Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Here are pictures of inhabitants from one of the few large southern Egyptian cities Aswan:

Seriously, what is your fucking problem?

Are you honestly so stupid that you think that these pictures are evidence? I can go on Google and find pictures of white or Arab-looking Egyptians easily. Hell, I can go find a picture of a Chinese man living in Cairo, if I wanted it.

Please, before addressing any of my other arguments (not that you will, anyway, because you are a dishonest little shit), just think about this:

If I post a photo, here, of a Chinese man living in Egypt, can I then make the claim that Egyptians have an Asian origin?

The answer is no.

The same holds for posting random pictures of black people living in Egypt. Why? Because we don't know:

1) Who these people are.
2) Where they came from (only that they are NOW in Egypt).
3) If they were born in Egypt, how long their lineage has been there.
4) If they are in any way genetically related to Ancient Egyptians.
etc. etc.

Seriously, how do you not understand this concept? Anthropology and genetics journals don't just post random photos, do they? No ... if they have photos, they come with a lot of demographic or other supplementary information so you can actually use them relevantly. This is impossible to do with random photos pulled from the Internet.

If you can't understand this concept, there is no point in arguing with you, because it would be amazing you could figure out how to breathe with such a malfunctioning brain.

[Lord Zentei]

In fact a pretty good summarization of the bullshit surrounding this debate was given two days ago (but deleted by the mods) acknowledging that it has it's root in racism, which is something even acknowledged by scholars.

Actually, that post was not deleted - it's in the HOS, as I'm sure you're well aware of.

I'm was more so getting at their overall biological affinity, which has always and continues to tie people of that region to more southerly regions of northeast Africa. Even Carleton S Coon in his race obsessed publications of the 1970's stated that their was a biological continuum of peoples from modern day Upper Egypt to the Ethiopian highlands, which has been validated more recently:

What still escapes you is that this has nothing to do with the argument people around here are presenting. Affinity with Ethiopia does not imply that some sort of "Black Africa" concept that includes Egyptians and Congolese but excludes the Near East is somehow valid. Quite simply, Africans are not one race. One of the African races is responsible for much of the colonization of the rest of the world. This particular African race happens to include the Egyptians.

[Big Triece]

I am not angry that you claim they are Egyptian

Yes you are!

Stop arguing semantics, asshole.

Eat my dick.

My studies were proof that there is no "modern consensus." All of those studies were recent, and disputed your claim.....Why were they flawed? You have yet to demonstrate this.

Again posting 4 random fucking studies that have conclusions shooting in every fucking direction, does not lead to a fucking theory. Two of the fucking studies that you posted have been thoroughly refuted or criticized by more recent studies:

1)This study states that the original speakers of Afro-Asiatic were farmers in the Middle East who migrated into Africa, resurrecting the long dead theory of Demic Diffusion being brought into Africa. In direct response to such bullshit a peer reviewed article headed by leading linguist and geneticist published this:

"Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa DOES NOT SUPPORT demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy. "The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P.". The Origins of Afroasiatic Christopher Ehret, S. O. Y. Keita, Paul Newman;, and Peter Bellwood Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1680

The dates simply will not work for an Afro-Asiatic origin and spread from the Middle East into Africa.

2) The notorious Brace et. al 1993 The conclusion that Brace claims to have came to this study were that the ancient Egyptians were most closely related to Europeans (Neolithic and Modern), Middle Easterners, Indians, and Northern Africans (which he lumped together as one geographic distant but giant family) and showed no relationship whatsoever with "Sub Saharan African" populations. Here is Keita's response to Brace et al:

"However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity." (S.O.Y. Keita. "Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data". Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)

As Keita notes populations which originate and still reside in Sub Saharan Africa such as Somalis, were inexplicably lumped under of the great North Africa, Middle East, European, and Indian category, which directly undermines indigenous Sub Saharan African diversity and giving a false impression of genetic relatedness.

The affinity with the giant "Caucasoid" family was misleading to say the least. For one the closest populations to the Pre-Dynastic Egyptian sample were Neolithic Europeans, followed closely by Somalis. What Brace et al incorrectly assumes in this 1993, is that modern Europeans and early Europeans were biologically the same people. Recent work by numerous other anthropologist and geneticist (including Brace himself in a later study) has proven that early Europeans resembled tropical African populations, not modern cold adapted Europeans:

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China."--(Christopher Stringer, Robin McKie (1998). African Exodus; The Origins Of Modern Humanity. (Pg. 162)

The conclusion of Brace 2006 was that those same early Europeans who he used in his 1993 study to determine a close relationship with "Caucasoids" (including modern Europeans) and a non existent relationship with "Sub Saharan African" were essentially Sub Saharan African transplants their damn selves.

"The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11–15). If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained. This picture of a mixture between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone (6, 9, 33, 34, 48, 49), but this view is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared."

-- Brace, et al. The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 January 3; 103(1): p. 242-247.)

I'll post the plotting data from the study a little further down.

3) This study once again is not stating anything that we don't already know, and which is something that is noted several times in the Gurna study that I've just posted. Modern Egyptians are a mixture of Africans, Middle Easterners and Europeans and tends to have a cline of biological affinity from north to south. Below are comment from Keita on this simple ass fact

The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).

Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.

This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.

The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.
(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)

4) Your last study has been criticized for only using samples from Northern Egypt, which is misleading as even one of your studies implies:

"However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variability (contrast Lucotte and Mercier 2003a with Manni et al. 2002), because this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results." (S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )

These points were also touched on in my initial response, which you so happened to ignore.

You have yet to prove this scholarly consensus. You have selectively quoted from certain studies that agree with your point, while casually dismissing every other scholarly study as "stand-alone."

Let me ask you a question, why would the university of Cambridge, Manchester university, or the National Geographic strictly allow only one theory on such a contentious subject to be presented as fact? Why would the National Geographic not have any sort of opposing theory on that same page dedicated to the scholarly indications of the origins of Kemet? How many modern scholars can you or anyone else cite who seriously dispute the non more southerly African origins of ancient Egypt, and more specifically do such in point by point lecture in a similar fashion as Keita? Anyway below are the conclusions of the conclusions of leading anthropologist Kathryn Bard in the "Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt":

Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid). Contemporary physical anthropologists recognize, however that race is not a useful biological concept when applied to humans. Although many people believe they can distinguish "races" on the basis of skin color, more of the variation in human genetic makeup can be attributed to differences between these so-called races than between them. Furthermore, the observable and unobservable (to the eye) physical variation is so great and complex that there are no criteria that can satisfactorily segregate all individuals into one race or another..[...]Unlike the classic typological approach, which interprets variation in physical form as resulting only from admixture of races, contemporary approaches to understanding variation takes into account genetic and physiological adaptations to local and regional environmental factors, such as the intensity of ultraviolet radiation, ambient temperature and humidity. Conceptually, biological affinity express a continuum of relationship that reflects genetic mixing (gene flow) from different local and regional areas in antiquity in addition to evolutionary factors, such as natural selection and genetic drift..[....]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..[...] Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography.

linkto fiull content of the specified passage in encyclopedia. In summary there is sufficient biological evidence to conclude that the ancient Egyptians would fit into the now scientifically defunct "Negroid" or black African categorization.

As far as cultural origins are concerned:

"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage,including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time).

Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...

Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization"-- Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 28

The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient is ironically stating the same shit as the late African historian Basil Davidson whose words you arrogantly incorrectly wrote off as geared towards high school students, not aware that his works are required readings across the board for colleges in his native UK.

Which doesn't even make sense, by definition a scholarly study is NOT stand-alone.

The conclusions of your studies have yet to be built upon by my more recent research. Compare that to the research of Ehret, Zakrzewski, Keita, Angel ect who's research on the subjects are continuously being cited by authors of more recent studies.

You have yet to do so, despite NUMEROUS people in this thread posting NUMEROUS references to the fact that not every scholar agrees with your analysis.

Do you want to know how that is a strawman? I have never stated that there is not research out there which points to a different direction. What I maintain and what is fucking evident is that none of the research pointing in a different direction can give serious opposition to the status quo and subsequently lend credence to another theory.

That post was blatant trolling.

How in the fuck was it blatant trolling? Is it because he admitted that the content of his opinion would piss you ass wipes off? Notice that in his defense of his post, Thanas responded by closing the fucking thread. The attempt of people on this board is to utterly discredit my opinion on this matter as something radical in which no sane person would understand. Having a forum regular agreeing with me and calling the root of the issue out for what it truly is (racism), would shoot shit on all your twisted ass faces.

You just rant and rave about racism instead of actually refuting my points.

Bitch don't come to me about dodging points. Racism is the sole reason why people such as yourself are fighting tooth and nail against accepting the obviously fucking fact that the ancient Egyptians were generally black Africans. Does that mean that you yourself are a fucking Neo Nazi, no. What it does imply is that you and others are stubbornly trying to uphold a myth which is rooted in racism. The evidence that racism in the West (particularly America) is the driving force behind such opposition to this fact is demonstrated clearly by Dr. Sally Ann Ashton in her Manchester lecture:



Listen to the fucking comments that she read from the daily mail at the 8 minute mark. It's sickening!

If you really want to prove your argument, why don't you actually back it up?

Word of advice, read the entire fucking thread before your open you reply you piece of shit!

[Big Triece]

I can go on Google and find pictures of white or Arab-looking Egyptians easily.

You simple bitch, we already that Egypt today is full of "Arab-looking Egyptians". This very fact is what leads some ignorant (of Egypt's population history) people to assume that Egypt has always looked this way. The point of posting those black Egyptians in Aswan was to give you (obviously one of those ignorant fucks) a glimpse of the Upper Egyptian people.

Hell, I can go find a picture of a Chinese man living in Cairo, if I wanted it.

Did you even note the links that I gave your stupid ass underneath those pictures? The websites that I've linked you to validated that these people in Aswan are native Egyptians not transplants. The fact that you doubt that fucking ASWAN, which is characterized noted for it's inhabitants being the most African (black) of any major Egyptian city has black inhabitants shows that you don't know a fucking thing about Egypt.

The same holds for posting random pictures of black people living in Egypt. Why? Because we don't know:

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic!

Also here is the plot from Brace 2006:



Modern Horn Africans closer in phenotype to Pre-Dynastic Egyptians than modern Egyptians are...Who'd ever thought

[Ziggy Stardust]

Did you even note the links that I gave your stupid ass underneath those pictures? The websites that I've linked you to validated that these people in Aswan are native Egyptians not transplants.

Ah, you dishonest little fuck, do you really think nobody is going to notice you selectively reply to my post? I specifically listed a series of reasons (not even a complete series, mind you) of WHY those pictures do not constitute proof of your assertions. And you handily snipped them out. Once again, those pictures, and the links they came from, DO NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THEM ABOUT THE ETHNICITY, GENETICS, OR BACKGROUND OF THE PEOPLE IN THEM. Therefore, THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF THE GENETIC BACKGROUND OF EGYPT. How are you not getting this?

And, to add to your dishonesty, you are claiming that those pictures contain ANY sort of validation. I checked ALL of those links. Where is the proof in them that those people are native Egyptians? All those pictures are proof of is that in Egypt now there are people that look like that. Congratu-fucking-lations. How does that refute my point about the Chinese man in Cairo?

The fact that you doubt that fucking ASWAN, which is characterized noted for it's inhabitants being the most African (black) of any major Egyptian city has black inhabitants shows that you don't know a fucking thing about Egypt.

That is not what I am talking about and you know it, asshole.

I never claimed that those people weren't from Egypt, and that there aren't black Egyptians. I fucking dare you to find a quote of me saying that. Seriously, how many times do I have to spell this out for you, moron? Random photos from the internet are NOT PROOF. Look, here's a black person in New York:



OMG AMERICA IS AFRICAN!!!!!!!1111

And, and some Chinese in Egypt.



OMG THE EGYPTIANS ARE CHIENESE!!!!!111

See what I am talking about here? Random internet pictures =/= proof of the genetic make up of the Egyptians.

Okay? And once again, I AM NOT SAYING THERE AREN'T BLACK PEOPLE IN EGYPT. I never made that claim; not even close, as a matter of fact. This is just one more instance of your incredible dishonesty (or maybe you really just ARE this delusional).

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic!

Once again, you selectively quote my post and strawman my argument. What a surprise. You have violated several board rules regarding debates at this point, not to mention your brutal rape of common sense. I don't expect you to last too much longer around here if you keep this up.

Modern Horn Africans closer in phenotype to Pre-Dynastic Egyptians than modern Egyptians are...Who'd ever thought

The Brace paper has to do with relative craniofacial dimensions. This is all well and good. Also, the results are not nearly as clear cut as you would have us believe ... notice that the closest data point to (modern) Egypt belongs to the German neolithic Muhlhausen sample? And the closest to pre-Dynastic is Portuguese Mesolithic? This is what I love about you ... you honestly do not understand the scientific implications of the VERY PAPERS YOU CITE. Which, I guess, is the same reason you think the photo you pulled off of a yahoo picture gallery also constitutes evidence.

And, from the SAME PAPER:



Guess where modern Egypt is? Grouped with the Mediterranean populations.
Guess where ancient Egypt is? Grouped in with the Nubians and the Israeli fellaheen. Yes, and the northeast Africans. But, I never claimed there was NO connection between ancient Egypt and northeast Africa. Nobody in this thread made that claim. But I don't expect you to understand this, as in your world everyone who doesn't agree with you is racist. I simply claimed that you have not provided foolproof evidence ... and, in fact, you haven't; the very evidence you cite shows equal relation with Middle Eastern populations ... and, since this is a study of phenotype, it makes no claims about what came first - it only shows a parallel. Remember, correlation =/= causation.

Also from that paper:

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.

In any case, it is clear at this point that you are a just a dishonest little shit-stain. All you have done so far in this thread has:

1) Lied about what I have claimed, even though everyone can look and see my posts (and the bits you selectively refused to quote)
2) Lied about what other people have claimed, including Lord Zentai and Thanas
3) Lied about the "consensus" of scholars, which doesn't exist, considering the often contradictory evidence
4) Lied about what the papers you have cited are claiming

I see no reason to continue talking to you. There's no point slamming my head against a textbook Wall of Ignorance.

(Now, I bet in your next post, you only quote about half of what I said, screech that I am racist, misquote another scholarly study, post another utterly irrelevant photo you got off of Google, then crow that you are smarter than everyone on this site, because nobody wants to talk to you, as if that were somehow proof that your grand claims have smashed away all opposition. )

[Spoonist]

Uhm, Ziggy. That was all pointed out within the first five pages.
Also I definately get a feeling of littledick getting away with board violations aplenty from page 3 onwards, but I think that Dalton, Edi and Thanas is cutting this some slack due to regular posters asking them not to ban him.
Me I think that a direct wish for violence against another member would be instaban, sprinkled with some sexist/gay slurs.

See some summaries from me all through this thread
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2#p3619132
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 4#p3619084
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6#p3611996
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3580280
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2#p3582052

Also the studies he posts in page 18+ is the same as was discussed on page 3-7.
Some images from certain studies he have posted over ten times now. Like the Kemp 2006 one which has been repeatedly shown not to prove what littledick thinks it does.
Plus the idiocy of his picking bias when selecting photos was shown regardining Iman over here:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 4#p3484464

So he is aware of all of these things, they just don't register. It's a schizofrenic obsession where everyone who doesn't agree with his WoI is by his definition afro-deniers, which in his paranoia translates to white and racist regardless of who the poster is.

As was shown through this thread he has done the exact same thing on other boards and been banned there as well. It's the same pictures and studies then as they are now.
As I pointed out on page 15 or 16 he doesn't even understand the order of magnitude in evidence between craneological studies and haplogroup ones. He is citing 30 year old studies as proof against modern ones over and over again. When this was pointed out to him he defended such practcie by saying that there is nothing wrong with those old studies because they agreed with him. Yupp that's right, as long as the craneological studies goes his way they are valid over modern ones that refutes him.
etc
etc
etc
etc

[Big Triece]

Ah, you dishonest little fuck, do you really think nobody is going to notice you selectively reply to my post?

I reply to the content of peoples post that is relevant to the overall thread topic. The parts of your post that I cut out was the long dragged out bullshit regarding whether or not a person can properly validate a picture on the internet. Notice three quarters of this very post that I am responding to is about this irrelevant bullshit, because you have nothing better to add to the discussion.

I specifically listed a series of reasons (not even a complete series, mind you) of WHY those pictures do not constitute proof of your assertions.

What assertion? That there is a north-south cline of biological affinities in modern day Egypt? This has been noted by every single person in this thread. I have already provided peer reviewed studies confirming that modern day populations of Upper Egypt have a closer biological affinity towards Africans further south.....YOU NEVER COMMENTED ON THEM. So why does it make your penis shrivel when I post pictures of these Egyptians with biological affinities closest to black Africans? As a matter of fact don't even answer that, because it will just continue to fuel your childish ass rants about internet pictures.

I checked ALL of those links. Where is the proof in them that those people are native Egyptians? All those pictures are proof of is that in Egypt now there are people that look like that. Congratu-fucking-lations.

I mean how fucking in denial can a mothafucka be?



Media /0/]verificationthat these folks above are southern Egyptians, who are entitled to reparations from the Egyptian government. Now shut the fuck up about it!

notice that the closest data point to (modern) Egypt belongs to the German neolithic Muhlhausen sample? And the closest to pre-Dynastic is Portuguese Mesolithic?

You missed my point of posting that data plot. The modern Egyptian sample is not the closest modern population to their ancient Egyptian Egyptian ancestors, SOMALIS are. Also one of the points that I brought up in my dismantling of your four studies was that early Europeans were essentially tropical African transplants:

Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples - some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans.. Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations." (Christopher Stringer, Robin McKie (1998). African Exodus. Macmillan, p. 162)

The ancient Egyptian sample showed it's closest affinity towards an ancient populations who themselves had the phenotype of tropical populations like Africans or even Australians. That is why in the plot they group on the opposite side of Europeans and Western Asian populations.

This is what I love about you ... you honestly do not understand the scientific implications of the VERY PAPERS YOU CITE.

^^

STFU

And, from the SAME PAPER:.....Guess where modern Egypt is?

Relevance We are discussing the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians not modern Egyptians! Also where are modern Egyptians in relation to their ancient Egyptian ancestors and what is the cause of this clear biological distinction?

Grouped with the Mediterranean populations.

Which is the same thing that another dendrogram which I've posted several times in this thread has proven. Early ancient Egyptians (especially those in the south) form an overlapping affinity with Nubians and modern Horn African populations, while late Dynastic and modern Egyptians begin to gravitate towards Middle Easterners and Greeks.

Guess where ancient Egypt is? Grouped in with the Nubians and the Israeli fellaheen. Yes, and the northeast Africans.

"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... 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.." (C.L Brace, et. al. 2005. The Questionable contribution of the Neolithic...)

and

"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 finding in this study was not the overlapping of the ancient Egyptians with Northeast Africans like Somalis and Nubians, but rather the addition to this Northeast African twig being the Natufanians (Isreali Fellaheen) who were obviously descendants of the Mesolithic African Mushabi.

and, in fact, you haven't; the very evidence you cite shows equal relation with Middle Eastern populations ...

The passage that you cited, is referring to the Natufanians not the ancient Egyptians, you fucking retard. Furthermore as explained earlier the findings of the Sub Saharan African affinities of these Northeast African and early European populations in Brace et al has been further backed by Ricaut 2008:

1) Lied about what I have claimed, even though everyone can look and see my posts (and the bits you selectively refused to quote)

No I didn't your just a dumbass.

2) Lied about what other people have claimed, including Lord Zentai and Thanas

They are dumb asses also (add a couple more to that list).

3) Lied about the "consensus" of scholars, which doesn't exist, considering the often contradictory evidence

So you're just going to pretend that I didn't just post numerous authoritative sources in my last response confirming this?

4) Lied about what the papers you have cited are claiming

No you're just too fucking stupid to understand them. That's the reason why you shut the fuck about those four studies that you were harping about earlier. You likely got those four studies from Mathilda's blog (as I've noticed her blog name on your link) and you yourself didn't have a clue as to what they actually implied, which is why you relied on her distortions. But it is always fun to see a dumbass think that he has something, so please continue as I enjoy watching people stick their own foot of their asses.

[Lord Zentei]

Ah, so now Big Triece is breaking out the animated GIFs and one liners again. What a shock.

Hilariously, he still doesn't understand the papers he cites. Just a couple of examples.

"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... 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.." (C.L Brace, et. al. 2005. The Questionable contribution of the Neolithic...)

May have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make up of the Natufians... Right. What was this supposed to refute, again?

"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. Right, so: remote clustering.

Claiming that there's a connection is one thing, but that's not what you've been saying throughout this thread. You are saying that the Ancient Egyptians were flat out Black African. As opposed to being ethnically heterogenous, which is the position of the majority of this board. It would help a lot if you actually tried to understand the position you're ostensibly arguing against (as well as the papers you're citing).

[Big Triece]

The Niger-Congo speakers.... cluster... more remotely with the Naquada Bronze Age sample of Egypt. Right, so: remote clustering.-

You dumb fuck that was before Brace combined the samples! Do you even understand what that means? When he did he noted what I referenced The Ricaut 2008 study which cited Brace 06' above is confirmation of the clear link between Northeast Africans and other Sub Saharan Africans, which is the data that the passage in which I cited was based upon, dumb ass. Here is a Link to the full study. In fact Ricaut's data actually points to Northeast African populations descending from other Sub Saharan African populations:

Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt - such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semai 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators..”--Ricaut and Walekens (2008) ‘Cranial Discrete traits)

[Lord Zentei]

Holy shit, you still don't get it. That passage in no way refutes the point I was making, and you're still hung up on your black/white fallacy - pardon the pun. Never mind that the Ricault study also had this to say:

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.

And as for Brace's conclusions:

The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11–15). If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained. This picture of a mixture between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone (6, 9, 33, 34, 48, 49), but this view is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared.

Do you actually TRY to understand the passages you're quoting you dumb fuck? Seriously, this is almost surreal.

[Big Triece]

Never mind that the Ricault study also had this to say:.....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.

Now what's the conclusion reached by Ricaut which explains the origins of these early Mediterranean populations?:

“From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that subSanaran genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.

Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt - such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semai 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators..”

--Ricaut and Walekens (2008) ‘Cranial Discrete traits)

The common link between Egyptians, Nubians, and those early Mediterranean populations was the Sub Saharan African biological affinity. Those early Mediterranean populations were descendants of the Natufanians, who themselves were of the Mushabi peoples of Africa who exhibited the external anatomical traits of Sub Saharan Africans.

The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11–15).

What's your point of underlining this? There was a continuous stretch of Neolithic agriculture in the regions listed. Now Brace directly follows this statement by indicating the source of this Neolithic:

"If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."

The source of this Neolithic are the Natufanians of Israel, who have a clear biological affinity towards Sub Saharan Africans, because they were the descendants of the Mushabi people of Africa who migrated into the Middle East and mixed with the indigenous inhabitants of Israel. Regardless of how the affinity is worded in Brace's conclusion the overlapping affinity of these Natufanians with Northeast Africans was the basis of grouping them into the "Prehistoric/Recent Northeast African twig" and the subsequent indirect link with Niger Congo populations illustrates that these people were essentially tropical African transplants living in the Middle East, which shouldn't be a surprise considering how early in history we are talking about.



This was further explained in the Ricaut 2008 study, which built heavily upon the findings of Brace 2006:

"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)." 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

"At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it."

Funny, how you didn't underline the main conclusion of the study, which is that modern Europeans do not show a close biological relationship with their early European ancestors. Instead those early Europeans show a closer relationship with tropical African populations. Anyway...

The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.

IT BECAME DILUTED, meaning that it was much stronger. How does this help your argument? It's stating that the Sub Saharan African affinity which was present during the spread of agriculture into Europe, became masked by a wave of people more similar to modern Europeans. This is also explained in Ricaut's study:

""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."

Do you actually TRY to understand the passages you're quoting you dumb fuck? Seriously, this is almost surreal.

^^ Wipe that shit off your of face.

[Big Triece]

double post

[Ziggy Stardust]

So he is aware of all of these things, they just don't register. It's a schizofrenic obsession where everyone who doesn't agree with his WoI is by his definition afro-deniers, which in his paranoia translates to white and racist regardless of who the poster is.

Yeah, when I first came into this thread I only read maybe half of it before posting. Then I read the rest of it and realized that he had already been very thoroughly refuted, and his dishonesty would just continue, which is why I'm washing my hands of it. I guess that'll teach me to dive in without looking.


---------------------

Alright, this is the last time I directly address Big Triece, since his dishonesty is already well established.

That's the reason why you shut the fuck about those four studies that you were harping about earlier. You likely got those four studies from Mathilda's blog (as I've noticed her blog name on your link) and you yourself didn't have a clue as to what they actually implied, which is why you relied on her distortions.

Who the fuck is Mathilda? Your paranoid schizophrenia is showing again. My analysis of the papers is due to reading them, kid, something I suggest you take up sometime.

No you're just too fucking stupid to understand them.

Show me your genetics degree, please. Or, as a matter of fact, anything higher than a G.E.D., assuming you have one.

[Big Triece]

So he is aware of all of these things, they just don't register. It's a schizofrenic obsession where everyone who doesn't agree with his WoI is by his definition afro-deniers, which in his paranoia translates to white and racist regardless of who the poster is.

Yeah, when I first came into this thread I only read maybe half of it before posting. Then I read the rest of it and realized that he had already been very thoroughly refuted, and his dishonesty would just continue, which is why I'm washing my hands of it. I guess that'll teach me to dive in without looking.


---------------------

Alright, this is the last time I directly address Big Triece, since his dishonesty is already well established.

That's the reason why you shut the fuck about those four studies that you were harping about earlier. You likely got those four studies from Mathilda's blog (as I've noticed her blog name on your link) and you yourself didn't have a clue as to what they actually implied, which is why you relied on her distortions.

Who the fuck is Mathilda? Your paranoid schizophrenia is showing again. My analysis of the papers is due to reading them, kid, something I suggest you take up sometime.

No you're just too fucking stupid to understand them.

Show me your genetics degree, please. Or, as a matter of fact, anything higher than a G.E.D., assuming you have one.

Exactly! Just another dumb fuck who felt obligated to flap your dick suckas, and now you don't have shit else to say (well at least of value to the thread topic)

[Lord Zentei]

Never mind that the Ricault study also had this to say:.....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.

Now what's the conclusion reached by Ricaut which explains the origins of these early Mediterranean populations?:

“From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that subSanaran genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.

LMAO!!! Now you're stuck talking about the Paleolithic to the Early Holocene? What the hell has this to do with the Kingdom of Egypt?

Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt - such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semai 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators..”

--Ricaut and Walekens (2008) ‘Cranial Discrete traits)

The common link between Egyptians, Nubians, and those early Mediterranean populations was the Sub Saharan African biological affinity. Those early Mediterranean populations were descendants of the Natufanians, who themselves were of the Mushabi peoples of Africa who exhibited the external anatomical traits of Sub Saharan Africans.[/quote]Show... similarities with some of the sub-Saharan... specimens... Well? What the fuck do these 33000 year old skeletons have to do with Egypt, seeing as your own sources then go on to speak of demic diffusion into Egypt? Never mind that the position of people on this board - including myself - is that ancient Egypt was heterogenous. Don't you understand that you don't refute a claim of there being a heterogenous population merely by showing that such and such a sample clusters with sub-Saharans using such-and-such a criteria, when there are numerous samples which cluster with groups in North Africa and the Near East too?

The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11–15).

What's your point of underlining this? There was a continuous stretch of Neolithic agriculture in the regions listed. Now Brace directly follows this statement by indicating the source of this Neolithic:

You dumbass. The point was that the source you provide directly refutes your claim of no back migration into Africa from the Near East at any point prior to the Early Dynastic period. You know, the hilarious thing is that these sources of yours support the position that you have accused me of holding: namely, that agricultural societies in early Egypt were at least in part due to immigration from the Near East, rather than a wholly indigenous development. This is in contrast to the far more moderate poistion I have consistently held here, namely that Egypt was an African civilization, though ethnically heterogenous. I guess the irony of all that is lost on your peabrain. Talk about pissing on your own shoes!

"If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."

The source of this Neolithic are the Natufanians of Israel, who have a clear biological affinity towards Sub Saharan Africans, because they were the descendants of the Mushabi people of Africa who migrated into the Middle East and mixed with the indigenous inhabitants of Israel. Regardless of how the affinity is worded in Brace's conclusion the overlapping affinity of these Natufanians with Northeast Africans was the basis of grouping them into the "Prehistoric/Recent Northeast African twig" and the subsequent indirect link with Niger Congo populations illustrates that these people were essentially tropical African transplants living in the Middle East, which shouldn't be a surprise considering how early in history we are talking about.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files. ... .jpg?w=500

Hilariously, you post an image directly from Mathilda's blog, which you're so paranoid about WRT all other posters in this thread. That's pure gold. Incidentally, do you understand that your source just said that the sub-Saharan element is almost as important as the Eurasian element in the population you're talking about here? As in, there was a Eurasian element that was more important? And this population spread across North Africa, Egypt included, bringing agriculture with them? Just wow.

This was further explained in the Ricaut 2008 study, which built heavily upon the findings of Brace 2006:

<SNIP>

The Ricault study and the Brace study have both been shown not to agree with you, so you can cut out the cherry picking, dumbass.

"At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it."

Funny, how you didn't underline the main conclusion of the study, which is that modern Europeans do not show a close biological relationship with their early European ancestors. Instead those early Europeans show a closer relationship with tropical African populations. Anyway...

Funny, how you miss the point that I was underlining passages from YOUR OWN SOURCES which directly refute your position. Never mind that you're full of shit WRT your implied off-topic interpretation of the passage you're whining about in any case.

The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.

IT BECAME DILUTED, meaning that it was much stronger. How does this help your argument? It's stating that the Sub Saharan African affinity which was present during the spread of agriculture into Europe, became masked by a wave of people more similar to modern Europeans. This is also explained in Ricaut's study:

""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."

And this irrelevant bullshit is probably something to do with your claim of sub-Saharan ancient Greeks. Never mind that that's not something you can derive from this passage.

Do you actually TRY to understand the passages you're quoting you dumb fuck? Seriously, this is almost surreal.

^^ Wipe that shit off your of face.

That sounds like something you should consider doing yourself.

[Lord Zentei]

Exactly! Just another dumb fuck who felt obligated to flap your dick suckas, and now you don't have shit else to say (well at least of value to the thread topic)

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld7bw ... o1_400.gif

Say, Big Triece, it's not good form to quote an entire post and respond with a one-liner and lame-ass GIF. I've pointed that out before. How about responding to Ziggy Stardust's question?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Say, Big Triece, it's not good form to quote an entire post and respond with a one-liner and lame-ass GIF.

What? You didn't get the memo that "Google image search" is a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

How about responding to Ziggy Stardust's question?

What do you think the odds of this actually are? Honestly, I'm almost afraid to see what his answer is, considering how schizophrenic and bizarre his non-answers have been.

(Incidentally, apparently he is furious that I linked to someone named Mathilda's blog. I have no idea who this is. I just Google searched the Brace 2005 study he was talking about and the only source for it online I could find was on a blog. I don't know who Mathilda is, but I think he is actually just pissed off I was able to find a copy of the paper, instead of relying on his cherry-picked quotes from it, because he knows it doesn't actually support his position).

Anyway,

You know, the hilarious thing is that these sources of yours support the position that you have accused me of holding: namely, that agricultural societies in early Egypt were at least in part due to immigration from the Near East, rather than a wholly indigenous development.

I can't seem to find it now, but earlier in this thread someone had a link to a good article that talked about the genetic history of plant specimens from early Egyptian archaeological finds, and how they were very closely linked with Near Eastern plant specimens from the same time period. While not proof of a back migration per se (as there was trade at the time), but still interesting.

[Lord Zentei]

What do you think the odds of this actually are? Honestly, I'm almost afraid to see what his answer is, considering how schizophrenic and bizarre his non-answers have been.

Not very high, actually. But I'm just curious as to how he'll respond.

(Incidentally, apparently he is furious that I linked to someone named Mathilda's blog. I have no idea who this is. I just Google searched the Brace 2005 study he was talking about and the only source for it online I could find was on a blog. I don't know who Mathilda is, but I think he is actually just pissed off I was able to find a copy of the paper, instead of relying on his cherry-picked quotes from it, because he knows it doesn't actually support his position).

LOL, well apparently, Mathilda is a person who maintains a anthropology blog on wordpress dot com (here). Thanas linked to it at some point very early in the thread, and Big Triece has been accusing random people of relying on it ever since. He accused me of it too when I first came here and I was about as nonplussed as you are. Of course, then I found out who it was, so Big Trice actually was a big help, there.

I can't seem to find it now, but earlier in this thread someone had a link to a good article that talked about the genetic history of plant specimens from early Egyptian archaeological finds, and how they were very closely linked with Near Eastern plant specimens from the same time period. While not proof of a back migration per se (as there was trade at the time), but still interesting.

That it is. At least it implies that the techniques are imported, even though the farmers may not be. But it's consistent with the demic diffusion model which Big Triece incorrectly accused me of maintaining, then unwittingly provided material to support it. Ironically, he might actually manage to gradually change my mind on the subject, though not in the way he'd have hoped.

[Thanas]

Say, Big Triece, it's not good form to quote an entire post and respond with a one-liner and lame-ass GIF.

What? You didn't get the memo that "Google image search" is a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

How about responding to Ziggy Stardust's question?

What do you think the odds of this actually are? Honestly, I'm almost afraid to see what his answer is, considering how schizophrenic and bizarre his non-answers have been.

(Incidentally, apparently he is furious that I linked to someone named Mathilda's blog. I have no idea who this is. I just Google searched the Brace 2005 study he was talking about and the only source for it online I could find was on a blog. I don't know who Mathilda is, but I think he is actually just pissed off I was able to find a copy of the paper, instead of relying on his cherry-picked quotes from it, because he knows it doesn't actually support his position).

Mathilda is an anthropology student who is hated by afrocentrists because she pretty much demolished them in her blog. As such, a common strategy for them is to pretty much character assassinate her to no end. They even attempted to do so in this very thread, to no avail.

[Big Triece]

LMAO!!! Now you're stuck talking about the Paleolithic to the Early Holocene? What the hell has this to do with the Kingdom of Egypt?

So have the years of persistent meth abuse induced you into a persistent state of amnesia, or are you just a dumb ass? The discussion of Brace's 2006 study came up as a result of some ass backwards retard (not you this time) referring to the dubious conclusions of Brace's 1993 study. He was unaware of the later finding that the early Europeans used in Brace's 93 study )which along with Somalis were the sole reason that the ancient Egyptians were lumped into the European, North African, West Asian and Indian cluster) resembled tropical Africans. Brace's latter study confirmed the biological distinction of modern Europeans from those earlier ones, which is just one major blow that nullifies the implications of his 1993 study.

Show... similarities with some of the sub-Saharan... specimens... Well? What the fuck do these 33000 year old skeletons have to do with Egypt,

You see, if you're going to intrude into a fucking discussion then you should first at least attempt the understand the dialogue. The reason why it is important to note that these pre-historic Egyptian remains resemble some Sub Saharan African populations, is because those Egyptians (the Mushabi) migrated eastward into the Levant and were the primary population source of the Natufanians (first farmers) who migrated northward into Europe and subsequently brought agriculture into that continent.

Now what is perhaps most ironic about your statement asking why is this relevant, is because you and many others are persistently referring to some sort of Pre-historic back migration from the Levant into African via the Sinai as the basis to say that Egypt has always been mixed. The fact that these studies are attributing the migrating Sub Saharan/Northeast African affinities of early Levantine and European populations to Pre-historic Egypt (Mushabi), directly slaps the shit out that theory!

seeing as your own sources then go on to speak of demic diffusion into Egypt?

Please post the passage in either study stating that Demic Diffusion from the Middle East into Africa occurred, or admit that your reading comprehension skills are piss poor!

is that ancient Egypt was heterogenous. Don't you understand that you don't refute a claim of there being a heterogenous population merely by showing that such and such a sample clusters with sub-Saharans using such-and-such a criteria, when there are numerous samples which cluster with groups in North Africa and the Near East too?

Our opinions on the matter differ in how we are using the term "heterogeneous". The evidence presented thus far indicates that Egypt was indeed a "heterogeneous" civilization since Pre-Dynastic times. It was (according to Keita, Ehret, Bard, Zakrzewski, Davidson ect, ect ect) a mixture of early Afro-Asiatic speaking populations from the regions stretching between Nubia and Somalia and a later wave of Nilotic populations of the ancient Sahara. I am of course using this term from a scientific perspective. These indigenous populations of Africa are genetically and physically distinct from one another, regardless of if both populations would collectively be referred to as black Africans.

You on the other hand are using the term "heterogeneous" from a social perspective meaning a mixture of races. You believe that at some unspecified time in pre-history, a back migration of a non African population exhibiting an disclosed phenotype, having no influence language or culture settled on the Nile, subsequently leading to an inexplicable cultural and biological fusion with black populations from further south that has characterized Egypt ever since. I call it fantasy or bullshit!

The point was that the source you provide directly refutes your claim of no back migration into Africa from the Near East at any point prior to the Early Dynastic period.

That passage is in no way shape or form indicating a back migration into Africa. No where is such indicated anywhere else in the study, by wording, plots, or dendrograms. The Demic Diffusion was from the Natufanians of Isreal who the descendants of the Mushabi (of Africa) into Europe...The Middle East-Europe.

Now , if you really want me to prove to everyone what an ass clown you truly are, then please persist with your argument of Demic Diffusion into Africa through misinterpretations of Brace or the usage of any other study.

You know, the hilarious thing is that these sources of yours support the position that you have accused me of holding: namely, that agricultural societies in early Egypt were at least in part due to immigration from the Near East

You are correct. Egypt did incorporate Near Eastern products into their indigenous agricultural practices, but this fact alone does not prove a migration into Egypt from the Middle East. The strongest non biological evidence against this idea, is that the words for these Middle Eastern products, WERE NOT SEMITIC but native Egyptian. Compare that to the products used in Egypt from the ancient Sahara, which are Nilotic loan words. In fact many many words in ancient Egyptian language were Nilotic despite, ancient Egyptian being an Afro-Asiatic language. This linguistic evidence along with cultural and consistent biological findings have all pointed to a Nilotic colonization of the Pre-Dynastic Egypt. Furthermore the agriculture of ancient Egypt was a result of the Saharan Neolithic which is reflected by the fact that Egyptians used a Nilotic foraging system.

rather than a wholly indigenous development.

This was already discussed earlier. I've never denied the influences of certain Middle Eastern cultures in Pre-Dynastic Egypt. What was debated extensively, was the significance of those influences. Some scholars like Keita state that Egypt had a "primarily African" origin, while scholars like Ehret state that Egypt was "fundamentally African". Kathryn Bard for example states this:

"What is truly unique about this state is the integration of rule over an extensive geographic region, in contrast to other contemporaneous Near Easter polities in Nubia, Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Levant. Present evidence suggests that the state which emerged by the First Dynasty had its roots in the Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of form from the Predynastic to the First Dynasty, This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of Lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that which originated in Upper Egypt. Hierarchical society with much social and economic differentiation, as symbolized in the Nagada II cemeteries of Upper Egypt, does not seem to have been present, then, in Lower Egypt, a fact which supports an Upper Egyptian origin for the unified state. Thus archaeological evidence cannot support earlier theories that the founders of Egyptian civilization were an invading Dynastic race from the east.."

and this

"Egyptian contact in the 4th millennium B.C. with SW Asia is undeniable, but the effect of this contact on state formation is Egypt is less clear... The unified state which emerged in Egypt in the 3rd millenium B.C. however, was unlike the polities in Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern Syria, or Early Bronze Age Palestine- in sociopolitical organization, material culture, and belief system. There was undoubtedly heightened commercial contact with SW Asia in the 4th millennium B.C., but the Early Dynastic state which emerged in Egypt is unique and religious in character."
(Bard, Kathryn A. 1994 The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3):265-288.)

link

The persistent answer is that Egypt's origins were above all African (from the south), which in that does not negate influence from the Middle East. No one is saying that it is impossible that some small groups or individuals from the Levant crossed the Sinai into Lower Egypt during Pre-Dynastic times, and in fact I think that it most likely happened. What is baseless to assert however , is that such a presence could characterized early Lower Egyptians as a "mixed" populations. Biological evidence such as limb proportions make findings that early Lower Egyptians and populations in Palestine of the same period "were significantly different" from one another and the former grouped with tropical Africans in that respect.

Hilariously, you post an image directly from Mathilda's blog,

No actually the image came from Brace's 2006 study. During a google image search Mathilda's page had the best size format for the image, compared to other results which would have stretched the thread page ridiculously wide.

Incidentally, do you understand that your source just said that the sub-Saharan element is almost as important as the Eurasian element in the population you're talking about here?

Contrary to Brace's words, the biological pull of the Natufanians does not at all suggest a strong "Eurasian" component. In every dendrograms and plot in that study those early Israelis form an affinity placing them squarely within the context of recent/Pre-historic Northeast Africans. Brace even stated that they formed into that twig. What has yet to be proven is the pull towards Eurasian populations, by any of the visuals. Notice that Ricaut's study, never even mentions a Eurasian component in the Natufanians and characterizes them as the descendants of Pre-historic Egyptians (Mushabi) who exhibited a Sub Saharan African phenotype.

And this population spread across North Africa, Egypt included, bringing agriculture with them? Just wow.

I'm not going to label you as a liar, because it's apparent that you are just a self righteous retard with reading comprehension skills that vary according to what you want to believe. If I asked you to provide a quote from the study stating that Demic Diffusion into Africa occurred, you'd scratch the roots off of your pea head searching for the contents for months.

[Big Triece]

Mathilda is an anthropology student who is hated by afrocentrists because she pretty much demolished them in her blog.

Do you even know the ideas that that bitch champions?

1) The biological concept of race is REAL and, discreet and the reasons why the vast majority of scientist now discredit it are for political reason, not scientific

2) OOA is wrong/Multi-Regional Hypothesis

3) She supports the Hamitic Hypothesis. The reason why Africans vary in phenotype and why some have an intermediate genetic pull between Africans and non Africans is not because Africans are the most genetically diversified populations on Earth and from a subset of that diversity non African came into existence, BUT BECAUSE OF "CAUCASOID ADMIXTURE".

4) From the fact that she believes in the concept of race, she consistently takes a typological approach to interpretting select studies. Even when the author of the study is emailed and her interpretation is theoretically trashed by the author, the bitch will still persist with her ignorance.

5) Afro-Asatic originated in the Middle East

6) She supports the notion that race determines a persons intelligence.

7) She does not publish some studies relevant to her overall theme if they obliverate her ideaology. Case in point the bitch will insult Somali or Ethiopian posters who challenge her assertion that they are the result of mixture between "Caucasoids and Negroids", because she knows everything about Africans and African genetics. But the bitch refused to post or even acknowledge the largest study of African and African American genetics ever (Tishkoff 2009), because it completely refuted those claims.

It's almost sad, that some people on this board hold your opinion on these matters up to the sun because of your "credentials"! You have all the symptoms of the common American"Negrophobe"!

[Thanas]

Mathilda is an anthropology student who is hated by afrocentrists because she pretty much demolished them in her blog.

Do you even know the ideas that that bitch champions?

1) The biological concept of race is REAL and, discreet and the reasons why the vast majority of scientist now discredit it are for political reason, not scientific

The closest thing I can even notice on her blog that is "racialist" is the theory that men did evolve out of five different homo erectii than just out of one. Which is a scientific theory, not anything denoting racial superiority.

I haver never met a white racist who holds the opinion that the Egyptians were a mixture of Nubians, Levantine and indigenous cultures, with the indigenous cultures being the majority. I also never met a white racist who claims that the Egyptians were brown people and helped colonize the Levant, and I have never met any white racist who idolizes the Berbers.

2) OOA is wrong/Multi-Regional Hypothesis

She does not. It is pretty bad that you would persist in this route when this has been debunked in this very thread, even directly after the very posts I linked to.

Technically I support the ‘weak Eden’ theory, which means mostly Out of Africa, but with a bit of archaic human like Neanderthal and Erectus mixed in. Also, not at all recent. Anyone who quotes 40k as the exit date from Africa needs to read up a lot, it was probably over 100k ago.

As for the rest, either provide direct quotes of her to prove your point. However, the very fact that you are unable to even read her posts for what they are is pretty bad and smacks of dishonesty.

[matter]

I really dont understand what the fightings and insults are about,cos from what I can deduce from the discussion,both parties seem to agree more than disagree i.e that the early ancient egyptians,were in the main a tropically adapted mixed population of groups from east/northeast Africa(afrasans) and and ancient sahara(nilosaharans) who mostly settled in upper egypt,the main centre of population, over time.they then developed egyptian culture during naqada times nd would then, through some actual migrations and culture flow,totally replace the lower egyptian neolithic culture-the sparsely populated lower egyptians themselves being mostly an indigenious African population but divergent from upper egyptians who very likely also saw some population flow from the middle east since they traded with them and since some middle eastern cultures influenced thiers.I think the point of disagreement is whether we can call these people,esp upper egyptians 'blacks'? Once we agree that we are not talking about biological race here,who would really not consider nilosaharans and east/northeast africans as 'blacks' in a social sense?

[Thanas]

I really dont understand what the fightings and insults are about,cos from what I can deduce from the discussion,both parties seem to agree more than disagree i.e that the early ancient egyptians,were in the main a tropically adapted mixed population of groups from east/northeast Africa(afrasans) and and ancient sahara(nilosaharans) who mostly settled in upper egypt,the main centre of population, over time.they then developed egyptian culture during naqada times nd would then, through some actual migrations and culture flow,totally replace the lower egyptian neolithic culture-the sparsely populated lower egyptians themselves being mostly an indigenious African population but divergent from upper egyptians who very likely also saw some population flow from the middle east since they traded with them and since some middle eastern cultures influenced thiers.I think the point of disagreement is whether we can call these people,esp upper egyptians 'blacks'?

No, the question is if it was "some" culture flow or whether it was the impetus for the Egyptian kingdoms to compete with and to invent/import new technologies. Also, I would disagree with the implication that the Egyptian culture was formed completely before that, and I would also argue that the Egyptians saw themselves as very different from their nubian cousins.

Once we agree that we are not talking about biological race here,who would really not consider nilosaharans and east/northeast africans as 'blacks' in a social sense?

That depends on who you are talking to. The Egyptians themselves did not think so, the Greeks of their age did not thinks so, neither did the Romans, neither did any other culture they came in contact with. We are talking about a culture that did not see itself as black or african, but as EGYPTIAN. The best modern definition I would think that would apply to such a culture would be mediterranean, as in "part of the mediterranean/mideast culture that dominated the world up into the late middle ages and gave rise to Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Arab dominance" of their known world.

It should not be described as black or white. It should be described as a melting pot, a crossroads, as "Egyptian". Just as one should not describe the Hellenic civilization as anything but Hellenic, the Roman civilization as anything but Roman.

[Spoonist]

I really dont understand what the fightings and insults are about,cos from what I can deduce from the discussion,both parties seem to agree more than disagree

Me being prophetic on p6, snipped for brevity:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3484678

Does anyone disagree that the Ancient Egyptians were primarily dark-skinned people of African descent and that their civilization was an indigenous development?

Hush now. I think that it will take bigT at least another 20 pages before he understands that everyone agrees. Hence the windmill comment and other like it.

Where there is disagreement would be to which extent the influence is southern only and to which extent there was a biotrace from levant. Both which would be a tomato tomato discussion if bigT didn't go on a personal campaign laden with prejudice.

The insults come from board culture and littledicks ignorance of the topic he claims expertise in. Check out the board rules for more on this.

i.e that the early ancient egyptians,were in the main a tropically adapted mixed population of groups from east/northeast Africa(afrasans) and and ancient sahara(nilosaharans) who mostly settled in upper egypt,the main centre of population, over time.they then developed egyptian culture during naqada times nd would then, through some actual migrations and culture flow,totally replace the lower egyptian neolithic culture-the sparsely populated lower egyptians themselves being mostly an indigenious African population but divergent from upper egyptians who very likely also saw some population flow from the middle east since they traded with them and since some middle eastern cultures influenced thiers.

"east/northeast Africa(afrasans)" if we replace east with "horners" or somesuch it would more resemble the migration/language patterns.
"totally replace" is a bit too dramatic, "take over" might be better
re the pop flow the haplogroups show that more concluseively than your text, Look at the history of haplo u6 then check out studies on the history of berber populations in northern africa.
re lower & upper Egypt, lower is northern, upper is southern, I think your text has them reversed. Also some include Kush in upper egypt others include it. Its really a mess when talking about historical issues like this. Better to name the archeological sites.

I think the point of disagreement is whether we can call these people,esp upper egyptians 'blacks'?

Not really. Most of them is because of littledicks distortion of his sources including Keita and his distortion of everyone else's viewpoint. There was no problem with the other advocates of this.
Search for PharaohMentuhotep and Democracy Fanboy in this topic and you will see what I mean.

Once we agree that we are not talking about biological race here,who would really not consider nilosaharans and east/northeast africans as 'blacks' in a social sense?

If you are in the anglo saxon sphere then you would be right in a social sense. However lots of groups from egypt and the horn would disagree. So would I and others who'd rather use more scientific lingo. If you go through the 5 or so different discussions in this thread about what black is you will see why. To some you can be black skinned without being black for instance. So in a genetic/historic discussion a social term like the anglo-sphere black is meaningless.
For instance go and search on all different discussions whether Jango Fett was black. The actor is dark skinned. But whether Maori really is black or not is still a bit of a heated argument for some poeple. Or if people like Obama and Wood is black or not.
So if we can stay away from such non-necessary controversies while still being able to talk about skin tone that would be nice.
Also note that tropically adopted doesn't necessarily mean really dark skinned, this because skintone is about UV radiation adoption while tropically adopted limb proportions correlate with heat. The two usually overlap, but not always. This has also been covered in this topic.