Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Big Triece]

^^^ Zentei why don't you just give it up? Every single point that you are attempting to argue has been thoroughly refuted. Everything from your Demic Diffusion model, your deliberate misinterpretations of Keita, Irish, Brace ect, to your bone headed inferences of a prehistoric back migration into Africa. Do you really want me to pull up the links to the each and every time that you cowardly ran from my (or Matters) refutation of these stances since your participation in this thread? But then again as I've stated your views on this subject are driven by nothing more than your own racism, so your antics don't surprise me. None the less I think that I will have a chat with a certain moderator about your deceptive antics.

[cadbrowser]

^^^ Zentei why don't you just give it up? Every single point that you are attempting to argue has been thoroughly refuted. Everything from your Demic Diffusion model, your deliberate misinterpretations of Keita, Irish, Brace ect, to your bone headed inferences of a prehistoric back migration into Africa. Do you really want me to pull up the links to the each and every time that you cowardly ran from my (or Matters) refutation of these stances since your participation in this thread? But then again as I've stated your views on this subject are driven by nothing more than your own racism, so your antics don't surprise me. None the less I think that I will have a chat with a certain moderator about your deceptive antics.

This kind of bullshit is getting on my nerves.

I see nothing of value with this post other than accusations of racism. Either BT doesn't know how to read or he is just as stupid as I mentioned before.

I've been around racist people...some worse than others and I see nothing Zentei posted that constitutes this sort of attack.

BT, you are a moron...I see nothing you've posted has actually refuted anything, you are stroking your own ego because you hold a specific belief that you feel you must push on this forum.

The ONLY thing you want BT is everyone to say Egyptians...er excuse me; kemetians are black black black. It has been shown you are completely wrong.

I think the mods need to close this thread. It's just a merry-go-round of the same thing being said over and over.

[matter]

I have been thinking of what to make of Zentei's latest posts where he essentially took this 32 page debate back to page1!!! Every thing that have been debated and agreed on this debate has been undone by him. Zentei is now arguing that the Modern Egyptian Egyptians are essentially the same as the ancient Egyptians and even that the 'Blacks' who he said were only apart a part of the society are even 'distinct'(read diff) from other Black Africans. All the studies presented and discussed extensively some of whose reference I gave him in my last post he has completely 'forgotten' and the FACT that most of the major source of the population of the Nile Valley was from supertropically/tropically adapted Africans from the Sahara(which he previously agreed) he has also 'forgotten'(except that those other people the Eastern Sahara that went to the Sudan Nile,East, south, and to the Lake Chad- may be they are also diff from other 'Black Africans' ).
I have decided to respond to that his post but have to wait for some reports I made cos I will only do so if a new set of 'Rule of Engagement' is set in this debate that will forbid any person to refuse to respond to every question, suggestion,assertion, source of an opponent. I am not wiling to continue to debate in circles any more.


Zentei plz to start with could you respond to this post http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3672747 that Spoonist is also preparing to respond to cos it will be very important when we start to debate your last post. Its a small post and its questions, assertions,suggestions and sources are direct so I will want direct answers plz.You should also use PICS to answer the questions esp the ones on examples of dark/non-dark skinned tropically/supertropically indigenous African populations. Also,plz dont make statements that you agree with me(I actually no longer believe that) but show as concisely as you can why as you do the point-to-point response. Thanks.



@ Zentei
So this the 'hidden' study that you said DEMONSTRATED Demic Diffusion? Or am I missing something? This is the very study you have been relying on?
This particular study used linguistic line of evidence and any accompanying genetic structure and so placed some caution about the interpretation of the study ie that this is just one way of looking at time. Yet for Afroasiatic or Afrasan(called AA here) their analysis gave this:

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.

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

Once again Zentei did you really read through the study b4 posting and was is this the study you were relying on to DEMONSTRATE Demic Diffusion!!! You didnt know that Afroasiatic poriginated in Africa(I rthought you have agreed on this b4-well you have previously agreed on very many things that when it is to your convenience you use sources that say otherwise to argue as you did in your last 2 disastrous sources, one of them clearly racist)

I have, following other scholars, advice pou on what you needed to do if you actually want to attempt to DEMONSTRATE Demic Diffusion

Examples of demic diffusions include the Bantu migration, Indo-European migration, Neolothic migration to Cyprus, Saharo-Sudanese Early Holocene movements etc. For each of these movements one can easily demonstrate them using sometimes linguist, genetic and biological elements but especially archaeological evidence. Do the same in the case of the supposed demic diffusion to Egypt from the desert; present sources that demonstrate such demic diffusions

A god job well done Zentei *clapping*

Now to rest the issue finally could you respond to this post http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3654005
I mean respond to every question, source, suggestion, assertions for the records. Plz dont explain the post(I think that was want you were trying to do in at the tail end of your last post), respond to every bits of it just like I do to your post

[Lord Zentei]

I have been thinking of what to make of Zentei's latest posts where he essentially took this 32 page debate back to page1!!! Every thing that have been debated and agreed on this debate has been undone by him. Zentei is now arguing that the Modern Egyptian Egyptians are essentially the same as the ancient Egyptians and even that the 'Blacks' who he said were only apart a part of the society are even 'distinct'(read diff) from other Black Africans. All the studies presented and discussed extensively some of whose reference I gave him in my last post he has completely 'forgotten' and the FACT that most of the major source of the population of the Nile Valley was from supertropically/tropically adapted Africans from the Sahara(which he previously agreed) he has also 'forgotten'(except that those other people the Eastern Sahara that went to the Sudan Nile,East, south, and to the Lake Chad- may be they are also diff from other 'Black Africans' ).

LMAO, well at least I gave cordiality a shot. I honestly have no idea what you're ranting about in this post. What am I "forgetting", precisely, and how did you come to this conclusion based on the posts I have made above? Even Big Triece has claimed that my recent posts were consistent with my previous views - he criticized those posts for that very reason, so pray tell what do you find different with them?

I have decided to respond to that his post but have to wait for some reports I made cos I will only do so if a new set of 'Rule of Engagement' is set in this debate that will forbid any person to refuse to respond to every question, suggestion,assertion, source of an opponent. I am not wiling to continue to debate in circles any more.

If you're not willing to debate, then please note that you're perfectly welcome to get out of the forum. Though I find it ironic that you're making this demand at the same time as you're very pointedly not answering most of my points. Never mind the previous tirade where you asserted that I was wasting your time or something, when you refused to sign up for a journal to view a study which you couldn't otherwise see. Besides which I did respond to your posts, so I'm not sure what this allegation is all about.

Zentei plz to start with could you respond to this post http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 5#p3672747 that Spoonist is also preparing to respond to cos it will be very important when we start to debate your last post. Its a small post and its questions, assertions,suggestions and sources are direct so I will want direct answers plz.You should also use PICS to answer the questions esp the ones on examples of dark/non-dark skinned tropically/supertropically indigenous African populations. Also,plz dont make statements that you agree with me(I actually no longer believe that) but show as concisely as you can why as you do the point-to-point response. Thanks.

First answer me this: if you're not willing to answer my points and tossing out reports to get the rules modified to your taste, then why should I honor your request? I have provided a lengthy response at your demand to the posts you wanted me to address earlier, and now you want me to address additional posts while simultaneously not providing a proper response to mine?

So this the 'hidden' study that you said DEMONSTRATED Demic Diffusion? Or am I missing something? This is the very study you have been relying on?
This particular study used linguistic line of evidence and any accompanying genetic structure and so placed some caution about the interpretation of the study ie that this is just one way of looking at time. Yet for Afroasiatic or Afrasan(called AA here) their analysis gave this:<SNIP>

Once again Zentei did you really read through the study b4 posting and was is this the study you were relying on to DEMONSTRATE Demic Diffusion!!!

Yes, I read through it... and I find your cherry picking of the text to be interesting to say the least. Neither was this the only study I presented as you know full well. Why do you refuse to respond to the other studies I provided?

Never mind that the demic diffusion model is not and never has been crucial to my stance. The main point is that the diversity of Egypt has always been there, from the predynastic to the present, and I provided sources which demonstrate this fact, including an interview with none other than Prof. SOY Keita.

You didnt know that Afroasiatic poriginated in Africa(I rthought you have agreed on this b4-well you have previously agreed on very many things that when it is to your convenience you use sources that say otherwise to argue as you did in your last 2 disastrous sources, one of them clearly racist)

And again with this appeal-to-motive nonsense. Give it a rest, already. The origin of Afroasiatic is probably in Africa, though there's evidence to suggest otherwise. You don't seem to get that my main contention is the diversity of North Africa and Egypt, though demic diffusion is but one possible model to explain such. The very fact that such a model can be seen as plausible given the extant data does imply heterogenity in the region.

I have, following other scholars, advice pou on what you needed to do if you actually want to attempt to DEMONSTRATE Demic Diffusion

So... you expect me to provide a demonstration that meets standards that you deem to be necessary, in spite of the evaluation of peer reviewed scientific journals?

A god job well done Zentei *clapping*

Now to rest the issue finally could you respond to this post http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3654005
I mean respond to every question, source, suggestion, assertions for the records. Plz dont explain the post(I think that was want you were trying to do in at the tail end of your last post), respond to every bits of it just like I do to your post

You have NOT responded to every bit of my posts by any stretch of the imagination, and while I have not done a point-by-point rebuttal of all your stuff on this board, I nonetheless have now covered all your salient arguments.

[Lord Zentei]

Just as an addendum, since matter again mentioned limb proportions as though that were the "nail-in-the-coffin" argument in favor of a Black Egypt, here's a study by Sonia R. Zakrzewski on the matter. No doubt the Afrocentrists have seen it before, and no doubt they'll try to dodge the implications, which are that the vaunted "tropical adaption" is no less about diet than genetics. But on with the show:

Linka.

Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions
Sonia R. Zakrzewski*

ABSTRACT
Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population. The size differences were greater in males than in females. This disparity is suggested to be due to greater male response to poor nutrition in the earlier populations, and with the increasing development of social hierarchy, males were being provisioned preferentially over females. Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 121:219–229, 2003.

<SNIP>

Social context of samples
Although the sites were not chosen for their historical context (as samples were chosen for reliability of dating and provenance, completeness, and accessibility), there are certain important factors to consider. This study concentrated on the period of state formation and intensification of agriculture, and the Abydos region was at the heart of the state-formation process (Wilkinson, 1999). The town is located in the region of richest resources, and so may have had a greater capacity to produce and control surplus foods and other resources. It also lies at the crossroads of trade with the western oases and the upper Nile Valley (Bard, 1994). This position suggests that, together with its links with the early pharaohs, the cemeteries may not be truly representative of the periods from which they originate. The individuals buried may be higher socially ranked than people from other areas, and thus may have better access to food. Like Abydos, Gizeh was also in an area with greater control of trade, through its location as the linking point between the Nile Valley and the Delta. The OK material from Gizeh, therefore, may be different from that originating from Meidum, as Gizeh may have had greater social differentiation, although no statistically significant differences were found between these samples (which may reflect their royal nature). The earliest evidence of Nubians living in Egypt comes during the OK. Throughout the MK, the pharaonic frontier lay on the Second Cataract (in present-day Sudan); during this period, movements northwards from Nubia are especially likely. Together with the known presence of Nubian mercenaries in Gebelein (Fischer, 1961), the MK sample may represent a Nubian rather than Egyptian population.

CONCLUSIONS
This study found an increase in stature within Egyptians from the Predynastic until the start of the Dynastic period, followed by a later decline in height. The increase in stature with intensification of agriculture was predicted as a result of greater reliability of food production and the formation of social ranking. The later decrease in stature coincides with even greater social complexity, and is expected as it implies that the formation of social classes is allied to differential access to nutrition and healthcare, with the higher ranked individuals being preferentially treated and fed. This change in stature was much greater in males than in females. Long bone lengths also increased from the Badarian to the Early Dynastic periods more for males than for females, and again decreased to a greater extent through the OK and MK periods among males than females. This greater response to changes in socioeconomic status by males was previously described in modern children (Malina et al., 1985; Stinson, 1985). The present study thus supports the greater response to environmental stresses, including positive stresses, in males than in females. The present study suggests that changes in stature and body size occurred in Egypt with the development of social ranking, through a reflection of differential access to food and other resources. These results must remain provisional due to the relatively small sample sizes and the lack of skeletal material that cross-cuts all social and economic groups within each time period. Further research on recently excavated skeletal material is therefore needed to further address the issues raised.

[matter]

Zentei there is a diff bw height and limb proportions One is stature(the one that the study was talking about in relation) while limb proportion is on proximal/distal limb ratio which is determined if the population have long term residents of a tropical environment or not. This was explained in the study but you did not read the study of course or dont have a clue what you are talking about

[matter]

By the way Swedes some of the tallest in the world but are also some of the coldest-adaptd while the pymies one of the shortest re some of the most tropically adaptd. Zentei i will hit this yr post hard and explain why you have been studies that you have not read enough to understand once i get my computer back. Am sori for the way the post is and why it cuts into 2 cos am typing 4rm a phone-am sori just could not pass this

[Lord Zentei]

Sure you couldn't. Just as you refrained from commenting on the other studies you have pointedly ignored.

Incidentally:

Linka.

Abstract

Trotter and Gleser's (Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 10 (1952) 469–514; Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 (1958) 79–123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 (1986) 313–324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 (2006) 374–384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9–4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2008. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

[Lord Zentei]

Btw, matter: if you don't get what I'm driving at, the point is not to challenge limb proportion analysis perse but more to point out that tropical adaption does not imply a black population.

Modern Egyptians are still tropically adapted. Thus, claims that the Ancient population was somehow different from the modern population on account of its proportions is a non-sequitur. If the modern population can be tropically adapted without being overtly "black", then so could the ancient population.

[Spoonist]

Sorry about the extra day, had visiting family over yesterday so no time to finish. Hence why I'm posting this in the middle of the night today instead... Also since its the middle of my night, I've not read through what has been posted since my last visit, so apologies if I've missed something already covered.

Woo! Spoonist Americas, Euroland, Asia, Australia peoples are horners? My God *laughing*. what did you really want to get at with that statement? If I didn't know you I could have said you were resurrecting the Biological Concept of 'Race' or even discarded and racist concepts like Hamitic theorem, and that might be what some might think. plz clarify cos some people who do not have as much knowledge as you in genetics, especially in African genetics, might be mislead by your statement.

Agreed, that wasn’t as clear as it could be. It leaves a lot of room for interpretations. I was relying too much on the context.
To be clear: what I referred to was the “out-of-Africa” theory of human migrations. It is the one which is most widely accepted by the field. In that theory it is east Africans mainly from the horn that populate the Nile valley and the red sea region, and then from that population some spread from that out over the globe. This is why Keita talks about a greater diversity within Africa than without. This since the out-of-Africa populations comes generally from a more limited genepool ie in the main horners.
So since the Americas, euroland, asia and Australian populations all comes from the same more limited genepool, then the potential for all of that we see around the globe comes from that genepool, which correspond to east Africa and the African horn in special. (With the exception for Svante Pääbo's research).
Was that more clear?
So any claim that the population from that same genepool over the wide geographical regions in the sahara, the atlas, the magreb, the tibesti, the bab-el-mandeb and the nile delta etc, would not be diverse - simply contradicts Keita and the other sources used in this topic.

But really the funny part of the above statement is your apparently linking 'genes' with skin tone cos that was what Big T was talking about.

Why wouldn’t I link genes, ie DNA, to skintone? Most of our potential skintone range lies in our genes. Exemplified by albinism, freckles, etc.
See this forensic study as specific evidence of genes vs skintone:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 43C.d04t01
Why would that obvious link be funny to you?

'Afroasiatic genes'(what the hell does this mean anyway?)

My bad, I shouldn’t have used that. It comes from the discussion on the “Afroasiatic Urheimat” where some haplogroups are used to make an argument for where the different branches of Afroasiatic languages originate. I think that it might have originated from Frank Yurco if he is familiar to you? I assumed that people discussing this would be familiar with Ehret’s and Keita’s work from 2004, or Cruciani et al from 2010 where this concept is discussed and used. But I used it out of context, so I agree that it didn’t necessarily make sense if you have not read those studies thoroughly enough.

I know you know that 'Afroasiatic genes'(what the hell does this mean anyway?) is not the reason why EVERY INDIGENOUS African Afroasiatic population is dark skinned('Black' in a social sense) but it is because they have been long term residents of the hot northeast/East African environment and so have adapted to the tropical environment(developing tropical/supertropical elongated limb proportions and the accompanying skin colour intensification) and have transferred this trait to their descendants.

Easy enough mistakes to make. You are conflating two things that overlap but do not necessarily correlate and you are missing the timescales involved. It has been repeated a couple of times in this topic though, so you might recognize it with this summary:
1) Skin tone is an adaptation vs UV radiation.
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/chem/fa ... r_2000.pdf
If you can’t be bothered to read through Jablonski’s excellent paper above then see either the Ted talk from upthread.
http://www.ted.com/talks/nina_jablonski ... color.html
or read a blog summary from here.
http://www.science20.com/the_evilutiona ... _the_world
from that blog comes this great pic, it is really telling:


2) Limb proportion is an adaptation vs climate, ie temperature and humidity. This is Allen's rule with the complimentary Bergman’s rule.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9712477
http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-intern ... ation.html
For the original see this really funny find of the original from the turn of the former century: http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/archiv ... of_Species
Now skin tone and limb proportions usually overlap but do not necessarily correlate. For example, the majority of Australia is below the Tropic of Capricorn but the aborigines of Australia are really dark skinned, regardless of the region of Australia that they come from. That is because the UV average is very high in Australia.
Modern UV map, note that it is not necessarily the same as 10kBP.
http://www.soda-is.com/maps/world_uv_ab.png
Compare that to a modern climate map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Koppen_World_Map.png
Please note that if you have lots of coverage vs the UV radiation like heavy foliage or staying mostly indoors, this will also affect this adaptation over time.

Which leads me to the issue of time scales, this means that population’s that migrate will over time adapt to their new environment. For example the Khoisan is theorized as having migrated very early into the southern tip of the African continent and thus adapted by becoming lighter and shorter than their closest African haplogroup relatives. What this means for the Saharan wet period is that we know that modern humans lived as early as 60k years ago in north Africa, probably earlier.
http://archaeology.about.com/od/aterms/qt/aterian.htm
we can also follow the industries slowly replacing each other, so aterian>Iberomaurusian>Capsian. So its not like they disappear for a while like they do in the sahara and levant when the climate changes. For me that is reason enough to assume that north Africans would adapt to the change in UV radiation even without any population input from other regions. See the Keita lecture for a 10k ballpark of such adaptation. Then from the lovely Wilma, who really should spend less time digging in the sand and more time writing, we know that the wet sahara was populated from all directions and not just one and that hunter gatherer people moved around a lot, hence the non-permanent-settlements thingie.
Take a wild guess what I’m hinting for? Yupp, diversity – complexity – uncertainty, etc.
With that sort of timescales and vast geography one can’t be as assertive as some people driven by emotional arguments want. We have to put in the caveats and distrust the truisms, just like Keita does in his studies and in the lecture that this is all about according to the OP.

I dont understand why people dont get it? See, Africa is like divided geographically into 2 trends climatically: a tropical forested and savanna centre and deserts on its 2 sides(Saharan and Namib Deserts). Then at both tips after these deserts are two sub-tropical environments('coastal' North Africa including most of Egyptian Nile and 'coastal' south African tips where they even have winters).

Why people like me don’t ‘get’ things like the sentences above is because that misses the time scale. Nope, at that time those divisions you talk about wasn’t really there. We are talking about the Neolithic subpluvial, leading into the modern era.
Check out this map.
http://www.palgrave.com/history/shillin ... Map2.1.jpg
Then check out figure 11.2 on p228 in this book (11.1 is very interesting as well but not in this context)
http://books.google.se/books?hl=sv&id=T ... 22&f=false
Those are the timescales and the changes in climate that we are talking about.
For a really interesting breaking thing from national geographic check this out in context:
http://www.projectexploration.org/green ... xpedition/

Recall, we know that by ecologically principle, a tropically adapted human population would be dark skin

I don’t think that “ecological principles” means what you think it means. See my argument above, or even better do read Jablonski above, or at least watch the Ted thingie.

NOTE: Am talking about Most, not all(and I dont know the actual proportions of course as those small no of people from the Near East that enter at various times into Egypt early on as I have maintained throughout this thread may have added additional variability to Egypt-but certainly the vast majority esp in Upper Egypt wold have been 'Black').

I think that we agree in principle here but I would prefer a better term that would include people from the Maghreb, both skin tone wise but also culturally. The coastal cultures of North Africa from side to side are seafaring cultures, they have always comingled. So when we are talking about the delta and not upper Egypt, then I’d like terms that would include all of north Africa. But, mind you, when we are talking about the migrations into upper Egypt ,which usually is where the confusion about my agreements come from, then I’d agree that the protodynastic was in the main dark skinned, closely resembling their neighbors to the south.
Why I do that differentiation is because during the Neolithic subpluvial, the populations from both sides would be closer to the middle of the sahara. So those to the north would be further south and those to the south would be further north. So if we were looking for the population that settled into upper Egypt, then as a result of the sahara going dry again those who didn’t go east would go south, so the relatives of those who went east into the upper nile valley would be found to the south and south-west of them. With a caveat for those already in the valley.

Keita himself in the video you uploaded said there most of Egyptian Nile was sparsely populated and that the main population source was from the Sahara)?

Couldn’t find that. Could you point me out to the timeslot?
This since I think there is a misconception about the delta being sparsely populated by this time. If you check out the Wilma reference above you will note passages like this one:
p168 "For example these geological processess may be responsible for the void in teh record for the Nile valley north of the Qena bend. There are no sites in this region between upper palaeolithic and predynastic times, although it is hard to imagine that this potentially rich area would have been ignored by holocene foragers".
You see, the sediment layers from the nile have covered or destroyed all possible sites below the Qena bend. But just because there is no sites doesn’t mean that there was no people there.
Again that pesky uncertainty of real science.

ALL INDIGENOUS AFRICAN POPULATIONS WHO ARE TROPICALLY/SUPERTROPICALLY ADAPTED ARE DARK SKIN, I REPEAT ALL OF THEM. THE ONUS IS THEREFORE, ON THOSE THAN SAY OTHERWISE TO -

No, just no. Scientists never say all of them. So no, your sources doesn't say that ALL, REPEAT ALL tropically adapted are dark skinned. Darker than non-tropically, yes, but not just 'dark' this because variation within populations exist. You are simply taking it too far.

Okay could you give examples of tropically/supertropically adapted African populations that are not dark-skinned or that you do not consider to be dark-skinned? (PLZ directly ANSWER this question).

1) First I’d like to point out that your question is completely unrelated to what I said in the quote you respond to. I pointed out that you were taking it too far because a) scientists do not use such expressions and b) variation WITHIN populations exist.
You try to turn that around into a question of me having to show whole populations. No, just no. My nitpick, as usual, was about your lack of caveats and your use of a too simplified model when humanity especially in Africa is complex, and I specifically mentioned within populations, meaning families or individuals.
2) You made the claim that “ALL, REPEAT ALL”, thus since it is you who made the claim then it follows that it is you who should provide the evidence of that claim. I’m merely questioning your claim and saying that, no that is not how real scientists express themselves. So YOU need to site your sources where they say that “ALL INDIGENOUS AFRICAN POPULATIONS WHO ARE TROPICALLY/SUPERTROPICALLY ADAPTED ARE DARK SKIN”, and to copy your phrasing PLZ directly ANSWER this request. Which sources is “your sources”.
3) See my answers above, skin tone does not necessarily correlate with limb proportions like people used to think. So for me to find people which have elongated limbs due to climate, but lighter skin due to less UV then I’d search those two maps and see where those match. Now one problem for me to do that is that the region that is implicated will be northwestern Africa and that is contested due to its interaction with Europe. That would mean actually travel there and do original research – not something that would be within the boundaries of an internet discussion on a site devoted to two space empires battling it out. So instead I’ll simply point to the studies above regarding Allen’s rule and the exception they talk about like the inuit or australian aborigines to disprove the correlation. Thus deducing that the reverse example must exist as well and due to the heightened diversity of Africa, the most likely place to find that would be in the continent.

What my sources and scientists say is that by ecological principle a tropically adapted population would be dark-skinned cos if a population has elongated limb proportions then it suggests that the population(or its ancestors) has been long term residents of a tropical environment and so would also have skin colour intensification(dark-skinned) for protection(i mean this is Science 101). the question is do we have any example that defiled this(something like an 'exception that proves the rule' perhaps)? if so which?

Actually such statements would be old science 101, replaced by the findings which I linked to above which would then be science 101 rev2010, hopefully to be replaced by even better revisions/models in the future.
Regarding your question “do we have any example that defiled this…? if so which?” first I think that defiled doesn’t mean what you think it means, were you thinking of “refute”? Then yes we do, we have plenty of those. See the study and blog I linked to earlier. With dark skinned inuits being the most common example. They get their D vitamin from their diet instead and thus does not select for a lighter skin.

Then WHY are we still arguing for God's sake? Wont you honestly call those Khoisans and Igbos (as well others close to their tone) 'Black' Africans?

Why we are arguing is because of what that would exclude. See my response to Duchy for the details on this, I think that the one drop rule is a vile thing that should be always be rejected. Then in specific I don’t like the way that cluelesswonder try to exclude coastal north Africans from the Egyptian/nilo Saharan heritage.

Now the question-is my sister and these other Nigerians(and their likes across Africa 'Black'?). I mean what would people regard them as?

In a social context I’d love for them to be called whatever label themselves see fit to use, instead of being handed a label from outside, especially if those labels are derivatives of the racist fuckhead variety. I’ve friends that want to be called our equivalent of black, so then I refer to their heritage as that. I’ve other friends who detest the local equivalent of black, so then I refer to their heritage as whatever they want. Hard to be consistent at all times but I try for their sake.
But if its in a academic discussion then I’d like it for be like Keita says “Detailed description of study populations and their specific histories is advocated. The study of well-defined local populations of demographic groups of the same name should be carried out in order to understand possible gene-environment effects. Likewise, data from nationwide studies on particular demographic groups should always be disaggregated by locale. Local names should replace macrodesignations in studies in order to reflect specific populations.”.

If they are(assuming that was your answer) and you agreed that most Ancient Egyptians are indigenous tropically/supertropically adapted Northeast Africans and would have been WITHIN the range above, and you also do not believe in the biological concept of race then how can they not also be regarded as 'Black' Africans in a social sense.

See my response to Duchess. If you have any questions on the view I express there, please feel free to ask.

Most science uses these caveats and restraints-DOUBT is a constant in the way a scientist thinks. But the presence of mere Doubt(i.e the 'any thing is possible' POSSIBILITY) does not prevent a scientist to choose the most likely occurrence(remember the restraint 'all things been equal' in many laws), it only raises a POSSIBILITY of other paths. Now, if the lines of evidences mostly favours a narrative then until there is significant counter-evidence(not just 'anything is possible' doubt) a scientist may not change the prevailing most likely path.

Agreed. But remember the context, if someone claims that ALL SCIENTISTS agrees to something, then all one have to do is find the minority opinion to prove such a claim false. Like I’ve done repeatedly with cluelesswonder.

Dr. Keita says that it is not impossible for Africans in coastal North Africa to develop light skin. Agreed. but he never said that there was any evidence yet that this was the case esp in Egypt or even if the lines of evidence favours it- in fact Keita favours the opposite ie that the ancient Egyptians were likely dark-skinned cos they were tropically adapted.

Not really. You need to put in the time slot and locale as well. When Keita talks about Naqada and Badarian you are quite right. Showing affinities to the south etc. But when Keita talks about “Egypt” he mentions both light and dark several times.

Also, let me reiterate again that I do not believe in a pure population- i think as I have maintained through out this trend that some of the variability in ancient Egyptians came from outside Africa though remained a minority esp at Egypt's early years- how significant this minority I cant tell for now.

Here we agree. Egypt is indigenous African, from beginning to end. There never was a complete displacement.

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?

The type of eyes that can read haplocharts like this one:

[cadbrowser]

Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups.

This struck me as very interresting. One thing that I want to clarify; in this context, is Jablonski referring to modern human groups as in "Homo sapiens", or modern as within the last few hundred years?

Also, would this imply (depending on the selective pressures in any given region) the plausibility/possibility that even within the time frame that the OP is suggesting, that variation in skin color could vary?

[Spoonist]

Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups.

This struck me as very interresting. One thing that I want to clarify; in this context, is Jablonski referring to modern human groups as in "Homo sapiens", or modern as within the last few hundred years?

Also, would this imply (depending on the selective pressures in any given region) the plausibility/possibility that even within the time frame that the OP is suggesting, that variation in skin color could vary?

Check out the ted talk for more on that.

But modern humans would be refering to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans

Yes, skin color varies over time with the climate the populations are in, IF they are under pressure, see the inuit thing above. This is postulated to be as quick as a few thousand years, or 10k years as in Keita's reference, then there are those that postulate longe cycles or that they only change under real pressure of a changing climate - ie people need to die early for selective traits to be passed on. The field is a little bit open right now but a lot of stuff is coming in on this lately.

[cadbrowser]

Ah, thank you for clarifying that for me.

My question then is, why still use cranial/limb measurements when they aren't accurate indicators of race? Shouldn't genetics supercede any other studies due to accuracy alone? It is a well known fact that of the correlation of UVB and melanin. And there is an equally factual explaination for models that don't fit that correlation (e.g., the Inuit you mentioned...facinating by the way!).

You know what would be a neat visual? If someone had the knowledge to take that Human Skin Color Distribution map and animate it from the Recent Out of Africa theory based on the genetic information as well as overlay the Neanderthal and Denisovan migrations up to today. Not sure if there is enough data confirmed to do this tho.

[Big Triece]

This since the out-of-Africa populations comes generally from a more limited genepool ie in the main horners. So since the Americas, euroland, asia and Australian populations all comes from the same more limited genepool, then the potential for all of that we see around the globe comes from that genepool, which correspond to east Africa and the African horn in special. (With the exception for Svante Pääbo's research). Was that more clear?

I'm not understanding what you are getting at with statement. Everyone is generally aware that the certain East African populations who represent a subset of indigenous African diversity are responsible for populating the world around 50k years ago. What you were insinuating however is that because the rest of the world would descended from that particular African population has a variation in their phenotypes (due to adaption) that the East Africans in question who remained in the same tropical climate that they have been in since their existence can somehow contain every variation seen across world populations. Due to their role in OOA East Africans tend to have a crania-metric pattern that has some overlap with other populations of the World and a genetic affinity which has been described as intermediate between that of other Africans and the rest of the world. Though according Tishkoff 2009 while certain East Africans are the populations which is closest to non-Africans, they are still closer to other Africans than anyone else:

So any claim that the population from that same genepool over the wide geographical regions in the sahara, the atlas, the magreb, the tibesti, the bab-el-mandeb and the nile delta etc, would not be diverse - simply contradicts Keita and the other sources used in this topic.

Again Spoonist your definition of "Diverse" is in a "racial" (social) sense of the word. By that you are implying that the populations of East Africans somehow contain the all the phenotypes of other world populations, and of course you know that this is not true and quite frankly makes no sense! If so then which specific East African populations contain all of these phenotypes? You know that this makes absolutely no sense and is nothing more than your own ambiguous and baseless attempt to put a significant presence of non black Africans into early Nile Valley.

Why wouldn’t I link genes, ie DNA, to skintone?

Because that is precisely what you were attempting to do in your earlier statement. You attempted to argue that somehow this tropically adapted Northeast African population that has been in it's place for hundreds of thousands of years, could somehow contain the phenotype of non Africans who have adapted to other to the environments of other world region simply because they descend from these East Africans.

Most of our potential skintone range lies in our genes. Exemplified by albinism, freckles, etc.

Why is this relevant to what we already know about the populations who populated the early Nile? We know that they were tropically adapted which means:

"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." (-- C.L. Brace, 1993. Clines and clusters..")

They had dark skin. We know that tropical-Sub Saharan African populations who all have "dark skin" (all socially considered "black) have the most skin tone variation. I believe earlier that matter gave a description of many of the skin tone variations seen across this sub region of Africa, which are taken into account. We maintain that based on the fact that the ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted (ecological principal) that they had a mixture of the many skin tone variations (all socially considered black) seen across the sub region, which could be from the "high yellow" Igbo to the pitch black Dinka skin tone. We do know however know that the pitch black Dinka and other Nilotic populations were one of the base populations of the early Nile Valley when they migrated from the Sahara, so what would that infer about the early ancient Egyptian phenotype?

But I used it out of context, so I agree that it didn’t necessarily make sense if you have not read those studies thoroughly enough.

That's fine.

1) Skin tone is an adaptation vs UV radiation.

No one disputes this fact Spoonist, but one thing that you must take into consideration before you..let's say reference a map of UV intensity, are the countless migrations that occurred throughout African history.

from that blog comes this great pic, it is really telling:

Again Spoonist how telling can it be, when it's only referencing the skin tone of the modern locations of populations? 5,000 years ago we know that the darkest people on Earth as shown on your map (Nilotes from the ancient Sahara) migrated into the Nile Valley (both upper and Lower). We know that throughout the last 3,000 years there has a been continuous gene flow of lighter skinned people into the Nile Valley from the North and East. My point is that we know migrations have occurred, and who exactly those migrants were and enough information as to what they looked like. That being said this map is largely irrelevant.

2) Limb proportion is an adaptation vs climate, ie temperature and humidity. This is Allen's rule with the complimentary

Spoonist we are well aware of these facts, and many of which have been contained in the very studies that we have cited. Don't you remember when I cite this statement from Keita a couple of pages back:

"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.....

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

That being said no one is asking for a biology lesson.

Now skin tone and limb proportions usually overlap but do not necessarily correlate. For example, the majority of Australia is below the Tropic of Capricorn but the aborigines of Australia are really dark skinned, regardless of the region of Australia that they come from. That is because the UV average is very high in Australia.

The fact is Spoonist, no matter how you try to manipulate and twist it, tropically adapted limb proportions equates to dark skin (within a great range). That is ecological principal which has been cited in Brace's statement above, and clearly stated by Keita in relation to the skin of the ancient Egyptians in his Cambridge lecture. Both segments deal with limb proportion ratios. Now the first segment is interest because he states that based on there phenotype due to their long term residence in the tropics, certain southeast Asian/Australian populations would be classified as recent black African migrants. Now what



That being said:



and

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

coupled with:



What would this imply about the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians? They are tropically adapted like other "black" populations across the World and had dark skin. They have craniometric values the same as various tropical Northeast African populations (including Nilotic people). What do these facts logically imply about the phenotype of the early ancient Egyptians? If you can't put it words, then please provide pictures of specific ethnic groups whom you think the biological evidence clearly implies the ancient Egyptians generally looked like. Please!

For me that is reason enough to assume that north Africans would adapt to the change in UV radiation even without any population input from other regions.

The North Africans are the people of the ancient Sahara and people who were long term residence of the tropics, and are the most tropically adapted people on Earth...Nilotic Africans. If the ancient Sahara as you are postulating was a colder climate than the regions further south, then you would expect to see a reduction in limb proportion ratios as well as skin tone. This clearly was not the case. That being said if your theory was true, then why aren't the ancient Egyptian limb proportions intermediate, between say the Khoisan (Sub tropically adapted) and other tropically adapted populations? Why would they have grouped firmly within the cluster containing the darkest people on Earth, and somehow not have dark skin like those populations? It's makes absolutely no sense Spoonist.

See the Keita lecture for a 10k ballpark of such adaptation.

Actually Keita stated over 15,000 years, which is what Holliday also stated:

Migration within a larger time framework took place ca. 15,000–18,000 BP, when the first Asian populations crossed the Bering Strait, ultimately founding the modern Amerindian population. Despite having as much as 18,000 years of selection in environments as diverse as those found in the Old World, body mass and proportion clines in the Americas are less steep than those in the Old World (Newman, 1953; Roberts, 1978). In fact, as Hulse (1960) pointed out, Amerindians, even in the tropics, tend to possess some ‘‘arctic’’ adaptations. Thus he concluded that it must take more than 15,000 years for modern humans to fully adapt to a new environment (see also Trinkaus, 1992). This suggests that body proportions tend not to be very plastic under natural conditions, and that selective rates on body shape are such that evolution in these features is long-term."

- Holliday T. (1997). Body proportionsvin Late Pleistocene Europe and modern v human origins. Jrnl Hum Evo. 32:423-447

Then from the lovely Wilma, who really should spend less time digging in the sand and more time writing, we know that the wet sahara was populated from all directions and not just one and that hunter gatherer people moved around a lot, hence the non-permanent-settlements thingie.

Spoonist the southern and central Sahara was inhabited almost exclusively by different Nilotic communities. This has been demonstrated in the recent study that I presented in my last post which you have yet to respond to:

Ancient watercourses and biogeography
of the Sahara explain the peopling of the desert

Drakea et. al.

PNAS 2011

The Peopling of the Sahara During the Holocene

We hypothesize that the differences in animal resources between the northern and southern Sahara during the early Holocene influenced the way it was peopled by humans. The north–south contrast in Saharan species ranges are remarkably similar to some key lithic, bone tool, and linguistic spatial distributions, suggesting that the peopling of the region during the early Holocene humid phase was driven by cultural adaptations that allowed exploitation of specific fauna. The early Holocene archaeology of the Sahara is characterized by a regional distribution of specific archaeological cultures, such as those defined by barbed bone points, fishhooks, Ounanian arrow-points, and, more controversially, pottery. The Sahara today is largely populated by speakers of Afroasiatic languages, Berber and Arabic, with some Nilo Saharan languages (Teda-Daza and Zaghawa) in the region of Northern Chad, and Songhay cluster languages scattered across Mali and Niger. However, it is clear that this situation is recent; Berberspeaking Tuareg moved into the Central Sahara ∼1500 y ago and the spread of the Hassaniya Moors into Mauritania probably dates from the 15th Century. Before this time, the central and southern Sahara are thought to have been populated by Nilo-Saharan speakers. The Nilo-Saharan language phylum is both widespread and strongly internally divided, suggesting considerable antiquity. Its greatest diversity is in the east, where a large number of small branches are found suggesting the original locus of expansion. Although fragmented into enclave populations today, the presence and pattern of relic populations in the northern desert points strongly to a much wider distribution in the past, covering the region from the Ethio-Sudan borderland to Mauritania and southwest Morocco.

These are the regions relevant to the peopling of ancient Egypt. I have also stated that there were indeed pockets of coastal Northwest Africa that have been inhabited by Europeans and more southerly African populations around this period also. You continue to reference Keita's mention of the Maghreb as a population source for ancient for the Nile Valley, while omitting the fact Keita specificed that his use of the word "Maghreb" referred the any region North African region West of Egypt, See here:

the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Holocene Maghreb, which denotes northern Africa west of Egypt. The Haratin are thought to be in part the major descendants of the original Saharans.

link

With that being said, it is a very vague term and based on the available evidence you have absolutely no scientific basis to be looking at extreme Northwestern African groups (including those Europeans on the northern Coastal regions) as a population source for ancient Egypt. None the less as demonstrated time and time and time again the inhabitants of the regions of the Sahara relevant to the genesis of Egypt were black Africans. This has been detailed by the contextualization of rock art by Basil Davidson and by a long held belief that the original people of Northern Africa were black Africans, which came to light with the famous finding of the "black mummy" of southern Libya:

With that sort of timescales and vast geography one can’t be as assertive as some people driven by emotional arguments want.

Spoonist why is this:

"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)

somehow not seeping into your mind? Why do all of your ambiguous theories to white wash the appearance of the ancient Egyptians, get thrown out of the window when comes their biological affinities? Why is the racial diversity which you are pecking at, not mentioned by any of these authoritative studies or scholarly contextualizations? What they clearly conclude is that based on the biological evidence the ancient Egyptians were black Africans, not intermediate between tropical Africans and non Africans, but firmly within the category of black Africans? Where do your theories come into play? What impact to you all's theories of "Neolithic migrations" and trading routes, have on this fact, NOTHING!

I will respond to rest later.

[Spoonist]

Ah, thank you for clarifying that for me.

My question then is, why still use cranial/limb measurements when they aren't accurate indicators of race? Shouldn't genetics supercede any other studies due to accuracy alone? It is a well known fact that of the correlation of UVB and melanin. And there is an equally factual explaination for models that don't fit that correlation (e.g., the Inuit you mentioned...facinating by the way!).

You are quite right, its for funding and historical reasons. I proposed a switch to DNA studies only to vacuumbrain early on. Guess what?

But remember how recent the breakthroughs in DNA is. The studies that they have presented for their argument are from the nineties or earlier or build upon such research. So if we take a person like Keita, when he started out DNA was totally out of the picture and when finally DNA started to become accepted it was really expensive stuff. So its natural for someone like him at that time to do craneological research. Its not until the National Geographic humane genome project that the prices for DNA testing have gone down to reasonable levels - and that is for live specimens, for ancient ones look at Pääbo's research its expensive as hell. So its not necessarily not something you just throw yourself into.
So FORDISC and CRANIA databases etc used to be a very affordable way to research. But it was prone to errors and picking bias, like I mentioned to matter, even if the conclusions from such research would be true it gives a bad taste to rely heavily on such data today when we have so much better alternatives.
Then if you look at a lot of the research quoted above you will notice that the researchers themselves have not measured those skulls. Instead they have been granted access to software and databases with such info in them. Now imagine that you have an emotianal investment in a pro or anti theory - how big is the temptation to do some queries to the database and then select the one that looks "right"... and that goes both ways in a heated topic like this, even among scientists...

Given all of that, if you are looking at neighbourhing populations, like say germans vs french vs dutch, if you have good samples of each and a historical source then it works quite OK.
But again, you are quite right, DNA is such a better data from a "proof" perspective.

In that light look at this:
http://wysinger.homestead.com/forensic.pdf

Our results suggest to us that Fordisc 2.0 is fundamentally
flawed not only because these types are culturally
mediated but because statistically defined populations
cannot adequately represent the biological
variation that characterizes individuals within each purported
group. The idea that human beings represent distinct
and divisible biological types is rather recent in
human history (Marks 1995), and the lines that are drawn
to make distinctions are based on socioeconomic factors
and historical circumstances rather than strictly on biological
criteria (Armelagos 1995, Goodman 1995, Marks
1995). The type concept relies upon an “idealized” individual
that describes only a minute fraction of the variation
it is intended to represent. Forensic anthropology
has often been called upon to substantiate typological
thinking and to reinforce the type concept itself.

then this
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC2827999/ ... X3HAOb.140

The results of the analyses suggest that Fordisc's utility in research and medico-legal contexts is limited. Fordisc will only return a correct ancestry attribution when an unidentified specimen is more or less complete, and belongs to one of the populations represented in the program's reference samples. Even then Fordisc can be expected to classify no more than 1 per cent of specimens with confidence.

it continued with the next revision of the software and database
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/21482050

Although widely used, this tool has been recently criticised, principally when used to determine ancestry. Two sub-samples of individuals of known sex were drawn from French (n=50) and Thai (n=91) osteological collections and used to assess the reliability of sex determination using Fordisc(®) 3.0 with 12 cranial measurements. Comparisons were made using the whole FDB as well as using select groups, taking into account the posterior and typicality probabilities. The results of Fordisc(®) 3.0 vary between 52.2% and 77.8% depending on the options and groups selected.

Keita's reply to this

What would account for this range of resemblances- infraspecific convergence, parallelism, admixture, chance or all of these? It is perhaps best to consider these findings as reflective primarily of an indigenous northeast African biological evolutionary history and diversity. Hiernaux (1975) reports that the range of values in selected metric units from populations in the northeast quadrant of Africa collectively largely overlaps the range found in the world. Given that this region may be the place from which modern humans left Africa, its people may have retained an overall more generalized craniometric pattern whose individual variants for selected variables may resemble a range of centroid values for non-African population values."
-- S.O.Y. Keita, "On Meriotic Nubian Crania Fordisc 2.0, and Human Biological History."
Current Anthropology Volume 48, Number 3, June 2007

Look at the response Keita got from the team behind the study above
http://www.cas.gsu.edu/anthropology/Wil ... A_2007.pdf

Keita now criticizes us for a paper that we did not write.
Specifically, he critiques our discussion of noninherited factors,
namely, the conditions of growth, which we cite as contributing
to craniofacial variation. Nutrition, disease, and
ecology are well documented to influence patterns of growth
and development across human groups (Boas 1912; Whiting
1958; Baker 1969; Frisancho 1970; Eveleth and Tanner 1990;
Armelagos and Van Gerven 2003). No one has yet shown that
the conditions of growth do not affect head (and body) shape
and size, although one of the architects of Fordisc 2.0, along
with another researcher, argues that cranial form is largely
invariant across human history (Sparks and Jantz 2002) despite
overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including studies
of immigrants and their descendents (Boas 1912; Shapiro
1939; Bogin 1988; Gravlee, Bernard, and Leonard 2003).
These issues have been dealt with by others using Nubian
populations that lived along the Nile for the past 10,000 years
(Carlson 1976; Carlson and Van Gerven 1977; Van Gerven,
Armelagos, and Rohr 1976; Carlson and Van Gerven 1979;
Van Gerven 1982; Goodman et al. 1986; Calcagno 1986).

This is what I refered to as "an ouch" earlier.
So all I have to say about relying too much on bones is

edit - this should not be construed as something vs Keita personnally, he has switched to DNA reliance nowadays. For him to refer to his own earlier research even though on bones is a natural thing in academia.

[Spoonist]

You know what would be a neat visual? If someone had the knowledge to take that Human Skin Color Distribution map and animate it from the Recent Out of Africa theory based on the genetic information as well as overlay the Neanderthal and Denisovan migrations up to today. Not sure if there is enough data confirmed to do this tho.

It would be neat but not really possible without simplyfying so much as to render it academicly redundant.
If you watched Svante Pääbo's presentation at ted you'd notice that he talks about other hominids being likely as well. So not just Neanderthal and Denisovans, but a range of such hominids in different parts of the world.
This because we usually classify sites as Neanderthal due to age and industrial artifacts. Which means that he thinks that some of the pops we designate as Neanderthal today might be reclassified as the research progresses.
Then add to that that we might get historical temperatures and humidity but UV radiation over time is a much harder nut to crack.

[cadbrowser]

For him {Keita} to refer to his own earlier research even though on bones is a natural thing in academia.

But given the unreliable (and potentially false) conclusions based on this database of bones, should Keita do that?

I proposed a switch to DNA studies only to vacuumbrain early on. Guess what?

Uh yeah, in his most recent post he is still using bone data as the be all end all proof...haha...SMH To which matter is doing the same thing.

Honestly, if Big T (and matter for that...uh...matter) would drop the bones argument due to its inferiority over DNA analysis then I think we can get somewhere. To me it would be more productive...sigh.

It would be neat but not really possible without simplyfying so much as to render it academicly redundant.
If you watched Svante Pääbo's presentation at ted you'd notice that he talks about other hominids being likely as well. So not just Neanderthal and Denisovans, but a range of such hominids in different parts of the world.
This because we usually classify sites as Neanderthal due to age and industrial artifacts. Which means that he thinks that some of the pops we designate as Neanderthal today might be reclassified as the research progresses.
Then add to that that we might get historical temperatures and humidity but UV radiation over time is a much harder nut to crack.

Ah, that makes sense. Unfortunatly my job prevents me from watching the videos here at work so I have to skip that part...and I don't have internet at home. So I will be looking for some material to read up on in that regards to other hominids. This is the first time I heard about the Denisovans being potential Homo sapian targets for mixed reproduction. I knew about the Neanderthals tho.

Would a planetary software model have the ability to extrapolate backwards UV radiation?

Actually Keita stated over 15,000 years, which is what Holliday also stated:

You're actually going to nitpic the 10k BALLPARK statement? Relatively speaking...10k Ballpark is an acceptable number for me, (when he was ANSWERING MY GODDAMN QUESTION TO BEGIN WITH!) when the actual number cited by your source says 18K and more than 15,000 years respectively. God your an asshole.

Before this time, the central and southern Sahara are thought to have been populated by Nilo-Saharan speakers.

Key word there dumbass..."are thought to have been"...

This, I believe, was pointed out to you before.

bla bla bla craniaometric values...limb ratios...black black black Egyptians dammit!

[Spoonist]

What you were insinuating however is that because the rest of the world would descended from that particular African population has a variation in their phenotypes (due to adaption) that the East Africans in question who remained in the same tropical climate that they have been in since their existence can somehow contain every variation seen across world populations.

Nope, just another paranoid delusion from your side in the form of something red that smells of fish. That was not what I was saying nor was it what I was insinuating. It makes no sense. Why would I quote the UV radiation study if I wanted to claim such a stupid thing?
Instead I was telling you quite openly that to give a single descriptive designation to such a diverse population as the nilo-saharans or the horners is a travesty. Human diversity is rich and complex, its designations should have an equally rich and complex vocabulary.
You should really go and get your memory checked because you are consistently missing the context of what you said that prompted my response, every single time. In this case it was our discussion on the use of outdated racist fuckhead terminology that you insist on using so that you can include everyone you like and exclude those you don’t like, in this case the coastal north Africans. I called that bullshit.

Due to their role in OOA East Africans tend to have a crania-metric pattern that has some overlap with other populations of the World and a genetic affinity which has been described as intermediate between that of other Africans and the rest of the world. Though according Tishkoff 2009 while certain East Africans are the populations which is closest to non-Africans, they are still closer to other Africans than anyone else.

You say that like it’s a revelation. Of course they do – they are neighbours. But maybe it is a revelation for you that neighbours interact? Now it’s also predicted by the bantu expansion studies. But I reject the term intermediate, since that gives the wrong impression.

So any claim that the population from that same genepool over the wide geographical regions in the sahara, the atlas, the magreb, the tibesti, the bab-el-mandeb and the nile delta etc, would not be diverse - simply contradicts Keita and the other sources used in this topic.

Again Spoonist your definition of "Diverse" is in a "racial" (social) sense of the word.

No you nincompoop. It is not. Why do you try this distortion again and again?

By that you are implying that the populations of East Africans somehow contain the all the phenotypes of other world populations, and of course you know that this is not true and quite frankly makes no sense!

Of course it makes no sense – that is because you made that up out of that twisted mind of yours. How could I imply such phenotypes you dimwit when I didn’t mention them at all in the passage you are referring to above? By telepathy? Did you forget to put on your tinfoil hat or something?

If so then which specific East African populations contain all of these phenotypes? You know that this makes absolutely no sense

Agreed that it makes no sense, so why did you invent such a fairytale?

and is nothing more than your own ambiguous and baseless attempt to put a significant presence of non black Africans into early Nile Valley.

I have never beaten my wife thank you. Nor have I ever tried to argue for a significant presence of non black Africans in the “early nile valley” (if you by that refer to upper nile valley). What I have been arguing though is for the presence of maghrebs in the green sahara and against your continued abuse of your sources in trying to make them claim things they do not. In this case, your claim that all inhabitants of the green sahara could be called black, while you yourself claim that part of the delta and levant was non-black at the time. Now I wouldn’t use black vs non-black because I believe those designations to be completely ignorant of the heritages involved, but if we use them as you use them, then you are forming a theory that is easily contradicted by the sources you claim to base such a hypothesis on. Such as Keita.

Why wouldn’t I link genes, ie DNA, to skintone?

Because that is precisely what you were attempting to do in your earlier statement.

That is hilarious, right there. Read that again a couple of times and you might see what I mean.

You attempted to argue that somehow this tropically adapted Northeast African population that has been in it's place for hundreds of thousands of years, could somehow contain the phenotype of non Africans who have adapted to other to the environments of other world region simply because they descend from these East Africans.

Again, my wife is fine, thanks for asking, still unbeaten. And yes you are still hearing voices in your head, because that goes pretty much against everything I said in that post.

Most of our potential skintone range lies in our genes. Exemplified by albinism, freckles, etc.

Why is this relevant to what we already know about the populations who populated the early Nile?

Context, simpleton, context. Matter thought it was funny that I linked genes to skin tone, so I explained that such a link is very real and thus asked why he thought it was funny. It is called having a conversation; I know that lies outside your core competencies since no fisticuffs are involved, but normal people do tend to have them from time to time. You should try it out some time.

We know that they were tropically adapted which means:
"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." (-- C.L. Brace, 1993. Clines and clusters..")

That is kind of circular don’t you think? Tropically adapted which means …. Long-term residents of the tropics.
I would have expected that a “which means” statement would lead to a definition.
Did you really copy&spam that whole thing just to say

They had dark skin.

Then haven’t we covered this enough times for you to leave out the copy&spam? Yes, it’s reasonable to assume that the naqadans had in the main dark skin. You do realise that that only tells us that they where in the main in situ, right? So again, no - I don’t beat my wife so no - you don’t need to cover any racist fuckhead theories over and over and over and over … again. I have never argued for them to be euros, arab, or anything like that. I’ve argued that the nilo Saharans are diverse and more heterogeneous than you allow.

We know that tropical-Sub Saharan African populations who all have "dark skin" (all socially considered "black) have the most skin tone variation.

Thank you, and here I thought that nothing ever gets through that WoI, but sometimes you surprise me. Lets see if we can follow that train of thought – why do you think that is? As in why do you think that tropical-Sub Saharan African populations have the most skin tone variation?

We maintain that based on the fact that the ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted (ecological principal) that they had a mixture of the many skin tone variations (all socially considered black) seen across the sub region, which could be from the "high yellow" Igbo to the pitch black Dinka skin tone. We do know however know that the pitch black Dinka and other Nilotic populations were one of the base populations of the early Nile Valley when they migrated from the Sahara, so what would that infer about the early ancient Egyptian phenotype?

Again, I don’t think that “ecological principal” means what you think it means. Do a websearch on that and you will see what I mean.
Instead of these attempts to sound scientific, if you are referring to Gloger’s rule, then why don’t you just simply say so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Biological_rules
Then, I’d again refer you to that UV map and study. We know better nowadays, than they did at the turn of the last century, we have better - more complex theories.
But I’m curious – what do YOU think that that infers about the ‘early’ ‘egyptian’ ‘phenotype’? I’m usually surprised with what you come up with in relation to your sources so I’m eager to hear this.

But I used it out of context, so I agree that it didn’t necessarily make sense if you have not read those studies thoroughly enough.

That's fine.

No, thank you, for agreeing that you have not read Keita nor Ehret thoroughly enough to understand references to their work.

1) Skin tone is an adaptation vs UV radiation.

No one disputes this fact Spoonist, but one thing that you must take into consideration before you..let's say reference a map of UV intensity, are the countless migrations that occurred throughout African history.

Actually you do dispute parts of that every time you refer to tropical adaptation without being more specific than that. You see tropical adaptation refers to climate – not UV radiation. As I’ve said a couple of times now – they usually overlap, but do not necessarily correlate. Do I really have to repeat this every 10 pages or so?
Then, me mentioning huge migration patterns in the post you quote, would in fact hint that I do take the countless migrations into consideration, don’t you think?
[quote="Big Triece]

from that blog comes this great pic, it is really telling:

Again Spoonist how telling can it be, when it's only referencing the skin tone of the modern locations of populations? ...~... That being said this map is largely irrelevant. [/quote]Context, nincompoop, context. I was talking about Australian aborigines and UV radiation adaptation outside of the tropics. Without that skin tone map, that point wouldn’t have been quite as sharp, don’t you think?
Then, yes, it tells us a lot about how human skin tone adapts to UV radiation levels.
For us who actually read the studies, that map is lovely, for you to dismiss it in this context, confirms the image you project of yourself of someone who isn’t really interested in the actual topic. But instead is only interested in getting an emotional prejudice/argument confirmed.

5,000 years ago we know that the darkest people on Earth as shown on your map (Nilotes from the ancient Sahara) migrated into the Nile Valley (both upper and Lower). We know that throughout the last 3,000 years there has a been continuous gene flow of lighter skinned people into the Nile Valley from the North and East. My point is that we know migrations have occurred, and who exactly those migrants were and enough information as to what they looked like.

Why would you put the limit to 3k years in a context where you talk about both upper and lower nile valley? It’s like you are totally ignorant of the archaeological sites and industrial cultures we are talking about.
For once in your life go ahead and read a book, pick one of these two:
http://books.google.com/books?id=TmUwjhQX-rcC
http://books.google.com/books?id=dld3QgAACAAJ

2) Limb proportion is an adaptation vs climate, ie temperature and humidity. This is Allen's rule with the complimentary

Spoonist we are well aware of these facts, and many of which have been contained in the very studies that we have cited. Don't you remember when I cite this statement from Keita a couple of pages back:

Uhm, this was a response to matter, remember? And you have consistently by your use of tropical adaptation + “ecological principal” etc, and by never referring to Allen’s rule, shown that you do not understand this. Otherwise I wouldn’t have to mention it over and over again.

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

That being said no one is asking for a biology lesson.

Again, with the generalisations. Just because you don’t want to learn new stuff doesn’t mean that that applies to others. See cadbrowser’s response as evidence for why you have no clue on how this kind of topic should function. We are talking about really cool stuff, scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, etc all of this should be fascinating and should in normally functional – academically interested individuals inspire people to learn more about what we are finding out today about the human condition.
You instead refer to a study from 93 referencing one from 81.
Thanks, but no thanks.
You could at least have made an effort and quoted some of his later work, instead of just searching your Keita folder for “Allen's rule”.

Now skin tone and limb proportions usually overlap but do not necessarily correlate. For example, the majority of Australia is below the Tropic of Capricorn but the aborigines of Australia are really dark skinned, regardless of the region of Australia that they come from. That is because the UV average is very high in Australia.

The fact is Spoonist, no matter how you try to manipulate and twist it, tropically adapted limb proportions equates to dark skin (within a great range) .

So which part of, “usually overlap but does not necessarily correlate” do you not understand?
There are some inuit over in the post you quoted who would like to talk to you about the tropical environment that they live in, because they have some BIG fucking complaints.

That is ecological principal which has been cited in Brace's statement above, and clearly stated by Keita in relation to the skin of the ancient Egyptians in his Cambridge lecture. Both segments deal with limb proportion ratios.

Are we talking about the same Charles Loring Brace?
The one who wrote this introduction to a book titled [“Race” Is a Four-letter Word]?
The same Brace who has indeed moved on to genes instead?
And please for the love of everything that is dear, don’t try to read that. If you have such difficulties with understanding the UV thingie I really have no hope of explaining what epigenetic research does. Biology lesson indeed...

I got to go, so expect another respons later.

[matter]

Am sorry I have not responded to some of the posts lately. I had some problem with my service provider.

Modern Egyptians are still tropically adapted

Zentei if you are not certain of a stance plz do not assert it. You are saying that ALL the segments of Modern Egypt are still tropically adapted? Okay can you provide a source that asserts this.
I am not certain, but I think that many Modern Egyptians(esp those in Upper Egypt) will still tropical adapted but I dont think that many others(esp in the Delta) will.

Let me try to explain why we keep bringing tropical proportions as an important, though just one of the lines of evidence, in showing what we been arguing: We have to differentiate bw individuals and populations here- you would notice that all my inferences on tropical/supertropical proportions have been in reference to populations and not individuals. Imagine a dark-skinned tropically and a light-skinned intermediate/cold adapted couple that gave birth to 4 children. With the 'randomness' of genetics, we cannot really predict how all the children will inherit the different characteristics of their parents-there could be some children that are more tropically adapted but very light skinned while others may be intermediately adapted but darker-skinned. But in a population such variations in that generation may or may not have the chance to be sustained over time. If that family is in a society already with such 'mixed' characteristics that generation will likely add to the variability but in say tropically adapted society such variation in that one generation may not be sustained over time, at least not that strongly.

Now in the case of early Egypt, we know have for a fact that its major source of population was from a tropical Sahara and that these peoples were tropically/supertropically adapted. Now these peoples who have been long-term residents of the tropics had to be tropically adapted cos this increases the body's surface/area hence helping in the cooling of the body in a hot tropical environment; accompanying that is the adaption to UV radiation that accompanies the hot direct sunlight of tropical environment i.e skin colour intensification(dark skin). Now those peoples leaving the tropical Sahara were themselves still tropically adapted and dark-skinned as they moved into the Nile Valley.(there is no other way to look at this cos as long as they were tropically adapted and remained in there they needed those two adaptations and when they entered into the Nile as the main population source they couldn't have lost it for some few thousands of years). Now over time as some nonAfricans with intermediate and cold adapted proportions started to enter into the Nile and were adsorbed culminating in very large migrations from the late periods we will begin to see a decrease in the extent of tropical proportions as intermediate proportions starts to also increase as we see here:

Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimde, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a north-south cline along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence continue continually smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb length proportions of the males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than Europeans. By contrasts, an excavated set of around 300 burials from Tell-el-Daba in the Northeast Delta belonging to a group believed to be Palestinian immigrants from living in the Late Middle Kingdom/2nd Intermediate Period(1750-1550) have physical characteristics that group them with ancient populations from the Near East and at a greater distance from those from Elephantine. Although male and female characteristics also show differences. The Levantine associations matches expectations from archaeology, and the general result encourages confidences that skeletal-measurements can produce believable results.
Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2005 pg 54

So while from the limited data(agreed) from the sparsely populated Delta in the predynastic the peoples there while having more affinities to groups to the south as expected cos many of them as I have shown here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3654005 (and against your now debunked Demic Diffusion theorem) came from the Egyptian Eastern Sahara and did not even form a cline with Near Easterners as well as have tropical proportions(and of course in the Delta strongly mean that their ancestors came from the 'south'); however, when we have archaeological evidence for significant migrations of Near Easterners to Egypt during the later parts of Middle Kingdom(just b4 the Hyksos period) we find expectedly that limb proportions in that specific area have become intermediate.

Because of what we know of migrations to Egypt esp from the Late period(and esp in the Delta) one would expect limb proportions today to be more diverse with some of them intermediate, although the distribution of these characteristic would not be smooth cos of the variations I described earlier about individual families in societies with such 'mixed' characteristics and cos of the fact that limb proportions also have a tendency to be long-term.




Zentei plz when you find that you cant defend a stance just acknowledge it cos it will not only stop you looking more clueless but will save time. Your earlier argument from a complete misinterpretation of Zarkweski paper was that nutrients affect limb proportions cos you didn't even know the diff bw Height and limb proportions(and you have been arguing with us on limb proportions). So except you are still arguing that then state categorically that you are not and that you are withdrawing it.


@ Spoonist am preparing a response.

[cadbrowser]

Let me try to explain why we keep bringing tropical proportions as an important...

And that information is what is hindering the progression of this dicussion. It has been mentioned countless times that DNA evidence is far more superior to tropic proportions (limb measurments) or cranial metrics. You and Big T consistantly ignore this and instead insist upon driving it as proof and evidence.

...but I dont think that many others(esp in the Delta) will.

Why? Are their genes genetically inferior that they cannot adapt to their environment? Your opinion here makes no sense.

[Lord Zentei]

Zentei if you are not certain of a stance plz do not assert it. You are saying that ALL the segments of Modern Egypt are still tropically adapted? Okay can you provide a source that asserts this.
I am not certain, but I think that many Modern Egyptians(esp those in Upper Egypt) will still tropical adapted but I dont think that many others(esp in the Delta) will.

I don't have data on the Delta, but Stringer and Gamble (1993, pg. 92) place the Tibia/Femur length for modern Egyptians in general to be 84.9%, compare that to the values shown in the M.H. Raxter paper for dynastic ancient Egyptians, at 83.8 for males and 83.0 for females; and predynastic ancient Egyptians at 84.8 for males and 84.0 for females.

Let me try to explain why we keep bringing tropical proportions as an important, <SNIP>

I know why you consider it important.

Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimde, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a north-south cline along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence continue continually smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb length proportions of the males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than Europeans. By contrasts, an excavated set of around 300 burials from Tell-el-Daba in the Northeast Delta belonging to a group believed to be Palestinian immigrants from living in the Late Middle Kingdom/2nd Intermediate Period(1750-1550) have physical characteristics that group them with ancient populations from the Near East and at a greater distance from those from Elephantine. Although male and female characteristics also show differences. The Levantine associations matches expectations from archaeology, and the general result encourages confidences that skeletal-measurements can produce believable results.
Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, 2005 pg 54

I don't have that document, is there an online copy? If not, I'll just have to browse the library and see if I can find it there.

So while from the limited data(agreed) from the sparsely populated Delta in the predynastic the peoples there while having more affinities to groups to the south as expected cos many of them as I have shown here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3654005 (and against your now debunked Demic Diffusion theorem) came from the Egyptian Eastern Sahara and did not even form a cline with Near Easterners as well as have tropical proportions(and of course in the Delta strongly mean that their ancestors came from the 'south'); however, when we have archaeological evidence for significant migrations of Near Easterners to Egypt during the later parts of Middle Kingdom(just b4 the Hyksos period) we find expectedly that limb proportions in that specific area have become intermediate.

The demic diffusion theorem I presented as a POSSIBILITY has NOT been debunked, you have not even addressed half the studies that I provided to suggest that it might be a plausible scenario. Moreover, of the one paper regarding demic diffusion you commented on you cherry picked comments from the discussion, which I had posted - against my better judgement - from a site which is member-only. Now: would you kindly acknowledge these papers and comment on them.

Because of what we know of migrations to Egypt esp from the Late period(and esp in the Delta) one would expect limb proportions today to be more diverse with some of them intermediate, although the distribution of these characteristic would not be smooth cos of the variations I described earlier about individual families in societies with such 'mixed' characteristics and cos of the fact that limb proportions also have a tendency to be long-term.

See my previous comments regarding the 25th (Nubian) dynasty and the Arab slave trade. Pale skinned immigration and conquest would not be the only such events.

Zentei plz when you find that you cant defend a stance just acknowledge it cos it will not only stop you looking more clueless but will save time. Your earlier argument from a complete misinterpretation of Zarkweski paper was that nutrients affect limb proportions cos you didn't even know the diff bw Height and limb proportions(and you have been arguing with us on limb proportions). So except you are still arguing that then state categorically that you are not and that you are withdrawing it.

Looking back at that post I understand your objections - I can only guess that I was tripping when I wrote the intro to that particular post (probably thinking of something else when I wrote that), since naturally the whole point of my position on the matter is that the modern population is still tropically adapted.

[Big Triece]

We have to put in the caveats and distrust the truisms, just like Keita does in his studies and in the lecture that this is all about according to the OP.

Yet again you are ignoring the contextualization of research like that of Keita and others by numerous scholars. Ask your self what does it imply when the very same lecture of Keita, is listed on the webpage of an authoritative institute clearly dedicated to showcasing the Egyptians as "black". Why is Keita's lecture listed right along side other PhD's who are lecturing from a social perspective who unhesitatingly consider the ancient Egyptians black Africans, and even reference the work of Keita to back their assertions? Spoonist why are being so naive about what Keita's research clearly indicates (i.e generally "Somali like", "dark skin"). What on Earth would you call an African population of "Sahara-tropical variant" if not black in a social context?

Why people like me don’t ‘get’ things like the sentences above is because that misses the time scale. Nope, at that time those divisions you talk about wasn’t really there. We are talking about the Neolithic subpluvial, leading into the modern era.Check out this map.

You seem to be dodging the center of his questions and points by posting exerts from pretty redundant studies (principals that no one has ever disputed), to appear that your reply has substance supporting your argument, when it doesn't. What he was stating is why would you suggest that people who evolved in the tropical environments of Africa and not the subtropical regions on the north-south ends of the continent, somehow be more like people who evolved in subtropical regions? It makes no sense at all.

I think that we agree in principle here but I would prefer a better term that would include people from the Maghreb, both skin tone wise but also culturally. The coastal cultures of North Africa from side to side are seafaring cultures, they have always comingled. So when we are talking about the delta and not upper Egypt

Once again you are basing your entire argument on your ambiguous misinterpretation of Keita's use of the word of "Maghreb". He is not referring to the common definition of Northwest African nations, but every north African region west of Egypt. I say region, because the Sahara and it's Nilotic and Niger-Congo inhabitants did not cease at the known borders of Africa that we see today, their inhabitation stretched from Western Deserts of Egypt, regions of Chad, Libya, Sudan and points west. That being said, your ambiguous assertion of a Coastal Northwest African (which would include Europeans) input into the creation of Egypt, is baseless from a biological view point:

"The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated.. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations."
-- Coudray et al. (2008). The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations. Annals of Human Genetics. Volume 73 Issue 2, Pages 196 - 214

There was no U6 (considered European) found in northern Egyptian Berber populations, unlike those in the Northwest Africa. If according to your baseless argument that both populations thousands upon thousands of miles from one another (and one labeled "isolated" by Keita) were intermingling with one another, why would their be such a significant biological difference between the indigenous inhabitants of both regions? Why is the European component of Northwest Africans not seen in the Berbers of Egypt? Keita also makes mention of the skin tone variation seen in Egypt in an email to Mentuhotep, which he states to picture the typical Upper Egyptian-Nubian skin tone WITHOUT non African admixture:



Also according to your theory, what cultural and linguistic elements would these Northwest Africans have had and subsequently contributed to the development of ancient Egypt?

Couldn’t find that. Could you point me out to the timeslot? This since I think there is a misconception about the delta being sparsely populated by this time....But just because there is no sites doesn’t mean that there was no people there. Again that pesky uncertainty of real science.

No one to my knowledge has ever argued that early Lower Egypt was void of people, we have however stated and proven that early Lower Egypt was relatively sparse in population. Also there is no misconception, this is common knowledge:

As elaborated earlier, the major part of the Predynastic Delta was by no means a marshy wasteland, inhabited only by scattered pastoral communities. Such a conclusion is compatible with the antiquity of the Delta's cult centers and the fact that the Delta was the Lower Egypt of the semimythical wars of unification in the late fourth millennium B.C.(Kaiser 1964). In fact, the ten oldest of the twenty Lower Egyptian nomes predate the 3d dynasty (Helck 1974, pp. 199 f.) and are significantly situated between the Delta distributaries (Keiser 1964). Furthermore, over thirty towns north of Cairo are verified archeologically or epigraphically by the end of the Middle Kingdom (fig. 4).

It is nonetheless probable that settlements were far more dispersed than they were in Upper Egypt, that overall population density was significantly lower, and that the northernmost one-third of the Delta was almost unpopulated in Old Kingdom times. In effect, a considerable body of information can be marshalled to show that the Delta was underdeveloped and that internal colonization continued for some three millennia, until the late Ptolemaic era.

link

Now of course we know that it is the complete opposite. The Delta is one of if not the most densely populated region on Earth, while the population of south is relatively know sparse and underdeveloped in comparison. The overwhelming percentage of the population of ancient Egypt originated in the south, which is subsequently where Dynastic culture arose and eventually overtook the cultures of the North.

No, just no. Scientists never say all of them. So no, your sources doesn't say that ALL, REPEAT ALL tropically adapted are dark skinned.

Actually essentially our sources are stating this! They have stated that based on ecological principal that all populations who have been long term residence in the tropics (tropically adapted) have "dark skin". Matter has also pleaded with you to find examples of populations whom are tropically adapted that does not have "dark skin".

Darker than non-tropically, yes, but not just 'dark' this because variation within populations exist. You are simply taking it too far.

As stated time and time again Spoonist, no one has empiracle evidence to determine which specific skin tone variations seen African populations who are tropically adapted that the ancient Egyptians had. All that we know is that they were dark skinned tropically adapted Northeast Africans. This basic fact is enough for numerous modern scholars to now accept the fact that they were what we would consider "black Africans".

See the study and blog I linked to earlier. With dark skinned inuits being the most common example. They get their D vitamin from their diet instead and thus does not select for a lighter skin.

The site is stating in essence, that it is not because there is a flaw in ecological principal (i.e. skin tone intensity being correlated with sun exposure) that Inuits don't have a pale white skin tone, but rather because their own conscious choices regarding diet that they retain their non pale skin tone in that harsh environment. Take away their fish, and they would look like Swedes with eye folds.

See my response to Duchy for the details on this, I think that the one drop rule is a vile thing that should be always be rejected. Then in specific I don’t like the way that cluelesswonder try to exclude coastal north Africans from the Egyptian/nilo Saharan heritage.

OK first of all your claim of a Coastal Northwest African involvement in the creation of Egypt is proven to be baseless, so you just need to drop it! Also based on what we know about their biological affinities, there is no need to invoke the American ODR into this classification, because we know that they were simply know that they were in the main not mixed with non black Africans.

Agreed. But remember the context, if someone claims that ALL SCIENTISTS agrees to something, then all one have to do is find the minority opinion to prove such a claim false. Like I’ve done repeatedly with cluelesswonder.

But see I never stated that "ALL" scientist agree on anything. I have consistently used words like "mainstream", which clearly means that while there is a "general" agreement amongst scientist on the issue, there are still "hold outs" (as Keita called them) on certain theories which would say otherwise (i.e non African origin for Afro-Asiatic, Demic Diffusion, race theorist, ect). For one reason or another, me relaying the fact that most modern scholars sided the implication that they looked like "black Africans", did not sit well with you and some others who wanted hang a mystery cloud over the subject.

Not really. You need to put in the time slot and locale as well. When Keita talks about Naqada and Badarian you are quite right. Showing affinities to the south etc. But when Keita talks about “Egypt” he mentions both light and dark several times.

Really what study or lecture snippet did he imply this? You are also aware of the email that Keita sent Pharaoh Mentu, in which he states that the Nubian-southern Egyptian skin tone was the likely model skin color for the entire Egyptian population aren't you?

the type of eyes that can read haplocharts like this one:

Wow so in a way to justify your deceitful obfuscation of the social racial label black, you point to a haplogroup frequency map of E. What in the Hell was that supposed to prove Spoonist? That everyone from Syria to Spain is considered black in America, because it indicates recent past black African migration into those regions? You know the truth of the matter Spoonist, and this was just a tacky attempt on your part at avoiding it.

[Lord Zentei]

^
Say, Big Triece: I have yet to hear an explanation from either you or matter concerning this video:



Relevant portion at 0:55.

[Big Triece]

That was not what I was saying nor was it what I was insinuating. It makes no sense. Why would I quote the UV radiation study if I wanted to claim such a stupid thing?

"AFRO-ASIATIC GENES" was your attempt to disconnect certain East African populations from other black Africans, and that was a "stupid thing", which is just one example of "stupid things" that you have done throughout this debate. But then again you did quickly realize that your argument was going to be ripped to shreds and you subsequently admitted fault.

Instead I was telling you quite openly that to give a single descriptive designation to such a diverse population as the nilo-saharans or the horners is a travesty.

Regardless of how you want to view it, the western social contextualization of these Africans is indeed a reality. They are all regarded as black Africans, and some (the Sudanese professor on the Fitzwilliams museum site) embrace the categorization of "black African" and also uses it to describe himself, his people, other black Africans, and the ancient Egyptians.

In this case it was our discussion on the use of outdated racist fuckhead terminology that you insist on using so that you can include everyone you like and exclude those you don’t like, in this case the coastal north Africans. I called that bullshit.

You wanting so desperately to involve "Coastal North African" into the formation of Egypt, shows your own emotional attachment issues to this discussion. Why, because you offer no evidence besides your own proven misinterpretation of Keita's definition of the "Maghreb", and subsequently your ambiguous ideas of which Sahara populations contributed to the peopling and cultures of the Nile Valley. I have proved through numerous sources, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Saharans in question were Nilotic Saharans, whose cultural and biological affinities carried on into the Nile Valley. You just need to take a deep breath and accept this fact.

You say that like it’s a revelation. Of course they do – they are neighbours. But maybe it is a revelation for you that neighbours interact?

No Spoonist, that tree from Tishkoff's study showed the individual ancestral clusters relations to the ancestral clusters of the world. Their individual relationship showed on that tree is not determined by the intermingling of different populations, but rather their own unique standing.

No you nincompoop. It is not. Why do you try this distortion again and again?

Spoonist you have repeatedly distorted my position that Egypt was a black African civilization, as me implying that there was "no diversity" in the Nile. Never have I stated that there was "no diversity", what I have stated is that the diversity that Keita is talking about are the various tropical African (black) populations who were proven to have originally populated the Nile. This fact does not sit well with you, so in your attempts to refute my argument you reference and misinterpret Keita's main points of indigenous African diversity as that meaning to include people who were recent migrants into Africa bringing their own distinct phenotypes. As noted earlier your contention has lead by your ambiguous misinterpretations of Keita's use of the term "Maghreb" to include the pockets of isolated Coastal North Africans (who have some European affinities) as SOMEHOW being present in the regions of the Sahara that went on the populate the Nile.

I’ve argued that the nilo Saharans are diverse and more heterogeneous than you allow.

Yes, Nilo Saharans have an array of phenotypes that vary from ethnicity to ethnicity, but they are all very dark skinned and contain the darkest skinned ethnic groups on Earth. Certain Nilotic ethnicities such as the Dinka and Shilluk have been specified out of that grouping as the closest populations (of any people on Earth) to the ancient Egyptians culturally. Basil Davidson in this documentary segment:



Implies that these tribes in south Sudan may have migrated from the further North in the Nile. All of these ethnic groups claim to come from Egypt and Nubia, and recent genetic studies have found a genetic match for these Nilotic populations of south Sudan and A-group Nubians (whom the early ancient Egyptians biologically overlapped with). Others have found a match between the Amarna period pharaohs (Tut, Tiye, ect) and Nilotic peoples of the Great Lakes region. I don't know how this will play out with further research, but somethings about to hit the fan soon with this.

why do you think that is? As in why do you think that tropical-Sub Saharan African populations have the most skin tone variation?

Well quite frankly I read it in several studies. The point that you are purposely dodging is that despite this great skin tone variation amongst the populations of this vast sub-region, all are amongst the darkest on Earth and are all considered "black" in a social context.

But I’m curious – what do YOU think that that infers about the ‘early’ ‘egyptian’ ‘phenotype’? I’m usually surprised with what you come up with in relation to your sources so I’m eager to hear this.

NO! This is a circular game with people like you who outright refuse to accept the facts of this matter. I've made my stance perfectly clear as far as this is concerned on the first page, and have re-stated the exact same points countless times throughout this thread when you and other have asked me to restate my stance. If you wish to make an ass of yourself by obfuscating my clear points then do with what I've already stated.

Actually you do dispute parts of that every time you refer to tropical adaptation without being more specific than that.

Because Spoonist, WE DON'T HAVE THE EMPIRICALLY EVIDENCE TO BE SPECIFIC in this respect. Matter and myself have stated time and time and time again that there is a great range of skin tones amongst tropically adapted Africans (from high yellow Igbos to purple tinted Dinkas) and that we can only state from the fact that they were tropically adapted that they also had "dark skin" with a skin tone within the range seen in other tropically adapted African populations. Why are you disputing this fact? What more can empirically be said about their skin tone, then that they were dark skinned Africans, just as Keita stated.

Why would you put the limit to 3k years in a context where you talk about both upper and lower nile valley? It’s like you are totally ignorant of the archaeological sites and industrial cultures we are talking about.

I was talking in terms of major migrations. None the less I have maintained since the beginning of this thread, that since the early stages of ancient Egypt there has been prolonged small scale migration from the Levant. That is not something that I dispute or attempt to cover up, as this is one of our strongest pieces of evidence explaining the noted demographic change and biological distinctiveness in the Nile Valley over a long period of time.

See cadbrowser’s response as evidence for why you have no clue on how this kind of topic should function.

No, I want! He is entirely too childish with his attempts to put this discussion back at square one, which is why I ignore almost all of his post (like I now do Zentei).

Are we talking about the same Charles Loring Brace?....

What do any of those studies have to do with my argument Spoonist?

[Spoonist]

For him {Keita} to refer to his own earlier research even though on bones is a natural thing in academia.

But given the unreliable (and potentially false) conclusions based on this database of bones, should Keita do that?

Depends on who you ask, from me it's a meh. Well, as long as he uses it as collaborative evidence to support DNA based stuff its OK. But it can no longer stand on it's own.

I proposed a switch to DNA studies only to vacuumbrain early on. Guess what?

Uh yeah, in his most recent post he is still using bone data as the be all end all proof...haha...SMH To which matter is doing the same thing.

Honestly, if Big T (and matter for that...uh...matter) would drop the bones argument due to its inferiority over DNA analysis then I think we can get somewhere. To me it would be more productive...sigh.

Oh, agreed, very much agreed. see matters response for a context
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6#p3660266
*sigh*

Unfortunatly my job prevents me from watching the videos here at work so I have to skip that part...and I don't have internet at home. So I will be looking for some material to read up on in that regards to other hominids. This is the first time I heard about the Denisovans being potential Homo sapian targets for mixed reproduction. I knew about the Neanderthals tho.

Search for Svante Pääbo there are plenty of popular articles on this.

Would a planetary software model have the ability to extrapolate backwards UV radiation?.

Not really, inestead it would be some dig extrapolation on bacteria, like the german study in kongo which matter linked to for heat back on p28 I think it was. If we find something like that it would be possible but expensive.

Actually Keita stated over 15,000 years, which is what Holliday also stated:

You're actually going to nitpic the 10k BALLPARK statement? Relatively speaking...10k Ballpark is an acceptable number for me, (when he was ANSWERING MY GODDAMN QUESTION TO BEGIN WITH!) when the actual number cited by your source says 18K and more than 15,000 years respectively. God your an asshole.

Yupp, par for the course with this one. Quote mining that when I mentioned four different postulations on this with a pretty wide margin in between. but it is especially telling as usual that he misses that the ballpark was from the vid in the OP. Which he has reposted about 15 times now.
The strangest was when I said at the end of one of my posts "that was a long post" and he contradicted with "No, it wasn't your longest one."
His mind works like that, trying to find opposition to the point of redundancy and beyond.