|
|
Post by sundiata on Jun 21, 2010 12:06:54 GMT -5
@truthteacher
What in this weird world are you going on about? Who are you even talking to? In my reply to you, where did I EVER mention people being mixed and such admixture negating one's ancestry? I pointed out just recently in another thread, based on a citation by Keita that genetic similarity and relatedness are two different things. While many modern Egyptians may be more genetically similar to Europeans and SW Asians (as DNA studies of the autosomes have shown), they are more related to Africans.
The only difference is that I'd argue that ancient Egyptians were more related AND genetically more similar to African populations than Europeans. That's my position, please don't misinterpret it.
|
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jun 21, 2010 13:25:03 GMT -5
@truthteacher What in this weird world are you going on about? Who are you even talking to? In my reply to you, where did I EVER mention people being mixed and such admixture negating one's ancestry? I pointed out just recently in another thread, based on a citation by Keita that genetic similarity and relatedness are two different things. While many modern Egyptians may be more genetically similar to Europeans and SW Asians (as DNA studies of the autosomes have shown), they are more related to Africans. The only difference is that I'd argue that ancient Egyptians were more related AND genetically more similar to African populations than Europeans. That's my position, please don't misinterpret it. The fact that you didn't answer Egyptianplanet's question and only asked "what is an Egyptian", didn't help to explain your perspective either.... |
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Jun 21, 2010 14:07:08 GMT -5
Hmm...
sorry I even asked.
I would just like a clarification on your relatedness/genetically similar data sundiata. And please actually provide me with something rather than an ambiguous question to turn aside an honest question for the sake of trying to avoid a (potential) conflict.
Northern Egypt shows more physical variation than the south, but not necessarily as part of any significant 'race' mix, but local, built-in variation. They were closer to southerners than any other peoples. In comparisons with "Middle Eastern" populations of the same ancient period, the Egyptians link more closely with other Africans than the Middle Easterners. Africans vary in how they look because they have the highest built-in molecular diversity to begin with.
QUOTE(s):
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
My assumption, from this passage, is much of Northern Egypt's physical diversity came from local evolution and adaptation rather than outside influences.
|
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Jun 21, 2010 21:21:37 GMT -5
Al.. Sorry about that, man. I needed to know what you were asking. I don't trap myself in corners by answering questions the way people want me to answer them when the question its self is misleading. Don't be sorry for asking, just ask me properly. It's like asking me are Puerto Ricans "mixed" or if they descend from native Americans. I can't broadly answer that question even though I know what you're getting at. Will a simple "I believe that most do", suffice? Anyways... In regards to the above request, I was referring to this post: This is a beautiful point which to me effectively kills any debate with Eurocentrists. Consider if my brother and I had different fathers but same mother; his father being white and mine black. Then say I pick a random black person on the street. Would I be more related to this fellow, or my half white blood brother? The answer is obvious and the example no where needed to be so extreme to demonstrate this point since obviously NE Africans are not "half white". |
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Jun 23, 2010 12:17:07 GMT -5
Back on topic  When anatomically modern humans left Africa to populate the rest of the world, they were distinguished from Neanderthal populations due to their "tropical limbs". Remains of Neanderthal show they have shorter limbs, and hence cold-adapted, according to Allen's rule. However, after a long period of time, modern humans who migrated to Norther Climates, began to evolve cold-adapted limbs, it took several millenia for this to occur. Some of the earliest remains of modern humans in Europe exhibit "tropic limbs" which is how scientists were able to determine they were recently migrated from a "tropical" or warmer climate. Later remains of modern humans, in Northern Europe and Northern Asia, began to show an adjustment in the limbs, as a result of evolving thru the Glacial periods in the Northern latitudes, they adapted colder limb proportions. Using this data, one can easily refute the possibility of Ancient Egyptians descending from the Nordic regions. However, anatomically modern humans didn't only migrate North, they also migrated to other "tropical" areas of the earth, and hence retained the same tropical limb proportions as when they first left the African continent. In other words, remains of humans as far away as Japan have shown 'tropical limbs' , which isn't an indication that they recently left 'Africa' itself, but an indication, that the population of Japan was inhabited by population that moved from other tropical or temperate climates, such as the South Asian islands. As a physical anthropologist, Dr. Keita, has used this data, to refute "racist" anthropology of the past, to show that the Ancient remains of Egyptians, have limb proportions to indicate that they migrated or descended from "extremely" tropical environments, I think the term he used was Supra-Saharan. |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jun 23, 2010 14:47:43 GMT -5
Back on topic When anatomically modern humans left Africa to populate the rest of the world, they were distinguished from Neanderthal populations due to their "tropical limbs". Remains of Neanderthal show they have shorter limbs, and hence cold-adapted, according to Allen's rule. However, after a long period of time, modern humans who migrated to Norther Climates, began to evolve cold-adapted limbs, it took several millenia for this to occur. Some of the earliest remains of modern humans in Europe exhibit "tropic limbs" which is how scientists were able to determine they were recently migrated from a "tropical" or warmer climate. Later remains of modern humans, in Northern Europe and Northern Asia, began to show an adjustment in the limbs, as a result of evolving thru the Glacial periods in the Northern latitudes, they adapted colder limb proportions. Using this data, one can easily refute the possibility of Ancient Egyptians descending from the Nordic regions. However, anatomically modern humans didn't only migrate North, they also migrated to other "tropical" areas of the earth, and hence retained the same tropical limb proportions as when they first left the African continent. In other words, remains of humans as far away as Japan have shown 'tropical limbs' , which isn't an indication that they recently left 'Africa' itself, but an indication, that the population of Japan was inhabited by population that moved from other tropical or temperate climates, such as the South Asian islands. As a physical anthropologist, Dr. Keita, has used this data, to refute "racist" anthropology of the past, to show that the Ancient remains of Egyptians, have limb proportions to indicate that they migrated or descended from "extremely" tropical environments, I think the term he used was Supra-Saharan. Exactly. I believe that this is why along the southern fringes of Asia we still find people who have retained certain tropical feature like dark skin and curly to kninky hair. Its because climactically these areas are not radically different from the East African homelands their early ancestors came from. Therefore, the fact that Egyptians still retained tropical limb proportions means that the overhelming majority of them originated on the continent and were not migrants from outside the continent. The term Supra Shahra means above the Sahara by the way. One also has to kep in mind that the civilization in question did originate within the tropical zone. If it were the case, as some have tried to suggest, that it was the result of northern people who migrated south, then the remains should demonstrate northern body plans. They would not have ben in the region long enough to have adapted to the climate. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on Jun 24, 2010 15:45:59 GMT -5
He and I both use the terms "Tropical African varients" indigenous African populations who are bioculturally relatively recently derived from the continent, or "Saharo-Tropical Africans". This includes Berber speakers and people above the Sahara, i.e. coastal North Africa.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Jun 25, 2010 13:17:53 GMT -5
He and I both use the terms "Tropical African varients" indigenous African populations who are bioculturally relatively recently derived from the continent, or "Saharo-Tropical Africans". This includes Berber speakers and people above the Sahara, i.e. coastal North Africa. Thanks for the clarification.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jun 28, 2010 12:19:52 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, Keita actually notes two broad categories of indigenous Africans: as he does in his 1990 Am J Phys Anthropol report Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern AfricaEarly
southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, dis-
playing craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern
African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern
Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.
abstract The classification of
crania into specific groups does not imply
identity with those specific series, only affin-
ities with broad patterns connoting common
origin. Thus it is possible to identify a group
broadly as tropical or coastal northern African.
p. 43
Of interest, for future study, is the possi-
bility that the Dynasty I crania from Abydos
represent a hybrid between tropical Negroid
or Elongated groups and those with the
northern coastal pattern;
p.45f The Badari and Nagada I cra-
nial patterns emerge as tropical African
variants (with Kerma). Badari remains show
little affinity to the mass of Maghreban crania.
p.46b In summary, canonical variate analysis
demonstrates the impressive variation sug-
gested previously for early northern Africa.
It also suggests that there was a modal
craniometric phenotype common to northern
Egypt and the coastal Maghreb in the mid-
Holocene, intermediate to European and
southern Egyptian Nile Valley/tropical series.
p.46c |
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Jul 6, 2010 1:19:03 GMT -5
Just as the Afro American who is 90% European and even has European Y DNA is still related to the Afro American who is only 12% European or less and has an African Y DNA, so too are Egyptians related to one another. What do you mean a Afro American who is 90% European? isn't that a European who had a great great grand uncle or something who was black? |
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 6, 2010 8:26:14 GMT -5
Just as the Afro American who is 90% European and even has European Y DNA is still related to the Afro American who is only 12% European or less and has an African Y DNA, so too are Egyptians related to one another. What do you mean a Afro American who is 90% European? isn't that a European who had a great great grand uncle or something who was black? You make the assumption with your comment that everyone here fits neatly into some definition of what a "black" person is supposed to look like. A very slippery slope, because then we start getting into issues of light skin vs dark sin and who is blacker than who. The Afro American community is not really a racial group, but forgive me if I've assumed that everyone here was either from the USA or was at least aware of the fact that in this country raceial identity is dictated by governmental policy and according to the government any person with any known amount of African ancestry is classified as a negro, black, African American. Therefore all types of people were thrown together in one category, regradless of their actual genetic backgrounds. Didn't matter if you were predominantly Asian, or Native American or European, if you had/have at least one known African Ancestor by the rules of this government and the cultural norms of this society, you are considered Black. Therefore, there are significant numbers of people within the Afro American community who are genetically more European than African. However, culturally and socially, they are connected to the Black, not the white community and their self identity as black, very strongly. Do not forget that it was within the life times of some of us on this forum that a person of mixed ancestry, no matter how much they may have looked like any other white person, was subjected to the limitations of segragation. Lets also NOT forget that many of these people were instrumental in the civil rights movement and the efforts to fight groups like the KLU, KLUX, KLAN because they were white enough in appearance to infiltrate its ranks. The racial classification system in this country is a political one based on the concept of pollution and the need to have an underclass. |
|
|
|
Post by olehint on Jul 6, 2010 10:26:33 GMT -5
What do you mean a Afro American who is 90% European? isn't that a European who had a great great grand uncle or something who was black? The Afro American community is not really a racial group, but forgive me if I've assumed that everyone here was either from the USA or was at least aware of the fact that in this country racial identity is dictated by governmental policy and according to the government any person with any known amount of African ancestry is classified as a negro, black, African American. Are you saying that the current policy of the US government is that any person with any known amount of African ancestry is classified as a negro, black, African American? |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 6, 2010 10:50:05 GMT -5
MODERATOR MESSAGE
These last three posts are veering far from
any Egyptology content and will be deleted.
I will leave them up a few more days so the
posters can use them in broaching a thread
in another folder.
|
|
