Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Big Triece]

Maybe the same influx which introduced goats? Maybe the asia-africa back migration?

My point exactly! You don't know, and you and everyone of these dumbass's who insist on this Pre-historic back migration is doing this on nothing more than ambiguity.

Although human Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup R1b are quite rare in Africa, being found mainly in Asia and Europe, a group of chromosomes within the paragroup R-P25* are found concentrated in the central-western part of the African continent, where they can be detected at frequencies as high as 95%. Phylogenetic evidence and coalescence time estimates suggest that R-P25* chromosomes (or their phylogenetic ancestor) may have been carried to Africa by an Asia-to-Africa back migration in prehistoric times. Here, we describe six new mutations that define the relationships among the African R-P25* Y chromosomes and between these African chromosomes and earlier reported R-P25 Eurasian sub-lineages. The incorporation of these new mutations into a phylogeny of the R1b haplogroup led to the identification of a new clade (R1b1a or R-V88) encompassing all the African R-P25* and about half of the few European/west Asian R-P25* chromosomes. A worldwide phylogeographic analysis of the R1b haplogroup provided strong support to the Asia-to-Africa back-migration hypothesis.Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages, European Journal of Human Genetics (2010) 18, Cruciano

Old news! If a said back migration occurred then the primary populations which was affected by it were not North or East Africans, they were Central (Chadians) and West Africans (Niger and Nigerians) who look like this:



The highest frequency of haplogroup R in Africa (and perhaps the entire world) are in the heart of African with these Chadian folks above with frequencies of 95-100%. Stating that the only way that this could have occurred is with a back migration into Africa, raises another huge question. Why is there a total absence of any other non African haplogroup in these people who were obviously most affected by this back migration? One would have to assume that the people who back migrated into Africa, were entirely comprised on Haplogroup R, which is highly unlikely. Which leads some question where this marker arose:

"In hot pursuit of language in prehistory":

The issue of how much Paleolithic migration from the Near East there may have been is intriguing, and the mitochondrial DNA variation may need to be reassessed as to what can be considered to be only of "Eurasian origin" because if hunters and gatherers roamed between the Saharan and supra-Saharan regions and Eurasia it might be difficult to determine exactly "where" a mutation arose.

Now what would change about what we already know about ancient Egypt?

1) We know what the ancient Egyptians looked like based on conclusive results of intra population comparisons (black Africans):

"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)

2) We know where the cultures and language which lead to the creation of ancient Egypt arose (inner Africa):

"Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots. The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food." (Christopher Ehret (1996) "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture." In Egypt in Africa Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press)

and

"the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. They included peoples from the Afroasiastic linguistic group and the second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). Thus the earliest domestic cattle may have come to Egypt from these southern neighbors, circa 6000 B.C., and not from the Middle East. Pottery, another significant advance in material cultural may also have followed this pattern, initiatied "as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East."
(Christopher Ehret, "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 25-27)

3)We know that the genetic base for ancient Egypt came from Sub Saharan East Africans (Afro-Asiatics) and the ancient Sahara (Nilo Saharans):



and

"The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology."Source:(Hisham Y. Hassan 1, Peter A. Underhill 2, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza 2, Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1. (2008). Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history. Am J Phys Anthropology, 2008.)

4) We know what the people with such overwhelming frequencies of this African strand of Haplogroup R look like today, so I guess the question now is what would people who suppositely back-migrated into Central Africa, have looked like? What are the dates for this proposed back migration. Were the people who suppositely back migrated into Africa even differentiated in phenotype from their recent African ancestors at this time in history?

[Big Triece]

How about you go pick up that book I referenced?

Thanas, what in the fuck has the stylized fashion of Egyptian art got to do with the conclusive biological and cultural evidence, placing ancient Egyptians firmly within a Northeast African continuum? You are doing nothing more than dodging facts in which any sound minded person can not attempt to refute, and dishonestly portraying my argument as one which heavily relies on Egyptian art comparisons to make my points. You and I both know that those comparisons were if anything "icing on the cake" for my argument, rather than the cake itself.

Now, are you going to attack the people who wrote that book as racists as well?

What the fuck are you talking about Thanas? I don't consider the book's authors racist and I never implied such, but you sir are clearly a "Negrophobe" as displayed by your behaviors. You are willing to follow anything, so long as you feel that it illustrates the flase assumption (which is rooted in racism) that the ancient Egyptians were not black Africans. You blatantly disregard the clear implications of conclusive evidence (much which has even been re-interpreted/dumbed down by other scholars) to maintain a lie....frankly you are a liar with a clear racially biased agenda!

You dishonest fuck. I already dealt with that here.

Thanas, you gave your own interpretations/original research of Greek descriptions of the ancient Egyptians. I have provided the words of real historians/scholars which directly refute what you have stated about the matter, how in the fuck is that dishonest? Are you actually suggesting that you a scholar or someone to be taken seriously? To actually assert that your bullshit biased opinion (with reference to Mathilda's fucking blog) somehow even begins to approach the merit of the historians at Fitzwilliam museum or the late Basil Davidson, shows that you cannot be taken seriously.

[Big Triece]

Let me just try to do a summary of my understanding of the peopling of the Nile Valley as I have deduced from reading many scholars on this subject: The Badarian and Early Naqada predynastic cultures were the northermost,relatively younger variants of a wider spread culture mainly in the 5th and early 4th millennium BC(called variously-Nubian Neolithic Culture Group by Gatto2006,2009;or Middle Nile Culture by Ehret 1993; Pastoral Neolithic of the Nile by Wengrow 2006; Saharo-Nubian Neolithic by Anselin 2009)- other variants of this same culture included the Tasians,Abkans,Rayaynas,Kiddanians,Early A-Group,Final Western Desert Neolithic,Kadruka,Kerma Neolithic, Khartoum Neolithics(Kadero,El kadada,Sheinahab,Geili etc).

This culture of course descended from the so called Khartoum Variant, A cousin of the Early Khartoum-all part of the wide spread Saharo-Sudanese technocomplex of the Sahara. The Early Badarians and Naqadans migrated to a very sparsely populated Upper Egyptian(southern) Valley as the Eastern Sahara was rapidly drying up carrying this Nubian Neolithic Culture with them,during the mid-5th Millenium BC, with elements that would them be synthesized and processed into the Naqadan culture, especially during the mid to late phases of the culture-this developed Naqadan culture is the famous Egyptian Culture that one sees in dynastic times.

The expanding Naqadan culture would then interact and subsequently replace the Lower(northern)Neolithics(especially so-called Buto-Maadi culture) during the late 4th millenium BC, thereby forming cultural unity(see The Nubian Pastoral Culture as Link between Egypt and Africa:A view from the archaeological record,2009 by Maria Gatto; Ancient Egyptian as an African Language,Egypt as an African Culture,1993 by Christopher Ehret;The Archaeology of Early Egypt:social transformation in North-East Africa,2006 by D.Wengrow;Ancient Egypt in Africa,2003 edited by D. O'Connor and A. Reid pg.18-21;Some Notes about an Early African Pool of Cultures from which Emerged Egyptian Civilization,2009 by Alain Anselin;Egypt and Sub-Saharan African: their interaction,1997 in Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa edited by Joseph Vogel).

These early Badarians and Naqadans were biologically, in the main, tropically/supertropically adapted indigenous northeast Africans that had greatest biological affinities with other northeast Africans and other southern Africans,especially those in the horn and the sahel-sahara(see Egyptians,physical anthropology by Nancy Lovell in Encyclopedia of Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (ed) by Kathryn Bard and Steven Blacke;Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships byS. O. Y. Keita,1993;Studies of Ancient Crania from North Africa,1990 by S O Y Keita; A Bioarchaeological Perspective on State Formation In the Nile Valley,PhD Dissertation by Barbara Santa,2004;Examination of Nubian and Egyptian Biological Distances:Support for Biological Diffusion or in situ Development by Godde K,2009;Population Continuity or Population Change:Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State,2007 by Sonia R. Zakrzewski). While the sparsely populated Lower Egyptians were another divergent indigenous African Populations,they interacted with Middle Eastern cultures and is likely that some level of gene flow occurred with them(Berry Kemp 2005).

EVERY single word asserted above will be DEMOSTRATED if asked to by other posters, but that should please be after those posters have read 11 or so full studies that have been cited-all of whom can easily gotten by a simple google search, and some of which have already been cited in this forum;Only after this will I respond to any questions(and I except many) that may arise. PLEASE lets settle down and debate ,but with respect with others opinions even if they disagree with us-although we must all be honest with ourselves enough to accept points when they have been demonstrated by others and stop strawmans-only then can we understand things better.

Oh but wait, surely you forgot to include to all of the archaeological, linguistic and cultural evidence confirming the intervention of "wandering Caucasoids" in the creation of ancient Egypt and the specific dates and times in compliance with this event.....

But seriously, another excellent summarization (full of references) of the true origins of Kemet

[Thanas]

How about you go pick up that book I referenced?

Thanas, what in the fuck has the stylized fashion of Egyptian art got to do with the conclusive biological and cultural evidence, placing ancient Egyptians firmly within a Northeast African continuum? You are doing nothing more than dodging facts in which any sound minded person can not attempt to refute, and dishonestly portraying my argument as one which heavily relies on Egyptian art comparisons to make my points. You and I both know that those comparisons were if anything "icing on the cake" for my argument, rather than the cake itself.

No, it was directly used to refute your insistence on Egyptian art as any sort of proof, which formed a large sample of your posts. Heck, just a few posts above you tried to use coloured reliefs as proof of the skintone of Pharaohs.

Now, are you going to attack the people who wrote that book as racists as well?

What the fuck are you talking about Thanas? I don't consider the book's authors racist and I never implied such, but you sir are clearly a "Negrophobe" as displayed by your behaviors. You are willing to follow anything, so long as you feel that it illustrates the flase assumption (which is rooted in racism) that the ancient Egyptians were not black Africans. You blatantly disregard the clear implications of conclusive evidence (much which has even been re-interpreted/dumbed down by other scholars) to maintain a lie....frankly you are a liar with a clear racially biased agenda!

You can go screw yourself. You talk about biased opinion as if that somehow is a rebuttal to anything.

Thanas, you gave your own interpretations/original research of Greek descriptions of the ancient Egyptians.

Actually, I gave the opinions and translations of the standard works in the field for every text I quoted.

I have provided the words of real historians/scholars which directly refute what you have stated about the matter, how in the fuck is that dishonest?

No, you have not provided "real historians". Not when it comes to the matter of such translations, at least. All you got is a single website which has no sources, nor cited authors.

Are you actually suggesting that you a scholar or someone to be taken seriously? To actually assert that your bullshit biased opinion (with reference to Mathilda's fucking blog) somehow even begins to approach the merit of the historians at Fitzwilliam museum or the late Basil Davidson, shows that you cannot be taken seriously.

Man, keep assuming things about me.

[Big Triece]

No, it was directly used to refute your insistence on Egyptian art as any sort of proof, which formed a large sample of your posts.

My point exactly, you are being deceptive! You know damn well that the overwhelming majority of my post did not include artistic comparisons, but rather mainstream biological and cultural evidence. You know damn well that you cannot refute any of that evidence (which is really all that matters), so you go after those less emphasized superficial aspects of my arguments.

You can go screw yourself. You talk about biased opinion as if that somehow is a rebuttal to anything.

Thanas, every fucking assertion or implication that you have made has been thoroughly refuted throughout this fucking thread. Just look at the last two fucking pages. You make a claim, you get refuted, yet your ignorance still persist. Not to mention the fact that Morpheus absolutely shitted on you and your so-called multi part reply so horribly, that you haven't dared to continue it even a year later.

No, you have not provided "real historians". Not when it comes to the matter of such translations, at least.

Below was the direct refutation by renown African historian Basil Davidson, of you and your bullshit original research of Greek descriptions of ancient Egyptians. Forty seconds into the clip, states what is apparently implied about the physical appearance of the ancient Egyptians based on numerous text from ancient Greeks:



Which is that they were black Africans from the south, who settled the Nile. The exact same thing which is implicated by mainstream archaeological, linguistic, cultural, and biological evidence.

All you got is a single website which has no sources, nor cited authors.

You're dishonesty persist! That link was to the official "website" of the Fitzwilliam Museum, owned and operated by the University of Cambridge you dumb fuck. The Egypt in it's proper African context is also now being recognized with it's own exhibit at the Manchester museum, ran by of course the University of Manchester.



These authorities directly refute your assertion that Kemet was apart of some "Mediterranean continuum", so pull your head out of your ass and accept it, because you damn sure can't refute it!

Man, keep assuming things about me.

I don't have to assume shit, because you do a well enough job at making an ass out of your damn self. Give it up!

[Lord Zentei]

It's been over a week, and the longest delay I've allowed myself, but the Real World called. Anyway, it's still within the 2-week limit since the most recent post in the thread, as permitted by the board. So:

OK:http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/L ... dw9gmd.gif

This dendrogram does not indicate that modern Europeans have a close biological affinity towards the ancient Egyptians for the reasons noted earlier. Brace in this study incorrectly assumes that modern Europeans represent a continuation of early Europeans, which is why he lumped them together. The latter fact was the primary conclusion of his 2006 study:

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. -- 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.)

That's your LIE #1. The conclusions of Brace's 1993 study were not contingent on the assumption that ancient and modern CENTRAL AND NORTHERN Europeans were part of a continuum.

Moreover, LIE #2: the passage you cite from the 2005 paper has nothing to do with the 1993 conclusion; they're talking about the dispersal of farming methods into Europe and the absorption of the farming communities with the indigenous people, not the connections with Egypt.

And LIE #3: Brace did NOT "lump Europeans together", so your criticism of him is completely baseless. From page 12 of the 1993 study:

The Wadi Halfa connection with the rest of sub-Saharan Africa on the other hand is always very weak and occurs as a last possible step. The Somalis, for their part, never tie in with any of the other populations of sub-Saharan Africa. In Figure 3 they align themselves with Egyptians and modern Northwest Europeans one step before a common rooting with Bronze Age Jericho. The Bronze Age and Medieval Nubians cluster together and show a more remote tie with South Asia. When we ran the major continental clusters as single branches but divided Europe into a continental and a northwest fringe and tested a whole series of European Neolithic samples, we generated the pattern seen in Figure 4. What this did was to separate the Egyptian samples from each other. The Predynastic sample from Naqada then fell into a tie with South Asia, the Somalis, and, at another remove, the Nubian groups while the Late Dynastic sample from Giza clustered with a series of European Neolithic groups and with North Africa. Northwest Europe (England, the Faeroe Islands, and Norway), which had been separated from central and eastern Europe (France, Germany, Switzerland, and Czechoslovakia) in previous studies (Brace and Hunt, 1990; Brace and Tracer, 1992), was
brought back to form a loose tie with the rest of modern Europe. At this point, however, their connections with the European Neolithic and Egypt become more remote.

He makes a clear distinction between modern Northwest Europeans and mesolithic Europeans.

They instead resembled Sub Saharan African populations:

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

Of course, you understand what INDIRECT affinities are? As has been shown to you before now:

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.

Implying that there is a LATE prehistoric Eurasian element which is also present of greater importance. I guess the whole "heterogenous population" thing still doesn't sit well with you, does it.

Here's some more stuff for your pursual:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/L ... ara5bi.jpg

Yeah more shit you're posting that you don't even know the meaning behind.

A reduction in tooth size occurred in the Nile Valley as a result of a change in the inhabitants diet:

Origins of dental crowding and malocclusions: an anthropological perspective.<SNIP>

I understand it well enough. And I'm familiar with the claims of in situ evolution, that has nothing to do with the point raised. The point of the matter is that there's a difference between mass-reduced teeth and mass additive ones, the latter being typical of Sub-Saharan populations. The fact that the Egyptians were tropically adapted, and had locally evolved teeth does not mean that they are closely related to Sub-Saharan populations in general. I rather suspect that this has been pointed out to you before now.

Not some dubious claim of wandering Euros into Africa.

That's your LIE #4. Of course, your lies about my position have been noted before now many times. I have never once claimed anything about wandering "Euros" into Africa, and I have explained this before now again and again.

You really are pathetic, you know that? I've shown you quite clearly, multiple times, that you're wrong.

The crazy thing is, I believe that you really think that your misinterpretations of that one sentence in that study is correct. You are truly a dumbass, and nothing more can be said!

Seemingly, plain English escapes you. Except that this is more likely LIE #5. I just can't fathom how you can go around making such ridiculous claims when your own sources say stuff like this:

When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the seperateness 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 Naquada 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.

Emphasis mine. And so much for that.

he's talking about people who are long-term residents in the TOPICS. That does not apply to Egypt. The dark skin is an adaption to tropical habitat, it does not follow from bone structure. Don't you understand the difference between causation and correlation? Just wow.

"Just wow" yourself. The ancient Egyptians were found to be tropically adapted, despite Egypt not being in the Tropics. Do you understand what this means.....THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS DERIVED FROM A POPULATION WHICH CAME FROM THE TROPICS! They were not sub tropically adapted like Mediterranean populations and certainly not cold adapted like Europeans:

Yeah, except that since limb proportions are adaptions to the intensity of solar radiation and are functions of such throughout the world - the implications are that they do NOTHING to prove relationship between such groups. Naturally, you simply assumed that this meant identity. Presumably you also assume that Australian aboriginals are Sub-Saharan Africans too.

"Limb ratios are of interest because of limb ratios' general relationship to climate per Allen's rule. Mammals (including Homo sapiens sapiens) tend to have shorter distal members of the extremities in colder climates; this is viewed as being adaptive. Hence the shin (tibia)/thigh (femur) index in Europeans would on the average be expected to differ from an equatorial population. Indeed, this is one line of evidence used to support the idea that at least some, if not most, Upper Paleolithic (anatomically modern) 'Europeans" were immigrants from warmer areas (Trinkhaus 1981). Of course variation is expected in any region or population.

Trinkhaus (1981) provides upper and lower extremity distal/proximal member ratios for numerous populations, including a predynastic Egyptian and Mediterranean European series. The predynastic Egyptian values plotted near tropical Africans, not Mediterranean Europeans."

--S. Keita, (1993). Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships. History in Africa. Vol. 20, (1993), pp. 129-154

As stated by Keita in the his Cambridge lecture just posted and Brace's Clines and Clusters, according to this biological fact (tropically adaptation) the ancient Egyptians would have been "dark skinned".

Seeing as you're fond of claiming that newer studies refute older ones, that study is refuted by Loring Brace.

[Big Triece]

The conclusions of Brace's 1993 study were not contingent on the assumption that ancient and modern CENTRAL AND NORTHERN Europeans were part of a continuum.

Why are you emphasizing Central and Northern Europeans? What Brace did indeed lump ALL Europeans both ancient and modern into one giant category under the false presumption that there was no biological distinction between both sets of people.

Moreover, LIE #2: the passage you cite from the 2005 paper has nothing to do with the 1993 conclusion;

As proven to you time after time after time throughout this thread, the relevance of Brace 06 to the conclusions of his 93 study is the biological affinities of Europeans themselves. The data from Brace 93 concluded that the ancient Egyptians fell into an enormous Caucasoid family along with North Africans, Middle Easterners, Indians, and of course Europeans (with no break down of the last one). The data itself however found that the closest relationship to the Pre-Dynastic samples were Somalis, Pre-historic Europeans, and Indians (the latter discounted by others scholars as an "unlikely match" for several noted reasons).



You can see for you fucking self how distant the members of the "Super Caucasoid family" (Modern Euros, Middle Easterners, and North Africans) truly are from the Pre-Dynastic Egyptian sample. If Brace had not used such a vague categorization of Nubian people which even included Medieval samples (after the Islamic conquest) then the Nubians most definitely would have been the closest match (as demonstrated by Godde 2009).

And LIE #3: Brace did NOT "lump Europeans together", so your criticism of him is completely baseless. From page 12 of the 1993 study:.....He makes a clear distinction between modern Northwest Europeans and mesolithic Europeans.

Interesting! You were earlier arguing that according to Brace 93' modern Europeans also formed a close tie to Pre-Dynastic Egyptians and you used the dendrogram below as proof:



While Brace made minor notes that there were distinctions between modern and Pre-historic Euros, he does not reflect these facts in his data as AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE ABOVE! Why is there no modern or Pre-historic separation above? He lumps all European speimens under the same category, which explains how dumbasses like yourself could be willingly mislead to believe that modern Euros shared a close biological affinity with the ancient Egyptians.

Of course, you understand what INDIRECT affinities are? As has been shown to you before now:

In the context of that quote, it means that while the Natufanians themselves did not originate in "Sub Saharan Africa", the clear Sub Saharan African affinities of these early farmers gives a direct line of affinities to Sub Saharan Africans themselves.

Implying that there is a LATE prehistoric Eurasian element which is also present of greater importance. I guess the whole "heterogenous population" thing still doesn't sit well with you, does it.

First of all why are you attempting to distort my interpretations of Ricaut 2008 with a quote from Brace 2006? As I've stated earlier, the interpretations of Brace 2006 by Ricaut in his later study are more accurate to the data then Brace's interpretation. Reason being:



From Brace 2006 as you clearly see after the lines are ran together the Natufanians group firmly in between Northeast Africans (Somalis, Nubians, Egyptians) and Niger Congo speakers. Suggesting an absence of a "Eurasian component", which is also never mentioned in Ricuat's 2008 interpretations or his own data.

The point of the matter is that there's a difference between mass-reduced teeth and mass additive ones, the latter being typical of Sub-Saharan populations.

Yes there is in fact a difference between the tooth size of Nile Valley inhabitants and those populations further south, but as shown to you it was not due to some mass influx of "Caucasoids" into the Nile, but rather an adaption to new agricultural practices.

The fact that the Egyptians were tropically adapted, and had locally evolved teeth does not mean that they are closely related to Sub-Saharan populations in general.

So then what makes the ancient Egyptians close to Sub Saharan African populations? Could it be that they have a genetic basis in Sub Saharan Africa? Could it be that their phenotype according to cranial and skeletal analysis is consistent with that of populations in (Sudanese) and south of the Sahara? Could it be that their language family originated in a region south of the Sahara? Or is it the fact that there culture directly stems from African cultures which are seen in or south of the Sahara?

Just give the fuck up!

Seemingly, plain English escapes you. Except that this is more likely LIE #5. I just can't fathom how you can go around making such ridiculous claims when your own sources say stuff like this:....Emphasis mine. And so much for that.

What the fuck is wrong with you! You waited two fucking weeks to rehash the same fucking debunked arguments. This has already been addressed to you in this thread. The very quote that are citing was written in the study BEFORE the samples were combined. This is what he wrote from the results of such:

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.

Link

These are again what Brace wrote AFTER the samples were COMBINED. You are deliberately trying to distort this study by passing off premature conclusions as the end result (and though other ways).

Yeah, except that since limb proportions are adaptions to the intensity of solar radiation and are functions of such throughout the world

Yes and skin color is also an adaption to the intensity of solar radiation. That is why according to ecological principal dark skin accompanies populations who are tropically adapted. The ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted in the same fashion as tropical Africans, which means that they would have also had dark skin within the range of tropical African populations.

- the implications are that they do NOTHING to prove relationship between such groups.

When have I stated that this adaptive traits proves a relationship between populations? This fact has only been used to denote PHENOTYPE (WHAT THEY LOOKED LIKE)! Other tropically adapted populations are the South/Southeast Asians and aboriginal Australians. Aside from skin tones which have been used to label all of the populations "black" or even "Negroes" (in their own respect), they are genetically distinct from tropical Africans.

Naturally, you simply assumed that this meant identity. Presumably you also assume that Australian aboriginals are Sub-Saharan Africans too.

Look at the how much of an ass you are making yourself out to be just to avoid conceding to the clear fact that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans.

Seeing as you're fond of claiming that newer studies refute older ones, that study is refuted by Loring Brace.

From Brace 1993:

"In this regard it is interesting to note that limb proportions of Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be "Super-Negroid," meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans.....skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics."

Just stop it..smh!

[CaptainChewbacca]

Ninety seconds of google turns up the conclusion of the Brace 1993 Study:

"The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa,the Near East, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with Sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World.

So, is that the group we're talking about, or did I get it wrong? I also like this line;

We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well."

So is Big-T arguing that predynastic egypt wasn't sub-saharan, dynastic egypt WAS sub-saharan, and that modern egypt is an odd mix? I'd like to get the argument in plain-english terms and less than 100 words, if I could.

[Lord Zentei]

The conclusions of Brace's 1993 study were not contingent on the assumption that ancient and modern CENTRAL AND NORTHERN Europeans were part of a continuum.

Why are you emphasizing Central and Northern Europeans? What Brace did indeed lump ALL Europeans both ancient and modern into one giant category under the false presumption that there was no biological distinction between both sets of people.

Incorrect. Look at Fig. 4 in that paper, as well as the conclusion (as cited by CaptainChewbacca, above). As for your question, I emphasized central and northern Europe, because Brace specifically speaks of central and northern Europe when he discusses the groups that exhibited change following the spread the neolithic revolution, as opposed to Mediterranean Europe.

Moreover, LIE #2: the passage you cite from the 2005 paper has nothing to do with the 1993 conclusion;

As proven to you time after time after time throughout this thread, the relevance of Brace 06 to the conclusions of his 93 study is the biological affinities of Europeans themselves. The data from Brace 93 concluded that the ancient Egyptians fell into an enormous Caucasoid family along with North Africans, Middle Easterners, Indians, and of course Europeans (with no break down of the last one). The data itself however found that the closest relationship to the Pre-Dynastic samples were Somalis, Pre-historic Europeans, and Indians (the latter discounted by others scholars as an "unlikely match" for several noted reasons).

http://tinypic.com/b7xnrs.jpg

You can see for you fucking self how distant the members of the "Super Caucasoid family" (Modern Euros, Middle Easterners, and North Africans) truly are from the Pre-Dynastic Egyptian sample. If Brace had not used such a vague categorization of Nubian people which even included Medieval samples (after the Islamic conquest) then the Nubians most definitely would have been the closest match (as demonstrated by Godde 2009).

And as you can see from that very chart, Sub-Saharan Africa is far away from either Somalia or Egypt, and Pre-Dynastic Egypt is lot further from Sub-Saharan Africa than Central Europe and North Africa are, so what are you trying to prove with that?

And LIE #3: Brace did NOT "lump Europeans together", so your criticism of him is completely baseless. From page 12 of the 1993 study:.....He makes a clear distinction between modern Northwest Europeans and mesolithic Europeans.

Interesting! You were earlier arguing that according to Brace 93' modern Europeans also formed a close tie to Pre-Dynastic Egyptians and you used the dendrogram below as proof:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/L ... dw9gmd.gif

While Brace made minor notes that there were distinctions between modern and Pre-historic Euros, he does not reflect these facts in his data as AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE ABOVE! Why is there no modern or Pre-historic separation above? He lumps all European speimens under the same category, which explains how dumbasses like yourself could be willingly mislead to believe that modern Euros shared a close biological affinity with the ancient Egyptians.

Yeah, rather than post sections of his paper, I went with the dendrogram, though I'm pretty sure that you can read that data for yourself. Also, you have been shown the conclusion of the paper. So what the fuck?

Anyhow, just in case you can't see it for some reason, perhaps you prefer this image here:



Notice how Predynastic Egypt and Nubia cluster with Europe both ancient and modern before they cluster with "Africa". Moreover, a distinction is in fact drawn between modern and ancient Europeans.

Of course, you understand what INDIRECT affinities are? As has been shown to you before now:

In the context of that quote, it means that while the Natufanians themselves did not originate in "Sub Saharan Africa", the clear Sub Saharan African affinities of these early farmers gives a direct line of affinities to Sub Saharan Africans themselves.

So? It also gives a direct line of affinities to Eurasians. Implying a HETEROGENOUS POPULATION.

Implying that there is a LATE prehistoric Eurasian element which is also present of greater importance. I guess the whole "heterogenous population" thing still doesn't sit well with you, does it.

First of all why are you attempting to distort my interpretations of Ricaut 2008 with a quote from Brace 2006? As I've stated earlier, the interpretations of Brace 2006 by Ricaut in his later study are more accurate to the data then Brace's interpretation. Reason being:

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

From Brace 2006 as you clearly see after the lines are ran together the Natufanians group firmly in between Northeast Africans (Somalis, Nubians, Egyptians) and Niger Congo speakers. Suggesting an absence of a "Eurasian component", which is also never mentioned in Ricuat's 2008 interpretations or his own data.

It is no "misrepresentation". It clearly speaks of a Eurasian component. And if you're thinking about hte Ricuat study I think you're talking about, then it had this to say:

Results

MMD^sub st^ values calculated from 17 nonmetric traits between Sagalassos and the 27 Eurasian populations are provided in Table 3. The matrix of MMD^sub st^ values between each pair of populations is not shown because of its unwieldy size (data available on request from the authors).

An examination of the biodistances (Table 3) shows that the Sagalassos population is more similar to West Eurasian and ancient northeast African populations than to Central and East Eurasian populations. The closest populations to Sagalassos are from Greece, Cyprus and Turkey, Germany, and Scandinavia, followed by the other European and ancient northeast African (ancient Egyptian and Sudanese) populations and then by the Central and East Eurasians and the sub-Saharan Tanzanian population. Intriguingly, the closeness of the Sagalassos population to Germans and Scandinavians was unexpected, but more surprising and less obviously explainable were the MMD^sub st^ values from Gabon and Somalia, which show some similarity with the Sagalassos population, yet the MMD^sub st^ scores are nearly significant (Gabon, 1.93; and Somalia, 1.68; see Table 3).

The MDS representation of the global data set of 28 populations (Figure 2) shows roughly three main population clusters: (1) Central, Northeast, and East Eurasian populations, which are found in the top left; (2) West Eurasian and ancient Egyptian and Sudanese populations in the lower part; and (3) recent sub-Saharan populations in the top right. The Sagalassos population clusters with the second group and is most closely related to Greek, Cypriot/Turkish, and Scandinavian populations.

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 MMD^sub st^ 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.

Look familiar? Can it be that you have seen it before now? And no doubt you're still claiming that all Ward's dendrogram does is show that the population has somehow changed over time, even though Irish (2006) amongst others explicitly says that it didn't. Yet even though you reject the implications of this passage from the Ricault's study as well as Irish, you still insist on quoting them whenever it's convenient. Your penchant for using studies that disagree with you is highly perplexing and moreover annoying, especially when you then turn around and say that they don't count when they don't support you any more.

The point of the matter is that there's a difference between mass-reduced teeth and mass additive ones, the latter being typical of Sub-Saharan populations.

Yes there is in fact a difference between the tooth size of Nile Valley inhabitants and those populations further south, but as shown to you it was not due to some mass influx of "Caucasoids" into the Nile, but rather an adaption to new agricultural practices.

The point escapes you. The point that mass additive teeth are not the same as mass reduced ones is not refuted by merely saying that local in-situ evolution took place.

Incidentally, in-situ evolution does not necessarily support your position in any case:

Linka.

Beginning in the nineteenth century, various workers speculated on the origins of human groups occupying the [Nile Valley]. Following Morton's (1844) highly influential study of archaeological crania from Egypt and Nubia, the prevailing notion was that two biologically distinct groups occupied the Nile Valley in temporal succession. In Lower Nubia, Morant (1925) identified an earlier 'Upper Nile type', with predominantly 'Negroid' features, and a later 'Lower Nile type', which lacked 'Negroid' features. The changes were viewed in a diffusionistic paradigm: simply, the disappearance of 'Negroid' features resulted from an invasion and subsequent replacement by alien 'Caucasoid' (Egyptian) peoples from the north.

Recent analyses of crania and dentitions from lower Nubia indicate that the evidence for the diffusionist model of biological change is less than compelling. Independent analyses of skeletal and dental discrete and metric variables and other lines of evidence suggest that the earlier and later Nubian populations represent a biological continuum with no invasion by nonindigenous populations. Therefore, the differences in cranial morphology between earlier and later populations...are best understood in relation to factors not involving population replacement.

For better understanding of these factors, especially those related to dietary and technological change, Carlson and Van Gerven and their coworkers compared craniofacial morphology in a Nubian-based temporal sequence, including foragers from the Mesolithic (ca. 12,000 BP), initial agriculturalists from the combined A- and C-groups (3400-1200 BC), and intensive agriculturalists from the combined Meroitic, X-group, and Christian horizons (AD 0-1500). These comparisons reveal that Nubian foragers and incipient agriculturalists have flat and elongated vaults with well-developed, protruding supraorbital tori and occipitals. In contrast, later intensive agriculturalists have rounded vaults with small and more posteriorly positioned faces and masticatory muscle attachment site (temporalis and masseter) and reduced temporomandibular joint size.

Carlson and co-workers posit a masticatory-functional hypothesis for explaining craniofacial changes in Nubia. They argue that the primary factor influencing Nubian craniofacial anatomy was the change in subsistence economy, from foraging to food production and the shift to consumption of softer foods. These changes resulted in a reduction in activity of the masticatory muscles and a concomitant decrease in mechanical loading of the craniofacial skeleton. Alteration in masticatory function led to alteration in craniofacial growth in two ways, including (1) decreased stimulation of bone growth, leading to a reduction in facial robusticity; and (2) progressive alteration of the overall growth of the face and vault, resulting in a smaller and more inferoposteriorly oriented face relative to the cranial vault.

[...]

Turner and coworkers reassessed Greene and coworkers' continuity model of Nubian population history. Although lauding the studies of Greene and others for using a nonracial, nontypological approach to Nubian population history, they argue that extra-regional sources of variation have been insufficiently considered, especially sources that may explain temporal shifts in craniofacial morphology in this region. Implicit in the work by Greene and others is the assumption that population continuity extends at least as far back as the late Pleistocene (ca. 12,000 BP). Turner and coworkers contend that continuity can be claimed only if non-Nubian populations are also considered in statistical analyses of dental trait variation in this region.

Turner and coworkers include in their analysis additional Nubian dentitions from the late Pleistocene 'Upper Stone Age', Meroitic, X-group, Christian period, and historic era European samples. Computed MMD values, modified for small samples and tested for significance, reveal few significant differences between Meroitic, X-group and Christian periods, thus confirming Greene's earlier conclusions regarding population continuity. However, significant differences between the Pleistocene and later groups were clearly identified.... Because of the apparent temporal discontinuity between the Pleistocene and later populations, Turner & Markowitz (1990) hypothesize that the ancestry of recent Nubians was not derived from local late Pleistocene populations, and that a population replacement event occurred during the Holocene in Nubia. The origin of these later populations is unclear, but, solely on the basis of dental traits, they argue that populations north of Nubia containing European and Near Eastern traits are the most likely sources.

In an effort to identify other possible sources of variation, Irish & Turner (1990) compared their sample of Nubian dentitions (late Pleistocene to Christian period) to historic-period dentitions from a west African group — the Ashanti. Univariate and MMD statistical treatment of these samples reveal strong similarities between modern west Africans and late Pleistocene Nubians. As with previous studies, later Holocene dentitions were found to be very similar. The late Pleistocene and modern west Africans are strongly divergent from the Meroitic, X-group, and Christian period Nubians. Therefore, the authors argue that there is a population discontinuity between the late Pleistocene and Holocene populations in Nubia, with the former sharing biological affinities with west Africans. Irish & Turner (1990) suggest that the discontinuity can be explained by high rates of violence and decline (or possible extinction) in late Pleistocene (Mesolithic) Nubian forager, which may have left them susceptible to invasion or 'genetic swapping' by other groups from west Africa.

Turner and coworkers' findings are intriguing, but their analyses do not necessarily disprove the continuity model for the Pleistocene to Holocene transition. Especially problematic is the virtual lack of data from the period between the A-group and the Mesolithic, which represents nearly four millennia of occupation of the region. Comparisons of Mesolithic and A-group populations reveal a decrease in craniofacial robusticity and dental complexity. To be sure, the agent of change could have been gene flow from some other region. Additional dental and morphological data, and a more substantial treatment of the archaeological context from regions surrounding Nubia, are required before the discontinuity model can be accepted. Moreover, the west African collection used for identifying dental trait frequencies is largely undocumented. Therefore, although the similarities between late Pleistocene and west African dental traits are interesting, they are not compelling. From the preponderance of evidence from other studies of craniofacial morphology, biological change, and population history, a model of population continuity appears to fit the evidence best.

Moral of the story: in-situ evolution can just as easily account for the opposing viewpoint. And that is why the difference between mass-additive teeth and mass-reduced teeth is significant: despite the changes caused by evolution in response to changed lifestyles, traces of the past remain.

The fact that the Egyptians were tropically adapted, and had locally evolved teeth does not mean that they are closely related to Sub-Saharan populations in general.

So then what makes the ancient Egyptians close to Sub Saharan African populations? Could it be that they have a genetic basis in Sub Saharan Africa? Could it be that their phenotype according to cranial and skeletal analysis is consistent with that of populations in (Sudanese) and south of the Sahara? Could it be that their language family originated in a region south of the Sahara? Or is it the fact that there culture directly stems from African cultures which are seen in or south of the Sahara?

Just give the fuck up!

Just wow.

Seemingly, plain English escapes you. Except that this is more likely LIE #5. I just can't fathom how you can go around making such ridiculous claims when your own sources say stuff like this:....Emphasis mine. And so much for that.

What the fuck is wrong with you! You waited two fucking weeks to rehash the same fucking debunked arguments. This has already been addressed to you in this thread. The very quote that are citing was written in the study BEFORE the samples were combined. This is what he wrote from the results of such:

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.

Link

These are again what Brace wrote AFTER the samples were COMBINED. You are deliberately trying to distort this study by passing off premature conclusions as the end result (and though other ways).

You had only "debunked" it in your distorted imagination. And what does your quote have to do with the quote I presented? Who is denying that any connection exists at all? Do you still not understand what is meant by "heterogenous"?

Yeah, except that since limb proportions are adaptions to the intensity of solar radiation and are functions of such throughout the world

Yes and skin color is also an adaption to the intensity of solar radiation. That is why according to ecological principal dark skin accompanies populations who are tropically adapted. The ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted in the same fashion as tropical Africans, which means that they would have also had dark skin within the range of tropical African populations.

Does not follow, neither does their relationship.

- the implications are that they do NOTHING to prove relationship between such groups.

When have I stated that this adaptive traits proves a relationship between populations? This fact has only been used to denote PHENOTYPE (WHAT THEY LOOKED LIKE)! Other tropically adapted populations are the South/Southeast Asians and aboriginal Australians. Aside from skin tones which have been used to label all of the populations "black" or even "Negroes" (in their own respect), they are genetically distinct from tropical Africans.

So what have you been yammering about this whole time? You have consistently claimed close relationship between the pre-Dynastic Egyptians and other Sub-Saharan populations, and now you post this? Are you agreeing now that the Ancient Egyptians were NOT related to sub-Saharan populations in general? Oy.

Incidentally, on the topic of phenotypes and their implications (page 189):

Egyptian Body Plan:

Ecogeographic Patterns in a Middle Latitude Population and Egypt at the Intersection of Continents Based on ecogeographic rules, Egypt‟s warmer climate relative to higher latitude populations should select for bodies with comparatively narrower body breadths and longer limbs. Nubia‟s lower latitude and location closer to Sub-Saharan Africa should be manifested in individuals possessing a more tropical body plan relative to individuals in Egypt proper. The present study found results consistent with the above expectations, with Egyptians possessing a more tropical body plan compared to higher latitude populations, and Nubians generally exhibiting more linear bodies compared to Egyptians.

More specifically, Nubians have more tropically adapted leg lengths (longer tibiae relative to their femurs) compared to Egyptians. When plotted, ancient Egyptians and Nubians of both sexes generally exhibit intermediate values between higher latitude and lower latitude populations for bi-iliac breadth (LBIB), body mass (BM), and surface area to body mass (SA/BM). This is similar to what Holliday (1995) found for his North African sample (also composed of ancient Egyptians and Nubians). When examining specific Northeast African regions, Upper Egyptians and Upper Nubians tend to possess more linear body plans compared to Lower Egyptians, a pattern that is also consistent with ecogeographic expectations.

The fact that limb proportions in ancient Egyptians are somewhat more “tropical” may reflect the greater lability of limb length compared to body breadth. The results may also suggest that Egyptians are closely related to circum-Mediterranean and/or Near
Eastern groups and have retained those body breadths acquired earlier in time, but quickly developed limb length proportions more suited to their present very hot environments. The present results for bi-iliac breadth are also consistent with various genetic studies that have found modern Egyptians to have close affinities to Middle and Near Easterners (Manni et al., 2002; Arredi et al., 2004; Shepard and Herrera, 2006; Rowold et al., 2007) and Southern Europeans/Mediterranean groups (Capelli et al., 2006). Some of these authors suggested their results may have been associated with a diffusion from the Near East during the expansion of early food-producing societies (Arredi et al., 2004; Rowold et al., 2007).

Shepard and Herrera‟s (2006) study of autosomes specifically found Egypt and the Sudan forming a tight cluster with other Southwest Asian groups (Yemen, Jordan, Oman, Bahrain) and occupied an intermediate position to Sub-Saharan African (Kenya
and Rwanda) and Eastern Asian groups (Pakistan).in their study‟s sample. A study of classical genetic markers showed that Egyptians appeared to have a mixture of African, Asian, and Arabian characteristics (Mahmoud et al., 1987). Another study found close affinities between Egyptians and specifically eastern Sub-Saharan groups , suggesting to the authors that the Nile may have been used as a migratory passageway (Terreros et al., 2005). This evidence demonstrates the adaptive and historical influences of Egypt‟s mid-latitude position as well as proximity to eastern Sub-Saharan Africa, Southwest Asia and Southern Europe.

And from the Conclusions section of that study (page 192):

Ancient Egyptians as a whole generally exhibit intermediate body breadths relative to higher and lower latitude populations, with Lower Egyptians possessing wider body breadths, as well as lower brachial and crural indices, compared to Upper Egyptians and
Upper Nubians. This may suggest that Egyptians are closely related to circum-Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern groups, but quickly developed limb length proportions more suited to their present very hot environments These results may also reflect the greater plasticity of limb length compared to body breadth.

So. Comments?

Naturally, you simply assumed that this meant identity. Presumably you also assume that Australian aboriginals are Sub-Saharan Africans too.

Look at the how much of an ass you are making yourself out to be just to avoid conceding to the clear fact that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans.

Right, so no rebuttal? Excellent, moving right along...

Seeing as you're fond of claiming that newer studies refute older ones, that study is refuted by Loring Brace.

From Brace 1993:

"In this regard it is interesting to note that limb proportions of Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be "Super-Negroid," meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans.....skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics."

Just stop it..smh!

Right, and were you the one presuming to accuse others of making dishonest quotes earlier? Yes, I believe so. How fascinating.

In this regard, it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be “super-negroid,” meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans (Robins and Shute, 1986). It would be just as accurate to call them “super-Veddoid or “super-Carpentarian” since skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term “supertropical” would be better since it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more “racially loaded” term “negroid.”

Yup.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't expect an honest answer, if any at all, from Big Triece, but I figured I might as well try one more time, with the simplest argument possible.

Yes and skin color is also an adaption to the intensity of solar radiation. That is why according to ecological principal dark skin accompanies populations who are tropically adapted. The ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted in the same fashion as tropical Africans, which means that they would have also had dark skin within the range of tropical African populations.

Dark skin =/= tropical adaptation. Dark skin is indeed highly correlated with sun exposure (although there is an equally important nutritional component, related to vitamin D). That is why a lot of indigenous populations from tropical areas have dark skin. However, there area also dark skinned populations in arid, temperate, and alpine environments (heck, the Inuits have dark skin, for crying out loud). Remember, correlation is not causation. Having dark skin does not imply relatedness (else the Australian aboriginals and Inuits would both be tropical Africans, by your logic).

It is actually most likely that dark skin developed after proto-humans left tropical regions for the more arid savannas ...which is why the Masai, for example, have darker skin than, say, the Bantu peoples. Also, for someone who is accusing everybody else in this thread of being racist, it is awfully racist of you to be conflating all "dark" skin as being the same.

[Big Triece]

So, is that the group we're talking about, or did I get it wrong? I also like this line;

The claim in that particular passage has been thoroughly refuted countless times by numerous scholars throughout the past two decades. Below is a direct criticism of his conclusions from Keita's 2005 study:

"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)

The fact that not one other study builds on this statement of Brace's 93 study almost two decades later speaks volumes about it's validity. Compare that to the continuous reference of Keita's research from the early 90's and points onward, and you pretty much have an answer to your question about the reliability of Clines and Clusters.

We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well."

Now this passage is speaking along the lines of continuity, which has been validated by more recent research (Irish 06). All this means is that there was no mass displacement or genocide of the original Egyptian population. The genetic line from Pre-Dynastic times remains with Egyptians today. Despite that continuity it does not negate the fact however that in-migrating populations during later periods have caused biological distinctiveness between Egyptian populations of different times. Late Dynastic Egyptians for example have consistently been noted to have been the Egyptian group that ceased to be biologically consistent with earlier groups due to in migrating populations from the Levant and Europe.

So is Big-T arguing that predynastic egypt wasn't sub-saharan, dynastic egypt WAS sub-saharan, and that modern egypt is an odd mix? I'd like to get the argument in plain-english terms and less than 100 words, if I could.

Assuming that your usage of "Sub Saharan African" is code word for black African, something needs to be said. Black Africans were the first people to inhabit the regions of North Africa. Despite the fact that they are no longer as prevalent, they are still there.



Close up of the map

As far as your question is concerned, Egypt is nor has it ever been "Sub Saharan" (geography). The original inhabitants of the Nile Valley and creators of the civilizations that would become Egypt and Nubia were Afrasian speakers from Sub Saharan East Africa (Horn Africans) and Nilotic communities of the ancient Sahara (when it fertile). These were black Africans.

[Lord Zentei]

So, what... the Bedouin are "black African"?

And no one claims that Sub-Saharan Africa defines or delimits "authentic" Africanity. Keita, like you, is using "black" and "African" interchangeably.

[Lord Zentei]

GHETTO, because the edit time limit is over:

The fact that not one other study builds on this statement of Brace's 93 study almost two decades later speaks volumes about it's validity. Compare that to the continuous reference of Keita's research from the early 90's and points onward, and you pretty much have an answer to your question about the reliability of Clines and Clusters.

Link 1: Brace's citations in the Web of Science.

Link 2: Keita's citations in the Web of Science.

Clines and Clusters gets 19 citations. Not a lot, but Keita gets most for "The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence" and "Conceptualizing human variation", neither of which have to do with the Ancient Egyptians per se, and all of his other citations per paper are fewer than 19 from the 1990s onwards. With one exception, "STUDIES OF ANCIENT CRANIA FROM NORTHERN AFRICA", from 1990. That one gets 22. Overall, they look pretty level to me.

PS: from Keita's conclusion in aforementioned study:

In summary, canonical variate analysis demonstrates the impressive variation suggested previously for early northern Africa. It also suggests that there was a modal craniometric phenotype common to northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb in the mid-Holocene, intermediate to European and southern Egyptian Nile Valley/tropical series.

Sounds legit to me.

[Big Triece]

And as you can see from that very chart, Sub-Saharan Africa is far away from either Somalia or Egypt, and Pre-Dynastic

How fucking simple minded can you get? That was the fucking problem with the study, which was noted by Keita. This is a map of "Sub Saharan Africa"



Where is Somalia? Why was it and it's inhabitants excluded from the definition of Sub Saharan Africa, if the country lies entirely within and it's inhabitants evolved entirely within the sub region? The range of Sub Saharan African diversity that was used in Brace 1993 was limited to three fucking Niger Congo speaking populations within the general region (aka the "True Negroid" module). Why would you use the least samples to represent the most genetically and physically diverse region on Earth? Somalis, Ethiopians, Tutsis, Fulani, Hausa, Khoisan ect ect are all Sub Saharan African, but represents their own individual diversity.

Egypt is lot further from Sub-Saharan Africa than Central Europe and North Africa are, so what are you trying to prove with that?

If you really want to go there:

"An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series."(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 you see when the true Negroid module is dropped and a range of tropical African populations are employed, the affinity is consistently with the tropical Africans (West, Central, Southern and Eastern) over the European samples. Keep in mind also that Keita did not even use Sudanese or Horn African populations, who are consistently found to overlap with the ancient Egyptians in all categories.

Yeah, rather than post sections of his paper, I went with the dendrogram, though I'm pretty sure that you can read that data for yourself. Also, you have been shown the conclusion of the paper. So what the fuck?

The conclusions (that you want to hear) of the fucking study has been debunked! Only desperate dumbasses like you and some of the people on this board bring try resurrect and (in futility) defend this bullshit.

Notice how Predynastic Egypt and Nubia cluster with Europe both ancient and modern before they cluster with "Africa". Moreover, a distinction is in fact drawn between modern and ancient Europeans.

What the fuck are you talking about? Pre-Dynastic Egypt, Nubia, Somalia and India form their own fucking bracket apart from both Late Dynastic Egyptians and Europeans. So what the fuck is Somalia supposed to be if not African (Sub Saharan at that) numb nuts? Take a fucking course in African studies, then come back at me.

So? It also gives a direct line of affinities to Eurasians. Implying a HETEROGENOUS POPULATION.

If it was "heterogenous" then it certainly is not reflected in their biological affinities, as they group firmly within Northeast African and Niger Congo populations. If they were "mixed" as you claim. then they should group intermediately between the African populations listed and Eurasians. Ricaut's analysis makes no reference whatsoever of any Eurasian component being present.

Look familiar? Can it be that you have seen it before now?

It's fucking Deja Vu with you! You shut the fuck up for two weeks and rehash the same shit that you blew up in your hands two months ago. Again what did Ricaut note about those Southern European populations:



I'm done explaining the same fucking shit to you. I'll let someone else do it.

Moral of the story:

You don't have a fucking point. You posted a five paragraph passage to make it appear as though your post contains substance. That passage backs what I've been saying. The tooth size of Nile Valley populations is not some indication of a European affinity (which is what you were attempting to imply with that Hannihara plot) but rather indigenous evolution.

Who is denying that any connection exists at all? Do you still not understand what is meant by "heterogenous"?

You don't have a fucking point to make! When I asked you earlier to clarify what theory you were subscribing to in your assertions that the ancient Egyptians have always been "mixed race", you couldn't respond. Reason being is you were all over the fucking place. Claiming every fucking thing from a back migration from 30+k years ago to Demic Diffusion from the Middle East. You don't know what to argue, but you feel that you have some sort of duty to dispute the stance of mines and others.

So what have you been yammering about this whole time? You have consistently claimed close relationship between the pre-Dynastic Egyptians and other Sub-Saharan populations, and now you post this?

No I stated that limb proportion similarities alone does not imply that there is a relationship between populations. It does however prove that certain aspects of the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians would have consistent of that of other tropically adapted populations.

Incidentally, on the topic of phenotypes and their implications (page 189): Michelle H. Raxter (2011)"]Egyptian Body Plan:

An UNpeereviewed, UNpublished, THESIS paper is supposed to undue three decades of consistent research by over half a dozen scholars....Get the fuck out here. When it meets that basic criteria of earlier research then it's worth pointing out the obvious flaws in said conclusion, until then keep it in your wet dreams.

Yup.

What in the fuck did my quote leave out? The PC'ed clarifications of Brace to change the term referring to a tropically adapted populations from "Super Negroid" to "Super Tropically adapted"? That is the same shit that Sonia Z noted in her later research which I also cited.

[Big Triece]

Clines and Clusters gets 19 citations.

As I've stated no one study builds on this conclusion from Clines and Clusters:

"The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa,the Near East, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with Sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World."

This is the relevant quote, stop being a dumbass.

Not a lot, but Keita gets most for

You're being a deliberate dumbass yet again. In studies pertaining to ancient Egypt Keita's research in the early 90's is consistently built upon and referenced.

In summary, canonical variate analysis demonstrates the impressive variation suggested previously for early northern Africa. It also suggests that there was a modal craniometric phenotype common to northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb in the mid-Holocene, intermediate to European and southern Egyptian Nile Valley/tropical series.

Now what's your point?

[Big Triece]

So, what... the Bedouin are "black African"?

And no one claims that Sub-Saharan Africa defines or delimits "authentic" Africanity. Keita, like you, is using "black" and "African" interchangeably.

Your reading comprehension skills are fucking SHIT! When did I state that the map represented only the black people of Africa? I presented the map to show that black people still inhabit northern Africa (Nilotic populations and the most ancient Berber people).

[matter]

Again let me repeat that you guys agree more than you disagree, and when one looks pass some of the impassioned exchanges there seems to be a willingness to try to understand issues by both parties. I would strongly suggests that each debater state clearly what the summary of their stance is so as to avoid unnecessary cross-exchanges.

It seems that the main contention is whether there was some gene flow from non-African(especially Near Eastern) into the least populated lower(northern) Egypt during he predynastic period, and how significant this was relative to the divergent indigenous lower Egyptian population? I think this is a legitimate question.

@Lord Zentei I particularly want to see the summary of your points as it sometimes seem difficult o discern them. Also I have given 2 summaries so far-where I basically asserted that Ancient Egyptian(Naqada)culture originated directly from the 'Nubian Neolithic Culture Group' or 'Pastoral Culture of the Nile Valley', and that these early Egyptians,especially the more populated Upper Egyptians, mainly had biological affinities to some groups to its south;I also noted that it was this culture and perhaps some of its people that replaced the Lower Egyptian Neolithic culture(s). What is your reactions to them, especially the 2nd one with all the references? You should please read the references.

@BigTrise Do you not agree that there likely was some gene flow from the Near East during the predynastic(I stance tthat I support without knowing the significance). Please be clear about this and what do you think was their significance?

[Big Triece]

@BigTrise Do you not agree that there likely was some gene flow from the Near East during the predynastic(I stance tthat I support without knowing the significance). Please be clear about this and what do you think was their significance?

Yes I agree that it is likely that there was indeed Levantine presence in the Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt.

[Spoonist]

Again let me repeat that you guys agree more than you disagree, and when one looks pass some of the impassioned exchanges there seems to be a willingness to try to understand issues by both parties. I would strongly suggests that each debater state clearly what the summary of their stance is so as to avoid unnecessary cross-exchanges.

We have already tried that. p2-4, p6-7, p11-3, p15-16 etc.
Every time littledick confuse the positions of the posters to fit into his paranoid delusions of a white supremacy conspiracy.
I already referenced this last time you popped by.
Again, its not that we disagree on the subject, its that littledick misrepresents the other posters and his sources so much that people consistently doesn't understand what the fuck he is talking about. It doesn't help that he seemingly contradicts his own opinion every now and then either.
You can see it in the last exchange of posts where Lord Zentei clearly references middle easterns while littledick deliberately distorts that to western europeans.

It seems that the main contention is whether there was some gene flow from non-African(especially Near Eastern) into the least populated lower(northern) Egypt during he predynastic period, and how significant this was relative to the divergent indigenous lower Egyptian population? I think this is a legitimate question.

One which has a lot of research being done on it right now, so its going to be more and more definitive evidence on. All point more and more to the people still living there. Go figure, right?

@Lord Zentei I particularly want to see the summary of your points as it sometimes seem difficult o discern them. Also I have given 2 summaries so far-where I basically asserted that Ancient Egyptian(Naqada)culture originated directly from the 'Nubian Neolithic Culture Group' or 'Pastoral Culture of the Nile Valley', and that these early Egyptians,especially the more populated Upper Egyptians, mainly had biological affinities to some groups to its south;I also noted that it was this culture and perhaps some of its people that replaced the Lower Egyptian Neolithic culture(s). What is your reactions to them, especially the 2nd one with all the references? You should please read the references.

You came in late in the discussion and REQUIRED that people read stuff that had already been discussed repeatedly. Its no wonder that people didn't reply to your position since it wasn't a contentious one.

@BigTrise Do you not agree that there likely was some gene flow from the Near East during the predynastic(I stance tthat I support without knowing the significance). Please be clear about this and what do you think was their significance?

We tried that on p5-6, then 10-14 and then again in the last couple of pages. He will just spew semi-related ramblings and lots of unrelated pics and stats.
If you looked at the post which I linked to you last time you will see that his position on this switches back and forth depending on which research he references. Now I don't think that littledick thinks that he does, no I think that in his mind its very clear, but that is not how it comes across when he posts.

[Lord Zentei]

Yes, that picture sums up your entire contribution to this board very nicely.

This is the relevant quote, stop being a dumbass.

Not a lot, but Keita gets most for

You're being a deliberate dumbass yet again. In studies pertaining to ancient Egypt Keita's research in the early 90's is consistently built upon and referenced.

Didn't you try to understand that point?

In summary, canonical variate analysis demonstrates the impressive variation suggested previously for early northern Africa. It also suggests that there was a modal craniometric phenotype common to northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb in the mid-Holocene, intermediate to European and southern Egyptian Nile Valley/tropical series.

Now what's your point?

The point is, Keita agreed with my position, you idiot. And then you accuse others of having poor reading comprehension skills. Good grief.

Your reading comprehension skills are fucking SHIT! When did I state that the map represented only the black people of Africa? I presented the map to show that black people still inhabit northern Africa (Nilotic populations and the most ancient Berber people).

I was mocking your bullfuckery, dumbass. That point sailed right over your head didn't it? In any case, the Berbers are NOT "black".

@BigTrise Do you not agree that there likely was some gene flow from the Near East during the predynastic(I stance tthat I support without knowing the significance). Please be clear about this and what do you think was their significance?

Yes I agree that it is likely that there was indeed Levantine presence in the Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt.

Wow. With that, and with the quote from Keita you had no objections to, then I daresay you've conceded the argument without realizing it. Holy shit, we have progress at last.

Oh, wait: you earlier conceded that the modern inhabitants of Egypt are in the main the descendants of the ancient population, didn't you? And then you started bitching loudly about how you never denied that and that your point wasn't related to that at all.

[Big Triece]

The point is, Keita agreed with my position,

The point of me asking for you interpretations of that statement was to put on display how little you know about the shit that you've arguing for the past two months. Keita states that the craniometric variation of early Lower Egyptians was an divergence from that of Upper Egypt. Irregardless of where it plotted in relation to other populations, it originated in Africa. The populations of Lower Egypt were also tropically adapted unlike those populations in the same climate in the Levant:

"Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity."-- Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE. in E.C.M van den Brink and TE Levy, eds. Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the 3rd millenium, BCE. Leicester Univ Press: 2002, 118-28

Which proves that their ancestry (in the main) descended from the tropics to the south. This according to ecological principal would have made them dark skinned:

In any case, the Berbers are NOT "black".

Do you even know what a fucking Berber is? Obviously not! Tell me which group of people would not be considered Berbers why or why not?


Siwa Egyptian Berbers







The Berber today are a mosaic of peoples from different background who share practice the same Berber cultures and speak Berber languages. Here is Basil Davidson's documentary of the Taureg Berbers:



By the way are you going to answer the question that "Matter" asked you? Or are you to chicken shit to actually present a solid stance on the issue?

[Big Triece]

You can see it in the last exchange of posts where Lord Zentei clearly references middle easterns while littledick deliberately distorts that to western europeans.]

Wipe Zentei's nut out your eye first, then maybe you can actually see how much of ass he's making of himself. He has futility tried to defend the erroneous conclusion of Brace 1993, which is that the ancient Egyptians shared closest biological affinities to a "grand Caucasoid family" and none at with Sub Saharan Africans. Through this he has made the claim that modern Europeans (like their ancestors who were recent migrants from the tropics) shared a close biological relationship to the ancient Egyptians. When it demonstrated that the lumping of both European specimens into one big group was an error on Braces part (which he corrects in a study over a decade later), he proceeds with his assertion by presenting a study on dental affinities. In that study he uses the same typological misinterpretations of an unnamed source to assert that the ancient Egyptians were most closely biologically related to peoples of Afghanstan, Russians and Frenchmen. This assertion was then refuted by the revelation that the smaller tooth size of Nile Valley populations (including Nubia) were the result of indigenous African evolution (adaption to dietary changes). He finally takes the plot from Brace 93's flawed methodology to interpret that modern Euros are closer to Pre-Dynastic Egyptians then a small sample of Niger Congo speakers that Brace uses to represent the most phenotypically diverse region on Earth (Sub Saharan Africa). I present Keita 2005 which directly refutes that claim with a comparison of various tropical African populations (Dogon, Zulu, Khoisan, Teita) to those same Central and Northern European populations, showing that in every single way the diverse tropical Africans ( which even excluded the obvious matches from the Sudan and the Horn) grouped over the Europeans with the Badarians.

One which has a lot of research being done on it right now, so its going to be more and more definitive evidence on. All point more and more to the people still living there. Go figure, right?

Really what's the most recent published, peer reviewed evidence? Can you provide this evidence that refutes that the biological affinities of the Egyptian population have remained constant over the past 5,000 years? I've read through this thread and I've yet to see any of this.

You came in late in the discussion and REQUIRED that people read stuff that had already been discussed repeatedly. Its no wonder that people didn't reply to your position since it wasn't a contentious one.

No, you nor any of the other stooges did not respond to his post, because his summary was legit and perfectly in line with conclusive peer reviewed biological and cultural evidence. No where in his scholarly backed summarization of the peopling of the Nile Valley, could any of you shit heads assert some mass migration of people with a non African phenotype into the Nile Valley.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I've read through this thread and I've yet to see any of this.

Then you are functionally illiterate.

Seriously, not only has ever single piece of evidence you've provided been refuted multiple times, but literally dozens of studies have been presented that show you what the ACTUAL scholarly opinion of Egyptian origins is. Your continued misrepresentations of other people's arguments, as well as the positions of the articles you cherry-pick, does nothing to dismiss this. Nor do the times you've outright ignored other people's arguments, hoping they would go away. I still consider your refusal to address my arguments as a concession.

Hell, you can't even be consistent with your own bizarre interpretations of these papers. You have backpedaled on Brace and Keita innumerable times.

[Big Triece]

Then you are functionally illiterate.

Seriously, not only has ever single piece of evidence you've provided been refuted multiple times, but literally dozens of studies have been presented that show you what the ACTUAL scholarly opinion of Egyptian origins is. Your continued misrepresentations of other people's arguments, as well as the positions of the articles you cherry-pick, does nothing to dismiss this. Nor do the times you've outright ignored other people's arguments, hoping they would go away. I still consider your refusal to address my arguments as a concession.

Hell, you can't even be consistent with your own bizarre interpretations of these papers. You have backpedaled on Brace and Keita innumerable times.

Yes and all of this happened after John McCain won the 2008 election

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes and all of this happened after John McCain won the 2008 election

Concession accepted.