Doug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think you misread my post. My point is that the
> earliest inhabitants of the Nile Valley, the
> aboriginal populations of Egypt, were black
> Africans. That was many thousands of years ago.
> Thousands of years later, there are not only black
> Africans in Egypt, but many others. There is
> nothing moving except time here, not goal posts.
> These black Africans still exist in Egypt, even
> though all Egyptians are not black. The only goal
> posts that are moving are those imaginary ones
> that try and pretend the original inhabitants of
> the Nile Valley were anything other than
> indigenous black Africans, based on the modern
> population of Egypt. The past does not change
> only time and the future.
As Bernard pointed out you seem to be unable to read and assimilate information. The Arredi article shows this. Quoting from
Bernard's earlier post:
"Early Neolithic sites are documented in the eastern part of North Africa and later ones in the west, which would be compatible with an east-to-west movement at this time, and this is also the case for the Arab expansion. Historical records of the Arab conquest, however, suggest that its demographic impact must have been limited (McEvedy 1980). In addition, genetic evidence shows that E3b2 is rare in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004), making the Arabs an unlikely source for this frequent North African lineage. Parallel analyses between North Africa and Southern Europe have revealed strikingly similar patterns of Y chromosome variation which would support a scenario in which the Neolithic expansion, originating in the Middle East branched into two flows separated by the geographical barrier of the Mediterranean Sea. Indeed, as in North Africa, Y-chromosome variability in Southern Europe is clinal, gene diversity decreases from east to west, and genetic distances between North Africa and Southern Europe increase in a regular fashion from the Middle East toward the west (results not shown). Under the hypothesis of a Neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate either a local contribution to the North African Neolithic transition (Barker 2003) or an earlier migration into the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion back into Africa.
In conclusion, we propose that the Y-chromosomal genetic structure observed in North Africa is mainly the result of an expansion of early food-producing societies. Moreover, following Arioti and Oxby (1997), we speculate that the economy of those societies relied initially more on herding than on agriculture, because pastoral economies probably supported lower numbers of individuals, thus favoring genetic drift, and showed more mobility than agriculturalists, thus allowing gene flow. Some authors believe that languages families are unlikely to be >10 KY old and that their diffusion was associated with the diffusion of agriculture (Diamond and Bellwood 2003). Since most of the languages spoken in North Africa and in nearby parts of Asia belong to the Afro-Asiatic family (Ruhlen 1991), this expansion could have involved people speaking a proto–Afro-Asiatic language. These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment containing few humans."
Simply put, the earliest inhabitants of the region which encompasses Egypt show evidence a strong east-west movement of these peoples, and not movement from the southern areas, where most agree include so-called "black Africans" (this being the typical Afrocentrist argument).
Again, in yet
another post by Bernard, he shows Arredi's main conclusions on the genetic side of the issue:
"
First, as shown in fig. 1B, the lineages that are most prevalent in North Africa are distinct from those in the regions to the immediate north and south: Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. This is illustrated by even a cursory examination of the commonest haplogroups: E3b2 is the most common haplogroup in North Africa, forming 42% of the combined sample. In contrast, R1b made up 55% of a mixed European sample (Underhill et al. 2000) and was even higher (77%) in the Iberian sample examined by Bosch et al. (2001),whereas E3a predominates in many sub-Saharan areas, being present at 64% in a pooled sample (Underhill et al. 2000; Cruciani et al. 2002). Such a finding is not surprising, in the light of the earlier genetic studies, but has an important implication: despite haplogroups shared at low frequency, suggesting limited gene flow, North African populations have a genetic history largely distinct from both Europe and sub-Saharan Africa over the timescales needed for the Y-chromosomal differentiation to develop."
<...>
On the Middle Eastern origins of Halogroup J:
"
"Haplogroup J reaches its highest frequencies in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004 and references therein), whereas the J-276 lineage (equivalent to J* here) is most frequent in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouins.
. . . . .
An origin for haplogroup J in the Middle East has been proposed (Semino et al. 2004 and
references therein); the TMRCA of the J-M267 branch, found in both the Middle East and North Africa (and including our J* chromosomes), was estimated at 24.1 9.4 KY and must predate its spread."
Concluding:
"Under the hypothesis of a Neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate either a local contribution to the North African Neolithic transition (Barker 2003) or an earlier migration into the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion back into Africa."
Now, in his two posts, Bernard chided you for misrepresenting Arredi's article; what
I'm saying is that you cannot simply state something in direct contradiction to Arredi's research
without supportable proof, such as an article or other research.
So, where is it?
The fact is, as borne out from Arredi, Krings, and other researchers is that
peoples move, and they moved all the time, interacting with others. We now know, for a fact, that there were migrations
into Africa as well. It seems the African migration,
in and out, is now accepted as
fact, and may have occurred as early as 1.9 million years ago.
See the online article:
New Analysis Shows Three Human Migrations Out Of Africa
Quote:
"Another novel find is that populations of Homo erectus in Eurasia had recurrent genetic interchange with African populations 1.5 million years ago, much earlier than previously thought, and that these populations persisted instead of going extinct, which some human evolution researchers thought had occurred.
(Quoting Researcher Alan R. Templeton)
'
By the time you're done with this phase you can be 99 percent confident that there was recurrent genetic interchange between African and Eurasian populations," he said. "So the idea of pure, distinct races in humans does not exist. We humans don't have a tree relationship, rather a trellis. We're intertwined.'"
So, please read up on the theory of in-out migrations of peoples during the earliest periods of human existence, and you will seen that statements such as "...the earliest inhabitants of the Nile Valley, the aboriginal populations of Egypt, were black Africans" is not only incorrect, but darned silly. Migration research shows quite a different story.
According to Templeton's research, the fossil record indicates a significant change in brain size for modern humans at 700,000 years ago as well as the adaptation and expansion of a new stone tool culture first found in Africa and later at 700,000 years expanded throughout Eurasia. So, at the same time certain tools are found in Africa, they are
also found in Eurasia, indicating human migrations at different times and during
very early periods of human existence, up to 2 million years before the advent of civilisation in ancient Egypt.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Doctoral Programme in Oriental Studies [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom