Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Spoonist]

See page 1 where Big Trierce was still sane.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 7#p3480507....

This is all Spoonist contributes to this discussion. For 90% of his participation he is nothing more than a selective archive of he say she say childish bs. Nothing relevant or revealing revolving around the topic. Just a waste of space, seriously!

Yes, it's called having a memory. I know its asking too much of you since even attending history classes stumped you so much but for me a memory for conversations have worked nicely in both a social and occupational context.
And pointing out your progression tells a story about you as an individual and gives newcomers the context of how the discussion started. If you thought more before posting/talking you might have avoided the last 25 pages or so...

I did respond, it was the I'm not a racist fuckhed response.

No Spoonist that is not a proper response to my refutation of your claims in my post.

Again I'm quite serious here, how does one respond to "when did you last beat your wife"? Most of your argument in that post relies on me being a racist fuckhed. So how do I respond to that if I believe that my views are not of the racist fuckhead variety?
And, yes I'm instead writing on the reply to matter and not on any reply to you, so you will just have to stand in line for now.

Anyway, there's one really, really interesting point of evidence that isn't being discussed, because nobody has it yet--and please forgive my rambling, since I'm just throwing thoughts out on the subject, and I'm not really disagreeing with anyone, because I think the only real debate here is a perceptual one on how we view the Ancient Egyptians through the lens of modern culture. Anyway, I'd just really like to see a study done on whether or not the ancient Egyptians had any admixture of Neanderthal blood! We've found evidence of Neanderthal residence in Egypt and other parts of North Africa, and this seems to be the real dividing line between humans who wandered out of Africa and those who didn't; humans who left Africa are basically inbred Africans, except that they had sexual relations and children with Neanderthals and Denisovans, creating very long-legacy genetic markers which we have only recently discovered.
So wouldn't that really solve the issue decisively, to find out what percentage of ancient Egyptians have Neanderthal genetic markers? This basically will directly correlate into the ratio of integrate with non-black populations. Because, dare I inject some levity into this thread, the main difference between blacks and whites (and asians and all others) is that us on the white side of the spectrum inbred a lot after leaving Africa and then decided it was a good idea to fuck cavemen.

Svante Pääbo actually mentions that in the ted talk I linked to a while ago in this topic, did you see that?
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/svante ... rthal.html
To parafrase him he says that we will probably find similar traces in different regions of other close relatives and that there are more research started.
If you want you can check out their website:
http://www.eva.mpg.de/
They have lots of nice stuff regarding that line of thinking although not that much hard research yet. (It takes a big budget to do that).

But I don't think that it will provide the answers as easily as that implies. We already have lots of data on several markers. But because of the wet-vs-dry sahara and wet-vs-dry golden crescent, and the lake area of central sub-saharan area, the people really moved around so a huge diversity in markers makes it very difficult to make exact conclusions. Which leads to subjective interpretations based on the researchers basic premises. Its really very frustrating to see some studies summaries and then check the underlying data only to find that most of the conclusions are just projection.

[matter]

You know what Spoonist stratch that 'you and I agreed stuff' for now. You should actually do well to directly answer those questions of mine now plz( and if you do so with some pics that will be much appreciated).
Cos some of the stuff you have implied in the last 3 threads of your is fundamentally diff from the position of Big T and Myself even with the converts that you talked about b4.

It has also been repeated in my dialog with Big Triece as well, my example was that if you put Rosa Parks in the black column then I would agree, but then we would have to include most of the middle east, turkey, greece and some parts of spain as well

Who in their right mind and functional eyes(that is eyes that is not playing tricks with them) will consider 'most Middle East,Turkey,Greece and some parts of Spain' as 'blacks' using ANY criteria whatsoever. And you actually thought Big T would agree with this?
Also, why even call these people? Do the Ancient Egyptians have primary biological affinities to them or to some other Africans to its south? Are they tropically/supertropically adapted indigenous Northeast Africans that you have agreed most Ancient Egyptians were?


In another post of yours where you were comparing Big T and some other earlier posters

On Thanas:

Thanas agreed like this:
"As for the genetic angle, I have been reading up on the subject a bit and have to say that unlike what Triece claimed, the evidence mainly points to ancient egyptians being largely the same as modern Egyptian, that is to say a mixture of various types. I'll write a huge post about it later on."

On You:

So again, just for you duchy, yes I agree that : "the Ancient Egyptians were primarily dark-skinned people of African descent and that their civilization was an indigenous development" I've agreed with that from the start and continue to do so

Are you saying that there is even a chance for what Thanas said above and what you said below to be seen as been the same? Thanas is saying that the ancient Egyptians were largely the same as modern Egyptians(whose majority is in the Delta where one mainly sees thoroghly mixed essentially 'white' skinned people?). Plz Spoonist which is which?

[Lord Zentei]

So Nubians and every Sub Saharan African are non "white" or substantially white according to this ancient and now discarded genetic analysis? Hey Spoonist, do you care to criticize his argument here? I doubt that you are objective enough to that. Anyway this is old news and has been dealt with over a decade ago.

http://africanamericanculturalcenterpal ... model1.jpg

I am not calling the Nubians "white". But look at the East Africans in that picture of yours - the group the Nubians are supposedly related to. These are the groups you're supposed to be using as a baseline, not random groups elsewhere in Africa. The whole issue here is that your characterization of Egyptians as being of the same group as modern East Africans genetically as well as in terms of phenotype is bullshit. And here's the irony: you're using the exact same kind of thinking as the Eurocentrists, all the while ignoring the conclusions of the mainstream, namely that the whole North Africa, Northeast Africa and Near East area is highly heterogenous and always has been, and that labels like "black" and "white" betray obsolete models best discarded.

[matter]

and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26·7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa I (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68·7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10 ... 9700004952

I'm not quite sure whether I've posted this before, and I'm not trawling through 30 pages to find out, but I do know that I've posted other stuff like it. Since this study applies to the Nubians, the Upper Egyptians must have been at least as heterogenous as this, and the Lower Egyptians less dark still. But Egypt was still African, of course.
[/quote]

Like I said if you really research his 'study' you would have known Hpal (np3,592) does not invovle other 'African' clades like L3,L4,L5,L6, M1 and others- which are frequent in Sudan today.
Also, you didnt note that the study was done on just 29 Meriotic individuals(actually only 15 extraction worked)- The range for this very small sample was 22-55% with an average of 39%. So staistically speaking Hpal (np3,592) cou;ld be 22%, 39% or even 55% and when they add oher 'African' not added, what do you hink you will have? Also see Big T explanation.

Zentei carry on his way and you will so show your rue views on the Biolgical Concept of Race.

[matter]

This debate is now actually running down cos some people are now in their desperation no longer looking real hard on the studies they are posting nor how inconsistent they are to what they have written before- at this stage some persons will bring every hing hey have even if some make NO SENSE at all.

The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26·7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa I (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68·7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10 ... 9700004952
I'm not quite sure whether I've posted this before, and I'm not trawling through 30 pages to find out, but I do know that I've posted other stuff like it. Since this study applies to the Nubians, the Upper Egyptians must have been at least as heterogenous as this, and the Lower Egyptians less dark still. But Egypt was still African, of course.

Like I said if you really research his 'study' you would have known Hpal (np3,592) does not involve other 'African' clades like L3,L4,L5,L6, M1 and others- which are frequent in Sudan today.
Also, you didnt note that the study was done on just 29 Meriotic individuals(actually only 15 extraction worked)- The range for this very small sample was 22-55% with an average of 39%. So statistically speaking Hpal (np3,592) could be 22%, 39% or even 55% and when they add other 'African' not added, what do you think you will have? Also see Big T explanation.

Zentei carry on his way and you will so show your rue views on the Biological Concept of Race.

PS: *Double Posts*..Am Sorry. the Ist post was not complete. How do I delete it?

[Lord Zentei]

Like I said if you really research his 'study' you would have known Hpal (np3,592) does not involve other 'African' clades like L3,L4,L5,L6, M1 and others- which are frequent in Sudan today.
Also, you didnt note that the study was done on just 29 Meriotic individuals(actually only 15 extraction worked)- The range for this very small sample was 22-55% with an average of 39%. So statistically speaking Hpal (np3,592) could be 22%, 39% or even 55% and when they add other 'African' not added, what do you think you will have? Also see Big T explanation.

Right, never mind that I've posted numerous other studies, each of which was brushed off with exactly this kind of half-assed comment.

Zentei carry on his way and you will so show your rue views on the Biological Concept of Race.

And we're back to the appeals to motive. It seems to me that both you and Big Triece have been relying principally on this sort of thing for some time now.

[matter]

Population of Nubia up to the 16th century BC
Aleksandra Pudło
ABSTRACT The article presents anthropological characteristics (morphological features, paleodemography and paleopathology) of the population inhabiting Nubia from the end of the Upper Palaeolithic till the 16th century BC. The material basis for this work consisted of the collections of bones coming from the archaeological researches carried out in Nubia.
Aleksandra Pudło, 1999; Przegląd Antropologiczny – Anthropological Review, vol. 62, Poznań 1999, pp. 57–66, figs 3, tables 7. ISBN 83-86969-44-X, ISSN 0033-2003


Conclusions
1. The population of ancient Nubia lived under very difficult conditions, which was reflected in its mortality characteristics with the highest death rate among infants and young women, very low frequency of cases of longevity, as well as in pathological changes typical of populations involved in hunting-gathering, cultivation of crops and livestock breeding for subsistence. Climatic factors
had a very strong impact on these changes.
2. The Nubians were hardly a homogeneous population. Neither the climate nor the specific geographic conditions in the region they inhabited were conducive of such homogeneity. The population of Nubia was shaped by several migration waves coming from Northwest Africa and from Asia through Sinai and Yemen. All those population movements gained on intensity in the Neolithic, but they did not prevent repeated contacts of the people of Nubia with Southern Africa

Was it not you Big T who told us about a forum where some of the debaters out of frustration of their inability to fundamentally separate most Ancient Egyptians and Nubians made another thread on the 'Caucasoid Origin of Egyptians and Nubians'?
What was it I said about DESPERATION again?..Zentei did not check the nature of the study you posted!!! Lets look at some quotes from the study:

It is worth noting that if we assume
that the population under study was Caucasoid
their average height will be higher
than if we assume its affiliation with the
Negroids

From the Neolithic on, or possibly even
earlier, the strategic location of Nubia,
promoting contacts between various populations,
started to bring about effects in the
form of the civilizational development of
this region. Finally, these two factors led to
the Hamitisation process, whereby superimposition
of the Caucasoids on the Negroids
took place

And what is the diff between this and the racist Hamitic(which this quotes directly references) and Dynastic Race Theorems that Zentei have been saying he did not support. These theorems saying that the half-witted 'Negroids' had to wait for the civilizing 'wandering Caucaoids' for any of the developments not just in Egypt but through out Africa-what is the diff bw that theorem and the bolder parts of this quotation. Another example of the fact that a debate against the mainly 'Black' African origin of Early Egypt without at least a subtle reference to those Early Eurocentrist LIES about Egypt that European scholars used to create the mess they made(that also by the way includes Demic Diffusion which Zentei after wasting my time has just recently denied he thought was not important-WHICH WAS A LIE) would be impossible.

The variety of morphological forms,
which occurred in Nubia, resulted from the
combination of the Caucasoid and Negroid
traits. The influence of the Mongoloid race
traits was also present. It was only minor
but should not be neglected

Yes Mongoloid Race in Nubia!!! *laughing*

And by the way that bolded part about how Nubians were a mix of people from NW Africa(even if H,V,M81,M1b are rare in Nubia and as a matter of fact M81 and proto-Berber actually went the opposite direction), Asia(through Sinai- where they tropically adapted in Sinai? and Yemen) is so laughable that it does not honestly deserve a response.
Zentei let me advice you: you could just argue that Nubians were essentially 'white even if they were dark or even Black' at least some of the early Eurocentrists said the 'Nubians were White or Caucasoids'! and there was even an early study about 'the Ist Appearance of Negroids in History during the New Kingdom' *laughing*. Well compare that with the fact the the very pharaohs of the 18th and 17th Dynasty of Early New Kingdom(Yes: that includes pharaohs such as Ahmoses,Thutmosis III, Hatsheput, Akhenaten, Tutankhamun) were of primarily 'Negroid' Nilotic Origin as per recent 2010/2012 study here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... bFcNbMjV0w


Zentei I will just wait as you, out of a last ditch Desperation, destroy the remaining part of your arguments yourself and undo some of the real good you had previously done on this thread.

[Lord Zentei]

Was it not you Big T who told us about a forum where some of the debaters out of frustration of their inability to fundamentally separate most Ancient Egyptians and Nubians made another thread on the 'Caucasoid Origin of Egyptians and Nubians'?
What was it I said about DESPERATION again?..Zentei did not check the nature of the study you posted!!! Lets look at some quotes from the study:

What are you talking about?

And what is the diff between this and the racist Hamitic(which this quotes directly references) and Dynastic Race Theorems that Zentei have been saying he did not support. These theorems saying that the half-witted 'Negroids' had to wait for the civilizing 'wandering Caucaoids' for any of the developments not just in Egypt but through out Africa-what is the diff bw that theorem and the bolder parts of this quotation. So, you're ignoring the actual data, and relying on quotes. How about that you address the data itself instead?

Another example of the fact that a debate against the mainly 'Black' African origin of Early Egypt without at least a subtle reference to those Early Eurocentrist LIES about Egypt that European scholars used to create the mess they made(that also by the way includes Demic Diffusion which Zentei after wasting my time has just recently denied he thought was not important-WHICH WAS A LIE) would be impossible.

You are the one who lies: you could very easily have checked my previous stance on the matter of demic diffusion, and seen that it was not the basis for my rejection of ideas about Egyptians being specifically Black Africans as opposed to people of color in the generic sense. As it happens, I do maintain that it is entirely plausible that demic diffusion took place, and there are studies to support it. That is not a prerequisite for maintaining that the Egyptians were distinct from the East African populations of today and of ancient times.

[matter]

Anyway, since the most likely origin for the cultural practices of ancient Egypt I've heard about is the Saharan desert before it became a desert (but of course, berbers and other white lineages were limited to the coastal littoral in that period, so these were certainly people of a black origin), it doesn't seem unreasonable to say conditions might have existed there which could have tended toward a lighter skin tone. That they subsequently influenced what would have been existing native inhabitants of the Nile valley, albeit in fairly limited genetic terms, likewise seems reasonable. The end result however is still a group that can be considered as African, and I won't even dispute that the majority of artwork depicting women in ancient Egypt tends to favour African facial features in a strict reading, but the dangers of reading art in any sense have been noted before.

Thank you Duchess of Zeon on this and your other interventions on this thread. This is the kind of views that one cannot really argue much with even while noting the converts.

I particularly note that you said(in another post) that you previously had attacked the arguments of as you put it 'Black Egypt' advocates. This trend of an apparent change of attitudes is something that is increasing not just among interested laymen in internet forums but gradually(and some will say grudgingly) in Egyptological circles. You can see that most of the studies I posted on page 27(where some of them were saying that Badarian and Early Naqada cultures where of same culture group 'Nubian Neolithic Culture Group' as other groups in 'Nubia' and parts of Eastern Sahara) are in the last 10 years- which itself is a major shift in attitudes. Plus we have major museums and universities now placing Ancient in its proper African Context. Apart from Fitzwilliam Museum(affiliated with Cambridge), the powerful Petrie Museum(affiliated with UCL) is currently hosting a lecture series on this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 0Y6iRki4dQ -what is ironic is the fact that Petrie himself was the main proponent of the racist Dynastic Race Theorem.

[Lord Zentei]

^
You'll notice that the Duchess is acknowledging the African heritage of Egypt which people who have debated you and Big Triece have not disputed. What I see here from you is another attempt to bait and switch between "African" and "people of color" on the one hand with "Black African" on the other, as if these were the only legitimate Africans. It's something I noted before now, in my response to the Duchess.

But on that note, let me ask you this, matter: do you deem the MODERN Egyptian population to be "fundamentally African", and do you deem it to be "Black"?

[Lord Zentei]

Incidentally, I find it interesting how you based your rejection of the data I presented on quote snips and appeals to motive directed against myself, and not on any actual contrary evidence:

And by the way that bolded part about how Nubians were a mix of people from NW Africa(even if H,V,M81,M1b are rare in Nubia and as a matter of fact M81 and proto-Berber actually went the opposite direction), Asia(through Sinai- where they tropically adapted in Sinai? and Yemen) is so laughable that it does not honestly deserve a response.
Zentei let me advice you: you could just argue that Nubians were essentially 'white even if they were dark or even Black' at least some of the early Eurocentrists said the 'Nubians were White or Caucasoids'! and there was even an early study about 'the Ist Appearance of Negroids in History during the New Kingdom' *laughing*. Well compare that with the fact the the very pharaohs of the 18th and 17th Dynasty of Early New Kingdom(Yes: that includes pharaohs such as Ahmoses,Thutmosis III, Hatsheput, Akhenaten, Tutankhamun) were of primarily 'Negroid' Nilotic Origin as per recent 2010/2012 study here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... bFcNbMjV0w

What you're saying here is that you're refusing to address evidence presented to you YET AGAIN.

Just as you did earlier, when you brushed off a study on the pretext that you could not see it... except that ANYONE CAN SIGN UP THERE.

[Spoonist]

@matter
Why would you try to press for something sooner rather than get a thought through real post? I'm probably not in your timezone so when I said tomorrow I actually mean my tomorrow - as in gimme my 24h from when I said that. Rushing me seems strange when you have asked for a complete response????

and if you do so with some pics that will be much appreciated

Pics? Of what? Do you mean pics of what I consider dark skinned etc? Isn't it better if I post references to Keita and Ehret instead?

diff from the position of Big T and Myself even with the converts that you talked about b4.

Converts? I don't get the converts thing are we mixing in religion now?

On Thanas: ...snip... Are you saying that there is even a chance for what Thanas said above and what you said below to be seen as been the same? Thanas is saying that the ancient Egyptians were largely the same as modern Egyptians(whose majority is in the Delta where one mainly sees thoroghly mixed essentially 'white' skinned people?). Plz Spoonist which is which?

No, I don't necessarily think that Thanas agrees in the same way, hence why I did not refer to Thanas agreement as "in the main", I meant that in reference to them not being euros or levantine but rather the mix we see today. But I think you are stretching it a bit there with the inclusion of the delta something which Thanas usually never mixes, he has used upper & lower on several occasions. I think that you are mixing his dynasty responses with his proto-egypt ones.
Then no, I don't think that I and Thanas have a complete overlap, we would probably have a lot of semantics to cover as well before he and I would agree. But I think that we would spend less than 30+ pages to work it out.

[Big Triece]

Again I'm quite serious here, how does one respond to "when did you last beat your wife"? Most of your argument in that post relies on me being a racist fuckhed. So how do I respond to that if I believe that my views are not of the racist fuckhead variety?

Spoonist, your response was completely to my refutation of your points was completely irrelevant to what I was stating. In the post that I responded to, you argued for the existence of "Afro-Asiatic GENES"; You claimed that I was the the one misinterpreting Keita; You denied ecological principal; You showed a lack of knowledge in regard to the population of history of North Africa/the ancient Sahara; You also have yet to respond to the fact that I have provided numerous PhD's who reference the works of Keita and others and from those lines of evidence concluded soundly that the original ancient Egyptians were what would be considered "black", not "colored" but "BLACK".

See post here. If you cannot continue to support your arguments made in that post (i.e. by responding to my post), then you need to concede to that fact rather than running off and starting new arguments.

[Big Triece]

^^ meant to say "my response"

Who in their right mind and functional eyes(that is eyes that is not playing tricks with them) will consider 'most Middle East,Turkey,Greece and some parts of Spain' as 'blacks' using ANY criteria whatsoever. And you actually thought Big T would agree with this? Also, why even call these people? Do the Ancient Egyptians have primary biological affinities to them or to some other Africans to its south? Are they tropically/supertropically adapted indigenous Northeast Africans that you have agreed most Ancient Egyptians were?

MY POINT EXACTLY! He's being a deceptive snake who trying to run away from the what consistent biological evidence has concluded.

I also asked him a question as to WHY he has yet to criticize the bs that has been argued by Thanas, Zentei and a couple of other posters throughout this thread. Most recently is Zentei's reliance on a study supporting the HAMITIC RACE theory, essentially saying that all tropical Africans are significantly "white" in order to make Nubians (who indisputably overlap with Egyptians) now "white"...seriously! Spoonist can accept their ignorance, but has a profound problem with what our argument which relies on CONSISTENT MAINSTREAM evidence, which has even been contexted for the sake of this frequent debate by numerous PhD's (most of which none have given a response to). Does anyone else not see the irony overt bias in his logic? His complete lack of objectivity as the "human archive" of this thread, shows that he clearly has a personal stake clouted his judgement in this debate which CANNOT be taken seriously.

[Lord Zentei]

Spoonist, your response was completely to my refutation of your points was completely irrelevant to what I was stating. In the post that I responded to, you argued for the existence of "Afro-Asiatic GENES"; You claimed that I was the the one misinterpreting Keita; You denied ecological principal; You showed a lack of knowledge in regard to the population of history of North Africa/the ancient Sahara; You also have yet to respond to the fact that I have provided numerous PhD's who reference the works of Keita and others and from those lines of evidence concluded soundly that the original ancient Egyptians were what would be considered "black", not "colored" but "BLACK".

Except that it has already been shown that the modern Egyptians (a) were the ancestors of the ancient Egyptians, and that (b) they resembled them, and you have agreed to both those points, and even gone on to say "nobody disputes that..." in relation to them. So, calling the AE "black" would be a social label, not a statement to their relatedness with or resemblance to modern East Africans. Hence they were "colored" and not "black" as far as this debate is concerned.

I also asked him a question as to WHY he has yet to criticize the bs that has been argued by Thanas, Zentei and a couple of other posters throughout this thread. Most recently is Zentei's reliance on a study supporting the HAMITIC RACE theory, essentially saying that all tropical Africans are significantly "white" in order to make Nubians now "white"...seriously! Spoonist can accept their ignorance, but has a profound problem with what our argument which relies on CONSISTENT MAINSTREAM evidence, which has even been contexted for the sake of this frequent debate by numerous PhD's (most of which none have given a response to). Does anyone else not see the irony overt bias in his logic? His complete lack of objectivity as the "human archive" of this thread, shows that he clearly has a personal stake in this debate which CANNOT be taken seriously.

Once again: the commentary in the study you refer to do not interest me as much as the data it presented, which has not been adequately contested. As such, I'm not interested in calling the Nubians "white" as much as classing them as an African population which was nonetheless to be distinguished from the "Black Africans" you claim the Ancient Egyptians resembled.

[Big Triece]

^^ I'm not explaining this to you anymore. The last time I explained this to you, you pulled a "Spoonist" and dropped your argument only to resurface with your same misinterpretations of these most simple facts. I will gladly link to our last exchange about your misinterpretations of this simple fact.

Your reference to that study is the epitome of DESPERATION, as it's central theme is the long dead Hamitic Race theory. Also that study has been specifically targeted by by at least two studies (cited in the graphic on the previous page), and the fact that this study has yet to be built upon by anything more recent.

Seriously I don't even know why I'm even addressing you at this point.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Because there's nothing else worth doing in your life?

[Lord Zentei]

^^ I'm not explaining this to you anymore. The last time I asked this to you, you pulled a "Spoonist" and dropped your argument only to resurface with your same misinterpretations of these most simple facts. I will gladly link to our last exchange about your misinterpretations of this simple fact.

Go ahead and link to your bullshit. I dropped out of the thread previously precisely because I didn't find that you were seriously contesting anything I said. Then I returned to the thread due to my amusement that it had been recently resurrected.

Your reference to that study is the epitome of DESPERATION, as it's central theme is the long dead Hamitic Race theory. Also that study has been specifically targeted by by at least two studies (cited in the graphic on the previous page), and the fact that this study has yet to be built upon by anything more recent.

Wow, not only do I show desperation, but DESPERATION in ALLCAPS.

Bit, if you wanted more recent stuff, why didn't you say so?

Just for the LULZ, here are a couple of more recent studies (as in within the last decade) proposing diffusion from the Middle East into North Africa. Not because I maintain that this is a certainty, but merely that it is an interesting possibility - far more important is the fact of the proven relatedness and similarity of the Ancient Egyptians and the modern Egyptians by several studies I have shown already - and the fact that you don't appear to want to classify the modern inhabitants as "black". As long as the modern inhabitants are not "black", neither were the ancients. If the modern inhabitants ARE black, then sure, you could make the same statement about the ancients - but that's not the sort of blackness you want for Mighty Kemet, is it.

But whatever, here goes:

Linka

Paleoanthropological evidence indicates that both the Levantine corridor and the Horn of Africa served, repeatedly, as migratory corridors between Africa and Eurasia. We have begun investigating the roles of these passageways in bidirectional migrations of anatomically modern humans, by analyzing 45 informative biallelic markers as well as 10 microsatellite loci on the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY) in 121 and 147 extant males from Oman and northern Egypt, respectively. The present study uncovers three important points concerning these demic movements: (1) The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. (2) In contrast, the Horn of Africa appears to be of minor importance in the human migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia represented by these chromosomes, an observation based on the frequency distributions of E3b*-M35 (no known downstream mutations) and M173. (3) The areal diffusion patterns of G-M201, J-12f2, the derivative M173 haplogroups, and M2 suggest more recent genetic associations between the Middle East and Africa, involving the Levantine corridor and/or Arab slave routes. Affinities to African groups were also evaluated by determining the NRY haplogroup composition in 434 samples from seven sub-Saharan African populations. Oman and Egypt’s NRY frequency distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population, suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component. Finally, the overall phylogeographic profile reveals several clinal patterns and genetic partitions that may indicate source, direction, and relative timing of different waves of dispersals and expansions involving these nine populations.

<SNIP>

The diverse NRY haplotypes observed in Egypt and Oman are, to a large extent, distinctive from those of sub-Saharan collections and establish a substantial base for comparisons with other regional populations. NRY markers typical of the current sub-Saharan Africa (E3a*-M2 and derivatives) are represented by low frequencies in Egypt and Oman and, thus, may be a recent acquisition, at least in part, from the slave trade. In contrast, markers signaling the Neolithic expansion from the Middle East (12f2, M201, and M35 derivatives) constitute the predominant component in these two Afro-Asiatic populations. The situation is further complicated by the fact that, unlike 12f2 and the M201, which are Eurasian in origin, the undifferentiated M35 lineage can be traced back to the Mesolithic in East Africa. In Egypt, known M35 derivatives are present at polymorphic levels and there is a near absence of undifferentiated M35. It is reasonable to believe that the Levantine corridor may have played an important role in the dispersal from Africa reflected by these chromosomes (involving both forward and backward flow). The lack of E3b*-M35, a common East African haplogroup, in Oman, and the asymmetrical presence of the two Omani M35 derivatives (E3b3-M123 has a greater frequency than E3b1-M78), as well as the differential distribution of M173 and 12f2 lineages in the integrated collection, reinforce the idea that the migratory movements between Eurasia and Africa involving these chromosomes occurred mainly across the Levantine corridor and that genetic flow through the Horn of Africa during these demic episodes was very limited. Nevertheless, previous studies support the importance of the Horn of Africa as a passageway in earlier human migrations.

And more here:

linka

We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations. North African Y-chromosomal diversity is geographically structured and fits the pattern expected under an isolation-by-distance model. Autocorrelation analyses reveal an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion. This expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance. Since the estimates of the times to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) of the most common haplogroups are quite recent, we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic–speaking pastoralists from the Middle East.

<SNIP>

In conclusion, we propose that the Y-chromosomal genetic structure observed in North Africa is mainly the result of an expansion of early food-producing societies. Moreover, following Arioti and Oxby (1997), we speculate that the economy of those societies relied initially more on herding than on agriculture, because pastoral economies probably supported lower numbers of individuals, thus favoring genetic drift, and showed more mobility than agriculturalists, thus allowing gene flow. Some authors believe that languages families are unlikely to be >10 KY old and that their diffusion was associated with the diffusion of agriculture (Diamond and Bellwood 2003). Since most of the languages spoken in North Africa and in nearby parts of Asia belong to the Afro-Asiatic family (Ruhlen 1991), this expansion could have involved people speaking a proto–Afro-Asiatic language. These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment containing few humans.

But once again, this

Seriously I don't even know why I'm even addressing you at this point.

If I had a dollar for every time I have thought that about you... ah, well.

[matter]

@ Spoonist fair enough. I will be expecting a response any time soon then.

Yes I would like you to post pics on dark/non-dark skinned tropically/supertropically adapted indigenous Africans plz as an addition to any other thing from Ehret and Keita(You know SEEING IS BELIEVING as they say and it will just be easier since the pics can easily be obtained). And if it will make the answer clearer use it for other questions in that post.

Who in their right mind and functional eyes(that is eyes that is not playing tricks with them) will consider 'most Middle East,Turkey,Greece and some parts of Spain' as 'blacks' using ANY criteria whatsoever. And you actually thought Big T would agree with this? Also, why even call these people? Do the Ancient Egyptians have primary biological affinities to them or to some other Africans to its south? Are they tropically/supertropically adapted indigenous Northeast Africans that you have agreed most Ancient Egyptians were?

Spoonist I notice that you left out this part of the post when you were responding and Big T had to remind you of it(plz lets try to be CLEAR and respond to every parts of opponents posts so that we can do closure on this thread).

diff from the position of Big T and Myself even with the converts that you talked about b4.

Converts? I don't get the converts thing are we mixing in religion now?

Hahahaha.... dont worry I wont play the religious thing on you. It good to get a good laugh- this thread could be frustrating at times...of course I meant caveats


PS: Spoonist can you also respond to that posts of Big T cos there are some stuffs there apart from the ones he pointed like the Sahara being mainly populated by Nilo-Saharans cos your post b4 his actually was not clear on the use of 'diversity' in the Sahara. There are also other things in that posts that could be relevant even to our own communication

[Lord Zentei]

^
Say, matter: since you're reminding people of responding to points, perhaps you could respond to these questions you ignored earlier:

But on that note, let me ask you this, matter: do you deem the MODERN Egyptian population to be "fundamentally African", and do you deem it to be "Black"?

[matter]

Like I said if you really research his 'study' you would have known Hpal (np3,592) does not involve other 'African' clades like L3,L4,L5,L6, M1 and others- which are frequent in Sudan today.
Also, you didnt note that the study was done on just 29 Meriotic individuals(actually only 15 extraction worked)- The range for this very small sample was 22-55% with an average of 39%. So statistically speaking Hpal (np3,592) could be 22%, 39% or even 55% and when they add other 'African' not added, what do you think you will have? Also see Big T explanation.

Right, never mind that I've posted numerous other studies, each of which was brushed off with exactly this kind of half-assed comment.

Zentei what are you talking about? The crux of that study was that Hpal(np3,592) was THE characteristics of 'sub-saharan' populations. Yet in your ignorance you didnt know that that particular clade excludes very many other 'African' clades(such as L3,L4,L5,L6,M1 and others- which by the way are relatively frequent in Sudan) so in your mind that means Nubians were 'mixed'(and in your world that is being mixed with nonAfricans). You also did not know that that particular clade as Big T shown in another study varies across 'sub-saharan' Africa and at an average of about 60%. You did not also take note that the statistical range reported for the VERY SMALL sample(15 persons for God's sake) means that Hpal(np3,592) could be 55% as much as it could be 22%. Now add the other 'African specific' clades that were not considered, what do you have Zentei?
Yea I can see how this study shows clearly that 'Nubians' are 'mixed' with nonAfricans and were obviously distinct from other 'Black Africans' as you have asserted in another post (other 'Black African' that are the most diverse in the world which you apparently do not know or wait you do but Desparation...).

Am amazed(but shoud I be?) that you actually responded to defend that ridiculous post and hence forth I will excuse myself from discussing clear frivolities with you.

And by the way that bolded part about how Nubians were a mix of people from NW Africa(even if H,V,M81,M1b are rare in Nubia and as a matter of fact M81 and proto-Berber actually went the opposite direction), Asia(through Sinai- where they tropically adapted in Sinai? and Yemen) is so laughable that it does not honestly deserve a response.
Zentei let me advice you: you could just argue that Nubians were essentially 'white even if they were dark or even Black' at least some of the early Eurocentrists said the 'Nubians were White or Caucasoids'! and there was even an early study about 'the Ist Appearance of Negroids in History during the New Kingdom' *laughing*. Well compare that with the fact the the very pharaohs of the 18th and 17th Dynasty of Early New Kingdom(Yes: that includes pharaohs such as Ahmoses,Thutmosis III, Hatsheput, Akhenaten, Tutankhamun) were of primarily 'Negroid' Nilotic Origin as per recent 2010/2012 study here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... bFcNbMjV0w

What you're saying here is that you're refusing to address evidence presented to you YET AGAIN.

Also,

So, you're ignoring the actual data, and relying on quotes. How about that you address the data itself instead?

What actual data are you talking about? Zentei did you read the study you gave us. Did the study present any 'DATA' on how 'Mongoloids' were part of 'Nubian' populations(and you cant see how ridiculous that is)? Which 'data' was presented on how some super-witted 'caucasoids' came from Asia and civilized the 'Negriods'(direct racist HAMITIC THEORY)? Did the study provide any 'data' on how nonAfricans('caucasoids' and even 'mongoloids'-whatever these means) migrated to Nubia from Asia and NW Africa to Nubia, i mean was there ANY mention of archaeological,linguistic,genetic, cultural, etc evidences for such large migrations(you still dont know why you failed woefully to DEMONSTRATES Demic Diffusion Zentei and which will be my next post to you by the way)?
The study was a series of STATEMENTS and little /no ANALYSIS or DEMONSTRATION of 'data'- which is a minimum for a scholarly article esp for the kind of claims it makes.
On physical anthropology the author did not show any statistical analysis of cranial and noncranial traits to determine affinities as modern scientist do but was talking about 'thin nose','broad nose','gracial head','prognatism' etc and even cranial index (for God's sake)- who does that again?

On those quotes that I highlighted for which the significance escaped you : was that it was from such 'data' that the study used to 'prove' the part of the conclusion I bolded.
For instance, when he was talking about why the relative stature increased from neolithic to 'historic', he wrote this:

It is worth noting that if we assume
that the population under study was Caucasoid
their average height will be higher
than if we assume its affiliation with the
Negroids

Do you know who are the tallest people in the Sudan(and some of the tallest in the world) and certainly taller than 'caucasoids' just outside the vicinity of Africa? Yes: the thin, supertropically adapted Nilotic populations(like Dinka, Nuer,Shiiluk) and some Afrisans. Obviously these were not the 'Negroids' that reduced the height but in the authors mind the Real Negroids(think people of West Africa for instance). Oh by the way, this would imply that he considered these Nilotic Populations as 'Caucasoids' or at least as part of them. Hmmm..what was the theorem called again? Right the racist 'True Negro' Theorem that by the way was one of the theories that was also used by the early Eurocentrists to deny the mainly 'Black' African origin of Ancient Egypt.

Zentei you know what I have seen this study b4(actually both of them) and so when I saw that you were citing them I smiled and that was why I was talking about Desperation cos you obviously didnt cross-check the study b4 posting in frustration cos you knew that it was no longer possible to deny that Ancient Egypt(esp Early Egypt) were not mainly 'Black' African while calling 'Nubia' 'Black' African. So you posted a thoroughly racist and frankly worthless study as 'prove' for the 'mixture' of Nubia and hence Egypt.

Any way I will say carry on in this new path of yours cos it will make this debate end as soon as possible.

[Lord Zentei]

matter, answer the questions I posed to you and address the other studies I have posted.

Zentei what are you talking about? The crux of that study was that Hpal(np3,592) was THE characteristics of 'sub-saharan' populations. Yet in your ignorance you didnt know that that particular clade excludes very many other 'African' clades(such as L3,L4,L5,L6,M1 and others- which by the way are relatively frequent in Sudan) so in your mind that means Nubians were 'mixed'(and in your world that is being mixed with nonAfricans). You also did not know that that particular clade as Big T shown in another study varies across 'sub-saharan' Africa and at an average of about 60%. You did not also take note that the statistical range reported for the VERY SMALL sample(15 persons for God's sake) means that Hpal(np3,592) could be 55% as much as it could be 22%. Now add the other 'African specific' clades that were not considered, what do you have Zentei?

That is not the issue, as I've explained already - obviously there are other groups in sub-Saharan Africa, the problem for you is that the Nubians were supposed to be essentially the same population as Horners. Those other sub-Saharan population groups are beside the point.

Yea I can see how this study shows clearly that 'Nubians' are 'mixed' with nonAfricans and were obviously distinct from other 'Black Africans' as you have asserted in another post (other 'Black African' that are the most diverse in the world which you apparently do not know or wait you do but Desparation...).

Glad to hear it, though my main concern is to show that they were "mixed" with populations other than horn Africans, regardless of whether these were African or non-African. And yes, I do know that sub-Saharans are the most diverse in the world, and have argued that point myself elsewhere.

Now: can you quit accusing me of "desperation", since you're clearly avoiding several other posts of mine and are cherry-picking which ones you wish to respond to.

[matter]

Cool down Zentei, I cant run from a post directly at me. I was answering your questions sequentially so I wont miss any.

But on that note, let me ask you this, matter: do you deem the MODERN Egyptian population to be "fundamentally African", and do you deem it to be "Black"?

[/quote]

I have made these points clear at various times previouly but let me again:
I belief that some Modern Egyptians,esp very many of them in Upper Egypt, are 'Black' while very many others, esp in the Nile Delta(where the majority are today unlike in the ancient times when the main population centres were in Upper Egypt and head of the northern Nile) are certainly not 'Black' by ANY criteria whatsoever(like I said it is only a person whose eyes plays tricks with him that will consider someone like Dr Zahid 'Black'). Many others are certainly 'mixed'.

I have also stated throughout that Modern Egyptians were descendants of the ancients(in fact the only descendants we know at present) and so there was 'continuity' but most of them have been mixed with other groups that have entered Egypt through out its long history- that was why all the physical evidences presented earlier(Keita 1990,1993; Zarkweski 2002,2004,2007; Starling and Stock 2007; Godde 2009; Nancy Lovell 1999; Kemp 2005, even Brace 2006- only the criticized and flawed Brace 1993 said otherwise I think) said that there was significant change in the biology of Late Period Egyptians in the DElta, with at least two of them(Zarkweski 2004 and Kemp 2005) directly saying they do not represent the typical Anvcient Egyptians Series . This was most felt from the Late Period onwards when marked migrations started in Egypt, esp on those Egyptians in the Delta today.

See this this post: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3659895
But Zentei am sure you have seen it but you ran away then and you are now requiring me to go back. So plz this time respond properly to the post.


Yes, I certainly see Modern Egyptians as Africans, actualy COMPLETELY, just as I seen other Africans including 'white' South Africans. They live in Africa and are even 'partially' descended form indigenous tropically Africans.
But like 'white' South Africans while fully Africans came relatively recently from European, the ancestors of some Modern Egyptains esp in the Delta, were a very large groups of intermediate/cold adapted nonAfricans that migrated to Egypt esp during the last 3000 yrs.



And on Demic Diffusion,again PLEASE(am actually pleading now) can you post excepts from the study that have that ABSTRACT which DEMONSTRATED Demic Diffusion? Also, please respond to relevant part of this thread http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3673111 which also contains all our exchanges on the topic.
You should esp respond to some the exchanges you didnt properly respond to esp this: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3654005

Thank you very much Zentei in anticipation that you will finally do this.

[Lord Zentei]

I have made these points clear at various times previouly but let me again:
I belief that some Modern Egyptians,esp very many of them in Upper Egypt, are 'Black' while very many others, esp in the Nile Delta(where the majority are today unlike in the ancient times when the main population centres were in Upper Egypt and head of the northern Nile) are certainly not 'Black' by ANY criteria whatsoever(like I said it is only a person whose eyes plays tricks with him that will consider someone like Dr Zahid 'Black'). Many others are certainly 'mixed'.

OK, that's fair enough. Indeed, my position is that a heterogenous population could plausibly be expected to have individuals who could reasonably be called "black", as well as "white" and "mixed" though of course, the Egyptians themselves didn't think in those terms. To them the culture was what defined them. Therefore, it would be wholly inappropriate to call the overall population "black", just as it would be inappropriate to call it "white", regardless of whether you can find pictures of dark skinned (or light skinned) Ancient Egyptians. (Although this is subject to an important caveat: "blackness" in this context does NOT necessarily mean Blackness of the sort Big Triece has been pushing with his picture spam earlier in the thread, merely dark-skinned people.)

But, moving on...

I have also stated throughout that Modern Egyptians were descendants of the ancients(in fact the only descendants we know at present) and so there was 'continuity' but most of them have been mixed with other groups that have entered Egypt through out its long history- that was why all the physical evidences presented earlier(Keita 1990,1993; Zarkweski 2002,2004,2007; Starling and Stock 2007; Godde 2009; Nancy Lovell 1999; Kemp 2005, even Brace 2006- only the criticized and flawed Brace 1993 said otherwise I think) said that there was significant change in the biology of Late Period Egyptians in the DElta, with at least two of them(Zarkweski 2004 and Kemp 2005) directly saying they do not represent the typical Anvcient Egyptians Series . This was most felt from the Late Period onwards when marked migrations started in Egypt, esp on those Egyptians in the Delta today.

Well, in that case, we disagree on the interpretation of these (except for Zarkweski's papers, which I have not seen, and can't comment on). In fact, earlier in the thread I cited some of these papers myself to support my position! Moreover, I also refer to the study by Irish (2005) I posted earlier to Big Triece, which demonstrated that the modern population of Egypt is fundamentally the same as the ancient population. He countered by saying that it only referred to "continuity", but it clearly stated that the Ancient and Modern populations were essentially the same. As for the Delta region, that may well have changed more than the rest of Egypt, but overall, the diversity in Egypt remains as it always has been, regardless of numerous invasions. Here's the relevant excerpt:

Did Egyptians in the second half of the dynastic period become biologically distinct from those in the first? Ideally, more dynastic samples than those from Abydos, Thebes, Qurneh, Tarkhan, Saqqara, Lisht, and Giza should be compared to address such a broad question.
Yet excluding the Lisht and perhaps Saqqara outliers, it appears that overall dental homogeneity among these samples would argue against such a possibility (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). Specifically, an inspection of MMD values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance between samples from the first and second halves of this almost 3,000-year-long period. For example, phenetic distances
between First–Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD ¼ 0.050), 11–12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19thþ Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time. Moreover, there is no conspicuous correlation between MMD and geographic distances within and
between Upper and Lower Egypt. A similar pattern is evident when comparing First Dynasty Tarkhan to these same five Old Kingdom through Late Dynastic samples. All display moderate frequencies of the nine influential traits identified by CA, and a largely concordant occurrence of, and trends across, the remaining traits (Table 2). Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well. These findings coincide with those of Brace et al. (1993, p. 1), who stated that the Egyptians were ‘‘largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations,’’ and do not support suggestions of increased diversity due to infiltration of outside physical elements.

Did Egyptians of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods differ significantly from their dynastic antecedents?
Again, more postdynastic samples would prove useful in answering this broad question. Moreover, any foreign genetic influence on the indigenous populace likely diminished relative to the distance upriver. However, as it stands, the lone Greek Egyptian (GEG) sample from Lower Egypt significantly differs from all but the small Roman-period Kharga sample (Table 4). In fact, it was shown to be a major outlier that is divergent from all others (Figs. 2, 3, 5). The Greek Egyptians exhibit the lowest frequencies of UM1 cusp 5, three-rooted UM2, fivecusped LM2, and two-rooted LM2, along with a high incidence of UM3 absence, among others (Table 2). This trait combination is reminiscent of that in Europeans and western Asians (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Thus, if the present heterogeneous sample is at all representative of peoples during Ptolemaic times, it may suggest some measure of foreign admixture, at least in Lower Egypt near Saqqara and Manfalut. Another possibility is that the sample consists of actual Greeks. Although their total number was probably low (Peacock, 2000), Greek administrators and others were present in Lower Egypt. Future comparisons to actual Greek specimens will help verify
this possibility. Lastly, the Roman-period specimens are much more closely akin to the seven dynastic samples. Kharga and especially Hawara are most similar, based on their trait concordance (Table 2), low and insignificant MMDs (Table 4), and positions within or near the cluster of 11 or so samples (Fig. 2). El Hesa is more divergent (Figs. 2, 3, 5); this divergence was shown to be driven by several extreme trait frequencies, including very high UI2 interruption groove and UM3 absence, and very low UM1 Carabelli’s trait. As above, the first two traits are common in Europeans and western Asians; the latter is rare in these areas, as well as greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1997). Like the Greeks, the Romans did not migrate to Lower and especially Upper Egypt in large numbers (Peacock, 2000). As such, the distinctive trait frequencies of El Hesa were probably not due to Roman gene flow. There is no evidence that Kharga and Hawara received such influence. Thus the results, at least for these samples, do not support significant biological differentiation in the Egyptians of this time relative to their dynastic predecessors.

CONCLUSIONS
The determination of trait frequencies, identification of highly discriminatory traits, and computation of phenetic affinities among the 15 samples yields a more comprehensive dental characterization of ancient Egyptians than presented in previous reports. These findings were, in turn, effective for estimating the synchronic and diachronic biological relatedness that was used to test the viability of several long-standing peopling hypotheses and less formal assumptions. Concerning estimates of relatedness, many samples
appear dentally homogeneous. That is, with the exception of four or five outliers, most are phenetically similar enough to imply population continuity from predynastic to perhaps Roman times. Whereas the more divergent samples exhibit extreme frequencies of nine traits identified as most influential, the others share relatively moderate expressions of these traits and comparable frequencies of the rest. If these samples are indeed representative of the populations from which they were derived, then this
homogeneity is also important in addressing the various peopling scenarios. Beginning with Gebel Ramlah, its relative proximity to three of four early Upper Egyptian samples, including Badari, provides some indication of the latter’s origins. Affinities among the predynastic and most dynastic and postdynastic samples are then supportive of:
1) continuity between the Naqada and Badarian peoples, 2) an indigenous outgrowth of the dynastic period from the Naqada,
3) with some exceptions, biological uniformity throughout the dynastic period, and 4) continuity between the latter and subsequent Ptolemaic and Roman periods.
Lastly, beyond these relationships, additional intersample variation was identified by the distance analyses. However, without reference to pertinent existing hypotheses, the discussion of such affinities is beyond the scope of this paper. Still, the patterning illustrated by the MDS and CA diagrams is of interest, and will receive attention in future studies comparing Egyptians to samples from elsewhere in northeast Africa, greater North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and the western Mediterranean area. Such comparisons will also facilitate analyses of these 15 samples in a broader, more region-oriented perspective that may help shed additional light on the ultimate origins of the Egyptian peoples.

I read this as saying that the Egyptians, despite numerous invasions, maintained their ethnic character throughout the Dynastic period even through the Roman period. The invasions you refer to would not have "whitened" the Egyptians to the point where they would become something other than their ancestors were.

Incidentally, here's a YouTube video of an interview with a scholar who maintains that the diversity of modern Egypt existed also among the Ancient Egyptians:



Didn't think it would be him, did you? (the relevant portion begins at 0:55)

His main point has always been that the culture of Ancient Egypt was an indigenous African development, and I have no problems at all with this. Meanwhile, he rejects both Afrocentrist and Eurocentrist views, and asserts the heterogenity of North Africa (i.e. the Maghreb region) AND of Ancient Egypt.

See this this post: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=148109&start=675#p3659895
But Zentei am sure you have seen it but you ran away then and you are now requiring me to go back. So plz this time respond properly to the post.

I may have subconsciously blotted that post out because the formatting makes my eyes bleed. Also, It seemed that it was pretty much the same stuff Big Triece had covered earlier. If not, my bad. Please try to format your posts more.

In any case: the first several quote boxes there refer to the numerous invasions Egypt has suffered throughout the centuries, in particular following the Macedonian and Roman conquests - I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is that it fundamentally altered the Egyptian ethnic character to the extent that they would have been considered "black" before, and "not black" afterwards, as opposed to having been heterogenous both before and after. Moreover, you're not taking into consideration that there were movements of population from the south too - for example via the Arab slave trade, as well as the Nubian conquest that created the 25th Dynasty. Not all population movements favored the "white" population, after all. Egypt has always been at ethnic crossroads, and would have been influenced by all its neighbors. Moreover, the population movements you refer to could just as well have taken place during AND before the Dynastic periods, albeit not quite so dramatic most of the time (other than the demic diffusion events of 10 KYA and 40 KYA, assuming we accept these as legitimate possibilities).

However, I reject the idea that the Delta was somehow unimportant to the Ancient Dynastic period. Egypt was always the Two Lands, upper and lower, and the Delta was the bulk of the Lower Kingdom, consisting of 20 Nomes, in contrast with Upper Egypt which consisted of 22 Nomes (if memory serves). Since the size of Upper Egypt is vastly greater than that of Lower Egypt, one can only infer that the only reason Lower Egypt would have that many Nomes is if it has a respectable population even during the Dynastic period.

Yes, I certainly see Modern Egyptians as Africans, actualy COMPLETELY, just as I seen other Africans including 'white' South Africans. They live in Africa and are even 'partially' descended form indigenous tropically Africans.
But like 'white' South Africans while fully Africans came relatively recently from European, the ancestors of some Modern Egyptains esp in the Delta, were a very large groups of intermediate/cold adapted nonAfricans that migrated to Egypt esp during the last 3000 yrs.

If you would:

• Include the period prior to the foundation of Egypt, including in particular during (i) the neolithic spread 10000 years ago, and (ii) 40000 years ago, such that the diversity you speak of existed during the formative years of the dynastic period, and...
• Acknowledge that Egypt remains overall the same as it was during the early Dynastic times

...then we could agree on this.
The implications would, of course, be that the Ancients were no less African merely for resembling their modern descendants. Which should come as no surprise. I make this comment because I get the impression that many people arguing for a Black Egypt somehow find the idea of a heterogenous Ancient Egypt somehow inherently diminishes the African accomplishment, which I think we can agree is nonsense, regardless of what motivations certain 19th century theories might have had in proposing such a thing. Moreover, that the idea of diversity during the very early periods of Ancient Egypt are not negated merely by association.

And on Demic Diffusion,again PLEASE(am actually pleading now) can you post excepts from the study that have that ABSTRACT which DEMONSTRATED Demic Diffusion? Also, please respond to relevant part of this thread viewtopic.php?f=5&t=148109&start=725#p3673111 which also contains all our exchanges on the topic.

I am very reluctant to post excerpts from a study which I received under member-only rules, I hope you understand that. Regardless, I'll look into posting some parts of it. Overall, it mostly presents the demic diffusion model into Africa as a potential model, less definitively than the diffusion into Europe, but nonetheless the evidence is there.

Meanwhile, I referred to other studies I posted meaning the ones in this post: linka. Those are NOT member-only, so you should be able to pursue them freely.

However, in reference to the cultural impact demic diffusion would have had on Egypt, while it is true that Egyptian culture is an indigenous African accomplishment, and demic diffusions usually leave distinct traces in the culture of the population, I understand that these population movements in 10 KYA would have covered Lower Egypt more strongly than Upper Egypt, and that despite movement of populations, these newcomers can be assimilated into existing culture of the Nile Valley, particularly with the formation of the united kingdom of the two lands. Meanwhile, the 40 KYA migration would NOT in any way, shape or form need to be explained away vis-a-vis the indigenous origin of Egyptian culture, quite simply it's so long ago that it's not relevant. If people can't become African after thirty thousand years... but of course, you acknowledged that immigrants can be considered "African" (as per your comments on pale skinned modern Egyptians and white South Africans). Thus the 40 KYA demic diffusion is a non-issue culturally. The ONLY thing it does is contribute to the diversity that Egypt always possessed.

You should esp respond to some the exchanges you didnt properly respond to esp this: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=148109&start=650#p3654005

Thank you very much Zentei in anticipation that you will finally do this.

See the two studies I included in the post I linked to above.

[Lord Zentei]

Now, as promised, a part of the GUIDO BARBUJANI study. Again, I don't hold that demic diffusion 40 KYA do be definitively shown, nor that it is necessary to postulate the heterogenity of Ancient Egypt prior to the formation of the Dynastic civilization. However, it is a theory worth pursuing:

DISCUSSION
Spatial autocorrelation analysis among speakers of languages whose distribution is here attributed to the NDD process reveals a strong patterning of genetic variation. Genetic variation appears largely consistent with a process of multidirectional demic diffusion: Nearly half of the alleles studied show clinal patterns. This seems remarkable because, as mentioned earlier, gene flow can determine a cline only in the presence of a substantial initial allele frequency difference between populations. Computer simulations suggest that such a difference could be close to 40% (Sokal et al., 1989b), that is, larger than that observed at most loci between current black and white populations (see Roychoudhury and Nei, 1988). Therefore, under the NDD model, clines could not occur in more than a limited fraction of the genome, and even less so in the absence of a population expansion process.

An alternative explanation for the gradients observed, still consistent with demic diffusion, is a series of founder effects occurring in a phase of population expansion not accompanied by admixture, but followed by local gene flow. The genetic consequences of such a process have not been modelled in detail, but empirical studies in natural populations whose history is known show gradients that were doubtless determined in this way (Easteal, 1985, 1988). Computer simulations (unpublished results by Barbujani, Sokal, and Oden) confirm that some allele frequency gradients in Europe are compatible with founder effects during a population expansion. At the present stage, therefore, a role of founder effects cannot be ruled out, but it remains largely to be explored. In the NDD language families, eight significant clines are apparent at the AK, ADA, PGD, and GPT loci, which did not show clinal variation in a study where populations were jointly analysed by spatial autocorrelation methods, regardless of linguistic classification (Barbujani, 1987a). The patterns shown by AL-speaking populations differ little from those observed among IE and ID, thus supporting the view whereby Altaic languages should be included among those that were propagated by demic diffusion (Renfrew, 1991).

Although it is impossible exactly to quantify the departure from a model not including major population movements from the Near East, these results are incompatible with both random variation and pure isolation by distance, that is, the two likely microevolutionary scenarios associated with cultural diffusion of farming from the nuclear zones.

Previous studies showed that genetic variation is larger in the NDD groups than in four other families and in the Near East, as should be expected if the former evolved through incomplete admixture between genetically heterogeneous populations. Also, a direct proportionality was demonstrated between genetic distances and geographic distances from the putative place of origin of farming, the Near East (Barbujani and Pilastro, 1993). These findings, along with the evidence here provided by spatial autocorrelation analysis, correspond to the expectations of a model whereby the current patterns of genetic and linguistic resemblance largely reflect the centrifugal spread of neolithic farmers from the Near East, or the NDD model.

The evidence supporting the NDD model is very strong for the IE, ID, and AL groups, less so for AA speakers. These populations also showed the least marked, although significant, correlation between genetic differences and geographic distances from the Levant (Barbujani and Pilastro, 1993). Methodological reasons, namely, the limited number of data points available and their irregular distribution in space, may have contributed to conceal a significant genetic structure. However, this argument applies to the ST and AU populations as well and, furthermore, cannot be tested. Therefore, based both on this spatial autocorrelation analysis and on the results of a comparison of genetic and geographic distances, there seems to be only scant evidence for demic diffusion in the area where AA languages are currently spoken. According to Ruhlen (personal communications, cited in Renfrew, 19911, AA languages spread from Africa into Asia, and not vice versa. The few clines observed in this and in the previous study, although significant, would then be due to phenomena other than neolithic demic diffusion. One such phenomenon could be the expansion of Arabs, in historical times.

That expansion, however, is unlikely to have caused the clines here described, since few Arabicspeaking populations of North Africa were considered. The vast majority of African samples in the AA group, on the contrary, spoke Berber or Cushitic. A drawback of this was that most AA populations in this study occupy marginal zones in the AA-speaking region. These zones may have been affected only marginally by demic diffusion, and their inhabitant’s genetic pool may include a large fraction of genes coming from previous Paleolithic residents. In addition, somatic characteristics and allele frequencies at the Rh, Gm, and HLA loci among Cushitic speakers suggest substantial Caucasoid admixture (Excoffier et al., 1987). Accordingly, at least three views on the diffusion of AA languages are consistent with the results of this study: (1) AA languages spread through demic diffusion in the neolithic, but the populations speaking these languages underwent major demographic transformations, and the clines resulting from demic diffusion are now apparent only at a limited set of loci; (2) AA languages spread from Africa by a yet-to-define demographic process that led to the establishment of a limited number of gradients; (3) AA languages spread mostly through cultural contacts, either from Africa or from Asia, and the clines identified in the AA-speaking area are due to microevolutionary phenomena that have nothing to do
with linguistic evolution.

Two papers that we were not aware of in the phase of development of this study suggest that views (2) and (3) may be more likely than (1). According to Starostin’s (1990) glottochronological calculations, under the assumption of a constant rate of linguistic divergence, Proto-Afroasiatic should have separated about 15,000 years ago from the other Nostratic proto-languages, that is,
much earlier than posited by the NDD model. Conversely, the estimated times of separation among Proto-Indoeuropean, Proto-Elamo-Dravidian, and Proto-Altaic agree with the dates of demic diffusion estimated by archaeologists (Starostin, 1990). Recent linguistic findings, therefore, show a surprising agreement with the results of our analysis of genetic variation. Other genetic observations are consistent as well. Mitochondria1 DNA data show evidence of two population expansions, in Europeans, and in Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans, respectively, which occurred recently relative to the whole history of Homo sapiens sapiens (Templeton, 1993). The large genetic differences between these groups suggest that the two expansions have been largely independent. Among the linguistic families other than AA, IE, ID, and AL, most patterns of genetic variation appear to be random; UR speakers are a possible exception. The quasi-clinal patterns observed among them, however, may largely reflect East-West differences between populations that share common ancestors (whose existence is documented by linguistic similarities), but who then evolved in virtual independence, being separated at present by five to eight thousand kilometers; indeed, genetic distances between the UR and the NE groups do not correlate with the respective geographic distances (Barbujani and Pilastro, 1993). The few clinal patterns observed in a former study among AU speakers (Barbujani and Pilastro, 1993) are not confirmed by this spatial autocorrelation analysis.

These findings are in contrast with what is observed in other continents. Native American populations are markedly differentiated, but only in North America do they show large-scale genetic structure (Suarez et al., 1985; Schurr et al., 1990; ORourke et al., 1992; Torroni et al., 1992). In addition, with very few exceptions (Barrantes et al., 1990), genetic and linguistic differences appear largely uncorrelated (Chakraborty, 1976; Chakraborty et al., 1976; Salzano et al., 1977; Murillo et al. 19771, or negatively correlated (Spuhler, 1972), which does not suggest coevolution of biological traits and languages. The overall picture emerging is one in which isolating mechanisms have caused founder effects and favoured random genetic drift, with processes of gene flow playing a comparatively minor evolutionary role (see also Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1993). In sub-Saharan Africa, conversely, genetic variation appears spatially random at the few loci studied on a sufficient scale, but genetic and linguistic distances correlate (Excoffier et al., 1987,19911, which points to long-distance displacement of linguistically related groups. Eurasia is clearly the continent where the tightest relationships are evident among different kinds of population markers, genetic and cultural, and between them and geography.

Is the NDD model the only possible explanation for these relationships? Local gene flow is expected to generate only the patterns that we classified as isolation by distance (see Wijsman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1984; Barbujani, 1987a). To determine a significant autocorrelation structure over such a vast area, massive demographic phenomena (or, less likely, adaptive pressures) appear necessary. However, no single recent, archaeologically or historically documented evolutionary process, seems to have had the
potential for establishing clines over entire continents. Some or all Eurasian populations have been affected by other demographic processes, such as long-range migration (Gimbutas, 1979; Anthony, 1986), dispersal not associated with the origin of agriculture (Sokal, 19911, and local extinctions and recolonizations, all of them potentially affecting genetic andor linguistic diversity. However, it would be difficult to explain how processes such as these, independently occurring in distinct areas, could eventually yield such a strong correspondence between patterns of linguistic and biological variation on a continental scale. Unless one evolutionary pressure predominated, and largely determined both genetic and linguistic differentiation, languages and allele frequencies should be only poorly associated. It seems reasonable to conclude that phenomena occurring after the neolithic may well account for the genetic characteristics of specific populations (see e.g., Cavalli-Sforza and Piazza, 1993), or for clines at few individual loci, but the overall population structure of Eurasia has probably been determined in the neolithic, or earlier. The possibility should then be considered that the clines here described originated earlier than 10,000 years ago. Despite some controversies in the interpretation of single pieces of evidence (Excoffier and Langaney, 1989; Maddison, 1991; Templeton, 1992), genetic and fossil data show some agreement in indicating that Homo sapiens sapiens originated in Africa (Wainscoat et al., 1986; Cann et al., 1987; Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Rouhani, 1989; Vigilant et al., 1991; Livingstone, 1992; Templeton, 1993) and was present in the Near East approximately 90,000 years ago (Valladas et al., 1988). This means that two groups of humans dispersed from the Levant at different times, along similar routes. The first group was composed of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers coming north from Africa, who colonized Eurasia between 90 and 20 thousmd years ago (Renfrew, 1992a); the second group was composed by the first neolithic farmers, who started expanding in Eurasia roughly 10 thousand years ago (Renfrew, 1987,1992a). Both dispersal waves could have left a persistent mark in the genetic structure of contemporary populations, in the form of clines. The first wave could have done that through a series of founder effects, the second wave either through the same mechanism or because of admixture with the populations encountered during demic diffusion, or by a mixture of the two. Schematically, there seem to be two classes of evidence in favour of a Paleolithic origin of the gradients we described:

1. Some gradients encompass the area where UR languages are spoken, which also belong to the Nostratic macrofamily (Kaiser and Shevoroshkin, 1988), but are not considered to have undergone neolithic demic diffusion.
2. Evidence of gradients is weakest (if still significant under certain statistical criteria; Barbujani and Pilastro, 1993) among AA. Some implications of this finding have already been discussed. The clines observed nowadays at the MN, Hp, and AK loci in AA-speaking populations may then depend on processes preceding neolithic demic diffusion. On the contrary, three types of considerations support a neolithic origin of the clines here described:

1. If these clines are not due to the farmers’ dispersal, an alternative explanation should be found for the parallelism between patterns of genetic and linguistic variation, demonstrated by many authors in the Old World (Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1988, 1992; Sokal, 1988; see also Barbujani, 1991 and Renfrew, 1992b), including Africa (Excoffier et al., 1987). A Paleolithic origin of resenttime
language families, paralleling the initial dispersal of Homo sapiens sapiens, seems highly unlikely. Actually, critics of the models of coevolution between language and genes support a more recent origin of current language families (see, e.g., Coleman, 1988, for Indoeuropean, and Callaghan, 1990).
2. The populations speaking ST and AU languages do not belong to the clines, in agreement with the NDD model, and in contrast with the likely consequences of the spread of hunter-gatherers in Asia, which cannot have been affected by linguistic barriers established much later.
3. As stated earlier, there is ample archaeological evidence of cultural diffusion processes in the neolithic, which does not prove demic diffusion, but is perfectly consistent with it (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1984; Renfrew, 1987, and references therein). Of course, it is possible that both paleolithic and neolithic processes determined the strong patterning of genetic variation that is evident in contemporary populations of the NDD groups. Neolithic demic diffusion may have both reinforced some genetic effects of previous Paleolithic migrations and may have contributed to concealing others.

As Langaney et al. (1992) pointed out, reconciling human phylogeny with archaeological and linguistic evidence is no easy goal, and one that no single study is likely to achieve. At this stage, it may be worthwhile to reconsider the NDD model, which we had to put forward in a certainly oversimplified way, to allow testing of its predictions. If the AA-speaking populations are considered not to have expanded through demic diffusion in the neolithic, one of the two main biological objections to the NDD model is removed. Genetic data are then fully compatible with demic diffusion in three areas of Eurasia, regardless of the statistical technique employed for the analysis. These areas represent linguistic units, which further corroborates the already abundant evidence for coevolution of biological and cultural traits (Sokal, 1988; Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1988,1992). Whether or not this multidirectional demic diffusion accounts for the general pattern of linguistic relatedness in Eurasia is open to some doubt. Indeed, not all language families comprised in the Nostratic macrofamily may owe their current distribution to neolithic demic diffusion. At present, a strong case can be made for parallel diffusion of farming and language among IE, AL, and ID speakers, by means of a process that involved major demographic changes (and not purely cultural transformations).

The results of this study are therefore consistent with the view that current biological and linguistic characteristics of most Eurasian populations largely depend on a single dispersal phenomenon. Neolithic farmers diffusing from the Near East presumably brought their languages and their genes into new territories, thus establishing continentwide clines that often end at languagefamily boundaries. This pattern is still recognizable despite successive processes of population subdivision, drift, and gene flow that locally altered it. The status of Afroasiatic-speaking populations will need further studies to be defined, but linguistic and genetic evidence agree in suggesting that their evolutionary history might have been different.