Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Lord Zentei]

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

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

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

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

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

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

But whatever, here goes:

Linka

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

<SNIP>

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

And more here:

linka

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

<SNIP>

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

But once again, this

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

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

[matter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Lord Zentei]

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

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

[matter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Zentei]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[matter]

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

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

[/quote]

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

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

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


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



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

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

[Lord Zentei]

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

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

But, moving on...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you would:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Zentei]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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!