|
Post by mhagneto on May 8, 2005 4:16:17 GMT -5
First of all, the author of the Ancient Egyptian Race Issue, Physical Anthropology is attempting to make the argument that Egyptians group with non-subSaharan populations in dental traits, but wait, Nubians also group among the "North African" samples as we can see here from the groups in yellow: Since Nubians are sub-Saharan and very Negroid, he tries to explain away this anomaly by saying that Nubians acquired 'North African' traits via Egypt and North Africa and uses Krings et tal's study to back his claims. Nubians don't have 'North African traits' in the sense that they were acquired via mixture with North Africans, plus according to Krings Et tal's study there was greater geneflow to the north than from the north, so the opposite would be true. Either way, the fact that Nubians group among what the author calls 'North African' traits debunks his assertion that the Egyptians have no relation to sub-Saharan Africans since Nubians are sub-Saharan Africans, even the author admits that himself 1. Yes, Nubians are "Sub-Saharan", but all SSA's do not cluster together genetically, so there is no anomaly here. Furthermore, Nubians are "very Negroid?" First, identify those populations you deem "negroid" and how they relate genetically by Fst distance, and how do Nubians relate to these Negroids by Fst distance? Kring's states there was gene flow bi-directionally but more from S to N that was more recent than vice-versa. Saying that there was more movement from one direction doesn't preclude influence from the other. Finally, if Nubians don't cluster closely -- i mean relatively-- with your "Negroid" populations then there's no reason to consider them very Negroid. Since Krings asserts that the flow from S to N was relatively recent, that means Egypt is more "nubian" now than it was earlier. He intentionally misrepresented the Di Rienzo study by saying Egyptians group closer to Sardanians than to sub-Saharan Africans[wrong, he misinterpreted it] but left out the citation I quoted verbatim from the same study that said Egyptians were mixes of sub-Saharans and Caucasoids. Sardinians do not have heavy sub-Saharan mixture so how are Egyptians closer to Sardinians? The paper said in in levels of divergence Sardinians and Egyptians are closer, but that has nothing to do with Caucasoids and Negroids, thats about OOA. Egyptians are genetically distinct from Sardinians. At any rate, the author of that site makes a false claim condcerning that study. He only took what he believed would prove his point and left out other portions of the full text. 2 The DiRienzo states precisely that Egyptians group more closely with Sardinians than with SSA's, so that is an accurate representation. The trouble with this study is that only 10 loci are used, and which "SSA's" are sampled left unspecified. Also, Sardinians are a unique group, an outlier of Europe which most likely was subject to lots of genetic drift. 3 This study has nothing to do OOA, which involves a completely different time range. Wrong, I was explicit enough in what I was and am saying, the site is biased in a number of points. I will not go into further detail, but his section on pictures in art, he gives the impression that the only representation of blacks in Egyptian art are solely Nubians and posts pictures of very Caucasoid looking Egyptians as proof of what the 'real' Egyptians look like. That in itself is highly subjective and biased. There are namy depictions of sub-Saharan looking figures in Egyptian art that are not foreigners. I don't believe that phenotypes, and stylistic representations of them, are very useful on these issues.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 8, 2005 5:55:48 GMT -5
1. Yes, Nubians are "Sub-Saharan", but all SSA's do not cluster together genetically, so there is no anomaly here. This has nothing to do with genes, were talking about dental traits. Nubians are very distinct from all the other populations in that dental plot and group with sub-Saharans. Therefore the author of that site has not proven according to dental traits Egyptians have nothing to do with sub-Saharans. Of course all sub-Saharans do not group together genetically, they're the most genetically diverse population on earth. Yes Nubians are very Negroid, and I mean by phenotype. Since you agree that not all sub-Saharans group together genetically, why are you asking the question about Fst distances? That becomes irrelevant. Nubians would be more related to East Africans No, you're missing my point, the author presents no clear evidence that Nubians acquired their 'North African' dental traits via geneflow. He's giving the impression that geneflow went one way[from north Africa to Nubia] yet at the same time ignores that geneflow went both ways, and attempts to make the argument that Nubians are distinct from Egyptians. If thats the case, traits went both ways. Nubians do cluster with sub-Saharans, probably more closely with those from the Nile Valley and East Africa. If Egypt is more Nubian now than it was back then why isn't he making the statement that Egyptians acquired Nubian traits but makes the contra argument? Its essentially pointless to argue about the blackness of the Nubians and whether they were truly sub-Saharan or not. having less pronounced Negroid features does not make one less 'sub-Saharan' or mixed. Wrong, Di Rienzo's study states that Egyptians are mixed sub-Saharan and Caucasoid. He states that the divergence between and Africa and the other two populations is larger than the divergence between Egyptians and Sardinians. This divergence is merely talking about OOA, and the SSA Africans samples used are specified in his study, so you are incorrect in stating that they're not specified.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on May 8, 2005 7:31:20 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with genes, were talking about dental traits. Nubians are very distinct from all the other populations in that dental plot and group with sub-Saharans. Therefore the author of that site has not proven according to dental traits Egyptians have nothing to do with sub-Saharans. Of course all sub-Saharans do not group together genetically, they're the most genetically diverse population on earth. 1 The dental evidence confirms the genetic evidence. That's how judgments are rendered. Yes, SSA is diverse. "Diverse" means made of of different components. By contrast, Europe has little genetic diversity-- its populations are closely related, unlike SSA's. Yes Nubians are very Negroid, and I mean by phenotype. Since you agree that not all sub-Saharans group together genetically, why are you asking the question about Fst distances? That becomes irrelevant. Nubians would be more related to East Africans 2 Because Fst distances quantify the ancestral relatness between populations. Phenotypes dont necessarily do this. No, you're missing my point, the author presents no clear evidence that Nubians acquired their 'North African' dental traits via geneflow. He's giving the impression that geneflow went one way[from north Africa to Nubia] yet at the same time ignores that geneflow went both ways, and attempts to make the argument that Nubians are distinct from Egyptians. If thats the case, traits went both ways. 3 However nubians aquired these dental traits, they share them with West Eurasions. Nubians do cluster with sub-Saharans, probably more closely with those from the Nile Valley and East Africa. If Egypt is more Nubian now than it was back then why isn't he making the statement that Egyptians acquired Nubian traits but makes the contra argument? Its essentially pointless to argue about the blackness of the Nubians and whether they were truly sub-Saharan or not. having less pronounced Negroid features does not make one less 'sub-Saharan' or mixed. 4 Well, that's Krings conclusion, that gene flow into Egypt from the S is relatively recent. Who is the "he" you're referring to? I would say that the Egyptians by obvious implications of Krings study would have been affected by the gene flow from the South. Also, if you posit SSA's as a cluster in its own right, then there would be only one other cluster of populations among HHS: All non SSA's. Egyptians and other North Africans would be closer to the non - SSA cluster than to the SSA. Wrong, Di Rienzo's study states that Egyptians are mixed sub-Saharan and Caucasoid. He states that the divergence between and Africa and the other two populations is larger than the divergence between Egyptians and Sardinians. This divergence is merely talking about OOA, and the SSA Africans samples used are specified in his study, so you are incorrect in stating that they're not specified. 5 You're right on his specifying the SSA samples. But when Di Rienzo states "Genetic distances suggest that the divergence between African and the other two populations is larger than the divergence between Sardinia and Egypt" he is saying precisely that Egyptian s are closer to Sardinians than Africans. And where do come up with this OOA business? His study has nothing to do with OOA. It's about present populations. Continued next message
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on May 8, 2005 7:45:52 GMT -5
Charlie: Here is a conceptual paradigm of human biodiversity similar to those I've seen. Do you know of any who offer different schemata? img134.echo.cx/my.php?loc=img134&image=languag14yy.gifThis link is weird. You have to press "links" to get to the right screen and then click to enlarge the diagram a little bit down the page. Enough already!
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 8, 2005 13:12:28 GMT -5
Charlie Bass, the author of the Egyptian Race Issue is infintely more credibly than some of your ridiculous Afrocentrist fellow like that wally_mo site or whatever it is. Furthermore, Nubians are not pure Negroid. Many show heavy Caucasoid features with hooked noses and straight hair. I've been to Nubia, you haven't. And besides, the Egyptian group still clusters with North AFrican dental groups.
The Di Rienzo study explicity states there is less difference between Egyptians and Sardinians than Egyptians and Sub-Sahran or Sardinians and Sub-Saharans. It explicity states that and I don't see how you could misinterepret that.
Add those studies to Cavalli-Sforza, Brace, Bosch, and the Gurna findings and you see that there's little or no connection between egyptians and East Africans and even less between Egyptians and negroid SSAs. Why don't you show a study that finds Egyptians to be AEthopid or Negroid? I doubt you could find one.
the author of the egyptian race site posts actual pictures of actual egyptians versus their portrayals of negroids like you. What makes one Egyptian more "real" than the other? Face it, depictions and science show that there is no connection between your people and the ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as lighter than and more Caucasoid than Negroids for a reason- because they WERE lighter than Negroids and had Caucasoid features even after they were out in the hot desert sun for 16 hours a day.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 9, 2005 3:25:56 GMT -5
5 You're right on his specifying the SSA samples. But when Di Rienzo states "Genetic distances suggest that the divergence between African and the other two populations is larger than the divergence between Sardinia and Egypt" he is saying precisely that Egyptian s are closer to Sardinians than Africans. And where do come up with this OOA business? His study has nothing to do with OOA. It's about present populations. Continued next message You don't understand the concept on divergence do you? A European Pacific Islander are more closely related to each other than either are related to sub-Saharans, that doesn't mean Pacific Islanders and Europeans group together. When they speak about divergence that is what they're speaking of. Nubians don't have 'West Eurasian' dental traits. Dental morphology is affected by different influences other than race. The same JD Irish said that Aborigines are some sub-Saharans superficially share the same dental traits, however, that doesn't mean Aborigines have sub-Saharan dental traits and vice-versa.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on May 9, 2005 3:37:58 GMT -5
You don't understand the concept on divergence do you? A European Pacific Islander are more closely related to each other than either are related to sub-Saharans, that doesn't mean Pacific Islanders and Europeans group together. When they speak about divergence that is what they're speaking of. Nubains don't have 'West Eurasian' dental traits. Dental morphology is affected by different influences other than race. The same JD Irish said that Aborigines are some sub-Saharans superficially share the same dental traits, however, that doesn't mean Aborigines have sub-Saharan dental traits and vice-versa. OK, Charlie. Later.
|
|
|
Post by Shenuda on May 10, 2005 8:38:09 GMT -5
Egyptians are part of our life ,you find them everywhere even in the T.V their culture dominated the arab world in modren history (movies , songs, literatures ...) ,also their arabic accent is widely understood. and they have the largest arab population ,Libyan have a small population ,not well known . since the majority of north African think they belong to the arab world ,arab of the east also see north African as arab (in a culture meaning not in a racial meaning ,arab are not aware of races) . You are right. Egypt is a heart of the Arab world Most of Maghrebi people are not anymore Berbers because they were arabised.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 10, 2005 14:56:12 GMT -5
Charlie Bass, the author of the Egyptian Race Issue is infintely more credibly than some of your ridiculous Afrocentrist fellow like that wally_mo site or whatever it is. Furthermore, Nubians are not pure Negroid. Look moron, [Charlie, "moron" is unacceptable in a forum] its becoming very irritating debating with you about the same crap over and over again. Modern Nubians are more mixed than the ancient one via more recent geneflow from Arabs and Turkish people who came there rather recently. This has nothing to do with ancient Nubians. Whatever you saw recently has nothing to do with the ancients. Nubians are Negroid predominately. It funny that you say Egyptians are 'Mediterranean Caucasiod' with no Negroid despite the fact that there are Egyptians who do show Negroid features burt you deny those as being real. You're biased, admit it. Whatever wallymo has on his damn site is opinion not mine, so don't confuse what I believe with what Wally believes. The author of the Ancient egyptian Race Issue is also biased. He's no scientist and like wallymo, he's merely posting his view on what he believes. His study stated in even more clear terms that Egyptians overlapped genetically with Africans and Caucasoids, meaning they have Negroid admixture, which you deny everytime, why don't you read the whole damn study instead of parroting other people's views? There is less difference between a Chinese person and a European for the fact that non-Africans clusrer closer to each other than any cluster to sub-Saharans and also for the fact non-Africans descend from Northeast Africans who diverged from sub-saharans. Thats what divergence is all about. Still, Chinese and Europeans don't cluster with each other, they're still distant from each other though closer to each other than either is to sub-Saharans, get the picture now? You just said Nubians aren't Negroid and that they show heavy caucasoid mixture, now you're using them to prove that Egyptians aren't Negroid? What ridiculous logic. Ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as distinct from Libyans, Syrians, Nubians, yet you clearly harp on the differences between Nubians and Egyptians, but talk crap about Egyptians being part of some big 'Mediterranean Caucasoid' race, along with Arabs, Syrians and other North Africans? You're a hypocrite and you're biased. Ancient Egyptians never viewed race through the same biased eyes that you do. The ancient Egyptians depicted themselves just as distinct from Syrians and Libyans as they were from Nubians, quit your chest-pounding and whinning. This is my last post about this nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 10, 2005 17:19:22 GMT -5
His study stated in even more clear terms that Egyptians overlapped genetically with Africans and Caucasoids, meaning they have Negroid admixture, which you deny everytime, why don't you read the whole damn study instead of parroting other people's views? There is less difference between a Chinese person and a European for the fact that non-Africans clusrer closer to each other than any cluster to sub-Saharans and also for the fact non-Africans descend from Northeast Africans who diverged from sub-saharans. Thats what divergence is all about. Still, Chinese and Europeans don't cluster with each other, they're still distant from each other though closer to each other than either is to sub-Saharans, get the picture now? I never said they clustered with Sardinians, I said they grouped closer to Sardinians than they did to sub-Saharan Africans. If Egyptians were Negroid, as you try and purport, then they wouldn't group closer to a European group than a black African group. Clearly, the survery results indicate greater similarity (or less difference, whichever you prefer) between Egyptians and Sardinians than between Egyptians and sub-Saharan Africans. Egyptians are not Negroes, and overall admixture has never been found to go beyond 13% in the entire country. In this study- Egyptians clearly do group with Caucasoid groups Lower Egyptians are well within the Caucasoid sphere in between North African Berbers, Neolithic Swiss, and various other Middle Eastern groups. Upper Egyptians are on the fringe of the Caucasoid sphere, in between Indians, Somalians, and other Middle Eastern groups but still within the gray Caucasoid sphere, or at least closer to it than it is to either India or the Negroid sphere. Nubians are far from either group. This study that you posted shows Egyptians clustering with Omanis. THis link shows that the Negroid E (xE3b) gene was found in none of the Egyptians surveyed. In fact, it was more predominant among Berbers and Portuguese than among Egyptians. www.geocities.com/dienekes_dodona/E3b/index.htmlYou just said Nubians aren't Negroid and that they show heavy caucasoid mixture, now you're using them to prove that Egyptians aren't Negroid? What ridiculous logic. Ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as distinct from Libyans, Syrians, Nubians, yet you clearly harp on the differences between Nubians and Egyptians, but talk crap about Egyptians being part of some big 'Mediterranean Caucasoid' race, along with Arabs, Syrians and other North Africans? You're a hypocrite and you're biased. Ancient Egyptians never viewed race through the same biased eyes that you do. The ancient Egyptians depicted themselves just as distinct from Syrians and Libyans as they were from Nubians, quit your chest-pounding and whinning. This is my last post about this nonsense. I know Egyptians paiunted themselves as distinct from all groups but still there were exceptions. In a print an Asiatic solider is painted in the same skin tone as Ramses and most tablets show more similarite between Egyptians and Asiatics than with Nubians. I doubt they would appreciate you thinking they were Negroid, despite the fact they clearly differentiated between themselves and Negroids.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 10, 2005 18:41:29 GMT -5
Charlie, the Negroid element of the Egyptians was Badarian in origin, right? Do you believe the Badarians were Nilotid or Aethiopid or both or neither? Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 11, 2005 1:46:09 GMT -5
I never said they clustered with Sardinians, I said they grouped closer to Sardinians than they did to sub-Saharan Africans. If Egyptians were Negroid, as you try and purport, then they wouldn't group closer to a European group than a black African group. Clearly, the survery results indicate greater similarity (or less difference, whichever you prefer) between Egyptians and Sardinians than between Egyptians and sub-Saharan Africans. Egyptians are not Negroes, and overall admixture has never been found to go beyond 13% in the entire country. Wrong, the 'greater similarity' has nothing to do with Caucasoids and Negroids, thats what you seem to be misunderstanding about this. As I stated earlier, the genetic distance between a Chinese and European is closer than either is to sub-Saharan Africans. The reason for that is populations we call sub-Saharan have been considerably isolated from non-African populations and geneflow from non-Africans is weakly manifested. The second reason is that non-Africans diverged from a population[East Africans/northeast Africans] that in turn was diverged from sub-Saharans, which puts even more genetic distance between the latter and the former. This has nothing to do with Negroids and Caucasoids. As you know, there are Melanesians and people in Fiji who look 'sub-Saharan' in a number traits, yet according to genetic distances and divergence they are closer to Europeans than they are to sub-Saharan Africans, does that make them more 'Caucasoid' than sub-Saharans? Wrong, that study was done by Brace, who said or implied that Somalis were 'tropical' Europeans due to some points of similarity in facial structure between Europeans and Somalis. You have to read more of his works to get a better understanding of how he comes to his conclusions, Alex. Reading the studies themselves will help you to get a better understanding, you'll see an example of that in my next response. See, this is where I'm going to show you why people should read the studies very carefully before making any conclusions. The 'Egyptians' used in that study are a mix of Arabs and Berbers according to that study and thus are **NOT** an accurate representative sample of Egyptians since Egyptians are **NOT** a mix of Arabs and Berbers. Don't believe me? Look at the fine print at the very bottom of this chart and read it very carefully and slowly: Heck, look at the chart, it even tells you who the 'Egyptians' are in that sample. In case its too small to read go to this link: www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n3/40703/40703.tb1.htmlThat isn't the point Alex, the fact remains that Ancient Egyptians clearly differentiated between themselves and all foreigners and there are examples of Ancient Egyptians depicting themselves as Negroid or nearly Negroid such as these for example: Those are just the few I will show but there are more. As I said, posting pictures is highly subjective and the author of that site was biased in his selection. If he wanted to be accurate he would have displyaed a better selection of pictures.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 11, 2005 1:50:48 GMT -5
Charlie, the Negroid element of the Egyptians was Badarian in origin, right? Do you believe the Badarians were Nilotid or Aethiopid or both or neither? Just curious. The original Badarian type was more very Negroid, even more Negroid than West Africans. That same original Badarian type is the one ancestral to both Nubians and Upper Egyptians.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on May 11, 2005 2:59:20 GMT -5
The original Badarian type was more very Negroid, even more Negroid than West Africans. That same original Badarian type is the one ancestral to both Nubians and Upper Egyptians. What does it mean for a type to be 'even more Negroid'?
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 11, 2005 14:32:36 GMT -5
What does it mean for a type to be 'even more Negroid'? It means they had more pronounced Negroid features. The remains found in Wadi Halfa in Northern Sudan had massive, robust features especially the jaws, strongly prognathous and had very wide nasal breadth, according to the Armelagos[sp?] the anthropolgist that studied them. They were similar to the Neolithic Saharan skulls found in Mali and Niger, but had more pronounced Negroid features than the later two. It was concluded that these skulls in Wadi Halfa were the ancestral type for Nubians and Badarians.
|
|