posted
How can SSA ancestry=True Negro and Niger Kongo, when the genes preceded language family?
If you argue that its recent, from where did it originate then? Basically I am asking where did the ancestry that we call SSA/True Negro/Niger Kongo originate?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Don't know bout this neegrow shit but ...
How you gonna get some nooknook if you can't talk the nookie's talk. No such thing as geneflow. It's fuching, is what it is. E-P1 males.
Mantel Test genes geography language Ancestry Analysis
posted
I wish Swenet was still here to explain his Hamitic Hypothesis-like posts that he made.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You haven't presented or built a case clarifying, expanding, or supporting your opening post.
Now you skip from questioning what's explained by AfricanHumidPeriod E-P1, particularly E-M2, to particulars of some current day Hamitic hypothesis, though you use true negro which is a worse Eurocentric concept.
How do your two posts tie together as a single topic.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I wish Swenet was still here to explain his Hamitic Hypothesis-like posts that he made.
Like which ones? Quote them please?
The one where he said that a lot of Egyptian ancestry is just a back migration of Northeast African ancestry back into Egypt from Eurasia...
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bass has nothing if he can't produce a verbatim Swenet quote The Peabody Museum thread is a good start to locate something. But as I have said xyyman and others in the forum have different opinions
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Bass has nothing if he can't produce a verbatim Swenet quote The Peabody Museum thread is a good start to locate something. But as I have said xyyman and others in the forum have different opinions
Woman don't make me angry..........
quote:Swenet Member Member # 17303
Rate Member Icon 1 posted September 15, 2018 03:30 Profile for Swenet Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote quote: Volume 57, no. 1. 1966. A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania, by Michael Crichton. Link This is why the Afrocentric argument is bogus. It's clear that in the period between 4000BC and dynastic Egypt, Egypt was closer to late dynastic Egyptians and modern Egyptians than to most other Africans below the Sahara. And it's clear why this is the case. Eurasian migration to Egypt (which eventually gave rise to modern Egyptians) brought back Egyptian ancestry. This is what was explained to people over several years with the breakdown of EEF-related DNA, for instance in the 'when to use black' thread.
The recent Keita critique leads nowhere. It changes nothing about the fundamental reality of the dominant ancestry in Egypt and North Africa in general, which was not wiped out by backmigration to Egypt. (A pure form of that ancestry was simply partly replaced with a less pure form of that ancestry, with only some backmigration ancestry actually being Eurasian). You can clearly see this in this paper because the admixed Giza sample is still closer to the Naqada sample than the Bantu-speaking sample is to either. The Bantu sample is not even close. Late Egyptians are not to Naqada what one-drop African Americans are to West Africans. The former hybrids would not pass for relatively 'pure' Eurasians like WHG/SHG/EHG, the way that one-drop Aframs might pass for whites or latinos. The paper shows that admixture in modern or late dynastic Egypt is not an argument that supports Afrocentrism. It's largely irrelevant for the Afrocentric position. It's only relevant in terms of CHANGE over time, but there is nothing supporting change of the biblical proportions that Afrocentrics have in mind when they try to push back against the Abusir results. The gap in between both Egyptian samples and the Bantu-speaking sample is going to be reflected in the genetic results. It's irrelevant what ancient Egyptian aDNA sample (north, south, Old Kingdom, etc.) they publish when it comes to this reality, so I don't see how the Keita critique changes anything that will help an Afrocentric position. You will just get a population somewhere in between an IAM-like and Abusir-like population. Which means the landslide victory that people are seeking against Eurocentrics is not in the data (and has never been). Eurocentrics are just going to keep emphasizing the non-SSA component of these populations, so there is going to be no vindication of any Afrocentric position.
Oh, and as far as these papers, they should have never given me access. Harvard better block my IP while they still can. They have no idea... -
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I wish Swenet was still here to explain his Hamitic Hypothesis-like posts that he made.
Like which ones? Quote them please?
The one where he said that a lot of Egyptian ancestry is just a back migration of Northeast African ancestry back into Egypt from Eurasia...
This is not the Hamitic theory. Think of it in a similar manner of how the most "Cushitic" populations in Tishkoffs old paper were Southern Cushitic populations. They are all the way at the tail end of the migration with the source being Egypto-Sudanese Nubia. IF they were to march north to Egypto-Sudanese Nubia they could in essence contribute "MORE" "Cushitic" ancestry to the populations there who have been affected by Nilotic, Berber, and SW Asian genetic influence.
I think you have missed out on the publications to understand exactly what the is saying. He is speaking on North East Africa having a genetic substratum. And pockets of populations in SW Asia having this North East African substratum. It similar to something like E-M35 originating in the Horn yet horners getting MORE E-M35 lineages from North East Africa AFTER they have been affected by A3b2, J1 and and K2.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I think you have missed out on the publications to understand exactly what the is saying. He is speaking on North East Africa having a genetic substratum. And pockets of populations in SW Asia having this North East African substratum. It similar to something like E-M35 originating in the Horn yet horners getting MORE E-M35 lineages from North East Africa AFTER they have been affected by A3b2, J1 and and K2.
I like this comparison for what’s being explained however admittedly the explanations or theories on this matter posted here on ES have been broadly left to interpretation. For instance where these OOA migrants are returning from, whether there were mass migrations or merely continuous geneflow and most importantly WHEN did these interactions begin to take place.
I can see exactly why certain positions can be seen as “neohamitocism” 1. It isn’t exactly clear what a pristine A.Egyptians autosomal profile would look like. 2. Near eastern genetics will always take precedence of SSA not only because of Biases but also because of homogenization. 3. The magnitude of OOA correspondence will be exaggerated in Egypt because of bidirectional influence AND divergent population history between North Africans and other Africans who settle in the Sahara or more south/west.
With all of these uncertaincies being presented with an explanation that Egyptian ancestry was “brought back” to pioneer Egyptian civilization can be unsettling.
Here’s why using your example... you make it aceptionaly clear that m35 originated in the horn... but the lineages that came back A3b2 J1 and K etc. Didn’t, it’s the same with the downstream m35 lineages that came back. They might have descended from a Horner lineage but V32 isn’t Horner. Same can be said about the autosomal counter parts to these sublineages. Natufians and Neolithic Levantine who have african ancestors are not African, their autosomal make up in totality is not African. So if you say Egyptians waited on their own dna to be brought back them it can come across as sketchy.
This is even further complicated by the advent of lazaridis’ basal Eurasian red herring. Why? Cuz going back in time with the few sample we have from africa and even some of the very old Eurasians we see a higher amplitude in genetic variation. Though the new data isn’t presented this way and is downplayed by the go to human genome reference panel there are ancient genes/components unaccounted for in modern human variation. Taforalt and IAM makes this clear as day! Despite populations like the Sahawari and southern morrocans showing acceptional continuity... the disparity in actual non African influence in their DNA sticks out like a sore thumb.. and this is with Southern Europeans BRINGING BACK North African dna to morrocco. With people focusing on basal Eurasian being a.egyptian they lose sight of the possibility that Egyptians who migrated out of Africa first carried genes that were undoubtedly outside of Eurasian variation and STILL is.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I wish Swenet was still here to explain his Hamitic Hypothesis-like posts that he made.
Like which ones? Quote them please?
The one where he said that a lot of Egyptian ancestry is just a back migration of Northeast African ancestry back into Egypt from Eurasia...
Although the Hamitic theory has been debunked Geneticists have revived this myth in their studies of African haplogroups. As a result, the East Africans are often referred too in the genetics literature as being distinct from other Sub-Saharan Africans. Sub-Saharan African (SSA) is the name for the Negro race in modern Genetics articles. The Caucasian and Mongoloid populations are referred too in the Genetics literature, respectively as Western and Eastern Eurasians.
Thusly, we find that Geno-hamiticists imply that East Africans, are distinct from West Africans because, they carry allegedly Eurasian haplogroups which the Geneticists interpret as evidence of East African and Eurasian admixture. The idea that East Africans carry so-called Eurasian genes due to admixture lacks any historical and/or archaeological support.
You see there is no historical and/or archaeological evidence of a back migration of any population to Africa from Eurasia.. In fact as late as 4000 BC, the population in the Levant was Sub-Saharan African, and the archaeological evidence makes it clear the migrations have been of SSA into Eurasia not vice versa.
posted
The Ounanian tradition began around 10kya [2-3]. The population associated with this civilization was probably Niger-Congo speakers.The Niger-Congo speakers originated in the Saharan Highlands and early migrated into the Sudan[4,9,28].Around the time we see the development of the Ounanian culture in North Africa, we see the spread of the Saharan-Sudanese ceramic style into the Sahara[5,9, 12,28] by Niger Congo speakers.The linguistic and anthropological data make it clear that the Dravidian speakers were part of the C-Group people who formed the backbone of the Niger-Congo speakers. It indicates that the Dravidians took their red-and-black pottery with them from Africa to India,along with the cultivation of millet
Genetic evidence supports the upper Nile origin for the Niger-Congo (NC) speakers.Rosa et al, in a paper discussing the y-Chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau, noted that while most Mande & Balanta carry the E3a-M2 gene, there are a number of Felupe-Djola, Papel, Fulbe and Mande carry the M3b*-M35 gene the same as many non-Niger-Congo speaking people in the Sudan.The Dravidian languages are closely related to the NC Superfamily of languages, especially the Atlantic and Mande branches. The Atlantic NC languages are spoken from the Senegal River to the Atlantic coastline and the Mande languages are spoken across much of West Africa. Given this reality we propose a new Niger-Congo branch we should designate:Indo-Niger-Congo, which would include the Atlantic Dravidian and Mande languages.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I think you have missed out on the publications to understand exactly what the is saying. He is speaking on North East Africa having a genetic substratum. And pockets of populations in SW Asia having this North East African substratum. It similar to something like E-M35 originating in the Horn yet horners getting MORE E-M35 lineages from North East Africa AFTER they have been affected by A3b2, J1 and and K2.
I like this comparison for what’s being explained however admittedly the explanations or theories on this matter posted here on ES have been broadly left to interpretation. For instance where these OOA migrants are returning from, whether there were mass migrations or merely continuous geneflow and most importantly WHEN did these interactions begin to take place.
I can see exactly why certain positions can be seen as “neohamitocism” 1. It isn’t exactly clear what a pristine A.Egyptians autosomal profile would look like. 2. Near eastern genetics will always take precedence of SSA not only because of Biases but also because of homogenization. 3. The magnitude of OOA correspondence will be exaggerated in Egypt because of bidirectional influence AND divergent population history between North Africans and other Africans who settle in the Sahara or more south/west.
With all of these uncertaincies being presented with an explanation that Egyptian ancestry was “brought back” to pioneer Egyptian civilization can be unsettling.
Here’s why using your example... you make it aceptionaly clear that m35 originated in the horn... but the lineages that came back A3b2 J1 and K etc. Didn’t, it’s the same with the downstream m35 lineages that came back. They might have descended from a Horner lineage but V32 isn’t Horner. Same can be said about the autosomal counter parts to these sublineages. Natufians and Neolithic Levantine who have african ancestors are not African, their autosomal make up in totality is not African. So if you say Egyptians waited on their own dna to be brought back them it can come across as sketchy.
This is even further complicated by the advent of lazaridis’ basal Eurasian red herring. Why? Cuz going back in time with the few sample we have from africa and even some of the very old Eurasians we see a higher amplitude in genetic variation. Though the new data isn’t presented this way and is downplayed by the go to human genome reference panel there are ancient genes/components unaccounted for in modern human variation. Taforalt and IAM makes this clear as day! Despite populations like the Sahawari and southern morrocans showing acceptional continuity... the disparity in actual non African influence in their DNA sticks out like a sore thumb.. and this is with Southern Europeans BRINGING BACK North African dna to morrocco. With people focusing on basal Eurasian being a.egyptian they lose sight of the possibility that Egyptians who migrated out of Africa first carried genes that were undoubtedly outside of Eurasian variation and STILL is.
I guess. I think people need to have a better understanding of the archaeology to have a good foundation and know what some of these things mean. I think "the pillars" of my foundation and understanding are strong enough so all this new age genetic data that is symbolic of "heavy material on the second floor" will never cause my whole "house to collapse".
What I am waiting to see as far as genetics is NOT "Who they were"...the archaeological and anthropological data has already told me that....I am trying to see how the genetic data fits within the framework of what I already understand about the culmination of events in the last 14,000 years. The potters, the pastoralists, the hunter-gathers, the aqualithic cultures and their colonization of, and migration out of the Sahara into the Nile Valley and Sub Saharan Africa. Over the years, the more I have read, the less i feed like i personally have a vested interest. There was a time where i wasn't "comfortable" with Horn Admixture...or Berber admixture in Fulani, or Archaic admixture in SSA. In 2018......Fvck it...follow the data...everybody is mixed.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I think people need to have a better understanding of the archaeology to have a good foundation and know what some of these things mean. I think "the pillars" of my foundation and understanding are strong enough so all this new age genetic data that is symbolic of "heavy material on the second floor" will never cause my whole "house to collapse".
What I am waiting to see as far as genetics is NOT "Who they were"...the archaeological and anthropological data has already told me that....I am trying to see how the genetic data fits within the framework of what I already understand about the culmination of events in the last 14,000 years. The potters, the pastoralists, the hunter-gathers, the aqualithic cultures and their colonization of, and migration out of the Sahara into the Nile Valley and Sub Saharan Africa. Over the years, the more I have read, the less i feed like i personally have a vested interest. There was a time where i wasn't "comfortable" with Horn Admixture...or Berber admixture in Fulani, or Archaic admixture in SSA. In 2018......Fvck it...follow the data...everybody is mixed.
Thing is, the archaeological data can mislead, or it can be misread. For example, over four years ago, I would have been of the opinion that the Khartoum Mesolithic culture of central Sudan was ancestral to the ancient Egyptian civilization. In the four years since then, I've come to realize that the Khartoum Mesolithic people were probably closer in affinity to modern South Sudanese Nilotes than to AE or any other Afrasan population. This would mean any similarity in material culture between the Khartoum Mesolithic and later Egyptian populations (that I perceived anyway) would probably reflect intercultural borrowing or influence rather than the former evolving into the latter.
I agree that pre-existing archaeological and anthropological data must be taken into account when making sense of aDNA findings. But when it comes to archaeology in particular, it can be too easy to misinterpret the data or to read things into it that aren't there.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I think people need to have a better understanding of the archaeology to have a good foundation and know what some of these things mean. I think "the pillars" of my foundation and understanding are strong enough so all this new age genetic data that is symbolic of "heavy material on the second floor" will never cause my whole "house to collapse".
What I am waiting to see as far as genetics is NOT "Who they were"...the archaeological and anthropological data has already told me that....I am trying to see how the genetic data fits within the framework of what I already understand about the culmination of events in the last 14,000 years. The potters, the pastoralists, the hunter-gathers, the aqualithic cultures and their colonization of, and migration out of the Sahara into the Nile Valley and Sub Saharan Africa. Over the years, the more I have read, the less i feed like i personally have a vested interest. There was a time where i wasn't "comfortable" with Horn Admixture...or Berber admixture in Fulani, or Archaic admixture in SSA. In 2018......Fvck it...follow the data...everybody is mixed.
Thing is, the archaeological data can mislead, or it can be misread. For example, over four years ago, I would have been of the opinion that the Khartoum Mesolithic culture of central Sudan was ancestral to the ancient Egyptian civilization. In the four years since then, I've come to realize that the Khartoum Mesolithic people were probably closer in affinity to modern South Sudanese Nilotes than to AE or any other Afrasan population. This would mean any similarity in material culture between the Khartoum Mesolithic and later Egyptian populations (that I perceived anyway) would probably reflect intercultural borrowing or influence rather than the former evolving into the latter.
I agree that pre-existing archaeological and anthropological data must be taken into account when making sense of aDNA findings. But when it comes to archaeology in particular, it can be too easy to misinterpret the data or to read things into it that aren't there.
I guess it depends on how far one wants to take the data (genetic homogenization). But I try not to speak in absolutes and at times revert back to the "pots are not peopkl" idea. I would argue certain CULTURAL elements we find in Khartoum Mesolithic were influential in the Sahara and later spread into the Nile Valley in a clockwise pattern. It provided the OPPORTUNITY for different humans to mix. We could then move to physical remains and see how frequent the older Sudanese type (Jebel Sahaba) follow that path if at all. I see the same thing with the cattle cult and certain Sudanic and Sahelian crops. I just see this as the opportunity for Nilotic type Admixture on their base. Similarly i see the SW Asian agricultural package with sheep and goats incorporated into Africa as an OPPORTUNITY for different humans to mix.....they whole "they was 100%" is kinda stupid from the get go. IMO Egypt was the crossroads of genetic Africa in the same way Sudan hold that position today.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east, but they couldn't or wouldnt travel north along a river full of fish.
Cultural borrowing without demic contact (including making babies), more than 5000 years ago? Hah.
Anything to rid AE of its blackness just like PBS (2018) First Civilizations Egyptian beginnings. And all the behind camera personel responsible for choosing the cast had Arabic surnames. West Eurasian solidarity between Euros and Arabs, the old one two combo ...
Best way to steal a people's future is to lie about their past.
People of Nabta Playa
Wadi Baramiya Eastern Desert "shaman"
King of Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (with abd=negro slave)
Narmer
No. AE was an African black founded civilization. Transplanted Levantine farming foods? That's what allowed AE to expand. But what from Sahara helped AE civ.? Was it saharo-SUDANESE or Gafsian related? How much from each;
There's no escaping Saharo-Sudanese. Not even in Fayum A.
What's in a name? Everything the namer intends. Cultures of and in the Sahara originated by peoples who migrated from 'the Sudan' into the Sahara as the West African Monsoon turned it into a grassland with rivers and lakes, just an expanding familiar 'Sudanese' environment to Sudanese Saharans, new to the new Sahara, old to the Sudan.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
So when did this 53 year old Arkel&Ucko become false? Never got that memo. Please update me willing to learn.
From a review
quote:The survey of predynastic Egypt is separated into four chronological groups: Neolithic, Badarian, Naqada I (Amratian) and Naqada II (Gerzean).
The Neolithic portion consists of site overviews on Fayum, Merimde, and Khartoum. The authors state that the Lower Egyptian sites of Merimde and Fayum are possibly related, but the majority of this section is spent on Khartoum.
Fayum and Khartoum share many similarities such as: the presence of amazon-stone beads, the use of fire pits and hearths, the absence of cemetaries, the possible eventual domestication of animals, the burnishing of pottery, and the flaking and partial grinding of stone celts.
Next, they list the characteristics of Badarian culture. Arkell and Ucko believe that the ?Tasian? culture in Upper Egypt is synonymous with the Lower and Middle Egyptian Badarian. The Khartoum Neolithic and Badarian share the characteristics of shell fishhooks, black top and ripple pottery, and flat-topped axes.
They finish the survey with an overview of the Naqada cultures.
Throughout the article, Arkell and Ucko list problems caused by the lack of excavations. Little is known about Merimde, and Fayum has no real evidence of domestic animals, as the faunal samples were lost. Carbon-14 dates for Fayum, Merimde, and especially Khartoum, are criticized and the authors propose that the sites actually date earlier than the results. Dates from most predynastic sites are taken from a single sample, so they are much less accurate than a series of C-14 dates. While there is no stratigraphic evidence that the age of Fayum is older than Badarian culture, technological improvements support this idea. Since no Gerzean sites have been found in the Delta, it is the authors? opinion that the Naqada II culture need not originate in that area.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east, but they couldn't or wouldnt travel north along a river full of fish.
Its not that they couldn't...the evidence (dates) we have indicates that they didnt. The Green Sahara must have been much more attractive. None of these food producing technologies nor pottery immediately filtered into the Horn either. You also have to take into account Wadi Howar being the largest tributary into the Nile Valley prior to the Sahara's desiccation. So yeah, they did follow the Nile...just not to the north. Earliest sites seem to be Central and Northern Sudan...followed by the Central Sahara.
quote: In their article in Science 2006, Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin published what is so far the best summary of the climatic variations observed in the Sahara during the Holocene.15 According to their research, during the Early Holocene occupation phase (8500–7000 B.C.) the number of rapid monsoon rains increased, the Sahara turned into a savanna-like environment suitable for occupation [Green Sahara] and became resettled by a population from what was at that time an inhospitable Nile valley and from the south (today’s Sudan). These newcomers were hunter-gatherers practicing limited husbandry. The sites in the Regenfeld area indicate that these populations were moving quickly from place to place over long distances. During this period most of the Nile valley was not occupied probably due to harsh and unpredictable Nile fluctuations.
Edit: FTI, WHen i speak about Nilo-Saharans and the Sahro-Sudanese cultural complex I am not creating a dichotomy between them and "Eurasians". I am talking about them compared to other African having a genetic affinity to ANA, Hazdza/Mota, Khoisan, Mandinka, Horners, Pygmies et al.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east, but they couldn't or wouldnt travel north along a river full of fish.
They wouldn’t have been the only African population in the region though. The picture that has emerged to me is that it would have been proto-Afrasan people native to northeastern Africa that settled in the lower Nile area whereas the Nilo-Saharans lay claim to areas further south. Not all the African populations in the region would have been recent migrants from south of the Sahara.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east, but they couldn't or wouldn't travel north along a river full of fish.
Not all the African populations in the region would have been recent migrants from south of the Sahara.
THIS. And from my best guess taking into account the genetic affinity of Natufian and Taforlat....Those that do have genetic affinity with Jebel Sahaba...which is seen as the old Nilotic type...would have ANA but would not dominated by ancestry similar to Dzudzuana.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Yes, I posted Kuper's maps elsewhere the day before yesterday.
Saharo-Sudanese. Sudanese is meant in the broad interpretation of 'black African' not sensu stricto political nation state borders of Sudan and South Sudan. Its just a euphemism that dilutes Sudanese, for these peoples are Sudanese.
Note, no Saharo-Capsians, just plain old Capsian. So why not likewise no Saharo-Sudanese, just Sudanese?
North vision neglects no glacial maximum impacted the ongoing cultural evolution of Inner Africa as evinced by places unknown, but like Panga ya Saidi or Mt Hora, of same general stock as the Sudanese who introduced new technologies to the north.
Africa, south from ~10° N, has been grasslands and savannas like forever. Sahara pump is a myth. Because of jewel cichlid fish and freshwater snail species we know interlacustrine and luvial travel connected Great Lake Tanganyika to now dry Sahara lakes (and what's now the Algerian chotts).
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Environment and K13 ancestry of early mid-Holocene Mt Hora Malawi (w/ exemplars).
8200 BP monsoon maximum Malawi aDNA shows there was 6-way African substructure in southeast Africa at that time.
• Khoe • San • Nuba (ie, joint NigerCongoKordofanian & NiloSaharan) • Atlantic West African • East African A (long before any proposed 'Bantu') • East African 'Mota' (almost 4000 years before Mota).
Also, there are 2 supposed outside Africa elements • West Eurasian in general • Anatoli in particular.
West Eurasian way down in Malawi? Just when the Cardium and contemporary cultures were beginning in Europe. What is it, really?
Lake Malawi, the southernmost Great Lake. 3800 miles / 8100 kilometres from Turkey.
What do these Eurasian-like signals represent? I find nothing from archaeology, linguistics, or what not in confirmation.
Pluralities: Khoe (30%) with the near same amount of San (29%). 'Nuba' at (20%) is the next substantial ancestry. Atlantic West Africa (8%) and East Africa A (6.5%) are substantial minorities. The 'Eurasian'contributions (4%; 2.6%). Mota (1.7%).
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Nice strawman. Plus you ain't saying nothing I already ain't said. Not only that I've put up maps showing northern/Gafsian primacy for Delta-Fayum Egypt. Shall I repost them?
So, really, just what point of mine are you trying to counter? Maybe you just want to disagree just to disagree?
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: They wouldn’t have been the only African population in the region though. The picture that has emerged to me is that it would have been proto-Afrasan people native to northeastern Africa that settled in the lower Nile area whereas the Nilo-Saharans lay claim to areas further south. Not all the African populations in the region would have been recent migrants from south of the Sahara.
You agree with PBS that Nabta Playa was not Sudanese, nor was cattle herding Sudanese. It was WestEurasian proxy 'proto-Afrasans' like in the PBS. Well, everyone's still entitled to their own opinion.
@ Beyoku - the fox DzuDzuana got to do with Holocene Africa? And of course all of us out of isolation are mixed. But we don't all have the same mix, and that's significant.
Here's what I think we basically agree on. We differ about the particulars; timing, frequencies. Same forest different trees, perhaps?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east, but they couldn't or wouldnt travel north along a river full of fish.
Cultural borrowing without demic contact (including making babies), more than 5000 years ago? Hah.
Anything to rid AE of its blackness just like PBS (2018) First Civilizations Egyptian beginnings. And all the behind camera personel responsible for choosing the cast had Arabic surnames. West Eurasian solidarity between Euros and Arabs, the old one two combo ...
Best way to steal a people's future is to lie about their past.
People of Nabta Playa
Wadi Baramiya Eastern Desert "shaman"
King of Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (with abid negro slave)
Narmer
No. AE was an African black founded civilization. Transplanted Levantine farming foods? That's what allowed AE to expand. But what from Sahara helped AE civ.? Was it saharo-SUDANESE or Gafsian related? How much from each;
There's no escaping Saharo-Sudanese. Not even in Fayum A.
What's in a name? Everything the namer intends. Cultures of and in the Sahara originated by peoples who migrated from 'the Sudan' into the Sahara as the West African Monsoon turned it into a grassland with rivers and lakes, just an expanding familiar 'Sudanese' environment to Sudanese Saharans, new to the new Sahara, old to the Sudan.
LOL Most people in Upper Egypt and down to Nabta Playa or Jebel Sahaba or Wadi Kubbaniya DON'T look like that to this day.
These folks are remarkably consistent in portraying Egypt/Sudan border as a border between races.
And not only that, but the Arabs brought the black Africans into the Egyptian Nile Valley thousands of years later due to slavery.
And of course all of that is based on solid, unbiased and unfettered factual data that is free from bias and hypocrisy.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Doug, face it. The majority, probably the consensus of active posters here agree with the PBS.
Being Western educated or socialized instills white ethnocentricisms. It's not a plot or nothing. It's natural and benign. Institutional ethnocentricism tinges tools, analysis, and interpretation. It can't be helped because we didn't grow up in a bubble, nor now live in a neutral world. And it's not all bad either. It's the heart of all civilizations.
posted
I think you might be jumping to conclusions OG. There’s not only one way to be a “kneegrow” Populations are capable of splitting and recombining IN Africa. Mesolithic Khartoum is merely a single african lineage somewhat outside the range of modern African variation phenotypically.
Though I disagree with demic diffusion being the explanation for shared practices between Mesolithic Nubia and later Nile valley civs. I wouldn’t relegate evolution on the Nile and westward into the Sahara as a unilateral gradual progression from the true negro grand papa.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
8200 BP monsoon maximum Malawi aDNA shows there was 6-way African substructure in southeast Africa at that time.
Pluralities: Khoe (30%) with the near same amount of San (29%). 'Nuba' at (20%) is the next substantial ancestry. Atlantic West Africa (8%) and East Africa A (6.5%) are substantial minorities. The 'Eurasian'contributions (4%; 2.6%). Mota (1.7%).
I strongly caution taking those admixture results LITERALLY. Just as I caution taking admixture results from a heterogeneous MOTA in the Taforalt Paper Literally. I also caution a literal interpretation of the extreme heterogeneity of MOTA in the Schuenemann Paper's SUPP. Page 3 where MOTA is an amalgamation of 6 components...the most Heterogeneous sample in continental Africa (including the North African samples)...in fact, MOTA has the most genetic heterogeneity in all human populations in that Supplemental.
EDIT: And fvck Nat Geo et al. These fools are going to do what they do. Cant let that distract me.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
@ eM
You don't get it youngblood.
For me there ain't no such thing as a negro. No true negro No false negro No forest negro No savanna negro No nilotic negro No hamito negro No bantu negro No african negro No american negro No mixed negro No pure negro No typological negro
Africa's blacks have great phenotypical variances. Check into it and you'll find out what you don't know, every region has a variety of facial cast, hair texture, even skin colour.
The relationships to early Khartoum are already established by archaeology but you can go on in disbelief. And there's nothing mere about Khartoum.
Don't be ashamed to say you agree with the PBS that Nabta has nothing to do with African blacks.
@ Beyoku You know you can can that shit. Everybody knows the ADMIXTURE caveats. You think I'm stupid That actual Jola or Pemba were running around 9000 years ago? If you do its more a reflection of your mentality in regards to others.
Just admit you agree with the PBS about non-black Nabta and be done with it.
Anything but don't talk to me like I'm a backgroundless idiot.
And don't forget EXEMPLARS are not ANCESTRIES which is clear at the start of my post and you still felt to baby talk me about 'literal' anyway. Trippin
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Nice strawman. Plus you ain't saying nothing I already ain't said. Not only that I've put up maps showing northern/Gafsian primacy for Delta-Fayum Egypt. Shall I repost them?
So, really, just what point of mine are you trying to counter? Maybe you just want to disagree just to disagree?
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: They wouldn’t have been the only African population in the region though. The picture that has emerged to me is that it would have been proto-Afrasan people native to northeastern Africa that settled in the lower Nile area whereas the Nilo-Saharans lay claim to areas further south. Not all the African populations in the region would have been recent migrants from south of the Sahara.
You agree with PBS that Nabta Playa was not Sudanese, nor was cattle herding Sudanese. It was WestEurasian proxy 'proto-Afrasans' like in the PBS. Well, everyone's still entitled to their own opinion.
When you suggested that "inner Africans" could have moved up the Nile into Egypt, I thought your implication was that these "inner Africans" would have been progenitors to the AE. And I presume that by "inner Africans", you meant sub-Saharan or equatorial ones since that's how the term is commonly construed.
Meanwhile, the scenario I'm advocating is that the primary ancestors of the AE would have been long-established in northeastern Africa, particularly the eastern Sahara and Red Sea coastal regions.
For your information, I don't like the PBS miscasting and am not going to defend it. I don't dispute that the proto-Egyptian people being portrayed in those screenshots would have been black Africans in reality. Where we disagree is precisely what kind of black Africans they would have been.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
If you didn't know you shoulda asked not assumed.
What you do know is my stance on the peopling of AE since I got here
'Sudanese' - from Nile and Sahara 'Libyans' - from Med coast and Sahara 'Asiatics' - from Levant
All transdisciplinary evidence available to me at the time said so. Nothing since has disconfirmed that.
I think you operate from a limited definition of NE Afr and SSAfr. The two do interlap. You know ancient Kush was not sub-Sahara. It was a river delineated oasis land just like Egypt was. Eritrea Ethiopia Djibouti Somalia are all sub-Saharan.
There are loads of phenotypes in northeast Africa even if you exclude Kenya and its desert, Uganda, and South Sudan.
I can't imagine the stereotype you have in mind for the saharo-SUDANESE or the Sudanis who moved east and north into 'Egypt' with the cultures that would blossom into a nation. And that doesn't negate the major wheat contribution from Levant to the north nor the 'Libyan' contributions to Badari or the Delta-Fayum settlements. Remember, 'Libyans' were in oases adjacent to Nubia.
It's a wide northeast African world.
Now lemme explain my use of inner Africa. It includes more than the brown half of that map I posted for Beyoku. I use the term in a south-north geographic context that excludes the Mediterranean coast to roughly the central Sahara. More simply I guess roughly south of the Tropic of Cancer. I do not mean the areas of Africa not in direct contact to outer trade, that would exclude much of east Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Amazing, 1st Holocene inner Africans could travel west then north then east, but they couldn't or wouldnt travel north along a river full of fish.
You wrote the above in apparent protestation of my position that the proto-Egyptians would have been primarily descended from Afrasan-speaking people native to northeastern Africa (see the map I posted earlier). Ergo, it sounded to me like you wanted them to be recent migrants from the Upper Nile region, or somewhere else in sub-Sahara. And then you went on to claim that I wanted to take the "black" out of AE, as if I somehow believed that native northeastern Africans wouldn't have been "black". You should know me better by now than to believe that was my view.
As for whether proto-Egyptians were of recent "Sudanese" descent, it depends on how you define "Sudanese". Some of the proto-Afrasan home range, at least as reconstructed by Ehret, is located within the modern country of Sudan's territory. So you could say the proto-Afrasans came from that particular area of what is now Sudan. But if by "the Sudan" you mean the Sudanic savanna belt south of the Sahara and the Sahel, then no, I don't see proto-Egyptians as predominantly recent migrants from that savanna belt area. They might have received at least a little admixture from Upper Nile populations during the Green Sahara, but most of their ancestry would have probably come from people who were already present in the eastern Sahara and Red Sea coast.
Is there a "true" Caucasian vs a "not true" caucasian?
Is there a "Inner European" vs "Outer European"?
Is there an "Inner Asian" vs "Outer Asian"?
Does it matter?
Only in Africa are these bogus constructs used to pretend that some part of ancient Africa was not African somehow.
Either way no part of the Nile Valley flows through "outer Africa" so I don't see how such nonsensical rules apply.
There are few places in Africa where modern populations are the same as populations 10kya ago. The Nile Valley is no different. Populations have been moving around Africa since 300,000 years ago. And the Nile Valley has been attracting various Africans from South, North, East and West since the beginning of humans.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny how the person I was actually talking to got the meaning of my post. And the person I was actually talking to, got how my comments in the Peabody thread, were consistent with posts made elsewhere. It's only people I wasn't conversing with (to begin with), who thought I said something outrageous.
And, for truth-seekers: Sudan has no known Upper Palaeolithic industry. This means Sudan was dominated by people related to Aterians until relatively late in its history. Ancestors of the living Sudanese don't move in until the holocene, or somewhat before it, depending on the ancestors we're talking about. So, people who are inventing homelands for Nubians, Nilotes, Egyptians etc. in Sudan have no substance behind it.
For people who don't know the implications of the Upper Palaeolithic... If a region doesn't have it (or close analogues), we can't speak of continuity with ancestors of living populations. Contrary to Sudan, Egypt does have an Upper Palaeolithic tradition. Libya has it. The Maghreb has it. Sudan doesn't (so far).
quote:There are no Upper Paleolithic sites in the Sahara, since the desert was hyperarid. The earliest Upper Paleolithic site known in the Nile Valley is Nazlet Khater-4 in Upper Egypt, a flint mine with several radiocarbon dates of about 33,000 BP. Levallois technology appears to be absent and there are many Upper Paleolithic-type blade cores. The associated tools are retouched blades, denticulates and bifacial adzes, apparently used for quarrying. A bifacial adze was found nearby with a human skeleton, which is of a modern type but retains primitive features (similar to the Mechtoids described below). It is the oldest human skeleton known from Egypt.
quote:Nothing is known about the Upper Paleolithic in Lower Nubia, but Levallois technology reappeared there (if indeed it had disappeared) at the same time as the Late Paleolithic bladelet complexes, around 21,000 years ago.
Non-Africans were barely mentioned in this thread.
All that was proposed was that a.Egyptians weren’t merely a direct sublineage of the Mesolithic Nubians who phenotypically show similarities to contemporary S.Sudanese populations.
And all of a sudden pbs is brought up. (As if everyone posting here haven’t seen thousands of fucking A.Egyptian art telling us what they should’ve looked like)
Essentially what I feel like I’m being told here is that there’s only one way to be a negro.
That all populations in Sudan have to have been the same or recently descendant from the same papi.
I don’t get it... how is saying that the Mesolithic Khartoum not being the shear direct progenitors of predynastic Egyptians the same as saying Egyptians weren’t black at all?
Get out of yah feeling that “either or” linear rationale makes no sense. Especially if you claim there’s no typological negro.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And, for truth-seekers, Sudan has no known Upper Palaeolithic industry. This means Sudan was dominated by people related to Aterians until relatively late in its history. Ancestors of the living Sudanese don't move in until the holocene, or slightly before it, depending on who we're talking about. So, people who are inventing homelands for Nubians, Nilotes, Egyptians etc. in Sudan have no substance behind it.
So what is your view of Ehret's placing proto-Afrasan along the African Red Sea coast as seen on the map I posted earlier? Is your view that this is inaccurate?
I don't mean that as a rhetorical question, by the way. If it turns out proto-Afrasan began somewhere within Egypt or elsewhere north of Ehret's proposed homeland, so be it.
Also, this other map seems to characterize a place called Sodmein along the Egyptian Red Sea as an example of LSA industry. The impression the map gives me is that LSA people entered North Africa through a coastal route along the Red Sea rather than down the Nile. Or is this map inaccurate too?
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: And all of a sudden pbs is brought up. (As if everyone posting here haven’t seen thousands of fucking A.Egyptian art telling us what they should’ve looked like) .
Really? I'd like to see 1000's of "fucking A.Egyptian art" works of Nabta Playa, Wadi Baramiya, Nekhen, and Narmer.
If you don't understand the significance of my PBS post that's par for the course.
Early Khartoum as "the shear direct progenitors of predynastic Egyptians" is a strawman or some mistaken notion T-hotep used to opine.
Meanwhile the Arkel&Ucko Khartoum related Egyptian archaeology goes unfalsified.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Also, this other map seems to characterize a place called Sodmein along the Egyptian Red Sea as an example of LSA industry. The impression the map gives me is that LSA people entered North Africa through a coastal route along the Red Sea rather than down the Nile.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Ahh, at last an update to replace the old Cambridge timeline used in the 16,000 years of N Afr thread.
Thanks for being non-condescending and being cooperative. And a special thank you for the offer of collaboration!
I relied on Yahya Fadol Tahir a/o Ahmed Hamid Nassr for El-Ga'ab
Too new for Bard's encyclopedia? Or maybe her work was narrowly focused as others hinted el-Gaab some time ago.
There's so much out there. Too much for any individual. We need teams. Too bad there's real no interest. I mean I don't find sites where black people delve into Africana seriously.
Afreccentrics & Blacentrics have killed popular African Studies outside of their cult.
posted
I've been trying to get people to stop sleeping on African Palaeontology and lithics for years, but people generally have no serious interest in this.
Here is a good paper al-Takr. Will get you up to speed in terms of reconstructing climate, population density, etc in the time period under discussion. Focus is on Egypt, but regional comparisons are made.
I gotta go. Will check in later to see if someone has posted updates that extend the Sudanese lithic timeline with genuine UP sites. I doubt the UP ever took hold in Sudan, but I'm open to being proven wrong.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
I gotta go. Will check in later to see if someone has posted updates that extend the Sudanese lithic timeline with genuine UP sites. I doubt the UP ever took hold in Sudan, but I'm open to being proven wrong. [/QB]
I assume you've seen Charlie Bass' other recent thread but have chosen not to comment
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I gotta go. Will check in later to see if someone has posted updates that extend the Sudanese lithic timeline with genuine UP sites. I doubt the UP ever took hold in Sudan, but I'm open to being proven wrong.
I assume you've seen Charlie Bass' other recent thread but have chosen not to comment
Can you tell the difference between these two statements?
Known backmigration, as seen in Crichton’s Giza sample, has Egyptian ancestry built-in, explaining why the Giza sample failed to cluster far apart from the predynastic sample.
vs
Egyptian ancestry itself is a backmigration.
My posts in the Peabody thread make it clear which of the two statements, comes from me and which is falsely attributed to me. That's all I have to say about that.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic