Monday, June 15, 2009

The Creation of a Fake Controversy: The Fula Origins

From time to time, one comes across mystification of certain western African ethnic groups by certain reactionary cults and like ideologues, whether it is in terms of certain intra-regional phenotypic variation and/or origins. We've seen an example of this sort of mystification in an earlier posting right here, although in this case, the authors point to definite facets of evidence that yet again underlie fictitious underpinnings of such mystification:

Recalling...

The origins of the Fulbe are the subject of debate, but the group is thought to be from outside Cameroon; on the basis of ethnic traditions and linguistic similarities between Fulbe languages and Tukulor (Toucouleur), an origin in the Futa Toro region of the Senegal river basin has been proposed (Newman 1995). - See: More on R1*-M173 bearers

Two notorious ideological camps that are known for propping up such controversy are Eurocentric extremists [and their ideological sympathizers, be it so-called "moderates" or "liberals"], and radical self-proclaimed "Afrocentric" elements, generally made up of non-African citizens. These two camps will for instance, insist that the counterpart ideological camp doesn't influence its idealistic approach to matters such as the subject of this post, but in fact, an attentive examination of their respective propaganda shows otherwise. Radical Eurocentric elements for instance, generally point to the so-called "anomalous" facial features of the Fula (Fulbe/Fulani) and conclude that it can only be an expression of their "mixed" ancestry, i.e. between the "stereotypical Negro" archetype and the "caucasoid/Caucasion" archetype.

Interestingly enough, Cerny et al. (2006) in a passing note:

HVS-I analysis of four Fulani populations revealed the different proportions of the mtDNA gene pool. A major role is played by West African mtDNA haplogroups, such as L1b, L3d, L3b, L2b, L2c, and L2d, which together make up 79.6% of the whole. The far from negligible presence of some haplogroups from western Eurasia (8.1%), such as U5, U6, and J1, is not particularly surprising in a sub-Saharan context because these haplogroups currently appear in North Africa. This may suggest an ancient origin of the nomads in the more northerly mountain massifs of the Central Sahara (Dupuy 1999). According to our own anthropological examination (data not shown), the non-sub-Saharan haplogroups are not carried by "West Eurasian-like" individuals, as might be anticipated, but were rather detected in common "Fulani type" peoples.

- Cerny et al. (2006), mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations

No doubt, the excerpt highlights the totally fallacious and highly idealistic nature of the faulty logic pushed forward by extremist ideologue cliques, in trying to attribute intra-regional west African diversity to gene flow from outside that region.

The "true" western African is not supposed to sport variation, according to radical Eurocentric extremist thinking. On the other hand, radical self-proclaimed "Afrocentric" elements feed off on this Eurocentric viewpoint of the "special" or supposed "outlier" orientation of the Fula, which no doubt also influences their all-too-readiness to preemptively claim primary descendancy from the Fula; you see, sections of the Black American community have long been told, or else given the impression, that they are of the "true Negro" archetype and naturally, that they descend from the so-called "true Negro" western African "types". At the same time, word is that the "caucasoid" archetype entails "fine features". What then does this mean? If the "caucasoid" archetype embodies "fine features", then the so-called "true Negro" archetype must be its opposite counterpart, i.e. "undesirable features". This causes "reaction" in elements of Black American communities who are highly sensitive to such perceptions, which have implications about their own physical looks. Henceforth, such elements rush to claim primary descendancy from *mainly* such groups bestowed [by elements of Eurocentric or European academia] with the caricaturization of "fine features"; of course said ideological elements, when pressed on it — as noted, will vehemently deny the influence of said Eurocentric concepts on their own reactions. Likewise, Black American communities have long been told that they are not related to ancient Egyptians. This adds another element to the reaction just now mentioned, because not only are elements of the Black American community ever eager to be primarily associated with those groups "blessed" with said "fine features", but also passionate about showing their Eurocentric ideological counterparts that they also have direct ties to the ancient Egyptians. This is where the ideological "opposites" converge: Eurocentric elements look for "non-western African" origins to explain away the supposed "anomalous" facial features of certain western Africans, and the common choices of the area of such origins are either in the Nile Valley or "western Eurasia"; similarly, elements of Black American communities and like-minded "Afrocentrists" link origins of certain"honorary" western Africans [you know — said to have said "fine features"] with the Nile Valley, albeit for a different reason: to lay claim to said group as their primary "representative" ancestral group, and one which links them directly to the Nile Valley, hence in direct rebuttal to the Eurocentric notion of Black Americans being "true Negroes" and descendants of "true Negroes" almost exclusively from "western Africa". Please note the emphasized words (italicized), because they are central to what drives these ideological cliques. In relation to the point just noted, it's worth recalling this from the extract posted above:

According to our own anthropological examination (data not shown), the non-sub-Saharan haplogroups are not carried by "West Eurasian-like" individuals, as might be anticipated, but were rather detected in common "Fulani type" peoples. - Cerny et al. (2006), mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations

An example of one line of argument the latter ideological camp put forward, is:

According to Diop and a few Wolof people I know, they came to West Africa from the "East", even though they may have originated somewhere in the North/West present Sahara region long ago. Even many of their customs and culture is similar to that of Northern Sudanese. I've seen many times from Sudanese/horn Africans how they feel Hausa/Fulbe/Songhai music is so similar to their own, but with a different language.

Naturally, the line above is suffering from internal contradiction, featuring an ad hoc hypothesis stemming from an underlying intention to make the claim less arguable or vulnerable to refutation, but the implications are clear. It is worth noting that the specifics of said customs and culture remain elusive, notwithstanding being put forth as a central rationale, while the language affiliation of the Fula is seen as a non-issue. The language aspect of the Fula, is however, quite a central issue in any argument about their origins; it's what makes them, well, "Fula"
the name of their language phylum. Linguistic examination of this language places it in the "Atlantic" cluster or branch of the Niger-Congo super-phylum. This means that Fula clusters with "sibling" languages that belong in the said "Atlantic" cluster before it clusters with any group outside of this cluster, including other Niger-Congo sub-phylums. On a more macro level, the Atlantic branch being a sub-phylum of the Niger-Congo super-phylum means that Fula more closely shares "genetic" relationship with other Niger-Congo languages before it does any language group outside of the Niger-Congo phylum. The Niger-Congo branch is unquestionably most diverse in western Africa than it is in either central, eastern Africa or southern Africa. This means that Fula, as a Niger-Congo sub-phylum, more than likely evolved in the area where the Niger-Congo phylum underwent the most diversification from a common "proto-Niger-Congo" ancestor. The Niger-Congo phylum is essentially absent in northeastern Africa, and so, an isolated case like the Fula presence in Sudan presents itself as an "outlier" in a case study of language distribution for that general region. This means, in order for one to diminish the importance of Fula being a Niger-Congo language and the associated implication of its western African origins, one must argue that it doesn't belong in the Niger-Congo super-phylum, and that the "Atlantic" cluster as whole doesn't belong in this super-phylum, not to mention whether that cluster is even deemed to exist at all. To this end, recall that Mulcare et al. (2004) make note of research, that could not ignore the very close relationship between the various Fula dialects and that of Tukulor. It would be quite a neat trick to demonstrate that such relationship doesn't exist.

The following perhaps provides a good indication of the shaky premise of an effort to demonstrate very close, if not "sibling", familial relationship between Fula and Ancient Egyptian, merely through a highly idealistic selection and cherry-picking of terms that supposedly give the "appearance" of phonological similarities, as opposed to an in depth objective and materialistic examination of the language structures or broad lexical index of the languages under study:

...here's some linguistic data comparing Fulani /Mdu Ntr...

I - mi / ni
you - on / un
we - en / un
they - be / bu (people)
to be bad - bonude / boone
bad - boni / bon
death; to die - maayde;maayude / maati, moute, moout, mouti
last year - rawanen / snouf; ronpe
eye - yitere / eirti
blessing - barka / baraka
cow - nagge / naga
father - baaba / baba
...
the evidence is inexhaustible..

Here, all one needs to point out about the faulty logic behind the comparison, is to simply reference the variety and highly contrasting elements present in a single lexicon's set. For instance,...

Let's take say, "you" in Ancient Egyptian [language].

A number of words can mean "you" in Ancient Egyptian: e.g. tw (masculine, dep.), ntk (masculine, indep.), tn (feminine or plural, dep.), ntt (feminine, indep.) or nttn (plural, indep.); not to leave out affixed counterparts like
'-k' (masculine), '-t' (feminine), or '-tn' (plural).

The Ancient Egyptian word forms for "you" as just shown, are fairly well-known legitimate equivalents for the English "you", but are yet, markedly different from the "word" selected in that "Fulani-Ancient Egyptian" lexical comparison list. The word forms are also clearly structured in a definite grammatical format. This presents a linguistic situation that is more complex than that presented in the so-called "Fulani/Mdu ntr" list cited above.

As another example, let's take "I".

Here too, a number of derivatives come to attention:

'Wi/wy' (masculine, dep.), 'ink' (masculine, indep.), and affixed
'-i'.

Similarly, a Mdu Ntr term for "cow", as an obvious alternative to "naga" used the cited list above, is "[j]H.t", which itself is the de-neutered feminine version of
"[j]H", which is the equivalent of "ox".

Similar treatment can be applied to several of the other terms listed.

These examples serve to show that as a good rule of thumb, in any lexical comparisons between two distinct languages, designated words must be examined as to whether they are merely a derived form of a more basal term that is not subject to grammatical modification, whether there is more than one word for an idea or object and whether any such set of words were invented several times independently with respect to one another or whether they actually converge to a singular common ancestor, and in relation to this last point, in the event that one is dealing with word forms that were independently invented, raise the question as to which word form from a set with a variety represents the most basic manifestation as the denotation for an idea or name of an object.

Now of course, in lieu of the noticeably scarce evidence of linguistic basis for an eastern African origin for this group, i.e. the Fula (Fulani), ideologues of this idealistic hypothesis turn to certain cultural items that suggest "cultural affinity"; these are items like pectorals, artistic renditions that bespeak certain cultural respect for cattle or cow, gourd ornamentations, headrest designs, scepters and so forth, as discussed here: Examples of Cultural Similarities between those in the Nile Valley and those in other areas of Africa

These however, need not necessarily be suggestive of mass demic diffusion from the Nile Valley; rather, as hinted in that link, these may very well simply be relics of distant common cultural origins. One notable point of origin for such cultural convergence, is the Sahara; the once fertile Sahara has certainly proven to be one of the main areas of vibrant interaction between diverse autochthonous African populations in prehistory, that could have easily facilitated further cultural similarities between groups spread along its length. Cultural parallelism between western and eastern African, and possibly including southern African groups, can certainly be observable in just about any western African group used as a test subject, and hence, not something that the Fulani could be specialized or isolated for. If one were to read too much into this as the aforementioned ideologues do, then essentially entire western Africa would be envisioned as originating en mass from the Nile Valley
a highly questionable, if not unlikely, prospect.

The molecular genetic evidence side of things, closely follows that of language, as described above. All Fula samples undertaken are united by markers typical of "western African" ancestry. This means they are characterized by markers that diversified in western Africa.

mtDNA...

Despite the large size of the contemporary nomadic Fulani population (roughly 13 million people), the genetic diversity and degree of differentiation of Fulanis compared to other sub-Saharan populations remain unknown. We sampled four Fulani nomad populations (n = 186) in three countries of sub-Saharan Africa (Chad, Cameroon, and Burkina Faso) and analyzed sequences of the first hypervariable segment of the mitochondrial DNA. Most of the haplotypes belong to haplogroups of West African origin, such as L1b, L3b, L3d, L2b, L2c, and L2d (79.6% in total), which are all well represented in each of the four geographically separated samples. The haplogroups of Western Eurasian origin, such as J1b, U5, H, and V, were also detected but in rather low frequencies (8.1% in total).
- Cerny et al. (2006), mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations

Given what was readily available online on the study, including the mention of the 79.6% markers of West African origin, and the other 8.1% suggestive of coastal northwest African ancestry, it would appear that the remaining 12.3% of the sample were either "Pan-African" or "non-West African-specific" African markers. Not certain about this, because the actual tables of specific clusters of major markers were inaccessible at the time of examination, but if U6 was invoked in the markers of "Western Eurasian" origin, as the authors seem to have done elsewhere in their report, then that 8.1% contribution would actually be trimmed down further, considering that U6 is actually an autochthonous African marker, as discussed here: U6: A standalone clade?


As in African hunter-gatherers (Pygmies and Khoisan) and some populations from central Tunisia (Kesra and Zriba), three of the Fulani nomad samples do not reveal significant negative values of Fu's selective neutrality test. The multidimensional scaling of F^sub ST^ genetic distances of related sub-Saharan populations and the analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) show clear and close relationships between all pairs of the four Fulani nomad samples, irrespective of their geographic origin. The only group of nomadic Fulani that manifests some similarities with geographically related agricultural populations (from Guinea-Bissau and Nigeria) comes from Tcheboua in northern Cameroon. -
Cerny et al. (2006), mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations

The message related here, goes back to the aforementioned "unifying" feature of Fula gene pools, primarily by definite markers of western African origin. Some may take it for granted that when the authors above state that "79.6%" of their Fula samples, taken together, constitute western African-specific markers, that this should simply be understood as, well, the obvious primary parental role of western African common recent ancestors to the contemporary Fula, while all else should be seen as "[foreign] admixture" to the autochthonous gene pool of the contemporary Fula, which as just mentioned, is west African in origin. However, as obvious as this is, there are individuals who are simply incapable of picking up on this straightforward logic, and instead, go onto profess ancestry elsewhere based on flimsy "admixture" elements
(supposedly "exotic" ancestry, vis-a-vis western Africa) invoked in the sample gene pool. Hence, one comes across ideologuesdepending on what ideological isle they belongwork hard at building shaky mythic origin theories around the small elements of any "admixture" component of the overall gene pool; for instance, one ideological side will swear that any fairly small occurrence of so-called "Eurasian" markers in the Fula sample indicates their ultimate "non-African", or more specifically, "western Eurasian" origin, while the other side will swear that "relic" markers, usually deemed to be persistent elements of distant or ancient common eastern African origin, indicates an east African ethnogenesis of the Fulain other words, the Fula are "in reality" or originally an autochthonous eastern African ethnic group instead of a western African one; their ethnogenesis as Fula or Fulani supposedly took place entirely in eastern Africa, but their present predominantly west African distribution is merely a function of their traditionally nomadic lifestyle, having recently migrated from east to west. The former ideologues for example, explain the predominant western African gene pool of the Fula, in terms of the Hamitic or "Hamitic-like" hypothesis, wherein the Fula, as originally a small "western Eurasian" group, undertook considerable genetic exchange with local western Africans, the supposed subjects of their final "back-migratory" destination. As for the latter ideologues, simply substitute the "western Eurasian" bit, and you get a similar situation, so that one gets, the Fula as "originally east African" in ethnogensis, considerably "admixed" with local west Africans on their westward migratory route along the Sahara. As the mtDNA examination shows [e.g. like the study cited above] however, such logic is just hogwash. All the "characteristic" markers of the Fula are of western African origin. To provide a demonstration for the message of this last entire passage, let's consider the following extract on the "admixture" test part of the aforementioned study:

Admixture Analysis. The question of the maternal origin of the Fulani was investigated using Admix 2.0. This software was developed to estimate the contribution of parental populations to the population under study. Data were entered according to group C from the AMOVA (i.e., the Mandenka were not considered; see Table 3); the mutation rate was 0.00005 per year. Admixture coefficients ([m.sub.Y]) were calculated from allele frequencies without taking into account the molecular divergence between the alleles. Because the exact period of Fulani migration cannot be estimated from archeological studies, we selected 4,000 years rather intuitively as the time to the possible admixture event. Bootstrap estimates of the coefficients and their standard deviations were calculated using 1,000 replicates. The results are summarized in Table 4 and show that none of the selected groups made a dominant contribution to the mitochondrial pool of the sampled Fulani. The only weakly prominent parental populations are from the Nile valley.
- Cerny et al. (2006), mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations

The piece above has for example, been used to argue the idea that the authors are concluding a "Nile Valley" origin of the Fula. This piece, for instance:
question of the maternal origin of the Fulani was investigated, is emphasized to state that this segment of the mtDNA analysis was the only section of the examination that deals with the question of Fula origins; the fact that the just-mentioned "79.6 %" component bespeaks just that, i.e. the maternal origin of the Fula, is carelessly thrown out the window. Meanwhile, the following piece: to estimate the contribution of parental populations to the population under study, is used in tandem with the aforementioned one, to add an exclamation point to the skewed idea about the authors' supposed conclusion that places Nile Valley populations as "the" parental population of the Fula. Naturally, the advocates of this obviously skewed/distorted interpretation of the study in question did not avail themselves the opportunity to fully examine either the study in its entirety or the specific extract in question, and thereof, understand them. For instance, common sense intimates that "any" genetic contribution to Fula gene pool, as the case is for any biological group, whether it happens to be one of post-ethnogenesis of the Fula as the well-defined ethnic group they are, or prior, has to be "parental"; hence, even the so-called little elements of "western Eurasian origin" [i.e. markers], are "parental" contributions. After all, any and all genes can only be transmitted from a "parent(s)". This however, should not be interpreted as "THE" parental component, i.e. the "proto-Fulani". The extract above is certainly not saying or implying that Nile Valley populations are "THE" parental populations of the Fula, but that is nonetheless how the extract is used in the wrong hands. In fact, the piece says, "The results are summarized in Table 4 and show that none of the selected groups made a dominant contribution to the mitochondrial pool of the sampled Fulani. The only weakly prominent parental populations are from the Nile valley, saying the populations that figure relatively 'prominently' in a parental role, do so "weakly".

When pressed to explain how populations that are supposed to be "THE" parental "proto-Fulani" population of the Fula only "weakly"—rather than strongly—figure in said potential "parental" role, the rationale put forward as an answer, is that the said ancestry is so "ancient", that the "parental" link became "weak" with time. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that while the extract claims that none of the selected groups made a dominant contribution to the mitochondrial pool of the sampled Fulani, it is NOT saying that said "selected groups" did not make any contribution at all. This is where the term "weakly" comes into the picture, because what it is implying, is that even though the said "selected groups" may well have contributed to the Fula gene pool, relatively speaking, it just didn't appear to be at the magnitude as that suggested by the "allele" sharing observed between the said Nile Valley samples and the Fula samples. By the same token, neither did the Nile Valley samples show any significant degree of "parental" role, but one of fairly "weak" invocation at that. As one reads further on in the study at hand, one learns just how tenuous this link is, as evidenced by the genetic distance or F^ST analysis. Contrary to the aforementioned rationale put forward, 'time frame' is not being offered by the extract as the primary responsible factor for this observation. In fact, the extract notes, recap: Admixture coefficients ([m.sub.Y]) were calculated from allele frequencies without taking into account the molecular divergence between the alleles. What does this mean? Well, if time frame were offered as a rationale for the said "weak" invocation of parental role of the Nile Valley groups, then one would have to attribute such to "molecular" divergences accumulated over time, which as noted, was not considered in the "admixture" test, which in turn actually only detected select "allele" sharing between test samples. Furthermore, because the "molecular divergence" was not considered, the test was not able to detect or account for the more immediate familial ties between distinctive alleles under test, which would have otherwise shown closer relationship between the Fula and other western African sample groups, with whom they share predominantly typical west African ancestry, before they did with groups outside western Africa. For example, if two different alleles linked to the same common recent ancestor were only a single nucleotide away from one another, the "admixture" test here would not have detected it; the "admixture" test only takes into account the "shared" alleles and their incidence (frequency) in respective samples. Hence forth, even though the Fula maternal gene pool was predominantly or primarily western African, as meted out by the results of the study itself, the direct "parental" role of other western African groups to the Fula could not be discerned from the "admixture" test, because the typical west African markers that characterized the Fula samples belonged to clusters that were "internally" [from a within-cluster molecular level] distinct from those of many of the aforementioned western African groups, again even though they shared the same "west African" common recent ancestry (like in the 79.6% component mentioned).

This brings us to the F^ST distance test mentioned in the last passage:

In the introduction we mentioned several hypotheses for the origin of the (nomadic) Fulani. One well-known hypothesis is that the Fulani come from the Nile valley (e.g., Tauxier 1937). Analysis of F^sub ST^ distances, however, shows no close relationship between the sampled Fulani and the analyzed Nilotic populations. Admixture analysis, however, does not exclude the possible parental role of the Nilotic populations because the admixture coefficient for these populations is high. It is necessary to state that the conclusiveness of this finding is rather low. Further geographic sampling, particularly from Niger and other parts of the Sudanic belt of Africa, is needed to acquire a deeper insight into the genetic structure of the nomadic people of the African Sahel. - Cerny et al. (2006), mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations

The aforementioned notion, that the previous extract was supposedly the only section of the study that examined the "origin" of the Fula, is further falsified by this extract of the study. In fact, this is the passage that directly confronts the "Nile Valley origin" hypothesis; to repeat:
In the introduction we mentioned several hypotheses for the origin of the (nomadic) Fulani. One well-known hypothesis is that the Fulani come from the Nile valley (e.g., Tauxier 1937), concluding that the F^ST distancesthe focus of the present passage of this blog topic does not support such a hypothesis: Analysis of F^sub ST^ distances, however, shows no close relationship between the sampled Fulani and the analyzed Nilotic populations.

The study follows this line with reminding the reader that the "admixture" test section of their study, however, "
does not exclude the possible parental role of the Nilotic populations because the admixture coefficient for these populations is high", which recalling from above, did not rule out a very tenuous possibility of a "parental" role by certain Nile Valley groups, which were subjects of the study. This seeming contradiction between the F^ST distance and the "admixture" test is worth examining. The F^ST distance measures the genetic distances in pair-wise comparisons between the populations under study, taking into account both the variation between two populations and variation within respective test sample populations; this means the more two test populations are similar in their gene pool, the smaller the F^ST distance is likely to be. In this case, there is no close genetic distance between the Fula and the Nile Valley group, and indeed, the predominantly west African origin of the Fula should serve as the immediate telltale sign of this; whereas, those of the Nile Valley groups are likely to be dominated by typical eastern African markers. The "admixture" test on the other hand, did not rule out but also could not definitely prove immediate parental role of the Nile Valley groups; such a tenuous link is likely to be observed in just about any western African group as was the case for the nomadic Fula samples, because "relic" east African ancestry is scattered along the length of western Africa, and indeed elsewhere on the continent. The conventional understanding is that the major clades of the African L0, L1, L2, and L3 *ultimately* originated in eastern Africa, but that these clades dispersed to other areas of the continent, where they would eventually expand and undergo localized internal diversification, ushering in region-specific sub-branches. Hence, it is expected to see relics of distantthe keywords hereeastern African ancestry in the Fula, but then, this could just as apply to just about any other west African ethnic group. Deducing an east African "proto-Fula" from such retained "low-incidence" distant ancestry is therefore irrational, nor does it really specifically tie them to just the Nile Valley, but eastern Africa in general. See, from the study in question for example:

From the phylogenetic point of view the mtDNA sequences from sub-Saharan Africa have been classified into L-type haplogroups (Chen et al. 1995, 2000; Watson et al. 1996, 1997; Rando et al. 1998; Bandelt et al. 2001; Pereira et al. 2001; Torroni et al. 2001; Brehm et al. 2002). About 30 sub-Saharan L-type haplogroups have been identified, and their ethnic or geographic origins and coalescence times have recently been summarized (Salas et al. 2002, 2004; Kivisild et al. 2004; Rosa et al. 2004). It seems that the main diversifications originated in East Africa but that the West African regions also contributed to the recent, wide mtDNA diversity
- Cerny et al. (2006), mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations

This
piece is simply repeating the oft said line about L-type mtDNA haplogroups likely having originated in eastern Africa, which is supposed to apply for *all* western Africans and indeed the rest of humanity, but that the ensuing "diversification" of haplotypes, like the ones the Fula are primarily known for, are of western African origin. Additionally, this west African diversification forms part of the "wide mtDNA diversity" involving L-type haplogroups. As funny as it may seem, this extract itself has erroneously been interpreted by certain individuals to mean that Fula lineages, specifically, are of "mainly east African origin" and that west African regions only recently contributed to this gene pool. The fact that the 79.6% figure of west-African specific [i.e. "sub-Saharan"] component had already been cited by the study, apparently failed to serve as a dead give-away to these individuals. Speaking of which, the study lays out the major components as follows:
  • The most numerous haplogroups are L3b (determined by the motif 16124, 16223, 16278, and 16362) and L3d (determined by the motif 16124 and 16223); these two haplogroups could not be distinguished from each other when only the HVS-I sequence was available. However, because both share the same geographic origin in West Africa, the HVS-II motif and RFLP polymorphisms were not further studied for a more specific molecular determination. Together, the L3b and L3d haplogroups contain 62 sequences with 12 haplotypes.
  • The second well-diversified haplogroup found in the Fulani nomads sample is L1b (50 sequences, 10 haplotypes), with the determining HVS-I motif 16126, 16187, 16189, 16223, 16264, 16270, 16278, and 16311, the origin of which also lies in West Africa (Salas et al. 2002, 2004).
  • All the other haplogroups identified are represented by conspicuously lower numbers; the most numerous among them, comparatively speaking, are L2b and L2c, which are also of West African origin.
- Cerny et al. (2006), mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations

One would think that with such a straightforward layout of the major components of Fula maternal gene pool, that there would be very little room for misinterpretation; alas, that hasn't stopped certain folks from confusing themselves over this simple information. It says right there, in plain English, that each of the said major components are of western African origin.

To give a brief synopsis of the message of the study at hand, it should be reiterated right off the bat, that the study has reconfirmed what other studies have found, and addition to certain "sedentary vs. nomadic" gene pool differentiations between Fula communities:

  • The Fula maternal gene pool is primarily or predominantly western African in origin. It therefore logically follows, that the main diversification of the Fula maternal gene pool originated in western Africa.
  • Even though these are typical west African-specific markers, the internal variation of their "clusters" suggest that the nomadic sections of the Fula, in contrast to sedentary Fula, generally have not gained much contribution from surrounding sedentary west African groups. What does this then mean?
It means that the Fula must certainly have an autochthonous western African origin, since not onlyas noted aboveare their characteristic maternal markers predominantly or primarily west African-specific, but also the internal variations of the clusters of these markers show no indication of any dominant genetic contribution from the Fula's neighboring or surrounding sedentary western African groups, except for that isolated case of the Mandinka [a sedentary western African group] which shows close matches with the nomadic Fula samples, thereby urging the authors to leave the Mandinka out of other case studies, like the "admixture" test.

Recalling...

On the other hand, the sampled Fulani groups differ from all other neighboring settled populations, including the Fulbe (Fulani) reported by Watson et al. (1997); the only exception to this is the Fulani sample from Tcheboua (Cameroon), which is not differentiated from three populations of the Central Sahel (the Hausa, Fulbe, and Yoruba).
- Cerny et al. (2006), mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations

If the neighboring west African groups have not contributed much to the nomadic Fula gene pool, and yet, it is still predominantly west-African specific, this ought to tell any clear-headed person that the Fula must have an autochthonous west African origin, and underwent ethnogenesis which entailed a considerable degree of endogamous or within-ethnic group inbreeding, thereby contributing to accumulation of genetic variation that became largely internalized within that ethnic group. It is for this reason, the nomadic Fula show a good degree differentiation from other west African groups when subjected to the "admixture" test, even though like the latter, their gene pool is primarily west African-specific.

  • About 79.6%, not counting U6, are of west African specific markers; where does this leave the remainder, which is not in that 8.1% figure?
As noted earlier, those markers [some 12.3%] would have comprised "pan-African" markers, which west African groups generally or basically share with eastern African groups, or else markers acting as 'relics' of eastern African ancestry, which were historically picked up along the Saharan corridor. It should be reiterated that markers acting as relics of distant east African origin are scattered, if not fragmentary in some cases, along the length of western Africa, and throughout the rest of the continent.

As a little side note: The basic eastern African markers scattered across western Africa are likely to sport relatively lower internal variation than their western African-specific counterparts, simply because the latter seems to have undergone major expansions and accompanying internal variation that accumulated over time, thereby considerably altering the original basic structure of the markers that provided the basis for the initial expansion events. In a few words: west African-specific markers are those that underwent extensive localized diversification in western Africa, while those markers suggestive of most common recent ancestry in eastern Africa, in most cases, are acting as relics of the original markers that provided the basis for the ones that have come to characterize typical west African-specific ancestry. Using such relics of east African ancestry to conjure up some "recent east African origin" stories is irrational, because as just noted, such ancestry is scattered across western Africa and elsewhere on the continent, and could be observed in just about any west African ethnic group.

  • Throughout the passages above, quick references to differences between nomadic and sedentary Fula have been made, notwithstanding genetic unity between them, including the level of genetic contribution from non-Fula groups neighboring the Fula, wherein nomadic Fula seemed to have received much less gene flow from neighboring sedentary populations than the sedentary Fula; well, here's another example of differentiation between the nomadic groups and the sedentary ones:
Some differences of the maternal gene pool between the nomadic and sedentary Fulani populations are also apparent from research conducted in physiological characteristics, for example, lactase persistence; the incidence of this trait among sedentary Fulani is far lower than among their nomadic counterparts (Holden and Mace 2002). - Cerny et al. (2006), mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations
  • The authors of the study above make a quick but notable reference to Y-DNA marker examinations of the past:
Y-chromosome data of 22 African populations, including the Fulani from Burkina Faso and northern Cameroon, were analyzed by Cruciani et al. (2002). The main result of Cruciani's study is that different populations from northern Cameroon (Fali, Ouldeme, Daba, and some mixed samples) reveal traces of backmigration from Asia to Africa because of a high proportion of haplotype 117. However, the Fulani sample from northern Cameroon considered by Cruciani and colleagues shows a rather low frequency of this haplotype, and the Fulani, which have a high frequency of haplotype 43, are situated as outliers. Cruciani et al. (2002) also showed that the Fulani from Burkina Faso have reduced diversity, because only two Y-chromosome haplotypes were observed in their sample. - Cerny et al. (2006), mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations

It is worth noting that haplotype 117 is the same marker that was the subject of R1*-M173 chromosomes in northern Cameroon earlier on this site; see:
R1*-M173 in Africa [a topic that is regularly updated]. Haplotype 43 corresponds to E1-M33 chromosomes, a marker that seems to figure regularly in Fula samples. Indeed, Cruciani et al.'s (2002) northern Cameroonian Fula sample featured E1-M33 as the predominant marker, and while haplotype 117 (R1*-M173) occur in much lower frequencies than this marker, the latter were still detected in noticeable frequencies. It is important to note that R1*-M173 incidences was not limited to the Fula sample, but was featured in other northern Cameroonian groups, most of them non-Bantu speaking groups. Naturally, this means that the Fula picked R1*-M173 markers up along their west-to-central African migratory path or via the Chadic region; it wasn't an autochthonous Fula marker as the case seems to be in terms of E1-M33, E3a and possibly E2-M75. However, it appears that northern Cameroonian Fula groups did not stay put in the vicinity of central Africa and/or Chad, but that they headed further eastward, and wound up in Sudan. Indicators of this migratory trajectory is evidenced from the fact that the Sudanese Fula predominantly featured R1*-M173 [Hassan et al. 2008], the markers first implicated in Cruciani et al.'s (2002) Cameroonian Fula sample, and yet still retained their E1-M33 ancestry, which is considered to be a typical west African-specific paternal marker.
  • Despite this predominant R1* representation, there's something still unmistakable about the Sudanese Fula sample: they retain their western African ancestry, as indicated per E1-M33, which was absent in all autochthonous Sudanese groups, save for other western African groups now in Sudan like the Fula [see the authors' references to the Senegalese Wolof, and their Sudanese Hausa sample, for example].
The elevated frequency of R1*-M173 in the Sudanese Fula implies that they drew from just a section of a pre-existing west African [starting from Cameroon] Fula population that had considerable frequencies, though not predominant, of R1*. This would ensure that the original diversity pattern attained in the parental Fula group would have been lost in the divergent nomadic Fula group that headed eastward. Thus, if Hassan et al.'s (2008) Fula sample are any indication, then it is reasonable to assume that random genetic drift might well have elevated the R1* component of the male gene pool, while it worked the other way on the west African-specific markers like E1-M33, which the Sudanese group still retains. An indicator of this reduced genetic diversity can be seen from the fact that northern Cameroonian Fulbe/Fula featured Hg A3b2, Hg E1-M33, Hg K2 and Hg R1*-M173, while the Sudanese group only featured Hg E-M33, Hg R1*-M173, and Hg E3b1. As one can see, putting Hg E3b1 aside, the Sudanese Fula gene pool appears to carry diversity which is a subset of that of their northern Cameroonian brethren. It is easy to understand how Hg E3b1 figured in the Sudanese Fula, while Cruciani et al.'s (2002) Fula sample showed no signs of it; the Sudanese Fula naturally picked up meaningful Hg E3b1 ancestry from neighboring autochthonous Sudanese ethnic groups, likely fellow nomadic pastoralists characterized by these markers. Hg E3b1 after all, appears to be a prominent marker in autochthonous Sudanese gene pool. All that side, the Sudanese Fula bear R1*-M173 and E1-M33 markers just as their northern Cameroonian Brethren do. This is what one would expect, if they derived from a segment of northern Cameroonian Fula or like group in the vicinity of that area as a subset of that segment, thereby only featuring only a portion of the diversity of their parental population.

It's insightful to note that Cruciani et al.'s (2002) Burkina Faso Fula sample too featured noticeable frequencies of Hg E1-M33; this marker appears to be a regular occurrence in Fulbe samples, regardless of how divergent they may be with respect to one another; here though, it assumes the role of the next dominant marker, after Hg E3a, which appears to generally be predominantly represented in many western African Fula samples, further west of Cameroon. Rosa et al.'s (2007) Fulbe/Fula sample too were predominantly featured by E3a markers (~75%), and yes, it too was noticeably featured by E1-M33 (~ 7%). As Rosa et al.'s (2007) sample reaffirms, E3b markers are scattered across the western Sahel and "Sub-Saharan" areas in low incidences, and it appears to be performing just that function in the Guinean [Bissau] sample, wherein *all* the groups represented were tested postive for the marker, usually in low but noticeable incidences. In the case of the Guinea Bissau Fula, overall frequency of E3b-M35 comprised about 12% of the sample, the bulk of which was E3b1/E-M78 (~10%), with the remainder being the paraphyletic E3b*. Indeed, as Cerny et al. (2006) note, Cruciani et al.'s (2002) Burkina Faso Fulani sample was characterized by a relatively reduced paternal lineage diversity, with only Hgs E1-M33 and E3a being featured therein. By contrast, we see greater diverstiy in the Guinean Fula sample, featuring Hgs E1-M33, E2-M75 (~1.7%), E3a, E3b, A1 (~ 1.7%) and R1b (~1.7%). The nomadic tradition of the Fula apparently comes across in the Fula samples taken from different areas; recurring markers like the aforementioned E1 suggest continuity across the Fula spectrum, but whereas the northern Cameroonian Fula featured Hg A3b2, the Guinean sample featured the Hg A1 derivative, the most common A-M91 marker in western Africa. Hg A3b2 was featured in the Guinean sample, but in the Balanta sample. Likewise the Cameroonian Fula sample featured Hg K2 and the paraphyletic Hg R1*, which were not represented in the Guinean Fulani sample, but as just shown, a derivative of these markers, R1b, managed to get into the Fula gene pool, but in noticeably low frequency (~1.7%). The different patterns observed here, again appear to bespeak the traditionally nomadic pastoralist lifestyle of the Fula, wherein a portion of the gene pool in the areas they spend any meaningful time, they managed to pick up a piece of the gene pools therein. The other differences, as already noted in earlier passages, are likely a manifestation of whether a Fula group is sedentary or nomadic. This notwithstanding, it's worth reiterating that continuity is observed in the paternal gene pool. The telltale sign of this unifying feature unequivocally re-affirms their west African origin and ethnogenesis in this region as an ethnic group. Henceforth, it is no accident that dissidents of this fact, are unable to account for why, even the Sudanese Fula, the *only* attestable eastern African community of the Fula [pending demonstration of tangible material otherwise] , retain relics of their western African ancestry in the form of E1-M33 markers, while this marker appears to be absent in the traditional autochthonous ethnic groups of Sudan and northeastern Africa in general. They surely must have been in western Africa at some point in their bio-history, so as to have picked up ancestry typical of western African areas. Furthermore, the fact that the Sudanese Fula retain their "Atlantic" language subphylum of the Niger-Congo phylum is glossed over by these same ideological dissidents, even as they fail to account for the fact, and even as this cultural trait again bespeaks their ultimate western African origin. Little wonder a question such as this, "Can I get an *elaborate* grammatical and syntax correspondence between Fula and Ancient Egyptian?, is greeted with graveyard silence.

Even simple visual aids such as this, demonstrating the obvious "outlier" nature of Fula language presence in Sudan, the only eastern African territory in all of eastern Africa implicated in its distribution, proves to be quite challenging for the grasping capacity of ideologues mentioned time and again over the course of this topic:
insertmapu800.gif
The last several passages discussed above will, and should, help any perspective reader answer the following questions, as it pertains to Cerny et al.'s (2006) examined extract:

The question of the maternal origin of the Fulani was investigated using Admix 2.0. This software was developed to estimate the contribution of parental populations to the population under study. Data were entered according to group C from the AMOVA (i.e., the Mandenka were not considered; see Table 3); the mutation rate was 0.00005 per year. Admixture coefficients ([m.sub.Y]) were calculated from allele frequencies without taking into account the molecular divergence between the alleles. Because the exact period of Fulani migration cannot be estimated from archeological studies , we selected 4,000 years rather intuitively as the time to the possible admixture event. Bootstrap estimates of the coefficients and their standard deviations were calculated using 1,000 replicates. The results are summarized in Table 4 and show that none of the selected groups made a dominant contribution to the mitochondrial pool of the sampled Fulani. The only weakly prominent parental populations are from the Nile valley . - Cerny et al. (2006), mtDNA of Fulani Nomads and Their Genetic Relationships to Neighboring Sedentary Populations

Why despite the Fula lineages being overwhelmingly west African in origin, as the authors' results cite, do they say...

1)"none of the selected groups made a dominant contribution to the mitochondrial pool of the sampled Fulani"?

2)The only weakly prominent parental populations are from the Nile valley ?

3)Why..."the Mandenka were not considered"?

4)And what is the implication of this:

"Admixture coefficients ([m.sub.Y]) were calculated from allele frequencies without taking into account the molecular divergence between the alleles."

As typical as the Fula are, i.e. genetically and culturally, in their west African character, if some other western African group were the subject of discussion and had these very same traits, there would be no question about it, that NO controversy whatsoever would so much as be generated about them; to put it simply, the evidence is overwhelmingly one-sided: the west African origin!
______________________________________________________________

Miscellaneous notes:

This pertains to excerpts taken from: The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans

Sampling entailed...

We studied 121 African populations, four African American populations, and 60 non-African populations for patterns of variation at 1327 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers. We identified 14 ancestral population clusters in Africa that correlate with self-described ethnicity and shared cultural and/or linguistic properties.

With noticeable mention of...Fulani (Nigeria and Cameroon), the Baggara Arabs (Cameroon), the Koma (Nigeria), and Beja (Sudan)

Moving onto excerpts of interest...

Mitochondrial DNA analysis indicates that Fulani have lineages of predominantly West African origin and that they cluster together and close to the Mandenka population from Senegal [S93].

By contrast, Y chromosome analyses of Fulani
sampled in the Sudan indicates shared ancestry with Nilo-Saharan and Afro- Asiatic speaking populations [S89].

The line about the mtDNA is essentially a reversion back to what has been cited in the main post above, as observed by Cerny et al. (2006). The line about the Y chromosome analysis however, is quite misleading; one only needs to refer to Hassan et al. (2008) [see: Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese] to see how: The Sudanese Fula sample here, as noted in the main post above, predominantly featured Hg R1*-M173 markers in the uniparental paternal gene pool. This marker is in fact generally quite rare in "Afro-Asiatic" speaking populations; rather, its highest incidences has thus far been reported in Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and "Afro-Asiatic" (Chadic) speaking groups in northern Cameroon, with smaller occurrences in the rest of central Africa [see Luis et al. 2004]. Nilo-Saharan groups in Sudan itself, it should be noted, did NOT share this ancestry with the Sudanese-based Fulbe at all. This reverts back to what had already put forward in the main post, about the implication being that these Sudanese Fula derived from a section of the northern Cameroonian Fula, wherein the Hg R1*-M173 is featured in a considerable but not the predominant frequency.

The only marker that the Sudanese Fula shared with Nilo-Saharan and Afrasan ("Afro-Asiatic") speaking Sudanese groups was Hg E3b1 (M78). Common sense however, intimates that this aspect of the paternal gene pool was largely picked up from neighboring populations, only after the Fula situated themselves in Sudan. It makes sense, since after all, E3b1 is one of the prominently featured markers found in the Sudanese sample.

To recap, there's something still unmistakable about the Sudanese Fula sample: they retain western African ancestry, as signified by Hg E1-M33, which was absent in all autochthonous Sudanese groups; the only other groups where this marker was implicated in Hassan et al.'s (2008) work, were, well, the well-established west African groups like the Hausa and Wolof. When pressed on to explain away this anomalous feature of the Sudanese Fula's paternal gene pool, dissidents of the west African origin noticeably become mute on the matter.

These results raise the possibility of differential patterns of male and female gene flow into this population.

Whatever may be "differential" about male and female gene flow patterns in Fula sample, no doubt influenced by matters like life style - recalling on nomadic vs sedentary, both the maternal and paternal gene pools communicate the same thing: west African origin!

Our analysis, using genome-wide nuclear markers and STRUCTURE, indicates that the Fulani have distinctive ancestry [fuchsia] at K = 14 in the global analysis [Figs. 3,4] and at K = 9 -14 in the Africa analysis [Fig. S13]. The Fulani cluster with the Chadic and Central Sudanic speaking populations at K <13> They also cluster near the Chadic and Central Sudanic speaking populations in the NJ tree based on population genetic distances [Fig. 1].

Fula samples taken from either central Africa or Sudan are expected to cluster with groups in central Africa-Chad, as the Fula would have arrived in Sudan via a central African and/or Chadic corridor, having experienced a bottleneck [see main blog post]. The central African Fula in turn would have arrived ultimately from Atlantic-coastal regions of western Africa, where their ethnogenesis as the Fula-"proper" likely occurred.

The pattern of the Sudanese Fula's Y-DNA composition is for instance, undoubtedly different from their western African brethren, but continuity still exists via recurring typical western African markers that unite all Fula groups, regardless of where they spread to; e.g. primarily Hgs E1 and E3a, and a lesser extent, Hg E2. Either of these clades are telltale signs of so-and-so Fula groups' western African ancestry.


In the global STRUCTURE analysis, the Fulani show low to moderate levels of European/Middle Eastern ancestry [blue], consistent with mtDNA and Y chromosome [S89] analyses, as well as the presence at low frequency of the -13910 mutation associated with lactose tolerance in Europeans in this population [S94].

Again quite misleading. Yes, understandably, "low" levels of shared ancestry attributable to potential "European" ancestry, might be correlated with "low level" incidences (~1.7 %) of R1b [pertaining the Rosa et al.'s (2007) Guinean sample] or relics of this ancestry attained from coastal northwestern populations [Imazighen] seen on the mtDNA side [Cerny et al. 2006], as cited in the main post. However, in the case of Fula samples, from northern Cameroon through to Sudan, a good degree of presumed shared "European/Middle Eastern ancestry [blue]" may very well actually be linked to common "distant" ancestry, as the paraphyletic R*-M207 and R1*-M173 markers suggest; these latter two are essentially rare to absent in "Middle Eastern" and "European" populations, which are mainly characterized by more downstream markers, especially European populations, who have no upstream markers for R1. Now, because R1b and R1a markers are still 'molecularly' linked to the upstream R*, any group bearing the latter or else any intemediary nodes between the upstream R* and the downstream R1a and R1b will "appear" to share ancestry with Europeans and/or possibly "Middle Easterners", which could misleadingly be misread as ancestry from "European/Middle East". Given the features of northern Cameroonian and Sudanese Fula sample uniparental male gene pool, it is a safe bet that this is the underlying issue at work, especially when the red flag of "moderate" levels is evoked; the Fula uniparental gene pool specifics , whether maternal or paternal, simply do not bear out "moderate" ancestry from "Middle East" or "Europe".

Recalling a previous blog post here
, R1*-M173 in Africa, we have:

Interestingly, having re-visited Wood et al. (2005), it should be pointed out that paraphyletic clade of R*-M207 was detected amongst some "Afro-Asiatic" African groups, along with the paraphyletic clade R1*-M173 [it is worth noting that authors implicate the Egyptian sample here as something other than that of Semitic speakers (Arabic)], while some Niger-Congo groups though in small frequencies [pooled] — tested positive for the paraphyletic R1b*, lacking the established downstream R1b markers. Henceforth, R*-M207, lacking downstream mutations have been identified in African groups via this study; and yes, the basic nodes of all Hg R's downstream clades had been accounted for, which means that R*, as predicted above, is NOT relegated to the Indian sub-continent. All in all, this suggests that African Hg R pool is more diverse than many seem to think.

As for the matter concerning lactose tolerance, it has been pointed out here before, how this has nothing to do with European ancestry. Recap, see:
More on R1*-M173 bearers

In summation, the piece essentially rehashes the well-understood facts of primary west African ancestry of the Fula, both in terms of genealogy and language, along with genealogical "admixture" elements picked up over the course of migratory events, but suffers from matters, as laid out in detail in the main blog post, pertaining to idealistic urges for mystification where none is necessary or warranted.

*Watch for updates.

A spin-off post of this topic has recently been posted here: Reviewing: The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
_____________________________________________________________

Miscellaneous reading...

Perceptions of Sudanese Fulani inside Sudan itself may well be instructive, particularly to those who might harbor preconceived notions about local perceptions without having set foot in the region; to aid in this, here a few extracts taken from the net:

November 1, 2008 — Omer al-Bashir, the embattled president of Sudan, has been reported to have made a statement in a Sudanese newspaper al-Ayaam two months ago that the Hausa Fulani people are not Sudanese and that they should not vote in the 2009 general elections stipulated by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)! This sparked off a vigorous protest in the Hausa Fulani communities all over the Sudan especially in the city of al-Gadhariff in Eastern Sudan. During the protest, in which people from the Hausa neighborhood organized a peaceful march led by a group of tribal leaders and officials in a popular demonstration to hand a memorandum of protest to the Head Quarter of the Gadhariff state to express their disapproval of President al-Bashir’s reported offensive statement that the Sudanese tribes of Hausa, Fulani, Bornu and Tama groups as non-Sudanese and they not have the right to participate in the upcoming elections in Sudan. Government of Sudan forces backed by heavy weapons attacked the unarmed civilians and chased them into their neighborhoods using tear gas and live ammunition, which resulted in the martyrdom of four people who were killed in cold blood and hundreds were wounded and among the seriously injured were children and women and local hospital had difficulty coping with the casualties. Accordingly, the NCP regime added insult to injury. The irresponsible, imprudent and a racist statement by the president al-Bashir and the killing of peacefully demonstrating civilians are deplorable.

We all know that the Hausa Fulani people are hard working, devout Muslims of high moral code and patriotic Sudanese citizens who are widely distributed all over the country for centuries. They have contributed immensely to the development projects. It is unfair and an unjust accusation on the part of a president of a nation to label his fellow compatriots as aliens. Though it is appalling, but not surprising as al-Bashir is not a stranger to controversy with respect to random and misjudged statements of his personal views. He is renowned for the vulgarity of the language he tends to use without giving any attention to the consequences it may lead to. Al-Bashir’s blunders have tarnished the Sudanese reputation and the once good name of Sudan. Similar reckless distasteful obnoxious assertions were made by Abdel-Rahim Mohamed Hussein, Sudan’s Minister of Defence, who was reported to have stated in a press conference at the Sudanese Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on Thursday March the 13th 2008 at 11:45pm in an answer to the question whether it was true that the Government of Sudan (GOS) was planning to settle Five Million Egyptians mainly from Upper Egypt, the Nile valley south of Cairo, in the Northern Region ”Shamaliya” by saying: " If we assume the argument that the government seeks to resettle 5 million Egyptians in northern region why not? What is good of 8 million people in Darfur, all of whom are Africans came from abroad. Isn’t it better for you those who come from Egypt or those Africans who have come from West Africa?! "... - By Mahmoud A. Suleiman, The Hausa - Fulani are Genuine Sudanese, Mr. President!

Read further here

The following are from photo-journalist Vit Hassan in Sudan, who has also contributed to National Geographic...

Image 1
Woman from a Umm Bororo tribe wearing traditional clothing..
Umm Bororo are nomads with cattles by origin from Nigeria...

Taken in Eastern Sudan,close to Ethiopia.

Image 2
Dance of girls from a Umm Bororo tribe.(No cropping)

-This is for Globaltrotter-

Taken in Eastern Sudan,close to Ethiopia.

Image 3

Image 4
Woman from a Falata Uda tribe.
Falata are divided to 13 main branches:Uda,Voila,Djafun,Dooga,Nara,
Malle,Dindima,Adamawa,Danedji,Gamba,Sisilbi,Fuuta,Boodi..

They are nomads with cattles.
She wearing traditional colorful clothes of a Falata Uda tribe...
By way-"boodum" means in their language-'beautiful'...

Image 5
Another boy with a traditional hair style of a Umm Bororo tribe...

Image 6
2 girls from a Umm Bororo tribe coming back to home from market.
They keeping dishes with kind of white joghurt...

Taken in Eastern Sudan,close to Ethiopia.

[Note that the Sudanese Fula retain usage of large gourd pots or bowls, very common in western Africa, especially in areas near the Atlantic Ocean]

Image 7
Girl from a Falata Gamba tribe.
She has small tribal marks ("shluh" )in the shape of sun.This means-she is from Falata Gamba tribe..

Taken in Eastern Sudan,close to Ethiopia.

Image 8
Woman from a Falata Uda tribe wearing traditional colorful clothing of her tribe...
They are divided to 13 main branches..
Women of Falata 'Uda' are by their features close to some tribes in Chad..

Taken in Eastern Sudan.

Image 9
Girl from a Umm Bororo tribe.
They are nomads with cattles,by origin from countries in Western Africa.

They are divided to many main branches and every branch have a different marks("Shluh")on their faces..She has also unique black tatoo on her lips...

Taken in Eastern Sudan,close to Ethiopia.

Image 10
Boy from a Umm Bororo tribe.
They are by [b]origin from countries in Western Africa[/b].
Unmarried boy has a sign of his possition long hairs...

Taken in Eastern Sudan,close to Ethiopia.

Image 11
Girl from a Umm Bororo tribe

Image 12
Man from a Falata tribe selling "Hidjab"

...otherwise known as "jujus" in some quarters; again, a common sight in western Africa, where one comes across fortune "prescribers" [for lack of a better term in English; it is supposedly passed off as their 'trade, expertise, specialty or turf'] of certain "Quranic" lines enclosed in leather 'casings' [via sewing through leather].

Source: Photos and accompanying notes [in blue] by Vit Hassan - taken from here: Link

More seen here, another site: Link 2


Elsewhere, we have the following pages taken from Sudanese anthropologist Rogaia Mustafa Abusharaf's work - Female Circumcision 2007:

 -

 -

Source: Female Circumcision 2007 (click on the images for higher resolution)

If these extracts are any indicators, the perception concerning the Fulani's ultimate arrival from western Africa appears to be a widespread one even in Sudan itself, by both right-wing elements and liberal ones.

Monday, May 11, 2009

Ironing out some "issues" with Independent African Cattle Domestication

This is actually a spin-off from the last post [see: Demic Diffusion" Dynastic models: R.I.P], where the issue of cattle domestication came up. Being that it appears to be a subject that deserves to be the center of attention in its own right, the following presents an opportunity to dig further into the matter; here Achilli et al.'s piece, as a recent publication (2008), will be dissected and compared against findings of other researchers, to examine if any lingering "concerns" about an independent cattle domestication cannot be "ironed out", so to speak.

The following study by Ascunce et al. 2007 for one seems to address issues raised in Achilli et al.'s 2008 publication [excerpt provided below], for Achilli et al. say:

The phylogeny (Figure 1 and Supplemental data) allows one also to evaluate the possibility that T1 and T4 were domesticated independently from aurochs populations living in Africa and East Asia, respectively [4] and [6]. The ancestor of T1 differs by only one mutation (16113) from the ancestor of T1’2’3 and by only two mutations (16113 and 16255) from the ancestor of T3, therefore a domestication of T1 in Africa would require that the B. primigenius populations of North Africa had accumulated no sequence variation in their entire mtDNA (except the T1 marker 16113) relative to the Near Eastern stocks — an unlikely scenario. - Achilli et al. 2008, Mitochondrial genomes of extinct aurochs survive in domestic cattle

They admit the well known fact about lineage differentiations between African domesticates and the so-called Near Eastern bunch, as that begrudgingly tossed out [highlighted] word "except" underlies, and go onto speak of a so-called "unlikely scenario", but to the contrary, it is likely, for we are told here how so...

Abstract:

An unusual pattern of ancient mitochondrial DNA haplogroups in Northern African cattle. Zoological Studies 46(1): 123-125. In this note, we report on a newly acquired ancient DNA sequence of the mitochondrial control region for cattle (Bos taurus), as obtained from a 900-yr-old archaeological sample from Eritrea, Northeastern Africa. In combination with 4 other ancient DNA sequences from Mali, Northwestern Africa, we hypothesize that Northern African cattle were more polymorphic, ca. 900-2000 yr ago, because of the greater frequency of a mitochondrial DNA haplogroup (T/T3) that is presently rare in Africa but otherwise common throughout the greater Mediterranean region - Abstract ends

For the greater Mediterranean area, these analyses have shown that the mitochondrial control region haplotypes for modern cattle (i.e., Bos taurus) belong to one of 4 sequence clusters or haplogroups (Fig. 1). Most (94%) modern cattle populations from Northern Africa carry haplogroup T1, which is rarely found outside of Africa (6% in the Near East and absent elsewhere). In contrast, modern populations from mainland Europe carry 2 very similar haplogroups, T and T3 (94%), which decrease in the Middle East (65%-74%) and almost completely disappearing Africa (6%). Haplogroup T2 makes up the remainder of this mtDNA diversity and is present at 6% in Europe and 21%-27% in the Near East, but is absent from Africa. These haplogroup distributions have been interpreted as indicating a Near East origin for European B. taurus and the independent domestication of cattle in Africa (Bradley et al. 1996, Troy et al. 2001, Hanotte et al. 2002).

In this note, we report on the analysis of an ancient mtDNA (control region) sequence as obtained from a bovine skeletal sample from a nearly, first millennium, archaeological site near the community of Adi Nefas, Eritrea in Northeastern Africa (900 yr before the present; YBP; Schmidt and Curtis 2001) (Fig. 1). This newly acquired ancient DNA sequence is combined with data for the same mitochondrial control region as determined for 4 specimens from Mali, Northwestern Africa (ca. 900-2200 YBR; Edwards et al. 2004).In concert with the modern mtDNA data, these 5 ancient DNA sequences raise the possibility that the mtDNA gene pool for Northern African cattle was more diverse ca. 900-2000 yr ago...

In conclusion, our results raise the possibility that the mtDNA gene pool for Northern African cattle ca. 900-2000 yr ago was more polymorphic in terms of the frequencies of the T1 and T/T3 haplogroups that currently predominate in African and European populations, respectively. This older polymorphism in Northern African cattle may reflect a transition from an even more diverse ancestral gene pool (as characteristic of its Near East progenitor) and/or the later secondary introduction of T/T3 haplotypes into this region by the immigration of European cattle (Hanotte et al.2002, Bruford et al. 2003). Concomitantly, selective pressures from domestication and breeding efforts and/or genetic drift may have then led to the final homogenization of this older polymorphism into the current situation of essentially only the T1 haplogroup occurring in Northern Africa. These possibilities reemphasize the fact that both ancient and modern DNA data are of value in the ultimate resolution of the complex history of African cattle (Edwards et al. 2004). - Ascunce et al. 2007, An Unusual Pattern of Ancient Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups in Northern African Cattle

While African specimens may have by default, been included in a pre-existing database used by Achilli et al., the African cattle gene pool doesn't appear to have been the primary center of investigation in their study, as opposed to being primarily geared towards those of European and Near Eastern specimens. Considerations for the African cattle gene seems to be a secondary one, to help explain the Near Eastern and European ones...

Fifty-six mitochondrial genomes from autochthonous taurine breeds across Southern Europe and the Near East were sequenced and compared with 50 sequences available in GenBank (Supplemental data). - Achilli et al. 2008, Mitochondrial genomes of extinct aurochs survive in domestic cattle

In contrast, Honotte et al. seems to have specifically made African cattle populations a primary centre of investigation...

Hanotte et al. used allele frequencies from 50 populations of modern cattle across the African continent to examine genetic variation. Their results reveal three ancient genetic signatures and each signature’s center of origin or region of entry. The native African taurine breed was independently domesticated in northeastern Africa, perhaps the eastern Sahara, and later migrated with pastoralist or crop-livestock farmers west and south. Asian zebu cattle were introduced along the east coast of Africa and in Madagascar and were most likely transported along a marine route from the Indian subcontinent. Finally, Near Eastern and European taurine cattle were primarily introduced along the shores of North Africa during the colonial period. These findings provide a genetic record of African cattle origins and migrations that have far-reaching implications for human migrations and the adaptive strategies used by African populations. They also require us to reexamine the models of domestication more broadly. - M. A. Kennedy

The observations above is not necessarily inconsistent with findings produced in the later aforementioned study of Ascunce et al. 2007.

In summation, Achilli et al. 2008 don't really break ground, in so far as what comes to mind upon having read their piece, in terms of what African, Near Eastern and European cattle domesticate lineage patterns implicate respectively, in consideration of DNA alone. Of course, linguistic reconstructions and archaeology are only reaffirmed by these DNA distribution patterns.

*May be subject to modification as updating takes place.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

"Demic Diffusion" Dynastic models: R.I.P

Although by now intellectually relegated to a fringe-status [mainly radical Eurocentrist or affiliated cults] in the face of overwhelming & mounting evidence, there is still a crowd out there that is distressed by the prospect of the Dynastic Nile Valley complex being recognized, well, as autochthonous. The very idea that "sophisticated" or "advanced" complex culture(s) does not begin in Europe, but anywhere outside of Europe, upsets the white supremacist social "pyramid"; so, it comes as no surprise to see elements in this ideological bubble, whether they openly call themselves "gun-touting" conservative "patriots" or "liberal" humanity-loving "activists", cringe at the audacious nature of reality, that the very first sophisticated elaborate complex culture occurs just about anywhere outside of Europe, let alone Africa. The difference between the two camps of the white supremacist ideological bubble, is that the former is more forthright about their disquiet than the latter is.

The entity of "ancient Egyptian" social complex particularly presents a very unsettling situation in the white supremacist ideological bubble, because it has the distinction of being amongst the world's, and not just Africa's, earliest attestable elaborately sophisticated socio-cultural complexes, as well as being "aboriginally" African. Why is this? Well, the first reason had been already stated above, but second one entails the fact that white supremacy is hardwired in placing the darkest of people [skin pigmentation standpoint] at the bottom of their social ladder; think of it—though Eurocentrist elements would frown at such a deserved acknowledgment—as white supremacist "caste system". This is how said "caste system" works: at the top, is the lily white group, and from thereon, as groups progressively get darker, so is their position on the "pyramid" of this caste system determined accordingly—the darker a group gets, the lower its social status on the caste system's "gradient". It is for this reason that all sorts of rounds have been made at explaining away the "Africanity" of the 'ancient Egyptian' complex; including begrudging acknowledgments like,...

"well, yes it is African, but not black African" or "It was in Africa, but ancient Egypt's politics was more focused towards the Middle East, and should therefore more appropriately be seen as Middle Eastern", or "yes, ancient Egypt was physically located in Africa, but it's social complex was brought about by a horde of Middle Eastern immigrants", not to mention another common one: "they were a melting pot of all races [and so, ancient Egypt was brought about by this confederation of different "races"; "different races" presumably living in harmony back then than they are today]".

This one probably takes the cake, if not more forthright about its motivation by white supremacist agenda: "Western civilization history lessons places it [ancient Egypt] in the Middle East [and usually, as a prelude to western civilization history, and so it is], and that's that."

What the above is saying point blank, is that ancient Egypt should force-feedingly be "accepted" as "Middle East" or even "Western" because "we, westerners, say so; it doesn't have to have an ounce of fact to it, just needs to be accepted by those, who we [presumably] dominate". In other words, "we" use "geopolitical dominion" to assert and fabricate what should be accepted or not accepted; truth or reality never has anything to do with it. So, when reasonable people place "ancient Egypt" in its objective or true place, it upsets the white supremacist ideological bubble, because the said "geopolitical dominion" assertiveness is audaciously defied accordingly. Linked to this "assertiveness", the white supremacist "caste system" is defied by the condition of the darkest of groups developing elaborately sophisticated social complexes before the lily white European ones, which is what a "black African ancient Egypt" implicates.

Ideally, but harder to do intellectually, Eurocentrism would prefer just about every "meaningful" autochthonous development in Africa to be attributed to adjoining regions, which they'd prefer to call "outside" of Africa, like say, the portion of the Great Rift Valley of Africa in what they call the so-called "Near Eastern" side. This is not done out of any special Eurocentric love for "Near Easterners", but pretty much out of the necessity of upholding the usually unspoken white supremacy doctrine of Eurocentric-presumed "lighter" groups being on top of the Eurocentric-presumed "darker" groups in their "caste system". You see, from the Eurocentrist standpoint, the regions that they subjectively dub as the so-called "Near East", people with relatively lighter epidermal pigmentation are more prevalent in these areas than in the more southern climes of Africa; it matters not, whether these people are still generally considerably darker than most European populations. As far as white supremacy caste system is concerned, these groups are relatively nearer to "white" Europeans than the darker or darkest ones that them white Europeans are supposed to be naturally better than. This is why whenever archaeological finds in situ African continent come to the surface, which could potentially be indicative of some highly sophisticated—presumably quite ancient—social development at first glance, the Eurocentric doctrine is to first explore such findings in terms of demic diffusion models originating from adjoining "non-African" territories before exploring an autochthonous one; only if any number of demic diffusion models fail to sufficiently explain the findings, then is an autochthonous one begrudingly tolerated or accepted, well...at least until further down the road, new demic diffusion models come to mind. This is why for example, if one stops to think about it, notwithstanding what archaeology may say in tandem with say, linguistics and genetics, ideally Eurocentrism prefers to take for granted that any and essentially every animal domestication tradition in Africa must have initially been an imported trade from the so-called "Near East", the region that has become a Eurocentric propaganda entity of convenience, mainly because of its undisputed cases of more archaeological antecedents over that of Europe [otherwise, Europe ideally would be the first choice, as a "non-African" source].

Now, as many probably know by now, the "Near East" has been quite a fluid Eurocentric construct which has, depending on the occasion at hand, been used to cover portions of Northern Africa as well. Under this guise, huge chunks, if not all, of coastal Northern Africa cease to be part of mainland Africa, not out of geographical obscurity, but out of the information dissemination shroud, from repeated "western" mass media catchwords like the "Middle East", which is almost always used to include parts of coastal Northern Africa areas. This has happened so much so in the "western" world, that is not unreasonable to assume that some people in that part of the world are inclined to think that the so-called "Middle East" is its own continent. In this scenario, "Africa" becomes relegated to another Eurocentric-presumed catchword— for Africa's "darkies" bunch; at this point in the passage, we ought to know by now, how "darkies" fare in the Eurocentric "caste system". As soon as "Africa" is uttered, in the so-called "western" world, stereotypical images of these "darkies" come to mind at first instance, even though etymologically, the term traces its initial application on the continent in the coastal Northwestern African area.

Of course the Eurocentric dogma creeps in from time to time in "western" published journals, and as such, it boils down to a matter of the reading audience being sufficiently-researched in what they read, and thus, being able to sift out the objectively reasonable from the rest of the "noise" being radiated from these journals. Limb proportions for example, has been a recurring topic of science journals and book publications. One such that comes to mind for example, is Chris Stringer and Clive Gamble's publication, In Search of the Neanderthals: Solving the Puzzle of Human Origins. As the title suggests, the journey of investigation centers around Europe, for if one stops to think about it, the "search of the Neanderthals" is also linked to the search of "where Europeans came from" — their evolutionary journey. As a reader of this cite may know, within Eurocentric ideological circles, at one point Neanderthals were even considered as possible ancestors of contemporary Europeans; so putting this basic concept in mind, the 'western' fascination with Neanderthals becomes readily understood. In any event, limb proportions has become part of investigating the aforementioned evolutionary journey, and In Search of the Neanderthals explores this. Page 92 of the book for instance, provides us with average crural indices of sample candidates taken from different parts of the globe, and the respective temperatures of the prevailing or historic habitats of these candidates.

As a matter of basic intuition, one may know that skin or epidermal pigmentation is a function of the biological responsive measure to the level of the UV radiation, with diet playing a supplementary role; whereas in the case of body plan & limb proportions, the influencing factor is more a function of thermal regulation—optimized retention and loss of heat according to the temperature environment of the prevailing areas of habitat. In the tropics, not only are UV radiation levels higher, but so is temperature generally higher than those in temperate regions. So it should not be surprising to see a strong correlation between body plans and epidermal pigmentation.

"Tropical body plans" are thus strongly correlated with groups that generally have considerable epidermal melanin pigmentation, while "cold-adapted" body plans would be most expected of groups relaxed in epidermal eumelanin pigmentation [also see Allen's Rule for examples]. Of course, in some rather very rare occasions, some subtropical regions are known to sport high temperatures. In these isolated incidences, one might wonder if the correlation stands; well, it certainly depends on the biohistory of a population in said habitat, i.e. when they arrived, and their evolutionary status when said arrival took place, coupled with the UV radiation intensity [see previous posts: Skin pigmentation gene alleles & Skin pigmentation gene alleles — Part 2], the "openness" of the environment [ like forest, grassland, or desert] and the supplementary role of diet. Subtropical regions adjoining or not too far from the tropics are not expected to cause much or drastic change, though some change might well be expected depending on the duration of habitation in said environment and the accumulation of micro-evolutionary processes in tandem; one might for instance, expect to see an intermediary "mean" index of certain limb proportions amongst groups in temperate regions closer to the tropics than those in temperate regions of much far off latitudes, placing said groups between those of extreme tropic and sub-tropic climes. The "Bushman" groups of southern Africa for instance retain dark skin, albeit some relaxation of epidermal eumelanin pigmentation may have occurred as part of the micro-evolutionary processes, in consideration of long residency in mainly the southern hemisphere's lower-end tropical to sub-tropical areas of Africa. Their limb proportions, at least as indicated by the mean crural index [see C. Stringer and C. Gamble's In Search of the Neanderthals] may have undergone some change, but not too drastic to the point of displaying indices as low those seen in groups that historically reside(d) in far 'latitudinally'-distant temperate areas, including amongst Europeans. Consider the following crural indices, with purportedly associated mean annual temperatures indices of [some of which suggest "historically-associated"] environments of residency:



               crural     Mean annual temp C
              index

Lapps             79%           .25

modern Inuit      81.5%         4

Neanderthal       79%           -
[average]

Belgium           82.5%         10

S.African white   83.2%         8.5

Yugoslav          83.75%        8.4

American white    82.6%         9.8

Kalahari Bushman  83.4%         18

New Mexico Indian 84.6%         14

S.African black   86.4%         17

Arizona Indian    85.5%         18

Melanesian        84.8%%        23

Pygmy             85.1%         24.2

Egyptian          84.9%         26.1

American Black    85.25%        26 

Source: Courtesy C. Stringer and C. Gamble, In Search of the Neanderthals: Solving the Puzzle of Human Origins, pg 92.

The "Bushman" mean crural index is visibly not as low as groups associated with temperate regions [presumably in consideration of temporal divergence from ancestral populations] at greater latitudinal distances from the tropics; on the other hand, is it noticeably lower than groups accociated with latitudes that are in or much closer to the equatorial regions. The mean crural index of Neanderthal indicates that they likely displayed an extreme cold-adapted body build.

Crural indices are just one of the indicators of the likely inclination of the general body plan, and say nothing of the actual manifestation of the overall body build (body plan). Those percentages cited above are the mean values [of the leg's proximal section relative to the middle section without the feet segment], which hides the within-sample variability. The arm process [which includes the brachial index from the humerus to the radius & ulna; not in that table] has its own index to be taken into consideration, in the overall build of the body. These processes taken together, i.e. intermembral index, along with comparative measurements of its components in relation to the distal segments of the limbs, give a broader picture of the manifestation of the body build (plan), particularly in relation to the body's trunk; these indices together show that ancient Egyptians had what was dubbed as the "super-negroid" body plan. This is not surprising, considering that a portion of what is now called Egypt lies in the northern hemisphere of tropics, not to mention that Nile Valley populations were then relatively recent migrants from the tropical areas of the continent. Recalling Sonia Zakrzewski:

The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex.

The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). - Sonia R. Zakrzewski, Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions

There you have it: As noted above, ancient Egyptians had longer distal segments relative to the proximal segments than many other African groups, thus giving ancient Egyptians that so-called "super-negroid" body plan.

It is interesting though that Zakrzewski cites Robins (1983), because notwithstanding what the results make all too obvious, Robins offers the sort of self-denial apologia towards the facts of the results her own tests bring to light, as exemplified above about other such denials in tandem with Eurocentric or white supremacy's imperialistic "assertiveness" to what should or shouldn't be accepted. Robins (1986) for instance, tells us:

Predynastic Egyptian stature and physical proportions

Abstract:

An attempt has been made to estimate male and female Egyptian stature from long bone length using Trotter & Gleser negro stature formulae, previous work by the authors having shown that these rather than white formulae give more consistent results with male dynastic material. Evidence is presented that the tibia length should include the spine in the later (1958) formulae and should exclude it in the earlier (1952) formulae. It is also shown that better results are obtained if the constants in the stature formulae are modified so as to conform more exactly with the basic data published by Trotter & Gleser. When consistency has been achieved in this way, predynastic proportions are founded to be such that distal segments of the limbs are even longer in relation to the proximal segments than they are in modern negroes. Such proportions are termed "super-negroid".

Introduction:

...Robins (1983) and Robins & Shute (1983) have shown that more consistent results are obtained from ancient Egyptian male skeletons if Trotter & Gleser formulae for negro are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in the past. This does not mean that ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south. It does, however, suggest that their physical proportions were more like modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal segments that were long compared with the proximal segments. If ancient Egyptian males had what may be termed negroid proportions, it seems reasonable that females did likewise.

Robins tells us that test results place them anatomically with "negroes", and yet, she seeks to moot this quantifiable fact with some subjective personal interpretation of what ancient Egyptian art supposedly communicates. In other words, her answer to defying the tangible results of a scientific test, was to turn to some intangible subjective personal opinion about Egyptian art; the two are worlds apart. It is akin to saying DNA revelation can be refuted by someone's subjective opinion about what some art may or may not be communicating, as a substitute for counter quantifiable DNA evidence. Furthermore, there is nothing moot about a finding that has been reproduced time and again, as for example, attested to Zakrzewski's reaffirmation. As for the supposition made about the ancient Egyptian female proportions as it relates to their male counterparts, this too had been confirmed in Zakrzewski's work.

Upon revisiting the above mentioned Zakrzewski study, we are told:

The ancient Egyptians have been described as having a “Negroid” body plan (Robins, 1983). Variations in the proximal to distal segments of each limb were therefore examined. Of the ratios considered, only maximum humerus length to maximum ulna length (XLH/XLU) showed statistically significant change through time. This change was a relative decrease in the length of the humerus as compared with the ulna, suggesting the development of an increasingly African body plan with time. This may also be the result of Nubian mercenaries being included in the sample from Gebelein.

Given the screwed up basis of "Nubian" in "western" discourse, one has to independently reaffirm what's actually being referenced. Now, if by 'Nubian', Zakrzewski is referring to people originating from beyond ancient Egypt's southern political border, and in what is now part of Sudan, then in the above, it appears that Zakrzewski is hinting on the so-called "super-negroid" body plan amongst them [so-called "Nubians"] as well. You know how it is; whenever anything is "increasingly African" in ancient Egypt, the presumed change has to somehow be attributed to an outside source preferably from south of Egypt, where a fictitious "black Africa" is "supposed to begin", according to dogmatic-preferences within Eurocentric circles. In any event, the results of Zakrzewski could not hide the fact that the rest of the Egyptian specimens tell the same story, aside from samples from Gebelein: the so-called "super-negroid" body plan! To reiterate from previous citation above,...

The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans.

The keywords: the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans.

...essentially meaning that this is so, even without considering any so-called "Nubian" presence, which is a too often used Eurocentric excuse to explain away any findings that render Egyptians too "negroid".

In other developments, relevant to the ongoing subject matter, the following was just recently been published:

Near Eastern Neolithic genetic input in a small oasis of the Egyptian Western Desert

Martina Kujanová 1 2, Luísa Pereira 3 4 *, Verónica Fernandes 3, Joana B. Pereira 3, Viktor erný

Abstract

The Egyptian Western Desert lies on an important geographic intersection between Africa and Asia. Genetic diversity of this region has been shaped, in part, by climatic changes in the Late Pleistocene and Holocene epochs marked by oscillating humid and arid periods. We present here a whole genome analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and high-resolution molecular analysis of nonrecombining Y-chromosomal (NRY) gene pools of a demographically small but autochthonous population from the Egyptian Western Desert oasis el-Hayez. Notwithstanding signs of expected genetic drift, we still found clear genetic evidence of a strong Near Eastern input that can be dated into the Neolithic. This is revealed by high frequencies and high internal variability of several mtDNA lineages from haplogroup T. The whole genome sequencing strategy and molecular dating allowed us to detect the accumulation of local mtDNA diversity to 5,138 ± 3,633 YBP. Similarly, theY-chromosome gene pool reveals high frequencies of the Near Eastern J1 and the North African E1b1b1b lineages, both generally known to have expanded within North Africa during the Neolithic. These results provide another piece of evidence of the relatively young population history of North Africa.

Am J Phys Anthropol, 2009

In response to the above, sure the small sample size is an issue [as apparent from the large margins of error], but look, the coalescence times simply tell us when the lineage itself expanded; it doesn't quite tell us when a lineage entered from locale A to locale B, without elaborate cluster information on how lineage 'X'—unique and respective in distribution pattern to locale A and locale B—could have entered say, locale B from locale A.

The present authors ignore Bovine-remains anthropology and DNA data, none of which is consistent with this:

"The complete mtDNA characterization of 35 unrelated individuals from el-Hayez revealed a local expansion in the last 6,000 years of two lineages belonging to the T1 Neolithic Near Eastern haplogroup. This suggests input of Near Eastern lineages during the Neolithic period in contradiction to the hypothesis that Northeastern Africa was an independent place of cattle domestication, as suggested by thee cultural context."

Human skeleton, Y or mtDNA is no substitute for actual cattle markers. It's just common sense. For instance, we have from previous analysis, which has been reaffirmed over and over again via lingustic examinations of domesticate terms, cattle DNA, and cattle remains [for example, also see: Fred Wendorf & Romuald Schild (Evolutionary Anthropology 3(4), 1994), Are the early Holocene cattle in the Eastern Sahara domestic or wild?],...

The Origins of African Cattle

The origins of cattle domestication and the dispersal of pastoralism in Africa have been contentiously debated in recent years. It has generally been assumed that domestic cattle were introduced into Africa from the Near East. Olivier Hanotte and colleagues [Science 296 [2002]], however, present genetic evidence of an indigenous origin for the earliest African domestic cattle, the humpless taurine [Bos Taurus]. They argue that cattle were domesticated in Africa prior to the introduction of two excotic domesticates: humped zebu cattle [B. indicus] from Asia and a genetic variant of taurine cattle from the Near East and Europe. Hanotte et al. used allele frequencies from 50 populations of modern cattle across the African continent to examine genetic variation. Their results reveal three ancient genetic signatures and each signature’s center of origin or region of entry. The native African taurine breed was independently domesticated in northeastern Africa, perhaps the eastern Sahara, and later migrated with pastoralist or crop-livestock farmers west and south. Asian zebu cattle were introduced along the east coast of Africa and in Madagascar and were most likely transported along a marine route from the Indian subcontinent. Finally, Near Eastern and European taurine cattle were primarily introduced along the shores of North Africa during the colonial period. These findings provide a genetic record of African cattle origins and migrations that have far-reaching implications for human migrations and the adaptive strategies used by African populations. They also require us to reexamine the models of domestication more broadly. - M. A. Kennedy

Archaeological attestations of the considerable distinct time frames of the Levantine agricultural Neolithic economy and that of the Nile Valley is also simply ignored, in lieu for an admittedly small sample of uniparental markers.

Predynastic Nile Valley human remains data is also ignored [as cited in Barry Kemp's publication - Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, Robins (1983), and Zakrzewski's Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions]...

Early Dynastic Periods. When the Elephantine results were added to a broader pooling of the physical characteristics drawn from a wide geographic region which includes Africa, the Mediterranean and the Near East quite strong affinities emerge between Elephantine and populations from Nubia, supporting a strong south-north cline.

2. Moving to the opposite geographical extremity, the very small 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 of variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans. - Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization

Anatomy of a Civilization has its own shortcomings elsewhere of course, but that's another topic for another day.

Linguistic indicators [as cited by Keita] shows that words for Levantine domesticates are not loan words from the so-called 'Near East'; recap:

Ovacaprines appear in the western desert before the Nile valley proper (Wendorf and Schild 2001). However,it is significant that ancient Egyptian words for the major Near Eastern domesticates - Sheep, goat, barley, and wheat - are not loans from either Semitic, Sumerian, or Indo-European. This argues against a mass settler colonization (at replacement levels) of the Nile valley from the Near East at this time. This is in contrast with some words for domesticates in some early Semitic languages, which are likely Sumerian loan words(Diakonoff 1981).

This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000).

As for the Y-DNA, Semino et al. 2004 gave a detailed layout of differentiation between Neolithic era J and post-Neolithic J dispersions; their data suggests that most of those J lineages in northern Africa which have counterparts in the so-called Near East, are post-Neolithic or recent dispersions. Much of the latter had been linked to Arab expansionist adventures into those areas.

To recap from above, the authors — i.e. Kujanová et al., of the work under study — say:

"Surprisingly, no other U-lineage (one U3b) is present, in particular U6, which is otherwise frequent throughout North Africa but more so in Western North Africa.

Indeed. Hg U6 seems to factor prominently in these "Neolithic" or else "Paleolithic demic diffusions into northern Africa" proposals [also see: Mitochondrial DNA M1 haplogroup: A Response To Ana M. Gonzalez et al. 2007], but time and again, its distribution pattern just doesn't seem to comply. Several different studies of the western oasis' populations tell the same story: the virtual rarity or absence of Hg U6, which is interesting given that this region is right on the path of the Sinai corridor through which any hypothetical so-called "Near Eastern" proto-U6 is expected to pass, in parallel with a hypothetical ancestor of Hg M1.

Is it possible that there were predynastic human movements into north Africa proper via the Sinai corridor? Yes, it's certainly possible and conceivable, but these events apparently didn't have the sort of impact, magnitude or oomph on the manifestation of autochthonous predynastic Nile Valley cultural development into the dynastic period that the usual "demic diffusion into Nile Valley" crowd would rather like to see. Prevailing and overwhelming evidence just doesn't bear it out, which is apparently a bad thing for business in the bubble of white supremacists, whatever stripes they come in, be it so-called 'liberals' or outright reactionaries.

Monday, April 27, 2009

DE* as "Last Refuge" of Sects so psychologically troubled by African Ancestry?

The purported finding of DE* paraphyletic haplotypes in only 2 Tibetan sample candidates appears to have caused hysterical excitement in certain quarters, specifically amongst sects of individuals who are psychologically and emotionally tormented by the prospect of African ancestry in their "homelands". But this excitement is emotionally driven, and just that. As such, intellectual engagement gives way to religious cultism as the medium of self-expression. But let's just examine how much or what really lies herein that is worth being hysterically excited over:
  • DE* is a descendant clade of M168. M168 is undoubtedly African; this fact alone makes it more than probable that this place [Africa] is also likely where DE* emerged.
  • DE* is more common in Africa than outside of it -
It has been identified in African samples in more than one accasion in separately-conducted studies, having been identified in 5 Nigerian sampling candidates in one study, *1 in an Egyptian sample [see "Miscellaneous notes" below] and 1 Guinean individual in another . On the other hand, it had purportedly been identified in only 2 Tibetan sampling candidates. So we have 6 to 7 African cases vs. 2 Asian cases.
  • DE*'s internal phylogeny is more diverse and widely distributed in Africa -
Considering the greater internal phylogenetic branching of haplogroup E vs haplogroup D, it can be suggestive of either 1) longer time-depth for haplogroup E explosion/expansion, and hence, implicating DE* being around longer in Africa, as the homeland of haplogroup E ...

Or

2) that the haplogroup E lineage experienced an explosion that the D counterparts did not achieve in more or less the same time depth. The question becomes: What could account for this?

Either way, with fact being that African Hg E internal phylogeny is more elaborate than Hg D, the end result suggests that the intensity of such intra-E phylogenetic explosion seems to have had some level of erasing effect on DE* distribution. Given the greater pressure, due to greater demic explosion brought to bear on preexisting DE* in Africa — mainly by its own sub-phylogeny — than that which would have been the case in Asia by the YAP+ counterpart sub-phylogeny there, it's amazing that DE* is relentlessly visible enough in the African gene pool, as demonstrated by its greater chance detectability here than elsewhere, including Asia. This suggests that DE* would have been more widely distributed in Africa than in Asia, having been able to withstand greater pressure from greater subsequent demic expansion of Hg E phylogeny than that involving Hg D phylogeny, respectively in Africa and Asia.

The distribution and internal branching of Hg D suggests, on the other hand, that it involved lower scale dispersal of Hg D*, which were relatively more controlled in their subsequent expansion. The distribution pattern for instance, shows that the major subclades of D in different territories are highly differentiated and generally sharply geographically-structured, being confined to territorial spheres. At least that is the image reflected, if one goes by what's professed in the ISOGG.org website, whatever may be said of the credibility:

Sub-group D1 (D-M15) is seen in Tibet, Mongolia, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, and the sub-groups D* (D-M174) and D3 (D-P47) are seen in Central Asia. The sub-group D2 (D-M55) is seen almost exclusively in Japan.

Hg D* is presumably also identified in the Andaman Islands.
  • A hypothetical Hg DE* back-to-Africa migration seems to have been elusive in leaving genetic tracks behind, presumably from south Asia to Africa -
The supposed back-migrants would seem to have left no genetic tracks behind in a hypothetical destination from southern Asia via the Arabian peninsula, eastern Africa through to African interior, in a hypothetical back-to-Africa migration scenario. If they did, then it had been thoroughly erased by multiple demographic shifts. Hg D's distribution in south Asia, with rare to no presence in territories between that region and Africa, is however explained by founder effect of OOA migrants, already carrying Hg DE* amongst them.

Chandrasekar's speculation is highly questionable for the same reasons just stated above; see:

Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96 (~31 000 years ago; Hammer et al. 1998). This E lineage back-migrated to Africa through the Levant as hypothesized by Hammer et al. (1997) and Altheide and Hammer (1997).

Hg D is rare to absent in the Levant, and conversely, Hg E is virtually rare to absent in populations that do carry Hg D.

Furthermore, Hg E's presence in the so-called Near East, including the Levant and Europe, serves as gene flow from Africa, because Africa is where the entire Hg E phylogeny occurs, not the Levant. All upstream Hg E markers are exclusively found in Africa, and essentially none in the Levant.

The so-called Near East has far much lower frequencies of Hg E than in mainland Africa, and all of these happen to be subclades of African counterparts. Much of these subclades are relegated to the P2 (PN2) phylogeny. Upstream PN2 clades as generally known, only occur in Africa.

Revisiting Chandrasekar's post again,...

Some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation reached the Mediterranean via Central Asia and gave rise to the E lineage with mutations at M40 and M96 (~31 000 years ago; Hammer et al. 1998).

It is also of note that Chandrasekar conveniently ignores that DE* has been found in Africa as well, but in even greater frequencies than his personal favored region [as noted in the second point above], i.e. Asia, not to mention that it is essentially non-existent in the so-called Mediterranean or the Levant. With DE* being in Africa, it is not necessary for Hg E to have come from the Levant, for reasons just mentioned and the ones immediately above this last Chandrasekar citation. Instead, Chandrasekar relies heavily on outdated studies, when Hg E phylogeny, as with many others, were in their early stages of being resolved.

His statement above, about "some of the YAP insertion chromosomes without the M174 mutation" has also implications that Chandrasekar seems to have overlooked:
  • Common sense intimates that any hypothetical DE* back-to-Africa migration — and it would have to have been major enough — would have been pooled from a newly situated migrant group. The keywords here: "newly situated".
Recalling Weale et al....

the presence of the DE* haplogroup has the effect of forcing an earlier date for the most recent common ancestor of all African YAP chromosomes. This reduces the possible time window within which a back-migration to Africa could have occurred under the scenario of an Asian origin for YAP. - Weale et al. 2003, Rare Deep-Rooting Y Chromosome Lineages in Humans.

Indeed! The presence of DE* in Africa suggests that this lineage was in place very shortly after its emergence. The OOA migrants had just recently left Africa for a reason; what on earth would these folks, who had just arrived, go back to Africa for, and at such a gruesomely long distance from a south Asian refuge? Pending tangible evidence of a compelling motive, it makes little sense.

And even if one were to take a hypothetical Asian origin of DE* for granted, based on skin pigmentation allele examinations, the original carriers of these markers would have closely resembled contemporary "black Africans", and even then, Hg E would still not be Asian [considering points above].

Let's face it; it's really not all that complicated: It just so happens that Hg D exists in Asia, while Hg E plays a dominating role in Africa, well, because DE* markers were present in both. Simple enough, isn't it?!

Neither territory has the other respective sub-clade lineage, because these emerged after OOA migrations, understandably.

Not sure why finding DE* therefore, surprises anyone. It's the only way D could have arrived in south Asia sans E; thus, DE* chromosomes brought in from Africa would have to have been around, in order for D to emerge, there is no other way around it. It is also the reason one finds DE* in both Africa, the origin point of destination, and Asia, the destination. However, instead of looking at it that way, some complicate things for themselves, and say that in order for DE* to be in Asia, it surely must have emerged there, and that there is no other way around that.

The most parsimonious explanation generally tends to reduce the number of questions for each answer that it provides than the alternative. In this case, an African origin entailing DE* dispersal in a OOA migration event, paving way for a founder effect situation in southern Asia is the most parsimonious. All things considered [from above], there really is little for the aforementioned sects to be cheerful about, at least from the intellectual side of things, as opposed to the religiously-motivated or plainly wishful end!
_________________________________________________________

Miscellaneous notes:

A lost gem?

The following recently grabbed the attention of the present author of this blog; the abstract goes like this:

The geographic location of Egypt, at the interface between North Africa, the Middle East, and southern Europe, prompted us to investigate the genetic diversity of this population and its relationship with neighboring populations. To assess the extent to which the modern Egyptian population reflects this intermediate geographic position, ten Unique Event Polymorphisms (UEPs), mapping to the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome, have been typed in 164 Y chromosomes from three North African populations. The analysis of these binary markers, which define 11 Y-chromosome lineages, were used to determine the haplogroup frequencies in Egyptians, Moroccan Arabs, and Moroccan Berbers and thereby define the Y-chromosome background in these regions. Pairwise comparisons with a set of 15 different populations from neighboring European, North African, and Middle Eastern populations and geographic analysis showed the absence of any significant genetic barrier in the eastern part of the Mediterranean area, suggesting that genetic variation and gene flow in this area follow the "isolation-by-distance" model. These results are in sharp contrast with the observation of a strong north-south genetic barrier in the western Mediterranean basin, defined by the Gibraltar Strait. Thus, the Y-chromosome gene pool in the modern Egyptian population reflects a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and African characteristics, highlighting the importance of ancient and recent migration waves, followed by gene flow, in the region.

Source: Y-chromosome analysis in Egypt suggests a genetic regional continuity in northeastern Africa

by Manni et al. - 2002

For the complete journal, click here

The piece has raised some questions as to whether the YAP+ chromosomes in "some East Asian populations, such as the Japanese and Tibetans" is the same one identified in the Egyptian sample, i.e. essentially "Hg D", since this is largely the only YAP+ type found in said groups. The answer: Not necessarily, since the authors tested for YAP+, which is shared between Hgs D and E. The Egyptian YAP+ was very likely a paraphyletic chromosome that did not test positive for Hg E*, you know, just like how Hg DE* is devoid of the downstream characteristic markers of Hg E*. The 12f2 marker tested here more than likely refers to Hg J, which in this journal is designated as Hg 9. The nomenclature used here is apparently outdated [after all, this is a 2002 study we're dealing with here], but the finding of an upstream YAP+ chromosome that didn't belong to Hg E (as denoted here by SRY8299) is interesting nonetheless, because it adds to that theme of the unparalleled richness of Hg DE and derivatives on the African continent, as well as the distribution of the upstream DE* clade being *predominantly* an African 'thing'. So, in light of this, Egypt can now be added to the list of African territories wherein rare Hg DE* chromosome appears, a list which has no peers anywhere else where Hg DE* is concerned!

"haplogroup CF and DE molecular ancestors first evolved inside Africa and subsequently contributed as Y chromosome founders to pioneering migrations that successfully colonized Asia. While not proof, the DE and CF bifurcation (Figure 8d ) is consistent with independent colonization impulses possibly occurring in a short time interval."

Source: Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations

by Peter A. Underhill , Toomas Kivisild - 2007

A nutshell!...of what has essentially been more elaborately demonstrated about said markers on this site. The present author of this blog has not yet come across a single genetic journal that says differently about haplotype CF origin.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Rm.t.n.Km.t Calendar Systems, King Lists et al. that aid us in Dating the Ancient Nile Valley Events and Others' thereof

Many cultural complexes of antiquity encompass time lines showcasing early beginnings in the shape of pre-"centralized" social units, usually as clusters of cities or urban areas (centers) concentrated in one particular sub-region, which may not even be loosely connected via a central governing authority [pending convincing evidence to such end], to reasonably verifiable centralized-state formation; as an instance, those in the so-called Mesopotamian sub-region [which are indiscriminately treated with a "blanket" reference in some ideological circles as simply "Mesopotamia"] comes into mind, but it appears that cultural developments of the Nile Valley area is given a rather different treatment. It is generally well known that the ancient Egyptian cultural complex doesn't begin with the centralized dynastic state, but despite this, a common practice in certain ideological circles seems to be that of starting its time line from the unified/centralized ancient Egyptian state or Dynastic Egypt. If we take into consideration the Badarian and Naqadan periods, together going as far back as approx. 5500 B.C., then in that context, the complex Nile Valley culture may well even predate so-called Mesopotamian counterpart. The precursors to these complexes are yet also found in the Sahara. What purpose does it serve to dismiss the earlier complex cultural developments along the Nile? Well, in some ideological circles, it serves to date ancient Egyptian cultural complex later than say, the so-called "Mesopotamian" counterpart—the preferred subject of their fanfare.

Dating techniques:

The reconstruction of chronology of Dynastic Egypt as aided by the Kemetian literature, is in fact not a simple matter in Egyptology; it has been done primarily on the basis of inscriptional archeological evidence, which provide information on certain dating mediums like, Sothic dates.

Available inscriptions that help in this process include Egyptian King Lists:
  • The Table of Abydos.

  • The Table of Sakkara.

  • The Table of Karnak.

  • The Palermo Stone.

  • The Turin Papyrus (Turin Canon)

  • Manetho Lists.

  • Other useful references include, Genesis chronologies from Masoretic version, Septuagint version, and Samaritan version.

  • References to Mesopotamian King lists also become handy,...

  • ...as well as the Egyptian Solar, lunar and Sothic calendar, which contrasts with the Mesopotamian calendar and lunar cycles. (Sothic calendars and dating comprises works of Egyptologists like Alan Gardiner, Theodore Oppolzer, Edward Meyer, Edward Wente and Charles Van Siclen, W.G. Waddell, and others)
Cultures of antiquity like Kemet and Mesopotamia, had characters/kings listed which proceeded from a mythological to a historical period, with the succession of true kings accurately recorded. The earliest kings belonged to a mythological period, often having extraordinary life spans of thousands of years. Historians were able to separate the lists into mythological and historical portions.

Dating techniques described earlier, could also be used to construct other history, like the possible roots of Isrealites in Kemet. Here, both Biblical and archeological references would be utilized to recontruct the possible chronology of events. In order to understand correlation of Genesis chronology to that of Dynastic Egypt, the Egyptian dating system had to be understood from the Egyptian perspective, and then interpreted into the standard solar calendar. This would be essential to putting the time frame of Isrealite departure from Kemet in its proper historical and political context.

Israelites, heavily dependent on Biblical interpretation of history, claim a history that takes us back to a time when notable great civilizations (like Kemet) were thriving. So in essence they are claiming a separate tradition, which one would expect to be in tune with its contemporaries, in terms of record keeping. There is no reason to deny so, after all, we have clear portraits of long-lived ancestors. Like what was said earlier of Kemetian Kings/divine characters earlier, i.e., proceeding from a mythical phase to the historical phase, so is the case with Biblical chronology. Biblical chronology (which again early Israelite history is dependent on) also begins in the mythological period, with its characters also enjoying extraordinary life spans, and it continues well into the historical era, late into 2nd millennium B.C. What is perculiar about the Biblical chronology, is this: even at this historical stage, people named in this later time, still seem to occupy a mythological status, living extraordinary life spans, often hundreds of years than any believable human life span. Add to this, the fact that none of the people named have turned up in any records as actual rulers among the Hebrews or any other Semitic-speaking nation. The apparent reason for this peculiarity of Biblical chronology in comparison to its contemporaries in the likes of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, is that actual Isrealite history as a separate entity is relatively much recent, and does not reach as far back as the aforementioned cultures. It came from another culture, and concrete evidence available points to Kemet, but this is a topic for another day in its own right, to be explored in more detail on this site in the foreseeable future.

Indeed, Egyptian dating system has been used (as reference points) in assisting scholars to determine chronologies in other cultures within the "Mediterranean" regions and so-called "near East".

Sothic Cycles

Ancient Egyptians had an innovative calendar system, the 365-day solar calendar, which was different from its contemporaries (Mesopotamia used a lunar calendar of 354 days, and 360-day calendar) and setting the example that modern calendars follow. The Egyptians had a lunar calendar too, which made use of a 25 year cycle.

As noted earlier here, Egyptologists have used the various kings lists, but they've also taken into account some discrepancies between them, in terms of the chronologies provided. So the additional tool of approximating the chronologies, comes from the Egyptian sothic year, using Sothic cycles as reference points.

The shortcoming of the Egyptian 365-day civil calendar was that, it didn't have the extra-quarter day, that is exemplified by the quadrennial leap year of the modern solar calendar. As a result, the Egyptian civilian calendar fell short of another quarter day of the true solar year, which meant that it couldn't tell farmers when seasons began and when the annual inundation of Nile flood would begin. But of course, the Egyptians had a way around this: they figured out the correlation between the heliacal rising of Sothis and the beginning of the Nile flood. To make sure that the New year on the civilian calendar, which fell short of one quarter of day ever year, coincides with the rise of Sothis, the Egyptians came to the realization that it should take 1,460 solar years for the civil calendar to lose 365 days. Thus, with 1,460 solar years equaling 1,461 Egyptian civil years, the Nile flood and the solar cycle were harmonized. As such, the 1,460 year Sothic cycle, known as the Sothic year, had a full day every four years and a full month every 120 years, imitated the civil calendar. This Sothic year proved instrumental in guiding Egyptologists in reconstructing the chronology with respect to the true solar year, as is used today. Indeed, the Egyptian calendar system has also been useful in constructing chronology of other contemporaneous cultures, like those of Mesopotamia.

That said,...


From Manetho's list, Egyptologists relate the 13th and 17th dynasties to the Theban kings, while the 15th and 16th Dynasties are associated with the Hyksos. The 14th dynasty could have been contemporaneous with the 13th dynasty, and could have either belonged to a line of native Kings or Hyksos. This seems to be a rather chaotic period of dynastic Egypt, and it appears to be reflected in available Kings lists. The Hyksos period is therefore not called the 'dark' period for nothing.

The relative uncertainty about 14th dynasty, based in the Xois city of the north, may well be due to the possibility that, around this time, its local line of rulers were probably under some degree of Hyksos influence or authority, like "vassaldom". And as far as the 16th dynasty is concerned, absence of archeological evidence in support of a line of kings belonging to the Hyksos makes its existence rather questionable.

It should be examined how the Hyksos might have come into the country, because it appears that the Egyptians had a fortified eastern border, with troop presence. So any influx into the nation would have been checked. It seems probable that Egyptians themselves allowed some infiltration of Asiatics into the Delta, possibly for trade reasons:

Hyksos rule of Egypt was probably the climax of waves of Asiatic immigration and infiltration into the northeastern Delta of the Nile. This process was perhaps aided by the Egyptians themselves. For example, Amenemhat II records, in unmistakable language, a campaign by sea to the Lebanese coast that resulted in a list of booty comprising 1,554 Asiatics, and considering that Egypt's eastern border was fortified and probably patrolled by soldiers, it is difficult to understand how massive numbers of foreign people could have simply migrated into northern Egypt. These people migrated, or otherwise moved to the region from the 12th Dynasty onward, and by the 13th Dynasty, this migration became widespread...

...One hypothesis is that the basic population of Egyptians allowed, from time to time, a new influx of settlers, first from the region of Lebanon and Syria, and subsequently from Palestine and Cyprus.

The leaders of these people eventually married into the local Egyptian families, a theory that is somewhat supported by preliminary studies of human remains at Tell el-Dab'a. Indeed, parallels for the foreign traits of the Hyksos at Tell el-Dab'a have been found at southern Palestinian sites such as Tell el-Ajjul, at the Syrian site of Ebla and at Byblos in modern Labanon. - TourEgypt.Net

At any rate, it appears that ambitious leaders among these immigrants were aided in their adventure, in part due to new imported military concepts they came with, and on the other hand, the existing political weakness during the late 13th dynasty. They subsequently (in late 18th century B.C.) were able to make their capital at Avaris, and then Memphis, 50 years later or so. It should be noted however, that the expansion of Hyksos rule towards upper Egypt was slow paced, and they were never able to adequately rule upper Egypt.

As a matter of fact, no clear chronological line demarcates the 13th dynasty from the 17th dynasty, both of which appeared to have been running in Upper Egypt, during the Hyksos period. Some Egyptologists have been tempted to further subdivide these two dynasties into a number of dynasties, under the suspicion that some of the kings in these dynasties formed an independent political entity from their immediate predecessor, particularly the last few kings of the 17th dynasty.

It is generally accepted that Kamose, the Theban King, took the initiative of launching a war of liberation to drive out the Hyksos. The subsequent victory was completed under Ahmose's watch, with the re-unification of Egypt, and bringing the Theban authority to the fore again.

Prior to Ahmose's re-unification of Egypt, Nebhepetre's (Menthotpe II) moving of the capital to Thebes upon victory over Herakleopolis, left a lasting impact on the minds of Egyptians. Evidence of this, is a temple inscription, dating to the 19th dynasty, bringing together the names of three kings; Menes, Nebhepetre (Menthotpe II) and Ahmose. According to William C. Hayes, these folks were "obviously" regarded "as the founders of the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms". It appears from this, that in the 19th dynasty, Egyptians viewed national history in terms of these three epochs, each marked by unification of the nation by a Pharaoh, after political upheaval. This probably explains the confusion expressed in the following article:

Archeologists have found the tomb of pharaoh Nubkeperre Inyotef with the aid of a papyrus document that could help find more royal tombs

Cairo, July 01, 2001 (AFP/Agence France Presse) - Archeologists have discovered the tomb of an Egyptian pharaoh with the aid of a papyrus document they now realize could help them find more royal tombs, antiquities officials have said. A German working on the west bank of the Nile near present-day Luxor found the tomb of Nubkeperre Inyotef, who is believed to have started the war of liberation against Hyksos invaders around 3,500 years ago, they said.

"Historically speaking, it is a very exciting find," the secretary general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, Gaballah Ali Gaballah, said when asked to comment on a German news report of the find. "It validates the information on the papyrus document," he said.Nubkeperre Inyotef's tomb was mentioned in the so-called Abbot Papyrus, a 20th dynasty document now in the British Museum which detailed royal tombs that were pillaged in a period of anarchy under that dynasty, he said...

Coregencies have caused confusion in the copying of original sources that may have been available, resulting in questionable durations of reign of various Kings.

Another perspective on the impact of King lists on the chronology of dynasties and other event, comes from Gary Greenberg [see Ancient Israelites: Bible Myth], who in turn made reference to the traditional chronology of the Twelfth Dynasty in Gardiner's Egypt of the Pharaohs. According to Greenberg, the King list has two unusual features; "one is the repeated use of the same name by several Kings, four of whom adopted the name Amenemhe and three others who used the name Senwosre", and the other, "is the larege number of coregencies in this dynasty. Five of the eight rulers share a portion of their reigns with their successors."

From Alan Gardiner's Egypt of the Pharaohs, the traditional chronology of the 12th Dynasty:
  • Amenemhe I: Duration of rule>1991-1962; Highest Year Mark>30; Length of Coregency with Successor>10.

  • Senwosre I: Duration of rule>1971-1928; Highest Year Mark>44; Length of Coregency with Successor>2.

  • Amenemhe II: Duration of rule>1929-1928; Highest Year Mark>35; Length of Coregency with Successor>3.

  • Senwosre II: Duration of rule>1897-1877; Highest Year Mark>6; Length of Coregency with Successor>2.

  • Senwosre III: Duration of rule>1878-1843; Highest Year Mark>33; Length of Coregency with Successor> NA.

  • Amenemhe III: Duration of rule>1842-1797; Highest Year Mark>45; Length of Coregency with Successor>2.

  • Amenemhe IV: Duration of rule>1798-1790; Highest Year Mark>6; Length of Coregency with Successor>NA.

  • Sobeknofru: Duration of rule>1789-1786; Highest Year Mark>NA; Length of Coregency with Successor>NA.
Total Years = 19

The above is "an outline of the coregencies" involved.

Greenberg then does the honor of outlining the coregencies:
  • Amenemhe I: Coregency with Predecessor>none; Independent Reign without Coregents>20; Coregency with Successors>10.

  • Senwosre I: Coregency with Predecessor>10; Independent Reign without Coregents>32; Coregency with Successors>2.

  • Amenemhe II: Coregency with Predecessor>2; Independent Reign without Coregents>30; Coregency with Successors>3.

  • Senwosre II: Coregency with Predecessor>3; Independent Reign without Coregents>16; Coregency with Successors>2.

  • Senwosre III: Coregency with Predecessor>2; Independent Reign without Coregents>34; Coregency with Successors>NA.

  • Amenemhe III: Coregency with Predecessor>NA; Independent Reign without Coregents>44; Coregency with Successors>2.

  • Amenemhe IV: Coregency with Predecessor>2; Independent Reign without Coregents>7; Coregency with Successors>NA.

  • Sobeknofru: Coregency with Predecessor>NA; Independent Reign without Coregents>4; Coregency with Successors>NA.
Total years of Independent Reign without Coregents = 187

Total years of Coregency with Successors = 19

According to Greenberg, concerning the above outline of coregencies:

Coregencies create something of an anomaly in Egyptian theology. If the sitting pharaoh represented the god Horus, which of the coregents filled that role? Although coregencies were not unknown prior to the Twelfth Dynasty, they appear to have been extremely rare. The sudden appearance of so many coregencies in one dynasty is a radical departure from tradition.This phenomenon, coupled with the repeated use of names, appears to have caused ancient Egyptian chronographers to make some errors in compiling their king lists...

Egyptian king lists provide two chronological histories of the Twelfth Dynasty, one in the Turin Canon and the other in Manetho.

Some interesting reading on erratic element of the following papyri King lists on the dating and the chronological layout of following Dynasties...

Greenberg's notes on The Turin Canon:

For lengths of reigns in the Twelfth Dynasty, the Turin Canon has four complete entries and four damaged entries. The four readable entries are as follows:

Senwosre I: 45 years

Senwosre II: 19 years

Amenemhe IV: 9 years, 3 months, 27 days

Sebeknofru: 3 years, 10 months, 24 days

The Turin Canon also says that the dynasty had a total duration of 213 years, 1 month, and 16 days. This is approximately 7 years longer than the actual total for the 12th Dynasty and indicates some confusion about the treatment of coregencies.

Senwosre I, Senwosre II, and Amenemhe IV each shared portions of their reign with a coregent, but the Turin Canon does not indicate which portions of which reigns were served by coregents. Senwosre I shared ten years with his predecessor and 2 years with his successor. Senwosre II shared 3 years with his predecessor and 2 years with his successor. Amenemhe IV shared 2 years with his predecessor.

While both of Senwosre I's coregencies are included in the length of his reign, only one of the two for Senwosre II is included in his reign. The one coregency of Amenemhe IV appears to be included in his lenght of reign.

This suggests that the Turin Canon author either shortened other reigns to account for some of the additional coregencies, or may have mistakenly recorded the lengths of reign for some of the other kings. Unfortunately, it is these other reigns that have damaged entries, which prevents us from knowing how dating problems were handled.

The following example illustrates the problem. The Turin Canon total for the first king of the dynasty, Amenemhe I, only preserves a "9" - a portion of the total number of years, which indicates that if the entry weren't damaged, it would have read either "19" or "29". If "19" were the original entry, it would mean that the Turin Canon shortened Amenemhe I's reign by ten years to account for the coregency. If the correct entry were "29", then no adjustment would have occurred and the dynasty total would have been off by an additional ten years.

In any event, we see that as early as the 19th Dynasty, Egyptian scribes had trouble accounting for coregencies and recording an accurate dynastic duration.

And now, Greenberg's take on Manetho's king list:

Manetho's 12th Dynasty introduces us to a large number of errors, the detailed examination of which is beyond the scope this work. To begin with, the two versions of Manetho, Africanus and Eusebius, have different information. Although both agree on the chronology of the first five kings, the two lists radically differ with regard to the balance of the dynasty.

Africanus lists two additional kings with a total reign of twelve years, and gives the dynasty a total of 176 years.Eusebiusdescribes an unidentified number of successors ruling for forty-seven years and gives an unusually long dynastic total of 245 years, forty-seven years longer than the sum of all the duration listed and thirty-nine years longer than the actual lenght of the dynasty.

For purposes of our analysis, I want to focus only on Manetho's first five kings. He gives the following sequence and durations"

Ammenemes: 16 years

Sesonchosis: 46 years

Ammanemes: 38 years

Sesostris: 48 years

Lachares: 8 years

The Manetho list presents a few problems. It gives the first king a reign of sixteen years instead of twenty or thirty (depending on whether the coregency is included), and the second king (corresponding to Senwosre I) a reign of forty-six years. The second reign coincides quite well with the forty-five years in the Turin Canon and would appear to include all of the years served as coregent. But the first two reigns added together total sixty-two years, the exact number for the first two reigns if you exclude the coregency at the end of the second reign.

This suggests that four years belonging to the first king were mistakenly assigned to the reign of the second. If we reassign those four years, then Manetho's second king ruled only forty-two years, which coincides exactly with the true length of that king's reign prior to the start of his coregency with the third king. This would require that the coregency between Senwosre I and his successor (Amenemhe II) be included in the reign of Amenemhe II, and as we are about to see, that is the case.

According to Manetho, the third king, who should correspond to AmenemheII, had a reign of thirty-eight years. But the true length of that reign, including the coregencies at the beginning and end, should be no more than thirty-five years, leaving ample time for the initial coregency to be included in the total but giveing this pharaoh at least three more years than uld be allowed. Those years appear to have been erroneously transferred from Manetho's fourth king, Sesostris.

Many commentators believe that Manetho's Sesostris incorporates the reigns of both Senwosre II and Senwosre III (the fourth and fifth kings). In support of this conclusion, consider the following: In the traditional chronology, the first five kings to the end of Senwosre III ruled a total of 149 years (1991-1843 B.C.), whereas the first four kings in Manetho reigned a total of 148 years.

This means that the reigns of Manetho's first four Kings have exactly the right length for the first five Egyptian kings in the dynasty. (The one-year difference can be easily accounted for by a rounding error with the last year of reign.) Therefore, if Manetho's third king had a reign that is three years too long, those years must have been transferred from somewhere else. By coincidence, we see that Manethos's fourth reign is three years too short.

Manetho's forth king, combining Senwosre II and Senwosre III, ruled forty-eight years. Senwosre II's independent reign started in 1894 and Senwosre III's ended in 1843, resulting in a tptal reign of fifty-two years. Four years are missing, one of which was due to the rounding error. That leaves three years unaccounted for. Logic suggests they must have been assigned to the fourth king's predecessor, who has three years too many.

This erroneous transfer of three years most probably occurred because of ambiguities in some earlier source document concerning the three-year coregency. A scribe probably wrote that Senwosre II shared three years with Amenemhe II and the later editor may not have realized that the three shared years were already incorporated into the given length of reign for Amenemhe II. Consequently, the editor mistakenly transferred three additional years from Senwosre II's independent reign to Amenemhe II.

This brings us to Manetho's fifth king, Lachares, who served eight years. Lachares ought to correspond to the sixth king, Amenemhe III, who served for forty-five years. The Manetho reign is far too short, and at this point the two Manetho versions break apart. Africanus has two additional kings serving twelve years; Eusebius ntified number of kings serving fourty-two years.

From Manetho, then, we have confusion over coregencies, the combining of reigns, two instances in which years belonging to one reign were mistakenly transferred to another, and a breakdown after Senwosre III.

More links for further reading:

http://www.antiquityofman.com/badarian.html

Were Egyptians the first scribes?

Lastly, much of the content above, albeit with slight modification was originally posted here: Dating in the Nile Valley

*As always, content is subject to updating.