# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Egyptian civilisation and ancient Egyptians

## somaliboy2008

did you know that th ancient egyptians

were not white

but were cushites

and are related to horn of africans

including somali and other in horn of africa

the somali language has names from the ancient egypt language

the ancient egyptians were tall narrow thin and tall

just like somalians ethipians and eriterians

they were dark skinned

and they used to visit somali which was called punt land

and trade with the somalian there relates

and the somali dna are 80 percent cushites

the cushites are ancestor

of prophet noah pbuh

son

the are hamites

so that why they look quite different that other africans

reply

----------


## Mycernius

> did you know that th ancient egyptians
> were not white, but were cushites and are related to horn of africans including somali and other in horn of africa. The somali language has names from the ancient egypt language


Your point being what exactly?




> The ancient egyptians were tall narrow thin and tall just like somalians ethipians and eriterians. They were dark skinned and they used to visit somali which was called punt land and trade with the somalian there relates and the somali dna are 80 percent cushites


Seeing as all humans originated in africa, this is not s surprise.




> The cushites are ancestor of prophet noah pbuh, son the are hamites so that why they look quite different that other africans
> 
> reply


Number one, Noah never existed, the ark never existed, there was never a global flood, so that line is just pure BS.
Number two. That is racist crap and you have no real understanding of DNA and human ancestry. Research and evidence is required before making such statements. If you do not then a ban hammer is heading your way. Consider that a warning.
Number three. If this is just building up to be some religious rubbish on how Islam is the real religion, don't come back because the ban hammer will fall far and hard on you. Preaching is not allowed here, go to some religious site for that BS.
Number 4. Please post in a more considerate way than just a line, space, line, space. It makes it easier to read. Also, puncuation is your friend, along with grammar.

----------


## Starship

O for God sake no Noah? that was one of my favourite stories as a child especially the bit about the bird returning with a leaf in his beak, so they were all saved. Its a pain growing up all our childhood fairy tales are taken from us, Noah's Ark, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, the right to vote no. What are we left with, man made Global warming, not much of a bed time story tail.

----------


## MOHAMMEd21

> did you know that th ancient egyptians
> 
> were not white
> 
> but were cushites
> 
> and are related to horn of africans
> 
> including somali and other in horn of africa
> ...


Yes we egyptiens related to the same race of east africa but don`t looks like somalians
also Amazigh in norht africa related to the same race and not black
at all the east african race is caucasion and not african or related to west africa
ancient egypt language looks like other east africa languages in we still use words from that ancient language till now




> and trade with the somalian there relates


ya thats true in the time of hatshipsote but we also traded we many other nations....Don`t forget that




> so that why they look quite different that other africans


what do you mean by that??
you mean east african or egyptiens

----------


## SekhemreKhutawy

> did you know that th ancient egyptians
> 
> 
> were not white
> 
> 
> but were cushites
> 
> 
> ...





It depends on what you mean by "white." There has always been an overlap in phenotype between Europeans, Near Easterners, and North Africans throughout time--in prehistory (aside from "Caucasian" craniofacial type), before the emergence of light skin in Europe, when they were likely the same shade of brown as darker Middle Eastern people that you can find in that region today, whom North Africans were likely very similar to as well (though white wouldn't have been a concept) ...and into the present...where these regions have West Eurasian-specific genes in common responsible for light skin, albeit nearly fixed in Europeans and in varying, but significant, frequency in the latter two, in which you find a cline in skin tone from light to dark (ruddy Middle Eastern-like brown). 


Aside from this subjective definition.... 


The Egyptians were not "Cushites." Related in a couple ways, but not Cushites. They didn't even speak a Cushitic language. Rather, their own language was a direct branch from Afro-Asiatic, as they are descended from a parent Afro-Asiatic stock that occupied Northern Africa's Nile Valley region from Egypt and into Nubia. There would be a split in these peoples that would bring about the Egyptians, and the others in the Nubian region becoming mixed with Nilotic peoples and adopting their Nilo-Saharan tongue...the Nubian language. The Egyptians referred to Nubia as "Kash/Kush" if this is what you mean by Cushites. But just because admixed Nubians share(d) a portion of their lineage with Egyptians doesn't mean the Egyptians were "black Cushites." 


"Genetic continuum of the Nubians with their kin in southern Egypt is indicated by comparable frequencies of E-V12 the predominant M78 subclade among southern Egyptians." (Hassan et al. (2008). Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese)


As for them being related to Horn Africans, people like you with a pan-African racial approach to African history (particularly pertaining to Northern and Eastern Africa) fail to note WHY there is a relation between Horners, like Somalis, because you jump to conclusions. In every craniofacial study, ancient Egyptian crania only shows a close relation to *modern* Horn Africans. Maybe you never took the time to see why East Africans such as Somalis obtained the E-M78 chromosome that originated in North Africa: 


"In conclusion, the peripheral geographic distribution of the most derived subhaplogroups with respect to northeastern Africa, as well as the results of quantitative analysis of UEP and microsatellite diversity are strongly suggestive of a northeastern rather than an eastern African origin of E-M78. Northeastern Africa thus seems to be the place from where E-M78 chromosomes started to disperse to other African regions and outside Africa." 


"In turn, the presence of E-M78 chromosomes in eastern Africa can be only explained through a back migration of chromosomes that had acquired the M78 mutation in northeastern Africa."
Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12
Cruciani (2007)


Genotype, along with climate, is responsible for phenotype. 


somaliboy2008 says: "the ancient egyptians were tall narrow thin and tall
just like somalians ethipians and eriterians"


What evidence is there that gracile and linear body types infers recent East African ancestry? 


"Somatic response to a desert climate tends to select a linear body structure, often with a less massive and less massively wide skull than usual among European Neanderthals."
The People
By J. Lawrence Angel


As Shomarka Keita noted, the Egyptians were a continuous population of local origin. The whole crux of the pan-Africanist argument is that these were "tropical" Africans living in North Africa, based on limb proportions, and that would mean they had "black" skin as well. It doesn't seem like there is evidence that makes it certain you have to be "black-skinned" in order to have "tropical" limb ratios: 


"In terms of femoral and tibial length to total skeletal height proportions, we found that ancient Egyptians are **significantly different from US Blacks**, although still closer to Blacks than to Whites."
Stature Estimation in Ancient Egyptians: A New Technique Based on Anatomical Reconstruction of Stature.
Michelle H. Raxter, 2008


And also from her:


"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**."


And according to DH Temple, in his article, Variation in Limb Proportions Between Jomon Foragers and Yayoi Agriculturalists from Prehistoric Japan, similar limb proportions can arise in low-latitude non tropical environments:


"Elongated distal relative to proximal limb lengths were observed among
Jomon compared to Yayoi people. Jomon limb proportions were similar to human groups from **temperate**/tropical climates at **lower latitudes**, while Yayoi limb proportions more closely resemble groups from colder climates at higher latitudes."


In that study, Windover Mummies from Southern Florida are also found to have elongated limbs...in a low-latitude temperate environment. 


So, considering they were North African evolved...it doesn't seem probable that they were the same skin tone as black Africans.

----------


## himagain

Ancient Egyptian culture lasted about four thousand years. Egyptian people in that era(s) included "whites" and "blacks". The society kept changing over time and so did the populations. If you look at their wall paintings you see the different racial types lived together and were all Egyptians. I can't understand why this isn't obvious to anyone seriously interested in the subject. 

The world is made up of so many types of people, what they accomplish is so much more worthwhile of notice, than mere racial differences.

----------


## SekhemreKhutawy

No sorry. The Egyptians showed the difference between themselves and blacks, noted by most Egyptologists (Even anthropologists Robins and Schute noted that Egyptians having long limbs didn't mean they were "negroes," as supported by their art). Darker Egyptians depicted resemble darker Middle Eastern people. There is no reason to believe that Upper Egypt contained a significant number of admixed and black people. Many modern Upper Egyptians have been impacted by gene flow of black women into North Africa from the sub-Saharan region, due to the trans-Saharan slave trade associated with the spread of Arab culture across North Africa:

"A proportion of 1/4 to 1/2 of North African female pool is made of typical sub-Saharan lineages, in higher frequencies as geographic proximity to sub-Saharan Africa increases. The Sahara was a strong geographical barrier against gene flow, at least since 5,000 years ago, when desertification affected a larger region, but the Arab trans-Saharan slave trade could have facilitate enormously this migration of lineages. Till now, the genetic consequences of these forced trans-Saharan movements of people have not been ascertained.

The distribution of the main L haplogroups in North Africa clearly reflects the known trans-Saharan slave routes: West is dominated by L1b, L2b, L2c, L2d, L3b and L3d; the Center by L3e and some L3f and L3w; the East by L0a, L3h, L3i, L3x and, in common with the Center, L3f and L3w; while, L2a is almost everywhere. Ages for the haplogroups observed in both sides of the Saharan desert testify the recent origin (holocenic) of these haplogroups in sub-Saharan Africa, claiming a recent introduction in North Africa, further strengthened by the no detection of local expansions.

The interpolation analyses and complete sequencing of present mtDNA sub-Saharan lineages observed in North Africa support the genetic impact of recent trans-Saharan migrations, namely the slave trade initiated by the Arab conquest of North Africa in the seventh century. Sub-Saharan people did not leave traces in the North African maternal gene pool for the time of its settlement, some 40,000 years ago."

The Trans-Saharan Slave Trade - Clues From Interpretation Analyses and High-Resolution Characterization of Mitochondrial DNA Lineages 
Harich et al. 2010

They weren't a civilization of "different racial types." They were a continuous North African population originating in their region, as admitted by Shomarka Keita, Joel Irish, Michelle Raxter, etc. :

"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*."


"*Comparisons of linear body proportions of Old Kingdom and non-Old Kingdom period individuals, and workers and high officials in our sample found no statistically significant differences among them. Zakrzewski (2003) also found little evidence for differences in linear body proportions of Egyptians over a wider temporal range*. In general, recent studies of *skeletal variation* among ancient Egyptians support scenarios of* biological continuity through time*. Irish (2006) analyzed quantitative and qualitative dental traits of 996 Egyptians from Neolithic through Roman periods, reporting the presence of a few outliers but concluding that the dental samples appear to be largely homogeneous and that the affinities observed *indicate overall biological uniformity and continuity from Predynastic through Dynastic and Postdynastic periods*."
_Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature_
Michelle H. Raxter (2008)

"Egyptian continuity extends across time (as evidenced by affinities among the three predynastic, five of seven dynastic, and two or perhaps three Roman period samples) and *space* (as indicated by the mostly random distribution of points denoting *Upper and Lower* Egyptians)."

"The *Predynastic of Upper Egypt* and the* Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt* are more closely related to each other than to any other population."
Brace et. al 1993

A civilization made up of different racial types wouldn't be biologically consistent or continuous if the "population kept changing over time."

----------


## Taharqa

> As for them being related to Horn Africans, people like you with a pan-African racial approach to African history (particularly pertaining to Northern and Eastern Africa) fail to note WHY there is a relation between Horners, like Somalis, because you jump to conclusions. In every craniofacial study, ancient Egyptian crania only shows a close relation to *modern* Horn Africans. * Maybe you never took the time to see why East Africans such as Somalis obtained the E-M78 chromosome that originated in North Africa*:


The fact that you fail to take into consideration is that M78 is a downstream mutation of M-35 which *originated* in Sub Saharan East Africa. Stating that the reason for modern Northeast populations to the south of Egypt having consistently been found to overlap with the early ancient Egyptians is due to the noted back migration above is equally faulty. It is not just _modern_ Horn African populations whom share overlapping affinities with the ancient Egyptians, but also _ancient_ populations within that same generalized region also did:




> "Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, *similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times* (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania *from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa* than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans." _(S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)_


Perhaps one of the main facts that you are undermining is that the populations which has been consistently noted to have been "*biologically essentially the same*" (Keita, 93) to the ancient Egyptians were the ancient Nubians, and both populations share a general primary affinity with underlined populations listed above (Northeast Africans). This finding has been confirmed by many much more recent studies including Godde 2009:




> "The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix... *In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).* These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2).
> 
> The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. *This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians.* 
> 
> Both mtDNA (Krings et al., 1999) and Y-Chromosome data (Hassan et al., 2008; Keita, 2005; Lucotte and Mercier, 2003) indicate *that migrations, usually bidirectional, occurred along the Nile. Thus, the osteological material used in this analysis also supports the DNA evidence.*
> 
> *On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations* (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007).* The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita* (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990).
> 
> _Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits._ Keita (1992), *using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV.
> ...


The fact that the Nubia *predates* Egypt negates your claim that the affinity towards more southerly northeast African populations is due to a back migration from Egypt.




> As Shomarka Keita noted, the Egyptians were a continuous population of local origin


Keita then followed that exact statement with "of local *Northeast african* ancestry":




> The whole crux of the pan-Africanist argument is that these were "tropical" Africans living in North Africa, based on limb proportions, and that would mean they had "black" skin as well. It doesn't seem like there is evidence that makes it certain you have to be "black-skinned" in order to have "tropical" limb ratios:


You seem to be unaware of the fact that "dark skin" accompaning tropical limb proportions is in fact ecological principal. The ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted in the same fashion as other tropical African populations, which means that they would have had a skin tone within the great range of that seen within tropically adapted populations. How dark, we don't know? 




> "In terms of femoral and tibial length to total skeletal height proportions, we found that ancient Egyptians are **significantly different from US Blacks**, although still closer to Blacks than to Whites."
> Stature Estimation in Ancient Egyptians: A New Technique Based on Anatomical Reconstruction of Stature.
> Michelle H. Raxter, 2008


What color do Pygmies and Melanesians have? These are who this study groups the ancient Egyptians with. Also the fact that there are other studies in which African Americans cluster exactly within that same tropical African grouping infers that it depends on which samples of African Americans are used (as the amount of non African admixture varies greatly amongst this self identified group):




> So, considering they were North African evolved...it doesn't seem probable that they were the same skin tone as black Africans.


Most of North Africa does not lie within the tropics. With that being said the ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted. This means that the ancient Egyptians evolved within tropical Africa, which also means that they had "dark skin". Recent studies confirm that the melanin content in ancient Egyptians mummies was the same as that of tropical African populations:




> "During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, *at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods*. .. Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). *The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."*
> _--(A-M Mekota and M Vermehren. (2005) Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues. Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, Vol. 80, No. 1, Pages 7-13_


Once I get past my first 10 post I will be allowed to accompany my post and quotes with the plots and maps from their actual studies.

----------


## Ramses II

> The fact that you fail to take into consideration is that M78 is a downstream mutation of M-35 which *originated* in Sub Saharan East Africa. Stating that the reason for modern Northeast populations to the south of Egypt having consistently been found to overlap with the early ancient Egyptians is due to the noted back migration above is equally faulty. It is not just _modern_ Horn African populations whom share overlapping affinities with the ancient Egyptians, but also _ancient_ populations within that same generalized region also did:


Your entire premise hinges on m-35 being of Sub Saharan - or what you're trying to imply - negroid origin, and it isn't the case, at all.

"The presence of two underived E-M96 Saudi lineages raises interesting questions related to the macrohaplogroup DE-YAP phylogeography. The recent resolutions of the CDEF-M168 tripartite structure to the bipartite DE-YAP and CF-P143 [16,31] extends the conversation regarding the early successful colonization of Eurasia. While several scenarios remain potentially possible the most parsimonious model is the most prudent. This model proposes the successful colonization of Eurasia by migration(s) of populations containing precursor Y-chromosome founder macrohaplogroup CDET-M168 and basal mtDNA L3 representatives. Regions near but external to northeast Africa, like the Levant or the southern Arabian Peninsula could have served as an incubator for the early diversification *of non-African uniparental haplogroup varieties like Y chromosome DE-YAP**, CF-P143* and mtDNA M and N molecular ancestors. These would have spread globally and diversified over time and space. *This model would imply that both CF-P143 and the DE-YAP evolved nearby but outside Africa. One DE-YAP* ancestor would have spread to Asia and evolved to haplogroup D while another DE-YAP* returned to northeast Africa and evolved into hg E."* (Abu-Amero; 2009)

"*Y-DNA haplogroup E would appear to have arisen in Northeast Africa* based on the concentration and variety of E subclades in that area today. But *the fact that Haplogroup E is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration[...] E1b1b1 probably evolved either in Northeast Africa or the Near East and then expanded to the west--both north and south of the Mediterranean Sea. Eb1b1 clusters are seen today in Western Europe, Southeast Europe, the Near East, Northeast Africa and Northwest Africa*." (Y-DNA Haplogroup E and its Subclades - 2012)


"E1b1a is an African lineage that probably expanded *from northern African* to sub-Saharan and equatorial Africa with the Bantu agricultural expansion." (Y-DNA Haplogroup E and its Subclades - 2012)

Bantus, Nilotes and compay cluster with Pygmies and Khoisan in autosomal DNA tests and not with haplogroup CT-descended Eurasian populations of which encompasses the rest of the world.

"studies support a primary division of human populations into sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasian populations" Chaabani; 2001

"North African populations *are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans* based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes." Henn et al; 2012


And your listed source: _S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 mentions nothing in support of your argument concerning m-35._






> Perhaps one of the main facts that you are undermining is that the populations which has been consistently noted to have been "*biologically essentially the same*" (Keita, 93) to the ancient Egyptians were the ancient Nubians, and both populations share a general primary affinity with underlined populations listed above (Northeast Africans). This finding has been confirmed by many much more recent studies including Godde 2009: 
> 
> The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix... *In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).* These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2).
> 
> The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. *This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians.* 
> 
> Both mtDNA (Krings et al., 1999) and Y-Chromosome data (Hassan et al., 2008; Keita, 2005; Lucotte and Mercier, 2003) indicate *that migrations, usually bidirectional, occurred along the Nile. Thus, the osteological material used in this analysis also supports the DNA evidence.*
> 
> *On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations* (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007).* The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita* (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990).
> ...




*And if we continue reading the next sentences*, properly citing Godde's study, *the part you deliberately excluded*, the picture of *Egyptian and Kerma affinities is placed in its full and proper context*:

"The reoccurring notation of Kerma affinities with Egyptian groups is not entirely surprising. Kerma was an integral part of the trade between Egypt and Nubia. Collett (1933) concluded that *Kerma was originally inhabited by Egyptians* _with neighboring Nubian settlements_. Her investigation of the site pointed towards *continuous Egyptian occupation* of some sort at the site throughout the Kerma time period. This continued presence at Kerma is an optimal condition for gene flow to occur between the two populations... Small geographic distances between groups allow for the exchange of genes."

So this is why Kerma shows affinities with Egyptians, *the Kerma population *was* biologically Egyptian*, hence the similarities with Egyptians. Goode/Collett *made the distinction between Kerma and "neighboring Nubian settlements"* - that is what makes them "closer" than the "other" populations, also noting there was some gene flow into the Nubian population by a continuous Egyptian occupation deep within Nubia. This fully explains why the population of Kerma is *"biologically essentially the same"* as Egyptians, *as stated by your source "(Keita, 93)".
*






> The fact that the Nubia *predates* Egypt negates your claim that the affinity towards more southerly northeast African populations is due to a back migration from Egypt.


No, they don't. **WHICH** "more southerly northeast African populations"? The Egyptians that occupied Kerma? Godde outlines things here for those that still don't get it.:

"I haven't fully developed my opinion in relation to Sub-Saharan Africans and Nubians. *There is little to nothing in the archaeological record or linguistic data that suggests contact between the two populations*." Goode email to Charlie Bass 2011





> Keita then followed that exact statement with "of local *Northeast african* ancestry":



That "local Northeast African ancestry" shows* no* affinity to Sub Saharan negroids as stated above by Godde and below by numerous other papers:

"Because this report is preliminary, statistical analyses have not yet been undertaken. However, based on a qualitative inspection of the dentitions, it appears that: 1) dental phenetic homogeneity was prevalent among the Hierakonpolis inhabitants; and 2) they exhibit dental traits *that ally them with other post-Pleistocene populations in greater North Africa*. Prior work shows *North Africans have morphologically simple, mass-reduced teeth*. *This dental pattern was shown to be ubiquitous among samples, regardless of distance—from the Canary Islands to Egypt and Nubia*—or time—from 8,000 year-old Capsians to recent Berbers in western North Africa. This pattern, termed the “North African Dental Trait Complex,” includes high frequencies of several traits such as an interruption groove on UI2, M3 agenesis, and rocker jaw, plus a low occurrence of LM2 Y-5 groove pattern. *All of these features are also present in Europeans and West Asians to some degree, but are uncommon in sub-Saharan peoples.* *Craniometric indicators appear to support these results, and European-like discrete traits, such as alveolar orthognathism, dolichocephaly, rhomboid orbits, narrow nasal aperture, and nasal sill, are prevalent*… At present, my qualitative inspection of the 14 crania appears to support the preliminary dental findings: 1) Hierakonpolis inhabitants appear to be uniform in cranial size and form, and 2) they *show some resemblance to other post-Pleistocene populations of North Africa, as well as Europe and West Asia.* * They appear distinct from post-Pleistocene sub-Saharan Africans.”*  ( “Preliminary Report on Analyses of the Hierakonpolis Human Remains” Dr. Joel D. Irish, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Nekhen News volume 12 Page 9& 10 2000)

“Qualitative and quantitative methods are employed to describe and compare up to 36 dental morphological variants in 15 *Neolithic through Roman-**period Egyptian samples*. Trait frequencies are determined, and phenetic affinities are calculated using the mean measure of divergence and Mahalanobis D2 statistics for discrete traits; the most important traits in generating this intersample variation are identified with correspondence analysis. Assuming that the samples are representative of the populations from which they derive, and that phenetic similarity provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, *these affinities are suggestive of overall population continuity.* That is, other than a few outliers exhibiting extreme frequencies of nine 
influential traits, the dental samples appear to be largely homogenous and can be characterized as having *morphologically simple, mass-reduced teeth.* These findings are contrasted with those resulting from previous skeletal and other studies, and are used to appraise the viability of five Egyptian peopling scenarios. Specifically, affinities among the 15 time-successive samples suggest that: *1) there may be a connection between Neolithic and subsequent* *predynastic Egyptians, 2) predynastic Badarian and Naqada peoples may be closely related, 3) the dynastic period is likely an indigenous continuation of* *the Naqada culture, 4) there is support for overall biological uniformity through the dynastic period, and 5) this uniformity may continue into post dynastic* *times…*Was there biological continuity between predynastic Naqada and Badarian peoples? Most researchers believe there is a direct relationship between these groups, based on material culture similarities (Brunton, 1932; Mond and Meyers, 1937; Massoulard, 1949; Arkelland Ucko, 1965; Kantor, 1965; Fairservis, 1972; Midant-Reynes, 2000a,b). A comparison of Badari to the Naqada and Hierakonpolis samples is supportive of this hypothesis, 
and contradicts the idea of a foreign origin for the Naqada (Petrie, 1939; Baumgartel, 1970). Badari is concordant with both Naqada samples for most traits (Table2). This correspondence is reflected by Badari’s 22-trait MMDs with Naqada (0.000) and Hierakonpolis (0.012). The former affinity indicates no difference between samples, and the latter is insignificant (Table 4). These relationships are also evidenced by the nearness of all three samples in the MDS diagrams (Figs. 2, 5) and CA row plot (Fig. 3). Interestingly, these results are at odds with those of workers who reported significant cranial non metric (Prowse and Lovell, 1996) and metric (*Keita, 1996*) differences between the same Badari and Naqada (NAQ) samples studied here. The reason for this disparity is unknown, but may be related to different sample sizes or types of data employed. Dental evidence for Badarian continuity does not simply end with the Naqada period. Of all samples, Badari exhibits the closest affinity to the 14 others based on its low mean MMD of 0.028 and central location in all diagrams (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). In fact, in the 22-trait MDS (Fig. 2), Badari is at the centroid of all 15 Egyptian samples, as shown in Figure 6…The lack of a closer affinity may be a result of purported supplementary influence on the Badarians from the Levant (Hendrickx and Vermeersch, 2000) or Eastern Desert (Holmes, 1989). Moreover, Gebel Ramlah is in the southernmost part of the Western Desert. The primary source of the Badarian culture is thought to have been the oases farther north (Caton-Thompson, 1926; Hassan, 1986, 1988; Holmes, 1989). the fact that Gebel Ramlah is closest to early Upper Egyptians, including Badari, suggests that a Western Desert origin remains a viable hypothesis… most are *phenetically similar enough to* *imply population continuity from predynastic to perhaps Roman times.* 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 post dynastic* 
*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.* (“Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through post dynastic peoples” J.D. Irish Copyright 2006 Wiley-Liss, 
Inc.)

"*Ancient Egyptians had simple, mass reduced teeth. This contrasts with the dental pattern of Sub-Saharan Africans who had (Irish, 2000) massive complex* *teeth.” 

* “the observation that *teeth of American blacks are larger than those of* *American whites*.” (“Tissue contributions to sex and race: Differences in tooth crown size of deciduous molars” Edward F. Harris, Joseph D. Hicks, Betsy D. Barcroft College of Dentistry, University of Tennessee 2001)







> You seem to be unaware of the fact that "dark skin" accompaning tropical limb proportions is in fact ecological principal. The ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted in the same fashion as other tropical African populations, which means that they would have had a skin tone within the great range of that seen within tropically adapted populations. How dark, we don't know?



Badarians and Early Dynastic Egyptians did not possess "tropical limbs" they had short tibia (1) as per Zakrzewski (2003) in relation to the femur which indicates cold adaptation, thus only later MK sample from Gebelein possessed this Nilotic form - she states this Gebelein population became *"increasingly African"* and that (2) the EPD sample at Gebelein was *significantly* *biologically distant* to the MK Nubian sample.

(1) "Of the Egyptian samples, *only the Badarian and Early Dynastic* period populations *have shorter tibiae* than predicted from femoral length."

(2) "the sample studied originates from *Gebelein* in Upper Egypt. Interestingly, *the only other sample deriving from Gebelein, an EPD sample, was found to be significantly biologically distant to the MK sample*. This result suggests that *there is no simple biological population continuity at Gebelein.* Stele indicate that *Nubian* mercenaries lived, married, died, and were buried at this site *over the MK period* (Fischer, 1961). 


And this goes a great length in explaining why the Egyptians *refused* to depict themselves as a "tropical" people yet were consistent in depicting Nubians to the south as such.


CONT.

----------


## Ramses II

FROM CONT.




> Recent studies confirm that the melanin content in ancient Egyptians mummies was the same as that of tropical African populations:



Not so fast.

“There are the same number of melanocytes [pigment-forming cells] to be found in both Negroid and Caucasian skin.” (“Atlas of Clinical Dermatology” Dr. Anthony du Vivier 1986, page 23)

“Pigmentation of the skin is determined at cellular level. Although there may be some variation in the number of melanocytes between races, the difference is not striking... all persons have the same total number of melanocytes.” (“Color Atlas Of Melanocytic Lesioins of the Skin”2007 Soyer, Argenziano, Hofmann-Wellenhof

“Only about 10% of the cells in the basal layer are melanocytes…that specialize in making a pigment protein called melanin, which they package into little sacks that can be transferred to nearby basal epithelial cells…In response to sunlight, melanocytes produce more melanin…That’s why we tan. All normal humans have melanocytes in their skin, and oddly enough, dark-skinned people have roughly the same number of melanocytes as Caucasians.” (“How Cancer Works”2004 Sompayrac)

“Light-skinned individuals may generate considerable melanin, with continued exposure to sunlight (and so tan). ” (“The New Encyclopædia Britannic”, Volume 18‎ - Page 845 1993)

_Afrocentrics also deny the existance of other Caucasoid lineages in Egypt:_

"Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, *bringing Caucasians to North Africa* and Europe..." Maca-Meyer et al; 2001

"Attested *presence of Caucasian people in northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times*..."Maca-Meyer et al; 2003

"The *expansion of Caucasians in Africa* has been correlated with *the spread and diversification of Afroasiatic* languages" Maca-Meyer et al; 2003

"The Nile River delta population is mainly *Caucasian in origin*" Herrera et al; 2004

"*North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes*." Henn et al; 2012

"the *M1 and U6* haplogroups, originated simultaneously in western Asia... and spread together with modern humans into northern Africa... These early populations may represent the *root-stock* of the early settlers/inhabitants of the Eastern Sahara who were *subsequently to people the Nile Valley, and build one of the first organized civilized states – the Egyptian pharaonic Empire.* (Aubry et al; 2008)

All studies are in agreement, it's Afrocentrics that show a complete lack in basic comprehension and reading.

“We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published.... *These﻿ people were Caucasian*." (” 1988 Braunstein, M.D. et al) says it all, really.






> What color do Pygmies and Melanesians have? These are who this study groups the ancient Egyptians with. Also the fact that there are other studies in which African Americans cluster exactly within that same tropical African grouping infers that it depends on which samples of African Americans are used (as the amount of non African admixture varies greatly amongst this self identified group):


N.E. Africans (Egyptians) aren't Pygmies and Melanesians aren't even Africans, which shows how faulty that study is.

"we found that ancient Egyptians are ***significantly different from US Blacks***, although still closer to Blacks than to Whites."

_That_ study? "significantly different" doesn't help your case if they're supposed to be the same. All the studies indicate biological relatedness to Eurasians and Europeans and insisting Northeast Africans are negroid when they are Caucasoid and cluster with Caucasians is ridiculous.

----------


## Taharqa

> Your entire premise hinges on m-35 being of Sub Saharan - or what you're trying to imply - negroid origin, and it isn't the case, at all.


First of all, the origins and migration of M-35 is just one of my lines of evidence confirming the more southerly African origins of ancient Egypt. This is supported not only by mainstream (and pretty common sense) genetic evidence, but even coinciding with lingustic evidence as Christphoer Ehret's recent study details:


> *The genetic data appear to be consistent with the archaeological and linguistic data indicative of extensive population interactions between North African and Middle Eastern populations.* A recent NRY study explores the distribution of haplogroups in a sample of African, Middle Eastern, and European males (38). *Whereas a subclade of haplogroup E (M35) appears to have arisen in eastern Africa over 20 kya and subsequently spread to the Middle East and Europe, haplogroup J (M267) appears to have arisen in the Middle East over 20 kya and subsequently spread into northern Africa (38). A recent study of genomewide autosomal microsatellite markers reports that Middle Eastern and African samples share the highest number of alleles that are also absent in other non-African samples, consistent with bidirectional gene flow (1).* In addition, a recent study of domestic goat mtDNA and NRY variation reports similar findings as well as evidence of trade along the Strait of Gibraltar (39). *The combined archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data, therefore, suggest bidirectional migration of peoples between northern Africa and the Levant for at least the past ∼14 ky*.
> 
> Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East


Here is the map from Luis 2004 which explains in detail the origins and spread of the ancestral clade to the ancient Egyptians:



The single biggest problem with the Henn study, is that the author only investigated one way gene flow from the Levant into Northern Africa and never investigated the opposite, which Henn actually admitted in an email. The evidence of an out of Africa migration has been detailed by the single largest genetic study of Africans to this date Tishkoff 2009.:




> Consistent with *bi-directional gene flow*(14), African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations(fig. S6B).


Not to mention the very patchy sampling:





> "North African populations *are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans* based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes." Henn et al; 2012


Make no mistake that there now a biological distinction between _some_ North African populations and the other populations further south, but this study does not negate the fact that the population origins Northern Africa lie rooted firmly within Sub Saharan Africa as detailed by Frigi et al. 2010:




> "Our objective is to highlight the age of sub-Saharan gene flows in North Africa and particularly in Tunisia. Therefore we analyzed in a broad phylogeographic context sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups of Tunisian Berber populations considered representative of ancient settlement. More than 2,000 sequences were collected from the literature, and networks were constructed. *The results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago. Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b.* This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 years BP. *These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa.* The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans. *Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa.*"
> 
> _-- Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations
> Frigi et al. Human Biology (August 2010 (82:4)_


Now while the segment of the study above is pertaining to the vast North African region, Frigi also makes a specific statement in regards to the peopling of the Nile Valley:




> Molecular studies on the Y chromosome in North Africa are interpreted as indicating that* the southern part of Africa, namely, the Horn/East Africa, was a major source of population in the Nile Valley* and northwest Africa after the Last Glacial Maximum,* with some migration into the Near East and southern Europe* (Bosch et al. 2001; Underhill et al. 2001).


The conclusions that you are trying to reach from the Henn study, are simply not supported by linguistic, archaeological, skeletal or what most genetic studies have concluded about the peopling of the Nile Valley. 




> And your listed source: _S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 mentions nothing in support of your argument concerning m-35._


The point of me posting Keita's conclusions was to show what the general affinity (in terms of phenotype) was with the ancient Egyptians. The affinities were with ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans and modern Horn Africans all of which are more southerly tropically adapted Northeast African populations whom are most commonly recognized by society as "black". In summary of that specific quote the ancient Egyptians displayed a phenotype most similar to that of black African populations to the south.




> So this is why Kerma shows affinities with Egyptians, *the Kerma population *was* biologically Egyptian*, hence the similarities with Egyptians. Goode/Collett *made the distinction between Kerma and "neighboring Nubian settlements"* - that is what makes them "closer" than the "other" populations, also noting there was some gene flow into the Nubian population by a continuous Egyptian occupation deep within Nubia.


You are undermining the essential fact that these indigneous Nile Valley populations were of a cominbation of Nilotic and Afrasian African communities as archaeology and their own skeletal morphologies cosistently reflect this. In other words the distinction between Upper Egyptians and Nubians was for the most part nonexistant. That being said irregardless to the bi-directional geneflow around the Upper Nile region, Kerma is the oldest of the two civilizations.




> No, they don't. **WHICH** "more southerly northeast African populations"?


Seriously here is a great article by Ehret which will allow you to brush up on the *true* peopling of the Nile Valley and Valley:




> Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots. 
> 
> *The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt.** The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family* (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). *The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east.* They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. *The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian.* They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food. 
> 
> *A new religion came with them as well. Its central tenet explains the often localized origins of later Egyptian gods: the earliest Afrasians were, properly speaking, neither monotheistic nor polytheistic.* Instead, each local community, comprising a clan or a group of related clans, had its own distinct deity and centered its religious observances on that deity. *This belief system persists today among several Afrasian peoples of far southwest Ethiopia.* *And as Biblical scholars have shown, Yahweh, god of the ancient Hebrews, an Afrasian people of the Semitic group, was originally also such a deity. The connection of many of Egypt's predynastic gods to particular localities is surely a modified version of this early Afrasian belief.* Political unification in the late fourth millennium brought the Egyptian deities together in a new polytheistic system. But their local origins remain amply apparent in the records that have come down to us. 
> 
> During the long era between about 10,000 and 6000 B.C., new kinds of southern influences diffused into Egypt. During these millennia,* the Sahara had a wetter climate than it has today, with grassland or steppes in many areas that are now almost absolute desert. New wild animals, most notably the cow, spread widely in the eastern Sahara in this period.* 
> 
> *One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan* (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982).* The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.* 
> ...





> That "local Northeast African ancestry" shows* no* affinity to Sub Saharan negroids as stated above by Godde and below by numerous other papers:


Wrong again:


Ricaut 2008

Now before you run to Mathilda's interpretations of this study I'd advise you to read the text on your own, because it'll swing right back and hit you in the balls. 




> "*Ancient Egyptians had simple, mass reduced teeth. This contrasts with the dental pattern of Sub-Saharan Africans who had (Irish, 2000) massive complex* *teeth.”*




You ignore the recent fact that the forces of evolution have determined dental-cranial morphology.




> Origins of dental crowding and malocclusions: an anthropological perspective.
> 
> Rose JC, Roblee RD.
> 
> Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009 Jun;30(5):292-300.
> 
> The study of ancient Egyptian skeletons from Amarna, Egypt reveals extensive tooth wear but very little dental crowding, unlike in modern Americans. In the early 20th century, Percy Raymond Begg focused his research on extreme tooth wear coincident with traditional diets to justify teeth removal during orthodontic treatment. *Anthropologists studying skeletons that were excavated along the Nile Valley in Egypt and the Sudan have demonstrated reductions in tooth size and changes in the face, including decreased robustness associated with the development of agriculture,*  but without any increase in the frequency of dental crowding and malocclusion. For thousands of years, facial and dental reduction stayed in step, more or less. These analyses suggest it was not the reduction in tooth wear that increased crowding and malocclusion, but rather the tremendous reduction in the forces of mastication, which produced this extreme tooth wear and the subsequent reduced jaw involvement. Thus, as modern food preparation techniques spread throughout the world during the 19th century, so did dental crowding. This research provides support for the development of orthodontic therapies that increase jaw dimensions rather than the use of tooth removal to relieve crowding.





> Badarians and Early Dynastic Egyptians did not possess "tropical limbs" they had short tibia (1) as per Zakrzewski (2003) in relation to the femur which indicates cold adaptation, thus only later MK sample from Gebelein possessed this Nilotic form


 :Laughing:  Are you serious?




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





> *The predynastic Egyptian values plotted near tropical Africans, not Mediterranean Europeans."*
> 
> --S. Keita, (1993). Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships. History in Africa. Vol. 20, (1993), pp. 129-154





> (1) "Of the Egyptian samples, *only the Badarian and Early Dynastic* period populations *have shorter tibiae* than predicted from femoral length."


followed directly by:




> *"Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations."* _(Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229._





> And this goes a great length in explaining why the Egyptians *refused* to depict themselves as a "tropical" people yet were consistent in depicting Nubians to the south as such.


951034ef730b.jpg

egypt-asiatic-conquer.jpg

I see reddish Brown Tut and reddish Brown and black Nubians. Now compare that to reddish brown Ramses and white Libyans  :Laughing:

----------


## Taharqa

> Not so fast.


Nope, the Eurocentric shenanigans ended with this one:




> "D*uring an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods.* .. Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1).* The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."*
> _--(A-M Mekota and M Vermehren. (2005) Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues. Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, Vol. 80, No. 1, Pages 7-13_


"*Newly developed methods*" were used to determine the skin color of these Egyptian mummies and they all come out to be black like the Negroids who we all know that they came from. 




> "the *M1 and U6* haplogroups, originated simultaneously in western Asia... and spread together with modern humans into northern Africa... These early populations may represent the *root-stock* of the early settlers/inhabitants of the Eastern Sahara who were *subsequently to people the Nile Valley, and build one of the first organized civilized states – the Egyptian pharaonic Empire.* (Aubry et al; 2008)


Nope sorry most studies associate M1 with East Africans (because that's where it origianted):




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


or




> “..*the M1 presence in the Arabian peninsula signals a predominant East African influence since the Neolithic onwards.“* -- Petraglia, M and Rose, J (2010). The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia:





> N.E. Africans (Egyptians) aren't Pygmies and Melanesians aren't even Africans, which shows how faulty that study is.


The study is plotting the populations according to their limb proportions. The ancient Egyptians being the tropically adapted dark skinned African populations that they were, grouped with other tropically adapted dark skinned populations (including African Americans):

sbrfrk.png

Now let brace explain what ecological principal indicates based on this fact:




> "*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..")_


Sorry about your luck. 




> "we found that ancient Egyptians are ***significantly different from US Blacks***, although still closer to Blacks than to Whites."


As I've explained the sampling of highly variable African Americans is at issue with these comparisons. Some group right next to tropical Africans and some group a little distantly. In the analysis below they used the "Negro" equation to describe the ancient Egyptian limb proportions.




> "*It can be seen that all the pharonic values, including those of 'Smakhare', lie much closer to the negro curve than to the white curve.*Since stature equations only work satisfactorily in the individuals to whom they have applied have similar proportions to the population group from which they are derived,* this provides justification for using negro equations for estimating stature from single bones of the New Kingdom pharoahs, renforcing the previous findings of Robins* (1983). Furthermore, *the Troller and Gleser white equations for the femur, tibia and humerus yield stature values that have a much wider spread than those from negro equations with mean values that are* *unacceptably large.**"*
> 
> --Robins and Schute. The Physical Proportions and Stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs," Journal of Human Evolution 12 (1983), 455-465


or




> *"Estimates of living stature, based on X-ray measurements applied to the Trotter & Gleser (1958) negro equations for the femur, tibia and humerus, have been made for ancient Egyptian kings belonging to the 18th and 19th dynasties.* The corresponding equations for whites give values for stature that are unsatisfactorily high. The view that Thutmose III was excessively short is proved to be a myth. *It is shown that the limbs of the pharaohs, like those of other Ancient Egyptians, had negroid characteristics, in that the distal segments were relatively long in comparison with the proximal segments.* An exception was Ramesses II, who appears to have had short legs below the knees."
> --Robins and Schute. The Physical Proportions and Stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs," Journal of Human Evolution 12 (1983), 455-465


yegyptjD.jpg

Makes sense to me  :Good Job: 




> That study? "significantly different" doesn't help your case if they're supposed to be the same. All the studies indicate biological relatedness to Eurasians and Europeans and insisting Northeast Africans are negroid when they are Caucasoid and cluster with Caucasians is ridiculous.


 :Laughing:  Another not job insisting on saying that a parent population really has the affinities of it's descendants (rather than visa versa....logically):




> _"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


or even Brace




> "*An earlier generation of anthropologists* tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), *but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions.** It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa.* From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years."_(-- C.L. Brace, 1993. Clines and clusters..")_

----------


## LeBrok

Great discussion guys, but please have respect for each other, we're all friends here.

Arrogant arguments like these are not helping anyone:



> who we all know that they came from.





> (and pretty common sense)





> I'd advise you to read the text on your own, because it'll swing right back and hit you in the balls.


One other advise, keep your posts shorter to the point, or concentrate on one issue. Writing posts that need half hour study won't be read by many killing interesting discussion.

On subject:
Can we agree on mixed racial origin of ancient Egypt? The paintings on walls are very precis of showing different colors and characteristics of Egyptians. I don't thing there should be much of argument even without genetic data.
Now, when it comes to different populations, ethnic groups, classes or royal lines, it's another story.

You can find interesting parallels in today's world. How can we tell if population of Brazil is Ero-asiatic, or African in origin?
India is even more exciting example of population diversity, languages and casts.
Why would Egyptians have a licence on population and language homogeneity, especially considering their location.

----------


## SekhemreKhutawy

> The fact that you fail to take into consideration is that M78 is a downstream mutation of M-35 which *originated* in Sub Saharan East Africa. Stating that the reason for modern Northeast populations to the south of Egypt having consistently been found to overlap with the early ancient Egyptians is due to the noted back migration above is equally faulty. It is not just _modern_ Horn African populations whom share overlapping affinities with the ancient Egyptians, but also _ancient_ populations within that same generalized region also did:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps one of the main facts that you are undermining is that the populations which has been consistently noted to have been "*biologically essentially the same*" (Keita, 93) to the ancient Egyptians were the ancient Nubians, and both populations share a general primary affinity with underlined populations listed above (Northeast Africans). This finding has been confirmed by many much more recent studies including Godde 2009:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the Nubia *predates* Egypt negates your claim that the affinity towards more southerly northeast African populations is due to a back migration from Egypt.
> ...


So what that E-M35 originated in Eastern Africa? All haplogroups have ancestry in Eastern Africa, as this is the region from which humans dispersed to different areas of the world. The fact is that when the people spread in different directions, they, like their genetics, diversified. So bringing up that M78 is a downstream mutation means nothing, really. LOL @ you. The very study you post from Keita even says "show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or *modern groups from the Horn of Africa*." The ancient similarities being with those people in the upper Northeast African region--Nubians/Kushites and Saharans...who have common ancestry with the Nile Valley people in parent Afro-Asiatic stocks. Go figure, except those in the Nubian region became admixed with Nilotic peoples...who were very different from Egyptians phenotypically...as represented in their art. 

As for your copy-and-paste of K. Godde's study:

"_In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian)_."

Which would make one wonder about the level of phenotypical influence these Nubians exhibited from their Egyptian/North African and Nilotic ancestries, or if they were simply Egyptians, or Nubians that didn't mix with Nilotes yet...which is also relative to this part you highlighted:

_"The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians."_
-------------------------------------
_"Both mtDNA (Krings et al., 1999) and Y-Chromosome data (Hassan et al., 2008; Keita, 2005; Lucotte and Mercier, 2003) indicate that migrations, usually bidirectional, occurred along the Nile. Thus, the osteological material used in this analysis also supports the DNA evidence."_

And the time periods in which these admixed or Nilotic Nubians migrated to Egypt were when? How big were these Nubian movements and how much did they contribute in terms of genetics to the Egyptian population in each movement? 

_"On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations...
…The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions.”_

I’m assuming that when he says Southern Africa, he merely means southerly Africans that are geographically proximate. Sure, there was an artistic relation, and even if the artistic culture came from that region, it could, without proof stating otherwise, mean that there was a cultural continuity in the Nile Valley region with the Afro-Asiatic peoples of that region before the division into Egyptians and mixed/Nilotic Nubians. Also, the affiliation with these “southerly Africans” has already been covered. As for the Bantu-speaking Teita…do you have a complete genetic profile on them?

_“For example, we found E-M35* and E-M78 chromosomes in Bantu-speaking populations from Kenya (14.3%) but not in those living in central Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002), the area in which the Bantu expansion originated (Vansina 1984). In agreement with mtDNA data (Salas et al. 2002), this finding suggests a relevant contribution of eastern African peoples to the gene pool of the eastern Bantu.”_
Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa
F. Cruciani 2004

“Taharqa” quotes:_ “Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV.”
_ 
And what exactly are these “Negroid” traits? Is this term being used to refer to black people in general including East Africans with their different craniofacial type? Or Negroid as in black people with a craniofacial type typical of, say, a Bantu person? Is prognathism one of those traits? I mean, I wouldn’t doubt that was present in ancestral East African peoples. But could this not be a retention of archaic traits? As for later Egyptian skulls being different… might this not be simple regional variation within Egypt? After all, they (Lower Egyptians) were different from Upper Egyptians from formative times…but not so different as to be considered non-African, per Zakrzewski. And even though Barry Kemp says this about late dynastic Lower Egyptians:


_"In a database of human cranial variation worldwide (CRANID) based on standardized sets of measurements, the population that is used to characterize ancient Egypt lies firmly within a Europe/Mediterranean bloc. The original source is the largest series of skulls from Egypt (1,500) collected by Petrie in 1907 from a cemetery on a desert ridge to the south of Giza and dating from the 26th to the 30th Dynasties...."_

….the 26-30th dynasty Egyptians do not exhibit biological differentiation according to Joel Irish’s 2006 dental study:

_"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."_

“Taharqa” posts: “The fact that the Nubia predates Egypt negates your claim that the affinity towards more southerly northeast African populations is due to a back migration from Egypt.”

Sure, there were “cultures” that existed in the historic Nubian regions long before predynastic Egypt, and there was a biologically and culturally continuous Afro-Asiatic population extending in Northeast Africa, extending from Egypt and into Sudan. But how this is supposed to negate the genetic imprint on and coincidental affinity to modern Horn Africans by upper Northeast Africans, I’m not sure. 

“Taharqa” posts: “Keita then followed that exact statement with "of local Northeast african ancestry.”

So what? I’ve always maintained they were Northeast Africans too. 

“Taharqa” posts: “You seem to be unaware of the fact that "dark skin" accompaning tropical limb proportions is in fact ecological principal. The ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted in the same fashion as other tropical African populations, which means that they would have had a skin tone within the great range of that seen within tropically adapted populations. How dark, we don't know?”

“What color do Pygmies and Melanesians have? These are who this study groups the ancient Egyptians with. Also the fact that there are other studies in which African Americans cluster exactly within that same tropical African grouping infers that it depends on which samples of African Americans are used (as the amount of non African admixture varies greatly amongst this self identified group):”

They are closer to tropical populations and African Americans than they are to cold adapted populations. Allen’s Rule, which can be applied to both humans and animals, demonstrates that desert animals tend to have longer appendages, which serve the function of dissipating heat. So in a desert climate on the upper fringe of the tropics, who are you to say that they were the same skin tone as black Africans, especially when African Americans are significantly different…as well as Nilotic peoples. Zakrzewski (2003) noted an increase in Nilotic body plan in the Middle Kingdom Gebelin sample, contrasted with earlier Egyptians:


_"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."_

On top of that, as I’ve shown in an earlier post… DH Temple supports the idea that long limbs can occur in low-latitude temperate environments, along with tropical environments. 

Taharqa: “Recent studies confirm that the melanin content in ancient Egyptians mummies was the same as that of tropical African populations:”

Again, what do they mean by Negroid origin? Based on what? A craniofacial similarity with Nilotes and Bantus? A term used to refer to black Africans in general, even those of the East African type? Besides, these are New Kingdom mummies the study is talking about, so it wouldn’t surprise me if there were some such people in Thebes.

----------


## Taharqa

> So what that E-M35 originated in Eastern Africa? All haplogroups have ancestry in Eastern Africa, as this is the region from which humans dispersed to different areas of the world.


That is a red herring to distract from the main contention that the original population source for the Nile Valley is Haplogroup E which originated in Sub Saharan East Africa. Irregardless of where all non African haplogroups can ultimately trace their origins, the signature marker for the Nile Valley is one which most closely ties it to Sub Saharan African populations (the Horn).




> The very study you post from Keita even says "show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or *modern groups from the Horn of Africa*."


 Again what's your point? You are completely ignoring the fact that Keita list the *ancient* populations from *the same Northeast African region*, as also being closely related to the ancient Egyptians. Sub Saharan East Africa was a major population source for the Nile Valley, as displayed perfectly clearly by everything from linguistics, genetics, archaeology and culture. This would logically only mean that modern groups in the Horn of Africa are a representative of what proto-Egyptians generally looked like. The most mind boggling contradiction of your theory that the early ancient Egyptians were "_anything but black African_", is that* you are even acknowleding the proven fact that they shared primary biological affinities with ancient and modern black Africans* and not with their modern *descendants* in Egypt who are highly admixed with non Africans. Your entire premise is self defeating.  :Embarassed: 




> The ancient similarities being with those people in the upper Northeast African region--Nubians/Kushites and Saharans...who have common ancestry with the Nile Valley people in parent Afro-Asiatic stocks.


The ancient Saharans were Nilotic Africans as attested by Ehret's article above. These Nilotic cattle herders tribes from the ancient Sahara were the second wave of people who intermixed with the Afrasian communities who initially settled on the Nile:

Dinka_Legendary_Cattle_Keepers_1.800w_600h.jpg





> "a critical factor in the rise of social complexity and the subsequent emergence of the Egyptian state in Upper Egypt (Hoffman 1979; Hassan 1988). *If so, Egypt owes a major debt to those early pastoral groups in the Sahara; they may have provided Egypt with many of those features that still distinguish it from its neighbors to the east."* _Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 97-123 (1998), "Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory," Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild._


 This is what Keita means when he states that the *heterogenous ancestry* of Egypt was already in place during Pre-Dynastic times and he follows by stating there is no evidence to suggest that Egypt's origins were anything but of local Northeast African ancestry. 




> Go figure, except those in the Nubian region became admixed with Nilotic peoples...who were very different from Egyptians phenotypically...as represented in their art.


The fact that the ancient Nubians spoke a Nilo Saharan language I would tend to agree that they were likely more influenced by the second wave of settlement on the Nile than those in parts of Egypt. Then again Keita and other scholars have noted that the cultural and biological affinties of the early Lower Egyptian populations tied them more towards the Nilotic populations of the ancient Sahara than to anywhere else:




> *"Over the last two decades, numerous contemporary (Khartoum Neolithic) sites and cemeteries have been excavated in the Central Sudan.. The most striking point to emerge is the overall similarity of early neolithic developments inhabitation, exchange, material culture and mortuary customs in the Khartoum region to those underway at the same time in the Egyptian Nile Valley, far to the north."* _(Wengrow, David (2003) "Landscapes of Knowledge, Idioms of Power: The African Foundations of Ancient Egyptian Civilization Reconsidered," in Ancient Egypt in Africa, David O'Connor and Andrew Reid, eds. Ancient Egypt in Africa. London: University College London Press, 2003, pp. 119-137)_


Just food for thought.




> Which would make one wonder about the level of phenotypical influence these Nubians exhibited from their Egyptian/North African and Nilotic ancestries, or if they were simply Egyptians, or Nubians that didn't mix with Nilotes yet...which is also relative to this part you highlighted:


You are running a little too far ahead of yourself from that interpretation by morett. The ancient Egyptians have also been postulated to have been the results of migrants from Nubia:




> "*Some have argued that various early Egyptians like the Badarians probably migrated northward from Nubia,* while others see a wide-ranging movement of peoples across the breadth of the Sahara before the onset of desiccation. *Whatever may be the origins of any particular people or civilization, however, it seems reasonably certain that the predynastic communities of the Nile valley were essentially indigenous in culture, drawing little inspiration from sources outside the continent during the several centuries directly preceding the onset of historical times*..." _(Robert July, Pre-Colonial Africa, 1975, p. 60-61)_


and




> *"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."*_(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )_


As I've stated irregardless of bi-directional geneflow on the Nile Valley, the facts remains that Kerma is the oldest civilization on the Nile and both Egyptians and Nubians were of the same mixture of tropical African ancestry. 




> And the time periods in which these admixed or Nilotic Nubians migrated to Egypt were when? How big were these Nubian movements and how much did they contribute in terms of genetics to the Egyptian population in each movement?


The Nilotic ancestry came into the Nile Valley between 10,000-6,000 BC. They mixed with the already in place Afrasian communities. The Nilotic ancestry was substantial enough to be major genetic characteristic of modern Coptic descedants:




> "The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt.





> *The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology."*_Source Hisham Y. Hassan 1, Peter A. Underhill 2, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza 2, Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1. (2008). Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history. Am J Phys Anthropology, 2008.)_


This finding runs parralel with lingustic, archaeolgocial, and skeletal data which confirms that a substantial migration of Nilotes from the ancient Sahara took place during Pre-Dynastic times.




> Sure, there was an artistic relation, and even if the artistic culture came from that region, it could, without proof stating otherwise, mean that there was a cultural continuity in the Nile Valley region with the Afro-Asiatic peoples of that region before the division into Egyptians and mixed/Nilotic Nubians.


This was based primarily on archaeological evidence, rather than a biological. None the less this postulation has been backed by a 2012 genetic analysis of the Amarna period pharaohs (the same markers extracted from study publicized by Zahi Hawass in 2010), which found their primary genetic affinity to be with African populations from the Great Lakes region, southern Africa and Western Africa. 

dnatribes.jpg




> *Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent in modern populations in several parts of Africa.* These results are based on the 8 STR markers for which these pharaonic mummies have been tested, which allow a preliminary geographical analysis for these individuals who lived in Egypt during the Amarna period of the 14th century BCE.
> 
> *Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry, geographical analysis suggests ancestral links with neighboring populations in Africa for the studied pharaonic mummies.* If new data become available in the future, it might become possible to further clarify results and shed new light on the relationships of ancient individuals to modern populations.


The Great Lakes region is interestingly enough was the same region which the Egyptians stated that the came from in the Hunefer papyrus. As far as the West Africa's affinty is concerned, one fact that facts it is that King Tut was actually confirmed to have died from sickle cell anemia which ultimately has it's origins in West Africa:

overtime.gif

Just food for thought




> Also, the affiliation with these “southerly Africans” has already been covered. As for the Bantu-speaking Teita…do you have a complete genetic profile on them?


Nope, it would be interesting though. 




> And what exactly are these “Negroid” traits? Is this term being used to refer to black people in general including East Africans with their different craniofacial type?.....Is prognathism one of those traits? I mean, I wouldn’t doubt that was present in ancestral East African peoples.


That's the problem with racial classification in biology, the definition varries from scholar to scholar. In this case the "Negroid traits" noted by this early 20th century anthropologist was also noted in 2007 by 




> *"**As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups* (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). _(Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)_


With that being said it makes no sense on your part to assert that a migration from Egypt into the south, made these populations the way that they are now. The populations of Northeast Africa have always had their own set of indingenous traits which characterizes them. Rather or not those traits are lumped in as "Caucasoid" of "Negroid" does not change who those people are, where they originate and what they look like. That being said the ancient Egyptians generally most closely resembled both ancient and modern populations from within that same region.




> Or Negroid as in black people with a craniofacial type typical of, say, a Bantu person?


The indigenous craniofacial types of African populations is the most diverse in the world. The narrow featured Africans across the sub continent (central, west or east) are just as African as the broad featured populations. Also what is with the fascination of bringing "Bantu" African populations into this conversation when they need not apply? This discussion is centered around Nilotic and Afrasian speaking African communities. Please stop trying to polarize what is considered "black" as it is dishonest on your part and you that. Not to mention the fundamental fact that Bantu is a *LANGUAGE* family, *NOT* a set of physical traits. 




> As for later Egyptian skulls being different… might this not be simple regional variation within Egypt? After all, they (Lower Egyptians) were different from Upper Egyptians from formative times


Nope. The modern populations of *both* Upper and Lower Egypt are much more distant from the early populations, than are ancient Nubian and recent/modern Horn African populations. Geneflow from the Mediterranean has been listed as the primary culprit for this biological distinction over time:


dendrogram2.jpg




> ….the 26-30th dynasty Egyptians do not exhibit biological differentiation according to Joel Irish’s 2006 dental study:


That is based on dental traits, in an attempt to determine *continuity* between ancient and modern populations, which is not the same as determining the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians. That is why in Zakreski's 2007 study she noted the findings of continuity in Irish's 2006 study but that did not negate the fact that their was an alteration of biological affinities, due to an influx of foreign populations:




> *Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations* (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). *In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.*
> 
>  *Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002)*.* A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990).* 
> 
> -- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528


Also Zakrzewski criticized Howell's database for it's reliance of those same late period Northern Egyptian samples, because they were not "typical" of the Egyptian series:




> Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.
> 
> Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. *In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.*
> 
> The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. *These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample.* Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analysis were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.
> 
> *The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series.* –Zakrewski (2004) “I*ntra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania*.”





> Sure, there were “cultures” that existed in the historic Nubian regions long before predynastic Egypt, and there was a biologically and culturally continuous Afro-Asiatic population extending in Northeast Africa, extending from Egypt and into Sudan. But how this is supposed to negate the genetic imprint on and coincidental affinity to modern Horn Africans by upper Northeast Africans, I’m not sure.


You are essentially suggesting that those pre-existing (and modern) populations in more southerly regions of Northeast Africa got their biological affinities from the backmigration from Egypt. While it's obvious that this did occur, you have yet to even give a date for this back migration into the Horn. I've read a passage on one website in which a Greek historian notes that during Egyptian antiquity a quarter million rebellious Egyptian men migrated south to settle with the Cushites. Could this possibly be the back migration that we know occurred? 




> So what? I’ve always maintained they were Northeast Africans too.


From what I'm getting from your post you are maintaining that Egypt was it's own population source and ultimately that of more southerly northeast African populations, which is false.




> So in a desert climate on the upper fringe of the tropics, who are you to say that they were the same skin tone as black Africans


First of all it is ecological principal that tropically adapted populations have dark skin color in relation to non tropically adapted populations. The ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted in the same fashion as populations whom in Africa are regarded as "black" and Southeast Asian populations whom have been previously regarded as "Negro" transplants because of their physical appearance. Why would the ancient Egyptians somehow _magically_ defy ecological principal and not have dark skin within the range of all the other populations whom they group with?




> especially when African Americans are significantly different


So in other words you are going to completely ignore the plotting graph from the recent study in my last post which groups African Americans within that same tropically adapted cluster as Egyptians, Pygmies and Melenasians? The explanation for why some African American samples might varry in this respect was explained in that same post.




> …as well as Nilotic peoples. Zakrzewski (2003) noted an increase in Nilotic body plan in the Middle Kingdom Gebelin sample, contrasted with earlier Egyptians:


What is your point? The ancient Egyptians were more tropically adapted than modern West African populations, as noted as the reasoning for them being referred to as "*Super Negroid*" in limb proportions. Nilotes are more tropically adapted (perhaps the most tropically adapted people on Earth) than West Africans, and the reason for the ancient Egyptians having a more tropically adapted ratio than West Africans is likely do to their signifigant Nilotic ancestry on top of that which came from the Horn. Are we now suspose to consider West African non black for that fact?




> On top of that, as I’ve shown in an earlier post… DH Temple supports the idea that long limbs can occur in low-latitude temperate environments, along with tropical environments.


Just I've shown you that tropical limb proportions and dark skin color are paired with one another based on ecological principal. I've also shown you recent melanin analysis in Egyptians mummies which *CONFIRMS* that these ancient tropically adapated Africans had dark skin like black African populations. 




> Again, what do they mean by Negroid origin? Based on what?


*It means that they were black Africans*! They had a craniometric shape that most similar to various black African populations. They had limb proportions like populations across the world who have been or are still deemed black. They share their signature genetic markers and origins with black Africans. Their culture and language came from black Africans. They themselves stated that they came from the south (black Africa). The ancient Greeks attested to the fact that the came from the "Ethiopians" (black Africans to the south). Is this really a reality pill that is too hard to swallow? 

wek3.jpg

Just about all mainstream evidence indicates that the ancient Egyptians were a mixture of these two types of Africans (Nilote/Ethiopic).




> Besides, these are New Kingdom mummies the study is talking about, so it wouldn’t surprise me if there were some such people in Thebes.


Early Egyptian mummies were also tropical Africans:




> *"The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is 'southern' (tropical African variant), and this is consistent with what would be expected based on the literature and other results (Keita, 1990). This pattern is seen in both group and unknown analyses.* _(S. Keita (1992) Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254)_

----------


## Taharqa

10y2q3a.jpg2djz1jd.jpg 2mfwwli.jpg 28vtuso.jpg 35374ig.jpg Notice the broad African features of many of these of these pharaohs: 


> _"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)_


 It's clear and conclusive that these ancient Africans were indeed "black". That's not to say that individuals from elsewhere (non African) were not in ancient Egypt, but what is clearly proven is that the populations base of ancient Egypt was of Afrasian and Nilotic (black African) *origins*.

----------


## Taharqa

In this 1980's documentary on African history by the late historian Basil Davidson, he discusses in detail how many colonial scholars distorted African history and particularly ancient Egypt. He states that all recent evidence confirms that they were black Africans from the south:










Even to this day (apparent by several posters above) some people absolutely refuse to accept the fact that the Egyptians were originally black Africans, no matter how *clear* the evidence is that they were.:




> "*The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin.* A *widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage,including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt*. * Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...*
> 
> *Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization"*-- Source: Donald Redford (2001) *The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt,* Volume 3. *Oxford University Press.* p. 28


The Fitzwilliam Museum now also recognizes the more southerly African origin and cultural connection of ancient Egypt.

----------


## Taranis

I have to ask, why are so focused on this topic, and don't post about anything else on this forum?

----------


## Taharqa

I actually posted on several topics in this forum if you actually read my post history. Now compare that to another contributor to this thread and you will see that he only tends to post about this topic. On another note and with all due respect, why does that even matter you? Why does it concern you if one particular topic strikes my interest more than others? I'm sure I'm not the only person on this forum who tends to be more focused on a specific topic.

----------


## Taranis

> I actually posted on several topics in this forum if you actually read my post history. Now compare that to another contributor to this thread and you will see that he only tends to post about this topic. On another note and with all due respect, why does that even matter you? Why does it concern you if one particular topic strikes my interest more than others? I'm sure I'm not the only person on this forum who tends to be more focused on a specific topic.


Honestly, if somebody keeps posting very large posts successively in a row, without anybody else who gave any kind of feedback in the meantime, it certainly raises eyebrows. I'm not blaming you or anybody else on this forum for having a narrow focus of topics that one is being interested into. As for why it concerns me, it is my duty as a moderator.

Now, to contribrute to something on this topic, how do you think about the hypothesis (forwarded by Militarev et al.) that the Afrasian (aka Afroasiatic) languages originated in the Near East amongst the first farmer societies, and not in Africa?

----------


## Taharqa

> Honestly, if somebody keeps posting very large posts successively in a row, without anybody else who gave any kind of feedback in the meantime 
> it certainly raises eyebrows.


The point of my additional post was just illustrating the academic support for my stance, and confirmation that my interpretations of the studies which I post are in line with mainstream scholars. I would argue that individuals before me who plastered all of those misinterpreted studies in response to someone simply stating that the ancient Egyptians were black and even injecting racist ideas into the topic:




> And this goes a great length in explaining why the Egyptians *refused* to depict themselves as a "tropical" people yet were consistent in depicting Nubians to the south as such.


should be the only one's who "raises eyebrows", not the one who simply corrects them! 




> Now, to contribrute to something on this topic, how do you think about the hypothesis (forwarded by Militarev et al.) that the Afrasian (aka Afroasiatic) languages originated in the Near East amongst the first farmer societies, and not in Africa?


Below is the lectures that S.O.Y Keita conducted at Manchester University in which he details that such positions of a non African origin for Afro-Asiatic are is "laughable" and those who support it are "hold out" in the extreme minority amongst linguistic scholars:




In direct response to the assertion that you propose, Keita states "*the dates won't work*". It's covered within the first four minutes of this segment.

----------


## Taranis

> The point of my additional post was just illustrating the academic support for my stance, and confirmation that my interpretations of the studies which I post are in line with mainstream scholars. I would argue that individuals before me who plastered all of those misinterpreted studies in response to someone simply stating that the ancient Egyptians were black and even injecting racist ideas into the topic:
> 
> should be the only one's who "raises eyebrows", not the one who simply corrects them!


My statement wasn't directed exclusively just against you, but you are the one to who already received an informal warning before. Besides that, I commend your interest and your knowledge on this topic.




> Below is the lectures that S.O.Y Keita conducted at Manchester University in which he details that such positions of a non African origin for Afro-Asiatic are is "laughable" and those who support it are "hold out" in the extreme minority amongst linguistic scholars:


Honestly, I do not find the discussion "laughable" at all, and that it cannot be dismissed so easily. I think that the argument is absolutely valid if one assumes that Afroasiatic might have been a farmer language. It is possible to reconstruct common terms of farming for more than one branch of Afroasiatic. Even if these words are not attested in all branches, that doesn't automatically mean they were not present in other branches of Afroasiatic . Mind you, there are no common number words or family kinship terms for Afroasiatic (which is very much unlike the situation in Indo-European), either. I also personally find the assertation that people cling to the farmer hypothesis for "ideological reasons" just plain stupid. I do agree with Keita though that if one imagines Proto-Afroasiatic as a hunter-gatherer language, then this without a doubt heavily supports an African origin.

The crucial question though is: how old is Proto-Afroasiatic? While it is the oldest language family that we can unambiguously conceive, it is doubtful that it is _vastly_ in excess of 10,000 years. Otherwise we end up with a serious problem to explain how isolate languages have seemingly no clear relationship with one another, and there must be a point beyond two related languages are no longer recognizable as such. So, the mere question of age, in my opinion, argues in favour of the farmer hypothesis.

In any case, I must admit this: from my perspective, the whole discussion about the so-called "racial" identity of the ancient Egyptians is quite pointless, but I could see how the discussion could come up in the archaeological or linguistic context.

----------


## Taharqa

> Honestly, I do not find the discussion "laughable" at all, and that it cannot be dismissed so easily.


It is "laughable" when you stand it up against that which suggest that it originated in Africa (particularly the Horn). The shear amount of the diversity of the Afro-Asiatic within the African continent (all except one) compared to that which is seen in Asia (Semitic) nullifies a non African origin from jump.




> I think that the argument is absolutely valid if one assumes that Afroasiatic might have been a farmer language. It is possible to reconstruct common terms of farming for more than one branch of Afroasiatic.


Farming was seen in the Middle East *thousands* of years prior to it's usage in the Nile Valley. If the farming communities of the Middle East are the originators of the language phylum, then farming would have subsequently been immediately introduced to the African communities as the people migrated into the continent, rather than *millenniums* passing by before farming was independently created on the continent as it actually did. What could logically explain that gap of this monumental development in an aspect that would become such an integral part of human life? The names of live stock and crops introduced from those Middle Eastern farmers (sheep, goat, barley and oats) would have been Semitic instead the words were Nilotic loan words, which is a testament to those Nilotic communities creating their own indigenous farming system and integrating with the Afrasian communities (from the Horn) during Pre-Dynastic times. This is what Keita means when he states with emphasis "*the dates won't work*".




> Even if these words are not attested in all branches, that doesn't automatically mean they were not present in other branches of Afroasiatic .


Which ones, give specific examples please. That's the problem with the arguments of people who cling to this non African origin for Afro-Asiatic. It's like playing connect the dots with someone who has to create many many dots on a diagram where they simply don't exist. Entirely too much speculation and not enough concrete evidence, which again makes this theory laughable when compared to the African origin. Take the parallel of the spread of M35 from East Africa/migration and the origins/dispersal of the language family:

africanlanguage.jpg
Ehret 
mm1E1b1bRoute.png
Luis et al. 2004 





> Mind you, there are no common number words or family kinship terms for Afroasiatic (which is very much unlike the situation in Indo-European), either.


In what ways is that an argument against an African origin for Afro-Asiatic? 




> I also personally find the assertation that people cling to the farmer hypothesis for "ideological reasons" just plain stupid.


I tend to agree with Keita that the people who persistently argue a non African origin do this for support whatever ideological view that they subscribe to. Anytime a theory has to rely on line after line after line of *unsupported* or *very* shaky evidence, one must wonder what is their motivation for trying to prove this. Especially when the evidence to the opposite view is as plain as day. 




> The crucial question though is: how old is Proto-Afroasiatic?


The Ehret article above states that the language was originally spoken between 15,000-13,000 BC in region stretching between Nubia and Somalia. 




> Otherwise we end up with a serious problem to explain how isolate languages have seemingly no clear relationship with one another, and there must be a point beyond two related languages are no longer recognizable as such. So, the mere question of age, in my opinion, argues in favour of the farmer hypothesis.


The farmer Hypothesis is simply not supported:




> IN THEIR REVIEW “FARMERS AND THEIR languages: the first expansions” (25 Apr. 2003, p. 597), J. Diamond and P. Bellwood suggest that food production and the Afroasiatic language family were brought simultaneously from the Near East to Africa by demic diffusion, in other words,by a migration of food-producing peoples.* In resurrecting this generally abandoned view, the authors misrepresent the views of the late I. M. Diakonoff (1), rely on linguistic reconstructions inapplicable to their claims (2), and fail to engage the five decades of Afroasiatic scholarship that rebutted this idea in the first place.** This extensive, well-grounded linguistic research places the Afroasiatic homeland in the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa (3–8) and, when all of Afroasiatic’sbranches are included, strongly indicates a pre–food-producing proto-Afroasiatic economy* (1, 7, 8).


or




> *He explicitly describes proto-Afroasiatic vocabulary as consistent with non–foodproducing vocabulary and links it to pre- Neolithic cultures in the Levant and in Africa south of Egypt, noting the latter to be older.*


Link . Most of the article is just a complete *annilation* of one linguist reasoning to support a non African origin for Afro-Asiatic".

----------


## Taranis

> It is "laughable" when you stand it up against that which suggest that it originated in Africa (particularly the Horn). The shear amount of the diversity of the Afro-Asiatic within the African continent (all except one) compared to that which is seen in Asia (Semitic) nullifies a non African origin from jump.
> 
> Farming was seen in the Middle East thousands of years prior to it's usage in the Nile Valley. If the farming communities of the Middle East are the originators of the language phylum, then farming would have subsequently been immediately introduced to the African communities as the people migrated into the continent, rather than millenniums passing by before farming was independently created on the continent as it actually did. What could logically explain that gap of this monumental development in an aspect that would become such an integral part of human life? The names of live stock and crops introduced from those Middle Eastern farmers (sheep, goat, barley and oats) would have been Semitic instead the words were Nilotic loan words, which is a testament to those Nilotic communities creating their own indigenous farming system and integrating with the Afrasian communities (from the Horn) during Pre-Dynastic times. This is what Keita means when he states with emphasis "the dates won't work".
> 
> Which ones, give specific examples please. That's the problem with the arguments of people who cling to this non African origin for Afro-Asiatic. It's like playing connect the dots with someone who has to create many many dots on a diagram where they simply don't exist. Entirely too much speculation and not enough concrete evidence, which again makes this theory laughable when compared to the African origin. Take the parallel of the spread of M35 from East Africa/migration and the origins/dispersal of the language family:
> 
> 
> Ehret 
> 
> ...


You keep saying "laughable" several times over, but I don't see any solid counter-argument in what you have presented there. First off, regarding the assumption that where a language family is most diverse must be near it's place of origin, I don't necessarily agree with this assumption. It could also be the case that this diversity is the effect of a _later diversification_. Conversely, regarding the Near East as the Proto-Afrasian homeland, it's absolutely possible that the Near East was later on homogenized by the later spread of the Semitic languages. The real problem I have with the hypothesis that Proto-Afroasiatic is a hunter-gatherer language, in my opinion creates a huge general problem: if it takes the excess of 10,000 or 15,000 years for languages no longer to be recognizable as being related, where does this leave isolate languages (like Basque or Sumerian)? My opinion is thus that it is far more likely that Proto-Afroasiatic was indeed a farmer language, and then, an Eurasian origin of Proto-Afroasiatic is pretty unavoidable. Unless of course, you argue for an origin of agriculture in Africa, which however is non-consistent with what we see in archaeology.

EDIT: what should be added, there's also a very interesting genetic argument in favour of an Eurasian origin, namely the fact that the Chadic peoples possess the same marker of lactase persistance as Europeans.

----------


## Taharqa

> First off, regarding the assumption that where a language family is most diverse must be near it's place of origin, I don't necessarily agree with this assumption. *It could also be the case that this diversity is the effect of a later diversification*.


Please explain why the Afro-Asiatic languages for *10,000 years* would have *waited* until they migrated into Africa to diversify? It has *nothing to show* for those millenniums in the Middle East but *one branch*, which is Semitic. It makes absolutely no sense, which is why scholarly support non African origin for Afro-Asiatic is in the gutter. That simple observation does however support the fact that Semitic is the one of (if the not 'the') the youngest branch of Afro-Asiatic (as detailed by Ehret's map).




> My opinion is thus that it is far more likely that Proto-Afroasiatic was indeed a farmer language, and then, an Eurasian origin of Proto-Afroasiatic is pretty unavoidable. *Unless of course, you argue for an origin of agriculture in Africa, which however is non-consistent with what we see in archaeology*.


If you actually took the time to read the article by Ehret or watch the documentary by Basil Davidson above then you would already be aware of the fact that Africans created agriculture and domesticated cattle on their own:



> "*Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa DOES NOT SUPPORT demic diffusion of farming from the Near East.* *The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture.* * This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy.** "The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."* 
> Source: *The Origins of Afroasiatic* 
> Christopher Ehret, S. O. Y. Keita, Paul Newman;, and Peter Bellwood 
> Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1680

----------


## Taranis

> Please explain why the Afro-Asiatic languages for 10,000 years would have waited until they migrated into Africa to diversify? It has nothing to show for those millenniums in the Middle East but one branch, which is Semitic. It makes absolutely no sense, which is why scholarly support non African origin for Afro-Asiatic is in the gutter. That simple observation does however support the fact that Semitic is the one of (if the not 'the') the youngest branch of Afro-Asiatic (as detailed by Ehret's map).
> 
> If you actually took the time to read the article by Ehret or watch the documentary by Basil Davidson above then you would already be aware of the fact that Africans created agriculture and domesticated cattle on their own:


You evidently didn't understand my argument, my suggestion is that the "apparent" relative homogenity of the Semitic languages is the result of a later expansion over an area that was already Afroasiatic. I also disagree on the assessment that Semitic is the youngest branch, that honor, in my opinion, would go to the Berber languages, which are all . It makes no sense for the Capsian Culture to be speakers of Proto-Berber, since Proto-Berber clearly was the language of a pastoralist society, whereas the Capsian Culture was clearly Mesolithic.

Also, I would like to apologize, but you should re-read my previous post, which has some interesting genetic evidence for an Eurasian connection for Afroasiatic.

----------


## Taharqa

> EDIT: what should be added, there's also a very interesting genetic argument in favour of an Eurasian origin, namely the fact that the Chadic peoples possess the same marker of lactase persistance as Europeans.


This study seems to suggest that West African populations (Fulani) share a common allele with European. It should be interesting to note that the Fulani T-13910 predates the allele which is seen in Europe. Now what exactly does this have to do with a Middle Eastern origin for Afro-Asiatic?

----------


## Taranis

> This study seems to suggest that West African populations (Fulani) share a common allele with European. It should be interesting to note that the Fulani T-13910 predates the allele which is seen in Europe. Now what exactly does this have to do with a Middle Eastern origin for Afro-Asiatic?





Well, unless you going suggest that lactase persistence in Europe arrived from Africa, you must assume that both European and Chadic lactase persistence arrived from a different common origin, which would be the Western Asia. By the way, there is other piece of genetic evidence that ties the Chadic peoples with Eurasia, namely Y-Haplogroup R1b-V88, which has it's highest frequencies amongst Chadic-speaking peoples. This clearly suggests some migration out of the Near East to the present-day location of the Chadic peoples.

----------


## Taharqa

> my suggestion is that the "apparent" relative homogenity of the Semitic languages is the result of a later expansion over an area that was already Afroasiatic.


What *evidence* do you have for this theory? Also you have yet to explain why according to your theory there are *thousands* of years between when farming is seen in the Levant and when it is seen in Africa, if according to you the original Afro-Asatic speakers were farmers from the Middle East. You have also been presented with conclusive evidence that Nilotic and Afrasian communities of the Sahara developed their own agriculture independently from the Middle East, which should put to rest you concerns on that matter.




> I also disagree on the assessment that Semitic is the youngest branch, that honor, in my opinion, would go to the Berber languages, which are all .


Most recent evidence does however support that Semitic is a bit older than previously thought:




> *Kitchen A, Ehret C, Assefa S, Mulligan CJ*_ Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East_ Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Apr 29
> 
> We used Bayesian phylogenetic methods to elucidate the relationships and divergence dates of Semitic languages, which we then related to epigraphic and archaeological records to produce a comprehensive hypothesis of Semitic origins and dispersals after the* divergence of ancestral Semitic from Afroasiatic in Africa* (figure 1)*. We estimate that: (i) Semitic had an Early Bronze Age origin (approx. 5750 YBP) in the Levant, followed by an expansion of Akkadian into Mesopotamia; (ii) Central and South Semitic diverged earlier than previously thought throughout the Levant during the Early to Middle Bronze Age transition;* and (iii) Ethiosemitic arose as the result of a single, possibly pre-Aksumite, introduction of a lineage from southern Arabia to the Horn of Africa approximately 2800 YBP.


Link




> It makes no sense for the Capsian Culture to be speakers of Proto-Berber, since Proto-Berber clearly was the language of a pastoralist society, whereas the Capsian Culture was clearly Mesolithic.


No offense, but I'm going to role with the scholars on this one.

----------


## Taharqa

> Well, unless you going suggest that lactase persistence in Europe arrived from Africa,




 Based on what the study estimates their ages to be the precedence should have been given to the Fulani, since it is the oldest by the method applied, but the authors gloss over this. The age estimations was more than likely referenced from Nabil et al. (2007). The results of Nabil & co. just goes to show how LP is largely a natural response to dairy-rich dietary, and as a result, LP has emerged independently [convergent evolution] in different areas of the world, and on different allelic backgrounds.




> By the way, there is other piece of genetic evidence that ties the Chadic peoples with Eurasia, namely Y-Haplogroup R1b-V88, which has it's highest frequencies amongst Chadic-speaking peoples. This clearly suggests some migration out of the Near East to the present-day location of the Chadic peoples.


From the looks of these frequencies of R in West and Central African populations:

Figure 2: Distribution of R1b among African Populations

Mandekan………..…………..…100%
Mossi………….……………….100%
Rimaiba………….…………….100%
Fulbe(Burkina)…….…………..91.0%
Fulbe(Niger)…………………..85.7%
Fulbe(Nigeria)…………………80.0%
Fulbe(Cameroon)……..………88.9%
Bamileke……………………….100%
Ewondo………………………….96.7
Biaka (Pygmies)………………..100%
Mbuti(Pygmies)……..………...100%
Twa(Pygmies)………………….100%

This figure is based on Cruciani et al (2010)

I'd say that this must have either been the result of a very ancient back migration or there is indeed a possibility that R originated in Africa. I think that one way to test the latter out would be to test these African populations with these high frequencies of R for Neanderthal ancestry which according to recent studies all non Africans or people with non African ancestry have. If these results were to come back negative then geneticist would most definitely have to reconsider their proposal for the origins of R. Just my opinion though.

----------


## Taranis

> What evidence do you have for this theory? Also you have yet to explain why according to your theory there are thousands of years between when farming is seen in the Levant and when it is seen in Africa, if according to you the original Afro-Asatic speakers were farmers from the Middle East.





Because, as I said, the reconstructed vocabulary of Proto-Afroasiatic, is not that of a hunter-gatherer society, and common terms for agriculture can be reconstructed for various branches within Proto-Afroasiatic. Common words for agriculture can be found in Semitic, Egyptian, Chadic and Kushitic (you can compare with Diakonoff 1998).





> Most recent evidence does however support that Semitic is a bit older than previously thought: Link





To be honest, a _bronze age_ origin for Proto-Semitic honestly makes no sense, since there is no evidence whatsoever for common terms for metal-working in Proto-Semitic. The oldest attested Semitic language, Akkadian, is already quite removed from Proto-Semitic, meaning that the split of the Semitic languages must have already occured at that point. Proto-Semitic must be a Neolithic language.





> No offense, but I'm going to role with the scholars on this one.





Well, then roll with them: look up reconstructed vocabulary of Proto-Berber. You're free to search for this yourself. You'll see that it's common vocabulary is that of a pastoralist society, which the Capsian Culture clearly wasn't.




> Based on what the study estimates their ages to be the precedence should have been given to the Fulani, since it is the oldest by the method applied, but the authors gloss over this. The age estimations was more than likely referenced from Nabil et al. (2007). The results of Nabil & co. just goes to show how LP is largely a natural response to dairy-rich dietary, and as a result, LP has emerged independently [convergent evolution] in different areas of the world, and on different allelic backgrounds.



Yes, this is partially correct: lactase persistence indeed developed independently on several occasions, but the key issue is that the Chadic variant is the same mutation that Europeans also have, which is different from the lactase mutation of East Africans.




> From the looks of these frequencies of R in West and Central African populations:
> 
> Figure 2: Distribution of R1b among African Populations
> 
> Mandekan………..…………..…100%
> Mossi………….……………….100%
> Rimaiba………….…………….100%
> Fulbe(Burkina)…….…………..91.0%
> Fulbe(Niger)…………………..85.7%
> ...


Honestly, an origin of Haplogroup R in Africa can be simply ruled out by the fact that you look at the outgroups of R1b-V88: the other major subclades of R1b (M269 and M73) are in Europe/Anatolia/Caucasus and Central Asia, respectively. Likewise, R1a (mainly eastern Europe and India) and R2 are in Eurasia (R2 is mainly in India). Likewise, the next outlier, Haplogroup Q is in northern Asia, as well as in the Americas (native americans). None of these Haplogroups is presented in sub-saharan Africa. The only sensible explanation for R1b-V88 is to assume a back migration from Eurasia, and this in my opinion matches the arrival of Proto-Chadic speakers in central-western Africa.

There's further evidence, and it comes from the aboriginals of the Canary Isles, the Guanches, which are generally believed to have spoken a Berber language, and ancient DNA shows that the Guanches were E-M81, E-M78 and J-M267, which links them closely with present-day Berbers. What can be ruled out is that the Guanche samples are somehow from intermixing with for instance the Arabs, since the samples are clearly from the pre-Islamic period. So, in my opinion, from the available data, it is possible that Haplogroup J1 and not Haplogroup E may have been the original Afroasiatic Haplogroup, something that is also backed up by the fact that J1 is found in sizable quantities for instance in Oromotic (Kushitic-speaking) populations at the Horn of Africa.

In regard for the Chadic peoples, it's also possible that we're talking about a founder effect here. In that case, Eurasian autosomal DNA could have been diluted, which would also match completely with their outward appearance (which is one of the very important points I'm trying to make here: both genetics, especially y-chromosomal but also mitochondrial DNA, and linguistics are rather independent from what we usually perceive as "race").

Note that I don't necessarily think that the above scenario is 100% correct, but from the available data, I consider the Eurasian/Neolithic origin at least as plausible as the African/Mesolithic origin for the Afroasiatic languages.

----------


## Taharqa

> Because, as I said, the reconstructed vocabulary of Proto-Afroasiatic, is not that of a hunter-gatherer society




Your opinion is in direct contrast with that of reputed scholars who find sufficient support for their theory. I will post this once again:




> Source: *The Origins of Afroasiatic* 
> Christopher Ehret, S. O. Y. Keita, Paul Newman;, and Peter Bellwood 
> Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1680
> 
>  *He explicitly describes proto-Afroasiatic vocabulary as consistent with non–foodproducing vocabulary and links it to pre- Neolithic cultures in the Levant and in Africa south of Egypt, noting the latter to be older.*


Confirmation that the proto Afro-Asiatic vocabulary was not consistent with that of farmers.




> The oldest attested Semitic language, Akkadian, is already quite removed from Proto-Semitic, meaning that the split of the Semitic languages must have already occured at that point. Proto-Semitic must be a Neolithic language.



You keep saying no this could not have happened but your reasoning is flimsy and has a utter lack of mainstream support. The evidence which the study uses to back their origins for semitic are in accordance with the Middle Eastern time line:




> *Our analysis of the Semitic language family produced a dated phylogeny that estimates the origin of Semitic atapproximately 4400–7400 YBP (figure 2).* The phylogeny suggests East Semitic (represented by Akkadian in this study) corresponds to the deepest branch (although the four deepest branches have overlapping HPDs), and our log BF tests indicate that Akkadian is the appropriate root for the Semitic languages analysed here. *These results indicate that the ancestor of all Semitic languages in our dataset was being spoken in the Near East no earlier than approximately 7400 YBP, after having diverged from Afroasiatic in Africa (Ehret 1995; Ehret et al. 2004; Blench 2006).*


link

The fact that rather than suggesting a non African origin for this language family, the debate was between rather or not the outliner (Semitic) originated in Africa (Ethiopia) or the Middle East, should really hit home that a non African origin simply does not work! You also have yet to explain the *dates*. If Afro-Asatic originated in 10,000 BC the in Middle East amongst farmers and spread into Africa, why were Africans *not farming* until it was spread from the Nilotic communities of the Sahara *thousands of years later*? Why does the Middle East only have *one* branch of the lanaguage family compared to *all others* being in Africa, if according to you it originated has been in the Middle East for over 8,000 years? Face it, Keita and the majority of linguist are correct! The dates simply "*won't work*" for your theory, Afro-Asiatic originated in Horn Africa. 




> Well, then roll with them: look up reconstructed vocabulary of Proto-Berber. You're free to search for this yourself. You'll see that it's common vocabulary is that of a pastoralist society, which the Capsian Culture clearly wasn't.


You are wrong again. The Capsian culture does indeed show continuity across North Africa:




> In this study we attempted to better elucidate the ancient African genetic
> background in the northwest African area, particularly in Tunisia. To this aim,* we
> focused our study on Berber populations that are considered representative of the
> ancient North African populations that probably derived from Neolithic Capsians**.....*


and




> *The Maghreb has several Neolithic traditions (Camps 1982; Phillipson
> 2005), which might indicate different peoples or simply cultural adoption or adaptation
> by heterogeneous populations who became unified under singular cultural
> practices and one language family.**The Neolithic Capsian tradition shows continuity
> with previous cultures, with evidence of these accepting domesticated sheep
> and goat into a local subsistence pattern, thus becoming Neolithicized with a pastoralist
> economy (Rahmani, 2003, 2004; Sheppard and Lubell 1990). A. B. Smith
> (2005) and McDonald (1998) indicate the importance of pastoralism in the Holocene
> Sahara, and this economy may help in the understanding of Berber emergence.*
> ...



 



> but the key issue is that the Chadic variant is the same mutation that Europeans also have, which is different from the lactase mutation of East Africans.


The African variation predates that of the European one. I still however, fell to see what this has to do with a non African origin for Afro-Asatic. As I've stated earlier much of the "evidence" used to try to support a non African origin for Afro-Asatic is speculative reaching at best, which is why Keita states that it's "laughable". 




> Honestly, an origin of Haplogroup R in Africa can be simply ruled out by the fact that you look at the outgroups of R1b-V88: the other major subclades of R1b (M269 and M73) are in Europe/Anatolia/Caucasus and Central Asia, respectively. Likewise, R1a (mainly eastern Europe and India) and R2 are in Eurasia (R2 is mainly in India).


How exactly does the wide distribution of it's outgroups rule out Africa. That's like pointing out that it couldn't have originated in India because it's found as far away as West Africa where the frequencies reach up 100% (where else does it) as opposed to anywhere else? As I've stated one way for sure to rule out if it originated in Africa would be to test those populations with presumably no known non African ancestry for the Neanderthal gene which all non Africans have. 




> The only sensible explanation for R1b-V88 is to assume a back migration from Eurasia, and this in my opinion matches the arrival of Proto-Chadic speakers in central-western Africa.


The oddest question about a relatively recent backmigration which you are suggesting, is what exactly would these "non African" R carriers would have looked like to produce offspring that blend in right along side tropical West African populations? Were those recent back migrants themselves black? 




> it is possible that Haplogroup J1 and not Haplogroup E may have been the original Afroasiatic Haplogroup, something that is also backed up by the fact that J1 is found in sizable quantities for instance in Oromotic (Kushitic-speaking) populations at the Horn of Africa.


With that being said, recent genetic anaylsis postulate that J1 may have originated in East Africa/Ethiopia:




> _We recently found a number of intermediate DYS458 alleles, indicated as .2. This allelic variant is distributed in several populations, but currently no information is available regarding the molecular structure and the genealogical correlation of chromosomes with this variant. The molecular characterisation of such allele, its worldwide distribution and the correlated evolutionary history are the subject of the present paper. Molecular and genealogical data are suggestive of a single origin for the .2 variant. Phylogeographic analysis points to either a Middle East or East African origin, but additional data is necessary to clarify this point. Our results suggest that the .2 variants is a stable polymorphism and that it could be used for population studies
> 
> ...
> 
> Initial SNPs analysis identified these chromosomes as derived at the M267 markers, placing them on the J1* cluster. J1 sub lineages were additionally tested (J1a–e) and in all cases the .2 chromosomes resulted ancestral at these additional markers. The DYS458 .2 Y chromosomes were then consequently identified as part of the J1 branch (Fig. 1).
> 
> ...
> 
> The .2 variant shows its frequency peaks in Africa (North and East) and Caucasus. Data from the middle East is scanty and we are currently investigating various populations from this region to gather more information on the distribution in this area (data not shown). The presence in Europe is limited and the occurrences in both US and Asia (India and Malaysia) can be
> ...


Even if J1 did not originate in Ethiopia, the frequencies of the overwhelming strand of this haplotype seen in Ethiopian populations is ancient dating back to the Neolithic or earlier and not recent admixture.




> In that case, Eurasian autosomal DNA could have been diluted, which would also match completely with their outward appearance


"Dillution" indicates that the population would be mixed with black African and non Africans. There phenotype in no way, shape or form indicates that they are mixed with non Africans. This also does not explain why populations in Western and Central Africa where the frequency of R reaches between *80%-100%* fit in perfectly phenotypically with other tropical West/Central African populations. 




> I consider the Eurasian/Neolithic origin at least as plausible as the African/Mesolithic origin for the Afroasiatic languages.


Your support for the former is simply out of the question (based on conclusive evidence) for the vast majority of mainstream linguist.

----------


## Taranis

> Your opinion is in direct contrast with that of reputed scholars who find sufficient support for their theory. I will post this once again:
> 
> 
> Confirmation that the proto Afro-Asiatic vocabulary was not consistent with that of farmers.



You can repost that as often as you like, it is just wrong, because there is common vocabulary for farming in Afroasiatic. I do not have found a good online source for papers regarding this, but I promise that I will get back to this and will post papers here that will demonstrate to you clearly. Until then, I can give you this one example from Diakonoff 1998, namely a common root word for grain *ḥênt-, which is attested in most branches of Afroasiatic:

as "wheat":

*Semitic:*
Akkadian ʼuṭṭ-at-
Hebrew ḥiṭṭ-â
Aramaic ḥinṭ-ê-t-
Arabic ḥinṭ-at-
Soqotri ḥinṭ-eh

*Kushitic:*
Hadiya hiṭe
Kambatta hiṭe
Bambala hanṭe

as "millet":

*Old Egyptian* ḫnd

Hausa (*Chadic*) "gundu"

This is clearly a Neolithic term. Unless you can demonstrate that it is a 'wandering word' that spread after the breakup of Proto-Afroasiatic, one must assume that it was part of Proto-Afroasiatic, and that, indeed Proto-Afroasiatic was a Neolithic language.




> You keep saying no this could not have happened but your reasoning is flimsy and has a utter lack of mainstream support. The evidence which the study uses to back their origins for semitic are in accordance with the Middle Eastern time line:


"Flimsy"? Mind your words, there is no reason to become rude!

Also, the truth is that the study you quote lacks any credibility due to the statement of 4400 YBP, which would be 2400 BC. However, the first evidence of Akkadian in Sumerian sources begins in the 29th century BC, approximately 500 years earlier. How is Proto-Semitic supposed to have split up 400 years _after_ the earliest attestation of Akkadian? And, at this point, I would like to remind you that Akkadian despite it's ancientness is already quite derived from Proto-Semitic. The only way for this to work is that the Semitic languages did split up significantly earlier, which is also backed up by the fact that there are no common words for metals or metal-working in the Semitic languages, as such the Semitic languages are older than the bronze age, and must date from the Neolithic. How can anybody make a claim on the origin of the Semitic language that defies the written record?




> The fact that rather than suggesting a non African origin for this language family, the debate was between rather or not the outliner (Semitic) originated in Africa (Ethiopia) or the Middle East, should really hit home that a non African origin simply does not work! You also have yet to explain the dates. If Afro-Asatic originated in 10,000 BC the in Middle East amongst farmers and spread into Africa, why were Africans not farming until it was spread from the Nilotic communities of the Sahara thousands of years later? Why does the Middle East only have one branch of the lanaguage family compared to all others being in Africa, if according to you it originated has been in the Middle East for over 8,000 years? Face it, Keita and the majority of linguist are correct! The dates simply "won't work" for your theory, Afro-Asiatic originated in Horn Africa.



Agriculture in the Nile region arrives in around 6000 BC _from the Near East_, and this may yield the arrival of Proto-Egyptian speakers. It's absolutely possible that there was an earlier diversity of Afroasiatic languages in the Near East which was eradicated by the spread of the Proto-Semitic speakers.





> You are wrong again. The Capsian culture does indeed show continuity across North Africa:



Explain to me, where exactly did we start talking about the continuity of the Capsian culture? I was talking about the reconstructed vocabulary of Proto-Berber, which is that of a pastoralist society, and not that of hunter-gatherers. The Capsian Culture was one of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, which means that the Capsians cannot have been speaking Proto-Berber.





> The African variation predates that of the European one. I still however, fell to see what this has to do with a non African origin for Afro-Asatic. As I've stated earlier much of the "evidence" used to try to support a non African origin for Afro-Asatic is speculative reaching at best, which is why Keita states that it's "laughable".



The question wether the African or the European type of lactase persistence is earlier is rather irrelevant for this discussion, because Chadic peoples have the European variant, not the African one, which is clearly stated in the article that I provided. 





> How exactly does the wide distribution of it's outgroups rule out Africa. That's like pointing out that it couldn't have originated in India because it's found as far away as West Africa where the frequencies reach up 100% (where else does it) as opposed to anywhere else? As I've stated one way for sure to rule out if it originated in Africa would be to test those populations with presumably no known non African ancestry for the Neanderthal gene which all non Africans have.


Look again, in detail at the distributions of the various Haplogroups I mentioned:


Q (M242) - Siberia and Americas
R2 (M479) - Indian Subcontinent.
R1a (M420) - Eastern Europe and South Asia
R1b-V88 - Near East and Africa
R1b-M73 - Central Asia
R1b-M269 - Europe, Anatolia, Caucasus


None of the above Haplogroups, with exception of R1b-V88 are, to my knowledge, found in any appreciable quantities in sub-Saharan Africa. The most plausible origin for the common ancestor of the above (Haplogroup P*) is either Central Asia or South Asia. It's clear that the development of all these Haplogroups occured in Chadic R1b is clearly the result of a back migration from Eurasia to Africa. So, my conjecture here is that the arrival of R1b (as well as the European marker of lactase persistence) in the Chad region coincides with the arrival of Proto-Chadic speakers.





> The oddest question about a relatively recent backmigration which you are suggesting, is what exactly would these "non African" R carriers would have looked like to produce offspring that blend in right along side tropical West African populations? Were those recent back migrants themselves black?



Is this question even relevant?





> With that being said, recent genetic anaylsis postulate that J1 may have originated in East Africa/Ethiopia:
> 
> 
> Even if J1 did not originate in Ethiopia, the frequencies of the overwhelming strand of this haplotype seen in Ethiopian populations is ancient dating back to the Neolithic or earlier and not recent admixture.



J1 is prettymuch impossible to have originated in Ethiopia, because the most archaic varieties of J1 are found in the Caucasus. If you take a look at the outgroups, you get a similar picture as with R1b: Haplogroup J2 is also mainly found in the Near East, and Haplogroup I is in Europe. This means that African J1 must also be the result of a back migration, which - again - would be consistent with a Neolithic spread of Afroasiatic languages from the Middle East.





> "Dillution" indicates that the population would be mixed with black African and non Africans. There phenotype in no way, shape or form indicates that they are mixed with non Africans. This also does not explain why populations in Western and Central Africa where the frequency of R reaches between 80%-100% fit in perfectly phenotypically with other tropical West/Central African populations.



As you should be aware, Y-Haplogroups are only based off the DNA of the Y-chromosome, and phenotypical features such as skin color are completely independent from it as they are encoded into autosomal DNA.





> Your support for the former is simply out of the question (based on conclusive evidence) for the vast majority of mainstream linguist.


Well, there is the possibility that the vast majority of mainstream linguists are just plain wrong about this, and I have presented a number of arguments (both genetically _and_ linguistically) why this could indeed be the case. My opinion is that the arguments for a Neolithic origin of Afroasiatic cannot be dismissed so easily as "laughable".

----------


## Taharqa

> You can repost that as often as you like, it is just wrong, because there is common vocabulary for farming in Afroasiatic.


You have an utter *lack* of mainstream support for your stance. In other words you have absolutely *no scholarly basis* to assert that this peer reviewed finding is incorrect:




> I do not have found a good online source for papers regarding this, but I promise that I will get back to this and will post papers here that will demonstrate to you clearly. Until then, I can give you this one example from Diakonoff 1998, namely a common root word for grain *ḥênt-, which is attested in most branches of Afroasiatic:


The response by Ehret et al. to your assertion:




> However, not one of Militarev’s proposed 32 agricultural roots can be considered diagnostic of cultivation.* Fifteen are reconstructed as names of plants or loose categories of plants. Such evidence may reveal plants known to early Afroasiatic speakers, but it does not indicate whether they were cultivated or wild.* *Militarev’s remaining roots are each semantically mixed, i.e., they have foodproduction– related meanings in some languages, but in other languages have meanings applicable to foraging or equally applicable to foraging or cultivating.*



link




> "Flimsy"? Mind your words, there is no reason to become rude!


Keita (an authority) considers your position of a non African origin for this language family as "*laughable*". Me merely pointing out your reasoning is flimsy, should be the least of your worries!




> Also, the truth is that the study you quote lacks any credibility due to the statement of 4400 YBP, which would be 2400 BC.


Why are you insisting on asserting your opinion as an "authority"? Here are the diversion times which are supported by several methods:




> *Semitic divergence times, which are strengths of Bayesian methods and have been successfully used to date the divergences of Indo- European* (Gray & Atkinson 2003; Atkinson et al. 2005) *and Austronesian* (Gray et al. 2009) languages. These constraints are: (i) the origin of ancient Hebrew 3200–4200 YBP (Steiner 1997), (ii) the origin of Ugaritic 3400–4400 YBP (Pardee 1997), (iii) the origin of Aramaic 2850–3850 YBP (Kaufman 1997) and (iv) the origin of Amharic 700–1700 YBP (Hudson 1997). Each of these constraints spans a 1000- year interval since the earliest epigraphic or historical evidence for the language. *An additional constraint (v) was placed on the time of the most recent common ancestor of the included Semitic languages to 4350–8000 YBP (the lower date is based on the earliest known epigraphic evidence of Akkadian; Buccellati 1997). An analysis was also performed without the constraint on the age of the root, which returned an estimate of 4300–7750 YBP for the root, i.e. almost exactly our constraint range.*





> However, the first evidence of Akkadian in Sumerian sources begins in the 29th century BC, approximately 500 years earlier. How is Proto-Semitic supposed to have split up 400 years _after_ the earliest attestation of Akkadian?


If you've read the entire study then would have seen where this is noted and is in compliance with historical record:




> *Our estimate for the origin of Semitic (4400–7400 YBP) predates the first Akkadian inscriptions in the archaeological record of northern Mesopotamia by approximately 100–3000 years (Buccellati 1997). The city-states of Sumer were established and flourishing in Mesopotamia with their own indigenous languages unrelated to Semitic by approximately 5400 YBP (Lloyd 1984), so it is unlikely that Akkadian was spoken in Sumer for the entirety of the possible 3000-year interval between the origin of Semitic and Akkadian’s initial appearance in the archaeological record.*





> Agriculture in the Nile region arrives in around 6000 BC _from the Near East_, and this may yield the arrival of Proto-Egyptian speakers.


Another refuted claim on your behave:




> "Furthermore,* the archaeology of northern Africa* *DOES NOT SUPPORT* *demic diffusion of farming from the Near East.* *The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy.*


You cannot simply keep dismissing the words of these reputed because you don't like their ideas. If your opinion is in line with the majority of modern linguist then provide support for your thoery or just drop it. 




> I was talking about the reconstructed vocabulary of Proto-Berber, which is that of a pastoralist society, and not that of hunter-gatherers. The Capsian Culture was one of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, which means that the Capsians cannot have been speaking Proto-Berber.


Why are you sidestepping every scholarly opinion that I put fourth which refutes your claims? You don't address their legitimacy, but you instead just outwardly say that they were wrong *because you say so*. It simply does not work that way. Once again this statement from Frigi et al will explain the support that Capsian culture was indeed proto Berber:




> *The Neolithic Capsian tradition shows continuity with previous cultures, with evidence of these accepting domesticated sheep and goat into a local subsistence pattern, thus becoming Neolithicized with a pastoralist economy* (Rahmani, 2003, 2004; Sheppard and Lubell 1990). A. B. Smith (2005) *and McDonald (1998) indicate the importance of pastoralism in the Holocene Sahara, and this economy may help in the understanding of Berber emergence.*_
> -- Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations
> Frigi et al. Human Biology (August 2010 (82:4)_


 


> It's clear that the development of all these Haplogroups occured in Chadic R1b is clearly the result of a back migration from Eurasia to Africa.


When was this back migration?




> So, my conjecture here is that the arrival of R1b (as well as the European marker of lactase persistence) in the Chad region coincides with the arrival of Proto-Chadic speakers.


The problem with your theory is that you basically saying that the R Haplogroup followed along lingusitic lines, when it clearly did not. The populations with the highest frequencies are Niger Congo speakers (the Mande) and other West/Central African non Afro-Asatic speaking populations. 




> Is this question even relevant


It's an unavoidable question and you know it. Why do populations in interior Africa have frequencies of up to *100%* of a suppositely non African genetic marker who recieved this from a relatively recent back migration according to you (carried by people who are presumed to be non African in phenotype) look physically indistinguishable from their E carrying African neighbors? Im aware that a haplotype is not the sole determinant of phenotype, but this question still remains in the air.




> J1 is prettymuch impossible to have originated in Ethiopia, because the most archaic varieties of J1 are found in the Caucasus.


No a non African origin for Afro-Asatic according to the vast majority of linguist is "impossible". This theory on the otherhand has recent genetic support:




> _We recently found a number of intermediate DYS458 alleles, indicated as .2. This allelic variant is distributed in several populations, but currently no information is available regarding the molecular structure and the genealogical correlation of chromosomes with this variant. The molecular characterisation of such allele, its worldwide distribution and the correlated evolutionary history are the subject of the present paper. Molecular and genealogical data are suggestive of a single origin for the .2 variant. Phylogeographic analysis points to either a Middle East or East African origin, but additional data is necessary to clarify this point. Our results suggest that the .2 variants is a stable polymorphism and that it could be used for population studies_





> This means that African J1 must also be the result of a back migration, which - again - would be consistent with a Neolithic spread of Afroasiatic languages from the Middle East.


The variation of J1 seen in the Horn dates back to the Neolithic or earlier times:




> _Haplogroup J, characterized by the mutation 12f2.1,has been found at a frequency of approximately 18% in Ethiopians, with a relatively higher prevalence among the Amhara, where it has been found to exist at levels as high as 35% , of which about 33% is of the type J-M267, almost all of which was acquired during Neolithic times or earlier, while 2% is of the derived J-M172 type representing admixture due to recent and historic migrations._ - _Origin, diffusion, and differentiation of Y-chromosome haplogroups E and J: inferences on the neolithization of Europe and later migratory events in the Mediterranean area_ American Journal of Human Genetics 74 (5): 1023–34. doi:10.1086/386295. PMID 15069642
> 
> - Semino O, Magri C, Benuzzi G, et al. 2004



Therefore it is likely to have been in place in the Northeast African populations who originated populated Northern Africa.




> My opinion is that the arguments for a Neolithic origin of Afroasiatic cannot be dismissed so easily as "laughable".


The fact that you have yet to take the issue of the farming dates and Demic Diffusion head on (key issues) show just how laughable a non African origin for this language family really is.

----------


## Taranis

> *You have an utter lack of mainstream support for your stance.* In other words *you have absolutely no scholarly basis* to assert that this peer reviewed finding is incorrect:


Since when does "lack of mainstream support" (never mind the fact that "mainstream" is a bit relative anyways when talking about this topic!) equate with "I have absolutely no scholarly basis"? I have provided you with a source (Diakonoff, 1998, in the journal of semitic studies - "The earliest semitic society"), and I have promised that I will post more later here.




> Keita (an authority) considers your position of a non African origin for this language family as "laughable".


Regarding Keita, it should be pointed out that he's not a geneticist, he's not a linguist and he's not archaeologist either, but a physical anthropologist. I'm not saying that this means that he has no authority (I surely believe that he has authority as a physical anthropologist), but I certainly raise an eyebrow when you call him "_an authority that considers my position laughable_" and continue to insult me. You don't win discussions with such statements.




> *Me merely pointing out your reasoning is flimsy, should be the least of your worries!*


Consider yourself officially warned. You are walking on *very thin* ice right now.




> The response by Ehret et al. to your assertion:


Ehret's counter-arguments are standing on shaky ground themselves. Perhaps you can explain to me why the reconstructed terms for instance for domesticated animals clearly match that of a pastoralist society? What purpose would a hunter-gatherer society have for terminologies that differenciate between young, male and females of a type of animal that was domesticated, from the perspective of the hunter-gatherers,_ at a later point_?




> Why are you insisting on asserting your opinion as an "authority"?


I'm not asserting my opinion as an authority, but I'm bringing up valid counter-arguments. My authority comes from these counter arguments, not vice versa.




> Here are the diversion times which are supported by several methods:


Well, they do something that really casts doubt on their authority on this issue: they cite Gray and Atkinson 2003: they claimed that Proto-Indo-European was a _Neolithic_ language that originates in Anatolia. Does this sound familiar? How can PIE be a Neolithic language if there's common terms for metal-working in Proto-Indo-European? You have a similar problem with neolithic Proto-Indo-European (the Anatolian hypothesis, which Gray and Atkinson 2003 supported) as with mesolithic Proto-Afroasiatic.




> Another refuted claim on your behave:


How does this refute my claim? I didn't speak in favour or against Demic diffusion. What the article you quote acknowleges is that farming arrives from the Middle East in Egypt, and it's thus absolutely compatible with the Neolithic/Eurasian origin of Proto-Afroasiatic.




> You cannot simply keep dismissing the words of these reputed because you don't like their ideas.


Who is the one here who keeps dismissing an idea because he doesn't like it?




> If your opinion is in line with the majority of modern linguist then provide support for your thoery or just drop it.


What? I'm supposed to drop my views because they are not in line with the majority of linguists? That is not how science works. It's possible that the majority of linguists are simply wrong on the topic.




> *Why are you sidestepping every scholarly opinion that I put fourth which refutes your claims? You don't address their legitimacy, but you instead just outwardly say that they were wrong because you say so.* It simply does not work that way. Once again this statement from Frigi et al will explain the support that Capsian culture was indeed proto Berber:


I don't say that they are wrong because I say so. I say that they are wrong because I have well-grounded counter-arguments (both linguistically and genetically), and I also provide you with a chance to disprove my own hypotheses. As I have stated, if you can provide me with linguistic evidence that Proto-Berber was indeed a hunter-gatherer language, then I am willing to believe you that the Capsian Culture is indeed viable as a candidate for speakers of Proto-Berber. I am however quite confident that Proto-Berber can be reconstructed as a Neolithic pastoralist language, which clearly rules out the _Mesolithic_ Capsian Culture. Besides, Frigi et al. argue for_ genetic continuity_ between the Capsian Culture and the modern-day Berber populations. This, in no way, stands in any contradiction to the idea that the Proto-Berber languages may have only arrived in northwest Africa with the Neolithic.




> The problem with your theory is that you basically saying that the R Haplogroup followed along lingusitic lines, when it clearly did not. The populations with the highest frequencies are Niger Congo speakers (the Mande) and other West/Central African non Afro-Asatic speaking populations.


No, I'm not explicitly saying that Y-Haplogroup R_1b_ is following linguistic lines, because it clearly isn't. However, you have the case of an Y-Haplogroup that originated in Eurasia and migrated into Africa. Amongst other populations, R1b-V88 is also found amongst Semitic peoples in the Middle East, amongst Egyptians and amongst Berbers, all which are Afroasiatic-speaking peoples. From this area, R1b-V88 must have spread southwards into the Chad region, and then why does it not make sense to assume that these same people who spread R1b-V88 were also speakers of Proto-Afroasiatic? Regarding the highest frequencies being purportedly in Niger-Congo speakers, while that is possible, could you please cite the source for that? The source that I cite clearly shows that it's most prevalent amongst Chadic speakers.




> It's an unavoidable question and you know it. Why do populations in interior Africa have frequencies of up to 100% of a suppositely non African genetic marker who recieved this from a relatively recent back migration according to you (carried by people who are presumed to be non African in phenotype) look physically indistinguishable from their E carrying African neighbors? Im aware that a haplotype is not the sole determinant of phenotype, but this question still remains in the air.


Well, in my book that question is pretty meaningless. As I have stated before, there is no evidence that Y-Haplogroups have any effect on phenotypical appearance. Besides, there's an analogue for this from the Indo-European context: Both eastern Europeans and Indians, as you may know, do predominantly have Y-Haplogroup R1a. However, autosomally (autosomal admixtures), only a small percentage of Indians correspond with Eastern Europe autosomal admixture. So, if we consider the Indo-European immigration into India, and consider factors such as warfare, polygyny and other factors, we can indeed explain how this would result in Y-Haplogroups becoming dominant, whereas at the same time the corresponding autosomal DNA got dilluted. It is my opinion that when the Proto-Chadic peoples arrived in the Chad region, a comparable scenario might have happened. I admit that this is just a hypothesis, but since R1b clearly originated in Eurasia, one needs to come up with a scenario to explain the prevalence of this Haplogroup in the Chad region.

Regarding Haplogroup J1, you're very selective what your read. In that quote it said "Neolithic or earlier", which does not explicitly rule out Neolithic as wrong. Besides, as I have stated, it is in the Caucasus you find the more archaic varieties of J1 (J1*, ie _not part_ of the major subclade J1-P58). If you, additionally, consider that Haplogroup J2 also originated in the Near East, this means that this is evidence for a migration from the Middle East into Africa. Otherwise, I'm curious how you come up with a scenario why J1 is so abundant amongst certain populations in the Caucasus.

Thus, it shows that *both Y-Haplogroups J1 and R1b-V88 provide evidence for ancient migrations out of the Middle East into Africa*. What pattern matches with this genetic data other than an Eurasian (and thus likely Neolithic) origin of Proto-Afroasiatic?

----------


## Taharqa

> Since when does "lack of mainstream support" (never mind the fact that "mainstream" is a bit relative anyways when talking about this topic!) equate with "I have absolutely no scholarly basis"? I have provided you with a source (Diakonoff, 1998, in the journal of semitic studies - "The earliest semitic society"), and I have promised that I will post more later here.


You have no "scholarly basis" to assert that they are wrong on their analysis of Diakonoff works, which is what you were essentially taking issue with. The most baffling issue with your stance is that Diakonoff *himself* in the exact same study that you cite proclaims a Northeast East African origin (between Tibesti and Darfur to be exact) for Afro-Asiatic! One would think that he of all people would be aware of the implications of his own original research when he comes to an African origin for the language family which is almost universally by modern linguist and recent research, so why then are you disputing that fact? Again Keita coined the few opposers to this obvious fact appropriately when he labeled them "*hold outs*". 




> Regarding Keita, it should be pointed out that he's not a geneticist, he's not a linguist and he's not archaeologist either, but a physical anthropologist.


Actually Keita is a bio-geneticist as well. That is why he has lead peer reviewed studies on the Y Chromosome of modern Egyptians. As noted by Keita in the Manchester lecture on the previous page, he in fact is not a linguist, but he is in direct contact with them and he co-authored the the "origins of Afro-Asiatic" article with Christopher Ehret and Paul Newman. He is also not an archaeologist, but he rather cites the works of archaeologist which have been almost universally accepted as more recent works (in other disciplines) run parallel with those findings.




> I'm not saying that this means that he has no authority (I surely believe that he has authority as a physical anthropologist), but I certainly raise an eyebrow when you call him "an authority that considers my position laughable" and continue to insult me. You don't win discussions with such statements.


The National Geographic for one considers him an authority to speak on the issue of the origins of ancient Egypt from a multidisciplinary approach. The University of Cambridge for two considers him an authority on the issue of the origins of ancient Egypt from a multidisciplinary approach. Of course you've seen the clip from Manchester in which is was also invited to speak on the same issue, as an authority from a multidisciplinary approach.




> Ehret's counter-arguments are standing on shaky ground themselves.


Really? How many modern linguist can you cite to back this claim?




> Perhaps you can explain to me why the reconstructed terms for instance for domesticated animals clearly match that of a pastoralist society?


Are you aware that you are simply presenting Militarev's same talking points, which have all been exposed and debunked in the same article that I have posted to you several times throughout this thread? :




> "J. Diamond and P. Bellwood suggest that food production and the Afroasiatic language family were brought simultaneously from the Near East to Africa by demic diffusion, in other words, by a migration of food-producing peoples.* In resurrecting this generally abandoned view, the authors misrepresent the views of the late I. M. Diakonoff (1), rely on linguistic reconstructions inapplicable to their claims (2), and fail to engage the five decades of Afroasiatic scholarship that rebutted this idea in the first place. This extensive, well-grounded linguistic research places the Afroasiatic homeland in the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa (3–8) and, when all of Afroasiatic’s branches are included, strongly indicates a pre–food-producing proto-Afroasiatic economy*....."





> *"A careful reading of Diakonoff (1) shows his continuing adherence to his long-held position of an exclusively African origin* (4, 5) *for the family*.* He explicitly describes proto-Afroasiatic vocabulary as consistent with non–foodproducing vocabulary and links it to pre- Neolithic cultures in the Levant and in Africa south of Egypt, noting the latter to be older. Diakonoff does revise his location for the Common Semitic homeland, moving it from entirely within northeast Africa to areas straddling the Nile Delta and Sinai, but continues to place the origins of the five other branches of the Afroasiatic language family wholly in Africa (1).** One interpretation of the archaeological data supports a pre–foodproducing population movement from Africa into the Levant (9), consistent with the linguistic arguments for a pre-Neolithic migration of pre–proto-Semitic speakers out of Africa via Sinai (8)*......"





> *"The proto-language of each Afroasiatic branch developed its own distinct vocabulary of food production, further supporting the view that herding and cultivation emerged separately in each branch after the proto-Afroasiatic period (7, 8). Diamond and Bellwood adopt Militarev’s (2) solitary counterclaim of proto-Afroasiatic cultivation. However, not one of Militarev’s proposed 32 agricultural roots can be considered diagnostic of cultivation. Fifteen are reconstructed as names of plants or loose categories of plants. Such evidence may reveal plants known to early Afroasiatic speakers, but it does not indicate whether they were cultivated or wild." Militarev’s remaining roots are each semantically mixed, i.e., they have foodproduction– related meanings in some languages, but in other languages have meanings applicable to foraging or equally applicable to foraging or cultivating.*


Link

Every question or concern in your stance has been addressed/refuted by these linguist, which is why their stance of an African origin is accepted as the mainstream stance and has been for the over the past 50 years. 




> I'm not asserting my opinion as an authority, but I'm bringing up valid counter-arguments. My authority comes from these counter arguments, not vice versa.


You are simply not acknowledging that everyone of your counter claims has been addressed and refuted, as they all appear to be highly inspired by the works of Militarez. The fact of the matter is a non African origin for Afro-Asatic is has been abandoned since the latter half of the last century. What is perhaps the most damning piece of evidence which debunked this theory was the revelation of the ancient Saharan "Neolithic":




> *Later, stimulated by mid-Holocene droughts, migration from the Sahara contributed population to the Nile Valley (Hassan 1988, Kobusiewicz 1992, Wendorf and Schild 1980, 2001); the predynastic of upper Egypt and later Neolithic in lower Egypt show clear Saharan affinities. A striking increase of pastoralists’ hearths are found in the Nile valley dating to between 5000-4000 BCE (Hassan 1988). Saharan Nilo-Saharan speakers may have been initial domesticators of African cattle found in the Sahara (see Ehret 2000, Wendorf et. Al. 1987).* *Hence there was a Saharan “Neolithic” with evidence for domesticated cattle before they appear in the Nile valley* (Wendorf et al. 2001). Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246


This explains why the words for sheep, goat, wheat, and oats (all of Near Eastern origin) are not Semitic loan words, but indigenous words from Nilotic foraging background.




> What the article you quote acknowleges is that farming arrives from the Middle East in Egypt, and it's thus absolutely compatible with the Neolithic/Eurasian origin of Proto-Afroasiatic.


No where in Ehrets et al's. article does it state that farming arrived from the Middle East into Egypt. Ehret is stating that the indigenous foraging system already in place (which came the Sahara) incorporated Near Eastern products into it "on their own terms" (meaning not suddenly).




> Who is the one here who keeps dismissing an idea because he doesn't like it?


You don't provide valid support (in form of a study or comment from a linguist) for your interpretations. You are merely relying on your own conclusions and trying to use that as a basis to dismiss the words of reputed linguist.




> What? I'm supposed to drop my views because they are not in line with the majority of linguists? That is not how science works. It's possible that the majority of linguists are simply wrong on the topic.


We all know that as time goes on new evidence tends surface which drastically alters ideas and theories. You don't seem to realize that your stance on a non African origin for Afrasian already had it's walk in the sun (during the early half of the last century), and was heavily based on a lack archaeological evidence. In the decades following it's fall from grace entirely too much consensus has been reached against those previous ideas, and the "Saharan Neolithic" was the doomsday for that theory.




> As I have stated, if you can provide me with linguistic evidence that Proto-Berber was indeed a hunter-gatherer language, then I am willing to believe you that the Capsian Culture is indeed viable as a candidate for speakers of Proto-Berber.


I don't dispute the fact that Proto-Berber was a pastoralist society, but it shows continuations with the Capsian culture. Rahmani, N (2004) for one supports the theory that the Capsian culture was ancestral to North African languages including Berber.




> Besides, Frigi et al. argue for genetic continuity between the Capsian Culture and the modern-day Berber populations.


Let's reassess this statement by Frigi et al.:




> *The Neolithic Capsian tradition shows continuity with previous cultures*, w*ith evidence of these accepting domesticated sheep and goat into a local subsistence pattern, thus becoming Neolithicized with a pastoralist economy* (Rahmani, 2003, 2004; Sheppard and Lubell 1990). A. B. Smith (2005) a*nd McDonald (1998) indicate the importance of pastoralism in the Holocene Sahara, and this economy may help in the understanding of Berber emergence.*-- Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations Frigi et al. Human Biology (August 2010 (82:4)


No where is the statement is Frigi referring to "genetic continuity"! He is clearly referring to cultural/linguistic continuity from the Mesolithic("previous cultures" from neolithic) to the "emergence" of Berber culture.




> No, I'm not explicitly saying that Y-Haplogroup R1b is following linguistic lines, because it clearly isn't. However, you have the case of an Y-Haplogroup that originated in Eurasia and migrated into Africa. Amongst other populations,


You are using the presence of haplogroup R in interior Africa to somehow support your theory of an Afro-Asatic origin in the Middle East and migration into Africa. *One major problem with your theory is that you have yet to give a date for this migration! Were these early Semitic speakers comprised entirely of haplogroup R1b? If not then why is there a complete absense of those other non Africa haplogroups in these African populations?*

Please answer these question.




> R1b-V88 is also found amongst Semitic peoples in the Middle East, amongst Egyptians and amongst Berbers, all which are Afroasiatic-speaking peoples.


You seem to be ignoring the most troublesome fact towards your theory, which is that the highest frequencies of R1b-V88 in Africa are not amongst the people whom you just listed but instead West African Niger Congo speakers and Central African Pygmies at ranges between 80%-100%! Are the people who according to you are the descendants of an in-migrating R carrying Middle Eastern population, showing less frequencies of the haplogroup than populations who have arguably nothing to do with this migration?




> Regarding the highest frequencies being purportedly in Niger-Congo speakers, while that is possible, could you please cite the source for that? The source that I cite clearly shows that it's most prevalent amongst Chadic speakers.


That was a comparison only amongst Afro-Asatic populations, not the entire continent. The comparisons found in Cruciani et al (2010):

*Mandekan………..…………..…100%
Mossi………….……………….100%
Rimaiba………….…………….100%
Fulbe(Burkina)…….…………..91.0%
Fulbe(Niger)…………………..85.7%
Fulbe(Nigeria)…………………80.0%
Fulbe(Cameroon)……..………88.9%
Bamileke……………………….100%
Ewondo………………………….96.7
Biaka (Pygmies)………………..100%
Mbuti(Pygmies)……..………...100%
Twa(Pygmies)………………….100%*

How much higher can you than 100%?




> As I have stated before, there is no evidence that Y-Haplogroups have any effect on phenotypical appearance.


Are essentially saying that if a populations whom we presume as being phenotypically non African (out of the range of diversity) backed migrated into Africa and produced populations from central to West Africa, that it would not differentiate those populations from surrounding African populations?

As I've stated the dates for this presumed back migration will help answer this question, based on what we already know about the phenotype of some neolithic Eurasian populations (Brace 2006).




> Regarding Haplogroup J1, you're very selective what your read. In that quote it said "Neolithic or earlier", which does not explicitly rule out Neolithic as wrong.


The point is that it was present in East Africa, whose inhabitants constitute the genetic base for the entire North African region. That being said those very small frequencies of the haplogroup in Northwest Africa, fits much more into the fact that there may have been a small frequency in that East African population to begin with. As opposed to an unsupported theory of a small migration of Middle Easterners across Northern Africa during prehistoric times.




> What pattern matches with this genetic data other than an Eurasian (and thus likely Neolithic) origin of Proto-Afroasiatic?


Your theory is _possible_, but highly unlikely and lacks a scholarly backing (meaning cite a scholar who argues exactly what you are). On the other hand:

africanlanguage.jpg
mm1E1b1bRoute.png


Afro-Asiatic origins in East Africa and the spread of M35 appear to be much more correspondent with one another and has the most support.

----------


## Taranis

Honestly, I'm not sure if I want to continue arguing with you after having read this:




> That was a comparison only amongst Afro-Asatic populations, not the entire continent. The comparisons found in Cruciani et al (2010):
> 
> Mandekan………..…………..…100%
> Mossi………….……………….100%
> Rimaiba………….…………….100%
> Fulbe(Burkina)…….…………..91.0%
> Fulbe(Niger)…………………..85.7%
> Fulbe(Nigeria)…………………80.0%
> Fulbe(Cameroon)……..………88.9%
> ...


If I may refer you to the actual paper:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g2009231a.html




> *Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages*
> 
> Abstract:
> 
> Although human Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup R1b are quite rare in Africa, being found mainly in Asia and Europe, a group of chromosomes within the paragroup R-P25* are found concentrated in the central-western part of the African continent, *where they can be detected at frequencies as high as 95%.* Phylogenetic evidence and coalescence time estimates suggest that R-P25* chromosomes (or their phylogenetic ancestor) may have been carried to Africa by an Asia-to-Africa back migration in prehistoric times. Here, we describe six new mutations that define the relationships among the African R-P25* Y chromosomes and between these African chromosomes and earlier reported R-P25 Eurasian sub-lineages. The incorporation of these new mutations into a phylogeny of the R1b haplogroup led to the identification of a new clade (R1b1a or R-V88) encompassing all the African R-P25* and about half of the few European/west Asian R-P25* chromosomes. A worldwide phylogeographic analysis of the R1b haplogroup provided strong support to the Asia-to-Africa back-migration hypothesis. The analysis of the distribution of the R-V88 haplogroup in >1800 males from 69 African populations revealed a striking genetic contiguity between the Chadic-speaking peoples from the central Sahel and several other Afroasiatic-speaking groups from North Africa. The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 9200–5600 kya, in the early mid Holocene. *We suggest that R-V88 is a paternal genetic record of the proposed mid-Holocene migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers through the Central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin*, and geomorphological evidence is consistent with this view.


More importantly, if you take a look at the R1b-V88 frequencies that are given in the paper:

Cruciani2010.jpg

... it's very clear that the purported "100%" frequencies you give for non-Chadic peoples are absent, and that there's a clear correlation with speakers of Chadic languages.

You accuse me of purportedly having no authority to criticize the works of Diakonoff, Keira, Ehret etc. (the authority which I'm taking from the arguments themselves), yet in contrast you have seemingly no qualm to change facts as they are stated in papers. How can you so obviously distort actual statements from papers and attempt to lie into my face about this? What point is there in arguing you if you're willing to twist facts just to support your view?

----------


## Taharqa

> Honestly, I'm not sure if I want to continue arguing with you after having read this:
> 
> 
> 
> If I may refer you to the actual paper:
> 
> http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g2009231a.html
> 
> 
> ...



 :Ashamed:  Forgive me for this error. You are the first to have brought it to my attention. The source for these numbers was based on a misreading of this table:

http://olmec98.net/cruciani.jpg

from the study. I did not purposely try to mislead you or anyone else. 

I am however correct that the frequencies of R1 still reach 100% in West African populations, but subsequently has an absence of any other non African haplogroup. Why is this? Were the proto Afro-Asatic speakers who you claim migrated into this region from the Levant comprised entirely of haplogroup R? If not (which is a given) then explain the current circumstance.

Another question is why is it seen in such low frequencies across other Afro-Asiatic speakers in northern Africa (except for 26% in Siwa Egyptian Berbers), but again reaches 100% frequencies in West-Central Africa.

----------


## Belisarius

First of all, what do you mean by white? If you are using white as a synonym for Indo-European then no, they aren't. If you are using white as a term for caucasoid then yes, they are. It is important to be clear on terminology, otherwise there is nothing to stop someone from using bait and switch.

That being said, there are a few points I would like to touch on.

1) Afrocentrism: It is my understanding that Afrocentrists believe that the original Egyptians were negroid, and at some point were either driven off or killed off by Semitic invaders from the Middle East. Some have even made the more ridiculous claim that the present day Egyptians came from Greeks or Romans. Afrocentrists have also argued that the Egyptians must have been black because they supposedly referred to Egypt as Kemet which means "the black land," so therefore it must have been in reference to the people calling themselves black. 

*First of all, Egypt has always been a densely populated region with people clustered around the Nile. Most of the rest of the country is useless wasteland with limited resources. There is zero possibility of a genocide having occurred in Egypt at any point in time. Genocides leave behind records. Especially when the people group in question is large, famous, and LITERATE. To believe that this could happen without leaving behind a record is ridiculous in the extreme. Second, the same is true of forced relocation. Forced relocation leaves behind a record as well. Some examples of forced relocation include the expulsion of the Ainu from Honshu, and the expulsion of the many Native American tribes from the eastern United States. In both of those cases a vastly superior civilization expelled people groups which were considerably less developed and smaller. A historical record was left behind. A historical record should exist if a similar expulsion occurred in Egypt. And there is no way that anyone who expelled them would not have bragged about it.

2) "Kemet" refers to the area of black soil around the Nile. They used the term "deshret" (which meant red land) to refer to the useless desert that surrounded the fertile black soil. They didn't call it the red land because the people who lived there are red. The name for Egypt was Aegeptus (spelling?). The term "Copt" is used to refer to the Christian minorities of Egypt who never converted to Islam following the Arab invasion. Those people, up until fairly recently, spoke a language which was directly derived classic Egyptian. Obviously the language has changed over time, and it is no longer used in conversational speech but it is still used in church liturgies. The term Copt was derived from an Arabic mispronunciation of Aegeptus, which Arabs could not pronounce. But Copt literally means EGYPTIAN. That being said, one can disprove a link to Europe and Middle Eastern Semites by checking the list of Semitic and Indo-European languages for COPTIC. I have already checked, and it is not in either group.

3) As for the Ethiopians and the major groups of the Horn of Africa. The only reason they look different from regular black Africans is because of their close proximity to the Middle East. Across the Red Sea in Yemen there are clear elements of Negroid admixture. This is due to the close proximity of both groups, as well as the fact that in ancient times both countries were ruled by common dynasties at times. The Habasha people of Ethiopia speak a Semitic language which is more closely related to Arabic than Coptic. DNA from Y Chromosomes indicates Middle Eastern ancestry, while the X chromosomes are more consistent with the black African norm:

"On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times. On the basis of autosomal polymorphic loci, it has been estimated that 60% of the Ethiopian gene pool has an African origin, whereas ~40% is of Caucasoid derivation.... Our Ethiopian sample also lacks the sY81-G allele, which was associated with 86% and 69% of Senegalese and mixed-African YAP+ chromosomes, respectively. This suggests that male-mediated gene flow from Niger-Congo speakers to the Ethiopian population was probably very limited ... Caucasoid gene flow into the Ethiopian gene pool occurred predominantly through males. Conversely, the Niger-Congo contribution to the Ethiopian population occurred mainly through females."

Passarino et al. (1998)*Different Genetic Components in the Ethiopian Population, Identified by mtDNA* *and Y-Chromosome Polymorphisms*. _Am J Hum Genet_; 62:420-434

The only reason why the peoples of Nubia and the Horn of Africa do not look as Negroid as peoples of west and south Africa (stereotypical Negroid types) is because of the Egyptian and Middle Eastern admixture. West Africans are closer to pure negroid, due to a lack of proximity with non-negroid groups. 

4) You cannot make allusions to the Koran and expect people to take that as any serious kind of argument. I myself am deeply religious (Christian), but I am not going to go into an atheist forum and use passages from the Bible to argue a point unless I can corroborate them with some 3rd party documents or contemporary empirical data which the atheists could consider valid. Your holy text does not count for anything to non-believers unless you can first convince us of it's validity through facts and logic. That being said, many of the stories in the Koran were lifted or edited from the Bible. According to the Biblical genealogies Cush is the progenitor of the black race, but Mizraim is the progenitor of the Egyptians. That's why you Muslims call Egypt MASR. It seems that you are not even clear on what your own religion teaches.

5) My final point is this, we have a complete visual record of Egypt going back through all of history. The royal mummies have caucasoid features and hair, but so do the many mummies of commoners and officials. This is not a matter which any scientists who have studied the corpses will dispute. The visual records from paintings and statues during the classic period are consistent with the imagery from the Roman period as well as the modern period. It shows a consistent population. If you want to believe that at some mythical time during an alleged pre-historic past there was a negroid people group there then you are free to do so. But pre-history is purely speculative, and even if there was a negroid culture there prior to the historical population of Egypt it is irrelevant because we know it is the Egyptians of actual history who built Egypt.

----------


## Belisarius

Will post more later dealing specifically with the Arab invasion.

----------


## Taranis

> Forgive me for this error. You are the first to have brought it to my attention. The source for these numbers was based on a misreading of this table:
> 
> http://olmec98.net/cruciani.jpg
> 
> from the study. I did not purposely try to mislead you or anyone else.


I'll apologize for my accusation then. The "Y (xR1b)" in the row refers to number of total samples of Y-DNA (I assume that it does not add up to 100% because they were not always able to gather/process all DNA samples that they had taken.




> I am however correct that the frequencies of R1 still reach 100% in West African populations, but subsequently has an absence of any other non African haplogroup. Why is this? Were the proto Afro-Asatic speakers who you claim migrated into this region from the Levant comprised entirely of haplogroup R? If not (which is a given) then explain the current circumstance.


As far as I understand the paper, there's no evidence of Haplogroup R in (sub-Saharan) Africa other than R1b-V88. All known samples of Haplogroup R* (that is, positive for M207 marker which refines Haplogroup R, but negative for the M173 and M479 markers which define Haplogroups R1 and R2, respectively). All known samples of R* are from southern Asia (Iran, Pakistan, India):

5201726f1.jpg

(from http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v.../5201726a.html )

also, related:

"In contrast, their sister branch R, deﬁned by M207, ac- counts for more than one-third of Indian Y chromo- 
somes and is the most common clade throughout north- 
western Eurasia. Its daughter clades R1 and R2 are both 
found in tribal and caste groups. Clade R1 splits into 
R1a and R1b, which are similarly variable in Indians 
(ﬁg. 3) and western Asians but are less so in Estonians, 
Czechs, and central Asians (table 5). *R2 (previously mis-* 
*identiﬁed as “P1” [YCC 2002]) has a more speciﬁc* 
*spread, being conﬁned to Indian, Iranian, and central* 
*Asian populations (table 3)*."

(from http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929707605412 )

In a nutshell, there can be no doubt about the Eurasian origin of R1b. It's way too far up in the Y-DNA "tree" to have originated in Africa. This is also what Cruciani et al. write, and they also consider the idea that R1b is indigenous to sub-saharan Africa as unlikely:




> According to the phylogeography of macro-haplogroup K-M9 (which contains haplogroup R1b), *an ancient Asia-to-Africa back migration has been hypothesized to explain the puzzling presence of R-P25* in sub-Saharan Africa.18 This hypothesis is strongly supported by the present data.* In the revised Y chromosome phylogeny, there are 119 lineages in the macro-haplogroup K-M9 (which includes haplogroups K1-K4 and L to T).31 Of these lineages, only two have been observed in sub-Saharan Africa at appreciable frequencies: T-M7018,41, 42 and R-V88 (this study). Both haplogroups have also been observed in Europe and western Asia (Refs 42,43 and this study). *If the presence of R1b chromosomes in Africa was not because of a back migration, we would have to assume that all the mutations that connect M9 with V88 in the MSY phylogeny (>50 mutations) originated in Africa. Under this scenario, we should assume that all the K-M9 lineages that are now found outside sub-Saharan Africa have survived extinction, whereas those which should have accumulated in Africa are now extinct (with the exception of T-M70 and R-V88) and this is an unlikely scenario.*





> Another question is why is it seen in such low frequencies across other Afro-Asiatic speakers in northern Africa (except for 26% in Siwa Egyptian Berbers), but again reaches 100% frequencies in West-Central Africa.


My assumption is that this was a founder effect in the Chadic region.

----------


## Taharqa

> If you are using white as a term for caucasoid then yes, they are.


From a scientific perspective the concept of "race" is invalid, which is what the term "Caucasoid" (Negroid and Mongloid ect ect) was originally used for. Therefore the debate on which "race" the ancient Egyptians should be viewed from a social perspective. The social concept of race is based upon the grouping of people based on their external anatomical traits, and this is where biological evidence becomes comes into play. _The Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt_ for example has defined the most common definition that Western society labels black Africans or "Negroid" populations under:




> *"Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid).* "


Which was followed by the summarization of consistent conclusions of biological analysis:

_



"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate thatthe 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."


_and




> *Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography*


link

Therefore your persistent assertion that they were "Caucasoid" or Western Eurasian in phenotype is incorrect, at least according to this authoritative source.  :Wink: 




> 1) Afrocentrism:


Your points from first glance appear to be pertaining more to *ideology* than to actual biological or cultural facts in regards to this subject. Attaching buzzwords such as "Afrocentric" or even "Eurocentric" does not discredit the argument. 




> It is my understanding that Afrocentrists believe that the original Egyptians were negroid, and at some point were either driven off or killed off by Semitic invaders from the Middle East.


Personally I don't know what your perception or definition of an "Afrocentric" individual is, but that is not at all my point of view on the subject. The majority of the modern inhabitants in modern day Egypt are in fact the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. One question often put forth to people who assert that the original ancient Egyptians were black Africans to the south, is well why don't modern Egyptians look like black Africans or instead have a phenotype that is somewhat intermediate between black Africans and Middle Easterners. 

The simple answer to what happened to the original phenotype of the ancient Egyptians is *assimilation*, not "genocide" or mass displacement. This assimilation of people with "Asiatic" phenotypes did not suddenly occur during the Arab invasion of 700 A.D., but was a slow prolonged process stemming since Old Kingdom which began to take notice during the New Kingdom. This is why it has been consistently found that Late Period Egyptians were biologically distinct (which does not negate "continuity" by the way) from Egyptians of the times prior:




> *Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations* (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). *This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.*
> 
> *Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations* (Zakrzewski, 2002). *A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar* (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, *we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."*
> 
> 
> -- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. *AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY* 134:520–528


Note that the early ancient Egyptians cluster closer to African populations than to Europeans or Middle Easterners and Keita is cited. Keita also described the elongated Egyptian crania (along side the broad featured type) to be "Somali like", which would specify which African population to at for a reference point. 




> Some have even made the more ridiculous claim that the present day Egyptians came from Greeks or Romans.


The Greco-Roman period has been noted as the time in Pharonic Egyptian history when a lot of biological affinity towards Europeans began to occur in Egypt as a result of that occupation;




> _That study (Irish, 2006) provided evidence for predynastic/dynastic continuity, especially during the early dynastic in Upper Egypt. Temporal and geographic distributions of biological variation among skeletal samples in the present study also suggest that in situ development was associated with Egyptian state formation, albeit with some indications of migration and/or gene flow. As such, we could reject neither Hypothesis 1, the in situ model, nor Hypothesis 2, the development by-invading-population model. Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006).  No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose._ 
> "Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians."
> Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC.


The ancient Egyptian state was a process of indigenous development and the strongest continuity was seen in early Dynastic times amongst Upper Egyptians, who in which Irish cited several studies labeling the cranio-metric pattern "Negroid" alongside Nubians, Tigrean and more southern African populations:




> *"As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990).* _(Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)_


Note how consistent said finding is. 




> Afrocentrists have also argued that the Egyptians must have been black because they supposedly referred to Egypt as Kemet which means "the black land," so therefore it must have been in reference to the people calling themselves black.


Please watch this documentary from the Late African historian Basil Davidson:







Your contempt towards people who you consider "Afrocentrics" seem to come from a profound lack of knowledge and preconcetpions of strawman argument put forth by particular kinds of people, and not the true facts of the matter. 




> There is zero possibility of a genocide having occurred in Egypt at any point in time. Genocides leave behind records...........


This entire statement is a prime example of what happens when you are trying to pigeon hole one's argument into a particular ideaology rather than taking the time out to hear the other side. As a result nothing in that passage pertains to me or my argument, as I am not arguing that a genocide has taken place.




> 2) "Kemet" refers to the area of black soil around the Nile.


While I have seen people debate this extensively, this has never been one of my talking points and is therefore irrelevant to my argument and doesn't really help your argument that they have always been "Caucasoid".




> the name for Egypt was Aegeptus (spelling?). The term "Copt" is used to refer to the Christian minorities of Egypt who never converted to Islam following the Arab invasion.


Speaking of Copts here is an excert from Britannica about their own population history:




> "*In Libya, which is mostly desert and oasis, there is a visible Negroid element in the sedentary populations*, *and at the same is true of the Fellahin of Egypt, whether Copt or Muslim.* *Osteological studies have shown that the Negroid element was stronger in predynastic times than at present, reflecting an early movement northward along the banks of the Nile, which were then heavily forested." (Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. "Populations, Human")*


You also are under the very false impression that the people of Cairo and other major northern cities are the only way that modern Egyptians look. Here are some other Egyptians particularly in the south, who have better retained their ancestoral biological affinity:




The south is also where the Egyptian civilization originated and where the vast majority of ancient Egypt's populations resided prior to the New Kingdom. The complete opposite is true of the Egypt today. Also one must consider the fact that at the turn of the last century Egypt was a nation of less than 5 million, but less than 100 years later is at the verge of having a population over 100 million. Migration from the Middle East has persisted to this very day. With that being said, it wouldn't be far fetched to say that every person within the modern Egypt (especially Lower Egyptians) is not of ancient Egyptian descent. The same way that every person within the boarders of Sudan is not of "Nubian" descent. 




> The term Copt was derived from an Arabic mispronunciation of Aegeptus, which Arabs could not pronounce. But Copt literally means EGYPTIAN.


Coptic Egyptians Christians are biologically the same as most Muslim Egyptians and not a genetic study will say otherwise. What people who use modern Copts as an example of the ancient Egyptians fail to realize is that Christianity came into ancient Egypt during the Late Period, and from what we already know about the Late Period they were already biologically differientiated from prior Egyptian populations:




> Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.
> 
> Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. *In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.*
> 
> The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. *These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample.* Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analysis were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.
> 
> *The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series.* –Zakrewski (2004) “I*ntra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania*.”


Therefore the assertion that Coptic Egyptians are the splitting image of their core indigenous Egyptian ancestors is false, which is proven by biology. While continuity has been maintained (meaning no mass genocide or displacement took place) the original population affinities have been substantially *dilluted*. 




> 3) As for the Ethiopians and the major groups of the Horn of Africa. The only reason they look different from regular black Africans is because of their close proximity to the Middle East.


 :Useless:  Incorrect:




> "The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color, hair form, genetics, and other characteristics. No one set of characteristics is more African than another.* Variability is also found in "sub-Saharan" Africa, to which the word "Africa" is sometimes erroneously restricted. There is a problem with definitions. Sometimes Africa is defined using cultural factors, like language, that exclude developments that clearly arose in Africa. For example, sometimes even the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea) is excluded because of geography and language and the fact that some of its peoples have narrow noses and faces*. 
> *
> *However, the Horn is at the same latitude as Nigeria, and its languages are African. The latitude of 15 degree passes through Timbuktu, surely in "sub-Saharan Africa," as well as Khartoum in Sudan;* both are north of the Horn. Another false idea is that supra-Saharan and Saharan Africa were peopled after the emergence of "Europeans" or Near Easterners by populations coming from outside Africa. Hence, the ancient Egyptians in some writings have been de-Africanized. These ideas, which limit the definition of Africa and Africans, are rooted in racism and earlier, erroneous "scientific" approaches."**(**S. Keita, "The Diversity of Indigenous Africans," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Clenko, Editor (1996), pp. 104-105.)*


This notion that populations in the Horn of Africa descend from a mixture of "true Negroids" and "Caucasoids" is called the "Hamitic Hypothesis" which has been discredited over half a century now by scientist.





> The Habasha people of Ethiopia speak a Semitic language which is more closely related to Arabic than Coptic. DNA from Y Chromosomes indicates Middle Eastern ancestry, while the X chromosomes are more consistent with the black African norm:


Actually the populations of the Horn who acquired Semitic did so without very much geneflow from the Middle East. 




> *"These data, together with those reported elsewhere (Ritte et al. 1993a, 1993b; Hammer et al. 2000) suggest that the Ethiopian Jews acquired their religion without substantial genetic admixture from Middle Eastern peoples and that they can be considered an ethnic group with essentially a continental African genetic composition."* (Cruciani, et. al Am J Hum Genet. 2002 May; 70(5): 1197–1214. "A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa Is Supported by High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-Chromosome Haplotypes)


The other populations in the Horn have neglectable to completely absent traces of Middle Eastern geneflow. The other problem with the false idea that elongated African features originated as a result of some mass settlement of Eurasians is that the remains of individuals in Tanzania from over 100,000 years ago also exhibit the same facial features...*Modern humans did not disperse from Africa until around 50,000 years ago*! Therefore such traits origianted in Africa.




> 5) The royal mummies have caucasoid features




You are incorrect once again:




> *"The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is 'southern' (tropical African variant), and this is consistent with what would be expected based on the literature and other results (Keita, 1990).* This pattern is seen in both group and unknown analyses... Archaeology and history seem to provide the most parsimonious explanation for the variation in the royal tombs at Abydos.. Tomb design suggests the presence of northerners in the south in late Nakada times (Hoffman, 1988) when the unification probably took place. Delta names are attached to some of the tombs at Abydos (Gardiner, 1961; Yurco, 1990, personal communication), thus perhaps supporting Petrie's (1939) and Gardiner's contention that north-south marriages were undertaken to legitimize the hegemony of the south. The courtiers of northern elites would have accompanied them. 
> 
> Given all of the above, it is probably not possible to view the Abydos royal tomb sample as representative of the general southern Upper Egyptian population of the time. Southern elites and/or their descendants eventually came to be buried in the north (Hoffman, 1988). Hence early Second Dynasty kings and Djoser (Dynasty 111) (Hayes, 1953) and his descendants are not buried in Abydos. Petrie (1939) states that the Third Dynasty, buried in the north, was of Sudanese origin, but southern Egypt is equally likely. This perhaps explains Harris and Weeks' (1973) suggested findings of southern morphologies in some Old Kingdom Giza remains, also verified in portraiture (Drake, 1987). Further study would be required to ascertain trends in the general population of both regions. *The strong Sudanese affinity noted in the unknown analyses may reflect the Nubian interactions with upper Egypt in predynastic times prior to Egyptian unification (Williams, 1980,1986)*..."_ (S. Keita (1992) Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254)_


Unless of course Tropical African populations are no longer regarded as black Africans for purposes of this debate  :Laughing: 





> and hair, but so do the many mummies of commoners and officials.


I've never understood why some people continue to suggest that because the corpse of Ramses II and a couple of other mummies have extremely out of place hair colors (bleach blond to auburn) that they were somehow a displaced group of Europeans. Now perhaps what is the most the baffling question is in regard to their stance, one minute they are that the ancient Egyptians have always been Asiatic in physical appearance as are most Egyptians today, but they don't acknowledge the absence of such traits even amongst those "Caucasoid" populations. Red Haired individuals only comprise less than 15% of Northwestern Europeans populations where it is most prominent! The idea that these mummies with out of place hair were the descendants of some small group of Northwestern European origin is beyond ridiculous imo and rides of the train of fantacy. Further more a recent study explains, what we "Afrocentrics" have been saying about this situation for decades which is that this is the result of the chemical embalming process done of these corpses:




> Journal of Archaeological Science doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.07.003
> 
> Indications of embalming in Roman Greece by physical, chemical and histological analysis
> 
> C. Papageorgopoulou et al.
> 
> 
> "The current colour of the hair is brown with reddish highlights, a common observation on many mummies, and probably originated through post-mortem alteration (Aufderheide, 2003; Wilson et al., 2001). Su*n-exposure, bacterial reaction, and embalming methods are some of the factors that may affect the original hair colour. As a result, hair that was originally black or brown exhibits reddish, orange or even blond colour due to post mortem alterations.* All human hair, however, does not turn red over archaeological time-scales (Wilson, 2001).* Based on the histological analysis of the unstained hair samples, the limited fungal influence, and the macroscopic view, it can be assumed that the original hair colour was brown. Similar cases of hair preservation have been reported in studies of both mummified and non-mummified human remains* (Aufderheide, 2003; Brothwell and Dobney, 1986; Lubec et al., 1987; White, 1993; Wilson et al., 2002, 2007b)."






> This is not a matter which any scientists who have studied the corpses will dispute.




Comments like this generated laughter in this seminar of Kemet at Manchester (UK), who have recently accepted and embrace the fact that ancient Egypt (or Kemet) was a black African civilization.





At the 9 minute mark

----------


## Taharqa

> Passarino et al. (1998)*Different Genetic Components in the Ethiopian Population, Identified by mtDNA* *and Y-Chromosome Polymorphisms*. _Am J Hum Genet_; 62:420-434


Please do not rely on Racial Realities distortions for your argument!

----------


## Taharqa

> I'll apologize for my accusation then. The "Y (xR1b)" in the row refers to number of total samples of Y-DNA (I assume that it does not add up to 100% because they were not always able to gather/process all DNA samples that they had taken.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I understand the paper, there's no evidence of Haplogroup R in (sub-Saharan) Africa other than R1b-V88. All known samples of Haplogroup R* (that is, positive for M207 marker which refines Haplogroup R, but negative for the M173 and M479 markers which define Haplogroups R1 and R2, respectively). All known samples of R* are from southern Asia (Iran, Pakistan, India):
> 
> 5201726f1.jpg
> 
> (from http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v.../5201726a.html )
> ...


The questions still remain WHEN did the said back migration occur and why is there a complete absence of any other non African haplogroup in these heavily R carrying Central African populations? 

Keita makes these comments in regards to such issues:




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

----------


## Taranis

> The questions still remain WHEN did the said back migration occur and why is there a complete absence of any other non African haplogroup in these heavily R carrying Central African populations?


I've answered the latter

Regarding when this migration may have occured, Karafet et. al 2008 give the age for R1 (the parent mutation for both R1a and R1b) as approximately 18,500 years:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...centrez#__sec1

It is self-evident that both R1a and R1b, as well as their subclades (including R1b-V88) must be younger. Regarding when this migration may have occured, this is what Cruciani et al. suggest in their paper:

"The expansion time for the haplogroup R-V88 in Africa, under two different population models (see Materials and methods), was found to be 9.2–5.6 ky (95% CI=7.6–10.8 ky and 4.7–6.6 ky, respectively)."




> Keita makes these comments in regards to such issues:


As I stated before, I think that an Eurasian origin of R1b-V88 is prettymuch unquestionable if all "parent" markers (R1b*, R1*, R*, P*) and all "sister" markers (R1b-M297, R2, Q) are found in Eurasia.

----------


## Ramses II

*1.

*


> First of all, the origins and migration of M-35 is just one of my lines of evidence confirming the more southerly African origins of ancient Egypt. This is supported not only by mainstream (and pretty common sense) genetic evidence, but even coinciding with lingustic evidence as Christphoer Ehret's recent study details:


You have no evidence, and your "common sense" has no standing. 1. The chart you provided places the supposed origin for Afro-Asiatic in East Africa, not Sub Sahara. Most negroids don't speak Afro-Asiatic, but Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan click languages which for the most part developed after Afro-Asiatic. In addition, *even if* Egyptians supposedly originated in the region of Nubia, it doesn't explain why Egyptians spoke Afro-Asiatc while Nubians spoke Nilo-Saharan - so that contention is refuted. The ancient Egyptians referred to Nubians as "gibberers" (Redford; 2006) among other things. 

What languages are closelly related to Afro-Asiatic? It's certainly not Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan or Khoisan:




> "Related to this Borean language family are Eurasiatic, *Afroasiatic,* Sino-Caucasian, Austric, and Amerind roots that form the basic languages of the Borean language family. The etymological roots of language families and the Borean super family are united as the representatives of the concept, in our case the concept of SPEECH." (FA Haase; 2011)





> "It is clear that the Borean hypothesis involves a super-phylum some of whose sub-taxa are themselves super-phyla. The term phyletic chain is introduced as a better label, particularly because the Borean groups show a chain like distribution from southern Ethiopia through southwestern Eurasia to northeast Asia and down to the end of the New World. Borean has clear similarities to Swadesh's Vasco-Dene. Borean is predominantly associated with human populations of "Caucasoid" or "Northern Mongoloid" physical appearance, the major exceptions being southern India, southern China, southwestern Ethiopia, northern Nigeria, and the Chad Republic. Borean as a chain is closely associated with the appearance of the Upper Paleolithic in the Levant, Europe, and western Eurasia from 50,000 to 45,000 years ago." ("Afrasian and Its Closest Relatives" Harold Fleming)


2. In addition, the chart you provided shows Caucasoid introgression into East Africa, which is supported by substantual genetic studies. 

3. Pay attention to the material you cite. Note the text *you cited* (below), which you so obviously had no understanding of what you were citing as it supports my position, not yours. I took the liberty of highlighting:




> The genetic data appear to be consistent with the archaeological and linguistic data indicative of extensive population interactions *between North African and Middle Eastern populations.* A recent NRY study explores the distribution of haplogroups in a sample of African, Middle Eastern, and European males (38). Whereas a subclade of haplogroup E (M35) appears to have arisen in eastern Africa over 20 kya and subsequently spread to the Middle East and Europe, haplogroup J (M267) appears to have arisen in the Middle East over 20 kya and subsequently spread into northern Africa (38). *A recent study of genomewide autosomal microsatellite markers reports that Middle Eastern and African samples share the highest number of alleles that are also absent in other non-African samples, consistent with bidirectional gene flow (1).* In addition, a recent study of domestic goat mtDNA and NRY variation reports similar findings as well as evidence of trade along the Strait of Gibraltar (39). *The combined archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data,* therefore, suggest *bidirectional migration of peoples between northern Africa and the Levant* for at least the past ~14 ky.[/b]Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East


4. Your own quote debases the foundation of your "argument", it is, however, in complete agreement and compatable with what I've been sayng, E(M35) is a "non-African" haplotype (this is expounded upon later); and "non-Africans" in Africa have been interacting with each other for *"at least the past ~14 ky."* in addition, your quote is improperly attributed to Ehret, instead of Scheinfeldt et al; 2010. (Working toward a synthesis of archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data for inferring African population history) It's only the map, which you posted, that's based on Ehret's paper which is outdated (2009) according to your own source, Scheinfeldt 2010.

5. The statement "Whereas a subclade of haplogroup E (M35) appears to have arisen in eastern Africa" is irrelevant, since it's non-African - as indicated by your source (and others) these were mentioned in my previous post: Abu-Amero; 2009 and "Y-DNA Haplogroup E and its Subclades - 2012" and you choose to ignore it in favor of outdated dismissed information.

For arguments sake, even *IF* E haplogroup (or Afro-Asiatic for that matter) originated in *East* Africa, it doesn't negate the fact that it's designated non-African (this fact discussed further down). Of note, If E was a negroid haplogroup, which btw NO geneticist makes such a claim, then the Europeans that possess it would look, phenotypically like mulattos or quadroons. They don't. For instance, Albanians have more E3b1 than Egyptians, (Cruciani; 2004) if it was a negroid clade, then they would be quadroons. Their morphology doesn't indicate such.

6. Interestingly, *your source Scheinfeldt,* which again, you deliberately excluded from the equation states: 



> "Although the origins of the Afroasiatic language family remain contentious, linguistic data generally support a model in which the *Afroasiatic language family arose in Northern Africa >10 kya* (36). Moreover, analyses of the Cushitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family suggest that *proto-Cushitic arose and diversified at least 7 kya,* and this likely took place in Ethiopia (37). Intriguingly, the origin and diversification of proto-Afroasiatic is consistent with the spread of intensive plant collection in the archaeological record, and some interpret this pattern to represent a model in which proto-Afroasiatic speakers developed the novel subsistence technology resulting in the expansion and spread of their Afroasiatic descendants in the region (37)."


Therefore your claims of a "southerly origin" for Egyptian Afro-Asiatic are refuted by *none other than your own source* Scheinfeldt 2010 among numerous others. And that's the least of your problems, your source, which you deliberately failed to acknowledge points to a *North* African origin for Afro-Asiatic, not East Africa, not Central, West or South Africa but North, a region of Caucasoid habitation - all connected to the Borean language family which resides outside Africa. Further, proto-Cushitic was birthed *much later, about 3,000 years later than Afro-Asiatic (hint hint)* as stated by *your source.* You've deliberately taken the information out of context by citing bits and pieces. You've been caught in the act of manipulation, again.




> "The expansion of *Caucasians in Africa has been correlated with the spread and diversification of Afroasiatic languages*... This stresses the importance of its detailed study in order to trace one of the earliest Caucasian arrivals to Africa. Although in moderate frequencies, the geographic range of this clade extends from the Near East to the Canary Islands, along the Atlantic shores of Northwest Africa and from the Sahel belt, including Ethiopia, to the southern Mediterranean rim." (Maca-Meyer et al; 2003)
> 
> "There is no significant archaeological evidence for a population movement from Africa into the Levant, whether Mesolithic or Neolithic, at the time in question My working assumption, therefore, is that *early Afroasiatic languages spread from the Levant into Africa between 7000 and12,000 years ago, probably in more than one movement."* (Bellwood; 2004)
> 
> "the distribution of M1b and most of the U6 clades only in Mediterranean regions indicates that both M1 and U6 differentiated into their major subclades while they were in the Mediterranean area, and *only later some subsets of M1a (including its derivatives M1a1 and M1a2), U6a2, and U6d diffused to East Africa, possibly along the Nile Valley.* It cannot be excluded that a further late dispersal of M1 and U6 within North and East Africa might have been associated with the diffusion, after the Last Glacial Maximum, of the emerging Afro-Asiatic language family. *Indeed, M1 and U6 in Africa are mostly restricted to Afro-Asiatic–speaking areas."* Olivieri, et al. 2006
> 
> *"Haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups* including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group. The bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events *mainly from Asia and Europe evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic* ...The data *provide insights not only into the history of the Nile Valley, but also in part to the history of Africa and the area of the Sahel."* (Cavalli-Sforza; 2008)


I don't see geneticists discussing or employing the term negroid or black in relation to "Afro-Asiatic" origins and neither do you; so all speculations of this population belonging to some hypothetical black negroid stock is wishful thinking. Below, Bromhard shows extremely close connections between PIE and PAA roots. Noticeably, Sub Saharan languages don't come into play. Observe:




> "Bomhard found 318 roots of both proto-languages that had almost exact correspondence in both sound and meaning. This is some of the evidence that leads him to conclude that *Indo-European and Afroasiatic bear a stronger affinity both in their phonological systems and in their vocabularies, than could possibly have been produced by accident–so strong, indeed, that no linguist could examine them without believing them to have sprung from a common source.* ...
> 
> The presence of Afroasiatic speakers in North Africa *is due to successive waves of expansion from the Near East,* each representing a contemporary form of post-Afroasiatic. *In the earliest phase, the language may have been close to contemporary Indo-European,* having the same SOV syntactic order inherited from Nostratic, and presumably much the same morphology, but already exhibiting the characteristic Afroasiatic feminine in t, which seems to be peculiar to this family. *This wave, with its early Nostratic language, must have represented the first flush of Mesolithic influence in Africa, preceding the advent of the agricultural Neolithic in that region. It extended as far as the Ethiopian highlands and the Chad Basin to the Northwest of them, but there bogged down after converting the local African peoples to Nostratic speech as represented by the Cushitic, Omotic, and Chadic speakers of today*… It is probable that the Cushitic and Omotic languages still retain traces of early Nostratic morphology… These new colonizers of Africa *were of caucasian surface-phenotype.* Then a second wave of Afro-Asiatic expansion exploded*from the Palestine-Syriac center (the Afro-Asiatic "homeland"), probably for reasons associated with the genesis of agriculture,* which would locate this expansion at about 10,000 BP. The new expansion into North Africa again virtually covered up the entire area of the first Afro-Asiatics' north African settlement." (Chin; 2007)
> 
> "The first axis mainly separates Afro-Asiatic populations, which are characterized by high frequencies of haplogroup E1b1b (E3b according to The Y Chromosome Consortium 2002) and its derivates, K, T (K2 according to The Y Chromosome Consortium 2002), and F(xG,I,K) *from the rest of populations*...The second axis positions Khoisan, Pygmy, *and Nilo-Saharan samples* on one edge due to their high frequency of haplogroups B2b and A." (Berniell-Lee; 2009)


On the flip side:




> "*all Nilo-Saharan–speaking populations* from Kenya, Tanzania, southern Sudan, and Chad clustered with west central Afroasiatic Chadic–speaking populations in the global analysis at K =11 (Fig. 3), which is consistent with linguistic and archeological data suggesting bidirectional migration of Nilo-Saharans from source populations in Sudan within the past ~10,500 to 3000 years (4, 29). The proposed migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers ~7000 years ago from the central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin may have resulted in a Nilo-Saharan to Afroasiatic language shift among Chadic speakers (37). *However, our data suggest that this shift was not accompanied by large amounts of Afroasiatic gene flow"* - again, your source Tishkoff; 2009


And:




> "From K = 5-13,[b] all Nilo-Saharan speaking populations from Kenya, Tanzania, southern Sudan, and Chad cluster with west-central Afroasiatic Chadic speaking populations (Fig. S15). These results are consistent with linguistic and archeological data, suggesting a possible common ancestry of Nilo-Saharan speaking populations from an eastern Sudanese homeland within the past ~10,500 years, with subsequent bi-directional migration westward to Lake Chad and southward into modernday southern Sudan, and more recent migration eastward into Kenya and Tanzania ~3,000 ya (giving rise to Southern Nilotic speakers) and westward into Chad ~2,500 ya (giving rise to Central Sudanic speakers) (S62, S65, S67, S74). A proposed migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers ~7,000 ya from the central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin may have caused many western Nilo-Saharans to shift to Chadic languages (S99). *Our data suggest that this shift was not accompanied by large amounts of Afroasiatic gene flow.* Analyses of mtDNA provide evidence for divergence ~8,000 ya of a distinct mtDNA lineage present at high frequency in the Chadic populations and suggest an East African origin for most mtDNA lineages in these populations (S100). (Tishkoff,; 2009)


And:




> "Bantu languages ...are thought to have originated in Nigeria or Cameroon (63) ~5,000 years ago (64, 65)." (Scheinfeld; 2010)


In addition to:




> "On the basis of genetic and archaeological data, *black Africans seem to have radiated from a relatively small West African and possibly pygmy population within the last 20,000 years (Coon, 1962, pp. 651-656; Spurdle et al., 1994; Watson et al., 1996).* The time and place of origin can be further narrowed down with linguistic data. Speakers of proto-Niger Congo broke up c. 10,000 BP and the oldest derived group appear to be proto-Mande speakers, whose descendants inhabit the Niger's headwaters near the Mali-Guinea border (Blench, 1984, pp. 128-129; Ehret, 1984; Murdock, 1959, pp. 44, 64-68)[...]" *Thus, black Africans were still absent from most of sub-Saharan Africa even within historic times. When the Egyptians began to build their pyramids, the peoples living to the south were scarcely darker in color. They were simply seen as uncivilized Egyptians. Thus, the civilized world initially encountered a much narrower range of human phenotypes than it would later on. This context shaped the intellectual worldview in its early stages, including theorizing on universal brotherhood. To a degree not easy to assess, we are heirs to notions of human sameness that were first conceived ‘before Africa became black’."* (Frost; 2008)


There you have it. Wishful thinking down the toilet. Nilo-Saharan's do not cluster with Afro-Asiatic populations genetic-wise, but with west-central Chadic populations; the further one moves south, the more recent the language.

----------


## Ramses II

*1.b* *( ----*There is apparently a glitch in the system as it continues to insist on inserting quote brackets inside my quotes - after I've corrected it - thereby chopping up my quotes.)

*


> The single biggest problem with the Henn study, is that the author only investigated one way gene flow from the Levant into Northern Africa and never investigated the opposite, which Henn actually admitted in an email.


You mean this email from Egypsearch's own crack-pot Bass?




> Dear Charles T





> hanks for your message and interest in our work. As you pointed, the idea of a bidirectional gene-flow was not tested in our work since there were not enough Near Eastern samples to test this hypothesis. My feeling is that the migrations might have been bi-directional, but unfortunately, we are not able to test it with the data available.Best wishes,David Comas




It does nothing to support your claims, they're strictly discussing North/North East Africans, not Sub Saharan/Nilo-Saharan or the like, since those aren't representative of Egyptians. Henn's paper (among numerous others) is more than enough evidence showing introgression of Eurasian geneflow into Africa, again, your loss.




> The evidence of an out of Africa migration has been detailed by the single largest genetic study of Africans to this date Tishkoff 2009.: Consistent with bi-directional gene flow(14), African and Middle Eastern populations shared the greatest number of alleles absent from all other populations(fig. S6B).


^That's discussing the OOA theory - long before Egyptian civilization came to fruitation, the OOA theory has nothing to do with hypothetical wandering negroids. You don't like it, but Henn et al stands, regardless if they analyzed OOA or back migrations, it does not negate the facts. Because:

1. Your source Tishkoff states:



> The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs, which likely reflect Saharan African and East African ancestry, respectively, are closest to the non-African AACs, consistent with an East African migration of modern humans out of Africa or a back-migration of non-Africans into Saharan and Eastern Africa.





> 2. When two clusters are assumed in the STRUCTURE analysis (K = 2), individuals can primarily be assigned to African (orange) or non-African (blue) clusters, consistent with the PCA (Fig. 3). *Individuals from Saharan and Eastern Africa show heterogeneous ancestry,* *reflecting descent from populations ancestral to non-Africans and/or gene flow from non-Africans into Africa* - as per *your source* Tishkoff.
> 
> 3. "North African populations *are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans* based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes; however, the time and the extent of genetic divergence between populations north and south of the Sahara remain poorly understood. Here, we interrogate the multilayered history of North Africa by characterizing the effect of hypothesized migrations from the Near East, Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa on current genetic diversity. We present dense, genome-wide SNP genotyping array data (730,000 sites) from seven North African populations, spanning from Egypt to Morocco, and one Spanish population. We identify a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that increases from east to west across northern Africa; this ancestry is likely derived from “back-to-Africa” gene flow more than 12,000 years ago (ya), prior to the Holocene. The indigenous North African ancestry is more frequent in populations with historical Berber ethnicity. In most North African populations we also see substantial shared ancestry with the Near East, and to a lesser extent sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. To estimate the time of migration from sub-Saharan populations into North Africa, we implement a maximum likelihood dating method based on the distribution of migrant tracts. In order to first identify migrant tracts, we assign local ancestry to haplotypes using a novel, principal component-based analysis of three ancestral populations. We estimate that a migration of western African origin into Morocco began about 40 generations ago (approximately 1,200 ya); a migration of individuals with Nilotic ancestry into Egypt occurred about 25 generations ago (approximately 750 ya). Our genomic data reveal an extraordinarily complex history of migrations, involving at least five ancestral populations, into North Africa." (Henn et al; 2012)



In another paper, *your source* Tishkoff states:



> 4. "The much greater variaiton in both number and frequency of CD4 STRP-Alu haplotypes in sub-Saharan Africans is consistent with the out of Africa hypothesis. The clinal pattern of decreasing heterozygosities west to east outside of Africa is consistent with a migration event of modern humans out of* Northeast* Africa into the Middle East and Europe, and east into Asia, the Pacific Islands, and the New World. In addition, *all non-African populations share a similar pattern of haplotype variation and linkage disequilibrium, which implies that they all derive from a single ancestral gene pool. This pattern is similar to that seen in Northeast African populations but is distinct from that in all sub-Saharan African populations. Patterns of genetic variation distinguishing between African and non-African populations have been documented in data of both mtDNA (6,31) and nuclear DNA (27, 32, 33)."
> 
> *





> *5. "Indigenous North Africans are genetically quite distinct from sub-Saharan Africans (1), and this difference is reflected in their lighter skin and European/Middle Eastern physical features. We have previously suggested, on the basis of the distribution of mtDNA type M1, that North Africans are largely descended from a back-migration into Africa within the last 2000 to 15,000 years, resettling the temporarily lush Sahara and spreading the Afro-Asiatic language family." (Forster; 2007)*





> Make no mistake that there now a biological distinction between some North African populations and the other populations further south, but this study does not negate the fact that the population origins Northern Africa lie rooted firmly within Sub Saharan Africa as detailed by Frigi et al. 2010:"Our objective is to highlight the age of sub-Saharan gene flows in North Africa and particularly in Tunisia. Therefore we analyzed in a broad phylogeographic context sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups of Tunisian Berber populations considered representative of ancient settlement. More than 2,000 sequences were collected from the literature, and networks were constructed. The results show that





> *the most ancient haplogroup is L3*,* which would have been introduced to North Africa from *eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago*. Our results also point to a *less ancient western sub-Saharan* gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups *L2a and L3b.* This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia *before 20,000 years BP**.* These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa. The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced *several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans**.* Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa."-- Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations Frigi et al. Human Biology (August 2010 (82:4)




Strike out! Notice the text from your source I highlighted (above). There's *ALWAYS* been a biological distinction between North & SSA. The "Sub Saharans" they're discussing in Frigi's article stem from the *ancient East African Eurasian Eve** L3* *haplogroup, an OOA haplogroup* unlike the more recent L2 and L3b from *west Sub Sahara" as your source Frigi states, of which Harich 2010 and Henn 2011 the recent introgression of L2a and L3b are demonstrated to be the result of the Trans-Saharan slave trade, hence the term *"**less ancient**"* applied to these haplotypes. East Africas are more related to Eurasians than Subs and any negroid population that possess L3 today, was at the receiving end of non-African, read: Eurasian genetics, that completely lacked the "southern" hpal 3592 marker: 




> A HpaI site at *np 3592 (3594T/C)* *separates most Africans from all non-African* *populations"* Kivisild 2000
> 
> "L3 (characterised by the loss of the HpaI site at np 3592) is ubiquitous. ..." (Bandelt; 2001)
> "Macrohaplogroup L3, *the only without the np 3592 HpaI site gain,* gives rise to haplogroups M and N which encompass all mtDNAs that migrated out of Africa and spread all over the world." (Viera-Vera)
> 
> *"L3 is** more related to Eurasian haplogroups* than to the most divergent African clusters L1 and L2." (Maca-Meyer, et al; 2001)
> 
> "This frequency profile suggests an origin for L3 in East Africa (Watson et al. 1997). This is supported by the evidence that the out-of-Africa migration, which took place from a source in *East Africa* 60,000–80,000 years ago, gave rise _only to L3 lineages outside Africa_." (The Making of the African mtDNA Landscape; 2002)
> 
> ...




*Haplogroup E, descendent of M168, belongs to Eurasian Adam classification:
*



> "And the first piece of evidence comes from one man in particular, who had a rather important, random mutation on his Y-chrosome between 31,000 and 79,000 years ago. He has been named, rather prosaically, *M168.* More evocatively, he could be seen as the





> *Eurasian Adam* *- the great...great-grandfather of every* *non-African* *man alive today."* Spencer Wells; 2002
> 
> "the major sub-sets of Y lineages that arose from the M168 lineage *do not trace to an African origin**.* Likewise the* M,* N andR haplogroups of mtDNA *have no indication of an African origin**.* In the light of recent findings by Olivieri et al. (2006) the scenario of a back *migration into Africa is supported* by two features of mtDNA:*M1** (with an estimated coalescence time of 38.6+/-7.1 ky)* *and U6* *(with an estimated coalescence time of 45.1+/-6.9 ky), which are* *predominantly north African clades arose in southwestern Asia* and differentiated into their major sub-clades while they were in the Mediterranean area and only later some sub-sets of M1a (with an estimated coalescence time of 28.8+/-4.9 ky), U6a2 (with an estimated coalescence time of 24.0+/-7.3 ky) and U6d (with an estimated coalescence time of 20.6+/-7.3 ky) *diffused to East and North Africa through the Levant.* Thus modern humans used a southern coastal route for their 'Out of Africa' exit, and the Levantine route from Asia to Africa for 'back migration'." (Chandrasekar; 2007)
> 
> “…the *greatest dissimilarity, is between Subsaharan Africans and the rest of the world.* The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. (Hanihara et al; 2003)
> 
> “Genetic studies have*emphasized the contrast between North African and sub-Saharan populations.”* (Pinto et al.; 1998)
> 
> "African chromosomes descend from at least two lineages that have been evolving separately for a period of time. *One of them* *underwent range expansion colonizing different continents,** including Africa**, where it* *mixed**with another,* *local lineage* *represented today by a large fraction of* *African-specific* *haplotypes."* (Labuda et al. 2000)




And a paper from 2010 does not usurp or refute a paper from 2012. What you fail to grasp is that Paleolithic Horners/South Africans are not the same population as todays Horners/South Africans.*M168 Eurasian Adam and L3 weren't negroids.* Today's Horner's are a mix of Caucasoids and Sub Saharans. 




> "Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a ‘Black’ cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans....” (J.F. Wilson et al. Nature Genetics 29:265-269, 2001)







> Now while the segment of the study above is pertaining to the vast North African region, Frigi also makes a specific statement in regards to the peopling of the Nile Valley: Molecular studies on the Y chromosome in North Africa are interpreted as indicating that the southern part of Africa, namely, the Horn/East Africa, was a major source of population in the Nile Valley and northwest Africa after the Last Glacial Maximum, with some migration into the Near East and southern Europe (Bosch et al. 2001; Underhill et al. 2001).



Which, is in support of all the above genetic information of their Caucasoid nature since there is no negroid presence in NE Africa or SE Europe. In fact, there is no racial continuity between recent negroid East African skulls or prehistoric remains, as the following passages illustrate:




> "Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago,





> *true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions** (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966).* *They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia."* (Frost; 1999)
> 
> "The DISPOP results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls...Remembering that the Teita series (Bantu speakers of southeastern Kenya), and the *recent* East African skulls in table 4 above, do clearly exhibit African affiliations, it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that *there seems to be** no clear continuity here in late prehistory**.* On the broad scale, *looking at an "Out-of-Africa" scenario*, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, *and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter.* So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. *The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would** later have beeen changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other "Negroid" tribes."* (Howells; 1995)





> The conclusions that you are trying to reach from the Henn study, are simply not supported by linguistic, archaeological, skeletal or what most genetic studies have concluded about the peopling of the Nile Valley.



The conclusions don't say what you want it to. Negroids did not exist in prehistoric East Africa. It is *modern* Ethiopians that have obtained a lot of A and B while North Africans have practically none - meaning those haplogroups were intrusive into East Africa *after* E3b migrated north. Modern Ethiopians do not represent the original E3b carriers. It explains why North/NE Africans always cluster with Europeans/Eurasians and not Sub-Saharan negroids.

Henn is fully supported by linguistic, archaeological, skeletal and genetic data, galore; you however, have shown a lacking in how to properly read, digest or cite information accurately and so, instead, maliciously edit out pertinent data that you refuse to accept or acknowledge based on your preconceived racial prejudices. "North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes." Henn et al; 2012 - and is backed by none-other by who? - *Your source Tishkoff* : 




> "Northeast African populations *differentiated from other sub-Saharan African populations* early in African history. A small subset of this population migrated out of Africa in the past 100,000 years and rapidly expanded throughout a broad geographical region." (Tishkoff et al; 2002)
> 
> "The interpolation analyses and complete sequencing of present mtDNA sub-Saharan lineages observed in North Africa support the genetic impact of *recent* trans-Saharan migrations, *namely the slave trade* initiated by the Arab conquest of North Africa in the *seventh century.* Saharan people *did not leave traces in the North African maternal gene pool for the time of its settlement, some 40,000 years ago."* (Harich et al, 2010)

----------


## Ramses II

*1.c

*


> The point of me posting Keita's conclusions was to show what the general affinity (in terms of phenotype) was with the ancient Egyptians. The affinities were with ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans and modern Horn Africans all of which are more southerly tropically adapted Northeast African populations whom are most commonly recognized by society as "black". In summary of that specific quote the ancient Egyptians displayed a phenotype most similar to that of black African populations to the south.


Wrong again. The 1996 Keita quote does not agree with wishful thinking. It speaks nothing of limb proportions in that quote nor does it mention a word about skin color and no mention of relatedness or origins amongst black (a term you deliberately inject) Sub Saharan negroids. Nor is your quote a direct one, as you present only three sentences that supposedly span a length of 13 pages, clearly indicating how out of context and untrustworthy it is. Further, if they were "black African" with "black African phenotypes" they would have exhibited this trait in their art. They absolutely refused to do so. And those "Southern Egyptians" may actually have been Nubians entering the existing upper Egyptian population in reality - as per Keita's assumption:




> Lower Nubia seems to have become largely “depopulated,” based on archeological evidence, but this more likely means that *Nubians* were partially bioculturally assimilated into southern Egypt...Lower Nubia had a much smaller population than Egypt, which is important to consider in writing of the historical biology of the population" (Keita; 2005)


Meanwhile, other accounts have Nubian A-Group being wiped out by Egyptians and as Zakrzewski states there were NO Nubians in Egypt until the OK, thereby presenting absolutely no contribution to Egyptian early state formation. It's misleading of Keita to 1. claim incoming Nubians as if they're indigenous to Egypt or creators of Egyptian civilization while 2. using these same Nubians and casting them as Egyptians in an attempt to artificially connect them to the rest of Africa.




> "The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World."(Brace; 1993) (also see Brace 2005, 2006 below)


Apparently Keita, who is not a geneticist, is out of lock and step with the majority of geneticists.




> You are undermining the essential fact that these indigneous Nile Valley populations were of a cominbation of Nilotic and Afrasian African communities as archaeology and their own skeletal morphologies cosistently reflect this. In other words the distinction between Upper Egyptians and Nubians was for the most part nonexistant. That being said irregardless to the bi-directional geneflow around the Upper Nile region, Kerma is the oldest of the two civilizations.


Wrong. Nilotic populations have been proven not to cluster with Afro-Asiatic populations but with west Central African populations as is supported by archaeology and bi-directional gene flow to and from those areas. Egyptians demonstrate *no* such origins among those populations, and you've failed in demonstrating any dna linkage. As for revisiting your original comment: _“The fact that the Nubia predates Egypt negates your claim that the affinity towards more southerly northeast African populations is due to a back migration from Egypt.”_ I asked, specifically which "*more* southerly northeast African populations" and you present me with Kerma, a civilization that resided within the borders of Egypt, that in all actuality was a contemporary Egyptian population, essentially "biologically the same" as *your source* Keita '93 stated, and differentiated from Nubians per Godde/Collette. In other words, you have no genuine negroid populations that you can direct us to - which lay thousands of miles to the equatorial south west. *And Egyptians still continue to group with Caucasians*. Go figure:




> "The dendrogram produced by Ward's clustering procedure for the global data set is shown in Figure 3 and provides a relatively similar representation of the MMD^sub st^ distance matrix than that provide by the MDS analysis. The populations clearly fall into two groups. The first main group can be broken down into two subgroups: (1) all the *recent sub-Saharan populations* and (2) mainly Central, East, and Northeast Eurasians. *West Eurasians form the second main group, which is also subdivided into two subgroups. One of these subgroups includes all the eastern Mediterranean populations (three ancient Egyptian/Sudanese populations from Naqada, Gizeh, and Kerma as well as the Cypriot/Turkish, Greek, and Sagalassian populations) and the Scandinavian sample;* the second subgroup includes the other West Eurasian populations."
> 
> "The results of the analysis suggest that ancient Egyptian crania had elements in common with those from Southwest Asia and Neolithic Europe, as well as North and Northeast Africa. However, *the Egyptian skulls showed very little similarity to African crania from the more distant south and west.* ... The *predynastic sample from Upper Egypt lies very close to the West Eurasian group* but also shows tendencies toward some neighboring African groups;*this should not be surprising given Egypt's geographical position near the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and Europe*. The northern Egyptians deviate even more strongly from the tropical African pattern, and indeed their closest relatives appear to be western Eurasians and coastal North Africans. Notice that* the pooled group of Sub-Saharan Africans from the southern, central, and western regions of the continent does not resemble Egyptians at all: this group is plotted very distant from both ancient Egyptian samples. Similar conclusions are reached by Howells and Froment.”* (Brace; 1993)
> 
> "PCA indicated that the Egyptian, Coptic, Somali, and to some extent the Nubian groups *form genetically distinct populations.* The Nuba, Zagawa, *Nilotic* and Gemar groups *clustered with the Karamoja group from Uganda,* as was also indicated by the clustering using Structure (Figure 5)."(Babiker; 2011)


So much for your claims of Egyptians having a common origin, being of a "combination" or sharing relatedness with Nilotics.  :Laughing: 




> "We analysed mtDNA variation in ~250 persons from Libya, Somalia, and Congo/Zambia, as representatives of the three regions of interest. *Our initial results indicate a sharp cline in M1 frequencies that generally does not extend into sub-Saharan Africa.* While our *North and especially East African samples contained frequencies of M1 over 20%,* our sub-Saharan samples consisted almost entirely of the L1 or L2 haplogroups only. In addition, there existed a significant amount of homogeneity within the M1 haplogroup. This sharp cline indicates a history of little admixture between these regions. This could imply a more recent ancestry for M1 in Africa, as older lineages are more diverse and widespread by nature, *and may be an indication of a back-migration into Africa from the Middle East."*(Holden; 2005)


And we've already discussed your source Godde 2009: *"Kerma was originally inhabited by Egyptians"* further blowing your theory to pieces.




> "I haven't fully developed my opinion in relation to Sub-Saharan Africans and Nubians. *There is little to nothing in the archaeological record or linguistic data that suggests contact between the two populations."*Godde email to Charlie Bass 2011 > _And NO explanation from you.
> 
> _"The timing of a population replacement in ancient Nubia that has been identified by other scholars should now be sought either *before the A-Group period or after the C-Group*." (Lovell; 2005)


Even papers as old as 1969 support the same conclusion:




> "A short survey of the Nubian history is given. The connection between C-group, New Kingdom and Kerma culture is discussed. The present investigations are based on multivariate analysis using Mahalanobis D2-distance. It is concluded that the C-group people and New Kingdom people are not identical. *The Kerma group is found much closer connected with the New Kingdom people than the C-group."*(O. V. Nielsen)






> Seriously here is a great article by Ehret which will allow you to brush up on the true peopling of the Nile Valley and Valley:


No, seriously - your "great" Ehret article relies on outdated material. 93, 95 citing self (personal bias), 82 - 84 Wendorf, mostly speculative, non-substantiated hearsay. Read what Ehret's source, Wendorf said 15 years later in 1998:




> "The source of the Abkan and Baderian Neolithic is unknown, but it was probably derived *ultimately from Southwest Asia,* possibly by way of Sinai, where prepottery and pottery Neolithic sites have been dated between 11,000 and 9000 cal B.P." (Wendorf; 1998)
> 
> "The *earliest agricultural communities are found in the Fayum Depression,* west of the Nile Valley. ... the oldest flint assemblage, called *Fayum B or Qarunian, is of epi-Palaeolithic ancestry...* several campsites with Fayum B characteristics were discovered around Qasr es-Sagha. *There is growing evidence for a developed Fayum B pottery Neolithic in the Delta...* At Merimdeh bowls were found with the typical Yarmukian palm-frond (or herring-bone pattern) motive between two parallel lines on a reserved background, seeming to indicate *Palestine as the origin fo this culture...* Around *Thebes* a culture of epi-Palaeolithic characteristics was identified, called Tarifian ...and tentativelly dated to the first half of the fifth millenniup BCE. *This "culture" is simlar to Fayum B...* (Issar; 2004)


Referring back to your source, the one you made a massive blunder in citing, Scheinfeld 2010:




> "By ~8 kya, evidence is present of imported (from the Middle East) sheep or goat remains in northeastern Africa (e.g., ref. 50). Some controversy persists in the archaeological community regarding whether cattle domestication was developed in northern Africa or imported from the Middle East; however, recent DNA analysis of extant indigenous African bovine taurine and zebu cattle (51) supports a model in which the earliest emergence of pastoralism involving taurine cattle took place in northeastern Africa *and subsequently spread westward and southward (51)."*
> 
> "Just centimeters beneath the modern plowed surface, in an area that had been used until recently to grow grapes, *the researchers discovered evidence of structures, such as clay floors, and hearths containing homegrown wheat grain and barley. Also unearthed were the remains of sheep, goats, and pigs—which, along with the grains, were imported from the Middle East. These finds could add a new chapter to the history of Egypt's contact with foreign cultures in pre-pharaonic times*...Skeletal remains of sheep and goats were also strewn about the site, but the discovery of pig bones has intrigued the experts the most...*The crops and animals—and techniques for raising them—were all introduced to Egypt from the ancient Middle East, where domestication of plants and animals is known to have existed as far back as 9000 B.C. It came together as a "package" around 7000 B.C.,* according to Zeder, an expert in Middle East domestication. (Steven Stanek,Cairo National Geographic Magazine; 2008)
> 
> “In the variability of their contents, Maadi’s hundreds of graves indicate at least some social ranking, but it is the functional changes in the community that are the most important. Many *hundreds of Syro-Palestinian pots have been found at Maadi, reflecting strong connections to Syro-Palestine and, probably to the evolving Uruk-Jemdet Nasr states of Greater Mesopotamia.* Caneva and her co-workers report that Maadi’s lithics also tie it ‘in a wide network of communication, including the Levant and reaching northern Syria’ (1989, p.291)” (Wenke 1991, p.300). 
> 
> "The Predynastic period dates to the end of the fourth millennium BC. From about 4800 to 4300BC the Merimde culture flourished in Lower Egypt. *This culture, among others, has links to the Levant.* (Eiwanger; 1999) The pottery of the Buto Maadi culture, best known from the site at Maadi near Cairo, *also shows connections to the southern Levant."*(Seeher; 1999).
> 
> "The Maadi Culture (also called Buto Maadi Culture) *is the most important Lower Egyptian prehistoric culture contemporary with Naqada I and II phases in Upper Egypt.* The culture is best known from the site *Maadi near Cairo,* but is also attested in *many other places in the Delta to the Fayum region.*... Copper was known, and some copper adzes have been found. The pottery is simple and undecorated and shows, in some forms, *strong connections to South Palestine"*. (Bard; 1999)
> ...

----------


## Ramses II

*1.d

*


> Now before you run to Mathilda's interpretations of this study I'd advise you to read the text on your own, because it'll swing right back and hit you in the balls.


You've broken all the rules in under 24 hours. I suppose that's naturally to be expected considering your "position".




> *By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.*


Continuing, Ricaut 2008 does not refute Godde 2011, further, Ricaut _misrepresents_ Brace 2005 in the artice you cited:

[QUOTE]"When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, *the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear.* Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there _may_ have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), *although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples.* As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada ]b]may[/b] also have a *hint* of a Sub-Saharan African component. *That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot* (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample. [...] When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, *the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear."* (Brace; 2005)

you depend on "mays" and "hints" for a "black" Egypt. Take a hint - _"hints" are not origins.

_[QUOTE]“Our data show not only that Egypt clearly had biological ties to the north and to the south, but that it was *intermediate between populations to the east and the west,* and that Egypt was basically Egyptian from the Neolithic right on up to historic times.” (The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form” (Brace; 2006)




> Anthropologists studying skeletons that were excavated along the Nile Valley in Egypt and the Sudan have demonstrated reductions in tooth size and changes in the face, including decreased robustness associated with the development of agriculture,


Nope-



> "Nubian biological evolution has come under much scrutiny in preceding years with strong opinions dividing scholars' beliefs as to how it occurred. A new approach is necessary to elucidate subtleties of their population structure in order to shed light on the complex subject. This study employs a spatial–temporal model in an effort *to test if in situ biological evolution was the mechanism for biological change.* Biological distance was calculated from the phenotype using 20 cranial discrete traits observed in Nubian samples from the sites of Semna South, Kerma, and the islands of Hesa and Biga. The periods represented at Semna South are Meroitic, X-Group and Christian, whereas the Kerma site yielded skeletal material from the Kerma period, and the islands of Hesa and Biga date to the Christian period. Mahalanobis D2 with a tetrachoric matrix was used to calculate biological distances among the samples, and three-way Mantel tests were applied to the distance, spatial and temporal matrices. Time was not significantly correlated with biological distance. However, *an inverse relationship of time and biological distance is expected under the spatial–temporal model. A lack of significant geographic correlations, as found here, is unusual in most populations, but given the spatial construct of the sites along the Nile, this relationship is not completely unexpected. The lack of significant correlation among time, space and biological distance does not support the in situ hypothesis.* Godde, June 8, 2011
> 
> "There is an *obvious separation of Sub-Saharan and North African samples*....These findings are supported by previous affinity estimates *based on African genetic, skeletal, dermatoglyphic, anthropometric, linguistic, and cultural data (see Mourant 1954; 1983; Greenberg 1959, 1966; Murdock 1959; Hiernaux 1975; Nurse et al., 1985; Sanchez-Mazas et al, 1986; Excoffier et al 1987; Roychoudhury and Nei 1988; Howells 1989; Froment, 1992a,b; Franciscus 1995; Holliday 1995; among others).*...Those groups that are geographically closer to one another display greater dental similarity and vice versa. ... *North Africans... show a strong affinity to Europeans and West Asians ...These findings agree with genetic-based results that link North Africans to Europeans and western Asians."* (Irish; 1998)


Now as to your source, Trinkhaus 1981:




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



"_Europeans were immigrants from warmer areas_ " - therefore limb ratios have nothing to do with race, your own source admitted as much.



> "Allen's Rule explains the lean body build of desert folk, be they Tauregs or Turkomans; the beanpole physique of the Nilotic Negroes; and the squat, short-limbed, and short-necked physique of the peoples who dwell in cold regions. Allen's modification of Bergmann's Rule reflects the fact that beyond the point where winter cold ceases to be stimulating and becomes a hazard--a point beyond which no people went earlier than 13,000 years ago--bodies grew shorter and more globular, and weight fails to increase. It may even decrease." (Coon;1965) 
> 
> "...skin color and *limb elongation, are adaptations* to the intensity of solar radiation--the first directly so and the second indirectly. Since this is so clearly the case, we should expect those two traits to covary, as indeed they tend to do, throughout the world. Evidently, traits that are distributed in conjunction with the graded intensity of their controlling selective forces will be poor indicators of population relationships. [...] *The use of a characterization of a single trait that is under selective force control to generalize about any particular human population can only create confusion. This then will be the inevitable consequence of the use of a description of skin color to say anything about the general nature of human biological variation."* (Brace; 1993)






> followed directly by: "Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.


They have *differences* meaning _they're not the same_ when *"compared to the other populations."*




> "Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, *the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians."* (Goode; 2009)






> I see reddish Brown Tut and reddish Brown and black Nubians. Now compare that to reddish brown Ramses and white Libyans.


*What you "see" is an 1825 crafted plaster copy.* http://www.flickr.com/photos/lenkapeac/4508227860/

Comparing the facial features and hair of the Egyptians to that of Nubians shows they're not the same, comparing it to that of Libyans shows relatedness.

----------


## Ramses II

*2.

*


> Nope, the Eurocentric shenanigans ended with this one...Newly developed methods" were used to determine the skin color of these Egyptian mummies and they all come out to be black like the Negroids who we all know that they came from.


LOL so says you! Mekota and Vermehren are not anthropologists. Of all the mummified royals found in Egypt, not a single one has been determined as being of negroid origin, with the possible exception of Maiherpri the fan bearer (he was Nubian). Even at that, a NK mummy isn't indicative of predynastic origins and has been pointed out by Zakrzewski, Nubians are first seen in Egypt during the OK, not PD.




> "these Badarians lived about 4000 B.C., after the climate had become considerably drier than it was in Tasian times, so dry, in fact, that in many cases the skin and hair of their dead have been naturally preserved. *The skin was apparently brunet white, while the hair was black or dark brown in color, thick, of fine texture, and usually wavy in form."* ("Civilized Men In Egypt"; Coon)
> 
> “Ramses II mummy’s hair is confined to a temporo-occipital zone which corresponds to an advanced stage of baldness. Hairs are slightly crimped and show an *oval cross-section,* the great axis of which lies between 60 and 70 urn: they are *specific of a cymotrich leucoderm.”* (Desroches-Noblecourt;1985)
> 
> “After having achieved this immense work, an important scientific conclusion remains to be drawn: *the anthropological* *study* and *the microscopic analysis of hair*, carried out by four laboratories: Judiciary Medecine (Professor Ceccaldi), Société L’Oréal, Atomic Energy Commission, and Institut Textile de France showed that *Ramses II was a ‘leucoderm’, that is a fair-skinned man*, near to the Prehistoric and Antiquity Mediterraneans, or briefly, of the Berber of Africa.” (“Scientifique à l'égyptologique” Lionel, Balout; Roubert, C., Desroches-Noblecourt, Christiane, 1985).


The Afrocentric deception continues, in a vain, ill attempt to paint Egyptians as negroids. Race is not determined from skin color but from non-adaptive craniofacial traits and instead of refuting or addressing the above referenced sources, you resort to repeating yourself for lack of explanation - which is inherently obvious. Let the record reflect, "Taharqa" has absolutely no explanation for: du Vivier 1986. The New Encyclopædia Britannic”, Volume 18? - Page 845 1993. Sompayrac 2004. Soyer, Argenziano, Hofmann-Wellenhof 2007.

And you completely avoided this fact for obvious reasons, it doesn't agree with your ideology:  :Grin: 




> (2) "the sample studied originates from Gebelein in Upper Egypt. Interestingly,* the only other sample deriving from Gebelein, an EPD sample, was found to be significantly biologically distant to the MK sample.* This result suggests that there is *no simple biological population continuity at Gebelein.* Stele indicate that *Nubian* mercenaries lived, married, died, and were buried at this site over the MK period (Fischer, 1961). "The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments *than in may "African" populations"*





> Nope sorry most studies associate M1 with East Africans (because that's where it origianted): "...A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. ..."


Wrong, again - on several accounts. Your source, Coudray 2008 _doesn't say a word about "origins"_ in _the quote you provided_ but _"high frequency":_ "whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the *high frequency* of M1."

Now how could you confuse origins with frequency?!?!  :Laughing:  *HOWEVER, your source Coudray 2008 does in fact discuss M1's origins* - a point you made a point to ignore: 




> "*M1* is a subclade *of southwest Asian ancestry that moved to Africa about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago* (Olivieri et al; 2006). *Its highest frequencies are found in Egypt (~18%) and in eastern Africa (~11% in Ethiopia and Somalia)."* - your source, Coudray 2008


*Your own sources say the exact opposite of what YOU say!*

In addition, haplogroups U (without U6 and K) and K were the most represented in Siwa, but that does nothing for you since the Siwa oasis is located on the edge of the western Egyptian desert bordering Libya, not the Nile.




> "Even if both haplogroups are thought to have been carried by a back-to-Africa migration *from the Near East,* *significant increased* U6 frequencies have been detected in the West compared to the East." (Fadhlaoui-Zid; 2011)


The *Eurasian U6* lineage is mainly present in North Africa and shows an *opposite frequency gradient respect to Eurasian M1,* U6 being significantly more frequent in the West, whereas *M1 is more frequent in the East*. Simply meaning U6's presence in the East was less frequent, _not absent_ - logically speaking, the female members of U6 migrated through Egypt (some obviously settled in Egypt) en route to the west.




> "the *M1* and *U6* haplogroups, originated simultaneously in *western Asia*... and spread together with modern humans *into northern Africa*... These early populations may represent the *root-stock of the early settlers/inhabitants of the Eastern Sahara who were subsequently to people the Nile Valley, and build one of the first organized civilized states – the Egyptian pharaonic Empire."* (Aubry et al; 2008)






> ..the M1 presence in the Arabian peninsula signals a predominant East African influence since the Neolithic onwards.“ -- Petraglia, M and Rose, J (2010). The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia:


The coalescence age of M1 is *Paleolithic,* your quote is dealing with the *Neolithic,* in addition, your source Petraglia presented two scenarios for M1, the one you quoted above in favor of Petraglia's other, below. This shows your dishonesty cherry-picking one over the other:



> *"Others think that the distribution of M1 in Africa traces an early human backflow to this Continent from Asia."* Petraglia, M and Rose, J (2010). The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia:


Majority consensus establishes M1 as having Eurasian precedent.




> “Sequencing of 81 entire human mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs) belonging to haplogroups *M1* and *U6* reveals that these *predominantly North African clades arose in southwestern Asia and moved together to Africa* about 40,000 to 45,000 years ago." (Olivieri et al; 2006)
> 
> "Haplogroups* M* and N, which are found in *all non-Africans."* (Richards; 2006)
> 
> "...U6, *M1) derived respectively from the three main Eurasian macrohaplogroups* (N, R, M) came back to North Africa from Asia [38-42]." (Abu-Amero et al; 2009)
> 
> *"M1 is a non-Sub Saharan lineage...*Most of the M1 lineages likely come from the Mediterranean *instead of East Africa...*M1 sub-lineages have a *mainly Mediterrandean distribution*" (Cerezo et a;l 2010)
> 
> "More recent studies of subclade* M1* in North Africa and the Levant have led to a different explanation for the geobraphic distribution of this critical genetic marker. Some researchers now propose that *M1 arose in southwest Asia* and moved back into Africa sometime between 45,000 and 40,000 years ago (Oliveri et al. 2006). Gonzales et al. (2007) also report *the most ancient M1 lineages in North Africa and the Near East, not East Africa, suggesting an Asiatic origin for this lineage*. Other analysis within the last decade examining Y chromosome DNA markers have produced *additional evidence of Late Pleistocene back migrations into Africa* (Altheide and Hammer 1997; Cruciani et al. 2002; Hammer et al. 1998)...*there is no reason to presume that the founder M population originated in East Africa rather than south Asia or some other place therein."* (Rose; 2010)
> ...

----------


## Ramses II

*2.b
*


> The study is plotting the populations according to their limb proportions. The ancient Egyptians being the tropically adapted dark skinned African populations that they were, grouped with other tropically adapted dark skinned populations (including African Americans):


I don't see the word "ancient Egyptian" on that chart, that is an invention of your imagination. I see "limb proportions of modern humans..." Melanesians, Arizona Indians and Pygmies plot closest, and despite ancient/modern Egyptians not belonging to those populations, you're willing to misrepresent data and tell us ancient/modern Egyptians originate among Melanesians, Arizona Indians and Pygmies all based only on *environmentally adaptable* trait. (From your post #8: *"What color do Pygmies and Melanesians have? These are who this study groups the ancient Egyptians with."*  :Laughing:  And not only that, that particular chart depicts (modern) Egyptians having much higher limb ratios, hence "*significantly different*" than modern West Africans who live closest to the equatorial belt. And for lack of a better word, coin this trait "super negroid" even though they specifically told you it *"does not mean the ancient Egyptians were negroes".

*


> "Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age peoples display elongated brachial and crural indices reminiscent of terminal Pleistocene and "tropically adapted" recent humans. These marked morphological changes likely reflect exogenous immigration during the terminal Fourth millennium cal BC. Population continuity, demic diffusion and Neolithic origins in central-southern Germany: the evidence from body proportions." (Gallagher; 2009)


So negroids don't have a monopoly on "tropically adapted" limb lengths, which could also be mistaken or attributed to difference in altitude:




> "Overall body size and limb lengths relative to body size *vary along an altitudinal gradient*, with larger individuals from coastal environments and smaller individuals with relatively *longer limbs for their size from higher elevations."* (Weinstein; 2005)
> 
> *AND:
> *
> "Living human populations from high altitudes in the Andes exhibit relatively short limbs* compared with neighboring groups* from lower elevations as* adaptations* to cold climates characteristic of high-altitude environments." (Weinstein; 2005)
> 
> *AND:
> *
> "The variation of the topography of the Southern Levant has made the people's responses to environmental changes *different from the responses of the people in Egypt.* The topography of the Southern Levant adds a new demension to the environmental differences between the Southern Levant and Egypt." (Mahmout; 2009)
> ...


The change in limb ratios need not take thousands of years, only a couple hundred as seen amongst blacks while living in North America, fully explaining why Badarian and EPD Egyptians originally did not posses this trait yet having been found amongst their descendents in NK remains; it's indicative of adaptation to a geographic location, rather than gene flow or origins and since Egypt and Nubia have similar terrain and climate, an overlapping of the two territories would require similar adaptations to environment - therefore common adaptation cannot be discounted, nevermind the fact Egyptians were stated to be *significantly different* than U.S. blacks. There is also another simple explanation - of course, having nothing to do with origins:




> "Hierakonpolis is a site in Upper Egypt that represents the transitional from Predynastic to the Dynastic periods (5000-3100 BC). This drastic social change to the formation of the Dynastic state was *associated with the intensification of agriculture. These changes in the subsistence strategy should be reflected in the skeletons of the people.* Stature is a measure not only of human health, but also of subsistence strategy and economy. In this study, the stature of 86 adult individuals (39 males and 47 females) from the HK43 Predynastic cemetery at Hierakonpolis was calculated and compared with the calculated stature from earlier El-Badari (6 males and 4 females) and with Abydos and Al-Amrah (11 males and 11 females) later sites. All these bones were measured using the same methods, and stature was computed using the same equations derived by Robins and Shute (1986) specificly for Egyptian samples. [b]The results show an increase of human stature from the Badarian period and slightly stable stature during the later periods. *This can be explained as by health status being decreased during the intensification of agriculture resulting in the short stature of the Badarians and increasing during the later periods, including the societal transition to Pharonic society, with the development in agriculture.*The increased availability of food during these later periods resulted in the relative stability of stature.'A.M. Khwaileh. Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas. 2005
> 
> "caution must be exercised when using postcranial elements to determine ancestry." (Tallman; 2005)






> Now let brace explain what ecological principal indicates based on this fact: "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..") Sorry about your luck.


"_are reported to be_" -- _By Robins and Schute_-- Brace doesn't condone such terminology and his study from whence you grabbed the above quote, *utterly demolished* any so-called "black" Egypt origins.





> "Evidently, traits that are distributed in conjunction with the graded intensity of their controlling selective forces *will be poor indicators of population relationships. (Darwin, 1859)* ...The use of a characterization of a *single trait* that is under selective force control to generalize about any particular human population *can only create confusion.* - - - Brace emphasizes:
> 
> "It is *obvious* that *both the Predynastic and the Late Dynastic Egyptians are more closely related to the European cluster than they are to any of the other major regional clusters in the world.* ...The *prehistoric sample from Naqada is also closely related to the more recent Egyptians* as the first systematic study of their crania demonstrated (Fawcett and Lee) and this tie remains when we break the various groups down into their constituents and test the possibilities of finer local relationships....*The groups from which membership was least likely to be excluded were the lumped Europeans and the Predynastic population from Upper Egypt, with P values of 0.837 and 0.110 respectively. When the Predynastic group was tested against the other 12, the probability that it could be excluded from modern Europeans was 0.390, and from the Late Dynastic sample it was 0.218, neither of which is significant....*The indications of exclusion, however, are much easier to interpret. For example, *the likelihood that either the Giza or Naqada configuration could occur in West Africa, the Congo, or points south is vanishingly small-0.000 and 0.001. Whatever else one can or cannot say about the Egyptians, it is clear that their cranio-facial morphology has nothing whatsoever in common with sub-Saharan Africans. Our data, then, provide no support for the claim that there was a “strong negroid element” in Predynastic Egypt."* (Asante, 1990; Morant, 1937; Randall-Mac Iver and Woolley, 1909; Strouhal, 1971)." (Brace; 1993)





> As I've explained the sampling of highly variable African Americans is at issue with these comparisons. Some group right next to tropical Africans and some group a little distantly. In the analysis below they used the "Negro" equation to describe the ancient Egyptian limb proportions. "It can be seen that all the pharonic values, including those of 'Smakhare', lie much closer to the negro curve than to the white curve.Since stature equations only work satisfactorily in the individuals to whom they have applied have similar proportions to the population group from which they are derived, this provides justification for using negro equations for estimating stature from single bones of the New Kingdom pharoahs, renforcing the previous findings of Robins (1983). Furthermore, the Troller and Gleser white equations for the femur, tibia and humerus yield stature values that have a much wider spread than those from negro equations with mean values that are unacceptably large."--Robins and Schute. The Physical Proportions and Stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs," Journal of Human Evolution 12 (1983), 455-465 or "Estimates of living stature, based on X-ray measurements applied to the Trotter & Gleser (1958) negro equations for the femur, tibia and humerus, have been made for ancient Egyptian kings belonging to the 18th and 19th dynasties. The corresponding equations for whites give values for stature that are unsatisfactorily high. The view that Thutmose III was excessively short is proved to be a myth. It is shown that the limbs of the pharaohs, like those of other Ancient Egyptians, had negroid characteristics, in that the distal segments were relatively long in comparison with the proximal segments. An exception was Ramesses II, who appears to have had short legs below the knees."--Robins and Schute. The Physical Proportions and Stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs," Journal of Human Evolution 12 (1983), 455-465


The term "super-negroid" *has nothing to do with race* since the authors who coined the term said so:




> “*This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south.” (“Predynastic Egyptian Stature And Physical Proportions”* Robins G, Shute CCD. 1986)


And the fact remains, as clearly stated aforesaid: *"Badarians and Early Dynastic Egyptians did not possess "tropical limbs" they had short tibia (1) as per Zakrzewski (2003)" -- "Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length."* What adaptively trivial traits ancient Egyptians' _descendents acquired_ after the EPD and between NK to today is irrelevant, since modern Egyptians possess this characteristic as well.




> "Changes to stature and/or body mass *within a population over time* as reflected in skeletal samples, *can be interpreted as indicating a response to environmental stressors (e.g., resource availability, population density, disease, etc.)* (Zakrzewski, 2003, 2007; Pfeiffer and Sealy, 2006; Stynder et al., 2007; Giannecchini and Moggi-Cecchi, 2008; Ginter, 2008)."--H.K. Kurki (2010)


*And:
*



> "Ancient Egyptians as a whole generally exhibit *intermediate body breadths relative to higher and lower latitude populations, with Lower Egyptians possessing wider body breadths, as well as lower brachial and crural indices, compared to Upper Egyptians and Upper Nubians. This may suggest that Egyptians are closely related to circum-Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern groups, but quickly developed limb length proportions more suited to their present very hot environments These results may also reflect the greater plasticity of limb length compared to body breadth.* ...It can be seen that *previous stature estimation methods tend to overestimate Egyptian stature for both sexes.* The present studys stature estimates (bolded) are about 1-3 cm less than that of other studies for the same time periods, with an average 1.5 cm difference. New Kingdom pharaoh males may have been taller because of their higher status, *however Robins and Shute (1983) used Trotter and Glesers (1958) equations for American Blacks to estimate their statures is the mean using regression formulae for the femur). Raxter et al. (2008) showed that although ancient Egyptians proportions are closer to American Blacks than they are to American Whites, they are not identical.* *Stature regression equations derived from American Black populations may therefore not be appropriate to estimate the statures of ancient Egyptians.* ...The fact that limb proportions in ancient Egyptians are somewhat more “tropical” may reflect the greater lability of limb length compared to body breadth. The results may also suggest that *Egyptians are closely related to circum-Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern groups and have retained those body breadths acquired earlier in time, but quickly developed limb length proportions more suited to their present very hot environments.* The present results for bi-iliac breadth are also consistent with various genetic studies that have found modern Egyptians to have close affinities to Middle and Near Easterners (Manni et al., 2002; Arredi et al., 2004; Shepard and Herrera, 2006; Rowold et al., 2007) and Southern Europeans/Mediterranean groups (Capelli et al., 2006). Some of these authors suggested their results *may have been associated with a diffusion from the Near East during the expansion of early food-producing societies* (Arredi et al., 2004; Rowold et al., 2007)....*MK, NK, and Roman-Byzantine Nubian males exhibit greater stature variation than their Egyptian counterparts from the same periods, with Nubian males possessing more variation compared to Nubian females. The greater variation in Nubian males may be indicative of greater in-migration of and intermarriage with foreign males.* (Raxter; 2011)


The unscientific defunct "super-negroid" term is *officially trashed.* Ancestry and/or biological affinity *is not determined by adaptable traits*, but is established accurately only from the skull. Hence:




> "The skull is considered to be the most useful part of the skeleton to utilize in the assessment of ancestry." (Howells 1973; Rhine 1993)


"Troller"? Afrocentrics give away their "location" all the time with this one, by copying garbage from Egyptsearch's own "Zarahan".






> Another not job insisting on saying that a parent population really has the affinities of it's descendants (rather than visa versa....logically):
> "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


Take notice of the highlighted portions, your source (above) refutes your "position" de facto, in addition, back-migrations of Caucasoids into NE Africa from the Levant before and during the Neolithic contributed to Egypt's early state formation. Sub Saharans are not the same as North East Africans and Hiernaux's main contention is that Egyptians have always been a Mediterranean people:




> "The relative anthropological stability of the farming population of Egypt has been traced back for at least five millennia. *No major discontinuity appears in the osteological record between predynastic and dynastic skeletons, and between these and recent series."*


Offspring/parents do resemble each other since craniofacial traits undeniably exhibit high heritability, in that we all tend to resemble our parents. (Sparks and Jantz 2002) "Taharqa" is willing to admit ancient Egyptians show similarity with Eurasian and European populations yet not with Sub Saharan populations, while claiming Egyptians descend from Sub Saharans. Such a "position" doesn't even make sense! This is why you avoided Zakrzewski 2003's statement of which the EPD Gebelein sample shows no biological relation to the later intrusive MK Nubian sample. 




> "The oldest known remains of Homo sapiens sapiens from North Africa are not early either: they are dated at 10,000 B.C. and are associated with a blade and microlith culture called the Ibero-Maurusian (or Mouillian). They have been found at a number of sites in north-west Africa, of which the two most important are Taforalt in Morocco and Afalou-Bou-Rhummel in Algeria. More than a hundred individuals are represented and they are usually described as Mechta or Mechta-Afalou group." (pg 41)
> 
> "This group, which is generally believed to have come from Spain or the Near East (although it could have evolved locally), resembles the Cro-Magnon population of Europe. They were tall and robust people, with a very large skull displaying heavy brow ridges, and a short and broad face. The main difference between them and their European counterparts lies in their wider nose." (pg 41) - your source Hiernaux.


Nubians hold an intermediary position between Egyptians and Somalis due to admixture -




> "The Somali population was found to be genetically distinct from the other northeast African populations. Individuals from northern Sudan clustered together with those from Egypt, and individuals from southern Sudan clustered with those from the Karamoja population. The similarity of the Nubian and Egyptian populations suggest that migration, potentially bidirectional, occurred along the Nile river Valley, which is consistent with the historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia. (Babiker; 2011)





> or even Brace "An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years. *NOW HERE IS THE PART "TAHARQA" DELIBERATELY OMITTED*:----"*ON THE OTHER HAND, the residual similarity of craniofacial configurations between the Somalis and people farther north suggests that genetic exchange has been more continuous along that axis than with peoples farther west in Sub-Saharan Africa.*"


Again, another example of dishonesty, omitting/excluding information that doesn't run parallel to your ideology, obviously based on deep-seated animosity towards Europeans/Eurasians. There is no other reason.




> "There is the very real possibility, for example, that the darker skin pigmentation visible in the people of the Upper Nile *is not caused by the mixing of a population that come from somewhere else*...As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of samples marginally including South Asia and running all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa....The measurements were principally of *adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships.* The *Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World.* Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of “race” is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. *We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations.* *As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well."* (Brace; 1993) 
> 
> "More recent is the fact, already suspected at Soleb by G. Billy and M.C. Chamla, that *in Nubia, the nasal index, originally identical to European values, then increases considerably to attain the figures observed in Central Africa.* *This phenomenon of nasal enlargement is not, in Nubia, related to the humidification of the climate since on the contrary it has gotten more arid, and thus highlights genetic exchanges, in the sense of a greater contribution from Black Africa; leave it to archaeology to correlate this change with cultural developments."* (Froment; 1994)


There's a reason you chose to deliberately exclude the information when it doesn't suit you, and when you fail to include it, you are either taking information out of context, manipulating it, or making off the cuff remarks that your sources do not agree with or support.




> "Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially,* bringing Caucasians to North Africa* and Europe..." (Maca-Meyer et al; 2001)
> 
> "*Attested presence of Caucasian people in northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times*...("Maca-Meyer et al; 2003)
> 
> "The *expansion of Caucasians in Africa has been correlated with the spread and diversification of Afroasiatic languages*" (Maca-Meyer et al; 2003)
> 
> "The Nile River delta population* is mainly Caucasian in origin*" (Herrera et al; 2004)
> 
> "North African populations *are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans* based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes." (Henn et al; 2012)
> ...



All studies are in agreement, it's Afrocentrics that show a complete lack in basic comprehension and reading - or an intent to deceive and mislead by deliberately and intentionally omitting and editing out the crux of information being relayed in scientific papers.

----------


## Ramses II

Rhinoplasty, skin bleaching, fake hair can work wonders, it did for Iman Mohamed Abdulmajid



"The Somali population was found to be genetically distinct from the other northeast African populations." (Babiker; 2011)

----------


## Ramses II

*Random skim

*from post #42



> I've never understood why some people continue to suggest that because the corpse of Ramses II and a couple of other mummies have extremely out of place hair colors (bleach blond to auburn) that they were somehow a displaced " --------END NONSENSE.


After that long garbled rant about hair, why don't you entertain us with a pic of a pure/umixed indegenous tropical negroid with long straight natural hair. I doubt you will. Nor would you be willing to explain why Maiherpri the Nubian has typical negroid hair (wig or not) as expected from someone of "tropical" origin, *as opposed to Ramses II who does not. Their hair and phenotypes set them apart.
*
And then, you cite a study that deals specifically with, *not an Egyptian mummy, but a female Greek mummy from Thessaloniki dated to 1700BP in yet another blatant attempt to mislead:
*


> Journal of Archaeological Science doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.07.003 Indications of embalming in *Roman Greece* by physical, chemical and histological analysis "The current colour of the hair is brown with reddish highlights, a common observation on many mummies, and probably originated through post-mortem alteration (Aufderheide, 2003; Wilson et al., 2001). Sun-exposure, bacterial reaction, and embalming methods are some of the factors that may affect the original hair colour. As a result, hair that was originally black or brown exhibits reddish, orange or even blond colour due to post mortem alterations. *All human hair, however, does not turn red over archaeological time-scales (Wilson, 2001).* Based on the histological analysis of the unstained hair samples, the limited fungal influence, and the macroscopic view, it can be assumed that the original hair colour was brown. Similar cases of hair preservation have been reported in studies of both mummified and non-mummified human remains (Aufderheide, 2003; Brothwell and Dobney, 1986; Lubec et al., 1987; White, 1993; Wilson et al., 2002, 2007b)."


*All human hair, however, does not turn red over archaeological time-scales (Wilson, 2001)"* Your own source, again, refutes your position. Even you are well familiar with the fact Ramses II hair was not the result of embalming material, but that it was *dyed red* in old age *to retain his youthful appearance. Nor does your source explain away or take into account why the royals had straight/wavy hair as opposed to nappy/coiled hair -- as expected of a "tropical"/"black" population you continue to erroneously insist. Many naturally mummified bodies are discovered with genuine blonde or brown hair. But I suppose you're going to next concoct a story insisting that unmixed pure "tropical" negroids can have naturally straight/wavy hair, in addition to it being red, blonde or brown - - along with Caucasoid facial features to boot. * I haven't found a negroid tribe yet that exhibits such characteristics. Good luck in your futile attempt.

[QUOTE["Modern scientific analysis of his [Ramses II] hair-roots has confirmed that *in his youth the king was indeed a natural red-head."* (Tyldesley; 2001)

“In 1975 a 105 member team of scientists led by Lionel Baloud “restored” the mummy of Rameses II (c. 12790-1213 B.C.) and concluded, among many other points, that *his hair was of the “European” type.* Some Egyptologists even maintain that Rameses II’s hair was also red, rather than dyed red.” (Najovits; 2004)

“Ramses II mummy’s hair is confined to a temporo-occipital zone which corresponds to an advanced stage of baldness. Hairs are slightly crimped and show an *oval cross-section,* the great axis of which lies between 60 and 70 urn: *they are specific of a cymotrich leucoderm.”* (“Scientifique à l'égyptologique” Lionel, Balout; Roubert, C., Desroches-Noblecourt, Christiane, 1985)

"Joann Fletcher, a consultant to the Bioanthropology Foundation in the UK, in what she calls an *"absolute, thorough study of all ancient Egyptian hair samples" — relied on various techniques, such as electron microscopy and chromatography to analyze hair samples.* She discovered that *most of the natural hair types and those used for hairpieces were made of what she calls "Caucasian-type" hair, including even instances of blonde and red hair.* Fletcher surmises that some of the lighter hair types may have been influenced by the presence of ancient Libyans and Greeks in ancient Egypt. *However, this type of hair was also found to be present in much earlier times."* (Parks, Lisa. May 29, 2000. Ancient Egyptians Wore Wigs. Egypt Revealed Magazine)

"Following the latest season at the Predynastic cemetery site HK43, the anticipation felt while writing the article “Hair: Unraveling the Secrets of the Locks!” has proven to be fully justified. The work itself has involved analysis of the numerous hair samples taken during the 1997 season and new material as it was uncovered on site on an almost daily basis in 1998, with results even more significant than we could have hoped for. Work in the lab next to the courtyard began with material discovered last season; the assorted packages and containers each carefully unwrapped to reveal a whole range of fascinating hair samples. These were *examined microscopically* and latest discoveries under the microscope would be discussed with those made in the field, followed up by animated, if often rather unsavory, lunch-time conversations on everything from head lice to armpit hair. *The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the site were cynotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid),* a feature which is standard throughout dynastic times. Samples ranged from a single hair to a complete headful, with the largest number originating from the disturbed Burial no. 16, the Mudira (the directress), a female of around 35+ years of age, discovered at the end of last season." (Nekhen News 9, page 4; 1998)

“Hair was predominately used to construct the wigs and false braids which served as items of daily and funerary attire throughout the Pharaonic period (Fletcher 1995). *The hair employed for this purpose was specifically human hair, and in almost every case can be identified as cynotrichous (Caucasian) rather than heliotrichous (Negroid)* (Hrdy 1978; Titlbachova and Titlbach 1977; Brunton 1937; el-Tatrawi 1935).” (“Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology Paul Nicholson, Ian Shaw 2000)

"We are able to form a very precise idea of the structure of the body of the Proto-Egyptian (First Egyptians) … it presented *no resemblance whatever to the so-called ‘woolly’ appearance and peppercorn-like arrangement of the Negro’s hair.”* (The Ancient Egyptians and Their Influence Upon European Civilization, 1911, G. Eliott Smith, Professor of Anatomy in the University of Manchester, England.)[/QUOTE]

Embalmed or not. Natural or dyed. The racial composition and color of the hair can *still be determined* no matter what state it's in, your own source says so!



#42 



> "From a scientific perspective the concept of "race" is invalid,"


The hypocrisy and idiocy contained in your exchange is laughable. Are you so inept as a thinker and debater that you believe the existence of race debate has no bearing on a debate in which racial classification is the underlining issue?

_You've repeatedly told us Egypt was "black" "black" "black"_ however, you now claim "black" is an invalid classification. You attached a label that you now deem arbitrary. *Since "negroes" or "blacks" do not exist, according to your own admission, ancient Egyptians could not have been "negroes" or "blacks".* So this is fraud on your part since *you* claim negroid/black does not exist.

If true science does not validate "race" why are you arguing in favor of ancient Egyptians resembling a non-existent pseudo-scientific "social construct?" Your hypocrisy, double-standards and outright lies - all exposed in previous posts - is an affront to the scholarly debate you demand of your opponents. There is no logic in refuting a position that is inherently invalid by your own admission.






> The south is also where the Egyptian civilization originated and where the vast majority of ancient Egypt's populations resided prior to the New Kingdom.


I've seen nothing from you yet which comes to that conclusion. "The south" is a vague remark, and you offer no evidence in support of it. The oldest habitation was in the north (discussed already). And Keita, who you quoted earlier is in complete disagreement with you. 




> "Lower Nubia had a *much smaller population than Egypt,* which is important to consider in writing of the historical biology of the population" (Keita; 2005)







> Comments like this generated laughter in this seminar of Kemet at Manchester (UK), who have recently accepted and embrace the fact that ancient Egypt (or Kemet) was a black African civilization.


Sally-Ann Ashton (nor her photographer lackey) couldn't even support nor was willing to defend her laughable position in a basic email exchange. Notably, in the 14:53 waste you posted, Ashton failed to reference a single source in support of her claims.

And the "comments" you fallaciously attribute the "laughter" - of a black audience she is appealing to, (in addition to a black prison population according to the website) have nothing to do with a "black" Egypt but Astons' erroneous conclusion, in fantasizing Cleopatra as some sort of mulatto.

*Black Cleopatra Debunked:

*




*Refuting 'Black to Kemet' Fitzwilliam Museum expo: 

*




*Egyptians: Which Side of the Vase?:

*

----------


## Ramses II

> Originally Posted by Belisarius 
> 5) The royal mummies have caucasoid features





> You are incorrect once again:


We see who is "incorrect" once the deliberately edited portion is inserted right back in its rightful and proper context:





> "The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is 'southern' (tropical African variant), and this is consistent with what would be expected based on the literature and other results (Keita, 1990). This pattern is seen in both group and unknown analyses... - *THE PART "TAHARQA" DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED ---->**However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity.* The Maghrebian affinities may be difficult to interpret, given that this series contains a range of variation from tropical African *to European metric phenotypes* (Keita, 1990). It is not possible to say, because of the complex geometry of the multivariate method (Blakith and Reyment, 1971), what more specific affinities individual crania may have. *The Maghreb series does have a modal pattern most similar to late lower dynastic Egyptians (Keita, 1990).* The centroid values of the various upper Egyptian series viewed collectively are seen to vary over time. The general trend from Badari to Nakada times, and then from the Nakadan to the First Dynasty epochs demonstrate change toward the northern-Egyptian centroid value [/U]on Function I with similar values on Function 11. This might represent an average change from an Africoid (Keita, 1990) to a northern-Egyptian-Maghreb modal pattern.*It is clear however from the unknown analyses that the Abydos centroid value is explained primarily by the relatively greater number of crania with northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns in the series.* Badari crania analyzed in this fashion revealed few or none which classified into the northern-Egyptian groups (Keita, 1990). This northern modal pattern, which can be called coastal northern African, is noted in general terms to be intermediate, by the centroid scores of Function I, to equatorial African and *northern European phenotypes.* As noted earlier, Howells’ work (1973) also demonstrates this, and Howells notes the difference with the Nakada predynastic group. The Abydos crania as a series do have continuity with the southern pattern, but change occurs. The notable increase in* northern pattern crania* in the south, from Badari times, might have a selection explanation, but the essentially bimodal nature of the presence of the contrasting trends suggests the presence of “real” northerners. Conditions in southern Upper Egypt between Badari and First Dynasty periods would not seem to have favored genetic drift; exogamy is postulated during Nakada times (Hassan, 19881, and this would tend to oppose the effects of drift, especially when coupled with an increasing population.. The effects of admixture and/or heterosis on classification are unknown. (North-south hybrids may classify as northerners.) 
> 
> Archaeology and history seem to provide the most parsimonious explanation for the variation in the royal tombs at Abydos.. *Tomb design suggests the presence of northerners in the south in late Nakada times (Hoffman, 1988) when the unification probably took place. Delta names are attached to some of the tombs at Abydos (Gardiner, 1961; Yurco, 1990, personal communication), thus perhaps supporting Petrie's (1939) and Gardiner's contention that north-south marriages were undertaken to legitimize the hegemony of the south. The courtiers of northern elites would have accompanied them.* 
> 
> *Given all of the above, it is probably not possible to view the Abydos royal tomb sample as representative of the general southern Upper Egyptian population of the time.* Southern elites and/or their descendants *eventually* came to be buried in the north (Hoffman, 1988). Hence early Second Dynasty kings and Djoser (Dynasty 111) (Hayes, 1953) and his descendants are not buried in Abydos. Petrie (1939) states that the Third Dynasty, buried in the north, was of Sudanese origin, but southern Egypt is equally likely. This perhaps explains Harris and Weeks' (1973) suggested findings of southern morphologies in some Old Kingdom Giza remains, also verified in portraiture (Drake, 1987). Further study would be required to ascertain trends in the general population of both regions. The strong Sudanese affinity noted in the unknown analyses may reflect the Nubian interactions with upper Egypt in predynastic times prior to Egyptian unification (Williams, 1980,1986)..." (S. Keita (1992) Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254)


Belisarius is clearly discussing the royal mummies from KV that we're all familiar with and have seen pictures of, - not the Abydos tombs, which aren't, according to your source, Keita, representative of Egyptians. The bulk of Keita's papers have been refuted and debunked by many geneticists and anthropologists alike, but what you fail to comprehend is that Keita, above, *at least according to the properly cited full and unedited version,* differentiates between *"southern"* :_"Abydos royal tombs is 'southern' (tropical African variant)"_... *and Egyptian: "lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity."* your first mistake in this is failing to catch on when Keita stated: *"it is probably not possible to view the Abydos royal tomb sample as representative of the general southern Upper Egyptian population of the time.".* And Keita's "southern tropical's" have a *"greater number"* exhibiting non "southern" i.e.: "*northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns:* hence: [i]* "the Abydos centroid value is explained primarily by the relatively greater number of crania with northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns in the series."* So *your very own source Keita* employs the term European when discussing ancient Egyptian crania, :Laughing:  and you both got caught lumping these European and other "non tropical" crania in with "tropical *variants*".  :Laughing:  :Laughing:  You've made a desperate attempt in trying to equate Egyptians as "black" yet your own source liberally uses the term "European"!

Again, you have deliberately and intentionally misled the readers/observers of this thread *by editing out and omitting key factors, in a blatant attempt to distort the information.* *Did you think no one would notice?!*

In one breath, Keita remarks:"*predominant* craniometric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is '*southern*'" but in the next, "the Abydos centroid value is explained primarily by the *relatively greater number* of crania with *northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns in the series*."

Petrie bases his conclusions for "Sudanese origin" on a single statue, not human remains: *"Petrie's (1939) interpretation of the Third Dynasty as having come from the Sudan is based on portraiture." (International Journay of Anthropology; 1995) 
*



> "Petrie (1939), discoverer of the type site (Petrie and Quibell,1896), believed the Naqada were non-Egyptians from the west." (Irish; 2006)


Again, this is another example demonstrating and exposing the nasty little charade "Taharqa" is guilty of. The *constant omissions and deletions of pertinent information is a routine pattern with this user* who so obviously has an agenda to push here and that agenda is to paint a distorted picture in agreement with a racist black supremacist ideology, not one based on facts or reality as obviously revealed here.

----------


## Ramses II

*Random skim

*


> I'd say that this must have either been the result of a very ancient back migration or there is indeed a possibility that R originated in Africa. I think that one way to test the latter out would be to test these African populations with these high frequencies of R for Neanderthal ancestry which according to recent studies all non Africans or people with non African ancestry have. If these results were to come back negative then geneticist would most definitely have to reconsider their proposal for the origins of R. Just my opinion though.


*What's this^? A desperate attempt to hijack an European/Eurasian haplogroup? 
*



> The cooler climate and over-exploitation of resources led to the failure of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Levant. *Some Near Eastern farmers crossed Sinai into North Africa around 6,000 BC, taking sheep, goats, wheat and barley with them. That agro-pastoralist dispersal has been linked to subclades of the Y haplogroups E1b and R1b.* It seems that *these early farmers spread one branch of the Afroasiatic language family - African North Afrasian - which includes Ancient Egyptian, the Berber languages of North Africa and the Chadic languages of West Central Africa. There is a strong correlation between the Chadic languages and a subclade of R1b1 discovered by Fulvio Cruciani and colleagues, defined by marker V88.* Its distribution suggests that *it migrated south* across the Sahara as the region gradually turned drier, leaving a pocket of V88 in what is now the Siwa oasis near the western border of Egypt.B.Arredi et al, Apredominantly neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variationin North Africa,American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 75, no.2(2004), pp.338-45; F. Cruciani et al., Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages, European Journal of Human Genetics (2010)
> 
> "lineages belonging to *Eurasian haplogroup R* have been *found in northern Cameroon* and have been claimed to *result from back migrations from Eurasia into Africa"* (Cruciani et al. 2002).
> 
> "A remarkable finding of our study is the substantial number of individuals belonging to haplogroup R1b1* (5.2%). Surprisingly, it has been previously observed in northern Cameroon (40%) at high frequencies (Cruciani et al. 2002) and at lower frequencies in southern Cameroon (1.12%) (Cruciani et al. 2002), Oman (1%), Egypt (2%), and Hutu from Rwanda (1%) (Luis et al. 2004). *The presence of this lineage in Africa has been claimed to be a genetic signature of a possible backflow migration from west Asia into Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002).* Here we observe R1b1* in 12 Bantu-agriculturalist populations (ranging from 2% to 20%) and in two Pygmy individuals. A network of R1b1* haplotypes performed using STR data (fig. 2) shows two main clusters, without any population structure. Interestingly, *the estimated expansion time for these haplotypes—7,000 years (SD 8,100)—precedes the time at which the Bantu expansion occurred.* ... the common paternal lineages found in west Central African samples are essentially recent. Only traces of haplogroup A and basal E-M96 are found in both groups, but these haplogroups only account for 5% and 10%, respectively, in Pygmies and 0.5% and 1% in Bantu agriculturalists. *This lack of ancient paternal lineages among west Central Africans suggests that the Bantu expansion erased most of the ancient diversity present in the region before the massive demic expansion.* In addition, these results clearly indicate that the consequences of the Bantu expansion are more visible from the paternal side than from the maternal side, suggesting that the demic movements associated with the Bantu expansion involved more males than females. ...The presence of this haplogroup in the region is especially puzzling given that, according to the known Y-chromosome phylogeny (Underhill et al. 2000), the geographic origin of the *R1b lineage is situated Eurasia and not in Africa*. Its sporadic presence, although at low frequencies, in some African populations has been proposed to *result from back migrations from Eurasia into Africa during ancient times."* (Berniell-Lee; 2009)
> 
> "Although human Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup R1b are quite rare in Africa, being found mainly in Asia and Europe, a group of chromosomes within the paragroup R-P25* are found concentrated in the central-western part of the African continent, where they can be detected at frequencies as high as 95%. Phylogenetic evidence and coalescence time estimates suggest that R-P25* chromosomes (or their phylogenetic ancestor) *may have been carried to Africa by an Asia-to-Africa back migration in prehistoric times.* Here, we describe six new mutations that define the relationships among the African R-P25* Y chromosomes and between these African chromosomes and earlier reported R-P25 Eurasian sub-lineages. *The incorporation of these new mutations into a phylogeny of the R1b haplogroup led to the identification of a new clade (R1b1a or R-V88) encompassing all the African R-P25* and about half of the few European/west Asian R-P25* chromosomes. A worldwide phylogeographic analysis of the R1b haplogroup provided strong support to the Asia-to-Africa back-migration hypothesis.* The analysis of the distribution of the R-V88 haplogroup in >1800 males from 69 African populations revealed a striking genetic contiguity between the Chadic-speaking peoples from the central Sahel and several other Afroasiatic-speaking groups from North Africa. *The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 9200–5600?kya, in the early mid Holocene. We suggest that R-V88 is a paternal genetic record of the proposed mid-Holocene migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers through the Central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin, and geomorphological evidence is consistent with this view.* ("Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages Fulvio Cruciani 2010)
> 
> "An interesting finding is the presence of *the non-African haplogroup R (including haplogroups R1b and R1*) in the Bantu population* of the Fang." ("Insights into the Y Chromosome variation in central-west Africa")
> ...


They only tested five people for Neanderthal DNA. Two were Sub Saharan - a San and Yoruba. These hardly constitute as representative of all Sub Saharan Africans, let alone Africans in general.

----------


## Ramses II

*Random skim

*Post #32



> "With that being said, recent genetic anaylsis postulate that J1 may have originated in East Africa/Ethiopia:"


You were singing a different tune* in post #11-* odd you didn't have any objection to Scheinfeldt when you quoted her:




> "haplogroup J (M267) appears to have arisen in the* Middle East* over 20 kya and subsequently spread into northern Africa (38)." Scheinfeldt 2010"


_J1 is a descendent of J which originated in the ME.

_
Other geneticists relate the same findings:




> "According to this interpretation, the first migration, probably in Neolithic times, *brought J-M267 [J1] to Ethiopia"* (Semino et al; 2004)
> 
> "The origin of Haplogroup J *maps to the Middle East* around the ‘Fertile Crescent’ an area also known as the ‘Cradle of Civilization’" (Genebase.com 2010) 
> 
> "Haplogroup J1 is a prevalent Y-chromosome lineage *within the Near East.* (Pereira; 2009)
> 
> J1 "a prevalant Y-chromosome lineage *within the Near East... frequently found in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolian poopulations"* (Chironi et al; 2010)



Looks like someone didn't do their homework. :Snicker:

----------


## Ramses II

> Attachment 5475Attachment 5474 Attachment 5476 Attachment 5477 Attachment 5478 Notice the broad African features of many of these of these pharaohs: 
> 
> It's clear and conclusive that these ancient Africans were indeed "black". That's not to say that individuals from elsewhere (non African) were not in ancient Egypt, but what is clearly proven is that the populations base of ancient Egypt was of Afrasian and Nilotic (black African) *origins*.



Lovell has been debunked - as well as Keita concerning limb rations. See Raxter 2011.

But since you quoted Lovell...




> “Certainly our data are not incompatible with the argument from Tishkoff et al. (1996) that an element of the contemporary Ethiopian population may be descendants of the ancestral population that spawned the migration out of Africa. We also argue, however, that in addition to this early bottleneck event, later periods of admixture have played a major role in shaping the gene pool of Ethiopia, and its populations display both Eurasian and Sub-Saharan genetic influences.” (Lovell et al)
> 
> “Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia.” (Lovell et al., Annals of Human Genetics 2005 69,275–287)




What I see, is a deliberately orchestrated attempt at replicating the same imagery, in addition, using unpainted wooden statues that darken over time as well as depending on the color of the rock employed, unpainted black basalt, as an attempt to claim Egyptians as "black" while the phenotypes say differently. Now for painted imagery:

----------


## Ramses II

*Random skim

*From post #38




> I did not purposely try to mislead you or anyone else."


That's one hell of an understatement. All you've done is purposely mislead. Here are *two more random examples* I took the time to investigate, exposing the type games Afrocentrics such as "Taharqa" engage. They deliberately use snippets as seen below by "Taharqa" presenting a distorted view while ignoring the larger picture as it disagrees with their preconceived personal/racial views. 

*EXAMPLE #1: From "Taharqa's post #15

*


> "a critical factor in the rise of social complexity and the subsequent emergence of the Egyptian state in Upper Egypt (Hoffman 1979; Hassan 1988). If so, Egypt owes a major debt to those early pastoral groups in the Sahara; they may have provided Egypt with many of those features that still 
> distinguish it from its neighbors to the east." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 97-123 (1998), "Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory," Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild.


Below, continuing from the last sentence (above) which "Taharqa" *deliberately excluded:



*"_If_ so, Egypt owes a major debt to those early pastoral groups in the Sahara; they _may_ have provided Egypt with many of those features that still distinguish it from its neighbors to the east. *While tempting, this hypothesis must be viewed with caution. Many features which characterize the ceremonial aspects of the regional center at Nabta are as yet unknown in the Nile Valley. These include the megalithic alignments, the megalithic structures and worked table rocks, cattle burials in chambers built in stone-covered tumuli, and calendar circles. One of the fascinating aspects of the evidence for the working of large stones is that it seems to anticipate later Egyptian developments. If* the Saharan people contributed significantly to the rise of complexity in the Predynastic, the precise nature of those contribution has yet to be defined."

Simple investigation shows "Taharqa's" own sources refute his contentions. And we already know, as stated in previous posts and based on the most recent data, Pastoralism originated in the ME, along with the livestock that accompanied it. Further, it would explain, who it was that brought it there - Nabta Playa had two distinct populations - yet you won't find Afrocentrics admitting such:




> "Judging from the elaborate burials at the nearby cemetery at Gebel Ramlah about 20 km from Nabta Playa, the nomads associated with the ceremonial centre were prosperous and healthy, possessing a strong aesthetic sense and interested in preserving and honouring their dead.7,6,8 Since it is a rare opportunity 
> to learn about people associated with such an early ceremonial centre, it seems worthwhile describing these prehistoric herdsmen in some detail. The cemetery contained 67 individuals in both primary and secondary inhumations. The most reliable carbon date is from bone collagen giving us 4360 BC + 60 years. *Inspection of dental features indicates that two different populations, Mediterranean and sub-Saharan, were represented in the cemetery."* (Malville et al; 2007)





*EXAMPLE #2 - from "Taharqa's" post #36

*


> Later, stimulated by mid-Holocene droughts, migration from the Sahara contributed population to the Nile Valley (Hassan 1988, Kobusiewicz 1992, Wendorf and Schild 1980, 2001); the predynastic of upper Egypt and later Neolithic in lower Egypt show clear Saharan affinities. A striking increase of pastoralists’ hearths are found in the Nile valley dating to between 5000-4000 BCE (Hassan 1988). Saharan Nilo-Saharan speakers may have been initial domesticators of African cattle found in the Sahara (see Ehret 2000, Wendorf et. Al. 1987). Hence there was a Saharan “Neolithic” with evidence for domesticated cattle before they appear in the Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 2001). Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246


This is not one simple direct quote, but run-on sentences for which the reader has to discern who made these actual statements... hence the lack of quote marks attribted to their references. Wendorf is mentioned several times, but what's notable,* Wendorf has been refuted and debunked*, yet despite this, Keita deliberately 
insists on using outdated, debunked information in attempts to mislead the public. Wengrow 2003 exposes Wendorf and Schild's dirty little deed:





> "For over a decade now, the fieldwork of the Combined Prehistoric Expedition in Egypt’s south-western desert has been a source of heated controversy, owing to their claim for a local domestication of African cattle in this region during the Early Holocene. *The main proponents of this view, Professors Wendorf & Schild, had their fingers badly burned during the 1980s over claims for local cereal domestication in the Late Palaeolithic Nile valley, which were based upon an* *intrusive sample, eventually exposed through their own scrupulous application of accelerator mass spectrometry dating."*(Wengrow; 2003)
> 
> "A frequently quoted theory is *Fred Wendorf's idea* that some domestic bovids were living at Nabta Playa in the Egyptian Oriental Desert during the 7th millennium BC (Wendorf 1987, 1994), but it has been serverly questioned (Muzzolini 1989:9-10; Smith 1992:44). Not only does the latest synthesis published by Wendorf on 
> this topic *not answer criticism, but it does not epound any new argument (Wendorf, Schild et al. 2002), and gives the impression that the facts have been somewhat adjusted to a still unproved hypothesis becoming less and less acceptable."* (Wengrow 2003) (Le Quellec; 2006)
> 
> "*Most authors agree* that ovicaprids were domesticated more than 8000 years ago, *then introduced into Africa from the Levant* (Clutton-Brock 1993; Brewer et al. 1994:90; Camps 1998:15-16, Bradley et al. 1998:85; Hassan 2000:15; Luikart et al. 2001; MacHugh and Bradley 2001; Close 2002:69; Gautier 2002:201) ... It has often been said that domestic *sheep and goats* would have been introduced through the north of the Sinai, as this is the only terrestrial way towards the Nile Delta. Then they would have moved towards the west along the Mediterranean coast, as they are located at the end of the Libyco-Capsian at Haua Fteah in the Jebel el-Akhdar (Cyrenaica, Libya) around 6800BP." (Le Quellec; 2006)
> 
> "The archaeo-zoological records show the absence of continuity with the Late Acacus phase. This can be seen as an evidence of the external provenance of domestic ovicaprines, which were widespread in South-Western Asia *while absent in Africa during all the Pleistocene*. Bones of sheep and goats have in fact often been recovered between 7,300-7,000 years B.P. in a wide area, from the Red Sea to the Acacus itself (Di Lernia and Liverani 2004). Ovicaprines were probably *introduced by Pastoral groups coming from East*, who were forced to move westwards because of the increasing aridity in the North-Eastern regions of Africa, driven by the search of water and pastures." (Rickards; 2008)


Further, the last sentence has nothing to do with "Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246" so why this is attributed to him is misleading. In "Taharqa's Keita 2005 quote (above), Keita cites Williams several times as some sort of "poof" of Egypts (debunked) southern origins yet even Williams has been refuted and debunked throughout the years by leading authorities on the subject:




> "The A-Group civilization and adaptation of pharaonic imagery and use of Egyptian style royal titulary and possibly hieroglyphic symbols in connection with the kingship emerged full-blown in the Classi/Terminal period. *The development of pharaonic iconography and symbols, and the hieroglyphic writing system is* 
> *firmly rooted in indigenous cultural and social processes in Egypt. There is thus no evidence to support the contention that the A-Group culture was the fount of the institutions of pharaonic kingship*."(Wegner; 1996)
> 
> "with numerous slate palettes, mace heads, and stone vessels in the material culture of contemporary Egypt. There is no comparable corpus of stone in the material culture of the A-Group Nubians. The archaeological evidence further suggests that the* Egyptians were responsible for the destruction and eventual dissappearance of the A-Group culture.* *This archaeologically suggested set of circumstances becomes difficult to reconcile if the Nubians of the period were the actual progenitors of pharaonic civilization, as initial interpretaions of the Qustul incense burner suggested. It is advisable, therefore, to regard this object as a royal Egyptian gift, sent to a chieftain of Qustul, in order to cement mercantile relationships between the two courts."* (Bianchi; 2004)
> 
> "The scholar who published the tomb claimed that these distinctly royal elements predated evidence from Egypt and suggested that the idea of kingship originated in Nubia and then inspired Egypt. *Later research showed, however, that the Qustul tomb was the same date as the Late Predynastic royal-style tombs of Egypt.* 
> *Because there is evidence of the processes that led to state formation in Egypt and not in Nubia, it is much more probable that Egyptian events influenced Nubia rather than the other way around."* (Van De Mieroop; 2011)



And here, in the same paper "Taharqa" quoted from, Keita makes another deliberate attempt in trying to avoid the obvious by claiming Eurasian haplogroups as "African":




> “It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called “*Eurasian*” are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin… Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion.” (“Genetics, Egypt, And history: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation” Keita, Boyce; 2005)


And that's how Keita skirts around the fact that Eurasians inhabited North Africa.

----------


## Ramses II

*Another random skim

*From post #27 



> This study seems to suggest that West African populations (Fulani) share a common allele with European. It should be interesting to note that the Fulani T-13910 predates the allele which is seen in Europe. Now what exactly does this have to do with a Middle Eastern origin for Afro-Asiatic?



That's another lie. The T-13910 gene does NOT "predate" that of Europe, and I'd like to see "Taharqa" provide us with a study stating such! 




> "The process by which *pastoralism and agriculture spread from the Fertile Crescent over the past 10,000 years* has been the subject of intense investigation by geneticists, linguists and archaeologists. However, no consensus has been reached as to whether this Neolithic transition is best characterized by a demic diffusion (with a significant genetic input from migrating farmers) or a cultural diffusion (without substantial migration of farmers). *Milk consumption and thus lactose tolerance are assumed to have spread with pastoralism* and we propose that by looking at the relevant mutations in and around the lactase gene in human populations, we can gain insight into the origin(s) and spread of dairying. We genotyped the putatively causal allele for lactose tolerance (–13910T) and constructed haplotypes from several polymorphisms in and around the lactase gene (LCT) in three North African Berber populations and compared our results with previously published data. We found that the frequency of the –13910T allele predicts the frequency of lactose tolerance in several Eurasian and North African Berber populations *but not in most sub-Saharan African populations.* Our analyses suggest that *contemporary Berber populations possess the genetic signature of a past migration of pastoralists from the Middle East and that they share a dairying origin with Europeans and Asians,** but not with sub-Saharan Africans."* (Myles; 2005)





> "there is some evidence of shared recent ancestry (i.e., gene flow) between the Fulani and Eurasian populations based on the presence of particular mtDNA *(J1b, U5, H, and V) (3) and NRY (R-M173)* (4) haplogroups, *and the T-13910 European-specific* lactase persistence allele in the Fulani." Tishkoff et al 2011


In addition your source Scheinfeld 2010 states:




> " In Europeans, the most common mutation associated with lactase persistence is thought to be a regulatory mutation located upstream of the gene that encodes LPH (a T at position -13910), within intron 13 of the neighboring MCM6 gene (56, 58). Further,*this mutation is located within a large linkage disequilibrium block that is thought to have arisen ~20–2 kya, consistent with recent positive selection related to the emergence of cattle domestication and milk consumption ~10 kya in the Middle East*(59, 60)."

----------


## Taharqa

> 1.You have no evidence, and your "common sense" has no standing. 1. The chart you provided places the supposed origin for Afro-Asiatic in East Africa, not Sub Sahara.


What does rather or not it's in "Sub Saharan" Africa have to do with anything? Are you insinuating that no black people live in Saharan or Northern Africa? Have you ever heard of the genocide of Darfur? Do you know where Darfur is, well it's not in "Sub Saharan" Africa. The Chadic speakers who Taranis and I are debating about not "Sub Saharan" African either. They are Saharan Africans and have been in the Sahara thousands of years prior to the conception of Egypt. Furthermore if you really want to get technical about where Ehret (the study's author) places the origins of Afro-Asiatic:




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


The lands between Somalia and Nubia are in or on the boundaries of Sub Saharan Africa.




> Most negroids don't speak Afro-Asiatic, but Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan click languages which for the most part developed after Afro-Asiatic.


Just wow! So are you seriously trying to denote the concept of race along what language a person speaks? Do even know what Omotic, Oromo, of Chadic (all Afro-Asiatic) speakers look like? 




> In addition, *even if* Egyptians supposedly originated in the region of Nubia, it doesn't explain why Egyptians spoke Afro-Asiatc while Nubians spoke Nilo-Saharan - so that contention is refuted


Considering the fact that there are an abundance of Nilotic loan words in the ancient Egyptian language (along with conclusive biological evidence) I'd be inclined to believe the well documented fact that Nilotic populations played an instrumental creating :the ancient Egyptian civilization. Rather or Egyptians and Nubians spoke the same languages, not negate the fact that both populations essentially biologically the same people:




> The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-desiccation Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration (Hassan 1988). Biologically these people were essentially the same (Keita 1990).


Link




> 2. In addition, the chart you provided shows Caucasoid introgression into East Africa, which is supported by substantual genetic studies.


"Caucasoid introgression"...back to square one I see! The map by Ehret, showed that the back migration into the Ethiopia occurred, which was ultimately the result of the initial migration northward from the East African Afro-Asiatic homeland. Therefore I fail to see why the introduction of Semitic into Ethiopia, would matter at all in regards to the initial population source of ancient Egypt? Further more the introduction of Semitic was done without significant gene flow from the Middle East:




> "These data, together with those reported elsewhere (Ritte et al. 1993a, 1993b; Hammer et al. 2000) suggest that the Ethiopian Jews acquired their religion without substantial genetic admixture from Middle Eastern peoples and that they can be considered an ethnic group with essentially a continental African genetic composition." (Cruciani, et. al Am J Hum Genet. 2002 May; 70(5): 1197–1214. "A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa Is Supported by High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-Chromosome Haplotypes)


Your point is therefore moot.




> 4. Your own quote debases the foundation of your "argument", it is, however, in complete agreement and compatable with what I've been sayng, E(M35) is a "non-African" haplotype


How could you possible conclude from that passage of the flawed Henn study, that haplogroup E originated outside of Africa? Wasn't it either you are your buddy who was just recently concerning the undeniable fact that E originated in Africa, and instead debating on if it was a back-migration from Egypt which created the biological continuum between Egypt and the Horn? As dubious as that argument was on his part, he at least had the common sense to not argue against the undeniable fact of haplogroup E's origins:



That is not a serious debate about haplogroup E at all. This origin and migration is what linguistic now link to the origins and spread of Afro-Asiatic. 




> It's only the map, which you posted, that's based on Ehret's paper which is outdated (2009) according to your own source, Scheinfeldt 2010.


Outdated seriously? Tell me what linguistic study supercedes it? Where in the Scheinfeldt study is a non African origin for haplogroup E ever postulated? You are reaching into thin air for conclusions that simply aren't there. 




> Of note, If E was a negroid haplogroup, which btw NO geneticist makes such a claim,


You are CORRECT, no modern geneticist is dumb enough to attribute a haplogroup to a social construct such as race. What are the Chadic speakers who are comprised on haplogrooup R...white? You are seriously losing all credibility with your racialization of everything from linguistic to haplogroups. I highly doubt that I'll give half of your this crap the time of day.

----------


## Taharqa

A quick summarization of your "points" :

1) Haplogroup E is non African (Beyond absurd and self defeating) 

2) Afro-Asiatic is non African (Beyond absurd) 

3) Horn African are the result of a mixture of black Africans and non African "Caucasoids" (a theory which has been discounted for decades now) 

4) SOY Keita, Basil Davidson, Sonia Zakrewski, Kathryn Bard, Nancy Lovell, Mary Lefkowitz, Ian Shaw ect ect are all *liars* in regard to how they interpret the biological and cultural data in ascribing an origin for ancient Egypt. 

5) The ancient Egyptians did not come from the south. (How many scholars can you cite in the last 15 years who directly say (leaving out room for deliberate misinterpretations) who states that the ancient Egyptians were not indigenous Africans from the south?)

6) The biological affinities between the ancient Egyptians and Horn Africans are the results of a common "Caucasoid" affinity (because Horn Africans are according to you "Caucasoid")

7) You also referred to me as a "black supremacist".  :Useless: 

Your arguments are beyond absurd, and the mere fact that you insist on them discredits you towards anyone who is not a blatant racist (as you are). If I didn't know any better I'd say that you were the *notorious* stormfront regular (who champions a "Caucasoid" Egypt") Kellscross". Your spam of Mathilda/Racial Realities misinterpretations are simply not worth my time!  :Laughing:

----------


## Taranis

It's time to close this farce of a thread.

----------

