| Caucasoid Affinities of Ancient Egyptians and Nubians; Five lines of anthropological evidence | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 3 2010, 03:03 PM (39,380 Views) | |
| Racial Reality | Dec 3 2010, 03:03 PM Post #1 |
Administrator
|
Here are five lines of anthropological evidence that group Ancient Egyptians and Nubians with North Africans, West/South Asians and Europeans (Caucasoids), and separate them from Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids). Note that Horn Africans (Somalis) cluster with Caucasoids in some cases and Negroids in others, which indicates they're a hybrid population that's not representative of either Sub-Saharan Africans or Egyptians and Nubians. 1. Craniometric Combined samples of Pre-Dynastic (Naqada) and Late Dynastic (Giza) Egyptians, and Bronze Age, Early Christian and Medieval Nubians, cluster with combined samples of Ancient and Modern North Africans, East Indians and Europeans.  http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110532242/ABSTRACT 2. Cranial Non-metric Pre-Dynastic Egyptians from Naqada (#59), 26th-30th Dynasty Egyptians from Gizeh (#60), 12th-13th Dynasty Nubians from Kerma (#61), and Early Christian or Christian Nubians (#62) cluster with Northwest Indians from Punjab and Kashmir (#44), Ancient and Modern Greeks (#48), Scandinavians from Finland, Sweden and Norway (#51, #52), and Modern Germans (#53). (NOTE: Somalis are #63)  http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/104081817/abstract 3. Dental Metric Pre-Dynastic and 12th-29th Dynasty Egyptians cluster with Afghans and North Indians on the edge of a larger cluster of Europeans and West Asians. (Note that here again, Somalis show Sub-Saharan affinities and don't cluster with Ancient Egyptians.)  http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110471697/ABSTRACT 4. Dental Non-metric 12th Dynasty (Lisht), Roman/Byzantine (El Hesa), and Byzantine (Kharga) Egyptians, and Pharonic, Meroitic, X-group and Christian Nubians, cluster with other North Africans and Europeans (Poundbury, England).  http://runners.ritsumei.ac.jp/cgi-bin/swets/hold-query-e?mode=1&key=&idxno=13325103 5. Prognathism Ancient Egyptians from Badari, Pre-Dynastic Egyptians from Naqada, and 26th-30th Dynasty Egyptians from Gizeh, as well as 12th-13th Dynasty Nubians from Kerma and Early Christian or Christian Nubians, all cluster with Europeans and West/South Asians on the negative end of the prognathism scale.  http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/68503808/abstract |
|
____________________________________ Racial Reality (Blog) | Italianthro (Blog) | |
 |
 
|
| Greek Fire | Dec 3 2010, 10:10 PM Post #2 |
|
Junior Member
|
Let's see what kind of lies Charlie Bass and Louisvilleslugger can make out of this. LOL. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 5 2010, 07:09 AM Post #3 |
|
Banned
|
Seeing as how this thread was supposed to be an answer to challenge, it has already started off on the wrong foot. My challenge again; [blockquote]Racial Reality what evidence do you have suggest that the original ancient Egyptians (that being Pre Dynastic Upper Egyptians) exhibited the same external anatomical traits as Levantines? Please do not reference the findings of the one study (hence abnormality) within the past quarter century (Brace 93)' that suggest close relatedness to Northwest Africans and non Africans through broad categorizations. Please reference a recent study that confirms your statement that they were entire Levantine in appearance. [/blockquote] I didn't ask for the inclusion of broad categorization to suggest close relatedness to distant populations. I asked specifically for you to back your statement by referencing one study within the past quarter century (25 years) that finds that the ancient Egyptians have the same external anatomical features as Levantines over any other populations. Who you insist were identical to the ancient Egyptians.
Stop being so political. Sub Saharan Africa is a sub region not an indication of "race" or population groupings. As it's been confirmed time and time again this sub region has the most physical and genetic diversity in World and Horn Africans (Sahel Africans in general) are not an exception to the wide range of indigenous genetic or physical diversity. Thus any nation or group of people who are indigenous to any area below the Sahara is "Sub" Saharan. Regardless of who Horn Africans cluster with there is no disputing that their genetic and physical variation originated in Sub Saharan Africa with no help from "admixture".
This is false, Northeast African genetic and physical variation is not the result of "hybridization as this has been confirmed time and time again within the last two decades. Even the author of your beloved 'Clines and Clusters' dismisses the ridiculous idea that these populations are a result of admixture (as you well know). But I suppose that we should just ignore those comments of his study and focus on the faulty conclusion right? [blockquote] "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..")[/blockquote] [blockquote]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."[/I] -- S.O.Y. Keita, "On Meriotic Nubian Crania Fordisc 2.0, and Human Biological History." Current Anthropology Volume 48, Number 3, June 2007[/blockquote] [blockquote]" These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)." [Tishkoff et al. (2000) Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins. Am J Hum Genet; 67:901-925][/blockquote] In other words the resemblance or close relatedness between Northeast Africans and non African populations is due to OOA not signifigant admixture.
A part of the challenge to provide studies excluding Brace 93' so that's a fail right there. None the less I will again point out the fundamental flaws of this study as noted by other anthropologist, which led to Brace correctly these mistakes in a study done 12 years later; 1)Created an "African" or "sub-Saharan" group, but excluded the Maghreb (including parts of the Sahara and Sahel), the Sudan and the Horn area (Ethiopia and Somalia) even though these latter two are BELOW the Sahara, and thus "sub-Saharan". Which completely ignores the fact that Sub Saharan Africa has the most indigenous genetic and physical diversity in the World. Hence why some indigenous Sub Saharan West Africans cluster closer to the ancient Egyptians than Near Easterners. 2)Excluded the Badari, and Naqada I and II, key Egyptian groups, thus obscuring the Sudanic/Saharan character of numerous early samples, noted in several earlier analyses. Ignored the formative range of the Saharans on Egypt, from the megaliths and cattle cults of the Nabta Playa to early mummification practices was ignored. 3)Excluded the Nubian population of the Badari and early Naqada period, including the rich remains of the well documented Qustul culture, near the present Sudanese-Egyptian border, again obscuring the close relationship between the two peoples as clearly demonstrated by Keita's recent study as well as the examples cited within that new study of older findings running parallel with him own. 4)Created a vague "Bronze Age" grouping of Nubians, and a "modern" group of medieval samples, an era long after the dynasties and when Nubia had experienced more gene flow of that and the later Arab incursions, beginning in the 700s. Sampling thus ignored the early Badari/Naqada Nubians, jumped the 25th Dynasty era, and shifted to the medieval era in the age range of the Arab conquests. 5)Used Somalian samples that were modern, and thus within the range of recent gene flow (such as the Arab era), particularly on the coast. None the less Somlis still custered closely to the Egyptian sample. 6)The result was a "comparison" finding that the ancient Egyptians had no relationship "at all" to other "sub-Saharan" peoples and were relatively distant from the Nubians and Somalians. peoples. This finding has been undermined by the subsequent research of several scholars, including limb proportion studies. DEBUNKED
1) Somalians group with other East Africans (sub-Saharans) 2) Egyptians (Naqda, Gizeh) group with each other and Nubians (Kerma). Ancient Nubians from Egypt’s early dynasties and before were excluded. ‘Kerma’ refers to 12th Dynasty. 3) Early Nubia excluded. The other Nubians below Gizeh are Medieval Era. 4) Only recent sub-Saharan samples used, and people close to Egypt like Sudanese or Saharans, or Ethiopians excluded despite countless studies confirming that they are the closest people to the ancient Egyptians biologically As you have even stated then ancient Egyptians group with Northeast Africans first, so why you would repeatidly reference a study that is flawed according to your own statements shows biasness on your part. The Europeans cluster with each other first, then the Nubians but forensic misclassification of Nubian crania using this same data series has been conclusively demonstrated by Williams et al. (2005) who examined analysis programs and found them way off-matching ancient Nubians for example with Japanese and Easter islanders. Such matches spring from the diversity of the dataset itself and not of any ‘race’ migration or mix. [blockquote]"If Fordisc 2.0 is revealing genetic admixture of Late Period Dynastic Egypt and Meroitic Nubia, then one must also consider these ancient Meroitic Nubians to be part of Hungarian, part Easter Islander, part Norse, and part Australian Aborigine... In fact, all human groups are essentially heterogeneous, including samples within Fordisc 2.0. Howells’s cranial samples exhibit far more variation within than between skeletal series...” (Williams et al, 2005, "Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania).. [/blockquote] The possibility of a primary relationship with modern Europeans was debunked by Keita (Early Nile Valley Farmers From ElBadari. 2005. Journal of Black Studies. 36(2), 191-208). In head to head comparisons, the ancient Badarians of Egypt grouped much more with other Africans than Europeans. including ‘Nordic’ Berg and Norse. [blockquote]The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorism is employed. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series.” (Keita 2005, Early Nile Valley farmers..’)[/blockquote] Keita 2004 (Northeast African Craniofacial..) also notes that in comparisons with the same Europeans above, native Africans had MUCH MORE DIVERSE craniofacial features without the need of any ‘race mix’ to explain why. The PN2 DNA clade also links numerous different Africans together who don’t need for any outside gene flow for their unique physical variation. DEBUNKED
[blockquote]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..... "David Greene studied the teeth of skeletons excavated in the Sudan just south of Egypt along the Nile and documented a long-term trend in dental-size reduction for the 10,000-year period. He suggested this reduction in tooth size was from changes in diet and methods of food processing as agriculture was adopted and refined. Analysis of more samples by numerous researchers has established this general trend in tooth-size reduction that is associated with changes in diet. As the diet has become more refined, the consequent increase in dental decay selected for smaller and less complex teeth has moved distally in relation to the skull, such that the body of the mandible now protrudes forward underneath the alveolar bone producing a chin. Because teeth have become smaller without producing excess room in the jaws, other evolutionary mechanisms must have been at work on the alveolar bone and supporting structures of the maxilla and mandible."[/blockquote] Thus, reduction in tooth size is evolutionary and occurs in many populations including those in Sub-Saharan Africa and has NOTHING to do with in migrating non Africans. DEBUNKED
Note older Europeans like Poundbury cluster with Nubians but this “clustering” is based on wide diversity within typical Nubian datasets. Williams et al (2005- ‘Forensic Misclassification of Nubian crania’) found wide misclassification of Nubian crania and by Carison (2008- ‘Temporal variation in Nubian..’) who found overall Nubian continuity, not any mass influx of foreigners. Also note the Canary Islands, whose population incorporates old groups like the Guanches, a people deriving from North Africa, NOT Europe. Keita 2004- (Northeast African Cranio Facial’) also remember that East Africans have some of the highest physical diversity in the world and doesn’t need any race mix to explain why they all don’t look the same different. Also note how certain African peoples near to Egypt are once again conveniently missing- Ethiopians, Sudanese, Somalians, & Saharans. The only Europeans in the North African mix cluster based on wide Nubian in-situ native variation (K Godde, 2009. Who were the Meroites?) not on any European influx. The Canary Island population also included the Guanches. An older people deriving from North Africa. not Europe. Irish. 2003 also notes that Africans have the highest dental diversity in the world which contradict other claims based on teeth. DEBUNKED
 Why are you even referencing this to support your case? As the study finds the ancient Egyptians are more prognathic than Somalis. Heck Early Nubia and Somalia are less prognathic than modern Scandanavians. How in the Hell does a population whom you sugguest are partially "Negroid" have less prognathism than populations whom have lesser to no "Negroid" admixture. Unless.... those looney anthrologist and geneticist are right indigenous African physical and genetic diversity is the widest is the World. These physical variations developed in Africa due to enviornmental factors, not baseless admixture claims made by yourself. DEBUNKED NONE of these study find that the original ancient Egyptians had the same external anatomical traits as Levantines as you sugguested. Do you not find it strange that none of the studies that you cite show the Egyptians clustering towards the same populations? There is no consistancy whatsoever. One shows that they are close to Indians other show close ties to Prehistoric Europeans, others show modern Europeans, not one shows overlapping affinity towards the populations directly east of Egypt (Levantines) as YOU CLAIMED... what gives? In failing to produce a single study within the past quarter century findings that the ancient Egyptians had the same external anatomical traits as Levantines you failed the challenge. On the flip side in a head to head comparison between African populations (Sudanese and even West Africans included) and Levantine populations the African series won out; [blockquote]"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Kebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." (Keita 1993)[/blockquote] Again it is making no sense. How in the heck can the ancient Egyptians be "wholly Levantine in appearance" but show closer biological affinity to more Southerly African populations than their Levantine breathen? I guess it's just one of the many mystieries that only YOU hold the answer to. 
Edited by Louisvilleslugger, Dec 5 2010, 07:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Greek Fire | Dec 5 2010, 11:24 AM Post #4 |
|
Junior Member
|
@ Racial Reality Apparently Louisvilleslugger is basing his conclusions on the whole "African means black" nonsense. It's apparent in the comment he makes where he emphasizes that non-African populations have an origin in an East African population. He ignores that there was differentiation in these two populations. Much like Charlie did when you first brought this up. The fact is that the ancestral population of Eurasians and Caucasoid North Africans were DIFFERENTIATED from the population that would spawn Negroes. It is known that Caucasians are so termed because that was the region that certain racial type was mostly known for settling and expanding from (Blumenbach). However, we could have been termed the Smurf race for all it matters, and it would still come down to the fact that our East African ancestor population was different from the ancestor population of Negro Africans. And coming from a tropical region, it would be reasonable to assume they would be tropically ADAPTED as well...but they still weren't negroes. And the fact remains that East Africans were/are an admixed population, including Nubians. 
|
|
|
|
| Crimson Guard | Dec 5 2010, 11:51 AM Post #5 |
Pro Member
|
Yeah, also tropical body proportions have nothing to do with being a Negroid. [blockquote]"...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."[/blockquote] http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110532242/ABSTRACT Furthermore I dont think they heard of Allen's Rule either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_rule -Carleton S. Coon, " The Living Races of Man", 1965 http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3740093/1/#new Edited by Crimson Guard, Dec 5 2010, 11:55 AM.
|
| |
|
|
|
| Racial Reality | Dec 5 2010, 03:17 PM Post #6 |
|
Administrator
|
 You're delusional.
Uh, I specifically used Negroid and Caucasoid, which are racial, not political, terms.  But your "Africa = Black" point of view is pure politics.
Genetically, Horn Africans are a hybrid Caucasoid-Negroid population: [blockquote]"Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level." http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=139378 [/blockquote] More evidence here, here and here.
No. Limb proportions, like skin color, are adaptive and therefore not good indicators of population relationships. Brace says so himself.
And both of them group with Scandinavians.
No. The misclassification had nothing to do with the Nubian sample. It was a product of the Fordisc program, which was in turn a product of error on the part of the researchers: [blockquote]"The utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing 'incorrect' classifications, however these disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference samples and failure to properly evaluate the typicality and posterior probabilities provided by the program. In this paper, unknown crania from populations known not to belong to any of the reference samples will be analyzed, demonstrating the interpretation of posterior and typicality probabilities provided in the FORDISC output and the importance of the use of an appropriate reference sample." http://konig.la.utk.edu/AJPA_Suppl_40_web.htm#Abstracts [/blockquote]
Yeah, and haplogroup P links Europeans with Native Americans. Irrelevant.
Caucasoids have simple mass-reduced teeth, and Negroids have complex mass-additive teeth. Prehistoric peoples also have the latter, and the evidence you posted has actually been used to argue against Negroid affinities in early Nubians: http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2010/01/mesolithic-nubians-probably-werent.html
As I said, Somalis cluster with Caucasoids for some traits and with Negroids for others. That's because they're a hybrid population. Egyptians, on the other hand, always cluster with Caucasoids. The prognathism data is there in conjunction with all the other data to demonstrate this pattern.
They all show Ancient Egyptians clustering with Western Eurasian/Caucasoid populations, and not with Sub-Saharan African/Negroid populations.
Well, few of those studies sampled any Levantines.  Regardless, that was the word used by Sampr when he was arguing that AEs didn't look West Eurasian/Caucasoid. I repeated it and put it in quotes. Do you understand what quotes around a word indicate?
Your eyesight must not be too good. In line of evidence #1 they show closer affinities to Europeans than to Nubians or Somalis. In line #2 they cluster with Europeans and not Somalis. In line #3 they cluster with West/South Asians and not Somalis. And in line #4 they cluster with Algerians, Kabyles, Bedouins and British and not with any of a whole array of Sub-Saharan Africans. Hence, the inescapable conclusion is that Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid, and not Negroid or even partially Negroid. |
|
____________________________________ Racial Reality (Blog) | Italianthro (Blog) | |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 8 2010, 07:55 AM Post #7 |
|
Banned
|
Like I stated those studies are DEBUNKED
I don't recall implying that "Africa = Black", this is simply a red herring employed for you in another vain attempt to disconnect Horn Africans from other Sub Saharan African diversity. Nonetheless I like most Westerners (Americans in particular) with eyes do consider Horners (Sub Saharan Africans) to be "black" in the social sense of the word. What's even funnier is that you seem to have a problem with the implication that "Africa=Black" when your butt buddy Deinekes essentially states that every different population originating in Africa is what we would consider "black" (including East Africans);[blockquote] What this study has found in a nutshell is that "black" Africans belong to 14 distinct clusters. Black Americans belong overwhelmingly to the Niger-Kordofanian cluster, consistent with their origin largely from Western Africa. [/blockquote]
lie! It's almost 2011 grow up;[blockquote]"Comparative genetic studies on geographically diverse populations provide evidence of high levels of diversity in continental Africa. Sarah Tishkoff and her colleagues (1986) find an intermediate pattern of genetic variation at the CD4 locus in northeastern (actually Horn) African populations. They explain this by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians. In essence they are describing a gradient of differentiation. The Horn, largely at the latitude of Nigeria, contains a subset of the diversity seen in other African regions. Tishkoff and her colleagues suggest that the Horn's inhabitant's are the local descendants of those who left Africa to populate the world." ( S.O.Y. Keita and R. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544)[/blockquote]
Nonetheless if they were mixed with "Caucasoids" as you claim then it would be reflective in both of those traits (i.e much lighter skin and shorter limbs) [blockquote]"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..")[/blockquote]
So now you are arguing a close biological relationship between the original ancient Egyptians and Scandinavians? This is in direct contrast with what you stated in the previous thread;Yes, Egyptians are closer to (certain) fellow Northeast Africans, but those Northeast Africans are closer to Caucasoids than they are to Negroids. Now if you admit that the ancient Egyptians cluster primarily with "fellow Northeast Africans", then why in Hell are you hoisting up studies that sugguest a close relationship with Northern Europeans? Again you admitted their primary biological relationship when faced with empiracle evidence, yet you present obviously flawed studies with totally different conclusions because it supports your truely Eurocentric view.... funny! A Better question is how in the Hell do these studies sugguesting close relateness with Europeans support your assertion that the ancient Egyptians had the same external anatomical traits as Near Eastern populations? Remember this was what you were supposed to be proving in the first place.
Which made it's findings invalid nonetheless!
This argues against your emphasis on 'race'.
 Nothing in that blog is refuting the recent finding that the inhabitants of both ancient Nile Valley civilizations experienced reduction in tooth size due to evolutionary forces...sorry! This is a reoccuring theme in your argument. You present a dated and flawed study, I or someone else presents a more recent study debunking the claims made in your "evidence", you'll make up some excuse to revert back to the findings of the dated study...funny!
yet you avoid the most damning findings to your racialized science. According to your logic Prognathism is a "Negroid" trait and a lack of indicates "Caucasoid admixture". How in the Hell can Somali's be "substantially "Negroid" (according to you) but have less prognathism than modern scandinavian populations? How in the Hell can the ancient Egyptians have more of a prognathism than a population more "Negroid" than them (according to your logic)?... Face it it makes no damn sense.
The Ancient Egyptians always cluster with "fellow Northeast Africans", you call them "Caucasoids" I on the otherhand like most Americans consider them "black".
No it showed how faulty your racialized science is.
you are truely dillusional about this aren't you?Yes, Egyptians are closer to (certain) fellow Northeast Africans, but those Northeast Africans are closer to Caucasoids than they are to Negroids. Northeast Africans ARE indigenous (meaning originated within) Sub Saharan Africans! When will you quit being so damn political and accept this simple fact? The Ancient Egyptians according to your own words and the findings of modern research were indigenous Northeast Africans with a primary biological relationship towards more Southerly Northeast African populations. In other words they had the same external anatomical traits as "fellow Northeast Africans", NOT Southwest Asians or other distant Eurasian populations!
Then it's a silly and baseless assertion for you to say that the ancient Egyptians look "entirely Levantine", when you can provide no evidence that sampled Levatines with the ancient Egyptians. I however did find a piece of evidence that did a head to head comparison of Egyptians crania with Levantines and African populations from the South and Western Africa; [blockquote]"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54[/blockquote] This debunks your claim right off the bat! But then again you it does support your later statement that they are most closely related to "fellow Northeast Africans". 
Your claim that the ancient Egyptians were "entirely Levantine" in appearance is baseless.
First of all Brace 93' was not even supposed to be used as a reference in my challenge which you were attempting to answer. Secondly they used recent Nubians with noted Geneflow from the Near flow from the near East, which dilluted their Northeast African biological affinity. Third of all those aren't modern Europeans sampled silly (as you're well aware of)! Brace 2005 explains why they grouped so closely to the ancient Egyptians; [blockquote]"The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa... 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), .. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it." (Brace, 2005)[/blockquote] [blockquote]Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples - some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans.. Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations." (Christopher Stringer, Robin McKie (1998). African Exodus. Macmillan, p. 162)[/blockquote] [blockquote]"Stature, body mass, and body proportions are evaluated for the Cheddar Man (Gough's Cave 1) skeleton. Like many of his Mesolithic contemporaries, Gough's Cave 1 evinces relatively short estimated stature (ca. 166.2 cm [5' 5']) and low body mass (ca. 66 kg [146 lbs]). In body shape, he is similar to recent Europeans for most proportional indices. He differs, however, from most recent Europeans in his high crural index and tibial length/trunk height indices. Thus, while Gough's Cave 1 is characterized by a total morphological pattern considered ‘cold-adapted’, these latter two traits may be interpreted as evidence of a large African role in the origins of anatomically modern Europeans." (TRENTON W. HOLLIDAY a1 and STEVEN E. CHURCHILL. (2003). Gough's Cave 1 (Somerset, England): an assessment of body size and shape, Bulletin of the Natural History Museum: Geology, 58:37-44 Cambridge University Press)[/blockquote]
According to RR Yes, Egyptians are closer to (certain) fellow Northeast Africans, but those Northeast Africans are closer to Caucasoids than they are to Negroids. So you are saying here that the ancient Egyptians are Northeast Africans, whom you state are a "hybrid" population. So as "fellow Northeast Africans" the ancient Egyptians according to your own logic were a "Negroid -Caucasoid mix".
From RacialReality's own mouth; Egyptians look entirely "Levantine" except for a few in the south who have Negroid admixture: There are some serious issues that you have with telling the truth about this subject.
|
|
|
|
| Oxy | Dec 8 2010, 02:43 PM Post #8 |
|
Senior Member
|
I can't believe this stuff is still going on |
|
|
|
| Racial Reality | Dec 8 2010, 03:57 PM Post #9 |
|
Administrator
|
You're debunked.
That's your problem. The social sense of the word is irrelevant to science. Halle Berry's considered "black", but she's actually ~60% white. Horners are likewise a mix of Caucasoids and Negroids. The entire anthropological and genetic record are in agreement about that.
So you cite a paper from 1997 that references research from 1986. Not to mention the fact that Keita's a race-denying Afrocentrist like you.
No, because those traits are environmental adaptations and have nothing to do with admixture. South Asians have long limbs and dark skin, but they're not "black" or "Negroid".
No, it's perfectly consistent with what I said. Egyptians cluster first with Nubians, then both groups cluster with the other Caucasoids sampled in the study (Europeans and South Asians).
I didn't reference that study, and none of the studies I did reference used Fordisc, so that's irrelevant.
That's right, they evolved from being robust and generalized to being Caucasoids with simple mass-reduced teeth. Unlike Negroids who have complex mass-additive teeth.
Prognathism is a single trait, and classifications are not made based on single traits. That's why I presented it along with a number of other craniofacial traits. Somalis lack prognathism because they're heavily Caucasoid, but their Negroid ancestry manifests itself in other areas (e.g. cranial and dental traits). That's not the case for Ancient Egyptians.
The evidence clearly shows that Northeast Africans (Egyptians, Nubians and often Somalis) cluster with Western Eurasians and not with Sub-Saharan Africans. Period.
I already explained to you that those were Sampr's words. Don't make me repeat myself.
Actually, Brace used a mix of Neolithic and Modern Europeans. They all clustered together, and Egyptians clustered with them, separate from Sub-Saharan Africans: [blockquote]"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."[/blockquote] |
|
____________________________________ Racial Reality (Blog) | Italianthro (Blog) | |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 9 2010, 06:34 PM Post #10 |
|
Unashamedly Black
|
Lets break down these dendograms and charts on a educated level Well what can we say about this graphic? Metrically the North African samples and European samples clustered together but look at the wide scatter and diversity of the African samples altogether, some clustered close by Melanesians, some clustered close by near Ainu and East/Northeastern Asians and even some Polynesians and Tibetans/Nepalese clustered nearby with sub-Saharans so what shall we make of this that these Asians have "Negroid" affinities and looked like Africans or does it make better sense to say that the African samples taken altogether North and Sub-Saharan show the most diversity? Conversely do the SSAs plotting near the Asians have "Mongoloid" affinities? this is why people shouldn't interpret these graphics in a typological manner. Edited by Charlie Bass, Dec 9 2010, 06:34 PM.
|
|
Y chromosone haplogroup: E3b1a7a-West African mtDNA haplogroup: L4b2- East/Northeast African. | |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 10 2010, 05:58 AM Post #11 |
|
Banned
|
No applying the socially constructed concepts of "race" is YOUR problem;[blockquote] Ethnic Groups and Geographic Origins The MeSH term Racial Stocks and its four children (Australoid Race, Caucasoid Race, Mongoloid Race, and Negroid Race) have been deleted from MeSH in 2004. A new heading, Continental Population Groups, has been created with new indentions that emphasize geography. Ethnic Groups is a sibling to the new Continental Population Groups. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/nd03/nd03_med_data_changes.html [/blockquote]
Wrong again; [blockquote]"Comparative genetic studies on geographically diverse populations provide evidence of high levels of diversity in continental Africa. Sarah Tishkoff and her colleagues (1986) find an intermediate pattern of genetic variation at the CD4 locus in northeastern (actually Horn) African populations. They explain this by local evolution and not by admixture with Eurasians. In essence they are describing a gradient of differentiation. The Horn, largely at the latitude of Nigeria, contains a subset of the diversity seen in other African regions. Tishkoff and her colleagues suggest that the Horn's inhabitant's are the local descendants of those who left Africa to populate the world." ( S.O.Y. Keita and R. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544) [/blockquote]
More sillyness, I'll play along though! So you are implying that the conclusions of the research in this piece are dated, so then here's a more recent piece from Tishkoff that validate her earlier conclusions;[blockquote]" These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)." [Tishkoff et al. (2000) Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins. Am J Hum Genet; 67:901-925][/blockquote] End of story! You cannot cite one geneticist who more recently stated that the intermediate postition of Northeast Africans is due to admixture. Rather you rely solely on your own misinterpretations of selected studies, which leads to your own racially biased flaws and illogical conclusions being effortlessly pointed out by your opponent time and time and time and time again.
Can you provide one scholar who labels S.O.Y Keita as an Afrocentric?...NO! Why in the Hell would the National Geographic choose an "Afrocentric" out of the laundry list of anthropologist to speak on the biolocultural origins of ancient Egypt? In fact if Keita was an "Afrocentric" then why would his work be referenced by outspoken Afrocentric critic Mary Lefkowitz; [blockquote]"Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54." (Mary Lefkotitz (1997). Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History. Basic Books. pg 242)[/blockquote] ??? Gee now why would a critic of Afrocentrism concede to the fact that the original ancient Egyptians came from Sub Saharan/Saharan Africa? Could it be that this is not an "Afrocentric" claim. That this "crazy wack job theory" has enough empiracle evidence to now be regarded as fact?
You're still running in circles here. Regardless of those being adaptive traits, the specific Horn African phenotype that is in dispute is still not explained by a "Negroid-Caucasoid" mixture. As people with common sense are well aware of the typical phenotype of an invidual with a Black African (or prodominantly) and a European parent are;   The latter is "60% white" isn't she? Compared to indigenous Sub Saharan African populations whom you also claim are also "prodominantly white".  Funny you won't take common sense into consideration, nor will you take the peer reviewed words of reputed geneticist nor anthropologist that Northeast Africans are an indigenous population who's ties to non African populations are due to OOA and not admixture. Its simple you are a biased individual who is not seeking the truth, but rather is attempting to mislead people into a misconstrued way of thinking.
Yes you stated this but the studies that you cited did not show that the primary clustering was with Nubians as YOU even stated. It shows a fundamental flaw in your argument. If you know that they cluster primarily with more Southerly Northeast Africans, then why reference a study that doesn't show their primarily clustering as accurate?
Well I mean if knowing that distantly following the primarily Egyptian cluster which is with (of couse) more Southerly Northeast Africans that modern West Eurasians come into the picture helps you sleep at night then keep repeating it to yourself.
Yes your second line of evidence did use the same data series, which is why it found way off relationships between Sub Saharan Africans and multiple distant non African populations as the Bass just demonstrated. Which is why it's a faulty piece of evidence for your case.
I mean what are you...dillusional? The reason why this happened is evolutionary caused by a change in diet, again;[blockquote]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..... "David Greene studied the teeth of skeletons excavated in the Sudan just south of Egypt along the Nile and documented a long-term trend in dental-size reduction for the 10,000-year period. He suggested this reduction in tooth size was from changes in diet and methods of food processing as agriculture was adopted and refined. Analysis of more samples by numerous researchers has established this general trend in tooth-size reduction that is associated with changes in diet. As the diet has become more refined, the consequent increase in dental decay selected for smaller and less complex teeth has moved distally in relation to the skull, such that the body of the mandible now protrudes forward underneath the alveolar bone producing a chin. Because teeth have become smaller without producing excess room in the jaws, other evolutionary mechanisms must have been at work on the alveolar bone and supporting structures of the maxilla and mandible."[/blockquote] Thus another faulty line of evidence presented on your part has callasped on you 
Funny... You keep trying to avoid this death blow to your racialized science. How in the Hell do Somalis and ancient Nubians who are according to you "substantially Negroid" have less prognathism than Scandanavian populations with absolutely no "Negroid" ancestry? Why do the ancient Egyptians who have minal "Negroid ancestry" according to you have more of a prognathism than the "substantially Negroid" Sub Saharan Somalis?
If you actually open the PDF of the flawed study and look at the raw data that Brace found it clearly shows every population in that close group that he noted with the exception of select Neolithic Europeans and Northern Africans were very distant from the Egyptian samples, the most distant of that group were modern Europeans.
Do you seriously need a quick lesson in Geography? Ethiopia and Somalia = Sub Saharan  Oh wait you do know where the Sahara desert is don't you? What does more recent research note in a head to head comparison between different Sub Saharan Africans and Northern Europeans with the Badarians (the culture responsible for Dynastic Egypt); [blockquote]"An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series."(S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data. Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005) [/blockquote]
Uh Oh here we go with the banning threats. Regardless of who or what you were quoting, your statement was unsupported and was the base of this thread. Funny you'll worship and plaster Brace's faulty conclusion from his 93' study in every thread, but you'll ignore his quote about East Africans. You will also ignore the fact the same man has a more recent study out which flat out refutes his earlier conclusion. Why are you so indenial about this subject RR? |
|
|
|
| Arch Hades | Dec 10 2010, 11:13 AM Post #12 |
Senior Member
|
Well Bass, they do at least have some Post OOA back admixture do they not? Don't they carry haplogroup J at considerable levels? Although obviously just because on a global PCA plot, they are intermediate between Sub Saharan AFricans and the rest of the world doesnt mean they are a simple synthesis between so called true negroes and Caucasoids. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 10 2010, 12:40 PM Post #13 |
|
Unashamedly Black
|
racial reality is falsely claiming that Ethiopians and Somalis are a mix of true Negro West Africans and Bantus and Eurasians, no genetic data supports that nonsense and oh, I am *NOT* Louisvilleslugger, he makes his own convincing arguments. |
|
Y chromosone haplogroup: E3b1a7a-West African mtDNA haplogroup: L4b2- East/Northeast African. | |
|
|
|
| Racial Reality | Dec 10 2010, 03:16 PM Post #14 |
|
Administrator
|
- Scientists Call for End to Race-Denial - Biologists Take Definitive Stance in "Race Debate"
No, I'm stating that only a fool would use "it's almost 2011" as some kind of argument against a 2002 paper, and then immediately afterward cite sources that are even older. And your "more recent" source and its references are also older. But I'll address them anyway...
Actually, Tishkoff herself in an even more recent study states that East Africans' intermediate position could be due either to shared ancestry from OOA or to recent admixture from the Middle East (or perhaps some of both). Wilson agrees that it's uncertain, but that doesn't stop him from calling that ancestral component in Ethiopians "Western Eurasian" because either way, that's essentially what it is: http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/single/?p=550353&t=3708795
American mulattos' Caucasoid component comes from depigmented Northern Europeans. East Africans' Caucasoid component comes from more pigmented populations that would resemble Arabians or Egyptians. Their Negroid components also have different origins. So there's no reason they should look alike.
That's clearly false. Egyptians cluster primarily with Nubians, West/South Asians and Europeans (Caucasoids). Horners like Somalis only belong to that cluster in certain cases (because they're mixed). The populations that Egyptians never cluster with are West, Central and Southern Africans (Negroids). And I'm sure you're not getting much sleep at night knowing that.
Do you have trouble understanding English? I repeat: the issue is with the Fordisc program, not with the data series. And none of the studies I referenced use Fordisc.
[blockquote]"Mesiodistal and buccolingual crown diameters of all teeth recorded in 72 major human population groups and seven geographic groups were analyzed. The results obtained are fivefold. First, the largest teeth are found among Australians, followed by Melanesians, Micronesians, sub-Saharan Africans, and Native Americans. Philippine Negritos, Jomon/Ainu, and Western Eurasians have small teeth, while East/Southeast Asians and Polynesians are intermediate in overall tooth size. Second, in terms of odontometric shape factors, world extremes are Europeans, aboriginal New World populations, and to a lesser extent, Australians. Third, East/Southeast Asians share similar dental features with sub-Saharan Africans, and fall in the center of the phenetic space occupied by a wide array of samples. Fourth, the patterning of dental variation among major geographic populations is more or less consistent with those obtained from genetic and craniometric data. Fifth, once differences in population size between sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, South/West Asia, Australia, and Far East, and genetic drift are taken into consideration, the pattern of sub-Saharan African distinctiveness becomes more or less comparable to that based on genetic and craniometric data. As such, worldwide patterning of odontometric variation provides an additional avenue in the ongoing investigation of the origin(s) of anatomically modern humans."[/blockquote]
Funny... I thought I clearly explained it. Your inability to understand the explanation is not my problem.
Do you seriously need a quick lesson in Anthropology? Egyptians, Nubians and (often) Somalis = Not Sub-Saharan. (See the five studies referenced in the OP.)
LOL at the "Journal of Black Studies" and Keita using only 11-15 variables. The skulls in Howells' database are classified based on 57 variables.
Both of Brace's studies used the same measurements on basically the same samples, so there's no way one can "flat out refute" the other. The results of both studies are in fact the same too: Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids) are distant from almost everyone else, including Egyptians.
Try reading the study: [blockquote]"Roughly three major constellations are evident. The Subsaharan African, Southeast Asian, and Oceanian samples form a cluster in one quadrant of Figure 2a. However, the Subsaharan African samples form a distinct grouping, well removed from the Southeast Asian and Oceanian samples on the third and fourth principal coordinates. In Figures 1 and 2, the Subsaharan African samples show significant separation from other regions, as well as diversity among themselves. The East/Northeast Asian and European samples form two additional discernable clusters. The New World and Arctic samples are peripheral subgroups in the large East/Northeast Asian cluster, and the two Ainu samples are outliers to other East Asians. The Central Asian samples are located between the Eastern Asian and European clusters. In the bottom half of Figure 2a, the South Asian samples are nearest to the center of all groups, the North African samples are a bit further removed, and the European samples are more separated, having the lowest scores on principal axis 2."[/blockquote]  
Edited by Racial Reality, Dec 10 2010, 03:20 PM.
|
|
____________________________________ Racial Reality (Blog) | Italianthro (Blog) | |
|
|
|
| DavidHannardlers | Dec 10 2010, 09:00 PM Post #15 |
|
New Member
|
From Hanihara's dental study (which you didn't read): "It was asserted that tooth size has been exposed to strong natural selective force (Brace et al., 1991). It is true that overall tooth size plays a major role in odontometric variation, but when the effects of overall tooth size are eliminated with standardized data, several independent vectors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 remain." Hanihara used the transformed data (C-scores, which remove overall size effects) to generate the PC plot that Racial Reality posted. So even though Somalis have an overall dental size in the European range, they clustered with sub-Saharan Africans in the PC plot. The North Africans, by contrast, were close to Europeans and West Asians.
Yes, yes, what a grand coincidence that those different lines of evidence all err in the same direction. 
Edited by DavidHannardlers, Dec 10 2010, 09:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 11 2010, 06:18 AM Post #16 |
|
Banned
|
Thanks for the links to your blog, but um what piece of information are you trying to relay to me? That a minority of scientist take issue with the dismissal of "race" in their practices?
No the point of stating that it's 2010 was not to dispute a particular study that you presented, but rather addressing your misguided and racially biased interpretations of studies in general. The point is that you unhesitantly discount the direct comments of researchers about this particular issue and rather opt to rely soley on your own biased interpretations, as though you are more qualified to make such a call. It's pretty sad!
Sure why let's review her direct statement;[blockquote]"The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs [Associated Ancestral Clusters], 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."[/blockquote] According to the raw data in Tishkoff 09 there is virtually none of the Saharan/Dogon cluster (which is even undetermined by Tishkoff herself to be African or non African in origin); [blockquote]"Saharan/Dogon" (blue) cluster frequencies in AA populations Mozabite 51.00% Beja_Hadandawa 21.30% Beja_Banuamir 18.50% Beta_Israel 17.00% Gabra 3.70% Rendille 3.30% Baggara 2.90% Borana 2.40% Kotoko 1.60% Burji 1.60% Konso 1.50% Wata 0.70% Hausa_Cameroon 0.60% El_Molo 0.60% Hausa_Nigeria 0.50% Mandara 0.50% Fiome 0.50% Ouldeme 0.40% Burunge 0.40% Yaaku 0.40% Giziga 0.30% Mada 0.20% Zulgo 0.20% Podokwo 0.20% Zime 0.20% Iraqw 0.20% Massa 0.10%[/blockquote]  So according to the most extensive study of African genetics to date (with the exception of the Beta Isreal) if the Saharan Dogon cluster is discovered to be Eurasian in origin then the Ethiopians sampled have less than 2% Eurasian ancestry....WOW So this spits in the face of the postulation that their intermediacy is the result of admixture with Eurasians.
Well his inconclusive statements are flat rejected by the findings of Tishkoff 2009.
Sure why not.... Seriously though the Oromo speakers that were sampled in Tishkoff 2009 show little to no "Caucasoid component" seeing as how between 98%-100% of their genetic makeup was comprised of clusters that originated in Sub Saharan Africa. A fundamental flaw in your entire argument is that you stubbornly refuse to accept that fact that Sub Saharan Africans have the most physical and genetic, without the need of non African admixture. Accepting Africa's indigenous diversity will surely set you free.
Correct, followed by other more Southerly Northeast Africans!
These populations are irrelevant, because THEY ARE NOT THE PRIMARY CLUSTER...Northeast Africans are. Why are you so desperately trying to cling West Eurasians to Northeast Africans through the superficial relation created by OOA.
You are truely dillusional aren't you? Notice;  The ancient Egyptians samples cluster closest to ancient Nubians and modern Horn Africans. While the modern Northern Egyptian samples cluster with West Asians and Southern Europeans.
I mean dude seriously what the Hell is wrong with you? I just posted this in my previous post. [blockquote]"An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series."(S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data. Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005) [/blockquote] You are aware of what the samples were in this study aren't you? Berg - Hungary Bushman - Southern Africa Dogon - West Africa Norse - Norway Teita - East Africa (Kenya) Zalavar - Hungary Zulu - Southern Africa The study found that in every series the Badarian sample clusterd with the South, West, and Eastern Sub Saharan Africans and never with the Northern and Central Europeans. So your claim that they always cluster with "Caucasoids" over Sub Saharan Africans is flat out rejected.
Again this same data series used the missclassified Nubian crania which was demonstrated through William et al (2005), which showed way off relationships with populations such as Japanese and Pacific Islanders. Do you get it? The data being used is flawed!!
 Where are you getting at? What in the Hell does this have to do with the fact that ancient Nile Valley tooth reduction was due to a change in diet? [blockquote]"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." --Rose JC, Roblee RD. (2009) Origins of dental crowding and malocclusions: an anthropological perspective. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009 Jun;30(5):292-300.[/blockquote] Face it you have no answer for this finding! Explain this study also; [blockquote]"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). 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[/blockquote]
No you didn't simply because you cannot give reason in line with your racialized science as though why modern Scandinavians are more prognathic than populations who according to you are "substantially Negroid". Nor why Egyptians who according you have minimal "Negroid admixture" are more prognathic than Sub Saharan African populations who are according to you substantially more "Negroid". Stop running away from this question, I want a through response as to why this is.
SMH, do you honestly think that anyone takes your dillusional conclusions seriously? [blockquote]"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."[/I] -- S.O.Y. Keita, "On Meriotic Nubian Crania Fordisc 2.0, and Human Biological History." Current Anthropology Volume 48, Number 3, June 2007 [/blockquote]
Journal of Black Studies (JBS), peer-reviewed and published bi-monthly, for the last third of a century has been the leading source for dynamic, innovative, and creative research on the Black experience. Poised to remain at the forefront of the recent explosive growth in quality scholarship in the field of Black studies, JBS offers important and intellectually provocative articles exploring key issues facing African Americans. Impact Factor: 0.309 Ranked: 8/10 in Ethnic Studies and 54/68 in Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary So what's your point?
Did you read why he used those specific variables (no)[blockquote]The subject was approached from an exploratory perspective, using different variable sets and techniques to examine the structure of the data. Analyses were carried out using 15 and 11 metric variables (see Table 2). Anatomically, the variables were chosen to represent the major embryological areas of the skull, in a balanced fashion, and for their likely genetic basis (see Keita, 1988). The smaller set eliminates measurements that cross the major developmental regions of the cranium and/or that have less demonstrated heritability. The number of variableswas selected to maximize biostatistical validity and conforms to findings that indicate that this is likely best achieved when the variable set is numerically smaller than the number of cases (individuals) in the smallest sample (see Corruccini, 1978; Sjovold, 1975; Van Vark, 1976). Also, no ratios, proportions, or indices were used to be consistent with the best practice advocated by biomathematicians. The Mahalanobis distance technique only makes use of the unique contribution of each variable because it, in effect, eliminates correlations between variables, unlike Penrose or Euclidean distances.[/blockquote]
  Wrong the closest modern population to the Naqada sample is SUB SAHARAN Africans. You are going to ingore basic geography for political reasons Grow up!
|
|
|
|
| Racial Reality | Dec 11 2010, 03:53 PM Post #17 |
|
Administrator
|
A growing minority that recognizes the political nature of race-denial, and how such a position is incompatible with the scientific evidence. Hell, maybe not even a minority, because some of those who profess not to believe in race in fact do: http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2005/07/cavalli-sforza-believes-in-race.html
Great, then I'll present the study again. It's pretty difficult to misinterpret this: [blockquote]"Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level." http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=139378 [/blockquote]
Uh, try reading what's immediately after the part you bolded: [blockquote]"...or a back-migration of non-Africans into Saharan and Eastern Africa."[/blockquote] So according to Tishkoff (and also Wilson), recent Western Eurasian admixture is equivalent to shared OOA ancestry, and either (or both) could explain East Africans' intermediate position.
Wrong. [blockquote]"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."[/blockquote]
Yeah, that argument doesn't really work because there's not much diversity between West, Central and Southern Africa. The populations there all pretty much cluster together genetically and craniofacially. The only real "diversity" is between The Horn and the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa. And Horners deviate specifically in a Western Eurasian/Caucasoid direction.
Incorrect. Followed by Europeans and West/South Asians and only sometimes by more southerly Northeast Africans.
They're very relevant because they form a Caucasoid cluster with Egyptians and Northeast Africans that mixed Horners only belong to sometimes and that Negroid Sub-Saharan Africans never belong to.
What's the source of that dendrogram? I don't see any Horners, but there are some modern North Egyptians and West Asians in your "Ancient Egyptian/Nubian macrocluster". I also see something called "N. African 'negroid' (modern)". WTF is that?
 Nobody can be this dense. Hanihara's study didn't use any "data" from Williams et al. 2005 (how could it when it was published two years earlier?), nor did it use the Fordisc program that was responsible for the misclassifications.Furthermore, I just checked Williams' study, and it uses an entirely different sample of Nubian crania. Also, it only uses 12 variables, which explains the misclassifications.
See DavidHannardlers reply from above: http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/single/?p=564848&t=3973609
Already provided. Mixed populations will exhibit various traits from the groups they're mixed with. That's why multiple traits are used for classifications. Don't ask again.
Obviously not idiots like Keita. He's basing his conclusions on the misclassified Nubian crania. I thought that was "flawed data".
How does it rank in Physical Anthropology?
Yes I did, and he's wrong, as usual. Reducing the number of variables to that extent leads to misclassifications: http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2009/12/another-feeble-attack-on-fordisc.html It's the exact same thing that happened with Williams' Nubian crania.
You don't read studies very carefully, do you? [blockquote]"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 may 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."[/blockquote] |
|
____________________________________ Racial Reality (Blog) | Italianthro (Blog) | |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 12 2010, 07:43 AM Post #18 |
|
Banned
|
I see no signs that this is a "growing minority", 'vocal' maybe but not growing. The very fact that numerous scientific institutions have commented that they no longer recognize the ancient categorizations of humans within the last decade spits in the face of such a claim. Surely these institutions such as the American Anthropological Association would recognize if there was a legit argument for preserving these "cherished" categories, but obviously there are none, which is why they now dismiss the concept of race as useless to science.
Again a point that I noted earlier is that you base your entire scientific viewpoint to these issues based entirely on your own flawed and biased misinterpretations of scientific work. Now rather than accept this seasoned geneticist statement on the issue of race; [blockquote]"The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise. [...] [My research is] expected to undermine the popular belief that there are clearly defined races, [and] to contribute to the elimination of racism. [...] The idea of race in the human species serves no purpose."[/blockquote] You feel that as a certified internet anthropologist you are more qualified to supercede what this geneticist actually states about the issue, in exchange for your own peer reviewed interpretations of his own work,
What's your point? Boarding Middle Easterners have great genetic resemblance to East Africans. [blockquote]"Genetic studies that attempt to recover the biological history of the species have generally found that there is a split between their restricted African samples and "the rest of the world." These approaches conceptualize human population history as a series of bifurcations with each node being relatively uniform. The "Africans" usually used are either the short statured Aka or Mbuti, Khoisan speakers, or West African stereotypes, in keeping with a socially, not scientifically constructed concept of African. Studies using individuals as the unit of analysis evince a different pattern. A select subset of Africans called the "group of 49" forms a unit versus the rest of humankind. However the latter individuals ("rest of humankind") also includes non-East African sub-Saharans. Hence there is no "racial" split. As has been stated, the idea that human variation can be described as being structured by subspecies (races) that are treated as lineages is fundamentally false. In actuality, also, although averages are used, the gene studies usually give us histories that are not necessarily the same as population histories."Philips, J. (ed) Writing African History (2005)Chapter 4, Physical Anthropology and African History, Shomarka Keita University of Rochester Press p.134[/blockquote]
AGAIN according Tishkoff's data the Saharan/Dogon frequecies in the Oromo there is less than 2% of the 'possibly' Eurasian cluster detected within them. Whereas the same study found over 6 times the Eurasian frequency in African Ameicans, who are still not intermediate between Africans and non Africans. So admixture (less than 2%) with Eurasian being the reason for populations like the Oromo being intermediate between Africans and non Africans is impossible and better explained by OOA as almost every geneticist and anthropologist cited in this thread has been saying over two decades prior to this study. [blockquote]"Saharan/Dogon" (blue) cluster frequencies in AA populations Mozabite 51.00% Beja_Hadandawa 21.30% Beja_Banuamir 18.50% Beta_Israel 17.00% Gabra 3.70% Rendille 3.30% Baggara 2.90% Borana 2.40% Kotoko 1.60% Burji 1.60% Konso 1.50% Wata 0.70% Hausa_Cameroon 0.60% El_Molo 0.60% Hausa_Nigeria 0.50% Mandara 0.50% Fiome 0.50% Ouldeme 0.40% Burunge 0.40% Yaaku 0.40% Giziga 0.30% Mada 0.20% Zulgo 0.20% Podokwo 0.20% Zime 0.20% Iraqw 0.20% Massa 0.10%[/blockquote]
Why are you placing so much emphasis on the K=2? That's like biting into a cake that isn't even half way done? Are you that damn hungry? When it's all said and done the K=14 values (above) for the Saharan/Dogon cluster is the closest that these Ethiopian populations get to non African ancestry, and that if it's even non African in origin. Please stop being so desperate for false information it's not a good look for you on your own forum.
Surely RR with his extensive knowledge of intra African ethnic groups and population variability can easily seperate the East from the West, Southern, and Central Africans presented in the graphic below from Tishkoff; [blockquote]"The relative importance of ancient demography and climate in determining worldwide patterns of human within-population phenotypic diversity is still open to debate. Several morphometric traits have been argued to be under selection by climatic factors, but it is unclear whether climate affects the global decline in morphological diversity with increasing geographical distance from sub-Saharan Africa. Using a large database of male and female skull measurements, we apply an explicit framework to quantify the relative role of climate and distance from Africa. We show that distance from sub-Saharan Africa is the sole determinant of human within-population phenotypic diversity, while climate plays no role. By selecting the most informative set of traits, it was possible to explain over half of the worldwide variation in phenotypic diversity. These results mirror those previously obtained for genetic markers and show that ‘bones and molecules’ are in perfect agreement for humans." (Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity in humans. (2008) by: Lia Betti, François Balloux, William Amos, Tsunehiko Hanihara, Andrea Manica, Proceedings B: Biological Sciences, 2008/12/02) [/blockquote]
Your logic is silly! The primary cluster with the ancient Egyptians and Nubians are more Southerly Northeast Africans end of story; [blockquote]"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)[/blockquote] As indicated also by both Kemp 2005 and Brace 2005 more Southerly Northeast Africans (ancient Nubians are the closest) including modern Somali's and other modern Horn African populations AGAIN form the primary clustering. As clearly demonstrated on Brace (2005) plot both modern Europeans and Southwest Asians are very distant from early Egyptian sample. So stop trying so despertely to attach Western Eurasian populations with Northeast Africans, it just won't work
It's the unpooled Egyptian samples from Kemp 2005.
The Tigre of Eritrea/Northern Ethiopia represent the modern Horn sample and are you truely that dillusional? As you can clearly see the Nubians, Tigre, as well as other East Africans cluster with the early Egyptian samples (no surprise there), whereas the late Dynastic samples group closer with Southwest Asians (again no surprise there), and even found that the modern Cairo sample group with Greeks. Again: [blockquote]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[/blockquote]
No one is saying that the data came from Williams 2005, but the data set used in the study came from the same flawed series.
So now you're just down right lying From your own mouth: Yes, Egyptians are closer to (certain) fellow Northeast Africans, but those Northeast Africans are closer to Caucasoids than they are to Negroids.
It's simple Somalis did not experience the same evolutionary effects experienced in Egypt and Nubia. If Somalia didn't go though that same evolutionary process that created the noted change brought on by a change in diet in the two mentioned populations then why would Somalia group the same as the Egyptian sample?
What "conclusion" in the quote below is Keita basing off of missclassified Nubian crania? [blockquote]"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."[/I] -- S.O.Y. Keita, "On Meriotic Nubian Crania Fordisc 2.0, and Human Biological History." Current Anthropology Volume 48, Number 3, June 2007[/blockquote] The only one that you're making a fool out of is yourself
IDK about that but I know that the findings that Keita made with the Badarians are pretty much in line with previous research despite some older terminology (you're familiar with it though): [blockquote]"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). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972) (Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)[/blockquote] and [blockquote]Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." (S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)[/blockquote]
So once again RR with his certification in internet anthropology and genetics has decided to to supercede a reputed anthropologist/geneticist with his revered blog entires. Again note that his decision to do so is actually supported by previous peer reviewed works including his own; [blockquote]Anatomically, the variables were chosen to represent the major embryological areas of the skull, in a balanced fashion, and for their likely genetic basis (see Keita, 1988). The smaller set eliminates measurements that cross the major developmental regions of the cranium and/or that have less demonstrated heritability. The number of variableswas selected to maximize biostatistical validity and conforms to findings that indicate that this is likely best achieved when the variable set is numerically smaller than the number of cases (individuals) in the smallest sample (see Corruccini, 1978; Sjovold, 1975; Van Vark, 1976). [/blockquote]
Obviously YOU DON'T! Brace goes on to say: [blockquote]"The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample, both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians, and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa" (Brace 2005)[/blockquote] [blockquote]"The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa... 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), .. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it." (Brace, 2005)[/blockquote] Which coincides with: [blockquote]“From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that subSanaran genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic. Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt - such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semai 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators..” --Ricaut and Walekens (2008) ‘Cranial Discrete traits)[/blockquote] |
|
|
|
| Racial Reality | Dec 12 2010, 03:34 PM Post #19 |
|
Administrator
|
Then you haven't been paying attention because there's been a backlash in the past few years against the political "race doesn't exist" position. This has been largely in response to recent genetic evidence to the contrary, so it isn't coming out of nowhere or from some lunatic fringe. In fact, it's the race-deniers who are starting to look like lunatics. Their (your) days are numbered. And btw, the AAA is a joke: http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2005/12/aaa-statement-on-race.html
What interpretation? Cavalli-Sforza himself uses terms like "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid" and says that his research confirms "the differences that we know exist" between populations. Does that sound like someone who thinks racial classification is a futile exercise?
That's not what the study says. It says that East Africans resemble Caucasoids. Then it makes the point even clearer: [blockquote]"Their study was based on cluster analysis using 39 microsatellite loci. Consistent with previous studies, they obtained evidence of four clusters representing the major continental (racial) divisions described above as African, Caucasian, Asian, and Pacific Islander. The one population in their analysis that was seemingly not clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians, who clustered more into the Caucasian group. But it is known that African populations with close contact with Middle East populations, including Ethiopians and North Africans, have had significant admixture from Middle Eastern (Caucasian) groups, and are thus more closely related to Caucasians [14]."[/blockquote]
I agree that probably explains the bulk of it, but the fact remains that either way, the genetics are the same. Whether residue from prehistoric East Africans migrating out, or recent gene flow from West Asians migrating in, that ancestral component differentiates Horners from other Sub-Saharan Africans and pulls them toward Caucasoids.
I'm just quoting what Tishkoff says about East Africans' heterogeneous ancestry. And I don't know where you're getting this notion that the blue cluster at K=14 is the only evidence of non-African influences. Tishkoff is clear that some of those "African" clusters have Eurasian affinities: [blockquote]"The Fulani and Cushitic (an eastern Afroasiatic subfamily) AACs [Associated Ancestral Clusters], 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."[/blockquote]
Well, it's pretty easy to tell Horners apart from Negroids in most cases, but luckily we don't have to rely on observation because we have craniofacial and genetic data showing us that all Sub-Saharan Africans cluster together, except Horners who deviate toward Caucasoids.
Incorrect. Somalis don't cluster with Egyptians and Nubians based on certain cranial and dental traits (lines of evidence #2 and #3). But Egyptians and Nubians always cluster with Europeans and West/South Asians.
Ah, the famous Kemp book. I'll save time and just post the color-coded version of this dendrogram that I used to explain it to Charlie Bass when he misunderstood it the same way you are now: 
No, it didn't. Hanihara used entirely different samples of Nubian crania. There's no connection whatsoever.
Irrelevant, since those effects were corrected for.
You really are illiterate, aren't you? He's using the finding that Nubians cluster with all sorts of different populations to argue that they "have retained an overall more generalized craniometric pattern". Problem is, those findings are wrong, as you yourself have acknowledged.
Older and misused. Calling Northeast Africans "Negroid" when they cluster with Western Eurasians is ridiculous. At least Zakrzewski has the sense to put the word in quotes, implying a social rather than strictly racial usage, but Keita isn't even that sensible.
The study referenced in that entry conducted a test whereby the number of variables was reduced to 10, and that led to misclassifications. Therefore, Keita's 11-15 variables are inadequate, which explains why his results contradict all other research. And Keita isn't a "reputed anthropologist/geneticist". He's primarily a physician who dabbles in anthropology and Afrocentrism. He's also not very bright.
Right, so the most you can hope for is a "remote" link between Naqada and Sub-Saharan Africa, which translates to a potential "hint" of a Sub-Saharan African component that was "not borne out" in every analysis. 
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2010/02/study-clarification-v.html |
|
____________________________________ Racial Reality (Blog) | Italianthro (Blog) | |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 13 2010, 06:30 AM Post #20 |
|
Banned
|
Once again when faced with authoritative statements from top of the line institutions that flat line your backwards views, you resort to the flawed arguments of......your blog Whenever this "resurgence" of "race thinkers" has taken back the mainstream and forced the AAA to disregard it's conclusive statement that the social construct of race has place in science....... no wait this will happen when Hell freezes over Get over it !
Quotes below from Sforza posted were on your own damn blog in a desperate attempt to by yourself to subscribe the reputed geneticist to concept that he denounces: [blockquote]"The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise. [...] [My research is] expected to undermine the popular belief that there are clearly defined races, [and] to contribute to the elimination of racism. [...] The idea of race in the human species serves no purpose."[/blockquote]
What's funny about Risch's statement is that he cannot even define what race is his damn self: [blockquote]Gitschier: Let's talk about the former, the genetic basis of race. As you know, I went to a session for the press at the ASHG [American Society for Human Genetics] meeting in Toronto, and the first words out of the mouth of the first speaker were “Genome variation research does not support the existence of human races.” Risch: What is your definition of races? If you define it a certain way, maybe that's a valid statement. There is obviously still disagreement. Gitschier: But how can there still be disagreement? Risch: Scientists always disagree! A lot of the problem is terminology. I'm not even sure what race means, people use it in many different ways. [/blockquote] So then how in the Hell can he ascribe populations to a concept he can't even define? Risch's statement is also flawed because of his generalized categorization of "Ethiopian". Ethiopia is broken down in many different ethnic groups and the largest percentage wise is the Oromo. According to the two Oromo Ethiopian samples in Tishkoff 2009 their frequency of the only 'possibly' Eurasian cluster in their genetic profile was less than two percent . Tishkoff states that either their position in relation to OOA or admixture with those descending populations constitutes their intermediate position between Africans and non Africans, obviously it's the former in this case. Some Ethiopian ethnic groups do have "substantial" admixture, such as the Beta Isreal (for obvious reasons) who were also sampled in the study (17% Saharan/Dogon) which coupled with OOA can pull a population into an intermediate position. But nonetheless the Beja and Beta Isreal with substantial frequencies of the Saharan/Dogon cluster plot closer to Northeast Africans than with Eurasians, unlike like the Mozambite sample.
Once again you are misinterpreting clear cut research based on your own childish biasness. The Cushitic and Fulani clusters are the closes African ancestral groups in regard to the four non-African clusters, but are much more closer in regard to the other African ancestral groups identified. Refer to page 36 of the study. [blockquote]"Saharan/Dogon" (blue) cluster frequencies in AA populations Mozabite 51.00% Beja_Hadandawa 21.30% Beja_Banuamir 18.50% Beta_Israel 17.00% Gabra 3.70% Rendille 3.30% Baggara 2.90% Borana 2.40% Kotoko 1.60% Burji 1.60% Konso 1.50% Wata 0.70% Hausa_Cameroon 0.60% El_Molo 0.60% Hausa_Nigeria 0.50% Mandara 0.50% Fiome 0.50% Ouldeme 0.40% Burunge 0.40% Yaaku 0.40% Giziga 0.30% Mada 0.20% Zulgo 0.20% Podokwo 0.20% Zime 0.20% Iraqw 0.20% Massa 0.10%[/blockquote] Then for some idiotic reason you wish to skip the other 24 samples in the list with detected frequencies of the Saharan/Dogon cluster. So by your logic the Hausa of West Africa:   Are they also differentiated from other Sub Saharan populations because of their insignificant frequencies of the Sahara/Dogon cluster? Secondly the fact that you are not fully recognizing about the Saharan Dogon cluster is that regardless of it's origins it is a subset of the Cushitic cluster, which means that it's going to be close to the Cushitic cluster that it came from.
 Every African population in the damn study is heterogeneous in ancestry, so why point out East Africans? I know why...because you ignorantly against all empirical evidence still want claim extensive admixture with non Africans as to why they are intermediate between Africans and non Africans.
Dude just stop with this lying! The light Blue cluster is the only damn cluster seen in Africa (ouside of the Cape Colored) with disputed African origin. Every other cluster seen on the map above originated in Africa (everyone South of the Sahel) and are thus African...End of Story!
Obviously not you chumped out of the challenge for you pick the horners out of Tishkoffs Sub Saharan African collage below: Funny thing about this discussion is that while I've addressed all of your "evidence" for your case, you run from mines :[blockquote]"The relative importance of ancient demography and climate in determining worldwide patterns of human within-population phenotypic diversity is still open to debate. Several morphometric traits have been argued to be under selection by climatic factors, but it is unclear whether climate affects the global decline in morphological diversity with increasing geographical distance from sub-Saharan Africa. Using a large database of male and female skull measurements, we apply an explicit framework to quantify the relative role of climate and distance from Africa. We show that distance from sub-Saharan Africa is the sole determinant of human within-population phenotypic diversity, while climate plays no role. By selecting the most informative set of traits, it was possible to explain over half of the worldwide variation in phenotypic diversity. These results mirror those previously obtained for genetic markers and show that ‘bones and molecules’ are in perfect agreement for humans." (Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity in humans. (2008) by: Lia Betti, François Balloux, William Amos, Tsunehiko Hanihara, Andrea Manica, Proceedings B: Biological Sciences, 2008/12/02) [/blockquote]
According to your own biased misinterpretations of studies: [blockquote]"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)[/blockquote] This peer reviewed statement from the Oxford encyclopedia of archaeology of Ancient Egypt just REFUTED your claim above.
Why in the Hell are you running from the results of the unpooled samples? Does it give you a little too much detail? No one needs your biased "photo shopped" images, we can clearly see from the more detailed unpooled samples that the early ancient Egyptians cluster primarily with ancient Nubians and modern Horners. As the Late dynasties roll forward then we begin to see Southwest Asians affinities come into play (as noted by Zakrzewski) and as get into the modern era Southern European affinities begin to be shown (modern Gizeh).
No they weren't!
He is not basing those findings on the program SILLY: [blockquote]"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[/blockquote] Obviously you are the one who is illiterate!
But Badarians who the study was referencing do cluster with populations historically referred to as "Negroid" over West Eurasians: [blockquote]An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series."(S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data. Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005) [/blockquote] Again in this head comparison grouped the Badarians with Southern, Southeastern, and Western Africans populations every time over the West Eurasian samples. Which is consistent with: [blockquote]Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." (S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)[/blockquote]
Funny do you have any text that supports the misclassifications in the referenced studies?
Yeah sure that's why his findings found support from a leading critic of Afrocentrism. That's why the National Geographic call for his expertise on the biological affinities of ancient Egypt as opposed to a long list anthropologist. That's why no one has refuted his findings of ancient Egypt's biological affinities.
Pathetic:[blockquote]""The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample — both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians — and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa."[/blockquote]
I'm not about to chase your argument through you blog, if you have an answer to the quotes I presented from the study than post them: [blockquote]“A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). "This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005)..” --F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology. 80:5, pp. 535-564[/blockquote] |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Physical Anthropology · Next Topic » |
2:37 AM Sep 23