|
Post by Ras-Xafun on Jan 20, 2006 18:24:11 GMT -5
You must be developing eyesight difficulties. Brace clearly shows Egyptians grouping with Morocco and then Italy/Sicily and Algeria/Tunisia (Figure 1). You must be developing eyesight difficulties, Brace clearly groups Naqada with with Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africans, not with any Medits, modern nor prehistoric. True, you're absolutly right! This guy is funny. First he said As if anyone said ancient Egyptians were Somalis. And now his contention is I'm sorry man, but their is no scientific support of any mediteranian race, never gonna exist. Ancient Egyptians were exactly as they were, namely indeginous Northeast Africans.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 20, 2006 18:35:27 GMT -5
You must be developing eyesight difficulties, Brace clearly groups Naqada with with Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africans, not with any Medits, modern nor prehistoric. True, you're absolutly right! This guy is funny. First he said As if anyone said ancient Egyptians were Somalis. And now his contention is I'm sorry man, but their is no scientific support of any mediteranian race, never gonna exist. Ancient Egyptians were exactly as they were, namely indeginous Northeast Africans. Exactly, thats the truth. Since he likes using individual charts and plots to his own disadvantage, look at this plot and see where the Greeks are, modern and bronze age and look where the rest of Europe is: The so-called half Mongoloid Finn-Saami sample is even closer to Europeans, modern and Neolithic, than either modern and or Bronze Age Greeks. Using Pontikos logic we can say modern and Bronze Age Greeks are just as non-European as Somalis are "non-Subsaharan".
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 20, 2006 19:30:25 GMT -5
Please post figure 1 and look at it again and see where Naqada is grouped, those are *MODERN* Egyptians you are talking about, not the Naqada sample which is ancient Egyptians. You don't even know how to read a neighbor-joining tree. Branches have different lengths for a reason. But, what is there to debate? "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." Repeat for the hard-at-hearing: NO EVIDENT PRESENCE OF A SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN ELEMENT IN EGYPTIAN SAMPLES.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 20, 2006 21:04:35 GMT -5
Natufians showed mainly primitive characteristics, I would be very cautious to call that Negroid in the same way as if we are speaking about modern, real Negrids, just because deviated somewhat in their direction.
Which features pointed towards SSA in Natufians according to your sources?
Indigenous North-East Africans or not doesnt change too much for Egyptians, they were not Negrid, thats the main point and fell into the Cromagnoid and Mediterranoid category mostly. Negroids are not longer there than Europoids anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 21, 2006 2:28:54 GMT -5
The so-called half Mongoloid Finn-Saami sample is even closer to Europeans, modern and Neolithic, than either modern and or Bronze Age Greeks. Using Pontikos logic we can say modern and Bronze Age Greeks are just as non-European as Somalis are "non-Subsaharan". Finn-Saami are not half Mongoloid. They are mainly Caucasoid with Uralic admixture. According to Moiseyev, the Proto-Uralic pattern is visible on some very specific metric and non-metric traits that are not included in Brace's study.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 21, 2006 2:54:11 GMT -5
Please post figure 1 and look at it again and see where Naqada is grouped, those are *MODERN* Egyptians you are talking about, not the Naqada sample which is ancient Egyptians. You don't even know how to read a neighbor-joining tree. Branches have different lengths for a reason. But, what is there to debate? "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." Repeat for the hard-at-hearing: NO EVIDENT PRESENCE OF A SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN ELEMENT IN EGYPTIAN SAMPLES. Repeat for those who arew hard of understanding the meaning of "sub-Saharan African" in Brace's study: It means the Egyptian samples[modern, *NOT* Naqada] didn't resemble Dahomey, Haya from Tanzania and Gabon, no one said they did you're beating on strawma en. The issue is whether they resembled East Africans like Somalis [who are black] and they do, cased closed. Somalis and Nubians aren't Medit Caucasoids.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 21, 2006 2:56:53 GMT -5
The so-called half Mongoloid Finn-Saami sample is even closer to Europeans, modern and Neolithic, than either modern and or Bronze Age Greeks. Using Pontikos logic we can say modern and Bronze Age Greeks are just as non-European as Somalis are "non-Subsaharan". Finn-Saami are not half Mongoloid. They are mainly Caucasoid with Uralic admixture. According to Moiseyev, the Proto-Uralic pattern is visible on some very specific metric and non-metric traits that are not included in Brace's study. Well please explain the outlier position of the Greeks away from other so called "Medit Caucasoids"?
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 21, 2006 3:07:31 GMT -5
Natufians showed mainly primitive characteristics, I would be very cautious to call that Negroid in the same way as if we are speaking about modern, real Negrids, just because deviated somewhat in their direction. Which features pointed towards SSA in Natufians according to your sources? Indigenous North-East Africans or not doesnt change too much for Egyptians, they were not Negrid, thats the main point and fell into the Cromagnoid and Mediterranoid category mostly. Negroids are not longer there than Europoids anyway. Read Brace's study, so called "Cro-Magnids" didn't even cluster close to Europeans yet alone Egyptians of any type and the Mediterranid label is ambigous and non-scientific. Its arbitrarily applied to everyone from Arabs to Indians, gimme a break.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 21, 2006 3:08:49 GMT -5
Well please explain the outlier position of the Greeks away from other so called "Medit Caucasoids"? Greeks occupy the extreme right position in the first PC which separates Caucasoids from Negroids. They also occupy a very low position on the second PC which seems to separate the more ancient with the more recent populations.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 21, 2006 3:16:46 GMT -5
Well please explain the outlier position of the Greeks away from other so called "Medit Caucasoids"? Greeks occupy the extreme right position in the first PC which separates Caucasoids from Negroids. They also occupy a very low position on the second PC which seems to separate the more ancient with the more recent populations. Okay, so if Greeks are Medit caucasoids, why is there position far away from other Medits?
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 21, 2006 3:40:37 GMT -5
"In a study of East African crania, Brauer(1976) used a range of other African crania for comparison; his analyses, using Penrose distances, show Nubians and early Egyptian series generally cluster to with more southern Africans....The southern grouping interestingly included the Galla/Somali and other more southern series(e.g., southern African)."
Nakada and Badari predynastic Egyptian series can be noted to be generally more similar to Nubian, Tigrean, and sometimes more southern series by D2 than to series from mid-to late-dynastic northern Egypt(Mukherjee et al 1955)....Nutter(1958) found Badari and Nakada I series to be essentially the same and very similar overall to the Kerma (Kushite-Sudanese) series using the Penrose statistic(morphologically she called them all Negroid)."
History in Africa, Vol. 20, (1993), 129-154
Brace found essentially the same thing, that predynastic Egyptians cluster closer to Horn of Africans and other Northeast Africans like Nubians and not Medits of any type. CASE CLOSED!
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 21, 2006 4:22:24 GMT -5
Brace is clear that there is no Sub-Saharan component in Egyptians and a hint of it in Somalis. CASE CLOSED.
|
|