptians.
^^In earlier studies (one of which Raxter herself did) US Blacks as a tropial people were used as a stand-in to estimate height of Ancient Egyptians. In those studies Black AMericans were found to cluster closer to Ancient Egyotians than EUropeans. That finding is not changed at all by Raxter's 2011 study. In fact, the new study AGAIN confirms that tropical peoples have similar limb proportions- hence Egyptians and Nubians cluster thereby.
Even if stature was over-estimated in earlier studies as Raxter claims, the data STILL showed US Blacks closer to AE proportions. Whether the use of US blacks is "appropriate" to estimate the statures of AEs makes little difference because in limb to limb comparison, the AE's are closer to the US blacks. Throw out the stature estimation task and this central result STILL stands.
Even if stature estimation is excluded the bottom line results are STILL the same- the AE's cluster more closely with US Blacks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Raxter: 3-- but quickly developed limb length proportions more suited to their present very hot environments.
^^A misleading claim by Raxter. Actually limb length proportions do not "quickly" change, but are heavily genetically embedded.
Limb proportions DON'T "quickly" change. They are rather slow in fact. Hence tropical proportions found in the Nile Valley are not the product of "Mediterranean" or "Middle Eastern" migrants who "quickly" changed to "tropical Africans." Limb proportions don't work that way. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Raxter: 4-- The present results for bi-iliac breadth are also consistent with various genetic studies that have found modern Egyptians to have close affinities to Middle and Near Easterners (Manni et al., 2002; Arredi et al., 2004; Shepard and Herrera, 2006; Rowold et al., 2007) and Southern Europeans/Mediterranean groups (Capelli et al., 2006). ^^No surprise there. We all know MODERN Egyptians are not identical to the ancients and are more varied, a result that shows up in ancient samples as well. Note below that Zakrewski found one widely used sampling set was not at all typically Egyptian. And whether samples were pooled or not pooled in other studies MADE LITTLE DIFFERENCE. The AEs STILL cluster more with tropical Africans than Europeans or "Middle Easterners."
Some tail end sampling sets are not typical of Ancient Egypt.
Per Raxter 5--Some of these authors suggested their results may have been associated with a diffusion from the Near East during the expansion of early food-producing societies ^^Sure some plant and animal domesticates filtered into AE from the "Middle East." That was never at issue. But most of the archaelogical evidence shows no mass influx of "Caucasoids" or "circum-Mediterranean" types to instruct the natives. QUOTE:
Ovacaprines appear in the western desert before the Nile valley proper (Wendorf and Schild 2001). However, it is significant that ancient Egyptian words for the major Near Eastern domesticates - Sheep, goat, barley, and wheat - are not loans from either Semitic, Sumerian, or Indo-European. This argues against a mass settler colonization (at replacement levels) of the Nile valley from the Near East at this time. This is in contrast with some words for domesticates in some early Semitic languages, which are likely Sumerian loan words (Diakonoff 1981).. This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000). -- Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6--Ancient Egyptians "as a whole" Sure. If you lump in the more varied New Kingdom types and Hyskos/Roman era/Greek era types you will get more variation. Everyone knows the tail end period of AE had more variation. Even Zakrewski says that one tail-end series is not "typically" Egyptian. That was never at issue. What is at issue is the genesis and maintenance of the pre-Dynastic and early Dynastic period. Later periods were to have a more mixed pattern, The 12th Dynasty for example had several pharaohs of Nubian origin (Yurco 1989), as did the 18th, as did the 25th. Raxter is eager to highlight the "close links" with "circum-Mediterranean" types it seems, but not the other way.
Whether stature estimation is involved makes little difference. AEs STILL cluster more with Black Americans. ANd limb proportions do not "quickly" change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7--RaXter's presentation doesnt make a dime's worth of difference on the fact that based on limb proportions, AEs cluster more towards Nubians and other tropical Africans than EUropeans or Middle Easterners. Body breath indexes are accounted for via dietary/economic shifts and do not necessarily point to any influx of "Middle Esterners" or "Mediterraneans"
Note how Raxter presents the data:
A-- It is admitted that the AEs have more tropical proportions. B-- It is admitted that the Nubians have even more tropical proportions. C-- But then the author quickly leaps to highlight body breath and talk about close links with Europe and the Mid East.
--In fact though, there are EVEN CLOSER links in A and B above than C, between Egytians and other Africans via limb proportions. Highlighting body breadth cannot obscure this reality.
And if body breadth is "intermediate"- half of the "close links" - then the second half of the body breath equation is with tropical Africans. If intermediate body breadths tell about Euro/Mid East Links, then THE OTHER HALF LIKEWISE SPEAKS OF AFRICAN LINKS. But how come Raxter never uses a consistent approach on this count - on the flip side?
Raxter's blanket claim of Egyotians as a whole is flawed. Her main data point is Lower Egypt. But even this varied over time. In the early period, the limb length proportions of northern samples, per Kemp cited above show more affinities with the Africans rather than the Europeans. Also flawed is Raxter's blanket notion of "quickly developing" tropical limb lengths, for which she offers little clear evidence. To the contrary, as other scholars show, limb proportions are relatively stable, genetically embedded, and do not quickly change.
If anything the weight of the overall Nile Valley picture also points to another alternative- that of tropical Africans with extreme proportions- having such proportions modified over the millennia by (a) cooler Mediterranean temperatures of Egypt, and (b) a shift to a more agricultural lifestyle.
The Egyptians are more similar to the Nubians via limb proportions. Both peoples are from warm climes as Raxter notes. Hence the link with US blacks on limb proportions, another tropical people from warm climes, and who have the same typical linear body build, IS NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST BIT AFFECTED. The limb proportion data still stands. Body mass variation is accounted for by (a) adaptation to cooler climates, and (b) a shift to more agriculture. This does not at all rule out small scale migration from the Levant/Maghreb. We all know it occurred, as well as trade links, prisoners taken in warfare from Palestine etc. But mass influxes of "Mediterraneans" or "Middle Easterners" are not at all needed to give the peoples of the Nile Valley diversity or variation in body mass.
8 -- Adaption to environment is another way tropical peoples may vary. Nasal shape for example can vary with the environment. Tropical Africans moving into the Egypt and staying millennia would not remain static without any changes caused by the environment.
Likewise in Europe, tropical African migrants gradually got lighter skin colors, under cooler more temperate climates or colder climates. There is no mass influx of cold-adapted Neanderthals needed to explain such routine adaptation. Tropical African variants adapted in temperate EUrope. ANd they adapted in the temperate Nile Valley and/or the much fluctuating Saharan climates in varying proportions. Tropical Africa it should also be noted has numerous micro-climates- from cold thin altitude cloud forest to sweltreing desert and junge. All these areas change people if they are there long enough, without the need for any outside migrants to explain why.
Earlier studies using direct limb data show AEs clustering with Africans..
FINAL QUOTE:
"Generally narrower body breaths of the foragers contrast markedy with the wider-bodied agriculturalists. Although bi-iliac breadth has been argued to be stable over long periods of time (Auerbach, 2007), this shift in mean body breath may be indicative of changes correlated with subsistence economy."
"In this study, skeletal measures of body size were analysed to evaluate the long-term impact of the transition to agriculture in the Nile Valley.. Here we demonstrate that this transition is also associated with a modest reduction and subsequent improvement in stature and body mass. This trend could be broadly interpreted in the context of models of relationship between body size and nutrition."
-- Pinhasi & Stock. 2011 The Bioarchaeology of the Transition to Agriculture
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: A-- It is admitted that the AEs have more tropical proportions. B-- It is admitted that the Nubians have even more tropical proportions.
then why is this 2013 Holliday chart showing Nubians less tropically proportioned than Egyptians?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Raxter and Holiday are not using the same datasets or methods. Despite this, Holliday's final results still fit the general patterns of previous studies.
The dendogram is distingusihing Nubians from Jebel Sahabans. Why I don't know. I thought Jebel Sahabans were Nubians yet this chart indicates some sort of difference. I think it must be that Jebel Sahabans are Upper Paleolithic whereas what is labeled here "Nubians" are later Merotic people with a different morphology
Why do you believe Jebel Sahabans and Nubians are the same?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I thought this issue was discussed several times before where the Euronuts tried to claim non-Hpal (np3,592) lineages as 'Caucasian' even though these same lineages are common in Sudan as you say.
Yeah, covered multiple times....
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Holliday's final results still fit the general patterns of previous studies.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: A-- It is admitted that the AEs have more tropical proportions. B-- It is admitted that the Nubians have even more tropical proportions.
The two statements do not agree. Holliday indciates Nubian were less tropically proprtioned than Egyptians. The reason for it is a separate topic and earlier studies misrepresentation of Nubian DNA, Hpal site is irreleavnt to this physical morphology
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: then why is this 2013 Holliday chart showing Nubians less tropically proportioned than Egyptians?
This is the same sample that in Hanihara et al 2003 clustered away from the Naqada Giza and Kerma subcluster, and instead with with French and other Europeans. Its Christian era and postulated to be mixed with Middle Eastern elements.
Oh,so that's the christian period for those samples? Swenet thanks for clearing that up. I had a funny feeling that was the case.
Yeah,some nubians in certain parts of lower nubia and a few in upper nubia in the later middle ages had varied admixture from outside elements. Of course not southern nubia.
This gets back to what i said and troll patrol had said,it depends on what period in history and location these samples are from.
The samples seem to be only from nile and not other regions of sudan and nearby countries were nubians are known to live in.
Chad has a nubian population that live there for awhile most likely since the late middles ages or before but they are not in these samples. Nubian churches etc.. were found there too.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Edited-
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Modern sudan
Huhmmmm, some Arabic tribes moved into Africa recently. Hence the o.p. posted Sample of Arab Nubians taken. You took out the Arab part, for some funny reason.
I believe the sample was for the nubians of the nile valley that's why i took out the arab part,but you could be right and these could be the arab nubians,but one problem sudan does not have arab nubians in the census,only egypt has that.
Sudan have arabized nubians but most are called arabs first like Gaalien etc...,but these would be called arabized nubians,but on the census they are just called arabs and not arab nubians.
There are arabized hill nubians and darfur nubians but the only thing really arabized about them is that they speak arabic mostly first,but they still speak thier nubian language and thier culture still nubian.
I do not why they called arabized because thier culture is still mostly nubian or nubian,and they see themselves has nubian and in the census still are nubians.
So arabized could mean varied things it seems.
The sample was for the nile valley modern nubians of sudan.
The other interesting thing is that there are more nubians outside the nile valley in sudan then in the nile,like the darfur nubians and hill nubians.
I should have posted them instead,but some nubians of the nile valley of sudan do look like white arabs or turks so i guess when they mean nubian these days it could be white or black,like hispanic,so i agree we have to be careful on who they are testing just like they do with late ancient egypt or modern egypt.
Of course most nubians are still black but you do have some that do not look black in egypt and sudan and i was shocked when i first saw them on tv a few years ago calling themselves nubians,but they do not call themselves black i heard recently.
So you do have nile nubians of egypt and sudan that are not really black,but nubians outside the nile in sudan,kenya,chad etc...are only black and i do not see any arab white looking types in those nubian groups.
I GUESS they had enough of the few whites coming into the nile in nubia, like those arab invaders overtime and converted brainwashed black arabs so they went further south and south west over the years to better protect themselves and doing a good job at.
Here are links with out the arab part below dealing with the nile valley. Check it out.
Yeah, you're right that Nubian is just a cluster name.
One should keep in mind that "Nubians", Southern Egyptians are endogamous people (who don't easily marry out) and always have been.
Good point,but i read something about some nile nubians who did intermarried with arabs around the later middle ages starting in the northern lower nubian region and later a few intermarried in the later middle ages in upper nubia and right into modern period.
Here some info about them and the arab nubians before in a book called nubian ethnographies.
The info could be outdated to some extent however,but here is some of that info.
quote- In the eleventh century,the rabi a an arabian tribe yemama who had first entered egypt in the ninth century,forcibly settled in the nubian region around aswan,and at this time the first general conversion of a part of the nubian population is likely to have occurred.The rabia brought thier religion and tribal political organization with them,but they adopted the language and presumably much of thier culture of the villagers as,over the years,they intermarried with the local population and came to be call the beni kanz,and later the kenuz,a name for this group of northern nubians survives to this day.
quote- The coming of the kenuz,a people without historic ties to the other inhabitants,may have created the first sharp division at aswan,effectively blocking contacts between the older settlers,north and south.Agricultural resources were always very marginal along this stretch of river near the first cataracts and could support in the best of times only a relatively small population.Possibly,the dongolaw ancestors of the present kenuzi people,dependent primarily on trade rather than agriculture,had become numerically and linguistically predominant by the time the beni kanz came from the desert and overran the area in the eleventh century.
This hypothesis is further strengthened by the somewhat parallel existence of another intrusive population farther south,the small enclave of the arabic-speaking "nubians" found between the kenuz and fediji,in the wadi el-arab region.Many of the men in this intermediate area were descended from members of the allaqat tribe,which originated in the nejd of northern arabia.These nubians still consider themselves allaqat and have occasional contacts with the tribe.Thier genealogies reveal marriages with both men,and,to a lesser extent,fediji,but the language has remained exclusively arabic for most of the men and women in the region.Until very recently these people did not call themselves nubians at all,and they are now so identified in political-territorial rather than an ethnic-linguistic sense. These arabs explain thier presence in nubia by recalling that they (too)were traders. ___________________________________________________________________________
I remember Djehuti and Ausar talking about the turk stuff before. Here is some of that info.
Early modern and modern egyptian nubia Turks in fediji area of nubia - quote- The inhabitants of derr are supposed to be the descendants of a number of bosnian soldiers,established in nubia by the sultan selym;and still in a great measure preserve thier comparatively fair complexion and european features,though in many instances,it is clear,from thier physiognomy,they have intermarried with blacks.In the morning several decently dressed lads passed by our boat on thier way to school,with the wooden tablets,on which they are taught to write,in tier hands.
quote- The areas around derr and around ibrim had prospered to soome degree despite,or perhaps in part because of,the foreign garrisons sent by the ottomans to egyptian nubia,the southernmost outpost of their empire.Not only kurds and hungarians,but also mercenary soldiers from many distant regions of the oriental and occidental turkish world,came to nubia,where they perished,departed,or intermarried with the local population and settled there.The mixed origins of these nubians' forebears are still reflected in such local family names as magari and kurdi.During this long and obscure period of foreign intrusions into the southern region of egyptian nubia,a succession of hereditary muslim overlords,entitled kashifs,became established.These men,absorbed into the nubian community,had brought with them the education and literacy of the wider islamic congregation.Under thier supervision,mosques and quranic schools were built,which served to indicate to the world at large that here indeed was a congregation of muslims.
The kashifs of ottoman times were replaced by mohammed ali with his own administrative officers,also called kashifs.Their rule was often tyrannical. Through intermarriage,however,many fediji nubians trace descent from these men,as well as from ottoman kashifs,and it is still a source of some prestige. Even after the advent of british colonial administration,kashif descendants retained considerable local authority in some nubian communities.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Actually as recently as the Ottoman Empire were there imperial outposts in the Nubian region comprising Turks as well as other groups of the empire like Circassians etc. Maybe some of these groups did intermarry with the locals though as Ausar pointed out, rape was not uncommon as the natives were still oppressed by these imperialist regimes. This is why some Nubians in the area, particularly the Kanuzi, have light-skinned mixed looking types.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Oh,so that's the christian period for those samples? Swenet thanks for clearing that up. I had a funny feeling that was the case.
Yeah,some nubians in certain parts of lower nubia and a few in upper nubia in the later middle ages had varied admixture from outside elements. Of course not southern nubia.
This gets back to what i said and troll patrol had said,it depends on what period in history and location these samples are from.
The samples seem to be only from nile and not other regions of sudan and nearby countries were nubians are known to live in.
Chad has a nubian population that live there for awhile most likely since the late middles ages or before but they are not in these samples. Nubian churches etc.. were found there too.
Yes, let's not forget that the Coptic Church was not always confined to Egypt but spread into Nubia and rest of northern and central Sudan up to Ethiopia. Thus originally there were 3 branches of the Coptic Church-- the original Egyptian branch and then the Nubian (Sudanese) branch, and the Ethiopian branch. Today only the Egyptian and Ethiopian branches survive as the Nubian branch became extinguished by Islamic movements.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Lyinass: then why is this 2013 Holliday chart showing Nubians less tropically proportioned than Egyptians?
This is the same sample that in Hanihara et al 2003 clustered away from the Naqada Giza and Kerma subcluster, and instead with with French and other Europeans. Its Christian era and postulated to be mixed with Middle Eastern elements.
I've always suspected as much. This reminds me of the (late) Giza sample Zakrewski found to be non-Egyptian but was held up as Egyptian by Howells and how many scholars.
Lyinass: "I don't know. I don't know. I don't know."
Well now you know, twit!
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Yeah, you're right that Nubian is just a cluster name.
One should keep in mind that "Nubians", Southern Egyptians are endogamous people (who don't easily marry out) and always have been.
Yes with few exception. As I just pointed out there were Ottoman Imperial outposts in the Nubian region with soldiers raping women if not marrying them. This is why lighter-skinned mixed looking Kanuzi are not that rare. Although I should also point out that interestingly even these light types tend to marry amongst themselves. The vast majority of Kanuzi are still dark. Both Nubians and Upper Egyptian Sa'idi not only marry within their communities but actually practice cousin marriage. So studies of these people do tend to give more stable trends either morphometrically or genetically.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
...
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Lyinass: then why is this 2013 Holliday chart showing Nubians less tropically proportioned than Egyptians?
This is the same sample that in Hanihara et al 2003 clustered away from the Naqada Giza and Kerma subcluster, and instead with with French and other Europeans. Its Christian era and postulated to be mixed with Middle Eastern elements.
I've always suspected as much. This reminds me of the (late) Giza sample Zakrewski found to be non-Egyptian but was held up as Egyptian by Howells and how many scholars.
Lyinass: "I don't know. I don't know. I don't know."
Well now you know, twit!
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Yeah, you're right that Nubian is just a cluster name.
One should keep in mind that "Nubians", Southern Egyptians are endogamous people (who don't easily marry out) and always have been.
Yes with few exception. As I just pointed out there were Ottoman Imperial outposts in the Nubian region with soldiers raping women if not marrying them. This is why lighter-skinned mixed looking Kanuzi are not that rare. Although I should also point out that interestingly even these light types tend to marry amongst themselves. The vast majority of Kanuzi are still dark. Both Nubians and Upper Egyptian Sa'idi not only marry within their communities but actually practice cousin marriage. So studies of these people do tend to give more stable trends either morphometrically or genetically.
Right.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Lyinass: "I don't know. I don't know. I don't know."
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: then why is this 2013 Holliday chart showing Nubians less tropically proportioned than Egyptians?
This is the same sample that in Hanihara et al 2003 clustered away from the Naqada Giza and Kerma subcluster, and instead with with French and other Europeans. Its Christian era and postulated to be mixed with Middle Eastern elements.
Does Holliday reference Hanihara et al 2003 for the article? I don't know I have not read it. Would this mean modern Nubians on average cluster with French and other Europeans?
wiki:
Christian Nubia
Main articles: Makuria, Nobadia, and Alodia
Around AD 350, the area was invaded by the Kingdom of Aksum and the kingdom collapsed. Eventually, three smaller kingdoms replaced it: northernmost was Nobatia between the first and second cataract of the Nile River, with its capital at Pachoras (modern-day Faras); in the middle was Makuria, with its capital at Old Dongola; and southernmost was Alodia, with its capital at Soba (near Khartoum).
By the 7th century, Makuria expanded becoming the dominant power in the region. It was strong enough to halt the southern expansion of Islam after the Arabs had taken Egypt. After several failed invasions the new rulers agreed to a treaty with Dongola allowing for peaceful coexistence and trade. This treaty held for six hundred years. Over time the influx of Arab traders introduced Islam to Nubia and it gradually supplanted Christianity.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote- Would this mean modern Nubians on average cluster with French and other Europeans? ______________
No. Some modern nubians do have varied outside admixture,but most do not.
Egypt on average more so then sudan however.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
The modern nubian thing is confusing to alot of folks,believe me i am still trying to understand it.
Let me give you my point of view and put it a way you could understand very clearly.
I Will make it short and others could speak about it here as well.
Most of the admixture of the modern nubians seem to be from other blacks mostly in the modern period and the mixing took place only with nile valley nubians and not other nubians from the dna info.
There were a few nubians that mixed with other blacks in the late ancient period in lower nubia but it was not has widespread like it became in the modern period.
Any admixture from whites took place only in the nile valley starting in the northern region of lower nubian region maybe in the late ancient period overtime,but lower nubia on average was free from white admixture.
Meaning only a few may have had white admixture in late ancient times in lower nubia.
There were a few nubians that mixed with whites in certain parts of upper nubia in the late middle ages so mixing with whites was not widespread has once believe.
Southern nubia remain free from white admixture in the middle ages.
Keep in mind that most of the nubian population live there,so overall most nubians in the middle ages did not have white admixture.
Now dealing with the modern period,more nubians had white admixture and even more had admixture with other blacks.
So you can say some modern nubians have white admixture and some do not.
The question i think some want to know is if the majority have white admixture or not?
My answer again is no.
In egypt alot do however,but alot do not i believe,but you could say a slight majority in egypt do not.
Sudan some do,but that's some is only in the nile valley and not other places in sudan or chad,or kenya,or ethiopia etc...
So admixture with whites was less in the sudan then the modern nubian region of egypt.
Even in sudan in the nile valley most nubians do not have white admixture,some do but most do not.
Keep in mind there are a few modern nubians that are white has well,but these whites became nubianzed in the modern period and many of those white nubians do have black admixture,maybe all.
So that guy who comes here calling himself white nubian,if he is a white nubian, it is most likely he has some form of black admixture.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: quote- Would this mean modern Nubians on average cluster with French and other Europeans? ______________
No. Some modern nubians do have varied outside admixture,but most do not.
Egypt on average more so then sudan however.
That means according to Holliday's chart Nubians (if Swenet is correct>of the Christian era) were less tropically proportioned than modern Nubians
-although I'm not sure if there is data on modern Nubian limb ratios
- this is all before getting into the reasons for it, whether or not it's due to admixture is a separate issue
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: then why is this 2013 Holliday chart showing Nubians less tropically proportioned than Egyptians?
This is the same sample that in Hanihara et al 2003 clustered away from the Naqada Giza and Kerma subcluster, and instead with with French and other Europeans. Its Christian era and postulated to be mixed with Middle Eastern elements.
Does Holliday reference Hanihara et al 2003 for the article? I don't know I have not read it. Would this mean modern Nubians on average cluster with French and other Europeans?
My comments of ''Middle Eastern'' elements do not pertain to all of Christian Nubia. The 'Nubia' sample that keeps reappearing in Holiday's work is just a sample that happens to be admixed. The indigenousness of the native Christian era Nubians, however, is not up for discussion. In fact, Christian era Nubians have more affinity with Sub-Saharan Africans than earlier C and A-group Nubians. Here, below, some other Christian era Nubian sample that is likely to be more reflective of the local population, assumes a cranio-facial position all the way in the back, close to the Teita sample, while the other Nubian samples cluster more to the other side, towards the Naqada Egyptians, Masai and the Tindiga (i.e., Hadza).
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Djehuti: This is the same sample that in Hanihara et al 2003 clustered away from the Naqada Giza and Kerma subcluster, and instead with with French and other Europeans. Its Christian era and postulated to be mixed with Middle Eastern elements.
Hanihara 2003 et al
I've always suspected as much. This reminds me of the (late) Giza sample Zakrewski found to be non-Egyptian but was held up as Egyptian by Howells and how many scholars.
^^Yes, Hanihara's Nubian sample is later, more mixed Meriotic era. But also in the SAME Hanihara 2003 study, the Kerma samples from Nubia region cluster with Egyptians. So one way or another, you have "Nubian" samples clustering with ancient Egyptians.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My comments of ''Middle Eastern'' elements do not pertain to all of Christian Nubia. The 'Nubia' sample that keeps reappearing in Holiday's work is just a sample that happens to be admixed. The indigenousness of the native Christian era Nubians, however, is not up for discussion. In fact, Christian era Nubians have more affinity with Sub-Saharan Africans than earlier C and A-group Nubians.
You say some are admixted. That means one can't say the Christian era Nubians being indigenous is not up for discussion. According to what you are saying some Christian ear Nubians were indigenous and others were less than indigenous, so much so that their limb ratios approach Europeans. is Holliday misreprenting Nubians by not making this distinction?
And is there other Christian ara Nubian data specifically on limb ratios that demonstrates some samples having limb ratios more tropical than AAs and AEs? cranio-facial data is a different metric one can only assume that corresponds to limb proportions
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ I am still finding the pygmy position here hard to believe. Many pictures I've seen of pygmies, the first thing you notice is how short their legs are, shorter proportionally than AAs. This looks similar to a cold adpated limb to body ratio. But that alone cannot indicate cold adaptation. They don't have thick limbs like other short statured, short legged people do who come from cold environments-Bergman's rule. Obviously they are tropical but not in the usual way. I don't see any of this pertaining to Eurocentic vs. Afrocentric arguments. I just see the pygmies as a unique population with overlap to other Africans and other things that do not overlap but these things still completley indigenous to Africa. Add to this some mix with Bantus and take on more of their charactersitics.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Lyinass: then why is this 2013 Holliday chart showing Nubians less tropically proportioned than Egyptians?
This is the same sample that in Hanihara et al 2003 clustered away from the Naqada Giza and Kerma subcluster, and instead with with French and other Europeans. Its Christian era and postulated to be mixed with Middle Eastern elements.
I've always suspected as much. This reminds me of the (late) Giza sample Zakrewski found to be non-Egyptian but was held up as Egyptian by Howells and how many scholars.
Lyinass: "I don't know. I don't know. I don't know."
Well now you know, twit!
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Yeah, you're right that Nubian is just a cluster name.
One should keep in mind that "Nubians", Southern Egyptians are endogamous people (who don't easily marry out) and always have been.
Yes with few exception. As I just pointed out there were Ottoman Imperial outposts in the Nubian region with soldiers raping women if not marrying them. This is why lighter-skinned mixed looking Kanuzi are not that rare. Although I should also point out that interestingly even these light types tend to marry amongst themselves. The vast majority of Kanuzi are still dark. Both Nubians and Upper Egyptian Sa'idi not only marry within their communities but actually practice cousin marriage. So studies of these people do tend to give more stable trends either morphometrically or genetically.
Yes, these exceptions are. It's true. But those are rare occasions. It's even hard for a Northern Egyptian to marry a Southern Egyptian, let alone a foreign person. Usually the son in law moves in to the house, where the couple has a separate cubic, this a basic principle.
I can't get a clear picture on some Bosnian or Yugoslavian descendants with Southern Egyptian/ Nubian admixture. Maybe you remember what that group is called.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My comments of ''Middle Eastern'' elements do not pertain to all of Christian Nubia. The 'Nubia' sample that keeps reappearing in Holiday's work is just a sample that happens to be admixed. The indigenousness of the native Christian era Nubians, however, is not up for discussion. In fact, Christian era Nubians have more affinity with Sub-Saharan Africans than earlier C and A-group Nubians.
You say some are admixted. That means one can't say the Christian era Nubians being indigenous is not up for discussion. According to what you are saying some Christian ear Nubians were indigenous and others were less than indigenous, so much so that their limb ratios approach Europeans. is Holliday misreprenting Nubians by not making this distinction?
And is there other Christian ara Nubian data specifically on limb ratios that demonstrates some samples having limb ratios more tropical than AAs and AEs? cranio-facial data is a different metric one can only assume that corresponds to limb proportions
Holiday has made at least two references to peculiarities in this Christian era sample. These peculiarities are well know in the literature and were observed well before Holiday started using this sample, and well before his limb data results confirmed what was written in those early reports.
Also, please don't try to lecture me about the differences between non-metric data and limb data, as it'll lead to nowhere. I actually have a history of looking into this stuff--you don't. Your insinuation that the entire Christian era population needs to be revisited on the account of one peculiar sample reeks of bias. Christian era Northern Sudan would have attracted non African elements, just like Coptic Egypt and Christian Ethiopia. Changes in some samples should be expected given integration of new ideas and religious views around this time. Brauer 1980's craniometric plot may not be directly comparable with Hanihara's non-metric data, but Godde 2009's non-metric data sure is:
--Godde 2009
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Holiday has made at least two references to peculiarities in this Christian era sample. These peculiarities are well know in the literature and were observed well before Holiday started using this sample, and well before his limb data results confirmed what was written in those early reports.
Also, please don't try to lecture me about the differences between non-metric data and limb data, as it'll lead to nowhere. I actually have a history of looking into this stuff--you don't. Your insinuation that the entire Christian era population needs to be revisited on the account of one peculiar sample reeks of bias.
My insinuation that if what you are saying is correct and Holliday has produced this 2013 article and not mentioned in this article that he is using a peculiar sample then he is misrepresenting Nubians in general as having limb ratios less high than AA and Egyptians and with a bias toward being closer than Europeans than other Christian era Nubians. And does he mention anything in this 2013 article about these Nubians being Christian era? If they are then he should have mentioned it don't you think? It's only two more words There's no point in using a peculiar sample unless your focus is on it being peculiar
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^^ I am still finding the pygmy position here hard to believe. Many pictures I've seen of pygmies, the first thing you notice is how short their legs are, shorter proportionally than AAs. This looks similar to a cold adpated limb to body ratio. But that alone cannot indicate cold adaptation. They don't have thick limbs like other short statured, short legged people do who come from cold environments-Bergman's rule. Obviously they are tropical but not in the usual way. I don't see any of this pertaining to Eurocentic vs. Afrocentric arguments. I just see the pygmies as a unique population with overlap to other Africans and other things that do not overlap but these things still completley indigenous to Africa. Add to this some mix with Bantus and take on more of their charactersitics.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: quote- Would this mean modern Nubians on average cluster with French and other Europeans? ______________
No. Some modern nubians do have varied outside admixture,but most do not.
Egypt on average more so then sudan however.
I just retrieved this post,
quote:The Magyarab are a people living along the Nile River in Egypt and Sudan. ... Rather, the name is a concatenation of "Magyar" (Hungarian) and "Ab" which in Nubian simply means "tribe"...
^ Indeed, in fact during the late 19th century, it was not uncommon for wealthy Europeans of eastern Europe to travel to Africa and "mingle" with Africans especially the nobility or royalty of those nations.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: I can't get a clear picture on some Bosnian or Yugoslavian descendants with Southern Egyptian/ Nubian admixture. Maybe you remember what that group is called.
Perhaps you are referring to the Janissaries i.e. the eastern European men used as soldiers by the Turks(?)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,: You say some are admixed. That means one can't say the Christian era Nubians being indigenous is not up for discussion. According to what you are saying some Christian ear Nubians were indigenous and others were less than indigenous, so much so that their limb ratios approach Europeans. is Holliday misreprenting Nubians by not making this distinction?
And is there other Christian era Nubian data specifically on limb ratios that demonstrates some samples having limb ratios more tropical than AAs and AEs? cranio-facial data is a different metric one can only assume that corresponds to limb proportions
LOL So you are going to use the admixed sample--which is considered an OUTLIER among all the samples-- as representative of the general population overall?! This would be like using the Greco-Roman era samples of Alexandria as representative for all Egyptians or modern day cosmopolitan London people as representative of all British people.
I hope you can see your failed logic. Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^lol
^ Indeed, in fact during the late 19th century, it was not uncommon for wealthy Europeans of eastern Europe to travel to Africa and "mingle" with Africans especially the nobility or royalty of those nations.
Hmm, interesting. Any refs?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lyinass,:
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Deleted.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking populations2010
Jacques Chiaroni,1,* Roy J King,2 Natalie M Myres,3 Brenna M Henn,4
A recent Bayesian analysis of Semitic languages supports an origin in the Levant 5750 years ago and subsequent arrival in the Horn of Africa from Arabia 2800 years ago (11)
Moreover, the network analysis of J1e haplotypes (Figure 2b) shows that some of the populations with low diversity, such as Bedouins from Israel, Qatar, Sudan and UAE, are tightly clustered near high-frequency haplotypes suggesting founder effects with star burst expansion in the Arabian Desert.
______________________
ref. 11 Kitchen A, Ehret C, Assefa S, Mulligan CJ.
Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East. Proc Biol Sci. 2009;276:2703–2710.
quote: The overall expansion time estimated from 453 chromosomes is 10000 years. Moreover, the previously described J1 (DYS388=13) chromosomes, frequently found in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolian populations, were ancestral to J1e and displayed an expansion time of 9000 years
quote: Although humidity levels fluctuated during the Holocene, the present climatic regime in Arabia was established ~5000 years ago.16
The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking populations2010
Jacques Chiaroni,1,* Roy J King,2 Natalie M Myres,3 Brenna M Henn,4
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Bump.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: mtDNA analysis in ancient Nubians supports the existence of gene flow between sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile valley
quote:The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa 1 (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68.7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.
I can't wrap my mind around why this paper is so undercited, aside from Cuckoo Mathilda and her confused puppets. Notice I'm not saying that this paper has been ignored by ES members, as its potential to be misconstrued has been nipped in the bud several times. But why isn't it pro-actively quoted as much as, say, DNA Tribes' Amarna analysis?
First of all, judging by the abstract, the authors aren't even saying that these Nubians had 61% non-African mtDNAs, and secondly, their title and abstract are suggesting that they were testing the contributions of Niger Congo speaking Africans in the ancient Nile Valley genepool (which doesn't make sense due to the fact that these lineages predate anything Niger-Congo, but oh well..):
Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39%
^They clearly aren't counting Northeast African specific mtDNA Ls (which we now know, are prominent).
Thirdly, it is NORMAL for Sudanese to only have ~30% hpa I np 3592 associated uniparentals (L1 and L2):
quote:For mtDNA analysis, a total of 56 haplotypes were observed, all belonging to the major sub-Saharan African and Eurasian mitochondrial macrohapolgroups L0, L1, L2, L4, L5, L3A, M and N in frequencies of 12.1, 11.9, 22, 4.2, 6.2, 29.5, 2, and 12.2% respectively.
--Hassan, 2009
For the record, certain aspects of this post are inaccurate. The Hpal 3592 marker left the mtDNA tree immediately upstream of L4'3, meaning, only L3, L4, M and N lineages lack the Hpal 3592 marker. There are exceptions but these exceptions don't have common ancestry with the Hpal 3592 marker upstream of L4'3.
This Meroitic sample has a Hpal 3592 signature consistent with modern day Red Sea Coast indigènes who have relatively high proportions (often >50%) of M1, L3 and L4 when compared to their overall mtDNA L pool, a condition in Africa shared consistently by Nile Valley Egyptians, Siwa Egyptians, Nubian speakers, Beja and Lowland East Cushitic speakers.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
It's not surprising to find common DNA between African (sub-Saharan) people (Yoruba, Somali, Dinka, Wolof, etc) and Kushite/Ancient Egyptian people since they all share a common origin in North-Eastern Africa (after the OOA migrations of course). For example, the Niger-Congo languages as well as Nilo-Saharan languages have their common origin in Northeastern Africa around Sudan/Ethiopia (I don't have to repeat it but this common linguistic origin is also after the OOA migrations of course).
As another example we can note most Niger-Congo, Cushitic and Chadic speakers share the same Y-DNA haplogroup E-P2. The haplogroup E-P2 is the haplogroup of over 80% of African people (Sub-Saharan Africans/black Africans).
Obenga, basing his work on Anta Diop and Lilias Homburger before him, has determined the probable language of the common E-P2 ancestor which he calls African-Egyptian/Negro-Egyptian . This is not a mainstream linguistic view (such as Ehret posted below) but it comes to the reason that the common E-P2 ancestor, grandfather of most African people, spoke a language and this language was the common language of all his descendant people (current E-P2 carriers like E1b1a/E1b1b carriers which I recall form about over 80% of modern African people)
Ramses III=E1b1a, BMJ, JAMA and DNA Tribes data are other evidence of this as well as many line of inquiry from linguistic to genetics passing by Biological Anthropology. Which I will expose below.
Modern African people, like all people in the world, as well as Kushite and Ancient Egyptians are the products of demographic changes in the last 6000-8000 years (genetic drift, change in lifestyles, change in physiology, demographic expansion, admixtures, post-dynastic migrations, admixtures and conquests, within-Africa migrations and admixtures, etc).
1) Genetically: The current ancient DNA analysis of Ancient Egyptians mummy specimen have identified the haplogroup E1b1a for Ramses III and the screaming mummy. The most common haplogroup among Sub-Saharan Africans and African-Americans. Autosomal STR have them clustering with Great Lakes, Southern and West Africans. Not Eurasians. This is all from the JAMA , BMJ and DNA Tribes studies mentioned in this thread and forum. Ancient DNA in general has the best discriminative power to identify related and non-related populations.
2) Cultural Archaeology: Same here, Ancient Egyptian share many cultural characteristic with Ancient Egyptians. It has been demonstrated that Ancient Egypt was mostly the product of an indigenous African development. From their common origin in Eastern Africa, to the Green Sahara culture (Wavy-line pottery), to Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badarian, Naqada culture.
3) Biological Anthropology: Same here, Ancient Egyptians cluster with modern African populations not modern Eurasian populations. The change in physiology between them and their North-East African ancestors/predecessor is related to the change in lifestyles and diet and genetic drift. For example, the transition from hunter-gatherers, to pastoralism to agriculture lifestyles. Ancient Egyptians have been demonstrated to be continuous with their North-East African ancestors/predecessors in modern studies.
Fig. 1. Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations (Craniofacial measures)
Clearly, we can see Niger-Congo speakers (Tanzania, Dahomey, Congo), Nubians, Somali, Naqada clustering on the same branch. Completely distinct from modern Eurasian populations like in Egypt, Middle East, Italy, France, or Germany.
Same for post-cranial analysis:
We can see African populations (including East, West Africans and African-Americans) clustering at the top and non-African populations clustering at the bottom.
This study has the same analysis: From Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements by F. X. RICAUT and M. WAELKENS (2008)
This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972;Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger- Congo populations).
This affinity between Ancient and modern Northeastern African populations and Niger-Congo speakers (which form the majority of African people) can also be seen genetically and linguistically. As modern East and West African people (and Ancient Egyptians of course) have a common origin in Eastern Africa after the Out of Africa migrations of Eurasian people ancestors .
Genetically: Y-DNA:
And here for MtDNA (other L haplogroups were obviously not part of the OOA migrations so I didn't include them in the graph):
African populations are genetically close to each others in a similar way Eurasian populations are close to each others, mitigated by the amount of Eurasian back migration they possess. Bi-directional migrations must also be taken into account.
Before the OOA migrations the E and even E-P2 haplogroups didn't even exist as East and West Africans (the greater part of their ancestry) were still part of the same population in North-East Africa. Where they eventually developed the E and E-P2 haplogroups. Eventually spreading E-P2 across Africa along with its MtDNA haplogroups counterparts (like L2a, L3f, L3d, L3eijx, etc).
We can see something similar for autosomal DNA, we also see African populations clustering close to each others (like Europeans, Native Americans and East Asians too respectively) in term of genetic distance mitigated by the level of "recent" (post OOA) Eurasian back migrations into those populations.
For example, on this genetic distance tree from Tishkoff we can clearly see African population clustering on one side and non-African populations clustering on the other side. We can measure the genetic distance too since the genetic distance tree is on scale.
We can notice among other populations Maasai, Yoruba, Fulani, African-Americans clustering close to each others compared to with Eurasian populations. That is despite, for example, Fulani having some substantial level of Eurasian admixture. Of course population like Mozabite and Beja which are more "recently" admixed with back migrating Eurasians post OOA are kind of in-between (their genetic closeness with other African populations are mitigated by the amount of Eurasian admixtures in their populations).
Linguistically: All modern African languages family, including Niger-Congo have their ancient origin in North-Eastern Africa: From:Reconstructing Ancient Kinship in Africa by Christopher Ehret (From Early Human Kinship, Chap 12)
Ultimately, most African people, including Somali, Yoruba, and Ancient Egyptians, share a common origin in Northeastern Africa at a time period after the OOA migrations of non-Africans.
You better take your spam elsewhere before I'll call for your posts to be deleted. I have no time for you, go take your revisionist fairy tales elsewhere.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
As for the undiluted facts that some can't stand:
only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African [Hpal 3592] marker. --Fox et al
Hpal 3592 levels in Africa:
Like I said:
This Meroitic sample has a Hpal 3592 signature consistent with modern day Red Sea Coast indigènes who have relatively high proportions (often >50%) of M1, L3 and L4 when compared to their overall mtDNA L pool, a condition in Africa shared consistently by Nile Valley Egyptians, Siwa Egyptians, Nubian speakers, Beja and Lowland East Cushitic speakers. --Swenet
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^Obvious splittism approach based on the dynastic/hamitic race myth employed by Swenet above. What a shame.
Like all African populations Ancient Egyptians and Kushites were their own people but they also share a common origin with other African populations whether you like it or not.
You can try to twist and turn the BMJ (Ramses III=E1b1a), JAMA and DNA Tribes aDNA results or any genetic/archaeological results as much as you want. It won't change that fact.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I'm not moved by your teary eyes, boy. Go bitch, moan and make emotional pleas elsewhere.
How CL Fox' Nubian aDNA sample compares to the above frequencies of Hpal 3592:
only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African [Hpal 3592] marker. --Fox et al
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^Empty insults now. Ridiculous.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Sue me. Go cry elsewhere instead of polluting my thread with your pseudo-science and denialism.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Goes for anyone by the way. If you approach my post in a nagging manner that conveys that you're offended by scientific observations and your way of trying to deal with said emotional discomfort is by posting spammy walls of opinions that you wrote yourself wherein academic sources only appear as non-sequiturs to what you're saying (if they appear at all), and you repeatedly accuse me of being a racist/proponent of the Hamitic myth, EXPECT a dismissive reply.
I carry myself within the bounds of rules laid out earlier for this forum by Ausar. Throughout my 5 year stay here, I never pretended to be some sort of Dalai Lama of decorum, contrary to some others. You don't have to like it, but at least with me you get consistency.
His earlier long winded opinion filled post was copy-paste spam from some other thread where he was repeatedly spamming it out of outrage with the scientific data others were posting. That's why he was meted out the response he got.
And if you catch me wilfully antagonizing established facts and polluting the threads of people who subscribe to those facts, merely because I resent such facts, feel free to uphold me to the same standards. In such a case I'd deserve to be blown off.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Swenet, I totally concur with everything you say. Despite some here, you do display a reserve attitude in regards to FACTS and the presentation thereof. Of course at least one or more of those emotion-laden fools will now accuse me of being your lapdog/b|tch-boy whatever just for writing this but I really don't care anymore about others 'think' or rather feel but about FACTS same as you.
Of course Ahmanutcase the Ultimate is just one of the idiots I am addressing. Note how in another thread, his emotional instability goes into the very depths of insanity where he literally misreads everything I write as the opposite!
As such it no longer matter that he distorts YOUR posts as somehow supporting debunked Euronut theories of 'Hamitic race' or suggesting that Nile Valley Africans have no relation to other Africans at all when that is NOT what you stated.
Forget being a people-pleaser because most people are just too stupid or too crazy to please.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I'm glad you're noticing the systematic misplaced indignation with scientific data that goes on here. Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone when I see what these propagandists get away with here. One of the reasons why Egyptsearch has become a laughing stock in the Anthro-blogosphere.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
I know I've said it before, but I think I can understand why people like Amun-Ra and other posters here on ES get rather squeamish about data implying that ancient Egypto-Nubians didn't perfectly resemble the platonic "sub-Saharan African" ideal in phenotype.
Let's face the facts, the vast majority of people who give more than one **** about the race of the ancient Egyptians do have a vested interest in racial politics. One of the reasons I myself got embroiled in this mess was that I saw white supremacists on the Internet claiming that Black Africans were inherently incapable of civilization and that the Egyptians could only have been "Mediterranean Caucasoid" people. This was never a debate of purely academic interest for any of the parties involved.
As for Amun-Ra et al, like most "Afrocentric" activists they probably want to challenge the pervasive perception that the so-called "True Negro" features like full lips, broad noses, very dark skin, and kinky hair are necessarily ugly or subhuman. That's a commendable agenda by itself, but insofar as the general public perceives ancient Egypt to represent the pinnacle of African civilization (if they recognize it as African at all), these activists feel a need to project this "True Negro" ideal on the Egyptians despite any evidence to the contrary. After all, if you believe Egypt is the quintessential African kingdom, wouldn't you want to make the Egyptians resemble so-called quintessential Africans?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I know I've said it before, but I think I can understand why people like Amun-Ra and other posters here on ES get rather squeamish about data implying that ancient Egypto-Nubians didn't perfectly resemble the platonic "sub-Saharan African" ideal in phenotype.
That's a stupid strawman argument again. If you want to talk about my point of view at least have the decency of directly quoting me.
I rarely mentions phenotype, as modern African people AND Ancient Egyptian and Kushites sport various phenotype we can see all over Africa. I'm more interested into historic, cultural, archeological, linguistic and genetic linkage.
Here is where I talk about phenotype (physiology) in my previous post above:
3) Biological Anthropology: Same here, Ancient Egyptians cluster with modern African populations not modern Eurasian populations. The change in physiology between them and their North-East African ancestors/predecessor is related to the change in lifestyles and diet and genetic drift. For example, the transition from hunter-gatherers, to pastoralism to agriculture lifestyles. Ancient Egyptians have been demonstrated to be continuous with their North-East African ancestors/predecessors in modern studies.
Basically, Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans. Their physiology and phenotype like any people around the world (including African populations) changed with time due to genetic drift, new lifestyles, etc. But it was still the same indigenous black African people who shared a common origin with other African populations (after the OOA migrations of course).
Strong evidence for population continuity along the Nile from the late Palaeolithic through the Egyptian Empire.
and those are not my words but a direct quote from the study (Body Size, Skeletal Biomechanics, Mobility and Habitual Activity from the Late Palaeolithic to the Mid-Dynastic Nile Valley).
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: As for Amun-Ra et al, like most "Afrocentric" activists they probably want to challenge the pervasive perception that the so-called "True Negro" features like full lips, broad noses, very dark skin, and kinky hair are necessarily ugly or subhuman. That's a commendable agenda by itself, but insofar as the general public perceives ancient Egypt to represent the pinnacle of African civilization (if they recognize it as African at all), these activists feel a need to project this "True Negro" ideal on the Egyptians despite any evidence to the contrary. After all, if you believe Egypt is the quintessential African kingdom, wouldn't you want to make the Egyptians resemble so-called quintessential Africans?
This is even more stupid and on the verge of racism. You only use my name in vain to reflect your racist opinion and prejudice against African people. I certainly never expressed anything even close to it. You're a stupid asshole.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
How CL Fox' Nubian aDNA sample compares to the above frequencies of Hpal 3592:
only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African [Hpal 3592] marker. --CL Fox
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
@truthcentric
quote: As for Amun-Ra et al, like most "Afrocentric" activists they probably want to challenge the pervasive perception that the so-called "True Negro" features like full lips, broad noses, very dark skin, and kinky hair are necessarily ugly or subhuman .
I think you've concluded this elsewhere, and I found it as disturbing then as I do now, particularly when taken with your sexualised depictions of black women. It feels like you think you're doing black people a favour.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: @truthcentric
quote: As for Amun-Ra et al, like most "Afrocentric" activists they probably want to challenge the pervasive perception that the so-called "True Negro" features like full lips, broad noses, very dark skin, and kinky hair are necessarily ugly or subhuman .
I think you've concluded this elsewhere, and I found it as disturbing then as I do now, particularly when taken with your sexualised depictions of black women. It feels like you think you're doing black people a favour.
It should be obvious that I myself am not saying that "True Negro" features are subhuman. Rather, that claim is a widespread meme promoted by an infectious legacy of global white supremacy, and black people with those features are in the right to challenge it. That still doesn't mean these features were universal across Africa, which you acknowledge yourself but is still lost on posters like Amun-Ra and Akachi.
As for the "doing black people a favor" charge, what is challenging racism and Eurocentrism if not beneficial to the people harmed by it? Why is that a problem? I understand that white people involved in anti-racism can be perceived as having a paternalistic savior mentality, but that's only if they assume black people can't contribute to their own struggle which I never believed. If anything, it was the work of BLACK researchers like Keita who played a pivotal role in changing my views on the Egyptian issue.
And newsflash: heterosexual men like drawing pictures of sexy ladies. Always have, always will. There are millions of male artists out there who draw mostly white ladies without getting any flack for it (besides maybe a generalized and racially neutral "objectification of women" complaint). Why is my stuff any worse?
(Actually I think I do know why you're attacking my character all of a sudden, but suffice to say it wasn't for anything which happened here on ES.)
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: [qb] As for Amun-Ra et al, like most "Afrocentric" activists they probably want to challenge the pervasive perception that the so-called "True Negro" features like full lips, broad noses, very dark skin, and kinky hair are necessarily ugly or subhuman. That's a commendable agenda by itself, but insofar as the general public perceives ancient Egypt to represent the pinnacle of African civilization (if they recognize it as African at all), these activists feel a need to project this "True Negro" ideal on the Egyptians despite any evidence to the contrary. After all, if you believe Egypt is the quintessential African kingdom, wouldn't you want to make the Egyptians resemble so-called quintessential Africans?
Dubious. Who says so-called most "Afrocentric" activists in relation to Egypt, have much interest in whether "true negro" features are considered ugly or "subhuman"? Concern with "negro lookism" or such has more to do with general critiques of racism, not so much ancient Egypt.
And who says would be "activists" of any significant number are "projecting" so-called "true negro" features on Egypt because they are concerned about how negro features look to Europeans? Can you cite any of these generally recognized "Afrocentric activists" who, according to you, are "projecting" on Egypt due to the lookism issue? If this is the case with "most" Afrocentric activists, you should have no problem finding them.
You also seem to forget that there is no need to make any "projections." "True negro" features are part and parcel of the NATIVE Ancient Egyptian makeup, over millennia. They were always part of the mix, alongside others, and were never "foreign," and do not need to be "projected." Who are these "most" activists, and why do "negro" features need to be "projected"?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Dubious. Who says so-called most "Afrocentric" activists in relation to Egypt, have much interest in whether "true negro" features are considered ugly or "subhuman"? Concern with "negro lookism" or such has more to do with general critiques of racism, not so much ancient Egypt.
And who says would be "activists" of any significant number are "projecting" so-called "true negro" features on Egypt because they are concerned about how negro features look to Europeans? Can you cite any of these generally recognized "Afrocentric activists" who, according to you, are "projecting" on Egypt due to the lookism issue? If this is the case with "most" Afrocentric activists, you should have no problem finding them.
You also seem to forget that there is no need to make any "projections." "True negro" features are part and parcel of the NATIVE Ancient Egyptian makeup, over millennia. They were always part of the mix, alongside others, and were never "foreign," and do not need to be "projected." Who are these "most" activists, and why do "negro" features need to be "projected"?
I admit I was speaking from anecdotal experience, but the very fact that various posters in this forum (yourself included) have been getting riled up when Swenet and beyoku remind you of longstanding population substructure in Africa suggests to me that, yes, most of you do have a vested interest in conflating ancient Egypto-Nubians with the sub-Saharan norm in one way or another. That's been the ultimate source of all the recent major conflicts here.
And it's not just obvious dunderheads like Amun-Ra or Akachi either. Even Charlie Bass and claus/tropicals redacted, both of whom I used to have a lot of respect for, seems to have a hard time wrapping their minds around it.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Not to get involved here, but the "True Negro" type as used in the literature is not to be confused with other negroid types in pre-Bantu South and Central Africa and palaeolithic North Africa. "True Negro" as conceptualized by the academics who coined it and promoted it, was not "always in the Nile Valley".
Posted by Child Of The KING (Member # 9422) on :
So now people attacking the socalled True negro Type? The only thing ugly and subhuman, is the views people have for these features.
To think that people want to project their own prejudiced jealous views on an Part of the African population and people should think "Hey, if a white person says it, it must be right". This lie is toatally off base and should be shredded in the dumpster.
FACT:Majority of women want Thick lips.
FACT: Majority of women Tan their skin to look more as they call it exotic.
The Truth! Is that the reason that people attack the socalled true negro features, is because they Deep down, dream of having them. I don't have to defend whats clear to see...That African women are thee most beautiful of Gods created Woman being.
This targeting is done to make The Children brainwashed into believing that there not up to the standard of Beauty so they might as well whore themselves to every Tom dick and harry. I pray for the children that they are shown just how valuable they are and know that God made them an blessing on this Earth and that From Generation, Blacks have taught all races Love, Shalom etc and built many civilizations around the world and WORKED WITH...the people they came across on their journey. From the Indians teaching Buddhism to Chinese etc, to the Egyptians teaching the Greeks...It's no wonder that Blacks are the Parents, and the rest are the Children. You teach these black youth this and just how important they are in Jesus family..The sky will be the limit.
The system is trying to make Black youth think of themselves as less then and Its working because many In my view do. Look at hip Hop music, sex drugs, violence and claiming respect from doing wrong instead of from doing right. These poisonous seeds are sown in the minds of the children and they inturn say to themselves."Why fight it" and they target their own in negative ways.
The thing though is that the system knows, an liberated Black, is an being of immense strength who teaches other nations how to be free and unites the people around the cause of freedom, tolerance and Love for all.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not to get involved here, but the "True Negro" type as used in the literature is not to be confused with other negroid types in pre-Bantu South and Central Africa and palaeolithic North Africa. "True Negro" as conceptualized by the academics who coined it and promoted it, was not "always in the Nile Valley".
Excuse me, but I was pretty much using "True Negro" in the sense most people in our circle use it, namely as a catch-all for African people with the broad noses, full lips, and kinky hair that are conventionally called "Negroid" characteristics. Even if the original term was even narrower in application by bygone anthropologists, surely the sense I was using it is the sense you recognize in everyday discourse.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I admit I was speaking from anecdotal experience, but the very fact that various posters in this forum (yourself included) have been getting riled up when Swenet and beyoku remind you of longstanding population substructure in Africa suggests to me that, yes, most of you do have a vested interest in conflating ancient Egypto-Nubians with the sub-Saharan norm in one way or another. That's been the ultimate source of all the recent major conflicts here.
And it's not just obvious dunderheads like Amun-Ra or Akachi either. Even Charlie Bass and claus/tropicals redacted, both of whom I used to have a lot of respect for, seems to have a hard time wrapping their minds around it.
Still somewhat dubious. I never was "riled up" or "denied" that there was population substructure in the Nile Valley, or Africa itself. Of course there would be population sub-structure in various parts of Africa, and in fact I have sometimes referenced Relethford, along with others, who demonstrate that "sub-Saharan" Africa has the highest phenotypic diversity. Whatever Amun-Ra is "denying" that's his baby. And since Relethford in fact shows such diversity, along with Keita, Hiernaux et al, broad "true negro" features are no stranger to the Nile Valley at all. They never were foreign to Egypt, or to Nubia. In fact you use the term Egypto-Nubian.
And there is no need to "conflate" ancient Egypto-Nubian with so-called "sub-Saharan" norms, because as stated before, so called "true negro" or broad features have always been present in Egypt. Your insinuation is that they are foreign, which is false. You talk about African diversity, but seem to be denying the fact of that diversity when it comes to the Nile Valley. It is ironic that you use the term 'Egypto-Nubian" for as shown by Godde, Keita, Bainchi et al, Egyptians and Nubians are closely related, biologically, and culturally. In fact at times, the two are virtually indistinguishable in the archaelogical record. Broad or "true negro" features are not foreign to Nubia either. Your reasoning seems to confirm the charges of Amun-Ra that you want to downplay or deny the diversity of African peoples. If that is the recent conflict you speak of, well you seem to confirm what Amun-Ra charges.
You use of the term "sub-Saharan norms" also seems to confirm Amun-Ra's charges. What exactly is the "norm" for sub-Saharan Africa, the most phenotypically and most genetically diverse region on earth? Is it the sometimes light skinned "Red Igbo" of West Africa? or the light skinned San of South Africa? Both are "sub-Saharan." Is the norm narrow nosed Africans found in desert regions or high altitude locations? These too are all "sub-Saharan." And what is the "norm" for Africans who migrate across the "Sub-Saharan" barrier at will? Do the Nubians you include in your Egypto- Nubian category meet "sub-Saharan" norms or are they excluded? What are these "norms"?
You mention Charlie Bass and tropicals as "not wrapping their heads around it," but it appears it is you that has not yet wrapped your head around the fact of the indigenous diversity of yes, "sub-Saharan" Africans.
And Bass to my knowledge never denied any population diversity or substructure in Africa. In fact when he used to hang out on the white racist sites, I recall he referenced studies on population substructure and isolation by distance to debunk assorted racists who used the true negro thing to advance various "Caucasoid civilizer", "race mix" or racial "multi-regionalism" claims as explanations of African accomplishment or diversity. Maybe you can clarify your understanding of African diversity that Amun-Ra has challenged, and set the record straight on where you stand.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: @truthcentric
quote: As for Amun-Ra et al, like most "Afrocentric" activists they probably want to challenge the pervasive perception that the so-called "True Negro" features like full lips, broad noses, very dark skin, and kinky hair are necessarily ugly or subhuman .
I think you've concluded this elsewhere, and I found it as disturbing then as I do now, particularly when taken with your sexualised depictions of black women. It feels like you think you're doing black people a favour.
It should be obvious that I myself am not saying that "True Negro" features are subhuman.
Yet you are the only one bringing all this up on this forum... There's something very wrong with you.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I admit I was speaking from anecdotal experience, but the very fact that various posters in this forum (yourself included) have been getting riled up when Swenet and beyoku remind you of longstanding population substructure in Africa suggests to me that, yes, most of you do have a vested interest in conflating ancient Egypto-Nubians with the sub-Saharan norm in one way or another. That's been the ultimate source of all the recent major conflicts here.
And it's not just obvious dunderheads like Amun-Ra or Akachi either. Even Charlie Bass and claus/tropicals redacted, both of whom I used to have a lot of respect for, seems to have a hard time wrapping their minds around it.
Still somewhat dubious. I never was "riled up" or "denied" that there was population substructure in the Nile Valley, or Africa itself. Of course there would be population sub-structure in various parts of Africa, and in fact I have sometimes referenced Relethford, along with others, who demonstrate that "sub-Saharan" Africa has the highest phenotypic diversity. Whatever Amun-Ra is "denying" that's his baby. And since Relethford in fact shows such diversity, along with Keita, Hiernaux et al, broad "true negro" features are no stranger to the Nile Valley at all. They never were foreign to Egypt, or to Nubia. Your insinuation is that they are foreign, which is false. You talk about African diversity, but seem to be denying the fact of that diversity when it comes to the Nile Valley.
Good post as a whole Zarahan. For the record, Truthcentric is lying about my position.
People must understand what is going in here in this thread. Since I kicked Truthcentric's ass with science and argumentation in the other threads, he comes back here lying about my positions using straw-men while at the same time apparently becoming a spokesman for racist people.
He is referring to those threads linked below but I still waiting for him to post counter argumentation (with science not fluff and hogwash)...
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008966;p=7#000302 A long post to basically say the substucture relevant to the OOA migrations in Africa was between the CT haplogroup carriers and non-CT haplogroup carriers for Y-DNA. And between L3 and non-L3 carrier for mtDNA. Most Africans including Somali and Yoruba are descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups (as well as other haplogroups). Some Africans are not descendant of CT and L3 like Aka-Mbuti and Khoisan populations. So it's not only modern East Africans which descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups at a high proportion. It's both modern East and West Africans.
In more simple terms, East and West Africans like Cushitic (Somali), Chadic and Niger-Congo (Yoruba) language speakers all share the haplogroup E-P2, as well as various common mtDNA L haplogroups (L2a, L3bf, L3cd, L3eijx, L0a, etc..) . E-P2 (also called PN2) appeared after the OOA migrations and then spread all over Africa through migrations.
Basically Cushitic, Chadic and Niger-Congo speakers were still one people (the people in which their common E-P2 grandfather was born) at a time period after the OOA migration. Afterward of course, they eventually migrated away in different directions and became their own people while spreading E-P2 all over Africa. Over 80% of Yoruba, African-Americans and Somali populations, for examples, are E-P2 carrier.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not to get involved here, but the "True Negro" type as used in the literature is not to be confused with other negroid types in pre-Bantu South and Central Africa and palaeolithic North Africa. "True Negro" as conceptualized by the academics who coined it and promoted it, was not "always in the Nile Valley".
Excuse me, but I was pretty much using "True Negro" in the sense most people in our circle use it, namely as a catch-all for African people with the broad noses, full lips, and kinky hair that are conventionally called "Negroid" characteristics. Even if the original term was even narrower in application by bygone anthropologists, surely the sense I was using it is the sense you recognize in everyday discourse.
Yes, you specifically referenced "features" in aspects of your post, but then you also referenced Akachi and what they and his fellow propagandists project onto AE. Their whole point is that the AE belonged to the "True Negro" type and they make direct links to regions beyond the Nile Valley where "True Negro" is presumed to be ubiquitous, to explain the variations in the Nile Valley.
If you're not referencing how Akachi et al and Amun Ra are projecting this fairy tale onto the Nile Valley, I don't know what this is about. After all, "negroid" is a relative term almost any African population can be said to fall under; it doesn't exclude most elongated Africans either. I don't recall there being any beef in this respect (although I see some in this thread are trying real hard to shift the goal post to this new "safe" position).
The use of the "True" qualifier when describing individual traits or a set of "negroid" features is new to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
@truthcentric
quote: It should be obvious that I myself am not saying that "True Negro" features are subhuman. Rather, that claim is a widespread meme promoted by an infectious legacy of global white supremacy, and black people with those features are in the right to challenge it.
I’m pointing out your repeated association of stereotypically black features with ugliness, regardless of whether it’s one that you would personally assert. You say it’s a not view you endorse, so I’m curious as to why you trot it out as an explanatory factor in your internet musings. (Correct me if I misremember this, but did you use the term “bestial” on FB the other time?) It feels like you're raking over something. Not only is it pat, but in this instance speculative and baseless. I 'm trying to be cautious here, but my instinct tells me that you're projecting.
quote:As for the "doing black people a favor" charge, what is challenging racism and Eurocentrism if not beneficial to the people harmed by it? Why is that a problem?
Do you really see fetishization of black women as sexualised exotica in your cartoon drawings as beneficial to black people?
quote:And newsflash: heterosexual men like drawing pictures of sexy ladies. Always have, always will. There are millions of male artists out there who draw mostly white ladies without getting any flack for it (besides maybe a generalized and racially neutral "objectification of women" complaint). Why is my stuff any worse?
Self-exculpatory and also disingenuous. You’ve alluded to the answer here yourself with your reference to “racially neutral”. Objectification of women is bad enough, but in your case it’s aggravated by the racial context.
And newsflash: [some] heterosexual men like drawing pictures of sexy ladies. Always have, always will.
There, fixed it for you.
quote: (Actually I think I do know why you're attacking my character all of a sudden, but suffice to say it wasn't for anything which happened here on ES.)
Explain.
quote: most of you do have a vested interest in conflating ancient Egypto-Nubians with the sub-Saharan norm in one way or another.
When I look at the mummy of Maiherpri and the facial reconstructions of ancient Egyptians that are in keeping with what the evidence says of their origins, there's no need whatsoever to conflate ancient Egypto-Nubians with a "sub-Saharan norm".
quote: And it's not just obvious dunderheads like Amun-Ra or Akachi either. Even Charlie Bass and claus/tropicals redacted , both of whom I used to have a lot of respect for, seems to have a hard time wrapping their minds around it.
You’ll need to clarify your reference to me here since in your last post to me in this thread you wrote:
quote:“That still doesn't mean these features were universal across Africa, which you acknowledge yourself ”
Quite puzzling. So one minute I get it, the next I don't? Although the use of “acknowledge yourself” suggests when I did get it, I'd come round to it begrudgingly. However, I’ve NEVER said that the stereotypical, supposed broad West African phenotype, or “sub-Saharan norm” were modal in ancient Egypt. Never. You might remember that I quoted Keita’s “Somali-like” reference during that particularly embittered, protracted thread a few weeks back? Moreover, you’ll also know that I didn’t like the image you posted on the FB site, one of the reasons being that it didn’t fit my understanding of what they generally looked like. (But now you say I don't get it?)
My view has been that, in British and American sociological terms, most ancient Egyptians would be regarded as black/black Africans. I’ve said this all along. Even Cass, at least when posting under one of his recognisable names, eventually went with this. Twice.
If anyone disagrees with my interpretation, then say so.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Look truthcentric.
As a person, I actually like you. None of us are infallible, but I really hope you think about this. I'm not puritanical, but there are times when your comments and artwork make me feel uneasy.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^I think you know very well in what sense TC says you have trouble accepting substructure and the difference between when he says you're in denial vs when you're acknowledging certain facts. Citing Cass here makes little difference; when you brought it up he (too) made it clear to you that "sociological" views are based on premises that are not rooted in objective reality. Which is interesting given that he arrived at that conclusion independently (I certainly didn't talk to him about this issue) using simple reasoning, as have others, including lioness.
Sure, it's an academic generalization about a hypothetical observation, but neither have biological or genetic significance.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
^I think you know very well that I've always approached this from a sociological angle, supported by references to geographic origin. So citing Cass's take on the sociological context is entirely relevant.
I recently put up the Stuart Tyson Smith quote, which articulates the view that races are culturally defined. I've always known this.
I leave it to you and others to argue about whether or not it has any biological or genetic significance.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Sure, it's a sociological angle; one that would get your underlying premise in trouble the 2nd you're asked how your "sociological" observation gels with the recent discovery that very recent European hunter gatherers and other decidedly non-African individuals inconvenient to your non-pigmentation based use of "black", would easily pass your "street experience" test as well. AE and Africans aren't unique in this regard, which runs counter to your premise.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
^??? Not quite sure where you're taking this, but it's already tiresome.
Also, wanted to note your edit:
You wrote something like "Sure, it's an observation that can be made but doesn't have any biological or genetic significance"
and then changed it to something which appears watered down:
"Sure, it's an academic generalization about a hypothetical observation, but neither have biological or genetic significance."
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
More watered down? It's even more detrimental to your case. It stresses that your "street experience" fallacy is a generalizion, re: many people would disagree with grouping certain elongated Africans under "black". Meaning, your anecdote is also a fallacy on grounds not acknowledged before the edit was made.
Any more perceived damning citations from me that you'd like to "expose" in a bid to obfuscate the shortcomings of your claims, noted even by lioness and Cass? Or maybe you want to bring in a certain person on ES whose use of "black" you took out of context and ask him right here and now if he agrees with you that "black" can be continentally circumscribed in any meaningful way?
However you want to do it Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
^
quote: More watered down? It's even more detrimental to your case.
That was my point, you're rowing back.
Oh, the drama and the pettiness. Cass agreed. Which part of that do you not understand?
Look man, you're making a fool of yourself. You've also used the term black when referencing the ancient Egyptians. Tiresome.
quote: Or maybe you want to bring in a certain person on ES whose use of "black" you took out of context and ask him right here and now if he agrees with you that "black" can be continentally circumscribed in any meaningful way?
You mean the Djehuti quote? Where he articulates my point?
"That's the thing about Keita is that he uses scientific terminology to describe as accurately as he can about who the Egyptians were and what they looked like which is nothing more than beating around the bush when it comes to laymen terms. He just needs to come right out and say that 'race' is a purely sociological and cultural concept, but judging by Western and many other social and cultural standards the Egyptians would be called 'black'. That's all he's gotta say."
Expect more tiresome, adolescent attempts at saving face. Huge but amazingly fragile ego.
I'm getting bored.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
I dont keep track of names. "tropicals redacted" What was your previous name here and the ES group if you dont mind me asking?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
No one disagrees that pigmented individuals would be recognized as pigmented individuals by people who make classifications based on pigmentation. This has nothing to do with your premise that such a pigmentation based classification is Africa- specific (as implied by your self-admitted western use of "black", as opposed to one that is based on pigmentation) or meaningful in terms of ancestry, the part where, as TC notes, you have a severe case of denial, both as it pertains to who supposedly agrees with you and whether your tactical use of that Tyson Smith(?) citation in certain situations is justified.
No need to get emotional, especially right after you accuse someone of doing something sneaky and it backfires; just post the facts.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
quote:No one disagrees that...
Blah, blah, blah.
Listen, spin and writhe all you like.
People are going to be reading this. It does your credibility and perceptions of your honesty no good.
It's embarrassing because actually your analysis is generally very good. You assimilate things quickly and you're a critical and independent thinker. It's impressive. I've told you this. That's why I hung out with you in private conversation on FB for best part of a year, two, three times a day, late evening into the early hours.
But really. There are times when you just need to let go of this need to always be right. I'm being serious now. It's not an attractive personality trait, especially when it involves you pulling a 180 on a previously held position.
What's the use?!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Thought so, no facts. Just emotional pleas and silly references to public perception.
Mere pigmentation in the Palaeolithic Nile Valley, North Africa or anywhere in Africa for that matter, per se has nothing to do with the people and connotations you attempt to confound them with, with your western derived use of 'black' and it's connotations. You knew very well what TC was saying, and the people you repeatedly reference as supportive of your interpretation aren't at all supportive of it. Those are my only points. If bringing this to light gets your panties up in a bunch, there is treatment for that.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
^Disappointing.
You know what, I'm actually genuinely saddened.
To repeat, you've used the term "black" yourself to refer to the ancient Egyptians.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
To be fair Swenet, I really do the gist of what Truthcentric and Ahmanut are saying. Basically it is the fact that Euronuts through the decades up to the present day have been limiting and narrowing the definitions of 'negro', 'black African', or what have you while expanding their definition of 'white' or 'Caucasian' so as to claim not only Egypt but all cultures of North AND East Africa as well!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^I'm glad you're noticing the systematic misplaced indignation with scientific data that goes on here. Sometimes I feel like I'm in the twilight zone when I see what these propagandists get away with here. One of the reasons why Egyptsearch has become a laughing stock in the Anthro-blogosphere.
I fail to see how Egyptsearch is the laughing stock of the anthro-blogosphere when you have blogs like Dienekes' 'Racial Reality' or Mathilda's Anthroplogy Blogspot. Hell even more 'mainstream' sites like Anthroscape and Biodiversity are overrun with erroneous info by racial propagandist who disseminate and perpetuate the lie of Caucasoid domains in Africa! In the latter sites I read things about Pleistocene Caucasoids of Sudan and Kenya to even Eurasian [read Caucasoid] origin of Khoisan which is espoused here by the fake black woman lyinass!
So while Egyptsearch may not be the perfect place to get accurate and scientific data on anthropology, I hardly see it as the horrible back-water 'ghetto' that many especially the Euronuts make it out to be.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^You weren't around when Akachi projected the "True Negro" stereotype onto the Nile Valley, so it may be hard to contextualize my post. As for the state of ES, I suggest you follow what's going on in the Anthro-blogosphere for a couple of weeks, then come back here and see the contrast and judge for yourself. I never forget how I spoke to an academic once and after I linked to an ES thread he made a leftfield remark about how he would never register there and I never even asked him to. That was the last time I ever referenced ES in a private conversation with someone I discuss African history with.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: ^Disappointing.
You know what, I'm actually genuinely saddened.
To repeat, you've used the term "black" yourself to refer to the ancient Egyptians.
^Well, that's your problem right there; you're too emotionally vested in your own beliefs. If you really respected my analysis so much, maybe you should have listened when I told you that the term "black" is problematic weeks before you all of a sudden had a problem with me saying it and went on a desperate search to find posts of mine where I use the term, and tell me I'm doing a 180.
Maybe you should do the same thing with DJ's posts, i.e. actually reading what he subscribes to and the disparate African and OOA people whom he includes under "black", and that this has nothing to do with how you used the term when you used it in contradiction to Kemp when he argued for substructure in Africa. Maybe you should do that, instead of being such a smart ass and tell me you know more about my posts than me.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
What is going on with the FB group? I queezy about hanging out with a guy until early morning..... especially via the computer. Is there a video cam involved. Maybe it is a generation thing. In the 90's that was unheard of. I don't get you young people.
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: []
quote:
.
I've told you this. That's why I hung out with you in private for best part of a year, two, three times a day, late evening into the early hours.
let go of this need to always be right. I'm being serious now. It's not an attractive personality trait, [/]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: As for the undiluted facts that some can't stand:
only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African [Hpal 3592] marker. --Fox et al
Hpal 3592 levels in Africa:
Like I said:
This Meroitic sample has a Hpal 3592 signature consistent with modern day Red Sea Coast indigènes who have relatively high proportions (often >50%) of M1, L3 and L4 when compared to their overall mtDNA L pool, a condition in Africa shared consistently by Nile Valley Egyptians, Siwa Egyptians, Nubian speakers, Beja and Lowland East Cushitic speakers. --Swenet
Yes, and I believe the skeletal evidence comes to the same conclusion. I recall one study (I forgot the author) that uses nonmetric data from both cranial and post-crania remains to show close genetic relations between the populations of Egypt and the northern Sudan especially in the Red Sea coast both from ancient times up to the present.
Also, I'm sure you know about the theory that there has been a loss of human diversity seen in the late Pleistocene by Holocene times. This was brought up several times in this forum and discussed in more detail concerning early populations of the African Horn, but what do you make of the early populations of the Nile Valley?
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
^ I'd get home late from class and feedback on what was going on. No there was no cam!
@xyyman
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
@swenet
quote: If you really respected my analysis so much, maybe you should have listened when I told you that the term "black" is problematic weeks before you all of a sudden had a problem with me saying it and went on a desperate search to find posts of mine where I use the term, and tell me I'm doing a 180.
Even then, just prior to my leaving the group, you repeated that you had used the term, and were not saying it should never be used...so when I then quoted the examples where you used "black" back at you, you humphed about already having said that there was indeed a place for its use...and it wasn't a desperate hunt for where you'd used black, it was easy - the examples were readily accessible.
Bottom line is, you've used the term and your attempts to save face aren't convincing.
I don't have anymore time for this. It's really boring and petty.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Well, should your desperation to contradict my posts ever come back to you, you're more than welcome to point out that I used it in the substructure dismissing way you're using it, where "black" is necessarily specific to the western idea of who is black, and exclusive of, say, European hunter gatherers who were contemporary with predynastic Egyptians and who have the ancestral alleles for skin pigmentation.
@Djehuti, are you aware of the archaeological industries in the Nile Valley and Libya in the UP and MP? I think the people in the Nile Valley at that time had common ancestry with OOA populations. I think the makers of UP tools in the Levant were in the same biological clade as the people who inhabited Egypt and Libya at that time. I think the UP tool makers of the Levant either represent a migration from Egypt or that their MP predecessors migrated to the Levant and blade-based industries were then made in the Levant.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Did you hear me laughing from across the North Sea?
quote: ^Well, should your desperation to contradict my posts ever come back to you, you're more than welcome to point out that I used it in the substructure dismissing way you're using it, where "black" is necessarily specific to the western idea of who is black [I used it in the[/, and exclusive of,say, European hunter gatherers who were contemporary with predynastic Egyptians and who have the ancestral alleles for skin pigmentation.
Hope I'm not breaking board 'etiquette' when I quote Djehuti from another thread he posted on today:
quote: Not to take away from whatever information program has but as usual the title is inaccurate at best and racist at worst since it implies that only the Kushites were black whereas ethnic Egyptians were not. This has been discussed multiple times in regards to the book of the same name as well as Nat Geo article which they published on February (Black History Month) of 2008.
While the show will no doubt give good insight into the rise of the 25th dynasty it will still obfuscate and distort the fact that the Egyptians themselves are equally black and African .
^And the part where I or Djehuti say that "black" excludes, say, contemporary European hunter gatherers? Or are you simply trolling?
The ancestors of Europeans and much of all of West Eurasia are suspected of having had the ancestral ancestral pigmentation alleles up until very recently, yet the Stuart Smith citation is used by some dogmatists with the tacit suggestion that OOA populations wouldn't also pass the touted "street experience" test *ahum* fallacy *ahum* during most of their stay in Eurasia. Nope, I'm not going to sit here and say that's truthful.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Mere pigmentation in the Palaeolithic Nile Valley, North Africa or anywhere in Africa for that matter, per se has nothing to do with the people and connotations you attempt to confound them with, with your western derived use of 'black' and it's connotations.
This. And it took me a while to come to this realization. It is something that I have somewhat known for a while but when you get down the details of biological adaptation and genetics we have to come to this realization and accept it. this is particularly important NOW seeing what we know of Skin color variation and what can change with just a few SNP's...........and how Ancient Europeans..the hunter gathering ones had "Brown Skin".
quote: Our data suggest that in Brazil, at an individual level, color, as determined by physical evaluation, is a poor predictor of genomic African ancestry, estimated by molecular markers
The same can be said when dealing with some Africans. The fact that some modern Egyptians may have darker skin as you go south do not necessarily correspond with increasing levels of African ancestry as once thought. All one needs to do is look at Y-dna and even these Mtdna affinities in different Egyptian groups: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00057.x/
There is no clear North South Gradient...........just as there is no clear north/south "SW Asian" gradient, which in Structure Analysis has a higher showing in the Horn of Africa than it does in Egypt. Thinking Skin tone corresponds with biology as far as "African" Ancestry is concerned is a simplistic as thinking the same is true for dark skin populations from Arabia to Indian to the south pacific. Holding on to these ideas is futile.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^Indeed. Did you see that reconstructed Aterian girl (Boushra) or even reconstructions of the Qafzeh and Skhull individuals? You'd have to be very unlearned (to put it nicely) to think you can sell the idea that these tropically adapted people can be simplistically assigned to a particular modern day ancestry or defined in modern day terms on the account of merely having pigmentation.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
In fairness to Claus/Tropicals Redacted, I've decided that I don't have a problem with calling ancient Egyptians "Black African", at least in a non-academic context. The term by itself doesn't necessarily have phylogenetic connotations, for it simply references dark skin together with deeply rooted ancestry in some African location. No one here is denying ancient Egyptians, Nubians, and other East Saharans were indigenous to the region they occupied even if they had a fraternal relationship with OOA or certain physical distinctions from modal sub-Saharans. By virtue of being significantly pigmented and native to northeastern Africa, I would say ancient Egyptians would indeed qualify as "Black African" in the commonly accepted, pre-phylogenetic way.
Note that this doesn't mean we cannot apply "Black" as a chromatic descriptor to any OOA groups. If you want to call early foragers in Europe "Black Europeans", I say go ahead. In fact I'm not even sure Claus/Redacted even did mean to say only African populations can be called Black.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
quote: In fact I'm not even sure Claus/Redacted even did mean to say only African populations can be called Black.
Indeed, I've always tried to use the term 'Black African'.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
@beyoku That much is obvious to anybody. When you apply black out of context it doesn't mean anything. They are black skinned people in India, but in this context (Ancient Egypt) they are just not related to the peopling of Ancient Egypt.
That's why we use a multidisciplinary approach to study the population history and ethnic affiliations between Ancient Egyptians and other populations.
For example, on the genetic front the fact that Ramses III is said to be E1b1a (BMJ study), and the autosomal STR DNA of the 18th and 20th royal dynasty are more prevalent in modern Great Lakes, Southern and West Africans(DNA Tribes studies 1, DNA Tribes studies 2), this show the types of "black" we are talking about in the context of Africa and Ancient Egypt which is an African country. We're talking about the black Africans.
Same for establishing the archaeological/cultural continuity between the Green Sahara period and the Tasian, Badarian, Naqada, Ancient Egyptians culture and various modern African cultures.
"Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'black', while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans.” - Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt(2001)
AE were heavily pigmented and they were African. No one is denying that. What he's doing is using pigmentation and equating it with "black" in a context where "black" is divorced from pigmentation and is a particular ancestry, e.g. Barack Obama is often referred to as "black", but Indians and many other populations an objective observer would group on the basis of pigmentation, aren't.
BTW, to anyone pitching in henceforth, feel free to do so, but at least inform yourself of what is discussed. It's not my job to make sure you understand what the points of contentions are before you jump in and create confusion.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^What I said above reflect what Zarahan said to Truthcentric earlier: "You talk about African diversity, but seem to be denying the fact of that diversity when it comes to the Nile Valley.
Even modern East Africans show a great deal of physiological diversity (which is why I posted people in East Africa of various physical features (Somali, Afar, Oromo, Karrayyu) in the ' horner too ' threads as did Tukuler) despite being more admixed with Eurasian populations since the more recent Semitic (ethio-semitic) and Arab migrations into that region.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
quote: AE were heavily pigmented and they were African. No one is denying that. What he's doing is using pigmentation and equating it with "black" in a context where "black" is divorced from pigmentation and is a particular ancestry, e.g. Barack Obama is often referred to as "black", but Indians and many other populations an objective observer would group on the basis of pigmentation, aren't.
Are you really saying that I can't conceptualise, for example, Black Asians and Black Australians?
Look, you're being wilful. You're deliberately obfuscating and misrepresenting my position. But carry on, people can see it. Even though you admit that the AEs were African and "heavily pigmented" you still play at misdirection.
And all to save face.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Bottom line, the VERY populations whom you attempt to exclude from your "street experience" test because you presume they would have been white back then, would have passed it a couple of thousand years ago in the TIME of the AE, re: ancestral pigmentation alleles. Your "street experience" test is meaningless fluff as it doesn't discriminate visually between Africans and pigmented Asians on the one hand or modern day SSA and preOOA Africans on the other hand (the latter are more related to Europeans than those those you consider "black", despite both sharing heavy skin pigmentation). Kemp owned you for presenting him that fallacy, as you're being owned right now.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: @beyoku That much is obvious to anybody. When you apply black out of context it doesn't mean anything. They are black skinned people in India, but in this context (Ancient Egypt) they are just not related to the peopling of Ancient Egypt.
..............
The autosomal sub structuring of Africans predates E1b1a and even Pn2 and L3. All that stuff is moot. There is a genetic cline of populations stretching from South Africa to Europe. IN prehistoric times the skin tone of all these populations would have been dark.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: [QUOTE]
Look, you're being wilful. You're deliberately obfuscating and misrepresenting my position. But carry on, people can see it.
Did you just realized that or is it something you knew before today?
This is all Swenet and now apparently Truthcentric ever did to hide their incapacity to provide counter-argumentation based on science not fluff and misrepresentation of other's people arguments and point of view. But what else can someone who doesn't want to lose face do when he got his ass handed to him with facts and science? The alternative is admitted he was wrong and change his opinion accordingly, this is what normal people do when presented with new facts and knowledge.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: @beyoku That much is obvious to anybody. When you apply black out of context it doesn't mean anything. They are black skinned people in India, but in this context (Ancient Egypt) they are just not related to the peopling of Ancient Egypt.
..............
The autosomal sub structuring of Africans predates E1b1a and even Pn2 and L3. All that stuff is moot. There is a genetic cline of populations stretching from South Africa to Europe. IN prehistoric times the skin tone of all these populations would have been dark.
I'm talking about structuring relevant to the OOA migrations. Between CT and non-CT haplogroups carriers and between L3 and non-L3 carriers.
The common E-P2 grandfather and L3 grandmothers (as well as other MtdNA L haplogroups) show that modern East, West Africans and indeed the majority of African populations shared a common ancestry well after the OOA migrations and before the more recent back migrations of Eurasians into Africa (from Y-DNA F and MtDNA M/N descendants haplogroups). When population share common haplogroups like the common E-P2 and L3 grandmothers cited above, this is reflected on their whole genome including autosomally. They didn't only receive the P2 mutation from their common grandfather but the whole genome. That's why for example, Ramses III's Great Lakes, Southern and West Africans regional affiliation reflect the same regions where E1b1a is more prevalent.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
No, no, no.
quote: Bottom line, the VERY populations whom you attempt to exclude from your "street experience" test because you presume they would have been white back then, would have passed it a couple of thousand years ago in the TIME of the AE, re: ancestral pigmentation alleles. Your "street experience" test is meaningless fluff as it doesn't discriminate between Africans and pigmented Asians on the one hand or modern day SSA and preOOA Africans on the other hand (the latter are more related to Europeans than those those you consider "black", despite heavy skin pigmentation). Kemp owned you for presenting him that fallacy, as you're being owned right now.
The basic question, which you're playing around with, is whether the ancient Egytians would be considered black in Western sociological terms, or street experience.
You've already acknowledged that the ancient Egyptians were black so it's really a case of all over bar the shouting.
Street experience was Kemp's term by the way.
Now suddenly, when it suits you, you're cheering him on? Is this the same Kemp you foolishly suggested in a PM had "consulted an expert to re-make those dendrograms" in Anatomy of a Civilization? Or is a different Kemp, who you thought might have "just cooked it [the dendograms] all up while basing it loosely on Rosung's data."
Utterly ludicrous.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: The basic question, which you're playing around with, is whether the ancient Egytians would be considered black in Western sociological terms, or street experience.
Nope, the basic question is whether you're omitting the fact that this doesn't mean what you want it to mean, considering the fact that 1) OOA populations would have passed that test for the majority of their duration of their stay outside of Africa, 2) AE with more ancestry from African preOOA individuals would have passed that test as well, and it would mean the exact opposite of what you're promoting it to mean.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Oh dear. Entirely irrelevant.
quote: Nope, the basic question is whether you're omitting the fact that this doesn't mean what you want it to mean, considering the fact that 1) OOA populations would have passed that test for the majority of their duration of their stay outside of Africa, 2) AE with more ancestry from African preOOA individuals would have passed that test as well, and it would mean the exact opposite of what you're promoting it to mean.
Save your nonsense for the weak-minded.
Would ancient Egyptians be considered black/black Africans in a sociological context/street experience today? You've already said that they would.
When a man is in a hole he should stop digging. But this guys Swenet says, no I'm digging my way to Australia and I don't care what they say!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Well, you're more than welcome to post me saying that AE wouldn't be classified with other heavily pigmented individuals by an objective observer. I asked you to present such excerpts earlier. Where are they? Let's see some excerpts, shall we?
**grabs popcorn**
Also:
quote:Would ancient Egyptians be considered black/black Africans in a sociological context/street experience today? You've already said that they would.
Really? where? Let's see how you'll perform when the objective is to answer questions that take you up on your bs.
Recalling:
It stresses that your "street experience" fallacy is a generalizion, re: many people would disagree with grouping certain elongated Africans under "black". Meaning, your anecdote is also a fallacy on grounds not acknowledged before the edit was made. Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Truthcentric
AE were heavily pigmented and they were African. No one is denying that. What he's doing is using pigmentation and equating it with "black" in a context where "black" is divorced from pigmentation and is a particular ancestry, e.g. Barack Obama is often referred to as "black", but Indians and many other populations an objective observer would group on the basis of pigmentation, aren't.
Putting aside that Claus has already clarified that he would in fact describe dark-skinned OOA as black...
I don't know how it works in the UK or the Netherlands, but here in the US, the reason "Black" is equated specifically with African ancestry is because the majority of dark-skinned people who have lived in our country throughout its history were descended specifically from West Africans. If South Indian, Melanesian, or Australian Aboriginal people had such a numerous and deeply entrenched presence here, we might have grouped them with the Africans in the "Black" category. That some people reserve Black for West African-derived individuals has nothing to do with phylogenetics and everything to do with what we Americans have been most intimately familiar with.
And even if you do take the one-drop rule into account, its premise has always stated that you need recent ancestry from a dark-skinned population to qualify as Black. It never claimed that this ancestral population had to be West African-affiliated and that Eastern Saharans wouldn't count. If Barack Obama's father had been Nubian instead of a Kenyan Luo, he might fit into the one-drop construction of Blackness just as well.
It's not like the term "Black African" was coined with modern phylogenetic knowledge, or even a neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, in mind.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Furthermore, since Swenet's primary motivation for withholding the "Black African" label from AE appears to be a desire for monophyletic classification (at least that's what I am inferring), I must point out that non-monophyletic categories on par with "Black African" are so pervasive in common discourse that cutting them all out would be impractical.
For example, the Triceratops was more closely related to modern birds than iguanas from the standpoint of shared evolutionary ancestry. However, most people would sooner group the Triceratops and iguanas together as "reptiles" while excluding birds, in part because birds possess certain specializations (e.g. feathers and adaptations for flight) not present in either Triceratops or iguanas.
Similarly, palm trees are more closely related to daffodils than to pine trees since the former two are both angiosperms (flowering plants). That hasn't stopped everyone from calling both palms and pines "trees" without including daffodils.
The point I mean to establish is that while it makes sense to privilege monophyletic classification systems in an academic context, that same obligation does not exist outside that narrow context and if anything would cause more problems than it's worth. Everyone uses categories in day-to-day life that don't reflect shared evolutionary history.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
@swenet
quote: It stresses that your "street experience" fallacy is a generalizion, re: many people would disagree with grouping certain elongated Africans under "black". . Meaning, your anecdote is also afallacy on grounds not acknowledged before the edit was made.
From a FB conversation:
One of the members asked: “I don’t intentionally provoke debates on the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians any more, but I have had a couple of people on DeviantArt and tumblr asking why the Egyptian characters in my art and stories are black . Should I just ignore them, or is there a way to quickly address them without getting into another long and unproductive argument?”
Swenet replied: “Ask them what they perceive the red to brown skinned murals to depict if not an Ethiopian-like population (of course, there is more to their population affinities, but since you’re talking to lay people, its reasonable to dumb it down to Ethiopian-like ). I’m actually curious about their answer to this question. I’ve heard seasoned Euronuts attempt to answer it with the True Negro approach, and by contrasting the Egyptian figures with supposed ‘real Africans’, but presumably, your artistic audience doesn’t have access to such data. Ask them and tell us what they said.”
Oh, the BS!!!!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^More desperate digging but as for how exactly it relates to the fact that my past use of "black" is not limited to Africans or equatorial Africans (i.e. the dominant western idea) and INCLUDES all heavily pigmented people, including European hunter gatherers 6kya, no one knows.
Lying troll, are you going to answer the pending questions or is this trolling on your part a sign of you waving a white flag?
@Truthcentric
From what I recall, the issue specifically came up during the discussion of Hawass' insinuation that the AE were black in pigmentation terms but not necessarily in the western concept of what 'black' means (IIRC Kemp also said something to that effect, but his choice of words was "African"), and he took offense at that.
Any concession on his part now in regards to the existence of heavily pigmented Africans who are not at all affiliated to the people who are designated in the West as "black people", and the high likelihood of finding such indigenous African people in AE is exactly that: a grudging concession. If that's how he feels nowadays, he should admit that he was wrong and retract the lies that he's still spouting as we speak.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: the existence of heavily pigmented Africans who are not at all affiliated to the people who are designated by the West as "black people", and the high likelihood of finding such indigenous African people in AE
^^^Sounds like the hamitic race myth.
You can notice the need for Swenet to make those heavily pigmented Africans not affiliated to the modern black Africans like West Africans and even the need to make them closer to Eurasian and OOA migrants than to other black Africans. What a shame. The hamitic race myth is based of pseudo-science that has been debunked and rejected decades ago. How old are you Swenet? Still stuck in the 50s-60s?
Far from being not affiliated, genetic analysis on Ancient Egyptian mummies from the 18th and 20th dynasty demonstrate they are indeed affiliated with modern black Africans from Sub-Saharan regions like Great Lakes, Southern and West Africans. So do other lines(and here too) of archeological inquiries.
For example, on the genetic front the fact that Ramses III is determined to be E1b1a (BMJ study), and the autosomal STR DNA of the 18th and 20th royal dynasty are more prevalent in modern Great Lakes, Southern and West Africans regions (DNA Tribes studies 1, DNA Tribes studies 2) more than any other regions around the world, show they are indeed affiliated with modern black African populations all over Africa.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You can notice the need for Swenet to make those heavily pigmented Africans not affiliated to the modern black Africans like West Africans and even the need to make them closer to Eurasian and OOA migrants than to other black Africans.
Absolutely right. descendants of those Africans would have been there. You've got a problem with that? Teary eyes and emotional pleas aren't going to make the elephant in the room go away. No doubt in your head full of misfiring neurones, crying and protesting objective reality is an acceptable way of dealing with facts, but not in the real world.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^You're just shaming yourself with that hamitic race myth stupidity. Debunked btw by the second part of my post above you choose to not reply to.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Calling the existence of Africans with preOOA ancestry "stupid" or "hamitic myth" and referring to your own propaganda isn't going to make the nightmare go away.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Calling it stupid and referring to your own propaganda isn't going to make it away.
Calling my second part of my post propaganda won't make it go away either. The genetic results on Ancient Egyptian mummies speak for themselves.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%. I dont know if any of those other populations are fixed for Pn2. Their mtdla L lineages are higher than many other populations in the horn of Africa too......go figure.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Oh, laughable exposed clown. How on earth is this desperate. Everyone's seeing this. Look at how you contort and twist - first you say that "many" people wouldn't regard elongated Africans as black, and then when you're caught doing exactly that, you then start diversionary tactics.
quote: ^More desperate digging - but as for how exactly it relates to the fact that my past use of "black" is not limited to Africans or equatorial Africans (i.e. the dominant western idea) and INCLUDES all heavily pigmented people, including European hunter gatherers 6kya, no one knows.
Lying troll, are you going to answer the pending questions or is this trolling on your part a sign of you waving a white flag?
Utterly pathetic. White flags? What's this a war? How petty. How small-minded.
Right. I think I've made my point. I hope people bump this thread and quote from it the next time you get above yourself.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%.
That's a lie of course typical of undercover racists on this site like Swenet, Beyoku, Djehuti and now apparently Truthcentric (or maybe he's just a confused idiot that one). He wrote that to fool us.
Here below we can see Beja have 42.85% of Eurasian Y-DNA (35.71+2.38+4.76=42.85).
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: first you say that "many" people wouldn't regard elongated Africans as black, and then when you're caught doing exactly that, you then start diversionary tactics.
I'm still waiting:
1) Where has my past use of "black" referred to anything other than heavily pigmented people all over the world?
2) Where have I criticized any pigmentation-based use of "black" in reference to preOOA or OOA populations for it to make sense to juxtapose my statements with earlier times when I use the term "black" in reference to such populations?
3) How does my pigmentation-based use of the term "black" contradict the fact that many people on the face of the earth would disagree that Iman Abdulmajid or Anwar Sadat are "black" in the western sense?
Get to work, lying troll. You have work ahead of you. Unless, of course, your sudden resort to trolling and making incoherent claims is is to be interpreted as that you're getting desperate and false accusations is all you have left.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Calling my second part of my post propaganda won't make it go away either. The genetic results on Ancient Egyptian mummies speak for themselves.
What speaks for itself is that several somewhat more isolated modern Egyptians have >5% E-M2, which, going by this data, makes it at least a 1/20 chance that Egyptian aDNA will report E-V38--not at al contradictory to my views to those with working neurones. As for your DNA Tribes' analysis, even entertaining the idea that your interpretation of it is sound, it would not disprove that the aforementioned individuals would be in AE.
Like I said, referring back to your own propaganda and crying foul isn't going to make this nightmare of the existence of Africans with preOOA ancestry go away. Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
^Adolescent backchat.
Swenet commenting on a lecture on Egypto-Nubians he linked to on his FB page:
"Still the same bs"
Then he remarked:
'"Nubians were indigenous black Africans" in the lecture concerning Egypt, as if to say the Egyptians weren't."'
And then:
"Looks like we're in for a long ride of misinterpretations."
Indeed.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%.
That's a lie of course typical of undercover racists on this site like Swenet, Beyoku, Djehuti and now apparently Truthcentric (or maybe he's just a confused idiot that one). He wrote that to fool us.
Here below we can see Beja have 42.85% of Eurasian Y-DNA (35.71+2.38+4.76=42.85).
The samples you listed are from Hassan et al. The image that was posted is from Hirbo et al. (Page 83) Hirbo's sample was a combination of M35* M78* V32 and V22 in their entirety. Hirbo et al (Page 86). You are the expert. Once i said 100% you should have known which data I was talking about and if not asked me to source it. Forum clown.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Go figure???? Use the few brain cells you have remaining young man. Oh!....you are waiting for Henn or Pagani to tell you what it means.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%. I dont know if any of those other populations are fixed for Pn2. Their mtdla L lineages are higher than many other populations in the horn of Africa too......go figure.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: ^Adolescent backchat.
Swenet commenting on a lecture on Egypto-Nubians he linked to on his FB page:
"Still the same bs"
Then he remarked:
'"Nubians were indigenous black Africans" in the lecture concerning Egypt, as if to say the Egyptians weren't."'
And then:
"Looks like we're in for a long ride of misinterpretations."
Indeed.
Still waiting:
1) Where has my past use of "black" referred to anything other than heavily pigmented people all over the world?
2) Where have I criticized any pigmentation-based use of "black" in reference to preOOA or OOA populations for it to make sense to juxtapose my statements with earlier times when I use the term "black" in reference to such populations?
3) How does my pigmentation-based use of the term "black" contradict the fact that many people on the face of the earth would disagree that Iman Abdulmajid or Anwar Sadat are "black" in the western sense?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
What is this Comedy Central?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Go figure???? Use the few brain cells you have remaining young man. Oh!....you are waiting for Henn or Pagani to tell you what it means.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%. I dont know if any of those other populations are fixed for Pn2. Their mtdla L lineages are higher than many other populations in the horn of Africa too......go figure.
I already know what it means: Their Y-dna profile does not translate into Autosomal African ancestry to the tune of 100%. This is to show Amun ra the clown that of all the Black populations in the entire group.........the one with the least amount of non OOA cluster at K=2 has the most PN2 in relation to all the groups. Hence the presence of E1b1a in ONE mummy does not clearly correspond to an autosomal profile. The Y-Chromosome does not carry autosomal information.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: How does my pigmentation-based use of the term "black" contradict the fact that many people on the face of the earth would disagree that Iman Abdulmajid or Anwar Sadat are "black" in the western sense?
Don't know about Sadat since he's from an ethnic group that has assimilated into a larger Arab identity, but I doubt most Western laypeople would withhold the "Black" descriptor from Iman Abdulmajid or other Somalis. The "many people on the face of the earth" you reference are almost all idealogical Eurocentrists with a vested interest in exaggerating Horn Africans' post-OOA Eurasian component.
Bottom line, I believe claus/redacted is right when he says the Western sense of Black African basically means dark-skinned people from Africa in general. Just because the descendents of West and Central African people are what most Westerners are intimately familiar with doesn't mean they wouldn't also sort other dark-skinned Africans like Somalis, Beja, or AE into that category. That's why the term itself references skin color rather than facial features or phylogenetic ancestry.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Truthcentric The reports of Iman complaining about people telling her that she doesn't look black are public record. So is the fact that Egyptians protested against Anwar Sadat's role being portrayed by someone who is "black". Take it up with the world, not with me. I didn't create it. And you're free to agree with him all you want. Why feel the need to repeatedly inform me of it and rationalize your decision?
Did not want to do this, but since you're lying and show no signs of stopping with your lies, you're forcing my hand. Any consequence that results out of [X]'s emails appearing online is yours to deal with; don't start crying now, lying troll.
On May 25th you wrote Kemp the following:
quote:"Dear [X] Thanks for the reply. I understand how busy you must be. I was seeking quick clarification of the conclusions of the Amarna anthropologists; whether, given the limb length findings, we could reasonably conclude that most Ancient Egyptians were Black African in appearance; and your view on the Sphinx."
On May 27th [X] told your lying ass:
quote:"it is, in my opinion, a mistaken question. The people of Africa show the greatest variety in physical characteristics of any region in the world, a consequence of Africa being the evolutionary origin of humanity. To lump them all together to create a single type, labelled Black Africans (presumably in contrast to White Europeans and Brown Middle Easterners) is to invent a myth. With pygmies at one end of the spectrum and Masai at the other, and Berbers, Zulus and T'Kung Bushmen somewhere in between, the range of bodily variation within Africa must be greater than exists between several of the major non-African groups. The term 'Black Africans' works at the level of popular culture, but is not scientific. Regards: [X]"
I then told you this:
quote:It's just a way for him to muddy up the conversation and to delay the inevitable with irrelevant objections. They all do this. They start talking about population affinity of Nubians and use the term 'black' freely, then they start talking about Egyptians and all of a sudden the term itself is scientifically problematic. It's true, but if you're intellectually honest you won't use semantics as a strategic advantage to not have to answer what someone is asking you. He could just as easily have said: "While black is a problematic term, I don't agree with the notion that they were predominantly African in genetic make-up, either", and he'd at least have addressed the heart of the matter.
When you came to me and posted those emails to get my advice, did or didn't I tell your lying ass that "black" is scientifically problematic? LMAO. This disgruntled douchebag is so irate about having lost the argument that he starts inventing a past in which I never made a clear distinction between various indigenous African populations according the what the scientific data says about them.
[ 29. September 2014, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Ardo ]
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%.
That's a lie of course typical of undercover racists on this site like Swenet, Beyoku, Djehuti and now apparently Truthcentric (or maybe he's just a confused idiot that one). He wrote that to fool us.
Here below we can see Beja have 42.85% of Eurasian Y-DNA (35.71+2.38+4.76=42.85).
The samples you listed are from Hassan et al. The image that was posted is from Hirbo et al. (Page 83)
Don't be ridiculous, we can see in Appendix 1 in the Hirbo study (p191) that it didn't use the same samples for the Y-DNA, MtDNA and autosomal analysis. Another attempt to fool us. Failed.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Truthcentric The reports of Iman complaining about people telling her that she doesn't look black are public record. So is the fact that Egyptians protested against Anwar Sadat's role being portrayed by someone who is "black". Take it up with the world, not with me. I didn't create it. And you're free to agree with him all you want. Why feel the need to repeatedly inform me of it and rationalize your decision?
Maybe I have misunderstood something, but it sounded to me like you were objecting to calling ancient Egyptians "Black African" because you felt it had certain phylogenetic connotations associated with West/Central African ancestry. I get that you're cool with using "Black" as a simple pigmentation descriptor, but the thing is that this is exactly what Claus also meant by that word!
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: Are you really saying that I can't conceptualise, for example, Black Asians and Black Australians?
Going by this same strictly pigmentation-based criterion, "Black African" as a phrase should be unobjectionable to you since that's how you've used "Black" yourself. Yet somehow, when someone else wants to apply it to ancient Egypto-Nubians using that same exact sense, you start worrying about the phylogenetic implications even when the phrase doesn't touch on it at all.
But you know what, if you really don't care what I or claus choose to call the ancient Egyptians in a non-scientific context, then fine. I won't press the matter any more.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
First of all, where do you get it that he's using it in the exact same sense, and secondly, where have I relied on black (the way I used it in the past) to designate a particular African ancestry and exclude other African ancestries, e.g. preOOA populations? If this is not what he was doing (as you say), then explain why he would object to Kemp and Hawass saying that black or African in Egypt is not the same as how people in the West think of "black"?
Since you want to act as his mouthpiece so bad, you should have no problems answering this issue, which you ignored earlier.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Exactly. But there is more to it than that. Sage, you want to help these youngsters out?
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Go figure???? Use the few brain cells you have remaining young man. Oh!....you are waiting for Henn or Pagani to tell you what it means.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%. I dont know if any of those other populations are fixed for Pn2. Their mtdla L lineages are higher than many other populations in the horn of Africa too......go figure.
I already know what it means: Their Y-dna profile does not translate into Autosomal African ancestry to the tune of 100%. This is to show Amun ra the clown that of all the Black populations in the entire group.........the one with the least amount of non OOA cluster at K=2 has the most PN2 in relation to all the groups. Hence the presence of E1b1a in ONE mummy does not clearly correspond to an autosomal profile. The Y-Chromosome does not carry autosomal information.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: First of all, where do you get it that he's using it in the exact same sense, and secondly, where have I relied on black (the way I used it in the past) to designate a particular African ancestry and exclude other African ancestries, e.g. preOOA populations? If this is not what he was doing (as you say), then explain why he would object to Kemp and Hawass saying that black or African in Egypt is not the same as how people in the West think of "black"?
Again, maybe I am misunderstanding a bunch of things in this mess. I honestly am confused as to what you two are even arguing about.
Given that I don't have such a good grasp on either of you guys' positions, it looks like I should stay out of this conversation.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I agree. Especially since you're the one who brought his denial of substructure up in the first place. Remind me to not ever testify to the accuracy of what you're saying when someone is in denial.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman:
Exactly. But there is more to it than that. Sage, you want to help these youngsters out?
??? with what ??? "Gotta make way for the young folks"
nrY Chro vs the other 22 chromosomes?
Well, "whites" of "British Isles" heritage often wonder how they get E1b1a7/8 results from commercial genetic testing companies when their phenotype doesn't resemble West or Central Africans and their reliable family histories over three generations reveal no such ancestry (implying their autosomal values are geographically NW European).
===
Me, I'm just sitting back observing the FB crew fallout from disagreeing with its "founder" as his "friend" all of a sudden becomes a troll, a liar, etc., who humbly subordinates to the emotional ego driven name calling attack.
===
It's been done here in the past but it is very unprofessional to, with no permission from the researcher, divulge private email contents as if they were a peer forum member.
In reports, private correpondance is so labeled and not published without prior permission. After all, they have their reputations to protect among their colleagues.
As moderator I fear I may have to delete that which its professional author did not intend to be taken as their public professional view.
[ 29. September 2014, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Ardo ]
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%.
That's a lie of course typical of undercover racists on this site like Swenet, Beyoku, Djehuti and now apparently Truthcentric (or maybe he's just a confused idiot that one). He wrote that to fool us.
Here below we can see Beja have 42.85% of Eurasian Y-DNA (35.71+2.38+4.76=42.85).
The samples you listed are from Hassan et al. The image that was posted is from Hirbo et al. (Page 83)
Don't be ridiculous, we can see in Appendix 1 in the Hirbo study (p191) that it didn't use the same samples for the Y-DNA, MtDNA and autosomal analysis. Another attempt to fool us. Failed.
Ok then that means we both screwed up. Pick any of the other AA Groups in that Hirbo thesis....or that Plaster data that contains plenty of Omotic speakers VERY high in m35 and the same thing will stand. Any Horn African population........at K=2 with have similar levels of of a OOA cluster regardless of their Y-dna and Mtdna makeup. Uni parental markers are just an afterthought. Another example.
San and Dinka are tied by Haplogroup A. Their autosomal profiles are WILDLY Different. Batwa and Western Africans have strong signatures of L1. The Sahelians L1b while Pygmies L1c...their respective autsomal profiles are wildly divergent. I dont even have to get into B2 lineages between Twa and Nilotes......the shortest and the tallest. The lightest vs the darkest central Africans. Those at the root All Africans and those a the root of Eurasians.....both united by B2 and L5/L0. I dont know what you cant wrap you mind around this. One one hand you talk about ancient substructure yet you think uniparentals that come tens of thousands of years later supersede that.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Me, I'm just sitting back observing the FB crew fallout from disagreeing with its "founder" as his "friend" all of a sudden becomes a troll, a liar, etc., who humbly subordinates to the emotional ego driven name calling attack.
This is just going to keep getting better and better, is it not? Hypocrisy incarnate here. Just a week ago he was complaining about what he perceived to be people "following" him from to other threads to instigate things. Look at him now; never jumped in as a mod to tell a proven liar to substantiate contested charges and slander, but doesn't mind jumping in at the first opportunity to deliberately misrepresent what happened and aligning with proven liars, just to hand out jabs.
You've been caught red-handed contradicting what you yourself say you stand for, numerous times. You have no consistency in behaviour, whatsoever. What you say today might be the exact opposite tomorrow. What you criticize today you engage in and promote tomorrow.
You've deleted the name of that author. Even though that email doesn't paint him in a bad light, out of considerations for him I'm going to say "fair enough". But you're not fooling anyone. The rest of your post proves you're only in this thread to get what little leverage you can take out of it, whether to hand out jabs, or edit posts under false pretences.
Which mod-action of yours hasn't been out of self-interest? First thing you did in the mod seat is to selectively clean up one of your old threads from spam. Next thing you did is issue mod warnings to people who were engaging in the same behaviours you were engaging in in that thread. Yesterday you were harassing someone in your mod account who simply wanted to attract someone's attention and send a PM. You're also using your mod account to wilfully edit and delete your own posts on several occasions. It just doesn't end with you, does it?
It's only going to be a matter of time before others who turn a blind eye now, will start seeing funny things. A wolf in sheep's clothing can only hide his true self for so long to those who are (wilfully) oblivious.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: I have selected Tukuler as the new moderator.
not exactly a democratic or consensus decision
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Give it up already. The man is the chosen mod. And he doing alright. Trying to attract new memebers which YOU ALL want to happen. No one is perfect, move on. It is better than an absentee mod, who refused to delete those annoying large pictures.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Give it up already. The man is the chosen mod. And he doing alright. Trying to attract new memebers
you kiddin me, there isn't even a new member sticky. no announcements on name switches, come on son
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: One of those beja samples by the way carries PN2 to the tune of 100%.
That's a lie of course typical of undercover racists on this site like Swenet, Beyoku, Djehuti and now apparently Truthcentric (or maybe he's just a confused idiot that one). He wrote that to fool us.
Here below we can see Beja have 42.85% of Eurasian Y-DNA (35.71+2.38+4.76=42.85).
The samples you listed are from Hassan et al. The image that was posted is from Hirbo et al. (Page 83)
Don't be ridiculous, we can see in Appendix 1 in the Hirbo study (p191) that it didn't use the same samples for the Y-DNA, MtDNA and autosomal analysis. Another attempt to fool us. Failed.
Ok then that means we both screwed up.
We're not both screwed up, you're screwed up. You're the one who wanted to use the Beja to prove your point and it failed
I've shown everybody (again) you're a lying piece of shiit. And your constant failed attempts to fool us with lies and manipulation to prove your hamitic myth like crap demonstrate to us you're both a racist and an idiot. It's not surprising since both usually goes in pair.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: manipulation to prove your hamitic myth like crap
The person who insists that Beja inherit ~60% of their genome from a non-African source, then turns around and says that others are proponents of the Hamitic Myth.
Aint that a trip? Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^That's stupid. Yes modern Beja are admixed with Eurasian but it is recently (for the most part), well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt.
The same way modern Egyptians are not like Ancient Egyptians due to RECENT foreign conquests and admixtures (Assyrians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, etc). Beja also have substantial RECENT Eurasian admixtures.
Recent in the context of this forum means WELL after the foundation of Ancient Egypt:
3000 years ago is well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt and well after the Naqada, Badarian, Tasian and Green Saharan culture which were the foundation of Ancient Egyptian culture.
This is all explain in the Joseph K. Pickrell study:
quote: Conclusions
Based on these analyses, we can propose a model for the spread of west Eurasian ancestry in southern and eastern Africa as follows. First, a large-scale movement of people from west Eurasia into Ethiopia around 3,000 y ago (perhaps from southern Arabia and associated with the D’mt kingdom and the arrival of Ethiosemitic languages ) resulted in the dispersal of west Eurasian ancestry throughout eastern Africa. This was then followed by a migration of an admixed population (perhaps pastoralists related to speakers of Khoe–Kwadi languages) from eastern Africa to southern Africa, with admixture occurring ∼1,500 y ago. Advances in genotyping DNA from archaeological samples may allow aspects of this model to be directly tested.
While 60% may be overestimating it due to SNP ascertainment bias and sample bias (discussed here). The uniparental evidence show us the RECENT eurasian admixture is evident in borderlines African states such as Horn Africa and within the Beja populations. This was mostly through Semitic (ethio-semitic) and Arab-muslim admixtures as explained above by Pickrell.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
CHANGE IN THE ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF MODERN EGYPT:
We all know in terms of ethnic composition, modern Egypt, is much different from Ancient Egypt.
Contemporary Egypt, is mostly an ethnic admixture between foreign invaders and conquerors and indigenous African people. Autosomally, as a whole, they tend to cluster more with Eurasian especially the Middle East. In the south, populations like Nubians probably cluster more with Africans. All this is because of massive immigration from Europe and western Asia which started already in dynastic time, culminating in the Hyksos (Aamu) foreign rule during the second intermediate period, as well as during the late periods up to now (Assyrians, Arab conquest, British colonization, etc).
quote: As a consequence the many invasions of ancient Egypt, the population has changed over the years. There were Hyksos (Heka Khasut) from Asia, who melted into the Delta Region around 1500 B.C.E., and then a series of invasions by the Assyrians, Persians and Greeks. With the arrival of large groups of Arabians in the seventh century C.E., the racial character of Egypt began to change.
The resultant mixtures of Africans, Arabs, Greeks and Persians were to be jointed with Turks, Russians, Albanians, British, and French to create a different population that there had been during the ancient times.
One cannot say that today's Egypt is the same as the Egypt of antiquity anymore than one can say that today's North America is the same as it was 5000 years ago.
- From The Oxford Encyclopedia of African Thought, Volume 1 (2010)
quote:With the passage of time, each wave of new immigrants has assimilated into the local mix of peoples , making modern Egypt a combination of Libyans, Nubians, Syrians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Circassians, Greeks, Italians, and Armenians, along with the descendants of the people of ancient Egypt.
- From A Brief History of Egypt by Jr. Goldschmidt Arthur (2007)
quote: - Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt, in 332 BCE, precipitated a period of mass immigration .
from Ethnicity (Riggs, 2012) see above/original post for more
quote:The Late Period is often singled out as the time when mass immigration into Egypt altered the character of the country
from A Companion to Ancient History Edited by Andrew Erskine (2009)
quote:The Muslim conquerors did not attempt a mass conversion of Christianity to Islam, if only because that would have reduced the taxes non-Muslims were compelled to pay, but a number of other factors were at work. Arab men could marry Christian women and their children would become Muslim. Large-scale Arab immigration into Egypt began during the eighth century.
from A History of Egypt: From Earliest Times to the Present by Jason Thompson (2009) Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The bizarre consequence of his claims is that Beja have only ~10% more African ancestry than Mozabites.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Djehuti says: I really do the gist of what Truthcentric and Ahmanut are saying. Basically it is the fact that Euronuts through the decades up to the present day have been limiting and narrowing the definitions of 'negro', 'black African', or what have you while expanding their definition of 'white' or 'Caucasian' so as to claim not only Egypt but all cultures of North AND East Africa as well!
Indeed. And on ES, such stereotypical thinking has long since been debunked, although Truthcentric's so-called "sub-Saharan norms" remain a mystery he has yet to define.
I fail to see how Egyptsearch is the laughing stock of the anthro-blogosphere when you have blogs like Dienekes' 'Racial Reality' or Mathilda's Anthroplogy Blogspot. Hell even more 'mainstream' sites like Anthroscape and Biodiversity are overrun with erroneous info by racial propagandist who disseminate and perpetuate the lie of Caucasoid domains in Africa! In the latter sites I read things about Pleistocene Caucasoids of Sudan and Kenya to even Eurasian [read Caucasoid] origin of Khoisan which is espoused here by the fake black woman lyinass!
Correct. I don't see any so-called "laughing stock" either. If anything they fear, avoid, or are uneasy with the hard data and scholarship brought to bear on ES that has debunked their distorted notions time and time again. Of course they engage in desperate name-calling- (what else is to be expected?) but that only reveals their bankruptucy. And when confronted, as shown on numerous forums, ES members under a variety of names (Morpheus, Slugger, MKGlouis, TTJones, Big Mike, etc etc etc) have used the data here quite profitably, not merely to hammer facile Eurocentrics but to establish a solid baseline that speaks to an accurate understanding of Africa and the Nile Valley's diversity and history. The so-called "anthro-blogsphere" with its assortment of trolls, racists, "HBDers", distorters and "guardsmen"- (what was the name of that guy- the so-called 'Crimson Guard" who seems to be in love with Carleton Coons) is nothing special. You are exactly right- it is overrun with a load of racist nuts and other related types, and is no "role model" for anything. It is the so-called "anthro-blogsphere" that is often not only laughable, but inaccurate a well.
So while Egyptsearch may not be the perfect place to get accurate and scientific data on anthropology, I hardly see it as the horrible back-water 'ghetto' that many especially the Euronuts make it out to be.
Indeed, and their propaganda is laughable. No one ever claimed ES was this bastion of perfection. The reputed "glory days" were filled with trolls like "Hammer", "Akoben" etc as well as assorted racists and Eurocentrics, along with the usual Afroloons and inaccurate “enthusiasts”. But over time it has developed a solid, accurately cited, base of data that is widely and easily available on the web, defeating detractors and assorted moles that strive (and fail) to bury or obfuscate good scholarship. Doesn't have to be perfect.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Djehuti, are you aware of the archaeological industries in the Nile Valley and Libya in the UP and MP? I think the people in the Nile Valley at that time had common ancestry with OOA populations. I think the makers of UP tools in the Levant were in the same biological clade as the people who inhabited Egypt and Libya at that time. I think the UP tool makers of the Levant either represent a migration from Egypt or that their MP predecessors migrated to the Levant and blade-based industries were then made in the Levant.
If by MP and UP, you mean Middle Paleolithic and Upper Paleolithic respectively then yes I am familiar with the fact that AM humans made their first attempts at leaving Africa during the MP as is evidence by Qafzeh in the Levant and of course we have evidence of a Nubian Complex derived culture in Oman during that period also. I also think it is more than possible that there was more than one wave of OOA expansions that populated Eurasia with one that took place either right before or the beginning of the UP.
Be that as it may, the question is what do these early populations have to do with modern African populations of the same region as well as those of other regions of the continent? I am curious as to know what you think of the relations.
I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades. As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans and thus still corroborating Tishkoff's findings.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^And the part where I or Djehuti say that "black" excludes, say, contemporary European hunter gatherers? Or are you simply trolling?
The ancestors of Europeans and much of all of West Eurasia are suspected of having had the ancestral ancestral pigmentation alleles up until very recently, yet the Stuart Smith citation is used by some dogmatists with the tacit suggestion that OOA populations wouldn't also pass the touted "street experience" test *ahum* fallacy *ahum* during most of their stay in Eurasia. Nope, I'm not going to sit here and say that's truthful.
For the record, I don't believe European hunter-gatherers were black and all of a sudden became 'white'. Obviously there was a process of *gradual lightening* that first began even before they entered Europe. Dr. Jablonski made this clear in her works on the evolution of human skin. During the late Pleistocene much of Central Asia and Anatolia which are already at higher latitudes were cloudy regions at that time receiving less sun-light. The hypothesis was that European hunter-gatherers were at least 'brown' in color if not lighter and of course we have Khoisan of southern Africa as an example of less than the typical black complexion of Sub-Saharans so obviously the selective pressures for lighter color were already active.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades. As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans and thus still corroborating Tishkoff's findings.
For my part, I think this is pretty close to the truth. The skeletal and dental analyses showing a physical distinction between ancient Egypto-Nubians and West/Central Africans cannot be ignored, but neither can Amun-Ra's beloved autosomal DNA data which does suggest that ancient Egyptian genetic profiles would fit more snugly into the sub-Saharan range of genetic variation than that of any Out-of-Africa population. Once you reconcile this autosomal data with the skeletal data, the picture that emerges is that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians that everyone knows were most probably hybridized between the indigenous East Saharan substructure and later waves of sub-Saharan migrants.
As to the precise proportions of the mix, I don't think we on this forum have any direct way to gauge that right now from the genetic data. The DNA Tribes scores are not really admixture percentages, and it's doubtful that the small sample of STRs from the original JAMA and BMJ papers are even sufficient to provide admixture analysis. We'll need a larger sampling of genetic loci for that kind of stuff.
quote:For the record, I don't believe European hunter-gatherers were black and all of a sudden became 'white'. Obviously there was a process of *gradual lightening* that first began even before they entered Europe. Dr. Jablonski made this clear in her works on the evolution of human skin. During the late Pleistocene much of Central Asia and Anatolia which are already at higher latitudes were cloudy regions at that time receiving less sun-light. The hypothesis was that European hunter-gatherers were at least 'brown' in color if not lighter and of course we have Khoisan of southern Africa as an example of less than the typical black complexion of Sub-Saharans so obviously the selective pressures for lighter color were already active.
The original paper on that Mesolithic Spanish dude mentioned the finding of certain ancestral alleles for skin color (along with alleles associated with blue eyes), but I don't remember they being specific on exactly how dark he would have looked. We only have this reconstruction associated with press reports on the paper: Would you describe this dude as black-skinned in your usual chromatic sense? I notice that there's a sharp contrast between the highlights on the face and the shaded areas around it, so I'm having a hard time picking out midtones.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades . As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans
The belief in this mythical clade which is not based on science. Can be compared to a "leap of faith", "Magical Thinking" among racist people on this site (Swenet, Djehuti, Beyoku and Truthcentric). The idea is to promote the splittism approach mentionned by zarahan, to disconnect Ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa pulling it toward Eurasia, and promote the debunked hamitic race myth based on racist pseudo-science from the 19th century.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Djehuti
Not that I exclude the possibility that European hunter gatherers were exceptionally pigmented until the onset of the Neolithic (e.g. Australian Aboriginals), but I didn't necessarily mean to say that they were that densely pigmented, either. Generally speaking, the folks anyone calls "black" in ancient and modern West Asia and Mediterranean North Africa weren't that densely pigmented. They were just sufficiently pigmented to fall within the pigmentation range of modern day people who are seen as "black" in the mainstream, and this range includes various shades brown.
The point that I was trying to make is that I would never say something like this (at least not deliberately), where Asian people of the same range of pigmentation are excluded from "black":
In India you see a similarity of discrimination against dark skin people, like the black community.
Therefore, when I used the word "black" in the past, it had nothing to do with a specific ancestry, contrary to how some have deliberately misconstrued my posts. Let alone that my use of "black" in the past had anything to do with something as atrocious as "black African", a phrase frequently used, e.g. by Ahmanut, to wilfully exclude Africans who are deemed not African enough, not because of any scientific data, but because of whatever beefs and biases these True Negro advocates have with such Africans.
A bias I never knew "tropicals redacted" was hiding inside of him until he exposed it months ago by picking a fight with me for refusing to side with him when Kemp put him in his place in regards to this issue and when I refused to disagree with Hawass' statement that the black in Egypt is not necessarily the same as the people pigeon-holed by the West as "black", to the exclusion of other heavily pigmented Africans.
I guess the advice and analysis I gave him were only useful as long as they didn't threaten the pre-conceived notions he's emotionally attached to. Maybe he expected me to be a yes man who would nod at everything he says, like some of his other correspondents. Oh well.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: For my part, I think this is pretty close to the truth. The skeletal and dental analyses showing a physical distinction between ancient Egypto-Nubians and West/Central Africans cannot be ignored, but neither can Amun-Ra's beloved autosomal DNA data which does suggest that ancient Egyptian genetic profiles would fit more snugly into the sub-Saharan range of genetic variation than that of any Out-of-Africa population. Once you reconcile this autosomal data with the skeletal data, the picture that emerges is that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians that everyone knows were most probably hybridized between the indigenous East Saharan substructure and later waves of sub-Saharan migrants.
As to the precise proportions of the mix, I don't think we on this forum have any direct way to gauge that right now from the genetic data. The DNA Tribes scores are not really admixture percentages, and it's doubtful that the small sample of STRs from the original JAMA and BMJ papers are even sufficient to provide admixture analysis. We'll need a larger sampling of genetic loci for that kind of stuff.
But really my actual point is overall WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?? Whether more recent PN2 descendant or ancestral OOA, the point is these populations were *all* equally African. I mean really if one wants to nitpick all the nuances go ahead, but I noticed it is Euronut racialists who tend to do this while Afrocentrics like Ahmanut try to downplay it. As if such genetic differences take away from their African or even black identity.
quote:The original paper on that Mesolithic Spanish dude mentioned the finding of certain ancestral alleles for skin color (along with alleles associated with blue eyes), but I don't remember they being specific on exactly how dark he would have looked. We only have this reconstruction associated with press reports on the paper: Would you describe this dude as black-skinned in your usual chromatic sense? I notice that there's a sharp contrast between the highlights on the face and the shaded areas around it, so I'm having a hard time picking out midtones.
I don't know. The version on the right looks more 'white' than the one on right which is just hairless, but the coloring around the face looks more like dirt than actual pigmentation due to the disparity with the center of the face.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
For the record, what I consider for historical purpose Africans is people who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migrations. People who are mostly not the product of the back migrations of non-African/Eurasian people more than 30-40 000 years after the OOA migrations. People from the African A, B and E Y-DNA haplogroups and African MtDNA L haplogroups. Of course nowadays every African people are admixed at various degrees with non-African people either directly or through African intermediaries.
So for the ethnic affiliation of Ancient Egypt, I'm always wondering for myself: Are they mostly the product of the people who stayed back in Africa after the OOA migrations or are they mostly the product of some dynastic race of back migrating OOA migrants and this especially at their foundation stage.
Considering current genetic (BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes) and archaeological results (too various to cite) Ancient Egyptians were mostly Africans (at their foundation stage). Even at the foundation there probably was low level admixtures with non-African people (Y-DNA F and MtDNA M, N descendants haplogroups). So they were mostly Africans.
Along the years, AE grow more cosmopolitan and there was more and more people of foreign origins in Ancient Egypt. We can note for example the Aamu (Asian) Hyksos dynasty during the second intermediary period which were reversed (some say "expelled") by the 18th royal dynasty, and of course late foreign dynasty like Romans, Assyrians, Greeks, etc.
quote:Originally posted by Ama-nutcase The Ultimate: The belief in this mythical clade which is not based on science. Can be compared to a "leap of faith", "Magical Thinking" among racist people on this site (Swenet, Djehuti, Beyoku and Truthcentric). The idea is to promote the splittism approach mentionned by zarahan, to disconnect Ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa pulling it toward Eurasia, and promote the debunked hamitic race myth based on racist pseudo-science from the 19th century.
The clade(s) I was referring to are the ones ancestral to all non-Africans, dummy. As for what you call "splittism" well this is a scientific FACT as it comes to genetic lineages. In fact YOU yourself were the one who presented the following image.
It's interesting how the diagram above hows a split between African DE and Eurasian DE even though both share a common YAP ancestry in Africa. And as I said, your diagram shows CF originating in Eurasia even though there is a para-clade F* among populations in Sudan having nothing to do with Arabs.
Also, what are we to make of older clades that predate BOTH ancestral OOA and ancestral PN2 such as hgs A and B??! Genetically both CF (ancestral OOA) AND YAP (ancestral PN2) are more divergent genetically from A and B carriers than from each other!!
So in other words you seem more comfortable with some splits but not others and accuse me of "splittism". LOL You are as much hypocritical as you are dense!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanutcase The Ultimate: For the record, what I consider for historical purpose Africans is people who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migrations. People who are mostly not the product of the back migrations of non-African/Eurasian people more than 30-40 000 years after the OOA migrations. People from the African A, B and E Y-DNA haplogroups and African MtDNA L haplogroups. Of course nowadays every African people are admixed at various degrees with non-African people either directly or through African intermediaries.
Hey dummy, nobody is disagreeing with your definitions. Of course the ancient Egyptians and other Nile Valley folks are populations who never left the continent!
This is besides my point.
What do YOU make of older clades that predate BOTH ancestral OOA and ancestral PN2 such as hgs A and B??! **Genetically both CF (ancestral OOA) AND YAP (ancestral PN2) are more divergent genetically from A and B carriers than from each other!!**
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Yeah, I post this image a lot. It shows that Africans are from the African A, B and E haplogroups.
When you know most Africans are from the haplogroup E and E-P2 Y-DNA haplogroups by looking at haplogroup frequency tables...
It also shows that East and West Africans have a common ancestry in Africa (the orange part) **after** the OOA migrations (after the common CT and DE haplogroups they BOTH share with Eurasians). For example, over 80% of East and West Africans are from the E-P2 haplogroups. Same could be said about the African MtDNA L haplogroups.
This is all mentioned in more details in this thread:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What do YOU make of older clades that predate BOTH ancestral OOA and ancestral PN2 such as hgs A and B??!
They are part of the African A, B and E Y-DNA haplogroups mentioned above. They are not in any way affiliated with Eurasians or non-Africans or OOA migrants. So they can't be used to prove any kind of hamitic race-like theory.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Amanutcase The Ultimate: [qb] For the record, what I consider for historical purpose Africans is people who stayed back in Africa during the OOA migrations. People who are mostly not the product of the back migrations of non-African/Eurasian people more than 30-40 000 years after the OOA migrations. People from the African A, B and E Y-DNA haplogroups and African MtDNA L haplogroups. Of course nowadays every African people are admixed at various degrees with non-African people either directly or through African intermediaries.
Hey dummy, nobody is disagreeing with your definitions.
On the other hand, beside the unnecessary insults, I'm glad "everybody" agrees with the definition above of Africans.
At least there's that.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Anyway, getting back on topic:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
How CL Fox' Nubian aDNA sample compares to the above frequencies of Hpal 3592:
only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African [Hpal 3592] marker. --CL Fox
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades. As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans and thus still corroborating Tishkoff's findings.
For my part, I think this is pretty close to the truth. The skeletal and dental analyses showing a physical distinction between ancient Egypto-Nubians and West/Central Africans cannot be ignored, but neither can Amun-Ra's beloved autosomal DNA data which does suggest that ancient Egyptian genetic profiles would fit more snugly into the sub-Saharan range of genetic variation than that of any Out-of-Africa population. Once you reconcile this autosomal data with the skeletal data, the picture that emerges is that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians that everyone knows were most probably hybridized between the indigenous East Saharan substructure and later waves of sub-Saharan migrants.
From what i read so far on this forum when the term Egypto-Nubians is mention i think you mean lower A-group nubians and some later nubians of lower nubia in different time periods only.
Nubia was varied in looks as we know so far,and so was egypt and the rest of africa but A- group lower nubians were physically distinct from upper/southern nubia.
From a book i read awhile ago that Djehuti mention in a another thread, egypt,nubia and axum from kenny mann,physically A- group nubians would have more in common with egyptians or look more like them,while nubians from upper/southern nubia like yam, and kushites would have more common or look more like those africans from darfur,the nuba hills,west and central africa.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades. As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans and thus still corroborating Tishkoff's findings.
For my part, I think this is pretty close to the truth. The skeletal and dental analyses showing a physical distinction between ancient Egypto-Nubians and West/Central Africans cannot be ignored, but neither can Amun-Ra's beloved autosomal DNA data which does suggest that ancient Egyptian genetic profiles would fit more snugly into the sub-Saharan range of genetic variation than that of any Out-of-Africa population. Once you reconcile this autosomal data with the skeletal data, the picture that emerges is that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians that everyone knows were most probably hybridized between the indigenous East Saharan substructure and later waves of sub-Saharan migrants.
From what i read so far on this forum when the term Egypto-Nubians is mention i think you mean lower A-group nubians and some later nubians of lower nubia in different time periods only.
Nubia was varied in looks as we know so far,and so was egypt and the rest of africa but A- group lower nubians were physically distinct from upper/southern nubia.
From a book i read awhile ago,egypt,nubia and axum from kenny mann,physically A- group nubians would have more in common with egyptians or look more like them,while nubians from upper/southern nubia like yam, and kushites would have more common or look more like those africans from darfur,the nuba hills,west and central africa.
Nubia was never a term used by Ancient Egyptian or Kushite people to identify any people or territory. It doesn't appears in any of the Ancient Egyptian and Kushite literature as such.
Ancient Egyptians from the 1st dynasty often referred to the land south of their nation as Ta-Seti (Land of the Bow), from the 12th Dynasty the word Kush also started to be used to designate the region.
In books and studies about Ancient Egypt and Kushite empire modern egyptologists often translate every words related to the land south of Ancient Egypt like Ta-Seti and even the word Kush into Nubia. Kushites called themselves Kushites too in Meroitic texts. For example, King Kashta (Kings often go by various names in Africa)
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: From what i read so far on this forum when the term Egypto-Nubians is mention i think you mean lower A-group nubians and some later nubians of lower nubia in different time periods only.
Nubia was varied in looks as we know so far,and so was egypt and the rest of africa but A- group lower nubians were physically distinct from upper/southern nubia.
From a book i read awhile ago that Djehuti mention in a another thread, egypt,nubia and axum from kenny mann,physically A- group nubians would have more in common with egyptians or look more like them,while nubians from upper/southern nubia like yam, and kushites would have more common or look more like those africans from darfur,the nuba hills,west and central africa.
Such a cline would make intuitive sense, but the physical anthropological evidence doesn't all square well with it. Remember that Kerma is considered part of Upper Nubia, and yet the remains recovered from there have consistently shown such similarity to ancient Egyptians that often they're indistinguishable. For that matter, we have dental analyses on Mesolithic remains from way down in Khartoum showing a pattern like those of later Nubians and Egyptians. So, no, it doesn't look like even southern Nubians were more than subtly different from Egyptians.
As for the jet-dark portrayals of Nubians in Egyptian art, right now I'm inclined to think that was less a reflection of a real physical difference than a convention which helped the Egyptians distinguish themselves from other Nile Valley Africans. Since we're dealing with societies where most people went around half-naked and showed a lot of skin, assigning distinct skin colors to non-Egyptian Africans would have set them apart more than, say, subtle differences in loincloths.
This is how Nubians portrayed themselves in their own art, using the same color schemes as the Egyptians:
And this is how ancestral Eastern Saharans painted themselves thousands of years before: Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: But really my actual point is overall WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?? Whether more recent PN2 descendant or ancestral OOA, the point is these populations were *all* equally African. I mean really if one wants to nitpick all the nuances go ahead, but I noticed it is Euronut racialists who tend to do this while Afrocentrics like Ahmanut try to downplay it. As if such genetic differences take away from their African or even black identity.
To be fair, guys like Hawass and Kemp (the scholars whom Claus was arguing against) strike me as the sort who don't want Egyptians to be connected to other Africans in any sense. They'll take advantage of any distinction between Egyptians and the so-called "sub-Saharan" norm to justify the rift they've established in their minds. Even if Nile Valley Africans were perfect genetic clones of any extant sub-Saharan population, the orthodoxy will look for something else that they believe sets Egypt apart.
That Kemp, Hawass, and the rest weren't completely off-base when they suggested population substructure throughout Africa doesn't mean their underlying mentality can be excused.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: From what i read so far on this forum when the term Egypto-Nubians is mention i think you mean lower A-group nubians and some later nubians of lower nubia in different time periods only.
Nubia was varied in looks as we know so far,and so was egypt and the rest of africa but A- group lower nubians were physically distinct from upper/southern nubia.
From a book i read awhile ago that Djehuti mention in a another thread, egypt,nubia and axum from kenny mann,physically A- group nubians would have more in common with egyptians or look more like them,while nubians from upper/southern nubia like yam, and kushites would have more common or look more like those africans from darfur,the nuba hills,west and central africa.
Such a cline would make intuitive sense, but the physical anthropological evidence doesn't all square well with it. Remember that Kerma is considered part of Upper Nubia, and yet the remains recovered from there have consistently shown such similarity to ancient Egyptians that often they're indistinguishable. For that matter, we have dental analyses on Mesolithic remains from way down in Khartoum showing a pattern like those of later Nubians and Egyptians. So, no, it doesn't look like even southern Nubians were more than subtly different from Egyptians.
As for the jet-dark portrayals of Nubians in Egyptian art, right now I'm inclined to think that was less a reflection of a real physical difference than a convention which helped the Egyptians distinguish themselves from other Nile Valley Africans. Since we're dealing with societies where most people went around half-naked and showed a lot of skin, assigning distinct skin colors to non-Egyptian Africans would have set them apart more than, say, subtle differences in loincloths.
This is how Nubians portrayed themselves in their own art, using the same color schemes as the Egyptians:
And this is how ancestral Eastern Saharans painted themselves thousands of years before:
Keep in mind later in merotic art there were more varied differences too then the napatan art shown here,of course napatan art shows other varied ways,but not as much as later kushite art.
NUBIAN TOMBS DISCOVERED By Dr. Elena Pischikova
quote: When we started excavating three years ago, we could not be sure we would find anything. All that was left of the largest tomb in the area was a crack in the ground. For weeks we were digging with no results. Our only discoveries were pieces of burnt bedrock with no traces of hieroglyphic inscriptions or decoration. Only fifteen feet down from the surface of the desert did we find the first inscription with the titles of a dignitary. This small fragment with original ancient carving gave us hope that there was something still left in the tomb. A week later we found the first image of the owner of the tomb, the Nubian Priest Karakhamun. The face of Karakhamun displays bold Nubian features, round head with cropped hair, round full cheeks, nose broad at the nostrils, and full protruding lips. A long neck and large elegant eyes with thin pointed cosmetic lines make his features resemble those of the Nubian pharaoh Shebitqo who ruled Egypt and Nubia at the end of the eighth and beginning of the seventh century B.C.
Later kushite art you see darker skin tones on average in the art and of one of reasons is that kushite art on average later became more nubianized or there was more native influences in the art again.
Another example in later kushite art the art was more realistic,queens were shown has fat etc..
I should have mention kerma was abit different then what you see further south,but of course heads shapes etc.. were similar to egypt except egyptians were lighter on average, medium nosed on average and those kushites of kerma were broad nosed and were darker on average.
Further south in upper nubia and southern nubia there are those in kush or in those regions that are broad nosed types,and broader heads on average like the king posted in the reply and darker on average.
Like a few others mention in this thread,egyptians and kushites had things that were similar but they varied or had distinctions too and there was a common type in each region.
There were varied looks in ta-seti just like egypt or kemet,but ta-seti would have common type and so would ancient egypt/kemet.
Let me put this way,the average kushite will not be described as Somali like,the average ancient egyptian is described that way so there were differences.
Egyptians lighter,kushites darker,egyptians more narrowed headed and on average medium nosed,closer to narrow on average,while kushites on average broad nosed and broad heads or round headed.
That's the distinction i am was talking about and want to make clear again. You see these types in other parts of africa too.
Noba and kushites were indistinguishable of course and you could see the descendants of sudanese nile valley in other parts of sudan too in the nuba hills to darfur.
I posted some pics of these descendants in another thread and the average kushite and ancient noba would look more these these modern nubians.
Midob Nubians
and those you see in the nuba hills and those modern nubians you see in chad.
Here some modern nubians in nubia today. Lori at Nubian Village visit (Timinar)
In pics i posted there a mixed of broad-head/round head types and those with more narrow heads and medium head types but all broad nosed and darker then then the average ancient egyptian.
Like zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova said earlier there was mix african types in both regions in ta-seti and ancient egypt,but there was a common head type, nose type,skin tone type etc..i mentioned above.
What i could tell so far and what i have read, the average kushite was broad-headed or round-head and broad nosed and darker on average then the egyptians.
This art image seems to me not the real skin tone of this king,but i could be wrong,but it looks like it's just gold painting on the statue.
It reminds of those statues when king tut is painted all black,but of course that's not his real skin tone either.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
This was posted before about kushite art i found on this forum.
quote:Originally posted by: this is a good reading on the subject of what the scholars call a classic kushite fold
Egypt: Child of Africa By Ivan Van Sertima of
if link does not work,copy and paste in address box
By Ivan Van Sertima quote- but king taharka is man of many faces,whether in relief;as a sphinx(amon temple at kawa);as a colossi(gerbel barkhal);on temple shrines (kawa) or a fresco (quasm ibrim).those elements of his facial features which define him as a african man are unmistakable.and at last,there is tanwetamani(in relief and on fresco)who succeeded taharka
scholars treatment on the image of taharka requires comment.while his image occures on many extant statues,reliefs,stele,frescoes and shrines,the image of him which have received the greatest attention and praise are those which do not reflect the characteristic kushite bulbous nose,the prominent fold around the nose,the large lips,round head and short neck.some scholars,leclant for example,describe as unflattering those portraits of takarka which depicts him with prominent nose,thick lips and drooping eyes
From Gebel Barkal, head from Temple B 500, body from B 904 Harvard University-MFA Boston Expedition, April 1916, field no. 16-4-32 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 23.731
With the retreat of the Kushite kings from Egypt, the art of the Napatan empire gains a new dimension. Its characteristic fashion of representing the human form and face were already visible in the works of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. But they were toned down through direct contact with the tradition-bound art of Egypt, failing to come to full fruition. Once freed, however, from the restrictions of the pharaonic legacy, a style develops in the Napatan dynasty that brings the more "African" components to the fore. Many colossal statue fragments from the original inventory of the great Amun Temple at Gebel Barkal were unearthed in a cache north of the first pylon. This statue of Senkamanisken was one of them. All of the stylistic tendencies of the preceding era come to light here, enhanced and expanded. The forcefully striding legs have become more massive, the feet larger. The arms end in balled fists that bespeak raw power; the musculature is strongly emphasized. The head rests heavy on the short neck, thickset in profile view. The southern facial type is characterized by the full lips, broad nose, the widely spaced, slightly bulging eyes, and the low brow. The double uraeus at the forehead is completely preserved—in the Napatan homeland the statues were spared the persecutions wrought by the succeeding dynasty in Egypt. The Kushite cap closely conforms to the round skull. Around the neck hangs the cord with three ram's heads. Surface areas left rough for gilding or silver plating include the jewelry bands on the upper arms, wrists, and ankles, the sandal straps, tripartite royal kilt, and the cap.
From the book Sudan: Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile, Dietrich Wildung, 1997, p. 218 Funerary Figurine of King Senkamanisken
This shabti, or funerary figurine, is typical of the nearly 1300 figurines found in Senkamanisken's pyramid at Nuri, the royal necropolis in the Kushite capital of Napata.
Housed in the Brooklyn Museum add text.
The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization By László Török
I don't want to change the subject of this thread so if there is further talk about the Nehesi and their art it should be done in the thread below or other threads like that in the forum since the real subject of this thread is about nubian dna and should be about that only i believe.
Here is some talk about the Nehesi and their art images.
quote: As if such genetic differences take away from their African or even black identity.
Exactly.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: @ Djehuti
quote: As if such genetic differences take away from their African or even black identity.
Exactly.
Genetic differences (substructure) happens between any people including within the same ethnic group, members of the same (nuclear) family or surprisingly enough even between twins. I'm sorry but if you want to invent one group of mythical Africans who are closer to Eurasians than to other Africans, corresponding to the hamitic race myth from the 19th Century, it is racist and it does take away their African identity by making them closer to Eurasians than other Africans. It's also stupid and not based on any science (as both East and West Africans share a common Y-DNA CT (and DE) and MtdNA L3 haplogroups with OOA migrants.
Saying otherwise is based on leap of faith and magical thinking and is ridiculous. The hamitic race myth was debunked decades ago. But its also a complete lie and it's in the lies people tell themselves you know where people truly stand on this forum.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades . As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans
The belief in this mythical clade which is not based on science. Can be compared to a "leap of faith", "Magical Thinking" among racist people on this site (Swenet, Djehuti, Beyoku and Truthcentric). The idea is to promote the splittism approach mentionned by zarahan, to disconnect Ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa pulling it toward Eurasia, and promote the debunked hamitic race myth based on racist pseudo-science from the 19th century.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: The belief in this mythical clade which is not based on science.
Says who? You? Don't make me laugh. You have never read a genetic article (or any anthro article for that matter) in your life. This impression instantly occurs to any reader of your posts who is not similarly ignorant of African population history. This is precisely why you and other crap mongers thrive here; the folks who agree with you on ES are equally ignorant of what they're talking about.
The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs, which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African AACs, consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans into Saharan and Eastern Africa. --Tishkoff et al 2009
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Yes, and it also mentions the RECENT (post OOA, post Dynastic era) back-migration of non-Africans into Africa.
Also this Cushitic and Fulani AAC is closer to other Africans AACs than to European AAC, as we can see from this graph from the same study:
Personally, I could see Ancient Egyptians to be were the Fulani are (due to their geographic locations, the eventual cosmopolitan nature of the empire think Hyksos) based on current genetic results. That is mostly Africans with some low level of Eurasian admixtures.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Yes, and it also mentions
So you admit that you were talking out the side of your neck when you said preOOA ancestry in extant Africans was not scientific?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Yes, and it also mentions
So you admit that you were talking out the side of your neck when you said preOOA ancestry in extant Africans was not scientific?
I never said that. I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups, share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
For example, modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants (since they are mostly from non-CT and non-L3 haplogroups) beside through recent admixtures.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Then which pre-existing Nile Valley clades are you describing as "not based on science" and a "leap of faith"?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Yes, and it also mentions
So you admit that you were talking out the side of your neck when you said preOOA ancestry in extant Africans was not scientific?
For example, modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants (since they are mostly from non-CT and non-L3 haplogroups) beside through recent admixtures.
When looking at the image what does "OOA" mean (Orange Component)? Where do you see that "modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants"?
Talking out ass again. Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
The older mythical clade mentioned by Djehuti below supposedly splitting modern East and West Africans:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades . As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans
The belief in this mythical clade which is not based on science. Can be compared to a "leap of faith", "Magical Thinking" among racist people on this site (Swenet, Djehuti, Beyoku and Truthcentric). The idea is to promote the splittism approach mentionned by zarahan, to disconnect Ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa pulling it toward Eurasia, and promote the debunked hamitic race myth based on racist pseudo-science from the 19th century.
You can't use the admixture K=2 graph to demonstrate the OOA substructure since those K=2 graphs (which are not always similar btw) are based on modern populations and also take into account RECENT back migrations of non-Africans into Africa.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
What exactly is "not based on science" and a "leap of faith" about what Djehuti said? Which textual document (i.e. an actual scientific text, not a patchwork of propagandistic pictures and text you composed yourself) excludes the existence of such clades in the Nile Valley for you to claim what he said is not scientific?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: What exactly is "not based on science" and a "leap of faith" about what Djehuti said?
The mythical and I quote "older clades" mentioned by Djehuti in the quote above. Such clade doesn't exist. Both modern East and West Africans are descendants of the same CT and L3 clades they have in common with OOA migrants as well as other African haplogroups which are not related to OOA migrants (like A, B Y-DNA haplogroups, L2a, L0a MtDNA haplogroups, etc).
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
You can't use the admixture K=2 graph to demonstrate the OOA substructure since those K=2 graphs (which are not always similar btw) are based on modern populations and also take into account RECENT back migrations of non-Africans into Africa.
You just owned yourself. What back-migration are found in Mbuti, San, Anuak, Dinka, Biaka? What does "OOA" stand for in that image? If what you say is true, you should be able to say what "OOA" means as written by the author......and describe the present of that Component in SAN, Biaka, Mbuti as apposed to the differences in the K=2 analysis.
YOU WILL NOT DO THIS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DO THIS! Basically you are talking out your ass and when someone calls you on it you just dismiss the science on a whim.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Amun Ra
Ignoring that load of propagandistic bs for a minute (that Tishkoff citation clearly says that OOA populations derive from East Africans, not West Africans), what in the scientific literature rules out the presence of lineages in the Nile Valley that would put its carriers in an intermediate position?
Post anything that YOU didn't write yourself, lol. Can you do it? Deal with a yawning gap in your theory without referring back to your own propaganda i.e. your self-perpetuating loop of bs?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
You can't use the admixture K=2 graph to demonstrate the OOA substructure since those K=2 graphs (which are not always similar btw) are based on modern populations and also take into account RECENT back migrations of non-Africans into Africa.
You just owned yourself. What back-migration are found in Mbuti, San, Anuak, Dinka, Biaka? What does "OOA" stand for in that image? If what you say is true, you should be able to say what "OOA" means as written by the author......and describe the present of that Component in SAN, Biaka, Mbuti as apposed to the differences in the K=2 analysis.
YOU WILL NOT DO THIS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DO THIS! Basically you are talking out your ass and when someone calls you on it you just dismiss the science on a whim.
You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph (which btw are not always similar).
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
You can't use the admixture K=2 graph to demonstrate the OOA substructure since those K=2 graphs (which are not always similar btw) are based on modern populations and also take into account RECENT back migrations of non-Africans into Africa.
You just owned yourself. What back-migration are found in Mbuti, San, Anuak, Dinka, Biaka? What does "OOA" stand for in that image? If what you say is true, you should be able to say what "OOA" means as written by the author......and describe the present of that Component in SAN, Biaka, Mbuti as apposed to the differences in the K=2 analysis.
YOU WILL NOT DO THIS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT DO THIS! Basically you are talking out your ass and when someone calls you on it you just dismiss the science on a whim.
You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph (which btw are not always similar).
Exactly....you dont even know what I am talking about. Lets start off small. There is an orange compoennet called "OOA" what does the OOA acronym stand for and what are the authors trying to hypothesize?
*EDIT. and Board take notice. This is when you know an idiot is flying by the seat of his pants making it all up as he goes along..he speaks on images that dont support his views. Then we they do he doesn't even know that is the case.
Amun Ra = All post OOA East and West Africans are "related". Amun Ra 2 minutes later: You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. "Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph" (as if they shouldn't according to his interpretation of uni-parentals).
Damn boy...
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Amun Ra
Ignoring that load of propagandistic bs for a minute (that Tishkoff citation clearly says that OOA populations derive from East Africans, not West Africans), what in the scientific literature rules out the presence of lineages in the Nile Valley that would put its carriers in an intermediate position?
The literature cannot rules out what you invented. It doesn't even know of your theory.
For example a basic look at the haplogroups of the OOA migrants and modern Africans is enough to rule out your mythical clade. Like this graph, which I didn't create:
We can see above that Africans are from the A, B and E Y-DNA haplogroups.
The E haplogroup is the haplogroup shared between BOTH modern East and West Africans (along with other A and B haplogroups also unrelated to OOA migrants) **after** the OOA migrants (from the CT and DE haplogroups) already left Africa.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Again, you keep referring back to your own lying ass propaganda. Not a textual reference that supports your propaganda in sight. Aside from the fact that you're horribly oblivious to the fact that your spam tree is outdated, phylogenetic trees by definition only depict observed lineages.
Are you really that intellectually deprived to condense Africa's evolutionary history into a simplified Y Chromosome tree? Holy sh!t Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
For textual reference you can use this:
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
Basically it says the chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa [for example over 80% of West Africans and African-Americans are from that haplogroup], trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa.
So Sub-Saharan Africans like West Africans and East Africans can trace their descent from a common E-P2 ancestor present in Eastern Africa .
Amun - I never said that. I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups,share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
Beyoku - What back-migration are found in Mbuti, San, Anuak, Dinka, Biaka? What does "OOA" stand for in that image?
Amun - You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph (which btw are not always similar).
LULZ.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
wig·gle room nouninformal capacity or scope for negotiation or operation, especially in order to modify a previous statement or decision.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
*And your reference says that the contents of Djehuti's post constitute a "leap of faith", where?
*What does Trombetta 2011 even have to do with any of this?
*Where do Trombetta et al say that "West Africans and East Africans can trace their descent from a common E-P2 ancestor present in Eastern Africa"?
*Why would modern day Y Chromosome trees rule out/ confirm human activity in the Nile Valley?
*How exactly would SNP ascertainment bias pull various Afro-Asiatic speaking towards Eurasia, and why would such a random process always be in the direction of Eurasia, but never towards other Africans?
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: For textual reference you can use this:
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
Basically it says the chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa [for example over 80% of West Africans and African-Americans are from that haplogroup], trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa.
So Sub-Saharan Africans like West Africans and East Africans can trace their descent from a common E-P2 ancestor present in Eastern Africa .
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^Trite. Maybe some dummy thinks he of the last word is right. - Tukuler
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: @ Amun Ra you have some explaining to do.
Amun - I never said that. I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups,share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
Beyoku - What back-migration are found in Mbuti, San, Anuak, Dinka, Biaka? What does "OOA" stand for in that image?
Amun - You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph (which btw are not always similar).
LULZ.
Youre Silent though. .
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanutcase The Ultimate: The older mythical clade mentioned by Djehuti below supposedly splitting modern East and West Africans:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I for one believe that predominant Sub-Saharan clades such as PN2 did expand into the Nile Valley region post OOA but that there were some remnant peoples if not individuals who carry the older clades . As such this would give the peoples of East Africa including the Nile Valley an intermediate positioning between OOA peoples and other Africans
The belief in this mythical clade which is not based on science. Can be compared to a "leap of faith", "Magical Thinking" among racist people on this site (Swenet, Djehuti, Beyoku and Truthcentric). The idea is to promote the splittism approach mentionned by zarahan, to disconnect Ancient Egypt from the rest of Africa pulling it toward Eurasia, and promote the debunked hamitic race myth based on racist pseudo-science from the 19th century.
The older clades I speak of have NOTHING to do with "splitting" Africans by any geographic basis such as East vs. West but are simply very old clades like CT, BT, or even A! In fact the original topic of this thread proves my point because neolithic Nubians were found to carry A derived lineages!
But as usual the nutcase distorts my words by projecting his own paranoid racialized fears of "Hamitic" or "Caucasoid" even though the very genetics we discuss debunks all racial typology!!
As Tukuler posted...
Therefore I'm no longer responding to the idiocy that he is.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: But really my actual point is overall WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?? Whether more recent PN2 descendant or ancestral OOA, the point is these populations were *all* equally African. I mean really if one wants to nitpick all the nuances go ahead, but I noticed it is Euronut racialists who tend to do this while Afrocentrics like Ahmanut try to downplay it. As if such genetic differences take away from their African or even black identity.
To be fair, guys like Hawass and Kemp (the scholars whom Claus was arguing against) strike me as the sort who don't want Egyptians to be connected to other Africans in any sense. They'll take advantage of any distinction between Egyptians and the so-called "sub-Saharan" norm to justify the rift they've established in their minds. Even if Nile Valley Africans were perfect genetic clones of any extant sub-Saharan population, the orthodoxy will look for something else that they believe sets Egypt apart.
That Kemp, Hawass, and the rest weren't completely off-base when they suggested population substructure throughout Africa doesn't mean their underlying mentality can be excused.
You bring up a valid point. There are Euronuts who are desperate to divorce Egypt [and all of eastern Africa for that matter] from the rest of Africa and connect them to Eurasia. The ultimate idiot in his psychosis thinks WE are somehow guilty of this, but forget him. The issue is so-called scholars or people in high positions of academia doing this for they are the gate-keepers of thought. They've been doing this for decades with skeletal evidence now they attempt to do so with genetic evidence! As Tukuler points out they try to distort ancestral OOA genetic elements with 'Eurasian' and therefore "Caucasoid" in the minds of the most demented Euronuts. This is why I noticed they are desperate to look for ancestral OOA lineages in Egypt in other parts of East Africa even though modern PN2 derived clades predominate. Fortunately not only are there scholars who will call these distortions out but knowledgeable people like us ES folks and others who do so.
Posted by tropicals redacted (Member # 21621) on :
Delete
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Indeed, we've been here a thousand times before. Put his claims to the test and he'll have fled the scene a few posts later. SMH.
Notice how he will pop up elsewhere tomorrow and continue where he left off with his propaganda, as if he was never confronted with the laughable defects in his posts and glaring inability to reconcile them with actual scientific citations..
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: That dude is gone.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^Trite. Maybe some dummy thinks he of the last word is right. - Tukuler
It wasnt about getting a last word. It was about you making up bullshiit on the fly and then trying to wiggle you way out of it. Let me explain to the board exactly what is going on.
First this guy said that substructure in Africa is defined by A/B and L0-L2 vs L3 and M168 Africans. This is his MO. And the former group AB/L0-L2 or for the sake of accuracy "Pygmies and San" are divergent and dont share OOA Ancestry with the East and West Africans. See Below
quote: I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups, share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
For example, modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants (since they are mostly from non-CT and non-L3 haplogroups) beside through recent admixtures.
Notice he is distinguishing two groups. For the sake of simplicity lets use colors to represent the two groups......i dont know how about Orange for the "OOA Group" and Red for the Africa Specific group. Wait a minute...these colors looks somewhat fimiliar.
Amun ra is now shaking in his boots as he is called on the nonsense idea that Pygmies and San dont share OOA Ancestry. Clearly We can see they do when looking at the Chart....ALL African populations share Orange. Amun Ra was then asked "what does "OOA" mean (Orange Component)?" on the Chart above. Of course he does not want to answer cause its just more self ownage...but anyone that has been paying attention to this Baffoon knows he makes it all up as he goes along....case and point one minute he says this:
quote:For example, modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants (since they are mostly from non-CT and non-L3 haplogroups) beside through recent admixtures.
But a second later he spans this:
quote:After the OOA migrations, African populations who stayed back in Africa were not static, fixated in time. They continued to interact, admix with each others as well as migrating in different directions, sharing cultures, developing new languages. For example, creating the E, E-P2, L3eikx, L3bf haplogroups as well as many downstream A and B haplogroups and admixing with each others (especially through patrilocality). Source
Those two ideas are totally at odds with each other. But it doesn't stop here. He goes off the deep end...drowning in stupidity. He says the OOA image cannot be used because populations back migrate:
quote: You can't use the admixture K=2 graph to demonstrate the OOA substructure since those K=2 graphs (which are not always similar btw) are based on modern populations and also take into account RECENT back migrations of non-Africans into Africa.
When asked what populations back-migrated into the San and Pygmies he is MUTE. Take Note - If there are multiple populations in Africa OOA and non OOA that "continued to interact, admix with each others" obviously the San and Pygmies SHOULD show composite ancestry according to his quote. BUT since he is making it up he wants them to be pure to go back to his other idea that San and Pygmies didnt mix with OOA. What is his solution....more nonsense:
quote: You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph (which btw are not always similar).
So he highlights the even the "Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color" in the grapgh. Well of COURSE they do. And this goes back to him not wanting to even say what "OOA" means in the graph. And leads back to something he is saying but doesnt even understand:
quote: I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups, share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
If Orange is "OOA migrants." why would Amun Ra protest that "Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph" According to Amun ra they SHOULD have Orange as they "hare a common ancestry with OOA migrants".
What it is is a clusterfvck from an individual that doesnt know what he is talking about, full of contradictions and just makes it up as he goes along. The ownage of Amun ra has been broken down so even a caveman reading the page can understand this guys tomfoolery. This is why ES is a laughing stock. The things above have become part and parcel of this site because these bozos are the most vocal and nobody seems to be correcting them.
You should be able to explain these inconsistencies and contradictions. We dont need you to simply repeat them.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Beyoku says: The ownage of Amun ra has been broken down so even a caveman reading the page can understand this guys tomfoolery. This is why ES is a laughing stock.
Why would Amun-Ra be "representative" of ES? Many here have already taken him to task on several issues. And why is your "anthro-sphere" which itself is filled with trolls, racists, distorters and crimson "guardsmen" be any kind of standard or role model so much better than ES? If this is indeed the case, and things are so much better elsewhere, why do you keep coming back to this forum? You yourself spend loads of time in these other venues debating people with the most laughable, racist claims. Are they also "laughing stocks" or is your view of what's "representative" selective?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
How often do you think i actually post on those sites? I had never been a regular poster on antrhoscape (crimson et al board.)
ForumBiodiversity was good but it got hacked. The people of African origin/descent were leages above what is found here as far as analyzing African DNA. That site has a much higher caliber of participation as far as understanding simple things like population structure and autosomal dna and how it relates to Uni-Parental markers........Why is that the case??? Because, many of the users have gotten their own DNA tested and can understand the science from a first person view. Anyone that has tested their own DNA with the various "Calculators" from K=3 all the way to K=36 can understand that they get different output although their DNA is not changing. Because of this they dont make stupid ideas about insufficient sampling and are familiar with "What a K is"........and how dumb it is to make higher inferences using skin tone or uni-parental markers. Because of that and moderation of course....my posting transitioned from here to there. But that was a few years ago, for the most part I go back to clown the admin on Ancient Egyptian dna and Afroasiatic articles that come out.
ES is a laughing stock because it is not cutting edge compared to any other site out there, we dont post new data here. At ES we have a clown arguing over BASIC ideas about DNA....riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies and he will go on unchallenged. Some of the other jackasses you named that go out on the web to "do battle" from an ES Background say and do some of the same stuff. Ideas grounded in Dogma....not knowledge. People can see that a mile away. Years ago I changed my name, for the same reason as stated by another user.....didnt want to be associated with this site. Anthroscape is shiit too, but i go there. I go to plenty of shiit sites. Sometimes a i stumble upon something I haven't read before.
EDIT. Let me state that in Highschool I went to a **** school. In 1996 Ice T came to my home town and said "What is the worst school in the state...that is where i want to go"......he came to our school. Although that is my home school and I show my face there even 10 and 15 years later when I am in town...........I can still admit the fact that the school was ****. If I had time I would volunteer at the school, even though it is ****. Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
^And you haven't even mentioned the ancient Egypt forum where anti-Semitism and scientific racism reign freely.
Fact is, the membership count on this site is almost(?) 18000 and the vast majority of the Anthro enthusiasts who (used to) fit in that huge number have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to genetics, linguistics, physical anthropology, etc. and/or systematically misrepresent and marginalize inconvenient things they do understand. The people who know what they're talking about and have been honest can be counted on a couple of hands and, for the most part, aren't even here any more. As for members that can say intelligent things about recent trends in population genetics without resorting to Google.... well.. uhmm... hmm... let me think..... (crickets).
ES' collective strong point has been history, i.e. merely reiterating memorized facts about AE, Nubia and various other African cultures and polities. In any other important facet it simply can't compete and it's about time it stopped being in denial. I know it, you know it, the lurkers know it and the blogosphere knows it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Obviously the 'Ancient Egypt' section of the forum is what makes Egyptsearch the laughing stock of the anthro-blogosphere. I don't even post in that madhouse section anymore as it is too sunken in as you say anti-Jewish anti-white depravity. It is literally the area of the Afronuts.
I've also heard that one or two of those nuts are actually Euronuts in disguise looking to discredit this forum (and I'm not talking about lioness LOL). All of this has put me on edge as I really want to make some valid contributions but I'm worried these trolls would pollute my threads.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
I have no problem with people pointing out assorted errors AmunRa has made. Go for it. However they need not do so in every thread, nor in threads Beyoku et al frequent to be "validated" either. Many have taken him to task on multiple topics, and his approach. I would also dispute Beyoku's blanket notion that sheer dogma drives all ES members when they do battle on other web venues. This is not the case at all. To the contrary, their arguments are grounded in hard fact and scholarship which most often defeats the other side. This is why assorted biased moderators often try to sandbag them, even a low-key, careful guy like Morpheus. Trying to make out that these ES vets are blinkered ideologues who know nothing is a clear distortion and misrepresentation of many posters here.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Who is Morpheus and where is Morpheus? Does Morpheus post here?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: Who is Morpheus and where is Morpheus? Does Morpheus post here?
Morpheus is another handle for the ES poster once called Mansa Musa. Morph still works as an admin on MootStormfront (albeit that website is only active at sporadic moments), but on most other forums he now calls himself "EgalitarianJay".
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
So he is not on this forum anymore. I wonder why? This forum needs more posters like evergreen. A poster that is always bringing new data to the table.... Naw wallowing in and or misinterpreting data from 20 years ago.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
I remember him. From what I recall he was a solid guy. I think he was the one who was in contact with Keita and told him about the Mekota & Vermehren paper
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I remember him. From what I recall he was a solid guy. I think he was the one who was in contact with Keita and told him about the Mekota & Vermehren paper
Yeps. Anyone else on ES email folks in academia?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I have, to get clarity and see what they'll say off the record and I never use leading questions nor mention any internet fora or websites.
Most will correspond but a few won't. I wait a season before re-emailing a non-respondant but usually get the same result, no reply.
Posted by Somner (Member # 22034) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
For the record, I don't believe European hunter-gatherers were black and all of a sudden became 'white'. Obviously there was a process of *gradual lightening* that first began even before they entered Europe. Dr. Jablonski made this clear in her works on the evolution of human skin. During the late Pleistocene much of Central Asia and Anatolia which are already at higher latitudes were cloudy regions at that time receiving less sun-light. The hypothesis was that European hunter-gatherers were at least 'brown' in color if not lighter and of course we have Khoisan of southern Africa as an example of less than the typical black complexion of Sub-Saharans so obviously the selective pressures for lighter color were already active. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Hello,
It seems that pale skin may have evolved in Europeans as recently as 6,000 years ago. Since genetic mutations for lighter skin only occurred ( separately) in two populations, East Asians and Europeans, as recently as 6,000 years ago ( at least in Europeans), when and how did ( some) Middle Easterners become lighter skinned? I'd have to assume that it occurred very, very recently but I'm hoping that someone here has a more definite answer. I don't mean to derail this thread. If my question is too far off from the original subject of this thread please feel free to move it to a more appropriate thread.
European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests
Correct me as a the guy, but the argument on this thread is that one person doesn't understand that Eurasians are a subset of East Africans and because of that he/she believes East Africans are mixed? Again that is the argument that I am getting. And if that's the case; East Africans showing more genetic distant towards Eurasian's compared to other Africans does not mean East Africans are admixed or less Africans, but that Eurasians come from East Africans.
Because of that Eurasians have less genetic variations compared to Africans, since a small group only migrated out from East Africa. Again does not mean East Africans are any less African.
IMO I like to this is like with Greeks. Compared to most Europeans they are closer to Africans in terms of genetic distance, but are still wholly European.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ Yeah, that's pretty much the argument put forward.
Posted by Ardo (Member # 1797) on :
Welcome to ES Somner!
Looking forward to more from you but 2007 was a long time ago and more current study disputes the 6k origin of pink skin.
Looking forward to more from you but 2007 was a long time ago and more current study disputes the 6k http://www.g3journal.org/content/3/11/2059.full.pdf+html origin of pink skin iirc although not from aDNA as in your 2014 article.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
For all intents and purposes some Ethiopians ARE "Mixed". Ethiopians are not the only Africans that have "mixture" and the "Mixture" comes from South West Asians and they themselves are also "mixed."
The fact that some Ethiopians are Mixed does not exempt the fact that East Africans are closer to Eurasian populations. All one need to do is look at an East African population that we assume is not "Mixed". That brings us here:
quote: " These results mean that we have not identified any sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration. Our best candidate at present is the Dinka.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ardo: Welcome to ES Somner!
Looking forward to more from you but 2007 was a long time ago and more current study disputes the 6k origin of pink skin.
Looking forward to more from you but 2007 was a long time ago and more current study disputes the 6k http://www.g3journal.org/content/3/11/2059.full.pdf+html origin of pink skin iirc although not from aDNA as in your 2014 article.
from the article
Can we date the A111T mutation?
The preceding analysis is consistent with a wide range of possible dates for the origin of A111T, including the period before the initial colonization of Europe by anatomically modern humans >40 thousand years ago (kya) (Mellars 2006). An estimate for the date of origin of A111T based on microsatellites (Beleza et al. 2012) places the origin at 19 kya (95% confidence interval 6−38 kya), for a dominant model, or 11 kya (95% confidence interval 1−56 kya), for a more plausible additive model. To create an independent estimate, we applied a molecular clock approach to 1000 Genomes data by using the combined C and D subregions. Because proportions of different classes of nucleotide substitutions in the C11 + D4 variants and in the human-chimpanzee alignment are not significantly different (χ2 = 4.42, df = 5, P = 0.49; Table S15), we combined these classes for analysis. For the combined population samples, before making corrections for undercounts in the source data, we obtained an estimate of 7.8 kya for the most recent common ancestor of the C11 + D4 haplotype combination (Table 3). Corresponding 95% confidence limits are 4.8−12.2 kya, whereas uncorrected estimates derived from individual European samples or the combined New World samples (also of European origin) ranged from 5.2 to 10.4 kya (Table 3). These values are clearly underestimates as a result of low sequence depth (1000 Genomes Project Consortium 2012). Adjustment for undercounting is substantial, increasing the estimated age for the combined samples to 12.4 (95% confidence interval 7.6−19.2) kya. If mutation rates in recent humans are lower than predicted from the human-chimpanzee divergence (Scally and Durbin 2012), true ages will be even older. Our adjusted dates overlap those previously reported (Beleza et al. 2012) and are also consistent with the lower limit for the origin of A111T set by the finding that the Alpine “iceman” dated to 5.3 kya was homozygous for this variant (Keller et al. 2012). This date range implies an origin clearly preceding the Neolithic transition in Europe. These dates are later than the initial colonization of Europe but are consistent with an A111T origin before or after post-glacial population expansions.
_________________________
^^ this is in the realm of the earlier article which did not say only 6,000 years It said 6-12,000 years
Looking at La Brana, a sample described as dark skinned and blue eye is 7000 years old
Posted by BlessedbyHorus (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: ^ Yeah, that's pretty much the argument put forward.
Indeed.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote: " These results mean that we have not identified any sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration. Our best candidate at present is the Dinka.
Full context please. Also the goal of the study would be helpful if not the full study itself. I'd like to know what precise biological evidence that statement is based on and the timeframe each and every African ethnic group received these Eurasian migrants.
This could smack of an Hamiticism that far outdoes anything Speke, Seligman, or that other guy ever posited and projected back to deep pre-history to boot.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Correct me as a the guy, but the argument on this thread is that one person doesn't understand that Eurasians are a subset of East Africans and because of that he/she believes East Africans are mixed? Again that is the argument that I am getting. And if that's the case; East Africans showing more genetic distant towards Eurasian's compared to other Africans does not mean East Africans are admixed or less Africans, but that Eurasians come from East Africans.
Yes, but it's ***BOTH*** modern East and West Africans which share a common origin with Eurasians in Eastern Africa, not only modern Eastern Africans. Basically, both modern East and West Africans share a common origin in Northeastern Africa *after* the OOA migrations.
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
^^^It's written black on white. Clear as water.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate : ^^^It's written black on white. Clear as water.
It's not at all written black on white. What's black on white is that you're a propagandist who has never read a population genetics paper in his life.
E-M2 being the most important Y haplogroup in West Africa doesn't mean that the E-M2 people were aboriginal to West Africa or that West Africans and East Africans split after OOA.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Correct me as a the guy, but the argument on this thread is that one person doesn't understand that Eurasians are a subset of East Africans and because of that he/she believes East Africans are mixed? Again that is the argument that I am getting. And if that's the case; East Africans showing more genetic distant towards Eurasian's compared to other Africans does not mean East Africans are admixed or less Africans, but that Eurasians come from East Africans.
Yes, but it's ***BOTH*** modern East and West Africans which share a common origin with Eurasians in Eastern Africa, not only modern Eastern Africans. Basically, both modern East and West Africans share a common origin in Northeastern Africa *after* the OOA migrations.
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
So would you say its black and white that East Africans like Kikuyu, or East Africans like Hutu or Oromo are closer to Eurasians than Africans?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Correct me as a the guy, but the argument on this thread is that one person doesn't understand that Eurasians are a subset of East Africans and because of that he/she believes East Africans are mixed? Again that is the argument that I am getting. And if that's the case; East Africans showing more genetic distant towards Eurasian's compared to other Africans does not mean East Africans are admixed or less Africans, but that Eurasians come from East Africans.
Yes, but it's ***BOTH*** modern East and West Africans which share a common origin with Eurasians in Eastern Africa, not only modern Eastern Africans. Basically, both modern East and West Africans share a common origin in Northeastern Africa *after* the OOA migrations.
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
So would you say its black and white that East Africans like Kikuyu, or East Africans like Hutu or Oromo are closer to Eurasians than Africans?
Certainly not. Those people (Kikuyu, Hutu, Oromo, East Africans) are obviously African and they share a common origin with most other Africans like West Africans and Bantu at a time period after the OOA migrations. Your question doesn't even make sense. Are Kikuyu not Africans? Why do you say "than Africans", which they are themselves?
I said ***BOTH*** modern East and West Africans which share a common origin with Eurasians.
In other word, and as an example, Yoruba, Somali, Oromo, kikuyu, Igbo, Zulu, Kongo and Bantu people share a common origin with Eurasian. As they are from the Y-DNA CT and mtDNA L3 lineages in large part of their populations (lineages they share with OOA migrants). They also share other African lineages (L2a, L0a, etc).
Africans like Aka-Mbuti-Twa-like people as well as Khoisan don't share those common CT and L3 lineages for the most part so are not related to OOA migrants beside through more recent admixtures.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: and they share a common origin with most other Africans like West Africans and Bantu at a time period after the OOA migrations.
Oh lord. Here we go again. Dirty job, but someone has to check these loony propagandists.
Where is your evidence for this bs claim?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^You're a racist idiot. The evidences are obviously discussed in the part of my post above YOU decided not to quote.
So would you say its black and white that East Africans like Kikuyu, or East Africans like Hutu or Oromo are closer to Eurasians than Africans?
Certainly not. Those people (Kikuyu, Hutu, Oromo, East Africans) are obviously African and they share a common origin with most other Africans like West Africans and Bantu at a time period after the OOA migrations. Your question doesn't even make sense. Are Kikuyu not Africans? Why do you say "than Africans", which they are themselves?
I said ***BOTH*** modern East and West Africans which share a common origin with Eurasians.
In other word, and as an example, Yoruba, Somali, Oromo, kikuyu, Igbo, Zulu, Kongo and Bantu people share a common origin with Eurasian. As they are from the Y-DNA CT and mtDNA L3 lineages in large part of their populations (lineages they share with OOA migrants). They also share other African lineages (L2a, L0a, etc).
Africans like Aka-Mbuti-Twa-like people as well as Khoisan don't share those common CT and L3 lineages for the most part so are not related to OOA migrants beside through more recent admixtures.
You can keep saying the same thing over and over if you want. It has been debunked and you have not provided a sufficient sourced explanation to remove it from "Debunked Status".
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^In what ways does this debunk what I said? You lost your own plot a long time ago in this thread.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^In what ways does this debunk what I said? You lost your own plot a long time ago in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^Trite. Maybe some dummy thinks he of the last word is right. - Tukuler
.............
First this guy said that substructure in Africa is defined by A/B and L0-L2 vs L3 and M168 Africans. This is his MO. And the former group AB/L0-L2 or for the sake of accuracy "Pygmies and San" are divergent and dont share OOA Ancestry with the East and West Africans. See Below
quote: I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups, share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
For example, modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants (since they are mostly from non-CT and non-L3 haplogroups) beside through recent admixtures.
Notice he is distinguishing two groups. For the sake of simplicity lets use colors to represent the two groups......i dont know how about Orange for the "OOA Group" and Red for the Africa Specific group. Wait a minute...these colors looks somewhat fimiliar.
Amun ra is now shaking in his boots as he is called on the nonsense idea that Pygmies and San dont share OOA Ancestry. Clearly We can see they do when looking at the Chart....ALL African populations share Orange. Amun Ra was then asked "what does "OOA" mean (Orange Component)?" on the Chart above. Of course he does not want to answer cause its just more self ownage...but anyone that has been paying attention to this Baffoon knows he makes it all up as he goes along....case and point one minute he says this:
quote:For example, modern Khoisan and Aka-Mbuti related people don't share this common ancestry with OOA migrants (since they are mostly from non-CT and non-L3 haplogroups) beside through recent admixtures.
But a second later he spans this:
quote:After the OOA migrations, African populations who stayed back in Africa were not static, fixated in time. They continued to interact, admix with each others as well as migrating in different directions, sharing cultures, developing new languages. For example, creating the E, E-P2, L3eikx, L3bf haplogroups as well as many downstream A and B haplogroups and admixing with each others (especially through patrilocality). Source
Those two ideas are totally at odds with each other. But it doesn't stop here. He goes off the deep end...drowning in stupidity. He says the OOA image cannot be used because populations back migrate:
quote: You can't use the admixture K=2 graph to demonstrate the OOA substructure since those K=2 graphs (which are not always similar btw) are based on modern populations and also take into account RECENT back migrations of non-Africans into Africa.
When asked what populations back-migrated into the San and Pygmies he is MUTE. Take Note - If there are multiple populations in Africa OOA and non OOA that "continued to interact, admix with each others" obviously the San and Pygmies SHOULD show composite ancestry according to his quote. BUT since he is making it up he wants them to be pure to go back to his other idea that San and Pygmies didnt mix with OOA. What is his solution....more nonsense:
quote: You don't even know what you're talking about yourself. Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph (which btw are not always similar).
So he highlights the even the "Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color" in the grapgh. Well of COURSE they do. And this goes back to him not wanting to even say what "OOA" means in the graph. And leads back to something he is saying but doesnt even understand:
quote: I said BOTH modern East and West Africans, descendants of the CT and L3 haplogroups, share a common ancestry with OOA migrants.
If Orange is "OOA migrants." why would Amun Ra protest that "Even Bantu-Niger-Congo got orange color in your graph" According to Amun ra they SHOULD have Orange as they "hare a common ancestry with OOA migrants".
What it is is a clusterfvck from an individual that doesnt know what he is talking about, full of contradictions and just makes it up as he goes along. The ownage of Amun ra has been broken down so even a caveman reading the page can understand this guys tomfoolery. This is why ES is a laughing stock. The things above have become part and parcel of this site because these bozos are the most vocal and nobody seems to be correcting them.
You should be able to explain these inconsistencies and contradictions. We dont need you to simply repeat them.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^You're a racist idiot. The evidences are obviously discussed in the part of my post above YOU decided not to quote.
I see not a single shred of evidence that East and West Africans diverged following OOA. All I see is a garbage post you manufactured and wrote yourself. Passing your own fairy tales as evidence might fly where you live, but not here.
Where is your evidence for that claim?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^You're a racist idiot. The evidences are obviously discussed in the part of my post above YOU decided not to quote.
I see not a single shred of evidence that East and West Africans diverged following OOA.
Not a single shred of evidence?!? Shut up racist idiot, for your own good.
For example, East and West Africans share the common E-P2 lineage which appeared after the OOA migrations. They also share various MtDNA lineages we can see in this study for example: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443
quote: Using the principle of the phylogeographic parsimony, the resolution of the E1b1b trifurcation in favor of a common ancestor of E-M2 and E-M329 strongly supports the hypothesis that haplogroup E1b1 originated in eastern Africa, as previously suggested [10], and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa .
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: For example, East and West Africans share the common E-P2 lineage which appeared after the OOA migrations.
According to which reliable piece of evidence? And even IF E was younger than OOA, how would it prove that East and West Africans split after OOA?
Yes, this is the part where you sh!t your pants and flee the scene (as you always have), isn't it?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
It proves that East and West Africans (and most sub-Saharan Africans in general) and I quote " trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa . "
E-P2 wasn't part of the OOA migrations (OOA migrants were from the upstream CT haplogroup as all OOA populations are descendant from the upstream CT haplogroup).
They also share various mtDNA ancestors as we can see here for example (using the haplogroups frequency tables): http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443 Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The discussed East and West Africans being dominant In Y E proves that that these males trace their descent to E? So? The critical pieces you're desperately trying to avoid:
1) explain how any of the bs you blurted out above proves that E is younger than OOA.
2) explain how merely being dominant in a particular haplogroup confines a population's history to the age and other specifics of that haplogroup. For instance, some Berber populations are 100% E-M81. Does that mean their ancestral population would poof out of existence if one were to time travel to slightly before the emergence of E-M81
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
You're grasping at straws and wasting my time.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
1) explain how any of the bs you blurted out above proves that E is younger than OOA.
Are you saying E is NOT younger than the OOA migrations? Are you saying E was part of the OOA migrations? What is your opinion about it?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: You're grasping at straws and wasting my time.
Then you should have no problems addressing my questions one by one. What are you waiting for?
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Are you saying E is NOT younger than the OOA migrations?
You made the claim, you prove it. Here, let me help you out and put you back on track to proving your bs:
1) explain how any of the bs you blurted out above proves that E is younger than OOA.
2) explain how merely being dominant in a particular haplogroup confines a population's history to the age and other specifics of that haplogroup. For instance, some Berber populations are 100% E-M81. Does that mean their ancestral male population would poof out of existence if one were to time travel to slightly before the emergence of E-M81
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^^Don't be ridiculous. I'm not here to answer all you're stupid questions.
You're the one who must prove that E is NOT younger than the OOA migrations? And that E was part of the OOA migrations? Or that East and West Africans don't share the E-P2 haplogroup. Which you can't. OOA migrants were from the upstream CT haplogroup. Most East and West Africans from the downstream E haplogroups (over 80% of their populations).
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^Don't be ridiculous. I'm not here to answer all you're stupid questions.
So there you have it. You're full of bs. Not a single reference in support of your crackpot claims. You failed to prove
1) that E is younger than OOA 2) that haplogroup profiles necessarily preserve all deep ancestry
hence:
3) your unintelligible gibberish why E is somehow a sound basis to say that the East and West African populations under discussion split before OOA is exactly that: gibberish.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^You're the one who is full of bs. It's obvious you're trying to waste my time by making me answer stupid questions while not providing any evidence to contradict what I posted. Are you're saying ridiculously that E was part of the OOA migrations and is older than CT or not? I guess it's easier ask empty questions over and over again than prove somebody is wrong.
Look at this graph. It's pretty simple to understand even for a racist like you:
You're the one desperate to prove I'm wrong and thus must prove so with evidences. I'm perfectly comfortable with what I posted above and in those following threads.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Blablablabla
Meanwhile, in the real world, Y E and/or the branch it sits on is older than any Eurasian clade in any current Y phylogenetic tree. Of course, the clown above me wouldn't know that because he's never read a single population genetics paper in his life.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
LOL. When the going gets tough his azz is gone. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^Don't be ridiculous. I'm not here to answer all you're stupid questions.
You're the one who must prove that E is NOT younger than the OOA migrations? And that E was part of the OOA migrations? Or that East and West Africans don't share the E-P2 haplogroup. Which you can't. OOA migrants were from the upstream CT haplogroup. Most East and West Africans from the downstream E haplogroups (over 80% of their populations).
Hey guys doesn't Amanut's own graph refute him?? According to the graph CF carriers were in Eurasia before E-M96 (E*) even diverged, and the same is true with DE.
Anyway, the nutcase is too stupid to realize that we are not racists trying to white-wash or de-Africanize people who are obviously African BUT there is no arguing that some Africans are closer related to Eurasians than to other Africans.
As I tried explaining to the idiot even PN2 derived E carrying Africans in general are closer related to Eurasians than they are to say Africans who carry or A. Again, his OWN graphs shows this.
This is why racial typology is scientifically invalid and bankrupt, and why people who rely on such typology for their racial agendas will always fail!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
And then the emotional crybaby said:
"It's obvious you're trying to waste my time by making me answer stupid questions".
He genuinely thinks they are a bunch of random questions that I pulled out of thin air to torment him and waste his time. Not the first time I've seen this "they're out to get me" paranoia on ES. How profoundly oblivious can you be to not see the relationship and direct relevancy of the questions to the matter at hand? Like the goldfish in the fishtank who never realizes he's engulfed in water, because he doesn't have the capacity to compute such a notion.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Certainly not. Those people (Kikuyu, Hutu, Oromo, East Africans) are obviously African and they share a common origin with most other Africans like West Africans and Bantu at a time period after the OOA migrations. Your question doesn't even make sense. Are Kikuyu not Africans? Why do you say "than Africans", which they are themselves?
I asked the question because Beyoku up above says that quote:
" does not exempt the fact that East Africans are closer to Eurasian populations. All one need to do is look at an East African population that we assume is not "Mixed"."
So based on your statement above, is Beyoku wrong? Are Kikuyu, Oromo, Hutu etc, who are all East Africans, closer to Eurasians than other African populations? If not, where are the errors in Beyoku's claim?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally edited by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^^Don't be ridiculous. I'm not here to answer all you're stupid questions.
You're the one who must prove that E is NOT younger than the OOA migrations? And that E was part of the OOA migrations? Or that East and West Africans don't share the E-P2 haplogroup. Which you can't. OOA migrants were from the upstream CT haplogroup. Most East and West Africans from the downstream E haplogroups (over 80% of their populations).
Hey guys doesn't Amanut's own graph refute him?? According to the graph CF carriers were in Eurasia before E-M96 (E*) even diverged, and the same is true with DE.
Anyway, the nutcase is too stupid to realize that we are not racists trying to white-wash or de-Africanize people who are obviously African BUT there is no arguing that some Africans are closer related to Eurasians than to other Africans.
As I tried explaining to the idiot even PN2 derived E carrying Africans in general are closer related to Eurasians than they are to say Africans who carry B or A. Again, his OWN graphs shows this.
This is why racial typology is scientifically invalid and bankrupt, and why people who rely on such typology for their racial agendas will always fail!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally edited by Djehuti: Hey guys doesn't Amanut's own graph refute him?? According to the graph CF carriers were in Eurasia before E-M96 (E*) even diverged, and the same is true with DE.
Initially I didn't see the significance of what you were saying, but yeah, very sharp point; the map is not internally consistent in that regard. I don't think it was meant to be taken that seriously (its simplified and watered down) but he obviously thinks it's the bible of population genetics judging by how often he posts it along with the rest of his propaganda.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Certainly not. Those people (Kikuyu, Hutu, Oromo, East Africans) are obviously African and they share a common origin with most other Africans like West Africans and Bantu at a time period after the OOA migrations. Your question doesn't even make sense. Are Kikuyu not Africans? Why do you say "than Africans", which they are themselves?
I asked the question because Beyoku up above says that quote:
" does not exempt the fact that East Africans are closer to Eurasian populations. All one need to do is look at an East African population that we assume is not "Mixed"."
So based on your statement above, is Beyoku wrong? Are Kikuyu, Oromo, Hutu etc, who are all East Africans, closer to Eurasians than other African populations? If not, where are the errors in Beyoku's claim?
He will do one of two things. 1 - Not answer. 2 - Run away for a while only to come back and spew the same nonsense.
Its funny I am the so called wacists when he sounds very simililar to the Euroclown playbook seen HERE.
He says that Khoi/Twa didn mix with other E/L3/M168 folks:
DEBUNKED
quote: Other studies (PRÜFER ET AL 2014, MEYER ET AL 2012, TISHKOFF ET AL 2009) have shown that, while the San and Mbuti are the most diverged from all other populations sampled, the Mandenka and Yoruba populations have only recently separated and the Dinka population shares some ancestry with non-African populations. The San and Mbuti projections onto YRI show a slight excess of rare alleles, suggesting some admixture from their ancestors into the ancestors of YRI
Note the above about the Dinka..........they "shares some ancestry with non-African populations." According to Amun Ra the troll that should not be the case since they are mostly A/B non L3 population. And remember :
quote: These results mean that we have not identified any sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration. Our best candidate at present is the Dinka but it is possible that with a phased genome or large sample sizes we would detect evidence of non-African ancestry in this population as well.
Dinka sit closest to Eurasians.....have less Neanderthal and Yoruba.....they are Primarily an A/B population........they share "some ancestry with non-African populations." yet they are the "best candidate at present" for a "sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration"
Anyone looking for the context of the quote can simply GOOGLE IT.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Like casting pearls before swines, tho.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Like casting pearls before swines, tho.
Sadly.....this is why I haven't posted that new paper.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
That's not a problem to me and doesn't contradict me in any way because Dinka in that graph (which is NOT about genetic distance btw) are still closer to Yoruba than they are to any of the Eurasian samples in the graph.
As I said before, multiple times, of course if you divide a Yoruba town into 2 groups in a competely random fashion, due to random genetic drift (etc) one of the 2 group will be closer to Eurasian than the other group. But they will still be closer to one another than they are to Eurasians. Even with 2 twins individuals, as a bit of a trivia, there will one closer to Eurasian populations than the other one (because it turns out twins are not genetically *exactly* similar although they are almost similar). Low level bi-directional admixtures through intermediary can also have some impact.
Dinka in your graph, which is not about genetic distance, are still closer to Yoruba than they are to any Eurasian populations.
For Ancient Egyptian it's the same thing, according to current genetic results they are closer to sub-Saharan Africans (E1b1a, Great Lakes Africans, Southern Africans, West Africans, archaeological continuity, etc) than they are to Eurasians, North Africans or West Asians populations.
So, Ancient Egyptians are closer to sub-Saharan Africans (E1b1a, Great Lakes, etc) than they are to Europeans or West Asians populations despite having some low level Eurasian admixtures like during the Hyksos (Aamu/Asians) occupation and probably even during the foundation of Ancient Egypt (since neighboring populations -including with Eurasian nomadic tribes- always intermarry/intermix at low level). Despite this low level admixtures with Eurasians Ancient Egyptians still end up to be closer to Sub-Saharan Africans than Eurasians according to current genetic and archaeological study results.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
You are moving the goal post. Notice issue stated by myself and which was also asked by Zarahan was this :
quote: I asked the question because Beyoku up above says that quote:
"does not exempt the fact that East Africans are closer to Eurasian populations. All one need to do is look at an East African population that we assume is not "Mixed"."
You didnt answer the question. That you point out that the Dinka are close to the Yoruba is a valid point. That does not exempt the fact that the Dinka are closer to the Eurasian sample than the Yoruba and Twa are! In turn the Yoruba are closer to the Eurasians than that Twa are.
This tree only includes 3 African populations. Include the Khoi, Southern Bantu, Dongon, Mandinka, Fulani, Kenyans Omotics, Somali, Sudanese etc and the cline with be even longer. The Cline will be long enough that SOME Africans..................could be closer to Eurasians than any other Africans.
This would be even more pronounced if you travel back through time to OOA because the Africans that left....wouldn't be fully genetically differentiated from the Africans that didnt leave.
PLease answer Zarahan's question. In fact please explain the position of the Dinka....having less Neanderthal than the Yoruba, having shared ancestry with Eurasians while at the same time being the best proxy from an African population with NO Admixture compared to the Yoruba. And also being heavy in A/B non L3. You cant.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: mtDNA analysis in ancient Nubians supports the existence of gene flow between sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile valley
quote:The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa 1 (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68.7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.
I can't wrap my mind around why this paper is so undercited, aside from Cuckoo Mathilda and her confused puppets. Notice I'm not saying that this paper has been ignored by ES members, as its potential to be misconstrued has been nipped in the bud several times. But why isn't it pro-actively quoted as much as, say, DNA Tribes' Amarna analysis?
First of all, judging by the abstract, the authors aren't even saying that these Nubians had 61% non-African mtDNAs, and secondly, their title and abstract are suggesting that they were testing the contributions of Niger Congo speaking Africans in the ancient Nile Valley genepool (which doesn't make sense due to the fact that these lineages predate anything Niger-Congo, but oh well..):
Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39%
^They clearly aren't counting Northeast African specific mtDNA Ls (which we now know, are prominent).
Thirdly, it is NORMAL for Sudanese to only have ~30% hpa I np 3592 associated uniparentals (L1 and L2):
quote:For mtDNA analysis, a total of 56 haplotypes were observed, all belonging to the major sub-Saharan African and Eurasian mitochondrial macrohapolgroups L0, L1, L2, L4, L5, L3A, M and N in frequencies of 12.1, 11.9, 22, 4.2, 6.2, 29.5, 2, and 12.2% respectively.
--Hassan, 2009
Forget all that nonense arguing with Amun, now back to the topic. By the logic of this study, if my mtDNA was among the samples, I would be counted as NOT being sub-Saharan because my mtDNA haplogroup is L4b2, which is found scattered around the continent but at very low frequencies and highest in Hazda. The reason this study cannot be cited is because it is dated, didn't specific whether the non- Hpa 1 (np3,592) markers are L0 and or L3-L7. perhaps if her samples were tested again we could have a much more accurate presentation. Back then I remember debating Racial Reality aka "Racial Myths" who used this study, well the abstract, to say ancient Nubians were 39% "Negroid" and therefore not black. Hpa 1 (np3,592) is typical of only L1 and L2, but we know L3-L7 and M1 is found at higher frequencies in Northeast Africa. Also in teh fulltext of the study, CL Fox presumed that the Nubian population was originally a "Caucasoid" population that became more Negroid, another reason why this study should not be cited.
Swenet step your game up brother, I know you can do better than this, smh
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
bump
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
I find it strange you cant tell he knows the details of Hpal 3592 just by looking at the very first post in the thread.....Or the other images comparing the Ancient Nubian dna with contemporary African lineages.
Or maybe my sarcasm meter is turned off?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: PLease answer Zarahan's question. In fact please explain the position of the Dinka....having less Neanderthal than the Yoruba, having shared ancestry with Eurasians while at the same time being the best proxy from an African population with NO Admixture compared to the Yoruba. And also being heavy in A/B non L3. You cant.
If we look at the study above we can gather those numbers: Dinka L3:33.33% (3.03+3.03+3.03+24.24) Dinka Eurasian mtdNA:6.05% (100-3.03+6.06+15.15+12.12+ 3.03+3.03+3.03+24.24+6.06+18.2) Dinka: E1b1b (M78):15.38%
So Dinka have L3 in large quantity 33.33% They got 6.05% of patrilocal (female mediated) admixtures with Eurasian. They got 15.38% of E1b1b. We know some Eurasian populations got E1b1b in small proportion (larger for the Balkans).
All this have impact on the genetic distance (even if we had a real genetic distance value). They show post-OOA bi-directional admixtures between Dinka and Eurasians probably through intermediaries (E1b1b carrier).
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
@Charlie
I agree with what you're saying. When I wrote that, I was arguing from the perspective that C.L. Fox was talking about external influences on already indigenous Nile Valley populations:
to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population
Now, a couple of years later, I no longer think that's what she was doing. However, I do think the results can be repurposed for the case that this sample was predominantly African. The reason is because, if you're arguing from C.L. Fox' perspective that the Nubian population was originally Caucasoid, you need a lot of African geneflow to get from 0% to 26.7% HpaI when you're dealing with Afro-Asiatic mtDNA M1 populations (certainly more than 26.7%). Taking modern samples with known craniometric overlap with Meroites, who live near Meroe, you'd need more than 50% mtDNA L types to go from immigrant non-African to 26.7% HpaI.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
This is not directly related to my last post above but for info this is the proportion of L3 in Yoruba and Somali (gathered from the same Hirbo Study ):
This and the large proportion of CT descendant haplogroups (E and E-P2 haplogroups) among both Yoruba and Somali, show that BOTH Yoruba and Somali share a common origin with OOA migrants (who are all CT and L3 descendants). That's true for most African populations beside Aka-Mbuti related people and Khoisan people (who only got more recent admixtures with Eurasians through intermediaries as well as recent CT and L3 African lineages admixtures).
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Charlie
I agree with what you're saying. When I wrote that, I was arguing from the perspective that C.L. Fox was talking about external influences on indigenous Nile Valley populations:
to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population
Now, a couple of years later, I no longer think that's what she was doing. However, I do think the results can be repurposed for the case that this sample was predominantly African. The reason is because, if you're arguing from C.L. Fox' perspective that the Nubian population was originally Caucasoid, you need a lot of African geneflow to get from 0% to 26.7% HpaI when you're dealing with Afro-Asiatic mtDNA M1 populations (certainly more than 26.7%). Taking modern samples with known craniometric overlap with Meroites, you'd need more than 50% mtDNA L types to go from immigrant non-African to 26.7% HpaI.
Oh ok, all is cool then,, I mean just know that pretty much prior to 2000 all of those sources never defined L3 and all of its sister clades, L4 being one. I tried to get a hold of her study full text so people can see the stuff she wrote in it, very typological for its time.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: This and the large proportion of CT descendant haplogroups (E and E-P2 haplogroups) among both Yoruba and Somali, show that BOTH Yoruba and Somali share a common origin with OOA migrants
All modern humans on the face of the earth share a common origin with OOA migrants. However, if you're going to push your lying propaganda that the West African populations you talk about split after OOA, I'm going to need some evidence. Where is it? Every time you duck the question and spout the same propaganda again, I'm going to be on your bumper.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: This and the large proportion of CT descendant haplogroups (E and E-P2 haplogroups) among both Yoruba and Somali, show that BOTH Yoruba and Somali share a common origin with OOA migrants
All modern humans on the face of the earth share a common origin with OOA migrants. However, if you're going to push your lying propaganda that the West African populations you talk about split after OOA, I'm going to need some evidence. Where is it? Every time you duck the question and spout the same propaganda again, I'm going to be on your bumper.
Since E-P2, the Y-DNA haplogroup shared between East and West African is downstream to CT, it's obvious it happened after the OOA migrations of CT carriers (the Y-DNA haplogroup of all OOA migrants). East and West Africans share a common father (E-P2) and various mothers (L2a, L3bf, L3cd, L3eikx, L0a, etc). While both East and West Africans share great great grandfathers and grandmothers with Eurasians. People who share downstream E-P2 between each others are more closely related to each others than people that share only upstream (more ancient) CT haplogroup. It's basic logic.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: mtDNA analysis in ancient Nubians supports the existence of gene flow between sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile valley
quote:The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26.7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa 1 (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68.7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.
I can't wrap my mind around why this paper is so undercited, aside from Cuckoo Mathilda and her confused puppets. Notice I'm not saying that this paper has been ignored by ES members, as its potential to be misconstrued has been nipped in the bud several times. But why isn't it pro-actively quoted as much as, say, DNA Tribes' Amarna analysis?
First of all, judging by the abstract, the authors aren't even saying that these Nubians had 61% non-African mtDNAs, and secondly, their title and abstract are suggesting that they were testing the contributions of Niger Congo speaking Africans in the ancient Nile Valley genepool (which doesn't make sense due to the fact that these lineages predate anything Niger-Congo, but oh well..):
Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39%
^They clearly aren't counting Northeast African specific mtDNA Ls (which we now know, are prominent).
Thirdly, it is NORMAL for Sudanese to only have ~30% hpa I np 3592 associated uniparentals (L1 and L2):
quote:For mtDNA analysis, a total of 56 haplotypes were observed, all belonging to the major sub-Saharan African and Eurasian mitochondrial macrohapolgroups L0, L1, L2, L4, L5, L3A, M and N in frequencies of 12.1, 11.9, 22, 4.2, 6.2, 29.5, 2, and 12.2% respectively.
--Hassan, 2009
For the record, certain aspects of this post are inaccurate. The Hpal 3592 marker left the mtDNA tree immediately upstream of L4'3, meaning, only L3, L4, M and N lineages lack the Hpal 3592 marker. There are exceptions but these exceptions don't have common ancestry with the Hpal 3592 marker upstream of L4'3.
Repost. Only L3 and L4 are HpaI negative. L5 and L6 are not HpaI negative. L7 has been tucked in with L4 in current phylogeny.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote: Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: This and the large proportion of CT descendant haplogroups (E and E-P2 haplogroups) among both Yoruba and Somali, show that BOTH Yoruba and Somali share a common origin with OOA migrants
All modern humans on the face of the earth share a common origin with OOA migrants. However, if you're going to push your lying propaganda that the West African populations you talk about split after OOA, I'm going to need some evidence. Where is it? Every time you duck the question and spout the same propaganda again, I'm going to be on your bumper. [/qb]
Since E-P2, the Y-DNA haplogroup shared between East and West African is downstream to CT, it's obvious it happened after the OOA migrations of CT carriers (the Y-DNA haplogroup of all OOA migrants). East and West Africans share a common father (E-P2) and various mothers (L2a, L3bf, L3cd, L3eikx, L0a, etc). While both East and West Africans share great great grandfathers and grandmothers with Eurasians. People who share downstream E-P2 between each others are more closely related to each others than people that share only upstream (more ancient) CT haplogroup. It's basic logic.
Every inference you make here on the basis of hg sharing between the implicated East and West Africans is absolute gibberish. These instances of hg sharing can be explained in more ways than a split after OOA; there is nothing "obvious" about what you're flapping your gums about.
Where is your evidence? No one cares about what YOU wrote or what YOU deem evident. Just a month ago you said that Y chromsomes lineages can be inferred from the autosomes. All your "evidence" so far has been your own monologue. When will it dawn on you that the myths you cook up in your spare time are no substitutes for evidence?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
^^You're a racist idiot.
People who share downstream E-P2 between each others are more closely related to each others than people that share only upstream (more ancient) CT haplogroup. It's basic logic. Only bigotry make you deny what is evident for everybody else.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
The sharing of substantial L3 and E-P2 subclades between two separated populations tells you about post-split admixture, not the first population split itself that defines when their ancestral populations first went their separate ways, incompetent fraud. Now, do you have any evidence for the figments of your imagination, or what?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The sharing of substantial L3 and E-P2 subclades between two separated populations tells you about post-split admixture, not the first population split itself, incompetent fraud. Now, do you have any evidence for the figments of your imagination, or what?
That's ridiculous. East and West African population share upstream(older) haplogroups between each other not downstream.
For example, Somali got no E1b1a or L3e (common among Yoruba people), but share upstream E-P2 and L3eikx with Yoruba populations (see Hirbo) . So before E-P2 and L3eikx split into local regional variants like E1b1a and L3e.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Blablablabla
You can stop with all these confused "see Hirbo" references. I've already told you that the whole Hirbo thesis is one big refutation of your claims, including the ones you try to advance here. Remember? I think it was about the 30th time you fled the scene after you realized your propaganda was exposed.
Confused charlatan, do you know the difference between an original population split and different post-split expansions towards of West Africa?
The mere notion of post-split admixture is too much to compute for you, isn't it? Maybe these pictures help.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL You're still arguing with the Ultimate Nut??
The guy obviously has issues. So what's the point?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
What's the point of your post?
It doesn't tell us anything about any topic. It's just an unprovoked gratuitous personal attack on ARtU that cheapens the thread and makes ES Egyptology look worthless.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Bump.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Modern sudan Now this is paternal only.
Sample Nubians taken(Nile Valley) Nubians (Agriculturists; n=39; Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic) 3/39 = 7.7% B-M60 - Nilotic 3/39 = 7.7% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M7.8. North East Africa 5/39 = 12.8% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa 1/39 = 2.6% E1b1b1a1b-V32 North East Africa 4/39 = 10.3% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) Western Asia 2/39 = 5.1% I-M170 - Near East 16/39 = 41.0% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) - Arabic 1/39 = 2.6% J2-M172 -Arabic 4/39 = 10.3% R1b1-P25 - Chadic
Nuba Hill Nubians and others.(Central sudan) (Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic) 46 % A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 14.2% B-M60 - Nilotic 14.2% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M7.8. - North East Africa 25 % E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa
Beja (Pastoralists; n=42; Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic?) 2/42 = 4.8% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 7/42 = 16.7% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M7.8. - North East Africa 2/42 = 4.8% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa 13/42 = 31.0% E1b1b1a1b-V32 -North East Africa 15/42 = 35.7% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic 1/42 = 2.4% J2-M172 -Arabic 2/42 = 4.8% R1b1-P25 - Chadic
Arabs/Gaalien (Agriculturists; n=50; Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) 3/50 = 6.0% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 3/50 = 6.0% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa 3/50 = 6.0% E1b1b1a1b-V32 North East Africa 3/50 = 6.0% E1b1b1a3-V22 North East Africa 5/50 = 10.0% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M 170, J-12f2, K-M9)Western Asia 2/50 = 4.0% I-M170 Near East 18/50 = 36.0% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic 2/50 = 4.0% J2-M172 Arabic 3/50 = 6.0% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) Southwestern Asia 1/50 = 2.0% R1-M173(xR1b1-P25) Chadic 7/50 = 14.0% R1b1-P25 - Chadic
Arabs/Meseria (Nomadic Pastoralists; n=28; Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) 1/28 = 3.6% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa 3/28 = 10.7% E1b1b1a1b-V32 North East Africa 3/28 = 10.7% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) Western Asia 2/28 = 7.1% I-M170 - South West Asia 12/28 = 42.9% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic 7/28 = 25.0% R1b1-P25 - Chadic
Arabs/Arakien (Agriculturists; n=24; Afro-Asiatic, Semitic) 2/24 = 8.3% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 1/24 = 4.2% E1b1b1a1b-V32 North East Africa 1/24 = 4.2% E1b1b1a3-V22 North East Africa 2/24 = 8.3% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) West Asia 16/24 = 66.7% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic 2/24 = 8.3% R1b1-P25 Chadic
Sudanese Arab total: 3/102 = 2.9% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 6/102 = 5.9% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 7/102 = 6.9% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/102 = 3.9% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 10/102 = 9.8% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) West Asia 4/102 = 3.9% I-M170 South West Asia 46/102 = 45.1% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic 2/102 = 2.0% J2-M172 - Arabic 3/102 = 2.9% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) - South west Asia 1/102 = 1.0% R1-M173(xR1b1-P25) - Chadic 16/102 = 15.7% R1b1-P25 - Chadic
Masalit (Agriculturists; n=32; Nilo-Saharan, Maban) 6/32 = 18.8% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 1/32 = 3.1% B-M60 - Nilotic 1/32 = 3.1% E1b1b1a-M78(xE1b1b1a1-V12, E1b1b1a2-V13, E1b1b1a3-V22, E1b1b1a4-V65) - North East Africa 17/32 = 53.1% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 5/32 = 15.6% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 2/32 = 6.3% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic
Fur (Agriculturists; n=32; Nilo-Saharan, Fur) 10/32 = 31.3% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 1/32 = 3.1% B-M60 - Nilotic 13/32 = 40.6% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 6/32 = 18.8% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 2/32 = 6.3% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) - Arabic
Copts (Agriculturists; n=33; Afro-Asiatic, Ancient Egyptian > Semitic) 5/33 = 15.2% B-M60 - Nilotic 2/33 = 6.1% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M7.8. - North East Africa 5/33 = 15.2% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa 13/33 = 39.4% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Arabic 2/33 = 6.1% J2-M172 - Arabic 1/33 = 3.0% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) - South West Asia 5/33 = 15.2% R1b1-P25 -- Chadic
Sudanese (Pastoralist/AgriPastoralist Nilotes (Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk) Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic) A3B2 (28/53 = 52.8%), - Nilotic B(16/53 = 30.2%), -Nilotic E1b1b1a1 (V12+V22 +32)- 9/53 = 17.0%. - North East Africa
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: Haplogroup J in itself is most likely African. J* peaks in territories near in or around Africa.
J2-M172 is African ... J (Y-DNA), more than likely originated in East Africa also.
J1 moved into Yemen, While J2 spread from Egypt into the Levant
J1 were Nomads similar to the Beja and Tigre, While J2 were farmers in affiliation to Nile Valley populations.
Areas like Socotra (a few miles outside off of Somalia) still have the highest % of J*.
Both J1 and J2 have African origins... J*(xJ1, J2) is the oldest form of J ever found, it was found in and near Africa.
70% J* in Socotra (Cerny) 7.7% J* in Oman (Di Giacomo)
According to the most recent studies, most of the "Eurasian" tagged haplogroups developed either in Africa or originated among populations who spanned between both "Southwest Asia" and Africa.
I have not wrote anything in awhile here.
quote: Both J1 and J2 have African origins...
So this would be incorrect? J1 and J2 is not african?
Anyway it seems to me that while most sudanese arabs do have euro-asian admixture from info i have seen far overtime,most sudanese do not have euro-asian admixture,and i am talking about northern sudan.
There are other africans in northern sudan that are not arab and did not mix with arabs. I posted some info about the sudanese nubians too on the first page as well.
The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking populations
Jacques Chiaroni 2010
Haplogroup J1 is a prevalent Y-chromosome lineage within the Near East. We report the frequency and YSTR diversity data for its major sub-clade (J1e). The overall expansion time estimated from 453 chromosomes is 10 000 years. Moreover, the previously described J1 (DYS388=13) chromosomes, frequently found in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolian populations, were ancestral to J1e and displayed an expansion time of 9000 years. For J1e, the Zagros/Taurus mountain region displays the highest haplotype diversity, although the J1e frequency increases toward the peripheral Arabian Peninsula. The southerly pattern of decreasing expansion time estimates is consistent with the serial drift and founder effect processes. The first such migration is predicted to have occurred at the onset of the Neolithic, and accordingly J1e parallels the establishment of rain-fed agriculture and semi-nomadic herders throughout the Fertile Crescent. Subsequently, J1e lineages might have been involved in episodes of the expansion of pastoralists into arid habitats coinciding with the spread of Arabic and other Semitic-speaking populations.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
By the way some of those sudanese arabs are racially white and some are racially brown,but most black arabized sudanese arabs do not have euro-asian admixture. Remember many northern black sudanese became arabized to avoid raids and rape. This info was mention in some of the nubian books and african history books i have read overtime. I posted the info a number of times before.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking populations
Jacques Chiaroni 2010
Haplogroup J1 is a prevalent Y-chromosome lineage within the Near East. We report the frequency and YSTR diversity data for its major sub-clade (J1e). The overall expansion time estimated from 453 chromosomes is 10 000 years. Moreover, the previously described J1 (DYS388=13) chromosomes, frequently found in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolian populations, were ancestral to J1e and displayed an expansion time of 9000 years. For J1e, the Zagros/Taurus mountain region displays the highest haplotype diversity, although the J1e frequency increases toward the peripheral Arabian Peninsula. The southerly pattern of decreasing expansion time estimates is consistent with the serial drift and founder effect processes. The first such migration is predicted to have occurred at the onset of the Neolithic, and accordingly J1e parallels the establishment of rain-fed agriculture and semi-nomadic herders throughout the Fertile Crescent. Subsequently, J1e lineages might have been involved in episodes of the expansion of pastoralists into arid habitats coinciding with the spread of Arabic and other Semitic-speaking populations.
This is correct. I posted some info about this before by the way on this forum.
I just sent a email to you about this with my further thoughts.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote: Other studies (PRÜFER ET AL 2014, MEYER ET AL 2012, TISHKOFF ET AL 2009) have shown that, while the San and Mbuti are the most diverged from all other populations sampled, the Mandenka and Yoruba populations have only recently separated and the Dinka population shares some ancestry with non-African populations. The San and Mbuti projections onto YRI show a slight excess of rare alleles, suggesting some admixture from their ancestors into the ancestors of YRI
Note the above about the Dinka..........they "shares some ancestry with non-African populations." According to Amun Ra the troll that should not be the case since they are mostly A/B non L3 population. And remember:
quote: These results mean that we have not identified any sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration. Our best candidate at present is the Dinka but it is possible that with a phased genome or large sample sizes we would detect evidence of non-African ancestry in this population as well.
Dinka sit closest to Eurasians.....have less Neanderthal and Yoruba.....they are Primarily an A/B population........they share "some ancestry with non-African populations." yet they are the "best candidate at present" for a "sub-Saharan African sample that we are confident has no evidence of back-to-Africa migration"
Anyone looking for the context of the quote can simply GOOGLE IT.
This reminds me of the study 2016 Rotimi et al. Ancient Human Migration after Out-of-Africa. Tell me Beyoku, what is your take of study? Do you believe there were more than one OOA expansions?
What about you Firewall or anyone else with sense?
I personally believe there are sequential OOA ancestries that were made cryptic due to expansions of various Sub-Saharan ancestries (pre-Bantu) as well as later back-migrations from Eurasia. This is why Lazaridis' so-called 'Basal Eurasian' may very well be one of those subsequent OOA ancestries.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Here is some of my updated views.
Modern nubians
quote: When i look up current info for modern nubians they will mention nubians in egypt,sudan,hill nubians,nubians of darfur etc..
When looking at the dna info for modern nubians later on the study on wiki is really talking about nile valley nubians in the sudan on the nile.
Here some examples.
quote:
Genetics Y-DNA
Y-DNA analysis by Hassan et al. (2008) on a sample of 39 Nubians found that: Around 17 of his Nubian samples from Sudan carried haplogroup J 9 belonged to the haplogroup E1b1b clade
M-DNA Regarding the M-DNA lineages, Hassan (2009) found that approximately 83% of their Nubian samples carried various subclades of the Africa-centered macrohaplogroup L. Of these, the most frequent were:
quote: So this study above is not talking about hill nubians,nubians of darfur,nubians in chad or near the chad border or even nubians in kenya and uganda or arabized hill nubians and arabized darfur nubians.
So you have to be careful reading that info because it's misleading. For nubians and arabized nubians outside the nile valley sudan and to have get the dna info for nubians in egypt,kenya,uganda,darfur,chad,noba hills etc...
Someone needs to do a edit and make it clear for the nubians wiki page that the dna study is not for other modern nubians outside the nile valley sudan.
For example i do not see this info at all for hill nubians.
Hill Nubians and others.(Central sudan)
quote: (Nilo-Saharan, Eastern Sudanic) 46 % A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 14.2% B-M60 - Nilotic 14.2% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M7.8. - North East Africa 25 % E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) North East Africa
For hill nubians i will have look for info for the noba hills for example.
Another point most arab sudanese do have admixture but here is something else that is misleading.The study for arabs in the sudan is including brown and white ones and they are large number in the sudan or arabs who are from sudan. If you take out the black arabs and only focus on black arabs of sudan then most do not have arab dna or other race admixture. Keep in mind when arab dna is talked about for sudanese arabs that study often is talking about brown and white ones as well. Most modern nubians or most modern BLACK nubians do not have other race admixture as well. The reason i say modern black nubians is because there are some modern black nubians who are not black. Most are black however.
Note- Changing the subject here. In real life Huge numbers of White americans( hispanic whites and non hispanics) have modern native and black ancestry but that's not talk about as often. I think i read something recently saying it's the majority of white americans. If not then a large minority of white americans,but i think it's majority from new recent reports.
Looking at recent dna for white afrikaners from south africa,all of them have other race admixture.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Modern nubians census update. 2,585,700 nubians.
Egypt
quote: Nile nubians Nubian, Arabized Population 553,000 Nubian, Fedicca-Mohas Population 458,000 Nubian, Kunuz Population 55,000
Sudan
quote: Nile nubians Dongolawi Population 78,000 Nubian, Fedicca-Mohas Population 569,000
Darfur nubians Midobi Population 92,500 Birgid Population 27,000
Hill nubians Uncu, Ghulfan Population 41,000 Kadaru Population 30,000 Dair, Thaminyi Population 3,000 Delen, Warki Population 13,000 Garko Population 33,000 Wali Population 19,000 El Hugeirat Population 3,200
Debri, Wei Population 2,500 Jebel Debri, located south of the Ghulfan Massif
Other Afitti, Ditti Population 5,100
Arabized nubians Darfur nubians Birgid, Arabized Population 167,000 Midob, Tidda Arabized Population 100,000
Hill nubians Ghulfan, Arabized Population 51,000 Dilling, Arabized Population 86,000 Kadaru, Arabized Population 54,000 Karko, Arabized Population 28,000 Wali, Arabized 59,000
Kenya; Uganda
quote: Nubi Population: 58,500
Note-there are more nubians in the sudan then egypt and most nubians in the sudan are not nile valley ones.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Most modern nubians or most modern BLACK nubians do not have other race admixture as well. Note- The reason i say modern black nubians is because there are some modern black nubians who are not black. Most are black however.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Most modern nubians or most modern BLACK nubians do not have other race admixture as well. Note- The reason i say modern black nubians is because there are some modern black nubians who are not black. Most are black however.
What is the basis of the identification of "Nubians"? Most of these groups do not share a common culture or language. For example the "hill Nubians' are what are most often referred to as the Nuba People. They do no have a common culture with the Beja people or with the Dinka people or with the people around Aswan. There should be better labels for these groups.
And what do you mean by some of these people are 'not black'?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
That's seen in 1st to 4th cataract Nubians. During the Ottoman period they had Bosnian, Hungarian, Circassian, Kurdish, and Turkish troops stationed among them.
They also have input from Beja, a presumably ancient African group supposedly descended from geographic or tribal Medjay (as distinct from the AE multi-ethnic Medjay 'police force'.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Most modern nubians or most modern BLACK nubians do not have other race admixture as well. Note- The reason i say modern black nubians is because there are some modern black nubians who are not black. Most are black however.
Why anyone confuses Nubians with other people in Sudan and South Sudan is due to their own efforts. I use Sudan. I find 'the Sudan' confusing since the whole swathe from the Atlantic to the Nile Basin south of Sahel and north of Forest is called 'the Sudan'. This follows from Arabs, Europeans, and Berbers just seeing black skinned peoples without regard to kingdom, empire, or national self-distinctions.
I didn't see where you listed the below Sudan or South Sudan peoples as Nubians.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What is the basis of the identification of "Nubians"? Most of these groups do not share a common culture or language. For example the "hill Nubians' are what are most often referred to as the Nuba People. They do no have a common culture with the Beja people or with the Dinka people or with the people around Aswan. There should be better labels for these groups.
Nubians
quote: Nubians (/ˈnuːbiənz, ˈnjuː-/) are an ethno-linguistic group of people who are indigenous to the region which is now present-day Northern Sudan and southern Egypt. They originate from the early inhabitants of the central Nile valley, believed to be one of the earliest cradles of civilization. They speak Nubian languages, part of the Northern Eastern Sudanic languages.
Language Modern Nubians speak Nubian languages. They belong to the Eastern Sudanic branch of the Nilo-Saharan phylum. But there is some uncertainty regarding the classification of the languages spoken in Nubia in antiquity. There is some evidence that Cushitic languages were spoken in parts of Lower (northern) Nubia, an ancient region which straddles present day Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan, and that Eastern Sudanic languages were spoken in Upper and Central Nubia, before the spread of Eastern Sudanic languages even further north into Lower Nubia.
Culture Nubians have developed a common identity, which has been celebrated in poetry, novels, music and storytelling.
Nubian languages
quote: The Nubian languages (Arabic: لغات نوبية : lughāt nūbiyyah) are a group of related languages spoken by the Nubians. They form a branch of the Eastern Sudanic languages, which is part of the wider Nilo-Saharan phylum. Initially, Nubian languages were spoken throughout much of Sudan, but as a result of arabization they are today mostly limited to the Nile Valley between Aswan (southern Egypt) and Al Dabbah as well as villages in the Nuba mountains and Darfur.
Languages
quote: Rilly (2010) distinguishes the following Nubian languages, spoken by in total about 900,000 speakers: Nobiin, the largest Nubian language with 545,000 speakers in Egypt, Sudan, and the Nubian diaspora. Previously known by the geographic terms Mahas and Fadicca/Fiadicca. As late as 1863 this language, or a closely related dialect, was known to have been spoken by the arabized Nubian Shaigiya tribe.
Kenzi (endonym: Mattokki) with 100,000 speakers in Egypt and Dongolawi (endonym: Andaandi) with 180,000 speakers in Sudan. They are no longer considered a single language, but closely related. The split between Kenzi and Dongolawi is dated relatively recently to the 14th century.
Midob (Meidob) with 30,000 speakers. The language is spoken primarily in and around the Malha volcanic crater in North Darfur.
Birgid, now extinct, was spoken north of Nyala around Menawashei, with the last known speakers alive in the 1970s. It was the predominant language between the corridor of Nyala and al-Fashir in the north and the Bahr al-Arab in the south as recently as 1860.
Hill Nubian or Kordofan Nubian, a group of closely related languages or dialects spoken in various villages in the northern Nuba Mountains; in particular by the Dilling, Debri, and Kadaru. An extinct language, Haraza, is known only from a few dozen words recalled by village elders in 1923.
Classification
quote: Traditionally, the Nubian languages are divided into three branches: Northern (Nile), Western (Darfur), and Central.
Hill Nubians
quote: Hill Nubians are a group of Nubian peoples who inhabit the northern Nuba Mountains in South Kordofan state, Sudan. They speak the Hill Nubian languages. Despite their scattered presence and linguistic diversity, they all refer to themselves as Ajang and call their language Ajangwe, "the Ajang language".
Origin Canadian linguist Robin Thelwall believes that the Hill Nubians probably didn't migrate to the Nuba Mountains from Nubia, considering their linguistic divergence, and instead probably reached the Nuba Mountains from central Kordofan during the earliest Nubian migrations.Joseph Greenberg believes that any split between Hill and Nile Nubian must have occurred at least 2,500 years before present.
Hill Nubian languages
quote: The Hill Nubian languages, also called Kordofan Nubian, are a dialect continuum of Nubian languages spoken by the Hill Nubians in the northern Nuba Mountains of Sudan.
quote:
And what do you mean by some of these people are 'not black'?
Some or a few nubians are brown or white today from what i have been told.In other words some do not look black. Some here have said there are nubians today who do not look black. Most do but not all today.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
I look up this group below and they are not modern day nubians ethnically but the others listed above are. Afitti, Ditti Population 5,100
Posted by HeartofAfrica (Member # 23268) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What is the basis of the identification of "Nubians"? Most of these groups do not share a common culture or language. For example the "hill Nubians' are what are most often referred to as the Nuba People. They do no have a common culture with the Beja people or with the Dinka people or with the people around Aswan. There should be better labels for these groups.
Nubians
quote: Nubians (/ˈnuːbiənz, ˈnjuː-/) are an ethno-linguistic group of people who are indigenous to the region which is now present-day Northern Sudan and southern Egypt. They originate from the early inhabitants of the central Nile valley, believed to be one of the earliest cradles of civilization. They speak Nubian languages, part of the Northern Eastern Sudanic languages.
Language Modern Nubians speak Nubian languages. They belong to the Eastern Sudanic branch of the Nilo-Saharan phylum. But there is some uncertainty regarding the classification of the languages spoken in Nubia in antiquity. There is some evidence that Cushitic languages were spoken in parts of Lower (northern) Nubia, an ancient region which straddles present day Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan, and that Eastern Sudanic languages were spoken in Upper and Central Nubia, before the spread of Eastern Sudanic languages even further north into Lower Nubia.
Culture Nubians have developed a common identity, which has been celebrated in poetry, novels, music and storytelling.
Nubian languages
quote: The Nubian languages (Arabic: لغات نوبية : lughāt nūbiyyah) are a group of related languages spoken by the Nubians. They form a branch of the Eastern Sudanic languages, which is part of the wider Nilo-Saharan phylum. Initially, Nubian languages were spoken throughout much of Sudan, but as a result of arabization they are today mostly limited to the Nile Valley between Aswan (southern Egypt) and Al Dabbah as well as villages in the Nuba mountains and Darfur.
Languages
quote: Rilly (2010) distinguishes the following Nubian languages, spoken by in total about 900,000 speakers: Nobiin, the largest Nubian language with 545,000 speakers in Egypt, Sudan, and the Nubian diaspora. Previously known by the geographic terms Mahas and Fadicca/Fiadicca. As late as 1863 this language, or a closely related dialect, was known to have been spoken by the arabized Nubian Shaigiya tribe.
Kenzi (endonym: Mattokki) with 100,000 speakers in Egypt and Dongolawi (endonym: Andaandi) with 180,000 speakers in Sudan. They are no longer considered a single language, but closely related. The split between Kenzi and Dongolawi is dated relatively recently to the 14th century.
Midob (Meidob) with 30,000 speakers. The language is spoken primarily in and around the Malha volcanic crater in North Darfur.
Birgid, now extinct, was spoken north of Nyala around Menawashei, with the last known speakers alive in the 1970s. It was the predominant language between the corridor of Nyala and al-Fashir in the north and the Bahr al-Arab in the south as recently as 1860.
Hill Nubian or Kordofan Nubian, a group of closely related languages or dialects spoken in various villages in the northern Nuba Mountains; in particular by the Dilling, Debri, and Kadaru. An extinct language, Haraza, is known only from a few dozen words recalled by village elders in 1923.
Classification
quote: Traditionally, the Nubian languages are divided into three branches: Northern (Nile), Western (Darfur), and Central.
Hill Nubians
quote: Hill Nubians are a group of Nubian peoples who inhabit the northern Nuba Mountains in South Kordofan state, Sudan. They speak the Hill Nubian languages. Despite their scattered presence and linguistic diversity, they all refer to themselves as Ajang and call their language Ajangwe, "the Ajang language".
Origin Canadian linguist Robin Thelwall believes that the Hill Nubians probably didn't migrate to the Nuba Mountains from Nubia, considering their linguistic divergence, and instead probably reached the Nuba Mountains from central Kordofan during the earliest Nubian migrations.Joseph Greenberg believes that any split between Hill and Nile Nubian must have occurred at least 2,500 years before present.
Hill Nubian languages
quote: The Hill Nubian languages, also called Kordofan Nubian, are a dialect continuum of Nubian languages spoken by the Hill Nubians in the northern Nuba Mountains of Sudan.
quote:
And what do you mean by some of these people are 'not black'?
Some or a few nubians are brown or white today from what i have been told.In other words some do not look black. Some here have said there are nubians today who do not look black. Most do but not all today.
Remember, "Nubians" can be mixed...especially in modern times.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Originally posted by HeartofAfrica:
quote:
Remember, "Nubians" can be mixed...especially in modern times.
Yes there are mixed race(bi-racial) nubians and nubians that have other forms of admixture not mixed(not half and half). Most nubians today do not have any other race admixture however,even more so in the past.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Thx 4/t 21st C update.
Murdock (1969) is a reliable old ethnic goto once some language of the times is filtered. He puzzles me on Tigre as "tribal" Beja when they're surely related to Ethiopians like Amhara, Tigrinya, and them. Not that it's anything to do with Nubian. Just something strange like his classification of Afitti.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: I look up this group below and they are not modern day nubians ethnically but the others listed above are. Afitti, Ditti Population 5,100
These guys are Ethiopian and Eritrean with no Sudanese presence and are more similar to other Ethiopia Semitic groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigrayans
Both groups have been genetically tested and i THINK Tigre are more like Beja with strong M78 V32 lineages but i dont want to be a liar and i am not running this data through a predictor. Going from memory on other 10 year old data.
In this ADMIXTURE from Hollfelder (2017) are two distinct Beja speakers. Hadendowa fit N&E Sudan genomics, Beni Amer fall inline with peoples in neighbor nations bordering the Red Sea. Eritrea and Ethiopia in particular.
Her article allows for three generic geographic genomic groupings * South Sudan __________________ majority Dark Blue featuring Red * Darfur - Kordofan corridor ________ majority Dark Blue featuring Light Blue * North and east Sudan ___________ majority Light Blue featuring Brown
Stro did that updated run ^ including little used aDNA. It stands toe to toe with the professional Hollfelder. While mostly co-signed deliveries, each also add their own unique perspectives not adduced in the other. So here, Stro above Nina below, are both stripped down to the two Sudans and their neighbor to the east.
=-=-=
Them Lil Ks, of less than 15%, are incisive to 'clustering'.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ They are two separate people.
These guys are Ethiopian and Eritrean with no Sudanese presence and are more similar to other Ethiopia Semitic groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigrayans
Both groups have been genetically tested and i THINK Tigre are more like Beja with strong M78 V32 lineages but i dont want to be a liar and i am not running this data through a predictor. Going from memory on other 10 year old data.
This is why I don't see calling these people "Nubians" makes any sense. Meaning how do you do clustering on migratory populations that are not fixed in time or space going back 20,000 years or more based on the concept of "Nubia"? If we ever got a substantial amount of DNA from ancient Nile Valley populations going back that far or farther it is better to define clusters based on the data not by contemporary ethnic groups. I personally believe that there was a large ancient population cluster based around the Red Sea from Somalia North into Egypt that was part of the mix. But that isn't aligned with the modern concept of "Nubia". This is why you don't see modern terms like "France" or "Germany" when talking about ancient DNA clusters in Europe. It implies a fixed population structure that can't be extrapolated back that far in time. Which is why modern mixture has to be filtered out in order to try and isolate ancient DNA patterns in the absence of actual ancient DNA. You can't assume these people have just been sitting in one spot all that time and not mixing with other groups even just within the surrounding regions.
Posted by HeartofAfrica (Member # 23268) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ They are two separate people.
These guys are Ethiopian and Eritrean with no Sudanese presence and are more similar to other Ethiopia Semitic groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigrayans
Both groups have been genetically tested and i THINK Tigre are more like Beja with strong M78 V32 lineages but i dont want to be a liar and i am not running this data through a predictor. Going from memory on other 10 year old data.
This is why I don't see calling these people "Nubians" makes any sense. Meaning how do you do clustering on migratory populations that are not fixed in time or space going back 20,000 years or more based on the concept of "Nubia"? If we ever got a substantial amount of DNA from ancient Nile Valley populations going back that far or farther it is better to define clusters based on the data not by contemporary ethnic groups. I personally believe that there was a large ancient population cluster based around the Red Sea from Somalia North into Egypt that was part of the mix. But that isn't aligned with the modern concept of "Nubia". This is why you don't see modern terms like "France" or "Germany" when talking about ancient DNA clusters in Europe. It implies a fixed population structure that can't be extrapolated back that far in time. Which is why modern mixture has to be filtered out in order to try and isolate ancient DNA patterns in the absence of actual ancient DNA. You can't assume these people have just been sitting in one spot all that time and not mixing with other groups even just within the surrounding regions.
Wouldn't it be nice if those classifications weren't used so readily today? you'd think there'd be more caution, but nope. As we know and can realistic presume that not one African group stayed a transfixed population that stagnated in one area for more than 10,000 years let alone 100,000. They moved, interacted with others, intermarried...etc.
Especially during the continents more extreme changes in seasons and things of that nature, there's plenty of evidence of what you are describing like, for example:
In relation to the ethic population of PUNT.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
If the people from Kemet were making periodical expeditions to Punt in ancient times to bring back exotic plants, animals and spices, then there must have been a history and relationship. This is attested to in the texts from the period and that only makes sense if these groups were part of the ancient patterns of migration into and out of the Nile Valley.
Interesting recent video on some finds in the area between Sudan and Eritrea:
quote:Complexity and Connectivity Between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea in the 3rd and 2nd Mill. BC. A View from Eastern Sudan and Mersa/Wadi Gawasis
Not only that but just looking at the portraits from ancient times, you clearly see that many of the so called "Nubians" of that time looked more like modern Nuba who are much further South in Sudan.
Which means there have been a lot of movements of populations over the last 10,000 years.
One example of this is the ancient parasol seen in the tomb of Huy: