This suggest that haplogroup N was taken to Western Eurasia by the San people=Cro-Magnon.
This is what you do: Never answer questions around your claims, and then, regurgitate them as "new topics". From a cranio-metric standpoint, do you have any material that links the so-called Cro-Magnon to San people?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Above is a picture of Cro-Magnon man, the first anatomically modern European. The first Europeans were the Bushman or Khoisan people.
This is a bushman or San.
Hottentot
As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.
Venus Figurines
The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.
The Aurignacian civilization was founded by the Cro-Magnon people who originated in Africa. They took this culture to Western Europe across the Straits of Gibraltar. The Cro-Magnon people were probably Bushman/Khoi.
There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in Europe. Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism, pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that "There was once a an "uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa" (p.88).
Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element.
Since the publication of Verneau's memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to protray Negroids.
In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a reseblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (p.291).
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
The Boule and Vallois research makes it clear that the Bushman expanded across Africa on into Europe via Spain as the Grimaldi people. This makes it clear that the Bushman/Khoisan people were not isolated in South Africa. The Khoisan people carry the haplogroup N. The Hadza are Bushman they carry haplogroup N.
Cro-Magnon people carried haplogroup N:
quote:
Specific mtDNA sites outside HVRI were also analyzed (by amplification, cloning, and sequencing of the surrounding region) to classify more precisely the ancient sequences within the phylogenetic network of present-time mtDNAs (35, 36). Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35). Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35). It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated. However, genetic affinities between the first anatomically modern Europeans and current populations of the Near East make sense in the light of the likely routes of Upper Paleolithic human expansions in Europe, as documented in the archaeological record (37).
This suggest that haplogroup N was taken to Western Eurasia by the San people=Cro-Magnon.
This is what you do: Never answer questions around your claims, and then, regurgitate them as "new topics". From a cranio-metric standpoint, do you have any material that links the so-called Cro-Magnon to San people?
The craniofacial evidence makes it clear that the Aurignacian people came from Africa . The Aurignacian people are called Grimaldi Or Cro-Magnon.
1. Boule, M., HV Vallois . (1957). Fossil Man . Dryden Press New York
2. Barral,L. & Charles,R.P. (1963) Nouvelles donnees anthropometriques et precision sue les affinities systematiques des negroides de Grimaldi, Bulletin du Musee d’anthropologie prehistorique de Monaco, No.10:123-139.
3. Verneaux,R: Les Origines de l’humanite. Paris: F. Riedder & Cie, 1926.
Boule, M., HV Vallois in Fossil Man link the San people and the Aurignacians who are labled today Cro-Magnon
posted
Well, what are you waiting for. Where are the cranio-metric specifics of the Cro-Magnon that unequivocally link the type to the San people? Citing titles or just names of authors tells us nothing of the specifics.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Well, what are you waiting for. Where are the cranio-metric specifics of the Cro-Magnon that unequivocally link the type to the San people? Citing titles or just names of authors tells us nothing of the specifics.
I provided the evidence. If you disagree provide the evidence disputing this relationship.
posted
You call simply naming authors and titles of french works "evidence"? Are you saying you don't know what the evidence is, and hence, reduced to citing names of people as "evidence"?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: You call simply naming authors and titles of french works "evidence"? Are you saying you don't know what the evidence is, and hence, reduced to citing names of people as "evidence"?
No I'm saying you don't really care what the evidence is. I am citing research not people. And if you have evidence disconfirming the Research of these writers you should present it.
posted
If I didn't care, I wouldn't be asking you for *specifics*. Your remark is ironic, considering it is you who is reluctant to share evidence, that you are supposed to be already familiar with. What's holding you back?
What can you tell us about the anterior cranio-facial traits that tie the Cro-Magnon cranium to that of the San? Or put it another way: if one were to put the Cro-Magnon cranium aside that of a modern San, according to your understanding, one will not be able to tell which belongs to the Cro-Magnon, and which belongs to the San? No, then elaborate.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: If I didn't care, I wouldn't be asking you for *specifics*. Your remark is ironic, considering it is you who is reluctant to share evidence, that you are supposed to be already familiar with. What's holding you back?
What can you tell us about the anterior cranio-facial traits that tie the Cro-Magnon cranium to that of the San? Or put it another way: if one were to put the Cro-Magnon cranium aside that of a modern San, according to your understanding, one will not be able to tell which belongs to the Cro-Magnon, and which belongs to the San? No, then elaborate.
Why should I . I already discussed the conclusions of Boule, M., HV Vallois in Fossil Man, that link the San people and the Aurignacians who are labled today Cro-Magnon today . You have not explained why you disagree with their analysis.
Duh:...because you are supposed to back up your claims. This is not the so-called "dark ages" of Europe, where we willy-nilly accept anything anybody feels like spouting out randomly.
quote: I already discussed the conclusions of Boule, M., HV Vallois in Fossil Man, that link the San people and the Aurignacians who are labled today Cro-Magnon today . You have not explained why you disagree with their analysis.
Where have you demonstrated the *cranio-morphometric specificities* that I asked of you, that you were supposedly replying. I must have missed the answer. Run it by me...and I don't mean simply naming authors or work titles.
quote:
Why do you think these writers are wrong.
Tell me; how am I supposed to judge an evidence that has not been presented? I'm not Miss Cleo.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element.
Since the publication of Verneau's memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to protray Negroids.
In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a reseblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (p.291).
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group."
Why do you disagree with the above?
What specific evidence do you have disputing this material?
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was dealt with in the thread I initiated. Then, you refused to answer to questions around it, as you do now.
Cranio-metric specifics - ditto. Many old works had questionably compared certain crania to "Boskopoids" which is now largely discredited. This is why we need the cranio-metric specifics that you are supposedly mindful of but refused to share...for obvious reasons.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW Clyde, what do you make of this from Groves:
Factor 1 represents robusticity, factor 2 represents the sub-Saharan/Caucasoid contrast. The Caucasoid populations (Egypt, Norse, Cro-Magnon) score positively on factor 2, the sub-Saharan Teita score negatively. The modern Dogon (Southern Mali) samples are intermediate. The fossil Nubians [who were described as being Mechtoid] score strongly negative, as does the Asselar skull (Central Mali). What is especially interesting is that Afalou also scores negatively, if only slightly; it occupies the same morphological position as do the modern Dogon.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde and other linguist experts may find this interesting.
=====
Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome and mtDNA variation in Africa: evidence for sex-biased demographic processes. Division of Biotechnology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
To investigate associations between genetic, linguistic, and geographic variation in Africa, we type 50 Y chromosome SNPs in 1122 individuals from 40 populations representing African geographic and linguistic diversity. We compare these patterns of variation with those that emerge from a similar analysis of published mtDNA HVS1 sequences from 1918 individuals from 39 African populations. For the Y chromosome, Mantel tests reveal a strong partial correlation between genetic and linguistic distances (r=0.33, P=0.001) and no correlation between genetic and geographic distances (r=-0.08, P>0.10). In contrast, mtDNA variation is weakly correlated with both language (r=0.16, P=0.046) and geography (r=0.17, P=0.035). AMOVA indicates that the amount of paternal among-group variation is much higher when populations are grouped by linguistics (Phi(CT)=0.21) than by geography (Phi(CT)=0.06). Levels of maternal genetic among-group variation are low for both linguistics and geography (Phi(CT)=0.03 and 0.04, respectively). When Bantu speakers are removed from these analyses, the correlation with linguistic variation disappears for the Y chromosome and strengthens for mtDNA. These data suggest that patterns of differentiation and gene flow in Africa have differed for men and women in the recent evolutionary past. We infer that sex-biased rates of admixture and/or language borrowing between expanding Bantu farmers and local hunter-gatherers played an important role in influencing patterns of genetic variation during the spread of African agriculture in the last 4000 years.
Y-chromosomal diversity in Europe is clinal and influenced primarily by geography, rather than by language.
Clinal patterns of autosomal genetic diversity within Europe have been interpreted in previous studies in terms of a Neolithic demic diffusion model for the spread of agriculture; in contrast, studies using mtDNA have traced many founding lineages to the Paleolithic and have not shown strongly clinal variation. We have used 11 human Y-chromosomal biallelic polymorphisms, defining 10 haplogroups, to analyze a sample of 3,616 Y chromosomes belonging to 47 European and circum-European populations. Patterns of geographic differentiation are highly nonrandom, and, when they are assessed using spatial autocorrelation analysis, they show significant clines for five of six haplogroups analyzed. Clines for two haplogroups, representing 45% of the chromosomes, are continentwide and consistent with the demic diffusion hypothesis. Clines for three other haplogroups each have different foci and are more regionally restricted and are likely to reflect distinct population movements, including one from north of the Black Sea. Principal-components analysis suggests that populations are related primarily on the basis of geography, rather than on the basis of linguistic affinity. This is confirmed in Mantel tests, which show a strong and highly significant partial correlation between genetics and geography but a low, nonsignificant partial correlation between genetics and language. Genetic-barrier analysis also indicates the primacy of geography in the shaping of patterns of variation. These patterns retain a strong signal of expansion from the Near East but also suggest that the demographic history of Europe has been complex and influenced by other major population movements, as well as by linguistic and geographic heterogeneities and the effects of drift.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So. . .the above should strengthen Wally's point that the Fulani may indeed be remnants of AE.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: This was dealt with in the thread I initiated. Then, you refused to answer to questions around it, as you do now.
Cranio-metric specifics - ditto. Many old works had questionably compared certain crania to "Boskopoids" which is now largely discredited. This is why we need the cranio-metric specifics that you are supposedly mindful of but refused to share...for obvious reasons.
Here is the evidence I cited earlier. You have still failed to answer my questions.
Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element.
Since the publication of Verneau's memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to protray Negroids.
In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a reseblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (p.291).
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group."
Why do you disagree with the above?
What specific evidence do you have disputing this material?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: BTW Clyde, what do you make of this from Groves:
Factor 1 represents robusticity, factor 2 represents the sub-Saharan/Caucasoid contrast. The Caucasoid populations (Egypt, Norse, Cro-Magnon) score positively on factor 2, the sub-Saharan Teita score negatively. The modern Dogon (Southern Mali) samples are intermediate. The fossil Nubians [who were described as being Mechtoid] score strongly negative, as does the Asselar skull (Central Mali). What is especially interesting is that Afalou also scores negatively, if only slightly; it occupies the same morphological position as do the modern Dogon.
What does this have to do with Boule and Vallois? I don't see any discussion in this quotation disputing the research of these anthropologists.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Neither of which is actually true.
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Archaic means:
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time.
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
Hey kid, Hofmeyr, Omo I, Qazfeh, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi etc...
are all considered archaic anatomically modern humans who possess certain throwback characteristics.
Australians also exhibit archaic features associated with early anatomically modern humans.
So are you saying Australians are not modern humans since they possess certain archaic features?
MindoverMatter718 - I believe explorer asked you to explain this, but you never did.
So I will ask: Which archaic features are you talking about.
Here is a picture, could you point them out to me?
P.S. I'm fuching with you. I know, and You know that I know, that you were talking about his Negroid features.
You White people just can't seem to get it, YOU are simply DEFECTIVE Blacks. The Australian is NORMAL, you are NOT!
Factor 1 represents robusticity, factor 2 represents the sub-Saharan/Caucasoid contrast. The Caucasoid populations (Egypt, Norse, Cro-Magnon) score positively on factor 2, the sub-Saharan Teita score negatively. The modern Dogon (Southern Mali) samples are intermediate. The fossil Nubians [who were described as being Mechtoid] score strongly negative, as does the Asselar skull (Central Mali). What is especially interesting is that Afalou also scores negatively, if only slightly; it occupies the same morphological position as do the modern Dogon.
What does this have to do with Boule and Vallois? I don't see any discussion in this quotation disputing the research of these anthropologists.
If you have to ask, then you probably should refrain from using cranio-morphology as evidence of connection between the Cro-Magnon and the San. What does your citation say about the Asselar fossil?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Archaic means:
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time.
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
Hey kid, Hofmeyr, Omo I, Qazfeh, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi etc...
are all considered archaic anatomically modern humans who possess certain throwback characteristics.
Australians also exhibit archaic features associated with early anatomically modern humans.
So are you saying Australians are not modern humans since they possess certain archaic features?
Question: What archaic features are we told about the Cro-Magnon?
Are you asking me or Mike? Because I didn't make mention of Cro-Magnon until Mike noted them to archaic.
But to answer your question, take note of Erik Trinkhaus and his persistence on positing Neanderthal admixture into early modern humans in Europe, he thinks there is admixture because some traits are noted as archaic, but Trinkhaus thinks its from Neanderthal.
I noted Australians as retaining some archaic features ex. their brow ridges.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Neither of which is actually true.
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Archaic means:
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time.
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
Hey kid, Hofmeyr, Omo I, Qazfeh, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi etc...
are all considered archaic anatomically modern humans who possess certain throwback characteristics.
Australians also exhibit archaic features associated with early anatomically modern humans.
So are you saying Australians are not modern humans since they possess certain archaic features?
MindoverMatter718 - I believe explorer asked you to explain this, but you never did.
So I will ask: Which archaic features are you talking about.
Here is a picture, could you point them out to me?
P.S. I'm fuching with you. I know, and You know that I know, that you were talking about his Negroid features.
You White people just can't seem to get it, YOU are simply DEFECTIVE Blacks. The Australian is NORMAL, you are NOT!
No actually he asked what archaic features Cro-Magnon possessed, and if you go back and read your own post you'll note that you were the one who said Cro-Magnon was archaic, wherein I noted that humans 30k + ya are noted to possess certain throwback traits that are not present in modern humans while others are.
And no I wasn't talking about his "Negroid" features white Mike, instead I was talking about his brow ridges. Australians are known to possess the most closest phenotype when compared to early modern humans from Africa and around the world.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Archaic means:
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time.
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
Hey kid, Hofmeyr, Omo I, Qazfeh, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi etc...
are all considered archaic anatomically modern humans who possess certain throwback characteristics.
Australians also exhibit archaic features associated with early anatomically modern humans.
So are you saying Australians are not modern humans since they possess certain archaic features?
Question: What archaic features are we told about the Cro-Magnon?
Are you asking me or Mike? Because I didn't make mention of Cro-Magnon until Mike noted them to archaic.
But to answer your question, take note of Erik Trinkhaus and his persistence on positing Neanderthal admixture into early modern humans in Europe, he thinks there is admixture because some traits are noted as archaic, but Trinkhaus thinks its from Neanderthal.
I noted Australians as retaining some archaic features ex. their brow ridges.
I was replying to whomever wrote the above, as highlighted. Whose post was that? I want to know what is being alluded to as "throwback characteristics".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Factor 1 represents robusticity, factor 2 represents the sub-Saharan/Caucasoid contrast. The Caucasoid populations (Egypt, Norse, Cro-Magnon) score positively on factor 2, the sub-Saharan Teita score negatively. The modern Dogon (Southern Mali) samples are intermediate. The fossil Nubians [who were described as being Mechtoid] score strongly negative, as does the Asselar skull (Central Mali). What is especially interesting is that Afalou also scores negatively, if only slightly; it occupies the same morphological position as do the modern Dogon.
What does this have to do with Boule and Vallois? I don't see any discussion in this quotation disputing the research of these anthropologists.
If you have to ask, then you probably should refrain from using cranio-morphology as evidence of connection between the Cro-Magnon and the San. What does your citation say about the Asselar fossil?
Hours on, no answer. Excellent.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Cro-Magnon is officially described as an archaic form of Modern Humans. Now Scientifically defined as Homo Sapien.
Archaic means:
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time.
4 : surviving from an earlier period; specifically : typical of a previously dominant evolutionary stage.
Since Africans are indisputably "Modern Humans" and "up-to-date" in every way, and NOT Archaic Humans, I just don't see why you find the difference difficult to understand.
Hey kid, Hofmeyr, Omo I, Qazfeh, Cro-Magnon, Grimaldi etc...
are all considered archaic anatomically modern humans who possess certain throwback characteristics.
Australians also exhibit archaic features associated with early anatomically modern humans.
So are you saying Australians are not modern humans since they possess certain archaic features?
Question: What archaic features are we told about the Cro-Magnon?
Are you asking me or Mike? Because I didn't make mention of Cro-Magnon until Mike noted them to archaic.
But to answer your question, take note of Erik Trinkhaus and his persistence on positing Neanderthal admixture into early modern humans in Europe, he thinks there is admixture because some traits are noted as archaic, but Trinkhaus thinks its from Neanderthal.
I noted Australians as retaining some archaic features ex. their brow ridges.
I was replying to whomever wrote the above, as highlighted. Whose post was that? I want to know what is being alluded to as "throwback characteristics".
European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals Erik Trinkaus*
Abstract
A consideration of the morphological aspects of the earliest modern humans in Europe (more than 33,000 B.P.) and the subsequent Gravettian human remains indicates that they possess an anatomical pattern congruent with the autapomorphic (derived) morphology of the earliest (Middle Paleolithic) African modern humans. However, they exhibit a variable suite of features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic (ancestral) aspects that had been lost among the African Middle Paleolithic modern humans. These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions, as well as aspects of the clavicles, scapulae, metacarpals, and appendicular proportions. The ubiquitous and variable presence of these morphological features in the European earlier modern human samples can only be parsimoniously explained as a product of modest levels of assimilation of Neandertals into early modern human populations as the latter dispersed across Europe. This interpretation is in agreement with current analyses of recent and past human molecular data.
Conclusion
The human paleontological record of EEMHs is the ultimate test of the phylogenetic fate of the Neandertals. Its indications are clear. Early modern Europeans reflect both their predominant African early modern human ancestry and a substantial degree of admixture between those early modern humans and the indigenous Neandertals. Given the tens of millennia since then and the limitations inherent in ancient DNA, this process is largely invisible in the molecular record. It is readily apparent in the paleontological record.
Counter to the above.....
A description of the Omo I postcranial skeleton, including newly discovered fossils Osbjorn M. Pearson Journal of Human Evolution August 2008
"While it once may have been reasonable to interpret the presence of these ‘‘Neandertal-like’’ features in Eurasian early modern humans as potential evidence of gene flow from neighboring and contemporaneous Neandertal populations, the presence of these features in Omo I raises the distinct possibility that Eurasian early modern humans inherited these features from an African ancestor rather than Neandertals."Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but my question was pertaining to the Cro-Magnon; what "throwback characteristics" were you thinking of, when you implicated the type?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Yeah, but my question was pertaining to the Cro-Magnon; what "throwback characteristics" were you thinking of, when you implicated the type?
Yea, well the specimens labeled as "Cro Magnon" are included into Trinkaus' data.
What are throwback characteristics to you?
As noted, this study discusses all EEMH, from which I made my point.
However, they exhibit a variable suite of features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic (ancestral) aspects that had been lost among the African Middle Paleolithic modern humans. These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions, as well as aspects of the clavicles, scapulae, metacarpals, and appendicular proportions.---TrinkausPosts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The piece tell us nothing about the "throwbacks characteristics" that the Cro-Magnon are supposed to have. Per your understanding, how does Trinkaus' figure that the Cro-Magnon have the so-called traits?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The piece tell us nothing about the "throwbacks characteristics" that the Cro-Magnon are supposed to have.
I'm pretty sure it does....
If not, then what do you call the following (highlighted) of which Trinkaus notes after analyzing all EEMH (remember Cro-Magnon is an EEMH and is included)?
However, they exhibit a variable suite of features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic (ancestral) aspects that had been lost among the African Middle Paleolithic modern humans. These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions, as well as aspects of the clavicles, scapulae, metacarpals, and appendicular proportions.---Trinkaus
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Per your understanding, how does Trinkaus' figure that the Cro-Magnon have the so-called traits?
Per your understanding, why would Trinkaus note the traits as plesiomorphic and/or evidence of neanderthal admixture?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
The piece tell us nothing about the "throwbacks characteristics" that the Cro-Magnon are supposed to have. [/qb]
I'm pretty sure it does....
If not, then what do you call the following (highlighted) of which Trinkaus notes after analyzing all EEMH (remember Cro-Magnon is an EEMH and is included)?
You said you are pretty sure your piece does, and yet you are not able to identify what that author finds "throwback" about the Cro-Magnon. Do you not find anything strange about that?
Of course, the Cro-Magnon belongs to the Gravettian period. That has to do with the timeline; it doesn't automatically render Cro-Magnon traits "throwback".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Per your understanding, why would Trinkaus note the traits as plesiomorphic and/or evidence of neanderthal admixture?
Because certain crania or the other in his crania collection exhibit said traits, like say the Oase 2. But this in itself says nothing about the Cro-Magnon, unless specified. The Cro-Magnon is NOT cranio-morphometrically indistinguishable from say either Oase 1, Oase2 or say, Muierii 2, and neither of the latter not indistinguishable from one another.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
The piece tell us nothing about the "throwbacks characteristics" that the Cro-Magnon are supposed to have.
I'm pretty sure it does....
If not, then what do you call the following (highlighted) of which Trinkaus notes after analyzing all EEMH (remember Cro-Magnon is an EEMH and is included)?
You said you are pretty sure your piece does, and yet you are not able to identify what that author finds "throwback" about the Cro-Magnon. Do you not find anything strange about that?
Of course, the Cro-Magnon belongs to the Gravettian period. That has to do with the timeline; it doesn't automatically render Cro-Magnon traits "throwback". [/QB]
Throwback was my term obviously. Trinkaus notes it as plesiomorphic and or evidence of Neanderthal admixture...why?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good question. Indeed, what does Trinkaus suppose Cro-Magnon attained as "admixture" from Neanderthal or as plesiomorphic. This is a question you are supposed to be answering, and not asking the asker, who was asking it in the first place, because it was you who maintained so.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
In addition, the Cro-Magnon postcrania, despite uncertainties in associating the mixed femora and tibiae, can only have had Neandertal-like or intermediate crural indices.
Holliday's Cro-Magnon specimen fell in line with other Gravettian samples in generating crural and brachial index means similar to recent sub-Saharan means. This of course, could be a function of means hiding variability. Should that have been the case, Holliday would have likely pointed it out, as a relative "outlier" as he did with certain specimens. The claim above appears to have been done from the premise of a personal hunch as opposed to empirical research.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Indeed, what does Trinkaus suppose Cro-Magnon attained as "admixture" from Neanderthal or as plesiomorphic.
Seriously? Lol. You can't be.
...features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic (ancestral)...
These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions, as well as aspects of the clavicles, scapulae, metacarpals, and appendicular proportions.---Trinkaus
^^The above as noted (several times already) is what Trinkaus proposes as plesiomorphic and/or evidence of admixture with Neanderthal into the EEMH lineage.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
...can't be what? Your copy & paste craft is outmoded, as it flies against logic, in terms of what you are being asked. This is why one has to learn to think for oneself, and not robotically copy & paste material like a broken record, prompting the very same question to be asked like five or more different ways. Again, What does the above tells us about the Cro-Magnon; what? That it is EEMH, and therefore, we should just take the copy & paste regurgitation for granted as something that makes sense, and actually answers the question asked?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't be serious. Wanna know why? Because the answer to your question re: "what does Trinkaus suppose Cro-Magnon attained as "admixture" from Neanderthal or as plesiomorphic." was answered specifically.
Yea you asked the same question five different ways, but hey if you can't find your answer into what Trinkaus supposed as such then it's not my fault, the details are in your face.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Again, What does the above tells us about the Cro-Magnon; what? That it is EEMH, and therefore, we should just take the copy & paste regurgitation for granted as something that makes sense, and actually answers the question asked?
Lol, your initial question was about what arhcaic features Cro-Magnon possessed, you were answered, so don't change your questions now.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Yea you asked the same question five different ways,
Because I thought you would catch on half way, but I can see that I made an overestimation.
quote: and you received the same answer every time because it didn't change.
Which is what's instructive about that *singular* copy & paste response [mind you, NOT an actual answer]. It says that you are unable to think outside of the copy & paste material, that you very likely don't fully grasp.
quote: Only your questions lol.
You asked "what does Trinkaus suppose Cro-Magnon attained as "admixture" from Neanderthal or as plesiomorphic."
Hey, if you can't find your answer into what Trinkaus supposed as such then it's not my fault.
Of course, it is your fault. *You* implicated the Cro-Magnon in the so-called "throwback characteristics", and you provided Trinkaus as your source. If you cannot tell us how the former applies to the Cro-Magnon, and if your supposed source doesn't answer this either, then it says the fault lies with you. Not the inquirer or your source.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Lol, your initial question was about what arhcaic features Cro-Magnon possessed, you were answered, so don't change your questions now.
Well, if you'd answer the question, it wouldn't be necessary to frame it multiple different ways, while still asking the very same thing; and don't post your non-responsive copy & paste material that says nothing specifically about Cro-Magnon.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cro-Magnon is an EEMH correct? If you read Trinkaus' study you would've noted that he dealt with all EEMH which includes those EEMH identified as Cro-Magnon genius. Therefore his observation where he notes features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic and goes on to name them pretty much answered your question huh?
Yea it did, sorry but any further questions about it, you should E-mail Trinkaus because I'm not in his head to note why he feels they are plesiomorphic and or evidence of neanderthal admixture, but what I can tell you is that he posits this.
These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions, as well as aspects of the clavicles, scapulae, metacarpals, and appendicular proportions.---Trinkaus[/i]
You should now know why I said Cro-Magnon possessed some archaic features, if not, hey, not my fault. Anyone reading this will know.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
If you read Trinkaus' study you would've noted that he dealt with all EEMH which includes those EEMH identified as Cro-Magnon genius.
Yes, and did you? What I didn't come across therein--and I suspect the same is the case with you, and hence, the superb non-responsive copy & paste--is something specifically about Cro-Magnon having "throwback characteristics". Trinkaus has the talent to let his reader know about the specifics of such traits in other crania, like say Oase 2, and yet not the Cro-Magnon?
quote: Therefore his observation where he notes features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic and goes on to name them pretty much answered your question huh?
You see, you translate EEMH to mean Cro-Magnon and everything else labeled as such as some sort of a "type". I don't, because these EEMH differ from one another in many respects. I read EEMH as more of a chronological construct than anything remotely resembling a "type".
quote:Yea it did, sorry but any further questions about it, you should E-mail Trinkaus because I'm not in his head to note why he feels they are plesiomorphic and or evidence of neanderthal admixture, but what I can tell you is that he posits this.
The problem with the above is, Trinkaus did not say anything about Cro-Magnon being "admixed" with Neanderthal or that it has so and so "throwback characteristic". If he did, we would know, because you won't miss a heartbeat copying & pasting it, LOL. Don't you agree?
quote: These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions, as well as aspects of the clavicles, scapulae, metacarpals, and appendicular proportions.---Trinkaus[/i]
There we go again -- back to numero uno point again. Same copy & paste material you were just informed not to bother posting again, LOL.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yea here we go again, back to the questions that have already been addressed, but with no rebuttal from you, other than to ask again in another way. lol
Hey genius is Cro-Magnon not an EEMH?
I noted Cro-Magnon as having throwback traits (my words) because as Trinkaus posits after analyzing all EEMH, the specimens (all) reflect their African early modern human ancestry while exhibiting a substantial degree of admixture between those early modern humans and Neandertals.
And again, for the tenth time, I made clear what Trinkaus deems to be Neanderthal features and or plesiomorphic in the quote I cited, and which is why I noted to Mike that so what if Cro-Magnon possessed archaic features so did all other early AMH.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Indeed, what does Trinkaus suppose Cro-Magnon attained as "admixture" from Neanderthal or as plesiomorphic.
Seriously? Lol. You can't be.
...features that are either distinctive Neandertal traits and/or plesiomorphic (ancestral)...
These features include aspects of neurocranial shape, basicranial external morphology, mandibular ramal and symphyseal form, dental morphology and size, and anteroposterior dental proportions, as well as aspects of the clavicles, scapulae, metacarpals, and appendicular proportions.---Trinkaus
^^The above as noted (several times already) is what Trinkaus proposes as plesiomorphic and/or evidence of admixture with Neanderthal into the EEMH lineage.
^^Question asked specifically, and specifically answered, no need to delve any further. Unless you have a different question.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Yea here we go again, back to the questions that have already been addressed, but with no rebuttal from you, other than to ask again in another way. lol
What is there to rebuttal? It is not an answer. And yes, I already commented on why your post doesn't answer the question, but it seems like the simple language is very challenging to you.
quote: Hey genius is Cro-Magnon not an EEMH?
Hey copy & paste robot, is Cro-Magnon not a modern human? What else does that say about Cro-Magnon, other than the obvious?
quote: I noted Cro-Magnon as having throwback traits (my words) because as Trinkaus posits after analyzing all EEMH, the specimens reflect their African early modern human ancestry while exhibiting a substantial degree of admixture between those early modern humans and Neandertals.
And yet, you cannot identify what specific trait(s) renders Cro-Magnon as a "throwback"?
You have not even cited a source that says Cro-Magnon has "admixed" with Neanderthal.
quote: And again, for the tenth time, I made clear what Trinkaus deems to be Neanderthal features and or plesiomorphic in the quote I cited, and which is why I noted to Mike that so what if Cro-Magnon possessed archaic features so did all other early AMH.
You can color a pig ten times, it will still remain a pig. You tell your non-responsive copy & paste as many times as you want; it will still not answer the glaring question.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
^Question asked specifically, and specifically answered, no need to delve any further. Unless you have a different question.
Hey, just because you reply a post, doesn't mean it is actually answered. I think you've been here long enough to realize that. But I'm ready to take this as the waving of a white flag, if you wish...as the question remains unanswered!
Ps: Question asked specifically, and specifically answered - MindoverMatter718
Better rephrased as:
Question asked specifically, and UNspecifically replied to...Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As one should know Occipital buns are noted in connection with descriptions of classic Neanderthal crania. The appearance of these Occipital buns in the EEMH specimens as follows suggests to Trinkaus that it's evidence of Neanderthal admixture into EEMH...
European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals
Occipital buns are less common than among the EEMHs. However, prominent ones are present in 18.9% (n = 37) of the individuals, including Brno 2, Cro-Magnon 3, Dolní Vĕstonice 11, Pavlov 1, and Předmostí 1, 2, and 7. In addition, hemi-buns are present in 29.7% of the sample. --Trinkaus
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
As one should know Occipital buns are noted in connection with descriptions of classic Neanderthal crania. The appearance of these Occipital buns in the EEMH specimens as follows suggests to Trinkaus that it's evidence of Neanderthal admixture into EEMH...
European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals
Occipital buns are less common than among the EEMHs. However, prominent ones are present in 18.9% (n = 37) of the individuals, including Brno 2, Cro-Magnon 3, Dolní Vĕstonice 11, Pavlov 1, and Předmostí 1, 2, and 7. In addition, hemi-buns are present in 29.7% of the sample. --Trinkaus [/QB]
I am not sure you carefully read the above. It is saying "Occipital buns are less common than among the EEMHs". Whose buns are being referred to here, that is supposed to be less common than among the EEMH samples?
Again, your source does not say anywhere that the Cro-Magnon had "admixed" with Neanderthals. That is your position. Your source does not point out what is supposedly "throwback" about the Cro-Magnon; that too, is your position. In fact, Caramelli et al.'s goal was to disprove people with your mindset, about the so-called Neanderthal genetic introgression.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Whose buns are being referred to here, that is supposed to be less common than among the EEMH samples?
I believe Trinkuas is talking about the MPMH (middle paleolithic modern human) sample that the occipital buns are less common than amongst the EEMH samples.
THE MORPHOLOGICAL MOSAIC OF GRAVETTIAN MODERN HUMANS
It is appropriate to query the extent to which the better preserved and larger sample of Gravettian human remains might show derived Neandertal features and/or plesiomorphic traits lost in the MPMH sample. Only in Iberia were these populations close in time to the latest Neandertals, but any persistence of this morphological mosaic would only reinforce the pattern seen among the EEMHs. Occipital buns are less common than among the EEMHs. However, prominent ones are present in 18.9% (n = 37) of the individuals, including Brno 2, Cro-Magnon 3 , Dolní Vĕstonice 11, Pavlov 1, and Předmostí 1, 2, and 7. In addition, hemi-buns are present in 29.7% of the sample.
quote:In fact, Caramelli et al.'s goal was to disprove people with your mindset, about the so-called Neanderthal genetic introgression
Sorry but that is not my mindset, as I don't adhere to Neanderthal introgression into EEMH, I was simply noting how Trinkaus proposes these features that he calls plesiomorphic or evidence of Nenderthal admxiture. It's Trinkaus' mindset, not mine.
As noted, I posted the rebuttal from Osbjorn M. Pearson.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic