Lord Zentei wrote:Right, because it's not as if ancient Egyptians cluster with neolothic and modern Europeans in the 1993 study
No you dumb fuck, in Brace 1993 the false assumption was that modern Europeans were a continuity of early Europeans. The fact that he referred to both groups interchangeably, gave the false impression that modern Euros had a biological connection with the ancient Egyptians. In reality the data in both studies, clearly show how distinct modern Euros are from the ancient Egyptians and conversely how tropical African early Euros were in physical appearance:
Lord Zentei wrote:and that 33000 year old skeletons have absolutely nothing to do with it.
If there was a Pre-historic back migration into Africa via the Sinai, and these people had a phenotype distinct from black Africans then it is simply not supported by the fact that every Pre-historic skeletal remain on Nile has the physical appearance of Sub Saharan African populations.
Lord Zentei wrote:While I have consistently said that Egypt is African, and that clusterings with Near East populations is due to the Near East populations having come from North East Africa in the first place
What study are you referencing concluding that the primary affinity of the ancient Egyptians is with Middle Eastern populations? If it is one then it most certainly has not been presented in this thread. Studies have however been posted flat out refuting such a notion:
"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54
In this head to head comparison the ancient Egyptians fell into the African series (which even included West Africans) and showed overlapping affinities with the Sudanese.
Lord Zentei wrote:The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11–15)."Any questions?
That is not stating that Demic Diffusion from the Middle East into Africa occurred! It states that a point in time there was an extension of Neolithic culture in those respective regions. It also states that the populations from the Middle East migrated westward INTO EUROPE
, bringing agriculture into that continent. This is stated and suggested by the data in the time and time and time again throughout that study, whereas the your bogus assertion is not even postulated in text. Face it, you have suck ass reading comprehension skills!
Lord Zentei wrote:How about that you read it one more time?
Confirmation that you are a clown!
Lord Zentei wrote:Honestly, whether the words used for the Middle Eastern products were Semitic or not makes not a lick of difference.
It's makes a huge difference and shoots holes through your argument. You are using the presence of products in the Nile Valley which originated in the Middle East as a basis to assert a migration of Middle Easterners into the Nile. The absence of Middle Eastern loan words for those products, negates the claim made by you of a Middle Eastern migration whose influence would have been reflected in early Egyptian language.
Lord Zentei wrote:But that's neither here nor there, since I don't hold the view that the ancient Egyptians were Semitic in any case.
Yet oddly enough hold a fucking vice grip on the position that there was a significant Semitic presence in ancient Egypt since Pre-Dynastic times. How does this work? There is a significant presence from the Middle East, but according to almost all Egyptologist the influence from the Semites of the Middle East on the formation of the Egyptian state is not clear. If the Middle Eastern population was significantly involved in the formation of ancient Egypt, why is there the impact of their influence considered minimal at best?
Lord Zentei wrote:Now see, had you posted something like this from the get go, instead of backpedaling now
Bitch, if you like so many other dumbasses had taken the time to actually read the entire fucking thread and understanding the points that were being made then you would have seen where my position stands (as some contributors were obviously able to do). Broomstick and myself actually agreed on this point. The point that made her (and people like you and her) eyes bleed, was calling the inhabitants of this civilization which was almost uniformly a population comprised of Nilo Saharan and Horn Africans, "black". That is all it's been about.
Lord Zentei wrote:They cluster with different populations depending on sample and criteria, as has been shown by multiple sources.p
First of all the only four source that have been presented pertaining to the biological affinities of the Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians were the crania analysis from Keita and Zakrzewski and the limb proportions from the Smith study. Keita essentially states that the crania of these specimens were their own unique form, which originated in Africa according to Zakrzewski. That being said the crania of the Hausa people of Nigeria differ from the Yoruba, so much so that one was considered "Caucasoid" by Carleton S Coon (go figure). Despite the distinction in crania shape and facial features, both populations were indigenous to Africa and tropcially adapted, which is characterized with dark (black) skin. Likewise the crania of Upper and Lower Egyptians were distinct from one another, yet indigenous to Africa. Both populations were tropically adapted in the form of other Africans further south. Both populations were according to ecological principal dark skinned.
Also one question that has been ringing in my mind, is why didn't Egyptian art distinguish a skin color difference between, Upper and Lower Egyptians, if according to many of you one was lighter than the other? They all seem to display the typical brownish red skin tone, which was also used to characterized Nubians further south, but not Middle Easterners.
Lord Zentei wrote:Yeah, the problem with that is that it is hypocritical. You jumped on a bunch of people for their supposed use of material from that site, and yet, now you're using it yourself.
How in the fuck is getting a properly formatted undoctored image from the study in question which was posted on the bitch's website, equivalent to promoting her misworded interpretations of the studies data?
Lord Zentei wrote:So now, you're disagreeing with Brace's conclusion... when you had previously cited him as a source. Well, how about that.
The data speaks for itself:
Why would a stronger an equal or stronger Eurasian component place these early Israelis firmly with a the bracket of Northeast Africans and Niger Congo speakers? The fact that Ricaut 2008 which heavily built upon the findings of Brace 2006 makes absolutely no mention of a "Eurasian component" of the Natufanians and only of their Sub Saharan African affinities validates my suspicion that Brace's wording was based on an assumption that the early native inhabitants of region of the Levant were biological distinct from Africans themselves.[/quote]