Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Spoonist]

At this point it is undeniable that the interpretations of dialogue on this thread are (for the most part) divided along racial lines...

So... you're claiming anyone who disagrees with YOU is a racist? Wow, what a massively dysfunctional ego. Nice, how you assume those who haven't disclosed their race that you consider in your camp to automatically be black - very revealing of your prejudicial bias.

Actually that quote doesn't. It states that the "race" of the debater determines which side he/she is on. With everyone who isn't "black" according to his own definition being on the other side... Which isn't calling us racists, but again revealing some of his own.

It really casts into doubt the idea that you were ever interested in an actual debate. What you really want to do is convert the heathens and beat down the white devils. You hid that well at first but you couldn't keep it up forever.

Uhm, welcome to page 2-5. My la Mancha quote is from page 3 and already then it was obviuos that limpdick wasn't interested in any sort of discussion or dialog.

[Executor32]

I find it funny that of his 132 posts, every single one is in this thread. I suppose reading and participating in other discussions would shake his faith in the idea that we're all just a bunch of racist assholes who can't fathom how right he is because of our unshakable belief in white supremacy.

What I don't get, though, is why it matters so much to him what color skin the ancient Egyptians had. Who gives a fuck? Regardless of what skin color or ethnicity they're closest related to, they have been dead for thousands of years and have no bearing at all on their descendants' status in modern society.

[Channel72]

What I don't get, though, is why it matters so much to him what color skin the ancient Egyptians had. Who gives a fuck?

Well, it's a matter of historical interest for one thing.

For another thing, since sub-Saharan African peoples have generally been regarded as sub-human by many great Western powers for a significant portion of the last half-millennium, it's interesting and ironic to note that one of the greatest and earliest civilizations was primarily a sub-Saharan African product.

[Big Triece]

Then regarding your sources etc and why I personally don't adress them

Shock Shock Surprise! You've never seriously addressed my sources, you've only focus on the ideological aspects (in other words the irrelevant bullshit) of this debate.

I'll do a snippet post later for specific ignorance instead of this general one.

OK sure!

Also could we do away with quoting the earlier studies which reference outdated stuff from the thirties through seventies?

The dates of the studies are irrelevant if the findings have been validated by later ones. That is the entire point of Keita's "Studies and comments" publication of the early 90's. He went in dept about how the biological concept of race during those early studies have distorted the conclusions that those authors came to, but how it does not change what the studies hard data finds the ancient Egyptians to group with biologically.

[Big Triece]

At this point it is undeniable that the interpretations of dialogue on this thread are (for the most part) divided along racial lines...

So... you're claiming anyone who disagrees with YOU is a racist? Wow, what a massively dysfunctional ego. Nice, how you assume those who haven't disclosed their race that you consider in your camp to automatically be black - very revealing of your prejudicial bias.

Bitch you lost this debate! If you have something that you wish to dispute then do so or shut the fuck up!

Only in your own fantasies. I do have something to dispute now - your "impartiality" and the rapidly mounting evidence that you are a racist asshole. It really casts into doubt the idea that you were ever interested in an actual debate. What you really want to do is convert the heathens and beat down the white devils. You hid that well at first but you couldn't keep it up forever.

If you have a problem with my posting in this thread take to a mod. Otherwise, go fuck yourself. You don't own this forum and you don't own this thread. You also get ridiculously hysterical every time I show up. I thought you were an adult man but you act more like a little girl in junior high school.

Notice how nothing in this bitch's post is pertaining to the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians or their origins. It's nothing more than the typical ass leakage on her part.

[Spoonist]

Also could we do away with quoting the earlier studies which reference outdated stuff from the thirties through seventies?

The dates of the studies are irrelevant if the findings have been validated by later ones.

This is so ignorant I had to do a drive by on this alone. So if outdated studies concur with one's bias they are "validated" but if they don't then what?

It's like you don't grasp the order of magnitude in evidence value between pre-dna and post-dna studies.

But that would explain your insistance on tropically adapted being some sort of conclusive evidence of skintone.

[Lord Zentei]

Are you still strawmanning? What does it take for you to understand that no one here is denying that Egyptians came from Africa, the issue is whether they're properly described as black Africans.

Here is the Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of ancient Egypt which gives the definition of the historical context of what populations were generally regarded as black African and or "Negroid", and where according to the biological evidence the ancient Egyptians would fall under: <SNIP>
Here is a link to the encyclopedia. AS YOU CAN READ THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED BLACK.

I love how you link to an 800+ page document and expect me to trawl through all of that. LOL.

It's not quite that simple (linka):

You quoted a study that has nothing to do with the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians, but rather the Nubians. In which it is baselessly asserting that a group of wandering "Caucasoids" entered Nubia during the late Neolithic period via the Arabian peninsula, because of a change in cranial skull from the Mesolithic period. Not only has that claim been debunked by more recent research:

LMAO, so we're talking about the Egyptians, but not the Nubians... nevermind the fact that you claim that the Egyptians are descended from the Nubians, so anything that applies to the Nubians would inevitably apply to the Egyptians too. And of course, the presence of a new study creates a new consensus just like that, right? And regardless of the fact that we're not talking about "a group of wandering Caucasoids", but gene-flow between Arabia and the Horn region... but I wonder how much it would matter if instead it were due to evolutionary changes in the Horn region BEFORE people dispersed into Arabia and Egypt... as I mentioned, no-one disputes that the Egyptians ultimately trace their lineage to southern Africa, like all humans do. But you claimed that no-one disputed your model, which is false.

But also the complete lack of genetic markers and archaeological evidence suggesting a non African input into the Nile during these times. To this day the most prevalent non African haplogroup in Sudan and Northern Africa is haplogroup J, which geneticist attribute to the Arab conquest of 700 A.D. Try not to rely too heavily on the distortions of Mathilda's blog.

Funny, coming from you when you spoke of proof using phenotypical analysis earlier. Who the hell is "Matilda", anyhow?

http://africanamericanculturalcenterpal ... model1.jpg

Now, while I have no idea who "Matilda" is, you just linked to a site which is RATHER less than credible.

Good ole Brace 93

http://africanamericanculturalcenterpal ... omodel.jpg

Here are the results of Brace's 2005 study:

http://africanamericanculturalcenterpal ... e2005a.jpg

Don't rely too much on Racial Reality's or Mathilda's blog for debate help, as they absolutely refuse to defend their views outside of their own domains (where they can censor or block those who refute their claims).

That is not a link to Brace's 2005 study, it's a graphic with someone interpreting it and presenting a critique of the earlier findings. How about if you link to the actual paper? And again with "Matilda", WTF?

2) I am not claiming that the Egyptians are northern invaders, though they probably were highly mixed with non-sub-Saharan Africans.

Through what evidence?

4) I don't recognize that the matter is resolved.

Stubborn dumbass!

Now, let's not get out of hand... I'll accept "stubborn asshole", though.

5) I'm entirely open to the possibility that you're right, should I get the impression that the consensus has been settled.

You like everyone else knows that I'm right, but your ego prohibits you from just shutting the fuck up and moving on.

Ah, yes. The only possible explanation. And what's your excuse?

[Lord Zentei]

Incidentally, is Democracy Fanboy still around, or has he descended back into the woodwork?

I was just wondering... got a couple of questions.

[Spoonist]

Incidentally, is Democracy Fanboy still around, or has he descended back into the woodwork?

I was just wondering... got a couple of questions.

He is over in the Democratic Maniphesto thread where he posted today.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3619868
But I don't think he'll be back in this topic anytime soon. If he wanted to post in this he would have done it all those times he visited that maniphesto topic. Then having littleBrain over there claiming that you are on "his" side wouldn't be encouragement now would it?
Nor would it be when Democracy Fanboy makes a claim it is accepted by littleBrain but when you and I make the exact same claim littleBrain say that we are the scum of the earth. Doesn't really encourage one's participation.

And Matilda has a blog which was mentioned by Thanas early on and since Thanas is limpdick's nemesis that has to be repeated vs you some 16 pages later...

Then regarding your sources etc and why I personally don't adress them

Shock Shock Surprise! You've never seriously addressed my sources, you've only focus on the ideological aspects (in other words the irrelevant bullshit) of this debate.

So limpdick, I'm sorry but work cramped up today so the snippety thingie will have to wait. Instead I'll give you an appetizer.
I know that this is too hard for you to grasp but check out my contribution on page 1-4 and you will find no such thing. It was only after your repeated journeys into lala land that I switched to only pointing out your flaws and hinting at why you don't understand your sources. That is what mockery of the stupid is all about. But again I'll bait you by making it real simple.
If a source claims X and I agree with X why should I try to adress those sources instead of you making a mockery of said sources by claiming X+Y which those sources never claim? Isn't it much better to simply point out that the +Y bit can only come from complete ignorance?
Like when I show how you contradict yourself and the quotes you provide, or how I show how you willingly distort the topic to fit your projection of paranoid delusions onto others?
For instance lets have some fun, this is you when you were still on medication:

What Keita means by 'local' is Northeast African (Ethiopian, Somali, Beja, Sudanese, ect) all of these populations tend to have light to dark reddish brown to jet black skin color. Rather or not you want to consider that "black" is entirely up to you and your standards for the meaning of the term. Keita however states in his lecture that based on ecological principals the ancient Egyptians would have been dark skinned, how dark he did not say.

This is you off medication:

Dark skinned Africans are considered "black" where I'm from, so the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black".

The first quote can lead to a productive discussion, but the second one is just mind-blowing stupid and deserves nothing but mockery. Problem for you is that you only rarely produce the first kind and the vast majority of your thoughts and posts are clearly in the second category.
Then you going completely insane and threatening other posters and wishing them bodily harm that is just contempt worthy.
Now if you had stuck to your medication we could have had a discussion about your sources. Like the 'ouch' I mentioned which you didn't even grasp the significance of. Then your defense of pre-dna studies.... *sigh* That just means you have no clue about the methodology of the field. So any discussion on sources would be futile until after you educate yourself. Which in of itself would be a miracle.

PS
Just did a search on Racial Reality, here I thought I'd find a white supremacy site and instead I find this:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3973609/11/
That's just funny. Are you Louisvilleslugger from back over there? And don't lie - it's so incredibly easy to check.
DS
PPS
A link from that discussion was kinda extra funny in this context:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/nina_j ... color.html
I'm of to see that now - bye bye...
DDS

[Lord Zentei]

Well, if he's Louisvilleslugger over there, he might be our Louisvilleslugger too: linka. The arguments look very similar indeed.

On another note, now I see how he started ranting about "Racial Reality": two of the links I provided above seem to be on that page as well. But that's a lot more material than I could have hoped to compile myself. Thanks for the headsup, Big Triece.

[Big Triece]

This is so ignorant I had to do a drive by on this alone. So if outdated studies concur with one's bias they are "validated" but if they don't then what?

The biological affinities of these populations have never changed, despite how they are labeled. Some older studies wished to label Northeast Africans as "Caucasoid", others labeled them as "Negroid". The definitions are inconsistent, but the overlapping affinity with the ancient Egyptians is. Still too complicated for your simple ass?

But that would explain your insistance on tropically adapted being some sort of conclusive evidence of skintone.

You dumb bitch "dark skin" accompanies all tropically adapted populations based on ecological principal. The skin tone of the ancient Egyptians would likely have been within the range of Nilotic and Sub Saharan East African populations, being as how these populations are who the ancient Egyptians descended from and shared overlapping biological affinities with.

[Big Triece]

I love how you link to an 800+ page document and expect me to trawl through all of that.

This coming from the same ass wipe who stated that APA citations down to the fucking page number would not suffice, and that he needed a link to the original source. Make up your fucking mind.

LMAO, so we're talking about the Egyptians, but not the Nubians... nevermind the fact that you claim that the Egyptians are descended from the Nubians, so anything that applies to the Nubians would inevitably apply to the Egyptians too.

Simple question pause....Do you honestly believe from the debunked findings of that study that the ancient Nubians were truly the product of admixture rather than an indigenous African population?

But you claimed that no-one disputed your model, which is false.

To this very fucking day people dispute OOA, despite just about every piece of conceivable evidence needed to confirm this initial migration backing it. Point there will always be hold outs of certain positions. The mainstream view and the evidence used to support it is what matters, not a unanimous conclusion. Likewise how many scholars within the last 25 years have actually proposed that the ancient populations of the Northeast quadrant of Africa is derived from a non African population source rather than indigenous? From those studies how many of those conclusions have been built upon to give further support to the latter? Do those conclusions and the evidence used to back it up form the majority opinion across the board of the issue?

Funny, coming from you when you spoke of proof using phenotypical analysis earlier. Who the hell is "Matilda", anyhow?

Mathilda, Racial Reality ect likely the same person creating blogs and forums devoted to promoting the biological concept of race, and with that deliberately misinterpreting selective studies to make all sorts of moot points about the "Caucasoidness" of populations which he/she deems desirable.

That is not a link to Brace's 2005 study, it's a graphic with someone interpreting it and presenting a critique of the earlier findings. How about if you link to the actual paper?

I would post another link, but I don't want to put you in position where you'd have to sift through "hundreds of pages" to find my point. But seriously here is the link. Here are two findings from the study which directly refute his conclusions from his 93 study (let's see if you can pinpoint what claim that is) and is even further confirmed by the later Ricaut 08:

"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample, both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians, and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa" (Brace, 2005)

"The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa... Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), .. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it." (Brace, 2005)

Through what evidence?

Exactly you have none.

[Big Triece]

Incidentally, is Democracy Fanboy still around, or has he descended back into the woodwork?

I was just wondering... got a couple of questions.

He is over in the Democratic Maniphesto thread where he posted today.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3619868
But I don't think he'll be back in this topic anytime soon. If he wanted to post in this he would have done it all those times he visited that maniphesto topic. Then having littleBrain over there claiming that you are on "his" side wouldn't be encouragement now would it?
Nor would it be when Democracy Fanboy makes a claim it is accepted by littleBrain but when you and I make the exact same claim littleBrain say that we are the scum of the earth. Doesn't really encourage one's participation.

And Matilda has a blog which was mentioned by Thanas early on and since Thanas is limpdick's nemesis that has to be repeated vs you some 16 pages later...

Then regarding your sources etc and why I personally don't adress them

Shock Shock Surprise! You've never seriously addressed my sources, you've only focus on the ideological aspects (in other words the irrelevant bullshit) of this debate.

So limpdick, I'm sorry but work cramped up today so the snippety thingie will have to wait. Instead I'll give you an appetizer.
I know that this is too hard for you to grasp but check out my contribution on page 1-4 and you will find no such thing. It was only after your repeated journeys into lala land that I switched to only pointing out your flaws and hinting at why you don't understand your sources. That is what mockery of the stupid is all about. But again I'll bait you by making it real simple.
If a source claims X and I agree with X why should I try to adress those sources instead of you making a mockery of said sources by claiming X+Y which those sources never claim? Isn't it much better to simply point out that the +Y bit can only come from complete ignorance?
Like when I show how you contradict yourself and the quotes you provide, or how I show how you willingly distort the topic to fit your projection of paranoid delusions onto others?
For instance lets have some fun, this is you when you were still on medication:

What Keita means by 'local' is Northeast African (Ethiopian, Somali, Beja, Sudanese, ect) all of these populations tend to have light to dark reddish brown to jet black skin color. Rather or not you want to consider that "black" is entirely up to you and your standards for the meaning of the term. Keita however states in his lecture that based on ecological principals the ancient Egyptians would have been dark skinned, how dark he did not say.

This is you off medication:

Dark skinned Africans are considered "black" where I'm from, so the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black".

The first quote can lead to a productive discussion, but the second one is just mind-blowing stupid and deserves nothing but mockery. Problem for you is that you only rarely produce the first kind and the vast majority of your thoughts and posts are clearly in the second category.
Then you going completely insane and threatening other posters and wishing them bodily harm that is just contempt worthy.
Now if you had stuck to your medication we could have had a discussion about your sources. Like the 'ouch' I mentioned which you didn't even grasp the significance of. Then your defense of pre-dna studies.... *sigh* That just means you have no clue about the methodology of the field. So any discussion on sources would be futile until after you educate yourself. Which in of itself would be a miracle.

PS
Just did a search on Racial Reality, here I thought I'd find a white supremacy site and instead I find this:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3973609/11/
That's just funny. Are you Louisvilleslugger from back over there? And don't lie - it's so incredibly easy to check.
DS
PPS
A link from that discussion was kinda extra funny in this context:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/nina_j ... color.html
I'm of to see that now - bye bye...
DDS

Nothing in this rant is worth responding to as it does not pertain to the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians or their biological or cultural origins, nothing more than mind numbing ass leakage (you must have sat on a toilet after Broomstick). So in summary you agree that the ancient Egyptians have overlapping biological affinities with more southerly African populations. You don't have any biological evidence concluding that Pre-Dynastic and ancient Egyptians were mixed with non African population (speculation doesn't count). Therefore we are in agreement.

[Lord Zentei]

I love how you link to an 800+ page document and expect me to trawl through all of that.

This coming from the same ass wipe who stated that APA citations down to the fucking page number would not suffice, and that he needed a link to the original source. Make up your fucking mind.

What the hell are you talking about?

LMAO, so we're talking about the Egyptians, but not the Nubians... nevermind the fact that you claim that the Egyptians are descended from the Nubians, so anything that applies to the Nubians would inevitably apply to the Egyptians too.

Simple question pause....Do you honestly believe from the debunked findings of that study that the ancient Nubians were truly the product of admixture rather than an indigenous African population?

Debunked? I think not.

But you claimed that no-one disputed your model, which is false.

To this very fucking day people dispute OOA, despite just about every piece of conceivable evidence needed to confirm this initial migration backing it. Point there will always be hold outs of certain positions. The mainstream view and the evidence used to support it is what matters, not a unanimous conclusion. Likewise how many scholars within the last 25 years have actually proposed that the ancient populations of the Northeast quadrant of Africa is derived from a non African population source rather than indigenous? From those studies how many of those conclusions have been built upon to give further support to the latter? Do those conclusions and the evidence used to back it up form the majority opinion across the board of the issue?

In other words, your claim was false.

Funny, coming from you when you spoke of proof using phenotypical analysis earlier. Who the hell is "Matilda", anyhow?

Mathilda, Racial Reality ect likely the same person creating blogs and forums devoted to promoting the biological concept of race, and with that deliberately misinterpreting selective studies to make all sorts of moot points about the "Caucasoidness" of populations which he/she deems desirable.

Seems a bit odd to assume that people who disagree with you are the same person. Also, you dodged the point.

That is not a link to Brace's 2005 study, it's a graphic with someone interpreting it and presenting a critique of the earlier findings. How about if you link to the actual paper?

I would post another link, but I don't want to put you in position where you'd have to sift through "hundreds of pages" to find my point.

You really don't see how it is bad form to link to an 800 page document an post a single paragraph from it? Seriously.

But seriously here is the link. Here are two findings from the study which directly refute his conclusions from his 93 study (let's see if you can pinpoint what claim that is) and is even further confirmed by the later Ricaut 08:

"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample, both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians, and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa" (Brace, 2005)

"The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa... Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), .. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it." (Brace, 2005)

Brace's study doesn't say what you think it says. Here's the relevant quote:

When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.

That doesn't seem terribly supportive of your position to me.

Through what evidence?

Exactly you have none.

That is a flat out lie: I have posted evidence, which you have proceeded to ignore. Hence the rolling eyes smiley.

[Big Triece]

What the hell are you talking about?

You dumb bitch you earlier stated that you would rather me provide the actual links for my evidence rather than citations. In particular I provided the link to link to the encyclopedia of archaeology of ancient Egypt which concluded this about the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians:

"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)

Notice how this same citation that I have accompanied with this quote earlier contains the page numbers in which this can be read. When I posted another quote within the same page range stating that the populations of "Saharo-Tropical Africa" are what have historically been noted as "black African or Negroid" I provided a link to the entire encyclopedia from which these quotes can be read and interpreted on your own. Rather than addressing the fact that this authoritative encyclopedia is stating that the ancient Egyptians exhibited a phenotype within the range of black African populations, you try to deter this fact by bitching about how many pages you would have to sift through AS IF I DID NOT ALREADY INCLUDE THE PAGE NUMBERS WITHIN MY ORIGINAL CITATION.

Debunked? I think not.

Quit being a scary little bitch and answer the fucking question. Do you believe that the ancient Nubians were the product of admixture from outside of the continent or were they the indigenous product of Africa?

In other words, your claim was false.

I've never claimed that there were not other opinions on the matter, what I have maintained however is that my opinion is in line with those which are mainstream and most supported on these positions.

Seems a bit odd to assume that people who disagree with you are the same person. Also, you dodged the point.

It is the same person who imposes the same get down with my lies or get banned from refuting my them on blogs and forum. It's also must be noted that he/she does not just disagree with me, he disagrees with most mainstream positions on the issues noted and refuses to accept any recent research debunking such ideology.

Brace's study doesn't say what you think it says. Here's the relevant quote:

You dumb fuck you are aware that the quotes that you are promoting are the ones that Brace notes BEFORE he combines the samples aren't you. Are you even aware of the significance of that? That means that when FURTHER analysis was done in the study he ONCE AGAIN concluded this:

"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample, both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians, and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa" (Brace, 2005)

It should also be noted that by Somalis are themselves geographically and genetically Sub Saharan Africans, but for purposes not mentioned by the author he groups them as separate. The separate category that they fall under is the Northeast African twig and guess who else falls into the Northeast African twig...Pre-Dynastic Egyptians and even Natufanians. These populations were concluded to have been descended from other Sub Saharan African populations in this study and further analysis:


Ricaut 2008

I notice that you keep running from this study.

That doesn't seem terribly supportive of your position to me.

You lose..TRY AGAIN

That is a flat out lie: I have posted evidence, which you have proceeded to ignore. Hence the rolling eyes smiley.

No you have not and you know it. You argument that they were mixed is based on nothing more than speculation, based on your own wishful thinking. Every piece of evidence presented in this thread has supported the fact that Pre-Dynastic Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population.

[Lord Zentei]

You dumb bitch you earlier stated that you would rather me provide the actual links for my evidence rather than citations. In particular I provided the link to link to the encyclopedia of archaeology of ancient Egypt which concluded this about the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians:

You are not making any sense. Try clicking that link of yours again. If you have provided another link, then I may have missed it, and can't seem to find it again. Repost, plz.

Debunked? I think not.

Quit being a scary little bitch and answer the fucking question. Do you believe that the ancient Nubians were the product of admixture from outside of the continent or were they the indigenous product of Africa?

They were a mixed population, though originating in Africa. These are not mutually exclusive conditions.

Seems a bit odd to assume that people who disagree with you are the same person. Also, you dodged the point.

It is the same person who imposes the same get down with my lies or get banned from refuting my them on blogs and forum. It's also must be noted that he/she does not just disagree with me, he disagrees with most mainstream positions on the issues noted and refuses to accept any recent research debunking such ideology.

Naturally, different people would say that to you if your pattern is the same on both forums. And you're still dodging the point I raised. Is there any hope that you'll actually address it?

Brace's study doesn't say what you think it says. Here's the relevant quote:

You dumb fuck you are aware that the quotes that you are promoting are the ones that Brace notes BEFORE he combines the samples aren't you. Are you even aware of the significance of that? That means that when FURTHER analysis was done in the study he ONCE AGAIN concluded this:

"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample, both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians, and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa" (Brace, 2005)

"The Niger-Congo speakers [cluster] more remotely with the Naquada Bronze Age sample of Egypt" and "there is a close tie that is diluted the farther one goes from sub-Saharan Africa". Right. What was your point? Once again, no-one here is denying the Egyptians had African origins. Our point has been that Egyptians, especially the further north you go, were a mixed population. Therefore, it's obvious that they would cluster with more southerly areas to some extent. And "not borne out in every analysis". Great stuff, there Big Triece.

It should also be noted that by Somalis are themselves geographically and genetically Sub Saharan Africans, but for purposes not mentioned by the author he groups them as separate. The separate category that they fall under is the Northeast African twig and guess who else falls into the Northeast African twig...Pre-Dynastic Egyptians and even Natufanians. These populations were concluded to have been descended from other Sub Saharan African populations in this study and further analysis:

http://africanamericanculturalcenterpal ... elkens.jpg
Ricaut 2008

Heh, weren't you the one who disparaged a study I mentioned earlier that didn't include any genetic analysis? Then you present evidence using a study based on craniometrics? But sure, fair enough. But I notice that you only include a graphic from part of that study. Here's another part:

The dendrogram produced by Ward's clustering procedure for the global data set is shown in Figure 3 and provides a relatively similar representation of the MMDst distance matrix than that provide by the MDS analysis. The populations clearly fall into two groups. The first main group can be broken down into two subgroups: (1) all the recent sub-Saharan populations and (2) mainly Central, East, and Northeast Eurasians. West Eurasians form the second main group, which is also subdivided into two subgroups. One of these subgroups includes all the eastern Mediterranean populations (three ancient Egyptian/Sudanese populations from Naqada, Gizeh, and Kerma as well as the Cypriot/Turkish, Greek, and Sagalassian populations) and the Scandinavian sample; the second subgroup includes the other West Eurasian populations.

That's assuming that we're talking about the same study. Now that we've done this, it's possible for you to address the phenotypic studies I cited earlier instead of dodging them? Thank you.

I notice that you keep running from this study.

As far as I can see, you presented that to Spoonist earlier, not to me. And you're not one to talk about people ignoring evidence, as I pointed out above. Address the evidence presented and quit claiming that it doesn't exist.

That doesn't seem terribly supportive of your position to me.

You lose..TRY AGAIN

Did you actually try and understand that paper? Your own source disagrees with you.

That is a flat out lie: I have posted evidence, which you have proceeded to ignore. Hence the rolling eyes smiley.

No you have not and you know it. You argument that they were mixed is based on nothing more than speculation, based on your own wishful thinking. Every piece of evidence presented in this thread has supported the fact that Pre-Dynastic Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population.

And we're back to the lies and strawman distortions.

[Big Triece]

Try clicking that link of yours again.

What about the link? It took me directly to the entire fucking encyclopedia, and from there using the page number range within the original citation you can find where it is concluded that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians exhibited a phenotype and biological affinities with in the range of their definition for more southerly "black Africans or Negroid" populations. What the fuck do you have to say about that?

They were a mixed population, though originating in Africa. These are not mutually exclusive conditions.

A classic dumb fuck argument, that most likely stems from misinformation from RR's blog or forum:

"Prior to the Neolithic, populations of the Nile Valley in Nubia are very robust, and, because of a gap in the fossil record, it is difficult to connect them to later populations. Some have postulated a local evolution, due to diet change, while others postulated migrations, especially from the Sahara area. But between 5000 and 1000 BC, many cemeteries have supplied a large amount of skeletons, and the anatomical characters of Nubian populations are easier to follow-up. Twenty-seven archaeological samples (4 at 5000 BC, 5 at 4000 BC, 10 at 3000 BC, 3 at 2000 BC, 5 at 1000 BC), and 10 craniofacial measurements, have been considered. While cerebral skull is fairly stable, facial skull displays several regular modifications, and specially a reduction of facial and nasal heights, a broadening of the nose, and an increase of prognathism, while bizygomatic breadth is unchanged. These features illustrate a trend towards a growing resemblance with populations of Sub-Saharan Africa living in wet environments. However, paleoclimatological studies show that Nubia experienced an increasing aridification during that period. It is then unlikely that such a morphological change could be related to any local adaptive evolution to environment. Random drift is also unlikely, because the anatomical trend is relatively uniform during these millennia. It then seems more plausible that these changes correspond to the increasing presence of Southern populations migrating northward."
-- Froment, A. (2002) Morphological micro-evolution of Nubian Populations from, A-Group to Christian Epochs: gene flow, not local adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol [Suppl] 34:72.

Dietary changes however did alter the teeth size of Nile Valley populations from more robust to less so. The postulation made by that bogus study in 99' is not supported by genetics or cultural affinities either. The signature non African marker found today in Sudan is haplogroup J, which just about any geneticist will say penetrated the Nile during the Islamic conquest of 700 A.D. The cultural and linguistic affinities any African population in question also completely refutes the notion of non African intervention during this time.

Naturally, different people would say that to you if your pattern is the same on both forums. And you're still dodging the point I raised. Is there any hope that you'll actually address it?

Nope, racial reality and mathilda allow white nationalist to spew their political baggage into such discussions (which may sometimes by accompanies pony show discretionary comments by moderation), but routinely ban anyone supports the more southerly African origins of ancient Egypt. The anthroscape moderation is also notorious for banning people who discredit their theories on Mediterranean supremacy (even other Eurocentric secular groups). This why that forum is virtually dead compared to less obtuse biogenetic forums. Also what point would that be?

"The Niger-Congo speakers [cluster] more remotely with the Naquada Bronze Age sample of Egypt" and "there is a close tie that is diluted the farther one goes from sub-Saharan Africa". Right. What was your point? Once again, no-one here is denying the Egyptians had African origins. Our point has been that Egyptians, especially the further north you go, were a mixed population.

Niger Congo speakers.....Do you even know who in the fuck Niger Congo speakers are? They are broad featured West and Central African populations, for which I nor anyone else in this thread has claimed the ancient Egyptians overlap with biologically. The African populations whom I have routinely referred to as having overlapping biological affinities with the ancient Egyptians are Northeast African populations like Somalis, Ethiopians, and Sudanese. The representative for these Northeast African populations (Somalis) are the modern population who the Pre-Dynastic Egyptian sample forms the closest relationship with. The Natufanians also fall into this Northeast African twig. Those Northeast African populations (and those with overlapping affinities) are being proven to have descended and share noticeable affinities with broader African populations like those seen in Central and Western Africa today, rather than being a separate population altogether. This completely refutes the notion that Northeast Africans (including Egyptians) were the product of non Africans.

Also as I've noted earlier Brace for whatever reason does not consider certain populations who originated and still reside within Sub Saharan Africa as "Sub Saharan African", and Somalis being one. The problem with dumb fucks like yourself trying to interpret this data is that you think that Northeast Africa and Sub Saharan Africa are mutually exclusive, when in reality only one of the core nations within the region does not have areas that are south of the Sahara (Egypt). The fact that this is not recognized by dumb fucks such as yourself makes you think that the Northeast Africans are somehow less African biologically than populations that the study deems "Sub Saharan African". Your basic lack of African history and geography is why you are attempting to pull the completely unsupported statement that Egyptians have been mixed since Pre-dynastic times out of your ass.

Therefore, it's obvious that they would cluster with more southerly areas to some extent. And "not borne out in every analysis". Great stuff, there Big Triece.

You dumb fuck. I absolutely love to see a retard think that he's on a roll, until he hits an inevitable deep dip in the road.

Heh, weren't you the one who disparaged a study I mentioned earlier that didn't include any genetic analysis?

I've never disregarded a study for that reason. I believe that you are referring to that 99' study from which you are basing your new thesis that since it's undeniable that the ancient Egyptians were biologically the same populations as Nubians, you must now try to prove that the Nubians were mixed since Pre-Dynastic times as well

The dendrogram produced by Ward's clustering procedure for the global data set is shown in Figure 3 and ......One of these subgroups includes all the eastern Mediterranean populations (three ancient Egyptian/Sudanese populations from Naqada, Gizeh, and Kerma as well as the Cypriot/Turkish, Greek, and Sagalassian populations) and the Scandinavian sample; the second subgroup includes the other West Eurasian populations...............That's assuming that we're talking about the same study. Now that we've done this, it's possible for you to address the phenotypic studies I cited earlier instead of dodging them? Thank you.

If you actually read the fucking study yourself rather stealing the faulty talking points from Racial Realities websites then you would know why the early southern European populations share close biological affinities with the ancient Egyptians and subsequently the Nubians:

"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."

"Following the numerous interactions among eastern Mediterranean and Levantine populations and regions, caused by the introduction of agriculture from the Levant into Anatolia and southeastern Europe, there was, beginning in the Bronze Age, a period of increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean, mainly during the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. These interactions resulted in the development of trading networks, military campaigns, and settler colonization. Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations. The second option seems more likely, because even though the population from Sagalassos territory was interacting with northeastern African and Levantine populations [trade relationships with Egypt (Arndt et al. 2003), involvement of thousands of mercenaries from Pisidia (Sagalassos region) in the war around 300 B.C. between the Ptolemaic kingdom (centered in Egypt) and the Seleucid kingdom (Syria/Mesopotamia/Anatolia), etc.], the major cultural and population interactions involving the Anatolian populations since the Bronze Age occurred with the Mediterranean populations form southeastern Europe, as suggested from historical and genetic data."

""In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millennium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor." F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564

As you can clearly read from the study, early southern Europeans and west Asians descended from populations with Sub Saharan African morphologies (who are ironically noted to have came specifically from Egypt) which became diluted with a much later counter wave people from southern/central Europe down the Levant. Just a warning using their deliberate misinterpretations of studies and subsequently their faulty talking points of Mathilda/Racial Reality is setting yourself up for failure, as they have already been debunked. It would however be funny to see you persist. I suspect that your next talking point will be about the "Caucasoidness of East Africans".

Address the evidence presented and quit claiming that it doesn't exist.

Bitch I've addressed every fucking piece of shit evidence that you have thrown my way, it's not my fault if you cease to persist with your argument using that bullshit evidence after I've debunked it.

Did you actually try and understand that paper? Your own source disagrees with you.

How so? The plot and dendrogram in the study found the ancient Egyptians cluster primary with the Nubians, while simultaneously ancient southern European populations show close biological affinities towards those particular Northeast/Sub Saharan Africans, whom the study proves that they have descended from. Where am I debunked?

And we're back to the lies and strawman distortions.

Link me your post which contains the study concluding that Pre-Dynastic Egyptians were admixed with non Africans, or shut the fuck and accept and your loss in this debate.

[Lord Zentei]

Try clicking that link of yours again.

What about the link? It took me directly to the entire fucking encyclopedia, and from there using the page number range within the original citation you can find where it is concluded that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians exhibited a phenotype and biological affinities with in the range of their definition for more southerly "black Africans or Negroid" populations. What the fuck do you have to say about that?

It took me to a review page.

They were a mixed population, though originating in Africa. These are not mutually exclusive conditions.

A classic dumb fuck argument, that most likely stems from misinformation from RR's blog or forum:

Actually, no.

"Prior to the Neolithic, populations of the Nile Valley in Nubia are very robust, and, because of a gap in the fossil record, it is difficult to connect them to later populations. Some have postulated a local evolution, due to diet change, while others postulated migrations, especially from the Sahara area. But between 5000 and 1000 BC, many cemeteries have supplied a large amount of skeletons, and the anatomical characters of Nubian populations are easier to follow-up. Twenty-seven archaeological samples (4 at 5000 BC, 5 at 4000 BC, 10 at 3000 BC, 3 at 2000 BC, 5 at 1000 BC), and 10 craniofacial measurements, have been considered. While cerebral skull is fairly stable, facial skull displays several regular modifications, and specially a reduction of facial and nasal heights, a broadening of the nose, and an increase of prognathism, while bizygomatic breadth is unchanged. These features illustrate a trend towards a growing resemblance with populations of Sub-Saharan Africa living in wet environments. However, paleoclimatological studies show that Nubia experienced an increasing aridification during that period. It is then unlikely that such a morphological change could be related to any local adaptive evolution to environment. Random drift is also unlikely, because the anatomical trend is relatively uniform during these millennia. It then seems more plausible that these changes correspond to the increasing presence of Southern populations migrating northward."
-- Froment, A. (2002) Morphological micro-evolution of Nubian Populations from, A-Group to Christian Epochs: gene flow, not local adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol [Suppl] 34:72.

Dietary changes however did alter the teeth size of Nile Valley populations from more robust to less so. The postulation made by that bogus study in 99' is not supported by genetics or cultural affinities either. The signature non African marker found today in Sudan is haplogroup J, which just about any geneticist will say penetrated the Nile during the Islamic conquest of 700 A.D. The cultural and linguistic affinities any African population in question also completely refutes the notion of non African intervention during this time.

It seems that you're still not getting what "mixed population" implies. Hint: it doesn't mean an absence of more southerly traits.

Naturally, different people would say that to you if your pattern is the same on both forums. And you're still dodging the point I raised. Is there any hope that you'll actually address it?

Nope, racial reality and mathilda allow white nationalist to spew their political baggage into such discussions (which may sometimes by accompanies pony show discretionary comments by moderation), but routinely ban anyone supports the more southerly African origins of ancient Egypt. The anthroscape moderation is also notorious for banning people who discredit their theories on Mediterranean supremacy (even other Eurocentric secular groups). This why that forum is virtually dead compared to less obtuse biogenetic forums. Also what point would that be?

And you are an afrocentrist troll. So pot meet kettle, assuming your allegation is correct. And if not, well... The point was one you responded to below, since I repeated it.

"The Niger-Congo speakers [cluster] more remotely with the Naquada Bronze Age sample of Egypt" and "there is a close tie that is diluted the farther one goes from sub-Saharan Africa". Right. What was your point? Once again, no-one here is denying the Egyptians had African origins. Our point has been that Egyptians, especially the further north you go, were a mixed population.

Niger Congo speakers.....Do you even know who in the fuck Niger Congo speakers are? They are broad featured West and Central African populations, for which I nor anyone else in this thread has claimed the ancient Egyptians overlap with biologically. The African populations whom I have routinely referred to as having overlapping biological affinities with the ancient Egyptians are Northeast African populations like Somalis, Ethiopians, and Sudanese. The representative for these Northeast African populations (Somalis) are the modern population who the Pre-Dynastic Egyptian sample forms the closest relationship with. The Natufanians also fall into this Northeast African twig. Those Northeast African populations (and those with overlapping affinities) are being proven to have descended and share noticeable affinities with broader African populations like those seen in Central and Western Africa today, rather than being a separate population altogether. This completely refutes the notion that Northeast Africans (including Egyptians) were the product of non Africans.

Yes, I know who the Niger-Congo speakers are. And you're still arguing against that same strawman.

Also as I've noted earlier Brace for whatever reason does not consider certain populations who originated and still reside within Sub Saharan Africa as "Sub Saharan African", and Somalis being one. The problem with dumb fucks like yourself trying to interpret this data is that you think that Northeast Africa and Sub Saharan Africa are mutually exclusive, when in reality only one of the core nations within the region does not have areas that are south of the Sahara (Egypt). The fact that this is not recognized by dumb fucks such as yourself makes you think that the Northeast Africans are somehow less African biologically than populations that the study deems "Sub Saharan African". Your basic lack of African history and geography is why you are attempting to pull the completely unsupported statement that Egyptians have been mixed since Pre-dynastic times out of your ass.

I have not advanced any arguments based on geography or history thus far, so you're full of it with this rebuttal. Neither have I denied that northeast Africans are African - if you would refrain from trolling and grandstanding, then you would realize that. Incidentally, perhaps Brace doesn't classify Somalis with sub-Saharan Africans because... he deems that they're not sub-Saharan Africans?

Therefore, it's obvious that they would cluster with more southerly areas to some extent. And "not borne out in every analysis". Great stuff, there Big Triece.

You dumb fuck. I absolutely love to see a retard think that he's on a roll, until he hits an inevitable deep dip in the road.

No rebuttal? Concession accepted.

Heh, weren't you the one who disparaged a study I mentioned earlier that didn't include any genetic analysis?

I've never disregarded a study for that reason. I believe that you are referring to that 99' study from which you are basing your new thesis that since it's undeniable that the ancient Egyptians were biologically the same populations as Nubians, you must now try to prove that the Nubians were mixed since Pre-Dynastic times as well

Go back and read the links I provided earlier.

The dendrogram produced by Ward's clustering procedure for the global data set is shown in Figure 3 and ......One of these subgroups includes all the eastern Mediterranean populations (three ancient Egyptian/Sudanese populations from Naqada, Gizeh, and Kerma as well as the Cypriot/Turkish, Greek, and Sagalassian populations) and the Scandinavian sample; the second subgroup includes the other West Eurasian populations...............That's assuming that we're talking about the same study. Now that we've done this, it's possible for you to address the phenotypic studies I cited earlier instead of dodging them? Thank you.

If you actually read the fucking study yourself rather stealing the faulty talking points from Racial Realities websites then you would know why the early southern European populations share close biological affinities with the ancient Egyptians and subsequently the Nubians:

"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."

Ah: so Europe and the Near East were populated from Africa during the Pleistocene. Congratulations on pointing out the obvious.

"Following the numerous interactions among eastern Mediterranean and Levantine populations and regions, caused by the introduction of agriculture from the Levant into Anatolia and southeastern Europe, there was, beginning in the Bronze Age, a period of increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean, mainly during the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. These interactions resulted in the development of trading networks, military campaigns, and settler colonization. Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations. The second option seems more likely, because even though the population from Sagalassos territory was interacting with northeastern African and Levantine populations [trade relationships with Egypt (Arndt et al. 2003), involvement of thousands of mercenaries from Pisidia (Sagalassos region) in the war around 300 B.C. between the Ptolemaic kingdom (centered in Egypt) and the Seleucid kingdom (Syria/Mesopotamia/Anatolia), etc.], the major cultural and population interactions involving the Anatolian populations since the Bronze Age occurred with the Mediterranean populations form southeastern Europe, as suggested from historical and genetic data."

""In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millennium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor." F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564

As you can clearly read from the study, early southern Europeans and west Asians descended from populations with Sub Saharan African morphologies (who are ironically noted to have came specifically from Egypt) which became diluted with a much later counter wave people from southern/central Europe down the Levant. Just a warning using their deliberate misinterpretations of studies and subsequently their faulty talking points of Mathilda/Racial Reality is setting yourself up for failure, as they have already been debunked. It would however be funny to see you persist. I suspect that your next talking point will be about the "Caucasoidness of East Africans".

So... you're interpreting this so as to imply that not only were the ancient Egyptians exhibiting sub-Saharan traits, but that Ancient Anatolians and the Minoans and Ancient Greeks were, too. I just want to be absolutely clear on this point before we proceed.

Address the evidence presented and quit claiming that it doesn't exist.

Bitch I've addressed every fucking piece of shit evidence that you have thrown my way, it's not my fault if you cease to persist with your argument using that bullshit evidence after I've debunked it.

Lie.

Did you actually try and understand that paper? Your own source disagrees with you.

How so? The plot and dendrogram in the study found the ancient Egyptians cluster primary with the Nubians, while simultaneously ancient southern European populations show close biological affinities towards those particular Northeast/Sub Saharan Africans, whom the study proves that they have descended from. Where am I debunked?

In your claim that they don't cluster with Mediterranean populations.

And we're back to the lies and strawman distortions.

Link me your post which contains the study concluding that Pre-Dynastic Egyptians were admixed with non Africans, or shut the fuck and accept and your loss in this debate.

OK, I'm pretty sure that you're trolling at this point. So much for that, then.

[Big Triece]

It took me to a review page.

The same fucking link is taking directly to the encyclopedia on googlebooks, in which I can sift through the text that I would like. I got this link from another website and so far you seem to be the only dumbass who the link doesn't work for.

Actually, no.

Yes it is a dumb fuck argument, that you are basing entirely off of the findings of one debunked study from over a decade ago.

It seems that you're still not getting what "mixed population" implies. Hint: it doesn't mean an absence of more southerly traits.

"Mixed population" can imply whatever context you are putting it in. In your case you are arguing based solely on the lone findings of one decade old study that the ancient Nubians were "mixed" with populations from across the red sea since the Neolithic. My more recent studies have debunked your claims that the changes observed in Sudan during this period were due to non African admixture, but instead due to a continuous wave of Nilotic African populations. The changes observed have also been due in part to dietary changes (at least as far as teeth size is concerned).

And you are an afrocentrist troll.

There is nothing Afrocentric about my position in regards to the biological and cultural origins of ancient Egypt. Every argument that I have made has been backed by several lines of evidence. You on the other hand are a biased piece of shit, who cannot for what ever reason accept the conclusive findings that there is no evidence to suggest that the ancient Egyptians were of anything but local Northeast African origins:

There has been scholarly interest in the biological variation and genealogical relationship of the ancient Egyptians to other populations outside of the Egyptian Nile Valley. There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa. Skeletal analyses have figured prominently in research. When comparisons to non-Egyptians are made, depending on which samples and methods are used, the craniofacial patterns of ancient Egyptian show a range of similarities to other African populations, Near Easterners, and Europeans. Overall, these studies can be interpreted as suggesting that the Egyptian Nile Valley's indigenous population had a craniofacial pattern that evolved and emerged in northeastern Africa, whose geography in relationship to climate largely explains the variation. Dental affinity studies generally agree with the craniofacial results, though they differ in the details. The body proportions of ancient Egyptians generally are similar to those of tropical (more southern) Africans.

link

and

"Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans." (S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)

Where is the non African biological affinities, ,that you keep harping about of the Pre-Dynastic Egyptians? I only see affinities with Nilotic and Sub Saharan East African populations, which is consistent with genetic, cultural, linguistic, and archaeological evidence.

Yes, I know who the Niger-Congo speakers are. And you're still arguing against that same strawman.

No bitch you obviously did not know who "Niger Congo" speakers were, because if you did then you would not have strawmanned my entire argument. Rather than acknowledging that the study groups Somalis ("Modern groups from the Horn" sound familar ^^) and Pre-Dynastic Egyptians within the same twig based on overlapping biological affinities, you strawmanned my argument to make it appear as though I have been asserting the ancient Egyptians shared primary biological affinities towards those particular Western and Central African populations. From there with you being the dumb fuck that you are, asserted that because Northeast Africans shared a lesser affinity but noticeable affinity with those African populations that Pre-Dynastic Egyptians were mixed. You have now been debunked!

Incidentally, perhaps Brace doesn't classify Somalis with sub-Saharan Africans because... he deems that they're not sub-Saharan Africans?

As stated earlier you exhibit a fundamental lack of knowledge in regard to African geography and population history/diversity, which is a common and often deliberate for dumb fucks who fight tooth and nail to deny that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. If you can even locate Somalia on the fucking map below than see that it lies completely south of the Sahara, thus making that nation and it's indigenous inhabitants SUB SAHARAN:



They help represent the indigenous genetic and phenotypic diversity of this sub region (which consequently is the greatest on Earth). Once again labeling those populations as Northeast Africans is not too problematic, but trying to limit the rest of the diversity of the sub region with the greatest indigenous diversity on Earth to only three populations is. Based on that same set of criteria several ethic groups in Western and Central Africa would have clustered with the Northeast African twig (Fulani, Tutsi, Hausa, ect). But you would not have known this if I didn't tell you, because you don't shit about Africa.

No rebuttal? Concession accepted.

Bitch I refuted you and racial realities talking points in my earlier statements. Obviously you don't possess the knowledge or simply the sources the refute what I've stated. That is why you're only giving "no" and 'that's a strawman" single responses to my explanations, you dumb fuck.

Go back and read the links I provided earlier.

I've read that bullshit study several times prior to your pirating of it's interpretation from racial realities blog, and it's been debunked as you well know.

So... you're interpreting this so as to imply that not only were the ancient Egyptians exhibiting sub-Saharan traits, but that Ancient Anatolians and the Minoans and Ancient Greeks were, too. I just want to be absolutely clear on this point before we proceed.

Bitch it's observed through numerous studies (most of which have been referenced by Ricaut himself) stemming back decades, and conclusively proven through Ricaut's sumarization using every thing from anthropology to genetics that an exodus from Mesolithic Egypt with populations exhibiting a "Sub Saharan African Morphology" (the Mushabi) migrating into the Levant (becoming the Natufanians) and further northward into southern Europe. Don't get the time periods Fucked up either you dumb fuck.

Lie

Link me to what I never addressed or admit that you have presented no fucking study concluding that Pre-Dynastic Egyptians were mixed with non African populations and ultimately shut the fuck up.

In your claim that they don't cluster with Mediterranean populations.

The Egyptians cluster primarily with Nubians in this study first and foremost, so your point is moot right off the bat. Now ask yourself this, what is the single affinity that the study concludes that was shared between the ancient Egyptians and those early populations in southern Europe...."SUB SAHARAN AFRICAN". In the 2006 study below you can clearly see that the earliest ancient Egyptians cluster again primarily with Nubians and secondly with more southerly populations in the Sudan and Ethiopia:



Notice that Middle Eastern affinity does not appear in Egypt until the Late Period. The affinity with Greeks and Egyptians comes only with Late Period (which one sample in the Ricaut study used) and modern Egyptians. This further confirms the fact that early ancient Egyptians were black Africans, until substantial admixture from the Middle East and Europe penetrated Nile during later periods. Why is that so hard for dumb fucks such as yourself to accept:

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

[Lord Zentei]

Address the question I posed to you instead of spamming the thread with more of your bullshit:

So... you're interpreting this so as to imply that not only were the ancient Egyptians exhibiting sub-Saharan traits, but that Ancient Anatolians and the Minoans and Ancient Greeks were, too. I just want to be absolutely clear on this point before we proceed.

[Big Triece]

Address the question I posed to you instead of spamming the thread with more of your bullshit:

So... you're interpreting this so as to imply that not only were the ancient Egyptians exhibiting sub-Saharan traits, but that Ancient Anatolians and the Minoans and Ancient Greeks were, too. I just want to be absolutely clear on this point before we proceed.

Bitch I already answered your fucking question:

Bitch it's observed through numerous studies (most of which have been referenced by Ricaut himself) stemming back decades, and conclusively proven through Ricaut's sumarization using every thing from anthropology to genetics that an exodus from Mesolithic Egypt with populations exhibiting a "Sub Saharan African Morphology" (the Mushabi) migrating into the Levant (becoming the Natufanians) and further northward into southern Europe. Don't get the time periods Fucked up either you dumb fuck.

Can you not comprehend what the fuck this means dumbass?

[Lord Zentei]

Bitch I already answered your fucking question:

Bitch it's observed through numerous studies (most of which have been referenced by Ricaut himself) stemming back decades, and conclusively proven through Ricaut's sumarization using every thing from anthropology to genetics that an exodus from Mesolithic Egypt with populations exhibiting a "Sub Saharan African Morphology" (the Mushabi) migrating into the Levant (becoming the Natufanians) and further northward into southern Europe. Don't get the time periods Fucked up either you dumb fuck.

Can you not comprehend what the fuck this means dumbass?

The only dumb fuck here is you, since WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MESOLITHIC. And the quoted text you provided speaks of changes during the BRONZE AGE, which you presented as evidence for the fact that the Ancient Egyptians were sub-Saharan. Try explaining yourself better.

[Big Triece]

The only dumb fuck here is you, since WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MESOLITHIC.

This coming from the same dumb fuck who referenced a supposed back migration which occurred prior to the Mesolithic as his sole evidence that the ancient Egyptians were mixed since Pre-Dynastic times! The point of posting the Ricaut study was because it debunks your bullshit claims non African affinities of Pre-historic Northern Africa (particular Egypt) as it's proven that the oldest remains in the fucking country sported a "Sub Saharan African" morphology. This population and it's affinity spread into the Levant and further up into Europe.

And the quoted text you provided speaks of changes during the BRONZE AGE,

Yeah those Bronze age changes, that occurred was the southward movement of Central Europeans into Greece and ultimately into the Levant, diluting the Sub Saharan affinities of the existing populations, retard.

which you presented as evidence for the fact that the Ancient Egyptians were sub-Saharan. Try explaining yourself better.

It refutes your notion that the pre-existing populations in the Nile Valley were somehow the result of admixture from a back migration.

[Lord Zentei]

Actually, no.

Yes it is a dumb fuck argument, that you are basing entirely off of the findings of one debunked study from over a decade ago.

It seems that you're still not getting what "mixed population" implies. Hint: it doesn't mean an absence of more southerly traits.

"Mixed population" can imply whatever context you are putting it in. In your case you are arguing based solely on the lone findings of one decade old study that the ancient Nubians were "mixed" with populations from across the red sea since the Neolithic. My more recent studies have debunked your claims that the changes observed in Sudan during this period were due to non African admixture, but instead due to a continuous wave of Nilotic African populations. The changes observed have also been due in part to dietary changes (at least as far as teeth size is concerned).

I have presented several studies. And the "actually, no" was in reference to your assumption as to where I had gotten the argument from.

And you are an afrocentrist troll.

There is nothing Afrocentric about my position in regards to the biological and cultural origins of ancient Egypt. Every argument that I have made has been backed by several lines of evidence. You on the other hand are a biased piece of shit, who cannot for what ever reason accept the conclusive findings that there is no evidence to suggest that the ancient Egyptians were of anything but local Northeast African origins:

Good lord, you're still arguing against that strawman. Holy shit, this is fucking incredible.

Yes, I know who the Niger-Congo speakers are. And you're still arguing against that same strawman.

No bitch you obviously did not know who "Niger Congo" speakers were, because if you did then you would not have strawmanned my entire argument. Rather than acknowledging that the study groups Somalis ("Modern groups from the Horn" sound familar ^^) and Pre-Dynastic Egyptians within the same twig based on overlapping biological affinities, you strawmanned my argument to make it appear as though I have been asserting the ancient Egyptians shared primary biological affinities towards those particular Western and Central African populations. From there with you being the dumb fuck that you are, asserted that because Northeast Africans shared a lesser affinity but noticeable affinity with those African populations that Pre-Dynastic Egyptians were mixed. You have now been debunked!

And you are a shrieking buffoon. Your argument was plain as day, as is the concept of "Niger-Congo", and I find it incredibly rich that you're accusing other people of strawmanning. Moreover, I read my interpretation DIRECTLY FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE.

Incidentally, perhaps Brace doesn't classify Somalis with sub-Saharan Africans because... he deems that they're not sub-Saharan Africans?

As stated earlier you exhibit a fundamental lack of knowledge in regard to African geography and population history/diversity, which is a common and often deliberate for dumb fucks who fight tooth and nail to deny that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. If you can even locate Somalia on the fucking map below than see that it lies completely south of the Sahara, thus making that nation and it's indigenous inhabitants SUB SAHARAN:

http://priv.asiaeconomicinstitute.org/r ... Africa.png

They help represent the indigenous genetic and phenotypic diversity of this sub region (which consequently is the greatest on Earth). Once again labeling those populations as Northeast Africans is not too problematic, but trying to limit the rest of the diversity of the sub region with the greatest indigenous diversity on Earth to only three populations is. Based on that same set of criteria several ethic groups in Western and Central Africa would have clustered with the Northeast African twig (Fulani, Tutsi, Hausa, ect). But you would not have known this if I didn't tell you, because you don't shit about Africa.

Hey, get a clue: I said that perhaps BRACE didn't acknowledge that on account of it not being so. You know, the guy who you are using as evidence? And obviously I know what "sub-Saharan" means - but did you know that it doesn't necessarily mean the same in anthropology as it does in geography? Amazing!

Bitch I refuted you and racial realities talking points in my earlier statements. Obviously you don't possess the knowledge or simply the sources the refute what I've stated. That is why you're only giving "no" and 'that's a strawman" single responses to my explanations, you dumb fuck.

I've read that bullshit study several times prior to your pirating of it's interpretation from racial realities blog, and it's been debunked as you well know.

That's because you ARE strawmanning. Since I have repeated myself often enough, I daresay that there's little hope in you getting the point.

In your claim that they don't cluster with Mediterranean populations.

The Egyptians cluster primarily with Nubians in this study first and foremost, so your point is moot right off the bat. Now ask yourself this, what is the single affinity that the study concludes that was shared between the ancient Egyptians and those early populations in southern Europe...."SUB SAHARAN AFRICAN". In the 2006 study below you can clearly see that the earliest ancient Egyptians cluster again primarily with Nubians and secondly with more southerly populations in the Sudan and Ethiopia:

Is that so:

When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.

It's like you're not reading your own sources!

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

Interesting study. Too bad the above quote makes it irrelevant to your position.

[Lord Zentei]

The only dumb fuck here is you, since WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MESOLITHIC.

This coming from the same dumb fuck who referenced a supposed back migration which occurred prior to the Mesolithic as his sole evidence that the ancient Egyptians were mixed since Pre-Dynastic times! The point of posting the Ricaut study was because it debunks your bullshit claims non African affinities of Pre-historic Northern Africa (particular Egypt) as it's proven that the oldest remains in the fucking country sported a "Sub Saharan African" morphology. This population and it's affinity spread into the Levant and further up into Europe.

In case it escaped you, if there was population mixing in pre-dynastic times, such effects would apply to the ancient Egyptians too. OTOH, when you prattle about African migrations into Europe, speak of "sub-Saharan affinities" in pre-historic European populations and get called on that, you replied that you were talking about the Mesolithic, not the Ancient Greeks.

And the quoted text you provided speaks of changes during the BRONZE AGE,

Yeah those Bronze age changes, that occurred was the southward movement of Central Europeans into Greece and ultimately into the Levant, diluting the Sub Saharan affinities of the existing populations, retard.

Ah, so you ARE saying that the inhabitants of ancient Greece were sub-Saharan, a.k.a. "black".