User Tag List

Page 23 of 55 FirstFirst ... 13 21 22 23 24 25 33 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 541

Thread: In the ancient Egypt debate why are certain people ignoring archaeology, culture, etc34 days old

  1. #221
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist El-Maestro's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-07-15 @ 22:08
    Join Date
    2017-06-25
    Posts
    391
    Location
    N.Y.
    Gender
    Age
    26
    Race
    Negroid
    Phenotype
    Elongated -_-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Because that's what Keita 2005 in the "Journal of Black Studies" was comparing the Badarians with. He compared Norse and Berg samples (Central And Northern Europeans) with Bushmen and Zulus. And said the Sub-Saharan groups were closer. Maybe so. But he's using only half the cranio-metric variables than Brace 1993 was. Brace 1993 used the Naqada, not the Badarians.
    ....And?
    brace in 1993 has SSA's with Austronesians and Indians with North east Africans. To make sense of this you need context.
    The Naqada and Badarians should be almost identical IMO. They're both predynastic Upper Egyptians.
    No shit, Yes, they are closest to each other under multiple variables and more distant from other African groups. ask Kieta.
    Your logic is flawed because at best it lacks relevance and at worst it's founded on ignorance.
    You can't take physical variables and put them in a blender and make absolute inferences based on clusters in a vacuum NOR can you assume that any inferences made by physical data is moot because of the former restrictions. For example; If in the study I linked above the objective is to make broad distinctions via Tropical vs. Mediterranean etc. and it has Badarians and Naqadans somewhat closer to Tropically adapted Africans, why are you speaking to us about genetic relatedness?
    Forum biodiversity is awesome!


    Quote Originally Posted by Polako View Post
    Depends which prehistoric North Africa you mean. There's a preprint here saying that Neolithic North Africans (you know, the ones who replaced the hunter-gatherers there), were fully West Eurasian. Makes sense.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/21/191569

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Location
    ForumBiodiversity.com
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  3. #222
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 04:05
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,642
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    ..And?
    brace in 1993 has SSA's with Austronesians and Indians with North east Africans. To make sense of this you need context.
    Yeah, so maybe we should not put that much emphasis on physical anthropology and cranio-metrics in the genomic era?

    So it appears to me craniometric variation is caused by both convergent evolution and shared ancestry.

    Indians and Somalis will both share a lot similar Eurasian ancestry if we go way back IMO. At least the non Sub-Saharan side which resides in the Somalis.
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 2019-06-18 at 18:10.

  4. #223
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist El-Maestro's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-07-15 @ 22:08
    Join Date
    2017-06-25
    Posts
    391
    Location
    N.Y.
    Gender
    Age
    26
    Race
    Negroid
    Phenotype
    Elongated -_-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reason1234 View Post
    no she said the head is a fake, that the original was lacking the nose and eyes and how it was actually designed is a mystery.

    This is the original head:





    And restored:






    The nose was mostly there including the nostrils, I missed that the profile was partly restored. As you can see from the first 2 photos a chunk was missing from it but the nose is mostly there.
    HabariTess
    that first statue head is a fake. It was found headless and the actual head was extremely damaged, lacking the nose and eyes. They reconstructed it based on the side profile of his 2D artwork. How the head was actually design is a mystery. It funny how so many people, whenever they want to debunk an African Egypt, they always used the same images and it usually always includes this fake one.
    n 1925 a relief fragment (Accession Number 27.296) was excavated by the Harvard University (Boston Museum of Fine Arts). This fragment showed the profile of the Hemiunu’s face. On the statue’s head nose was intact at the nostrils as evident in the picture of the head in the basket, however the profile of the nose was damaged. With this discovery the profile of the nose was determined. The relief was lent to Hildesheim in 1982, as a comparison piece to the statue but has since been return to the Boston Museum.

    "When the statue of Hemiunu was found by Hermann Junker in a serdab of mastaba G 4000 (figs. 109, 110), it was largely intact except for the face, which had been badly damaged around the eyes and nose, apparently by thieves digging out the inlays (particularly the casings of gold) from the eyes. Fortunately, a reasonable restoration could be made from a number of fragments found in the sand filling the serdab chamber. While the animation of the original eyes (probably rock crystal) could hardly be duplicated..."
    ...But she basically said the same thing.
    Forum biodiversity is awesome!


    Quote Originally Posted by Polako View Post
    Depends which prehistoric North Africa you mean. There's a preprint here saying that Neolithic North Africans (you know, the ones who replaced the hunter-gatherers there), were fully West Eurasian. Makes sense.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/21/191569

  5. #224
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist NonFingo's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-07-14 @ 03:45
    Join Date
    2017-06-01
    Posts
    511
    Gender

    Default

    @Arch Hades
    You’re the one who tagged me in this conversation, but now you have nothing to say? Lol. Since you brought up Natufian-YRI Fst, why not post all the Natufian Fst values?

    The distance of Natufians to other ancient regions from Lazaridis 2016 is ~0.09 (holocene) and ~0.14 (hunter gatherers). These values are large and would be even larger without shared Basal ancestry in these samples. When we add the Fst values of Natufians to eastern Asian samples, the YRI sample is not outside the range of those pan-Eurasian Fst values. You want to explain how YRI got on the periphery of that range? The YRI sample should be way outside of that range if the skeletal data is wrong, as you claim. What is the YRI sample doing there? I bet you'll have no answer.

    Also, for some extra context, the Fst of Natufians to Taforalt and IAM is 0.199 and 0.218, which is much larger than YRI-Natufian (0.186).

    All things considered, the Fst data doesn’t support your position (at all). It shows the same thing as the morphological data: Natufians are distant to all populations (outside of the Levant) and SSA samples are closer than expected. Again, I never said the Natufians are close to West Africans. I said closer than expected in a scenario with no shared ancestry. This is enough to prove your claims are false. There is no disconnect between morphological and genetic data.
    Last edited by NonFingo; 2019-06-18 at 18:15.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NonFingo For This Useful Post:

    Arch Hades (2019-06-18), El-Maestro (2019-06-18), Game Theory (2019-06-18)

  7. #225
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist El-Maestro's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-07-15 @ 22:08
    Join Date
    2017-06-25
    Posts
    391
    Location
    N.Y.
    Gender
    Age
    26
    Race
    Negroid
    Phenotype
    Elongated -_-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Yeah so maybe we should not put that much emphasis on physical anthropology and cranio-metrics in the genomic era?

    Indians and Somalies will both share a lot similar Eurasian ancestry if we go way back IMO. At least the non Sub-Saharan side which resides in the Somalis.
    Not we.. those who understand physical Anthro can put as much emphasis on it as they please so long as they understand the data. Granted some fellow black or blackcentered posters misuse or misquote these studies but I can argue what you're doing is worse. It quite clear to me that you're only familiar with enough you believe can serve as a counter argument on these sites. And that is dangerously anti-intellectual. Just look at how you've rationalized Braces euclidian distances grouping Indians with NE_Africans. That's pretty bad.
    Forum biodiversity is awesome!


    Quote Originally Posted by Polako View Post
    Depends which prehistoric North Africa you mean. There's a preprint here saying that Neolithic North Africans (you know, the ones who replaced the hunter-gatherers there), were fully West Eurasian. Makes sense.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/21/191569

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to El-Maestro For This Useful Post:

    coconutlife (2019-06-19)

  9. #226
    Regular Member
    Race Scientist Nebro's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-07-15 @ 06:50
    Join Date
    2019-02-14
    Posts
    118
    Location
    Egypt
    Gender
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Ethnicity
    Egyptian
    Religion
    Islam
    Egypt

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Game Theory View Post
    Early Nile Valley Farmers From El-Badari
    Journal of Black Studies 36(2):191-208 · November 2005

    Male Badarian crania were analyzed using the generalized distance of Mahalanobis in a comparative analysis with other African and European series from the Howells’s database. The study was carried out to examine the affinities of the Badarians to evaluate, in preliminary fashion, a demic diffusion hypothesis that postulates that horticulture and the Afro-Asiatic language family were brought ultimately from southern Europe. (The assumption was made that the southern Europeans would be more similar to the central and northern Europeans than to any indigenous African populations.) The Badarians show a greater affinity to indigenous Africans while not being identical. This suggests that the Badarians were more affiliated with local and an indigenous African population than with Europeans. It is more likely that Near Eastern/southern European domesticated animals and plants were adopted by indigenous Nile Valley people without a major immigration of non-Africans. There was more of cultural transfer.
    Journal of black studies lol
    The Nubian themselves are believed to have been formed due to the northern migration and there ancestry , lol I have many references that attest that (Racially)
    The Badarian Levant relation is well attested in the badarian race , the badarians are simply levant farmers mixed with western deserters whom in turn were already mixed from paleolithic north africans and neolithic early migrants from the levant.

    According to actual studies on there crania Not the filthy keita ( who was very butthurt from abusir study ) because of his biased bullshit.
    The Badarians affinity is closer to the levant than to sub-saharan africans
    Irish examinations on the faulty mukhreej clustering

    in Brace study upper dynastic egyptians were not negroid but within the variation of the north african group ,


    This is there descriptions by Coon:

    This is not a description of a mulatto

    The ancient Badarians closest populations are not the negro but the Indian race (let's put them in there asiatic context ) This opinion given by Brenda Stoessiger 1927 approved by several examinations by earlier and later anthropologists



    But what about the slight Negroid tendency that was mentioned , there's slight tendency but this tendency was also found in many ancient paleolithic and neolithic Eurasian populations including Some Greek neolithic skulls , according to Brenda Stoessiger 1927 , this slight tendency is due to an early evolutionary history and not due to actual negroid admixture (Badarians as a whole cluster with other north africans)


    This is further proved by the dental affinity of the Badarians which shows them to be clustering with the North african mass-reduced tooth , not east african or sub-saharan african niggers



    Badarian women "muh afrikan mothza"




    < Last but not least > its well attested that the civilization came from the northerns hence why the Badarian phenotype disappeared just at the 1st dynasty, that's because the Badarian culture was made by the migration of the northerns and the migration didn't stop it was continuous specially from the red sea, until the Upper egypt phenotype became simply and extension of the northern phenotype, So at the 1st dynasty all egypt had the lower egyptian race , the primitive badarian characteristics has disappeared by that time, therefore Your attempts to claim Badari as the actual ancient egyptians has failed
    The dynastic egyptians (The makers of the civilization) are simply the ancestor of the Coptic race


  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nebro For This Useful Post:

    Meygaag (2019-06-18), Reason1234 (2019-06-18)

  11. #227
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 04:05
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,642
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NonFingo View Post
    @Arch Hades
    You’re the one who tagged me in this conversation, but now you have nothing to say? Lol. Since you brought up Natufian-YRI Fst, why not post all the Natufian Fst values?

    The distance of Natufians to other ancient regions from Lazaridis 2016 is ~0.09 (holocene) and ~0.14 (hunter gatherers). These values are large and would be even larger without shared Basal ancestry in these samples. When we add the Fst values of Natufians to eastern Asian samples, the YRI sample is not outside the range of those pan-Eurasian Fst values. You want to explain how YRI got on the periphery of that range? The YRI sample should be way outside of that range if the skeletal data is wrong, as you claim. What is the YRI sample doing there? I bet you'll have no answer.

    Also, for some extra context, the Fst of Natufians to Taforalt and IAM is 0.199 and 0.218, which is much larger than YRI-Natufian (0.186).

    All things considered, the Fst data doesn’t support your position (at all). It shows the same thing as the morphological data: Natufians are distant to all populations (outside of the Levant) and SSA samples are closer than expected. Again, I never said the Natufians are close to West Africans. I said closer than expected in a scenario with no shared ancestry. This is enough to prove your claims are false. There is no disconnect between morphological and genetic data.
    How about you start a thread on Natufian genetics, and you can open with this. I'm not sure what i'm arguing with you about anymore.

    I quoted you in the thread because I believe you were banking on Natufian samples to show up being (genetically speaking) vastly different from the ones we have right now from Laz 2016. And this was because of morphology and how some Natufian samples look Negroid while others Caucasoid. (which as I have stated I don't trust morphology to tell me much about phylogeny especially going further back in time to 10,000 BC or further). I promise I will respond in kind, to exactly what I think Natufians were. After that, we can go from there to see where what specifics we disagree or agree upon.

  12. #228
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 04:05
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,642
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    Not we.. those who understand physical Anthro can put as much emphasis on it as they please so long as they understand the data. Granted some fellow black or blackcentered posters misuse or misquote these studies but I can argue what you're doing is worse. It quite clear to me that you're only familiar with enough you believe can serve as a counter argument on these sites. And that is dangerously anti-intellectual. Just look at how you've rationalized Braces euclidian distances grouping Indians with NE_Africans. That's pretty bad.
    No it's not anti-intellectual. Because ancestral phylogeny DOES play a huge role in cranio-facial pattering. But so does Convergent evolution (which is why so called Australoids were grouped with so called Negroids).

    And Indians and Somalies will share a lot phylogeny that split off from Sub-Saharan AFricans a long time ago. So no, I'm not backing down from that. You're saying they don't? This is simply untrue.

  13. #229
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist El-Maestro's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-07-15 @ 22:08
    Join Date
    2017-06-25
    Posts
    391
    Location
    N.Y.
    Gender
    Age
    26
    Race
    Negroid
    Phenotype
    Elongated -_-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebro View Post
    Journal of black studies lol
    The Nubian themselves are believed to have been formed due to the northern migration and there ancestry , lol I have many references that attest that (Racially)
    The Badarian Levant relation is well attested in the badarian race , the badarians are simply levant farmers mixed with western deserters whom in turn were already mixed from paleolithic north africans and neolithic early migrants from the levant.

    According to actual studies on there crania Not the filthy keita ( who was very butthurt from abusir study ) because of his biased bullshit.
    The Badarians affinity is closer to the levant than to sub-saharan africans
    Irish examinations on the faulty mukhreej clustering

    in Brace study upper dynastic egyptians were not negroid but within the variation of the north african group ,


    This is there descriptions by Coon:

    This is not a description of a mulatto

    The ancient Badarians closest populations are not the negro but the Indian race (let's put them in there asiatic context ) This opinion given by Brenda Stoessiger 1927 approved by several examinations by earlier and later anthropologists



    But what about the slight Negroid tendency that was mentioned , there's slight tendency but this tendency was also found in many ancient paleolithic and neolithic Eurasian populations including Some Greek neolithic skulls , according to Brenda Stoessiger 1927 , this slight tendency is due to an early evolutionary history and not due to actual negroid admixture (Badarians as a whole cluster with other north africans)


    This is further proved by the dental affinity of the Badarians which shows them to be clustering with the North african mass-reduced tooth , not east african or sub-saharan african niggers



    Badarian women "muh afrikan mothza"




    < Last but not least > its well attested that the civilization came from the northerns hence why the Badarian phenotype disappeared just at the 1st dynasty, that's because the Badarian culture was made by the migration of the northerns and the migration didn't stop it was continuous specially from the red sea, until the Upper egypt phenotype became simply and extension of the northern phenotype, So at the 1st dynasty all egypt had the lower egyptian race , the primitive badarian characteristics has disappeared by that time, therefore Your attempts to claim Badari as the actual ancient egyptians has failed
    The dynastic egyptians (The makers of the civilization) are simply the ancestor of the Coptic race

    Forum biodiversity is awesome!


    Quote Originally Posted by Polako View Post
    Depends which prehistoric North Africa you mean. There's a preprint here saying that Neolithic North Africans (you know, the ones who replaced the hunter-gatherers there), were fully West Eurasian. Makes sense.

    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/21/191569

  14. #230
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Meygaag's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:11
    Join Date
    2018-11-08
    Posts
    883
    Location
    Kingdom of Kerma
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    T-M184
    mtDNA
    R0a2
    Ethnicity
    Dir/Bedouin
    Ethiopia Djibouti Oman Sudan

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nebro View Post
    Journal of black studies lol
    The Nubian themselves are believed to have been formed due to the northern migration and there ancestry , lol I have many references that attest that (Racially)
    I agree.Lower Nubians were physically Caucasoid and similar to modern Afro-Asiatic Horners and Berbers but they would probably be genetically more Eurasian than modern Horners but less than Berbers/Egyptians

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Meygaag For This Useful Post:

    KING OF KUSH (2019-06-19)

Page 23 of 55 FirstFirst ... 13 21 22 23 24 25 33 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Was Ancient Egypt Black ?
    By Black-UK-Guy in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2012-08-08, 20:03
  2. Ancient Egypt VS Mesopotamia
    By Sanjub_Saraswati in forum Archaeological sub-disciplines
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 2012-04-30, 15:23
  3. Africanist archaeology and ancient IQ
    By Game Theory in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 2012-01-31, 02:55
  4. DNA of ancient Egypt
    By jibarodepr in forum Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-08-18, 17:30
  5. Ancient Egypt II Debate thread
    By Game Theory in forum Egyptology
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 2010-05-31, 09:51

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<