Post by asante on Mar 21, 2014 17:52:10 GMT -5
DNA Tribes offers some good data but they are not peer-reviewed
So? Does it make the findings (which were validated by DNAconsultant) less credible? In situations like this you cannot rely on these random quotes to think for you. That way of thinking ("it's not peer reviewed" so its bunk just for that reason) is playing into their hands. You are giving Western scholars the authority to grant us permission to claim our history. With the exception of Keita and Boyce 99% of those quotes that are used in debates come from White Western scholars. What is the history of White Western scholarship in relation to black people? When did that history change or did it? It's ridiculous to insinuate that we need their permission to contextualize this new information (that they already knew) that's not from them. This DNA is as good as gold, and it's beyond baffling seeing some people on ES still falling for their old tricks.
Also I'm sure that you already know that the study on Ramses III was which found him to be E1b1a, and that is "peer-reviewed". Three different sources are indicating that the ancient Egyptian Pharonic lineages were characterized by M2 lineages (with Nilotic affinity in some cases). That is all that we really needed (more welcome of course).
DNA studies coming out help, but they are no panacea. In fact I would say that DNA is being manipulated big time by certain
(not all) Euro scholars to deny African variability and diversity.
(not all) Euro scholars to deny African variability and diversity.
The thing is though this stance is not just reliant on DNA. Anthropology validates the existence of our ancestral African population in ancient Egypt-Nubia ("Negroid" remains dominated the early period). Oral tradition from our ancestral African groups and their culture/language also maintains that they did in fact come from ancient Egypt. This theory is not clinging entirely to DNA. What the DNA results did however was prove (added with a bit of common sense) that the "negroid" remains throughout the ancient Nile Valley are in fact related to the only "negroid" populations on Earth today. The DNA results made some people (like me) reassess those claims made by all of these equatorial Africans tribes who asserted through their culture and language that they came from ancient Egypt-Nubia. The DNA certainly validated our (i.e. the Zulu) claims of origin did it not?
I would not put all my eggs in the DNA basket. Keita in one of his
videos argues for a balanced approach- a package- DNA, skeletal,
cranial, limb proportion, cultural/artifact and statuary.
videos argues for a balanced approach- a package- DNA, skeletal,
cranial, limb proportion, cultural/artifact and statuary.
lol I'm years passed all of that!
Current data puts the origins of M2 in East Africa. It would be more accurate to look at it that way rather than trying to draw a direct connection with Egypt.The data allows no such direct connection to be pinpointed into Egypt.
Dude....
Zulu (South Africa)
DNA
They say that they came from ancient Egypt...What is the problem with accepting this truth!? Some of y'all treat this explanation like blasphemy or something.
If you are trying to make a case for West African connections with the Nile Valley, you already have such a case, through the highway of the Sahara,
The ancient Sahara is not the link between ancient Egypt and West Africa and there is no evidence of this.
a true "Pan African" entity that was once a lush greenbelt covering almost a
third of Africa and even now almost stretches from coast to coast.
third of Africa and even now almost stretches from coast to coast.
Yes I explained all of this in this thread.
More of the current data leans towards East Africa, which is not unusual because East Africa is geographically closer and there is the Nile as part of the transport mix with branches
That is not the reason that they chose to specifically exclude West Africans from any of these cultural analysis. It makes no sense when our West African ancestors are the only people that have maintained most of the customs seen in ancient Egypt. Why are the linguistic affinities between ancient Egyptian and Niger-Congo languages blatantly lied about by leading Western linguist? This to me is the subtle (because they are at least acknowledging it's "Africanity") continuation of that old BS. Their "research" is a clever way to obscure the true historical identity of our people. These people are not our "friends" as you can clearly see they are snakes!
An Indo- Aryan migration 2000 BC into Africa or Palestine is shaky.
I did not say into Africa.
And the Indo-Aryan migrations were not out of the Caucasus.
How?
and this was the second migration from the Caucus which brought over the ancestors of contemporary White Western Europeans (Anglo Saxons, Germanics, ect). Look at how recent this event was.:
Also keep in mind that the Natufians were 12000BC or so. And Asiatic types may have been in the Middle East region well before 2000 BC.
Yes it is a very ancient culture in the Levant, which stemmed from the Mesolithic Egyptian (Sinai) Mushabi culture. These people according to consistent anthropological evidence (much provided by you) were in fact broad featured "Negroid" African types. The Natufians have consistently been described as such and those people with their farming culture were the first people to inhabit settle (Anatolia), Greece and all the way up into Central and southern Europe.
Sickle Cell follows this path
The only contextualization of this ancient migration is masked as the "Afro-Asiatic" expansion:
In reality the migration also included Niger-Congo speakers (our type). Even the much later "Semitic" migration southward into the Arabian Peninsula into Yemen (from Israel) and some eventually back into Africa is mischaracterized as only involving those Amharic (Ethiopic type/Semitic) Ehtiopians.
Why does Ehret's research not make mention of the fact that the "Bantu/Semitic" people in South Africa called the Lemba were also obviously apart of this migration (look at the map)?
As you can see the Lemba look no different on the surface from any of the neighboring Bantu tribes (as the narrator notes). They are ironically genetically the "most Jewish" people of all whom have been tested (their specific gene). Their migration back into Africa (from the civilization that they established in Yemen) along the path to their contemporary location also explains the construction and desertion of the Great Zimbabwe.
Again here is where pictures can trip you up for plenty of pics of narrow nosed, light skinned Middle Easterners can be produced to contradict your Black wave theory.
It's all about dating. No one is going to dispute the pictures of obviously whitish people in the Middle East, but the evidence indicates that these people did not become known to the ancient Egyptian world (Nubia-Mediterranean) until after 2,000 B.C.:
"Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations...""In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millennium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor."
F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564
How else would you interpret this? My point is that you have to reassess your view of ancient "Asiatics" and "Europeans", which is clear from the biological data and yes the rarely seen artwork that is left in all of these areas prior to 2,000 B.C. (the painting below is from Catal Huyuk around 7,000 B.C):
Catal Huyuk was an ancient civilization which is found on this map (hint modern Turkey):
The region in the map above is the territory of the "negroid" Natufians. The hunters and gatherers shown in the map below however could likely represent an earlier split in the dual "Niger-Congo/"Afro-Asiatic" migration with the Ethiopic Africans (who already stayed closer along the red sea) proceeding the migration into Europe and parts of the Middle East.:
Which lead to black farming communities through ancient Europe, does it not?:
But the quote you produce from Angel does not support your claim. He says nothing about Pleistocene Nubian migration into the Levant, and who says people in say Syria after 2000BC are descendants of Pleistocene Nubians?
He stated that the ancestors of the Tasians and the "negroid" Badarians were the people who comprised ancient Anatolia (Turkey) and the Levant. The Pleistocene Nubians are the direct ancestors of the Pre-Dynastic Upper Egyptian Tasians and later "Badarians":
"In contrast, Irish and Turner (1990) and Irish (2000, 2005) noted that Pleistocene Nubians (in particular those of Jebel Sahaba skeletons) were as a group quite different from recent Nubians for dental discreet traits yet shared great phenetic affinity with recent West African populations." -- T.W. Holiday 2013 ("Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample")
Are West African cranial types not traditionally labeled as "Negroid" and this the Pleistocene Nubians had that Negroid phenotype which was ancestral to those Pre-Dynastic Egyptians and thus that early Sudanese population was also the source for the people in the Levant and on up into Turkey and Europe.
What credible scholar? Please furnish citation. Neither Angel, or Ricaut seems to support your claim.
You cannot let them do all of the thinking for us! You are giving Western scientist (not all have bad intentions) entirely too much power over this discussion. The message it's essentially giving off is, "see I'm right because this white person from this white school says that I'm right." Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with citing credible scholarship to support your position, but equating their words with that of God is certainly not the way to get our points across either. You have to reassess their (Western scholars) track record with us in regards to their treatment of our history and what their specific objectives were.
And to what extent is "partially descend"? Based on what evidence?
Partially descending from either those original black African inhabitants or descending from the Indo-European/Aryan migration after 2,000 B.C. which brought people with contemporary European affinities into the Middle East and some parts of Europe
People migrate and move round is the obvious explanation. The climatic fluctuations of the Saharan greenbelt would stimulate movementas is well documented.
Again that is not giving evidence for a migration. Like I said many people took and still take that statement at face value. I on the other hand am asking for evidence supporting not only a migration from this around 12,000 B.C. year date of the M2 lineages and Niger-Congo languages from East to West which he says went SOUTH of the actual Sahara along the belt.
Not so. There is plenty of evidence of human presence in West Africa before 2000BC. In Mali for example are Paleolithic sites of the African Middle Stone Age MSA).
That middle stone age settlement was the result of the so-called "Afro-Asiatic" migration which formed the northwestward arch into northern parts of Western Africa (look at the map above). That migration however did include M2 lineage (originally) carrying, Niger-Congo speakers as well. If I'm not mistaken Mr. Clyde Winters refers to the Niger-Congo speakers who took this route as "Mande speakers". That's why the ancient Ghana settlement in Mauritania Dhar Tichit was said to have spoken and written in a "Mande" language". Also take this fact into consideration the Berber language according to Western scholars is "Afro-Asiatic" but according to African scientist like Theophile Obenga it was it's own distinct African language:
Wouldn't this migration detailed above through the African lens explain why the Libyan Berber Pharaohs of the 21-22 Dynasty look the way that they did (broad "negroid" features)?
Hunter-gatherers were also well in place in West Africa prior to 2000BC. In fact scholars speak of a Sahelian
Deep Culture way back before 2000BC.
Deep Culture way back before 2000BC.
It's very much likely that a few wandering individuals or hunters and gatherers may have did their own thing in the region, but was this a continuous culture or people? Is there any evidence showing a link between these few isolated individuals and contemporary or later cultures or people (like the Nok empire for example)?
Keita makes no such claim, in fact he says just the opposite:
lol Why didn't you include the first few sentences of his statement in regards to artwork:
"Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation." (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)
This is the statement that so many people on ES have used to justify their rejection of the reliance of ancient Egyptian artwork to help with the discussion. Like I said for some strange reason the chain of "negroid" statuary seen on page one is never noted by scholars, and instead those who are not knowing are mislead to assume that most of the art depicts the gracile populations which characterizes the Horn of Africa.