quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
Hi, I'm new here too how are you? To answer your question Y-R1 is definitely Eurasian, there seems to have been a back migration into Africa during the Stone Age. It was descendend from Hg P-M45 which is also Eurasian. African Y-DNA has five hgs. A,B,CF,& DE. Also, they have mtDNA Hg L as the main African lineage. But, when the first Africans migrated into Asia 65,000 y.a. they were the basal M,N,and R Hgs, until 50,000 years ago when Caucasians and Mongoloids evolved from the African types. And that's how the newer races became associated with M,N,& R mtDNA. The Native Andaman Islanders are a good example of this they have mtDNA M31 and M32 just like the people of southern India who look different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
@ the OP you might want to persue the following thread for a better understanding into the answer of your query if you're interested...

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002167;p=1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
[QB] R1* is found mostly in Central Africa, NorthEast Africa and to a lesser to degree, the Levantine.

There is no R1* in northern Europe. Europeans have only later derived R1b and R1a... not R1*. There is no R1a or R1b in Africa hence there is no Eurasian admixture!


"...M173 chromosomes (group R) are observed in
the Bantu of southern Cameroon (14.3%), Oman (10.7%), Egypt (6.8%), and the Hutu (1.4%). Whereas the R1*-M173 undifferentiated lineage is present in all four populations, the two downstream mutations, M17 and M269, are confined to Egypt and Oman."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AGÜEYBANÁ(Mind718):
[qb] @ the OP you might want to peruse the following thread for a better understanding into the answer of your query if you're interested...

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002167;p=1

---

excerpt from the above thread:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
R1* is found mostly in Central Africa, NorthEast Africa and to a lesser to degree, the Levantine.

There is no R1* in northern Europe. Europeans have only later derived R1b and R1a... not R1*. There is no R1a or R1b in Africa hence there is no Eurasian admixture!


"...M173 chromosomes (group R) are observed in
the Bantu of southern Cameroon (14.3%), Oman (10.7%), Egypt (6.8%), and the Hutu (1.4%). Whereas the R1*-M173 undifferentiated lineage is present in all four populations, the two downstream mutations, M17 and M269, are confined to Egypt and Oman."

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lady of doom:
Hi I'm new here and I was wondering is it set in stone that U6 and R1 is Eurasian, or is there a chance that these haplotypes could be African?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Clyde Winters: R-M207 has highest diversity/frequency as well as R1, in Eurasia. R-M207* is found at highest frequency among people of Pakistan and India. The R-M207* in Central Africa is explained by both R-V88 and the former migrating to Africa together. R1-M173* has also highest frequency in Iran as well as moderate frequencies in Turkey, Pakistan and India, the same general location as R-M207*. Another descendent of M207 is R2-M479 found only in Eurasia in the same general location as all the others with highest frequency/diversity. And P-M45 the parent haplogroup of all these is found at highest frequency in India. This obvious pattern of descent of all the above haplogroups in the same general area in Asia is what caused scientists to conclude that R1-V88 in Africa is the result of Back Migration, not a biased opinion. Even the latest studies on this subject prove Back Migration correct, "A major Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b Holocene era founder effect in Central and Western Europe." Myres, Natalie M. et. al. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2010.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
"the Andamanese are not related to South Indians. They originated in Northeast India."

To Clyde Winters: "Multiplexed SNP Typing of Ancient DNA Clarifies the Origin of Andaman mtDNA Haplogroups amongst South Asian Tribal Populations." Endicott, Phillip et. al. PLoS ONE, (2006).

According to this study mtDNA M31a is found in both South Indians and the Andamanese. Along the Coastal Route (Migration OOA 65,000 years ago).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Do you disagree that R1-M173 is more frequent in the Middle East

---

M173 is more frequent in Eurasia than in Africa.
Anyone who says otherwise needs to put up refrences for that alternative theory

I'm talking strictly about M173 not it's ancestor or other group,
M173 only
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 



.


LOL. All R1 lineages=M-173.

.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
LOL. All R1 lineages=M-173.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lady of doom:
4 Icon 1 posted 22 August, 2011 12:34 Profile for Marc Washington Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote .
.


Lady of Doom and Rainingburntice

Huummmmm.

Two new members one introducing the thread the other being the first to comment and then there is a third comment soon following.

Sounds like a scam to me.

This trinity will be interesting to watch unfold over the days and weeks ahead
-------------------------------------------

What the heck are you talking about??

I asked cause I wanted to know will their ever be a peer reviewed study that says other wise..

And I wonder why Kieta isn't picking up on this..

IF R1 underived is in central Africa, then how could it be from a back migration??

also U6 is mainly found in North Africa..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Mr. Winters: The R1-M173* in Central Africa has the same effect of that which occurs on island populations, which explains why it is only found in a small confined area of Africa at such a high frequency. In fact, the only places where a haplogroup occurs close to 100% is on island populations, or places that were secluded from newer migrations through time. It is the result of genetic drift according to scientists. If the R-M207* and R-M173* had been in Africa greater than 20,000 years (which is about the age of R-M207* minus the age of R-V88) then it would be spread more evenly throughout Africa and would not be confined to a specific language group. Which is also why any R1-M173* found elsewhere in Africa is of very low frequency. This also explains why R1-M173* in Eurasia has more moderate frequencies in more than one place of this haplogroup throughout the Middle East, and why R-M207* is more frequent in Eurasia. The R1b-M343* cases that were originally thought to represent clades in Central Africa is now considered to belong to the V88 clade that was more recently discovered. Also, my original first question was about whether or not you disagree with the scientific conclusion that R-M207* is more FREQUENT in Eurasia, sorry if you misunderstood me.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
"Moreover, how can you say V88 is found in a small area when it is also found in Western, East, and Southeast Asia."

I was talking about the areas in Cameroon and Nigeria, if you look at the map of R1 in Africa there is a concentration of V88 in that area at 90+ percentage. That is the result of genetic drift. The other areas in Africa with V88 is much lower in frequency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Mr. Winters: P-M45* (the ancestor of R) IS higher in frequency in India and Central Asia and spreads throughout Eurasia, R-M207* is spread throughout Eurasia in very low frequencies but spikes in Pakistan, R1-M173* is spread throughout Eurasia in moderate frequencies but spikes in Iran, R1-M343* is rare everywhere but has a low frequency in Turkey. If you are beginning to see the east to west movement of subsequent haplotypes that would be logical. Now all of these lineages are older than V88, which means there was a migration from Central Asia which continued all the way to the Near East, and only then came V88 right when it approaches Africa. This is why V88 is found in the Near East because it mutated from R-P25 with the approach to Africa at this point in the migration. Furthermore, haplogroup R2-M479 is only found in the region of India, which means that the R-M207* that stayed behind in Asia begat R2-M479 at 25,000 years ago. So there is no way that the R-M207* that left Africa with V88 in 3000 BC could have begat R2-M479 in India. This is proof that R-M207* mutated in a P-M45* individual in Central Asia and not in Africa. The common ancestor of R1-M173* and R2-M479* is Eurasian R-M207*.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
"As I have pointed out elsewhere there is a variety of R1 lineages in Africa in addition to V88."

Read this part again: "The R1b-M343* cases that were originally thought to represent clades in Central Africa is now considered to belong to the V88 clade that was more recently discovered."

R1b in Africa is now considered to be exclusively of V88, the previous studies weren't yet aware of V88.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lady of doom:
Hi I'm new here and I was wondering is it set in stone that U6 and R1 is Eurasian, or is there a chance that these haplotypes could be African?

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

Aww I was hoping it wasant true.. Right now I'm debating this guy name Jeff and I wanted some solid proof that its not so
 

---

Posted by lady of doom (Member # 19427) on :
 
Hey Evergreen how would the back migrators look like Africans if R1 only arrived 5000 thousand years ago?
 

---

Posted by lady of doom (Member # 19427) on :
 
Hey Mr.Winters I think you are a great man and you provide good info unfouranatley if I use your paper, no one will take me seriously, as you have been labeled a hardcore afrocentric sorry..



 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
"They just had not resolved M-173*.once it was resolved R1b-M343 = R1b1a (V88) and R1b1b2 (M269). The fact remains that V88 is older than M269."

This does not agree with the facts, R1b*(M343) is the ancestor of R1b1-P25, and P25 is the ancestor of R1b1c-V88. R1b-M343 does not equal R1b1c-V88 they are not the same thing. That V88 is older than M269 makes no difference because R-M207* is far older and has been present in Eurasia for over 25,000 years as evidenced by the presence of R2-479* in Eurasia and its complete absence in Africa. In order for R2-M479 to descend from R-M207* 25,000 years ago in Cenral Asia, R-M207* had to be present in Central Asia before this. None of this is explained by a Kushite Migration 5,000 years ago. Also, Dravidians have a high frequency of Y-DNA haplogroups F and H none of which are found in Africa, and R2-479 isn't found in Africa either.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lady of doom:
Hey Mr.Winters I think you are a great man and you provide good info unfouranatley if I use your paper, no one will take me seriously, as you have been labeled a hardcore afrocentric sorry..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lady of doom:
Hey Mr.Winters I think you are a great man and you provide good info unfouranatley if I use your paper, no one will take me seriously, as you have been labeled a hardcore afrocentric sorry..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
"They just had not resolved M-173*.once it was resolved R1b-M343 = R1b1a (V88) and R1b1b2 (M269). The fact remains that V88 is older than M269."

This does not agree with the facts, R1b*(M343) is the ancestor of R1b1-P25, and P25 is the ancestor of R1b1c-V88. R1b-M343 does not equal R1b1c-V88 they are not the same thing. That V88 is older than M269 makes no difference because R-M207* is far older and has been present in Eurasia for over 25,000 years as evidenced by the presence of R2-479* in Eurasia and its complete absence in Africa. In order for R2-M479 to descend from R-M207* 25,000 years ago in Cenral Asia, R-M207* had to be present in Central Asia before this. None of this is explained by a Kushite Migration 5,000 years ago. Also, Dravidians have a high frequency of Y-DNA haplogroups F and H none of which are found in Africa, and R2-479 isn't found in Africa either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
Such high frequencies don't occur in populations that have had great waves of continuous migrations through time, and this is not the pattern we see in Central Africa, which was not even affected by the influx from Muslims. To ignore the significance of this would be a gross error.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
"You have not studied Dravidian DNA, that's why you are making such stupid claims."

So when logic and reason fail you resort to hostility? Let's try to keep this professional and refrain from childish name calling.

Dravidians do not carry M1: Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa, Gonzales, Anna M. et. al. BMC Genomics 2007

---

Wrong. Here is the haplogroups found by
Kivisild T, Kaldma K, Metspalu M, Parik J, Papiha SS, Villems R (1999b) The place of the Indian mitochondrial DNA variants in the global network of maternal lineages and the peopling of the Old World. In: Deka R, Papiha SS (eds) Genomic diversity. Kluwer/Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 135–152.




As you can see M1 is listed as an Indian clade.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lady of doom:
Oh yea Mr. Cylde I feel you on what you're saying, and I feel sad that I can't use your stuff, I read your study that you posted and it was interesting the issue is on Topix they all label you as a Afrocentric, and now they have started calling me Clydella because common Eurasian clades like U6 and R I have said they were African.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters
You shouldn't care what they call you. Were they able to dispute the fact that V88 is older than M209 and M269? The TMRCA of V88 was 9200 kya (Cruciani et al, 2010).

If not how can they claim that R1 is older in Europe than Africa.

---

True I don't care what they say but I did read that M209 is older and that it is present in both Africans and Indians
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 


Here you can see R207 is found in Africa.


You can find the Woods et al article here:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n7/full/5201408a.html

Enjoy.


.
 

---

Posted by lady of doom (Member # 19427) on :
 
Thank you again Mr. Winters your work is greatly appreciated..

Do you ever go on Topix?
 

---

Posted by lady of doom (Member # 19427) on :
 
Hmm I didn't see the table in the woods et el study.

It mainly talked about bantu speakers and their dispersal
 

---

Posted by lady of doom (Member # 19427) on :
 
Never mind found it.. Thanks again.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To: Mr Winters:


From, "The Dazzling Array of Basal Branches in the mtDNA Macrohaplogroup M from India as Inferred from Complete Genomes." Chang Sun. Mol Biol Evol (March 2006) 23 (3): 683-690.

"Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001). This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information. Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, that is, 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002).


Can you please not use out-dated sources.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To: Mr Winters:


From, "The Dazzling Array of Basal Branches in the mtDNA Macrohaplogroup M from India as Inferred from Complete Genomes." Chang Sun. Mol Biol Evol (March 2006) 23 (3): 683-690.

"Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001). This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information. Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, that is, 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002).


Can you please not use out-dated sources.

---

LOL. DNA is DNA.


Kivisild T, Kaldma K, Metspalu M, Parik J, Papiha SS, Villems R (1999b) The place of the Indian mitochondrial DNA variants in the global network of maternal lineages and the peopling of the Old World. In: Deka R, Papiha SS (eds) Genomic diversity. Kluwer/Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 135–152.




You can't say DNA existed at one time then it disappeared later. Kivisild et al, reported 26 carriers of M1 when they made this illustration.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To: Mr Winters:


From, "The Dazzling Array of Basal Branches in the mtDNA Macrohaplogroup M from India as Inferred from Complete Genomes." Chang Sun. Mol Biol Evol (March 2006) 23 (3): 683-690.

"Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001). This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information. Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, that is, 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt et al. 2002).


Can you please not use out-dated sources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Mr. Winters:

"You can't say DNA existed at one time then it disappeared later."

I did not say this, I said: "Can you please not use out-dated sources."

See the difference?

Just like R1b1c used to be called R1b1a, as scientists discover new information the names are changed.

Also the same author of the study that produced your favorite map of so-called M1 in India has this to say in 2004:

"Finding M1 or a lineage ancestral to M1
in India, could help to explain the presence of M1 in Africa as a result of a back migration from India. Yet, to date this has not been achieved [15], this study)." Mait Metspalu, Toomas Kivisild, Ene Metspalu, et. al.

From:

"Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans." BMC Genetics, 2004.

Like I said out-dated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Mr. Winters:
Tha M1 found in India was from Northwest India and is in no way associated with Dravidians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lady of doom:
Hi I'm new here and I was wondering is it set in stone that U6 and R1 is Eurasian, or is there a chance that these haplotypes could be African?

---

Are you the one arguing about this on Topix with Barros??

It's indisputable that Mtdna U and Y dna R arose in West Asia. However the subclade U6 branched out into North Africa and Iberia. If you are wondering if they were Black, it's doubtful. U6 carriers were likley some of the first ones who brought the Middle Eastern phenotype to North Africa. We know they reached Iberia and the Canary Islands. And folks weren't Black there. Sorry.


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Mr Winters:

I did. Here it is again:

"The central HVSI haplotype (16129–16189–16223–16249–16311) has been found only once in northwestern India [27]. Another possible Indian M1 candidate is the derived sequence: 16086–16129–16223–16249–16259–16311 [28]."

From, "Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa." González, Ana M. Larruga, José M. Abu-Amero, Khaled K et. al. BMC Genomics. 2007.

---

I am not talking about this section. I am talking about the Indian mentioned in the supplementary data for Gonzalez et al..

Footnote 28 is related to the Kivisild et al (1999), in this paper the authors mention 26 M1 carriers as I noted earlier.


Kivisild T, Kaldma K, Metspalu M, Parik J, Papiha SS, Villems R (1999b) The place of the Indian mitochondrial DNA variants in the global network of maternal lineages and the peopling of the Old World. In: Deka R, Papiha SS (eds) Genomic diversity. Kluwer/Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 135–152.



Note the (16)129–(16)189–(16)223–(16)249–(16)311 mutations listed in the M1 carried by the 26 Dravidians that made up M1 in the above illustration.

.


.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
You may want to see this video on the presence of M1 in India. See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeKj-toC3Uc


.
 

---

Posted by lady of doom (Member # 19427) on :
 
melchior7
Avatar Image
Member
Member # 18960

Rate Member Icon 1 posted 29 August, 2011 14:53 Profile for melchior7 Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote

quote:Originally posted by lady of doom:
Hi I'm new here and I was wondering is it set in stone that U6 and R1 is Eurasian, or is there a chance that these haplotypes could be African?

Are you the one arguing about this on Topix with Barros?? [Razz]

It's indisputable that Mtdna U and Y dna R arose in West Asia. However the subclade U6 branched out into North Africa and Iberia. If you are wondering if they were Black, it's doubtful. U6 carriers were likley some of the first ones who brought the Middle Eastern phenotype to North Africa. We know they reached Iberia and the Canary Islands. And folks weren't Black there. Sorry.
------------------------------------------------

First off I doubt those folks were anything like modern day Eurasians giving the fact that up into the Neolithic Mideastern and Europeans resembled tropical Africans, so North Africans present look has nothing to do with the way they look now.
 

---

Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
 
Lady of Doom

First off I doubt those folks were anything like modern day Eurasians giving the fact that up into the Neolithic Mideastern and Europeans resembled tropical Africans, so North Africans present look has nothing to do with the way they look now.

That notion is ridiculous. That would give Europeans only a few thousands years to go to their present look. That's quite a drastic change in a relatively short span of time. We have skeletal remains of folks in North Africa from the neolithic, the Tenerians..

"The most interesting find is a triple burial, dated to 5300 years ago, of an adult female and two children, estimated through their teeth as being five and eight years old, hugging each other. Pollen residue indicates they were buried on a bed of flowers. The three are assumed to have died within 24 hours of each other, but as their skeletons hold no apparent trauma (they didn't die violently) and they have been buried so elaborately - unlikely if they had died of a plague - the cause of their deaths is a mystery. Analysis of Tenerian skeletons reveals that the Tenerians were not related to the modern inhabitants of the region, having more similarities to Mediterranean people."
Gwin, Peter. "Lost Tribes of the Green Sahara." National Geographic, September 2008, 126-143
 

---

Posted by lady of doom (Member # 19427) on :
 

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

No its not.. everyone knows white skin in Europeans is a new development, not only that brace et el has shown that even the new coming neolithic Europeans had tropical body plans.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Mr. Winters:

From, "Mitochondrial lineage M1 traces an early human backflow to Africa." Ana M González, José M Larruga, Khaled K Abu-Amero et. al. BMC Genomics, 2007.

"The central HVSI haplotype (16129–16189–16223–16249–16311) has been found only once in northwestern India [27]. Another possible Indian M1 candidate is the derived sequence: 16086–16129–16223–16249–16259–16311 [28]."

The words "another" and "candidate" seem to imply a singular rather than a plural connotation when refering to footnote 28.

When Gonzalez was mentioning the footnote 28 (Kivisild T, Kaldma K, Metspalu M, et. al.) study she was suggesting that someone from this study could also be an M1 candidate, she wasn't validating all of the other results by citing it. The fact remains that M1 in the Kivisild study wasn't as accurately defined as it is now.

Also, another interesting point from the Gonzalez study:

"However, although haplotypes sharing four of the five HVSI transitions defining M1 (16129–16223–16249–16278–16311–16362; 16129–16223–16234–16249–16311–16362) have been sampled in Thailand and Han Chinese [32,33], complete sequencing have unequivocally allocated them in the D4a branch of D, the most abundant haplogroup representing M in East Asia. As commented previously, this is a clear example of the danger of establishing affinities between geographically distant areas only on the basis of HVSI homologies as, often, they are the product of geographic isolation and molecular convergence [18].
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
"No its not.. everyone knows white skin in Europeans is a new development, not only that brace et. al. has shown that even the new coming neolithic Europeans had tropical body plans."


To lady of doom: White skin is not the only trait that defines the Caucasian race. Also, the Natufians were a mixed race. Some were Caucasian, some were Black African, and some were Mulatto.
 

---

Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
 
Lady of Doom

No its not.. everyone knows white skin in Europeans is a new development, not only that brace et el has shown that even the new coming neolithic Europeans had tropical body plans.

Thats very typical of how Afrocentrics think. Only Europeans are light skinned right?




Nope. Folks in the Middle East and Western Asia have many of the same traits. So did theses traits really originate only recently in Europe?
 

---

Posted by lady of doom (Member # 19427) on :
 
@Melchoir where did Europeans originate?

There ancestors were western Asian correct?

So it would make sense that those people would be light skin and as I said its a recent development.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:

To lady of doom: White skin is not the only trait that defines the Caucasian race. Also, the Natufians were a mixed race. Some were Caucasian, some were Black African, and some were Mulatto.

---

^^Please quote a credible scholarly source that
characterizes the Natufians as "Mulatto."

You earlier said:
"The reason I have decided to comment on this
forum is because of the many intuitive rather
than logical statements made here."

and you earlier urged Clyde Winders:
"Can you please not use out-dated sources."

OK then, based on your own standards, you should
have no problem producing logical, up to date
evidence and references re "Mulatto" Natufians.

Let's see if you can practice what you preach..
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^^^racial purist
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Enrique Cardova:

According to recent phylogenetics scientists can deduce which haplogroups were involved with specific migrations. The Haplogroup E people came from sub-Saharan Africa and the Haplogroup J people are the people that were originally present in the Near East. Haplogroup J was present in Eurasia from Turkey to the Indus Valley (from west to east) and from the Arabian Peninsula to the Caspian Sea (from south to north) in those days. So when the Natufian period began c. 10,500 BC the native Haplogroup J people were already present in the Near East. Around c. 9,500 BC during the Younger Dryas period the Haplogroup E people made their migration north along the Nile River Valley and seem to have come as far as Israel. Over the generations these people mixed which is evident in all Late Natufian burials from c. 9,500-8,000 BC. From about 8000 BC and onward the remains tend to be mostly Caucasian. In Europe both Haplogroup E and J are found together as well. Deductively you can come to the conclusion that since Haplogroup J were the Caucasians and Haplogroup E were Black Africans that they mixed significantly while they were in the Near East and as they migrated to the Northwest into Europe they were a mixed population. When Black Africans and Caucasians interbreed their descendents are Mulatto.

"Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12." Cruciani, Fulvio et. al. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2007.
 

---

Posted by SAUCE CODE (Member # 6729) on :
 
OK OK
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Enrique Cardova:

According to recent phylogenetics scientists can deduce which haplogroups were involved with specific migrations. The Haplogroup E people came from sub-Saharan Africa and the Haplogroup J people are the people that were originally present in the Near East. Haplogroup J was present in Eurasia from Turkey to the Indus Valley (from west to east) and from the Arabian Peninsula to the Caspian Sea (from south to north) in those days. So when the Natufian period began c. 10,500 BC the native Haplogroup J people were already present in the Near East. Around c. 9,500 BC during the Younger Dryas period the Haplogroup E people made their migration north along the Nile River Valley and seem to have come as far as Israel. Over the generations these people mixed which is evident in all Late Natufian burials from c. 9,500-8,000 BC. From about 8000 BC and onward the remains tend to be mostly Caucasian. In Europe both Haplogroup E and J are found together as well. Deductively you can come to the conclusion that since Haplogroup J were the Caucasians and Haplogroup E were Black Africans that they mixed significantly while they were in the Near East and as they migrated to the Northwest into Europe they were a mixed population. When Black Africans and Caucasians interbreed their descendents are Mulatto.

"Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12." Cruciani, Fulvio et. al. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2007.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Adrianne:

The culture of the Africans of that period was the Mushabian. The Early Natufians as well as the Kebarans were already taking the first steps towards agriculture. They were the first to use grind stones. In the Early Natufian period they were collecting significant amounts of cereals before the Africans arrived. If what you're saying is true then why didn't agriculture occur in Africa first if they were indeed bringing farming technology with them.

---

quote:

---

Authors such as Christopher Ehret have built upon the little evidence available to develop scenarios of intensive usage of plants having built up first in Africa, as a precursor to the development of true farming in the Fertile Crescent, but such suggestions are considered speculative until more African archaeological evidence can be gathered.[8][9] Anthropologist C. Loring Brace in a recent study on cranial metric traits however, was also able to identify a "clear link" to African populations for early Natufians based on his observation of gross anatomical similarity with extant populations found mostly below the Sahara .[10] Brace believes that these populations later became assimilated into the broader continuum of Southwest Asian populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Astenb:

To date I have not seen an Early Natufian skulls with sub-Saharan traits if you could send some photos that would be great. I was implying though that the Mushabian is of N.E. Africa by their entrance into the Levant. I do notice though that anthropologists use the term West Eurasians would that be a better term to use here. I usually use the term Caucasian because it's been around awhile and people usually know what is meant by it. Can you cite the reference of your quote. Thanks!

---

Send a photo
Dont worry about "pictures".
Search for published articles that have measurements.




You should know where these images come from. If you dont know where they come from then you have a lot of research to do. Furthermore: RESEARCH into the early the dates on When African E1b1b lineages are supposed to have entered the Levant. Notice that the Area of the Southern Levant is "Southern" in reference to where they J1 and J2 carriers supposed to have originated in the North and migrated SOUTH into the area where they are today. Unless you posit a Southern Yemeni / Socotran origin of J*......... for the sake of argument J carriers = Northerners. Look at the distribution of I lineages for some perspective matter.

-E1b1b enters southern Levant.
-The Few J people from the north are absorbed to CREATE "Natufian"
-More J people come from the North swamping Natufian and being the major settlers of the Peninsula.

Understand there is no logical reason why people in the Sahara or the Arabian desert should have White skin if they are the aboriginal inhabitants.

This is based on what mother nature should produce based on indigenous inhabitants... If "INdegenous to the Levant" the most northern Levantine should be no darker than a person from Mozambique.


This is what we have based on Human migrations.....Light skin people from the North living in the Desert getting skin cancer.


 

---

Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
 
Skin color is also largely controlled by sexual selection, and you don't really need that much melanin to survive in the tropics.
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manu:
Skin color is also largely controlled by sexual selection, and you don't really need that much melanin to survive in the tropics.

---

Complete and utter bullshit. What proof do you have? See what happens in "The Tropics" when you are albino. Have you ever been to "The Tropics" of Africa?

How do white people evolve in that Inner Sahara? Why are SOuthern Sudanese who moved from that same Central Sahara nearly pitch black?





 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Adrianna:

"...because they developed REAL farming in the levant..."

You can't possibly know who invented agriculture because both races were present, sub-Saharans and W. Eurasians, and both races were perfectly capable of producing agriculture. The evidence indicates that W. Eurasians were in the area first and that they were taking the first steps toward developing agriculture.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Enrique Cordova:

From, "The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture." Bar-Yosef, Ofer. Evolutionary Anthropology. 1998.

"The emergence of the Natufian culture around 13,000 or 12,800 B.P. was a major turning point in the history of the Near East."

Note that I said the begining of the Natufian period was c. 10,500 BC:

"So when the Natufian period began c. 10,500 BC..."

Also, note that the "c." in front means circa. And that B.P. is not the same as BC.

On page 165 of this work, you can see the preserved skull of an Early Natufian which is obviously Caucasian.

Again in, "The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture." Bar-Yosef, Ofer. Evolutionary Anthropology. 1998.

"The Natufian population has been identified as being of Proto-Mediterranean stock." p. 164

Through this knowlege of the populations of the Near East at that time you can deduce that since Haplogroup E is from sub-Saharan Africa and that Haplogroup J was native to the Near East you can conclude that the presence of both haplogroups in the Near East and Europe are a result of the two populations mixing.

When you quote:

"The same eleven microsatellites were analyzed in a set of 43 European J-M12 chromosomes."

Did you consider where Haplogroup J came from in order to be present in Europe?

Obviously since Haplogroup J is more frequent and more diverse in both the Middle and Near East, that is the place of origin.

Study this work as in-depth as you can:

"Y chromosomal haplogroup J as a signature of the post-neolithic colonization of Europe." Di Giacomo, F. Luca, F. Popa, L. et. al. Hum Genet (2004) 115: 357–371. 2004.

As you can see I have no problem providing evidence to support my claims. How about you?

---

^^
The Bar-Josef reference says nothing about "early" Natufians
being Caucasian versus later Natufians being "mixed"
with "Haplogroup E people." That's YOUR interpretation
which has been shown to be shaky. But in any event, you
again contradict yourself. You say that the
Mushabians, who preceded the Natufians were African.
By your own writing, "Haplogroup E people" are
African and thus they would have been BEFORE the
Natufians- not after as you keep claiming. Your
claimed sequence is contradictory. In one breath
you claim the "Haplogroup E" people came after
the Natufians, but in the other, you admit "Haplogroup E
people" were in place before. Which is it?

You also claim in your reply to Adrienne that:

"the two populations merged in the Near East
c. 9500 BC they mixed until the sub-Saharans were
pretty much absorbed."

^Do you have a direct scholarly citation supporting this claim?
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
West Eurasians ,East Eurasian ,Sub-Saharan are not races nothing to do with phenotype.

Eurasians

The Orang Asli are the indigenous minority peoples of Peninsular Malaysia. The name is a Malay term which transliterates as 'original peoples' or 'first peoples.' It is a collective term introduced by anthropologists and administrators for the 18 sub-ethnic groups generally classified for official purposes under Negrito, Senoi and Proto-Malay. They numbered 105,000 in 1997 representing a mere 0.5 per cent of the national population.

The Orang Asli, nevertheless, are not a homogeneous group. Each has its own language and culture, and perceives itself as different from the others. Linguistically, some of the northern Orang Asli groups (especially the Senoi and Negrito groups) speak languages - now termed Aslian languages - that suggest a historical link with the indigenous peoples in Burma, Thailand and Indo-China.

The members of the Proto-Malay tribes, whose ancestors were believed to have migrated from the Indonesian islands to the south of the peninsula, speak dialects which belong to the same Austronesian family of languages as Malay, with the exceptions of the Semelai and Temoq dialects (which are Austroasiatic).
http://www.magickriver.net/oa.htm

Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=pav&action=display&thread=633#ixzz1WnmTD5y4
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Astenb:

I have actually seen both pictures and literature on measurements and that's why I have come to the conclusion that W. Eurasians were in the region first. Consider the following source:

From, "The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture." Bar-Yosef, Ofer. Evolutionary Anthropology. 1998.

"The Natufian population has been identified as being of Proto-Mediterranean stock." p. 164

And also the picture of an early Natufian on the same page. In studies of craniometry the results are usually taken as the average of a group of skulls. If you have a source that describes Natufian skulls individually I would definitely consider that.

"Understand there is no logical reason why people in the Sahara or the Arabian desert should have White skin if they are the aboriginal inhabitants."

The way I understand it, W. Eurasians vary in skin color from north to south getting darker as you get closer to the equator. If that's what you're saying then I agree. And just like skin color there would be no logical reason for sub-Saharan Africans to have strait or wavy hair.

"Dont worry about "pictures". You should know where these images come from. If you dont know where they come from then you have a lot of research to do."

I never consider a picture of a skull without the literature that goes with it. We are in agreement there. The pictures I refer are always cited from a study.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Enrique Cordoba:

You are the one that is misinterpreting what I say. I am saying that the source of the Haplogroup E was the Mushabians who were in N.E. Africa before they migrated into the Levant. And the two populations did merge in the Levant how can you not know that. Have you ever researched the history of that time period? There is no contradiction you just don't understand what I'm saying. Please research more on the Mesolithic/Neolithic period before another response. Thanks!
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Enrique Cordoba:

And just to be completely clear so that you don't misunderstand what I say again. It was the Late Natufians that were of sub-Saharan descent. When the Mushabians (Haplogroup E) migrated north they settled in the Levant c. 9500 BC which coincides with the Late Natufian period. And the two populations merged.
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Astenb:

I have actually seen both pictures and literature on measurements and that's why I have come to the conclusion that W. Eurasians were in the region first. Consider the following source:

From, "The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture." Bar-Yosef, Ofer. Evolutionary Anthropology. 1998.

"The Natufian population has been identified as being of Proto-Mediterranean stock." p. 164

And also the picture of an early Natufian on the same page. In studies of craniometry the results are usually taken as the average of a group of skulls. If you have a source that describes Natufian skulls individually I would definitely consider that.

"Understand there is no logical reason why people in the Sahara or the Arabian desert should have White skin if they are the aboriginal inhabitants."

The way I understand it, W. Eurasians vary in skin color from north to south getting darker as you get closer to the equator. If that's what you're saying then I agree. And just like skin color there would be no logical reason for sub-Saharan Africans to have strait or wavy hair.

"Dont worry about "pictures". You should know where these images come from. If you dont know where they come from then you have a lot of research to do."

I never consider a picture of a skull without the literature that goes with it. We are in agreement there. The pictures I refer are always cited from a study.

---

quote:

---

C. Loring Brace in a recent study on cranial metric traits however, was also able to identify a "clear link" to African populations for early Natufians based on his observation of gross anatomical similarity with extant populations found mostly below the Sahara.[10] Brace believes that these populations later became assimilated into the broader continuum of Southwest Asian populations.

---

Take note of the above. And like I said the label is nothing with out a comparative real life population to show what the label really means.
"Proto-Mediterranean stock" = North East African. You have to know how to decipher Eurocentric code words:

Read

And learn

They can call it "Proto - Mediterranean" if they want, un cluster analysis it is probably between one sub sahara type and another Sub Sahran type. This is what you see in your literature.


 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
^^THe claim that "Caucasoids" were in the region first
is dubious. In fact, there were PRE-Natufian peoples
in the region (Skhul and Qafzeh type peoples for
example, along with others tropical types following
after them). Hence tropical African types were in
place BEFORE the Natufians, and did not have to
wait for later movement via the Nile Valley to
register a presence. Such movement may have happened
but it is one one of a long history of such movements
of tropical Africans into the Levant.

The notion of "Caucasians" and "mulattos" as claimed
is also dubious because tropical Africans have the
highest phenotypic diversity in the world. They
can and do have narrow noses as part of the indigenous
mix without needing any "Caucasians" to explain why.
The peoples of Gamble's Cave in Kenya for example,
as Keita 1990, 1992 notes have narrow noses circa
11,000 BC. Such noses are also influenced by the environment.
The thin mountain area of certain parts of high altitude
northeast Africa can produce them, as well as the
hot, dry air of desert locales like the Sahara.
The tropics has numerous micro-climes that accommodate
phenotypic variation without any "Caucasoids" being needed.

Tropical African migrants to the colder climes of
Palestine not only have the highest built-in
genetic variability, but could be influenced by
the environmental factors as well. rainingburntice
is simply recycling the distorted "true negro"
formula where everything not meeting a stereotyped
extreme "negro" model, drawn as narrowly as possible,
can be conveniently classified as "Caucasoid" or
"Mulatto." But as Keita notes, such people
seldom apply the model in reverse, and define a
"true white." It is the same old hypocritical
approach meant to deny African bio-historical
diversity.

But even then, the presence of tropical African types
in Palestine is documented BEFORE the Natufians,
who by the way according to Bar-Josef 1991, show
some continuity with earlier populations and cultures.
They did not have to wait for any "Late Natufian
phase" to show up. QUOTE:

"the affinities of the late Pleistocene Ohalo
II H2 specimen from Israel, which according to
Herskovity et al. (1995) resembles the 30,000 BP.
Nazlet Khater specimen from Egypt and is quite
unlike either Sahaba, Afalou or Cro-Magnon."
(Musterschmidt. 1999. Homo, vol 50, Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Anthropologie)

In other words, the closest cluster to Ohalo II-
a pre-Natufian specimen from Palestine is with
Nazlet Khater from Egypt, not so-called "Caucasoids".
There is no need to wait for any "Late Natufian phase"
for tropical African types to show up. And tropical
types in what would be later called "Europe"
cluster with African tropicals as well as Brace
2005 shows.

Brace 2005 shows the Natufians clustering with
sub-Saharan populations as diagrammed above.


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Astenb:

To date I have not seen an Early Natufian skulls with sub-Saharan traits if you could send some photos that would be great. I was implying though that the Mushabian is of N.E. Africa by their entrance into the Levant. I do notice though that anthropologists use the term West Eurasians would that be a better term to use here. I usually use the term Caucasian because it's been around awhile and people usually know what is meant by it. Can you cite the reference of your quote. Thanks!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Enrique Cordoba:

All the examples that you use to describe why narrow noses occur among Africans can be linked to migrations from Eurasia. Haplogroup T entered Africa during the Mesolithic (that would explain Gamble's Cave) as well as Haplogroup R1b (which would explain the Iberomaurusians and why some West African tribes also have narrow noses and "coincidently" R1b). Haplogroup J also migrated into Africa not only during the Neolithic but also during the Axum period. There is no need to invent another African race with similar traits as W. Eurasians when all they have to do is migrate into Africa. There wasn't a stone age border patrol keeping W. Eurasians from entering Africa and vice versa.

---

User of the Iberomaurusians Tool Kit in Europe



You live in a fantasy World. There were no caucasians in Europe at this early date.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Enrique Cordoba:

All the examples that you use to describe why narrow noses occur among Africans can be linked to migrations from Eurasia. Haplogroup T entered Africa during the Mesolithic (that would explain Gamble's Cave) as well as Haplogroup R1b (which would explain the Iberomaurusians and why some West African tribes also have narrow noses and "coincidently" R1b). Haplogroup J also migrated into Africa not only during the Neolithic but also during the Axum period. There is no need to invent another African race with similar traits as W. Eurasians when all they have to do is migrate into Africa. There wasn't a stone age border patrol keeping W. Eurasians from entering Africa and vice versa.

---

quote:

---

In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993)

---

The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians

* You asked what would have kept prehistoric Eurasians from crossing over into Africa. My answer is this:



That's a climate map of Africa during the period of your supposed back-migrations. Notice how the Sahara Desert was helluva bigger than it is today. To get from the west Eurasian steppes to the Nile Valley, let alone sub-Saharan Africa, your hypothetical Eurasian colonists would have to cross one of the most hostile environments in the Pleistocene world. Possible?
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
rainingburntice:
All the examples that you use to describe why narrow noses occur among Africans can be linked to migrations from Eurasia.

Not really. Environmental factors can cause narrow
noses- as noted by Brace 1993, Keita 2005 and others,
without the need for any "wandering Caucasoids".





Truthcentric:


That's a climate map of Africa during the period of your supposed back-migrations. Notice how the Sahara Desert was helluva bigger than it is today. To get from the west Eurasian steppes to the Nile Valley, let alone sub-Saharan Africa, your hypothetical Eurasian colonists would have to cross one of the most hostile environments in the Pleistocene world. Possible?

^Doesn't matter really- whether they had to cross
desert or ocean. The peoples of Australia migrated
huge distances historically across tough landscape.
The central point is that climatic factors can and
do cause narrow noses, along with other things
such as cold adapted limb proportions, or what have you.
And even if climate was not involved, African genetic
variability is the most in the world (Tishkoff 2000),
again negating the need for any "Caucasoids"
to explain how African people look. The true negro
model used by rainingburntice is an obsolete and
distorted one, that seeks to deny African genetic diversity.

There is no need for alleged "incoming Caucasoids"
to explain African genetic diversity. Afrocentric
critic Brace 1993 hisself debunks the notion.
 

---

Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by astenb:
Complete and utter bullshit. What proof do you have? See what happens in "The Tropics" when you are albino. Have you ever been to "The Tropics" of Africa?

How do white people evolve in that Inner Sahara? Why are SOuthern Sudanese who moved from that same Central Sahara nearly pitch black?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by astenb:
Complete and utter bullshit. What proof do you have? See what happens in "The Tropics" when you are albino. Have you ever been to "The Tropics" of Africa?

How do white people evolve in that Inner Sahara? Why are SOuthern Sudanese who moved from that same Central Sahara nearly pitch black?

---

Light brown skin is sufficient in the tropics. Most Austronesians and Amerindians do just fine having this skin tone in the tropics.

There is no real benefit past light brown skin in the tropics. You'll only get diminishing returns.

---

DEFINE "Light Brown Skin". Most africans have "Light Brown skin" if that is the case. Euro clowns always want to use this same excuse that all africans need to be is a little bit "light brown Like Ethiopians" but when we get to the raw data collected on skin tones Most Africans fit into the range of what IS found in Ethiopia but that range is not a "Light Brown". Khoisan are NOT the same skin tone generally as Ethiopians. And even Khoisan get dark.



Basically most Africans are BROWN. They are a few that Very Dark Brown and Black. Then you have those that have been in the Forest regions or OUTSIDE of the tropics for TENS of thousands of years and are quite Yellowish or "Light Brown".

Tell me why do South East Indians range from Nearly pitch black to Light Brown? Diminishing returns huh?

This is how South American Indians look after Adaptation to the Tropics for about 10 Thousand years after coming over the Bering Strait:


If they are they for ANOTHER 20-30 Thousand years they could be the same color as most Africans. How do I know this.....because the group on the other side of the world at the same Latitude that has actually BEEN there for a significant amount of time Looks like this:


NOW if all they need to be is "Light Brown" in the tropics why are Australians NOT Light Brown?
If they came over lighter why have they darkened?
If they came over Dark after 50 thousand years why have they not lightened?

Mother Nature knows what the **** she is talking about.
 

---

Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
 
If there is no evolutionary pressure a population will simply stay the same.

Amerindians, Arabians, and Austronesians do just fine having light brown (15 to 22 range on Von Luschan's chromatic scale) in the tropics. It is not detrimental to their survival, therefore they will likely stay the same. In many of these cultures women with lighter skin are deemed more beautiful, this will only result in a higher sexual selection for lighter skin.

Melanesians derived from an already dark OOA group, so they never changed in terms of skin tone, as there was no need.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
astenb, the difference is that tropical rainforests have a lot of tree cover.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
If there is no evolutionary pressure a population will simply stay the same.

^^Dubious. All populations undergo some sort of change.
A better diet will produce taller, heavier people
on the average, within a few decades for example
without any "evolutionary" so called
"pressure." The notion of static, unchanging
human populations is a shaky one.

As for Melanesians, genetically, they are closer
to Europeans than to Africans (Templeton 2002),
QUOTE:
"Moreover, note that Europeans are genetically
closer to both Africans and to Melanesians, than
are Africans to Melanesians."
--"The Genetic and Evolutionary significance of
Human Races" Alan Templeton 2002 in Fish, J. Race
and intelligence, separarting science from myth
2002) p. 31-45

Melanesians are also one of a limited number of dark-skinned
populations to produce blond hair. The notion of
"unchanging" Melanesians is laughable.



 

---

Posted by Manu (Member # 18974) on :
 
The topic was skin color.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
^^ What credible scholarly evidence can you present
that Melanesian skin color has always been the way
it is now, since Melanesians first appeared?
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Clyde Winters:

Have you ever studied craniometry? I have to ask based on this reconstruction that you cite as the appearance of the first European. If you had actually took the time to consider the skeletal remains themselves you wouldn't be parading this picture everywhere as evidence. Based on the skeletal remains of Pestera cu Oase this person wasn't significantly different than modern Europeans racially. The nose is narrow (25mm) and tear shaped, the orbits slightly sloping, the alveolar and mandible orthognathous, the chin prominent, the nasal bone thin and moderately arched, and the ramus pinched, all West Eurasian traits. Reconstructions are dependent on the artist. Just compare the various reconstructions of Cro-Magnon Man each one made by a different artist none of which look exactly like the other. You put too much faith in reconstructions none of which are consistent.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Enrique Cordoba:

Whether or not Africans were able to develop narrow noses is hypothetical (assumption) with no examples proven in the real world. But genetic evidence proves (fact) that West Eurasians have migrated into Africa during the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic. Since when does an assumption carry more weight than a fact? What you can't seem to realize is that when W. Eurasians entered Africa they mixed with the native inhabitants there and that's why you find mixed race remains of those time periods. Do you think that throughout all history the races were segragated and refused to mix with each other? Even if you are attempting to form a valid hypothesis the most parsimonious prevails. Your hypothesis attempts to disregard the fact that Africa was an open continent for bidirectional migration and that even though West Eurasian types were present at that time a completely independent evolution of a Caucasoid-like people occured in Africa. That isn't just a non-parsimonious hypothesis it is the most unlikely.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Clyde Winters:

You're gravely mistaken if you think I don't know my Palaeolithic chronology. The Iberomaurusians were significantly later in time than Pestera cu Oase, ten thousand years later. And they were also of Afalou type.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
I love how Burntice ignored my post.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Enrique Cordoba:

"THe claim that "Caucasoids" were in the region first
is dubious. In fact, there were PRE-Natufian peoples
in the region (Skhul and Qafzeh type peoples for
example, along with others tropical types following
after them)."

The implication was that out of the two Haplogroups J and E, Haplogroup J was in the Levant first and Haplogroup E entered second.

When you quote:


"the affinities of the late Pleistocene Ohalo
II H2 specimen from Israel, which according to
Herskovity et al. (1995) resembles the 30,000 BP.
Nazlet Khater specimen from Egypt and is quite
unlike either Sahaba, Afalou or Cro-Magnon."
(Musterschmidt. 1999. Homo, vol 50, Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Anthropologie)

This quote is too vague, which serves your purpose. Ohalo is in no way sub-Saharan African. It makes sense that you wouldn't provide a picture of Ohalo to confirm your hypothesis once and for all, because it doesn't.

Ohalo II H2: A 19,000-Year-Old Skeleton From a Water-Logged Site at the Sea of Galilee, Israel. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 96:21 & 234 (1995). photos on page 222.

And as for Nazlet Khater, which is of mostly W. Eurasian descent with moderate admixture with sub-Saharans. If you look at the skull, that is the most parsimonious explanation for the features. Jebel Sahaba represents the appearance of sub-Saharans at the time of the Mesolithic. Nazlet Khater represents the people of mtDNA Haplogroup U6 entering the region.If the facial features of Africans are so pliable then why haven't the Bushman (who have been living in the desert regions for tens of thousands of years) developed a Caucasoid nasal structure. Not to mention the fact that South Africa is a good distance from the equator.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Truthcentric:

This would not prevent W. Eurasians from entering Africa. For the most part Eurasians have colonized North Africa in the early periods,
but when the climate was favorable only then did they migrate south, which agrees with the fossil record.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
Let me repost what I said so stupidburntice can see it:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Enrique Cordoba:

All the examples that you use to describe why narrow noses occur among Africans can be linked to migrations from Eurasia. Haplogroup T entered Africa during the Mesolithic (that would explain Gamble's Cave) as well as Haplogroup R1b (which would explain the Iberomaurusians and why some West African tribes also have narrow noses and "coincidently" R1b). Haplogroup J also migrated into Africa not only during the Neolithic but also during the Axum period. There is no need to invent another African race with similar traits as W. Eurasians when all they have to do is migrate into Africa. There wasn't a stone age border patrol keeping W. Eurasians from entering Africa and vice versa.

---

Why do you think that Africans couldn't evolve narrow noses on their own without Eurasian ancestry? Why must their facial features remain static?

As for your whole "Paleolithic Eurasians crossing the desert* to bring narrow noses to Africa" scenario, if there really was so much Eurasian back-migration into Africa during the Pleistocene, why do craniometric studies on Paleolithic-era Northeast Africans find them to cluster with other Africans?

quote:

---

In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993)

---

The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians

* You asked what would have kept prehistoric Eurasians from crossing over into Africa. My answer is this:



That's a climate map of Africa during the period of your supposed back-migrations. Notice how the Sahara Desert was helluva bigger than it is today. To get from the west Eurasian steppes to the Nile Valley, let alone sub-Saharan Africa, your hypothetical Eurasian colonists would have to cross one of the most hostile environments in the Pleistocene world. Possible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stupidburntice:
And as for Nazlet Khater, which is of mostly W. Eurasian descent with moderate admixture with sub-Saharans.

---

quote:

---

From an actual bio-anthropologist:
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.

Title Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt
Volume 4 of Egyptian prehistory monographs

Author Pierre M. Vermeersch

Editor Pierre M. Vermeersch

Edition illustrated
Publisher Leuven University Press, 2002

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by stupidburntice:
If the facial features of Africans are so pliable then why haven't the Bushman (who have been living in the desert regions for tens of thousands of years) developed a Caucasoid nasal structure. Not to mention the fact that South Africa is a good distance from the equator.

---

quote:

---

Historical evidence shows that certain Bushmen communities have always lived in the desert regions of the Kalahari. But nearly all of the Bushmen communities in southern Africa were eventually forced into this region. The Kalahari Bushmen remained in poverty where their richer neighbours denied them rights to the land. Before long, in both Botswana and Namibia, they found their territory drastically reduced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Clyde Winters:

Have you ever studied craniometry? I have to ask based on this reconstruction that you cite as the appearance of the first European. If you had actually took the time to consider the skeletal remains themselves you wouldn't be parading this picture everywhere as evidence. Based on the skeletal remains of Pestera cu Oase this person wasn't significantly different than modern Europeans racially. The nose is narrow (25mm) and tear shaped, the orbits slightly sloping, the alveolar and mandible orthognathous, the chin prominent, the nasal bone thin and moderately arched, and the ramus pinched, all West Eurasian traits. Reconstructions are dependent on the artist. Just compare the various reconstructions of Cro-Magnon Man each one made by a different artist none of which look exactly like the other. You put too much faith in reconstructions none of which are consistent.

---

You're stupid.Pestera cu Oase skeleton is not an anatomically modern human.

]User of the Iberomaurusians Tool Kit in Europe




The reconstruction of the first European is supported by all archaeologist. You can deny this all you want but the first Europeans were Black.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
If there is no evolutionary pressure a population will simply stay the same.

^^Dubious. All populations undergo some sort of change.
A better diet will produce taller, heavier people
on the average, within a few decades for example
without any "evolutionary" so called
"pressure." The notion of static, unchanging
human populations is a shaky one.

As for Melanesians, genetically, they are closer
to Europeans than to Africans (Templeton 2002),
QUOTE:
"Moreover, note that Europeans are genetically
closer to both Africans and to Melanesians, than
are Africans to Melanesians."
--"The Genetic and Evolutionary significance of
Human Races" Alan Templeton 2002 in Fish, J. Race
and intelligence, separarting science from myth
2002) p. 31-45

Melanesians are also one of a limited number of dark-skinned
populations to produce blond hair. The notion of
"unchanging" Melanesians is laughable.

---

Melanesians are the only known modern humans whose prehistoric ancestors interbred with the Denisova hominin, sharing 4%–6% of their genome with this ancient human species.
cousins to Neanderthals who lived in Asia from roughly 400,000 to 50,000 years ago and interbred with the ancestors of today’s inhabitants of New Guinea.
research was led by Svante Paabo, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Liepzig, Germany.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
rainburnice:
Whether or not Africans were able to develop narrow noses is hypothetical (assumption) with as no examples proven in the real world.

^^COmplete and utter bullsh1tt. Plenty of "real world"
examples have already been given.


. Eurasians entered Africa they mixed with the native inhabitants there and that's why you find mixed race remains of those time periods.Do you think that throughout all history the races were segragated and refused to mix with each other?

^^ANother bullsh1tt red herring. You still have not
yet produced the credible scholarship that backs
your claim
of "mulatto" Africans, nor have you proved your
claim that "Caucasoids" were in the Palestine area
before tropical Africans. What's taking you so long?


Even if you are attempting to form a valid hypothesis the most parsimonious prevails. Your hypothesis attempts to disregard the fact that Africa was an open continent for bidirectional migration and that even though West Eurasian types were present at that time a completely independent evolution of a Caucasoid-like people occured in Africa. That isn't just a non-parsimonious hypothesis it is the most unlikely.

^^Your diversionary tactics won't work. We all know
that Eurasians entered Africa at different times, that
is not and never was at issue. You speak of
"parsimonious' hypotheses but then turn around
and spin a quite un-parsimonious "wandering Caucasoids"
hypothesis to explain things like narrow noses in
Africa when climate effects as well as Africa's
native genetic diversity is close at hand. Brace 1993
already quoted shows things like that. Since you
say that "most parsimonious prevails" then you
have ironically succeeded in debunking your own claims.




The implication was that out of the two Haplogroups J and E, Haplogroup J was in the Levant first and Haplogroup E entered second.

^^Prove that tropical African people were not in
the Levant before your Caucasoids. We have already
asked you 3 or 4 times for credible scholarly proof.
What's taking you so long?


This quote is too vague, which serves your purpose. Ohalo is in no way sub-Saharan African. It makes sense that you wouldn't provide a picture of Ohalo to confirm your hypothesis

Let's not deal with your eyeball anthropology that
"expertly" can tell who is "mulatto" or not. Let's
deal with credible mainstream scholarship. What's taking you so long?

And as for Nazlet Khater, which is of mostly W. Eurasian descent with moderate admixture with sub-Saharans. If you look at the skull, that is the most parsimonious explanation for the features.

^you keep making these claims like an empty echo
chamber with little credible scholarship to
back them up. Show us the scholarship that calls
Nazlet Khater "Eurasian". What's taking you so long?
Could it be that your eyeball anthropology is utter
nonsense compared to the conclusions of credible
mainstream scholars?

While you keep desperately searching for yet another
"parsimonious" claims to dig you out of the hole,
let us instruct you re Nazlet Khater:

QUOTE:

Thoma concludes that the Nazlet Khater specimen is:

(a) indisputably anatomically modern with certain
archaic characteristics; (b) related to the
Nubian Epipaleolithic skeletal series from Wadi
Halfa and Jebel Sahaba; and (c) displays Negroid
characteristics such as alveolar prognathism and
sub-nasal fossa."
--P. Vermeersch 2002. Paleolithic quarrying sites
in Upper and Middle Egypt


Please quote credible scholarship to back up
your claim of how Nazlet Khater became "mostly Eurasian."
We'll wait...
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
You're stupid.Pestera cu Oase skeleton is not an anatomically modern human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Clyde Winters:

You're gravely mistaken if you think I don't know my Palaeolithic chronology. The Iberomaurusians were significantly later in time than Pestera cu Oase, ten thousand years later. And they were also of Afalou type.

---

The Pestera cu Oase don't appear in Europe until years after the Aurignacians had entered Spain from North Africa. The Pestera cu Oase was a hybrid(human-Neanderthal) and in no way influenced the rise of amh in Europe. The first amh Europeans were Aurignacians. As you can see they lacked caucasian features.

You really are a racist liar. You know this hominid had archaic features which are not associated with the caucasian type and yet you come here spread this garbage.

Aurignacian in Europe..................................Petera cu Oase



These personages look exactly alike. These were Cro-Magnon men. Cro-Magnon man was a negro. Caucasians don't enter Europe until after 1400BC from Central Asia.

.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Clyde Winters:

You're gravely mistaken if you think I don't know my Palaeolithic chronology. The Iberomaurusians were significantly later in time than Pestera cu Oase, ten thousand years later. And they were also of Afalou type.

---

The Pestera cu Oase don't appear in Europe until years after the Aurignacians had entered Spain from North Africa. The Pestera cu Oase was a hybrid(human-Neanderthal) and in no way influenced the rise of amh in Europe. The first amh Europeans were Aurignacians. As you can see they lacked caucasian features.

You really are a racist liar. You know this hominid had archaic features which are not associated with the caucasian type and yet you come here spread this garbage.

Aurignacian in Europe



These were Cro-Magnon man. Cro-Magnon man was a negro. Caucasians don't enter Europe until after 1400BC from Central Asia.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
I'm interested in the peopling of Egypt, and Europeans had very little if anything to do with that.

I don't give a rat's ass what prehistoric Europeans would have looked like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Clyde Winters:

"The reconstruction of the first European is supported by all archaeologist."

I would sure like to see some quotes on that!

---

quote:

---

The first European: Created from fragments of fossil, the face of our forbears 35,000 years ago

By David Derbyshire

Last updated at 2:47 PM on 5th May 2009

Comments (0) Add to My Stories Share
Dressed in a suit, this person would not look out of place in a busy street in a modern city.
The clay sculpture, however, portrays the face of the earliest known modern European - a man or woman who hunted deer and gathered fruit and herbs in ancient forests more than 35,000 years ago.

It was created by Richard Neave, one of Britain's leading forensic scientists, using fossilised fragments of skull and jawbone found in a cave seven years ago.

The first modern European: Forensic artist Richard Neave reconstructed the face based on skull fragments from 35,000 years ago
His recreation offers a tantalising glimpse into life before the dawn of civilisation. It also shows the close links between the first European settlers and their immediate African ancestors.
To sculpt the head, Mr Neave called on his years of experience recreating the appearance of murder victims as well as using careful measurements of bone.

It was made for the BBC2 series The Incredible Human Journey. This will follow the evolution of humans from the cradle of Africa to the waves of migrations that saw Homo sapiens colonise the globe.


The head has taken pride of place on the desk of Alice Roberts, an anthropologist at Bristol University, who presents the programme.
'It's really quite bizarre,' she told Radio Times. 'I'm a scientist and objective but I look at that face and think "Gosh, I'm looking at the face of somebody from 40,000 years ago" and there's something weirdly moving about that.
'Richard creates skulls of much more recent humans and he's used to looking at differences between populations.

'He said the skull doesn't look European or Asian or African. It looks like a mixture of all of them.

'That's probably what you'd expect of someone among the earliest populations to come to Europe.'

Anthropologist Alice Roberts with the model: 'I look at that face and think "I'm actually looking at the face of somebody from 40,000 years ago"', she says

The head is based on remains of one of the earliest known anatomically modern Europeans.
The lower jawbone was discovered by potholers in the Carpathian mountains in Romania in 2002. The rest of the fragments were found the following year.

The bones were carbon-dated to between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago when Europe was occupied by two species of human.

They were the Neanderthals, who had arrived from Africa tens of thousands of years earlier, and the more recent modern humans, also known as Cro-Magnons.




Although the skull is similar to a modern human head, it has a larger cranium, is more robust and has larger molars. Although it is impossible to work out the skin colour of the prehistoric hunter, it is likely to have been darker than modern white Europeans.

Fossil experts are also unsure if the skull was male or female.

Many scientists believe that modern humans evolved in Africa 200,000 to 100,000 years ago. Our ancestors left Africa around 60,000 years ago and migrated around the world, replacing other branches of the family tree which had left the continent earlier.

The earliest modern Europeans were far from primitive. Living in huts and caves, they used stone tools and spears made from antlers, painted on the walls of their caves and made jewellery from shells.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1177123/The-European-Created-fragments-fossil-face-forbears-35-000-years-ago.html#ixzz1X1tXMjFT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Clyde Winters and Enrique Cordoba:

Your words say one thing but your desperate attempts to plunge deeper into denial are revealed through your emotional responses. Enrique, I had already stated that Nazlet Khater had sub-Saharan features but was mostly W. Eurasian. In sub-Saharans the prognathism is carried over into the mandibular region also, this is not found in Nazlet Khater who had a prominent chin which is a Eurasian trait. Clyde, instead of calling me a racist liar why don't you refute what I've said. There is not one scientist that would claim that Caucasians entered Europe only after 1400 B.C. You're not even close on that one.

"You speak of
"parsimonious' hypotheses but then turn around
and spin a quite un-parsimonious "wandering Caucasoids"
hypothesis to explain things like narrow noses in
Africa when climate effects as well as Africa's
native genetic diversity is close at hand."

Since you already agree that Caucasoids entered Africa at various times in the past there is no need to add entities in order to explain narrow noses in Africa. You do understand the definition of parsimonious don't you?

The fact remains that East Africans and West Africans who have Caucasoid features also have Caucasoid DNA, and that isn't racist that's the simplest explanation for why Caucasoid features occur in Africa.

---

Aurignacian in Europe..................................Petera cu Oase




I stand by my claim that you are a liar. The reconstruction of these hominids appear identical. The physical features are clearly negroid--not cacausoid in appearence.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Clyde Winters:

"You're stupid. Pestera cu Oase skeleton is not an anatomically modern human."

You can't be serious, you're either uninformed or biased. And I see you can't help but remain childish. Grow up will you!

---

]Aurignacian in Europe..................................Petera cu Oase

quote:

---

Abstract

The 2002 discovery of a robust modern human mandible in the Peştera cu Oase, southwestern Romania, provides evidence of early modern humans in the lower Danubian Corridor. Directly accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon (14C)-dated to 34,000–36,000 14C years B.P., the Oase 1 mandible is the oldest definite early modern human specimen in Europe and provides perspectives on the emergence and evolution of early modern humans in the northwestern Old World. The moderately long Oase 1 mandible exhibits a prominent tuber symphyseos and overall proportions that place it close to earlier Upper Paleolithic European specimens. Its symmetrical mandibular incisure, medially placed condyle, small superior medial pterygoid tubercle, mesial mental foramen, and narrow corpus place it closer to early modern humans among Late Pleistocene humans.[ However, its cross-sectional symphyseal orientation is intermediate between late archaic and early modern humans, the ramus is exceptionally wide, and the molars become progressively larger distally with exceptionally large third molars. The molar crowns lack derived Neandertal features but are otherwise morphologically undiagnostic. However, it has unilateral mandibular foramen lingular bridging, an apparently derived Neandertal feature. It therefore presents a mosaic of archaic, early modern human and possibly Neandertal morphological features, emphasizing both the complex population dynamics of modern human dispersal into Europe and the subsequent morphological evolution of European early modern humans.


An early modern human from the Peştera cu Oase, Romania

Erik Trinkaus*†, Oana Moldovan‡, ştefan Milota§, Adrian Bîlgăr¶, Laurenţiu Sarcina§, Sheela Athreya∥, Shara E. Bailey**, Ricardo Rodrigo††, Gherase Mircea§, Thomas Higham‡‡, Christopher Bronk Ramsey‡‡, and Johannes van der Plicht§§
+


http://www.pnas.org/content/100/20/11231

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manu:
If there is no evolutionary pressure a population will simply stay the same.

Amerindians, Arabians, and Austronesians do just fine having light brown (15 to 22 range on Von Luschan's chromatic scale) in the tropics. It is not detrimental to their survival, therefore they will likely stay the same. In many of these cultures women with lighter skin are deemed more beautiful, this will only result in a higher sexual selection for lighter skin.

Melanesians derived from an already dark OOA group, so they never changed in terms of skin tone, as there was no need.

---

Melanisians are DARK. How can they derive from a "Dark" OOA populations when that OOA population according to you supposedly was "Light Brown". Get gone Euroclown. The other populations "do just fine" because they haven't BEEN THERE long enough. Amerindians have only been there 10 thousand years. It takes about 25-35 Thousand years for a full switch. But Amerindians are still DARKER than their siberian ancestors. Furthermore "Arabs" havent BEEN there long enough. Arabs that seem to be of the J* persuasion live in the Tropic of Socotra and despite little recent African Ancestry are quite Dark brown. J* is nearly 40 Thousand years old. The other "Arabs" now in the Penesula which seem to represent the SOUTH WARD MIGRATION FROM THE NORTH less than 15 thousand years ago. The ancestral type exists in Socotra while the subclades repopulated the penensula less than 15kya due to favorable conditions as shown in the map here:


This follows the common theme with very early Y DNA lineages being affiliated with "Southern" people but they later migration North and return 10s of thousands of years later as cold adapted light skinned people.

The goal of Afrocentrists like me is to beat you over the face with a healthy dose of simple common sense and peer reviewed study.

The object of the Euroclown such as yourself is NOT to actually learn or teach, but simply to attempt and to prove and wish I am incorrect about any and everything. But you fail every time because you are not interested in the Truth...you are interested in proving the Afrocentrist wrong at whatever costs. Take note, the "aboriginals" nearly EVERYWHERE outside of Africa are all Brown or Dark Brown = African skin tones. The only place where you dont find them is Europe and Central Asia. You are trying to debate with me, you should be sitting back asking question and LEARNING.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Truthcentric:

"Let me repost what I said so stupidburntice can see it..."

Instead of repeating a previously impotent response why don't you reply with an argument that actually refutes mine. Narrow/prominent noses occur at highest frequency in Northern Latitudes did you ever consider that cold air also has something to do with it. The reason why it would not have evolved in Africa (even if the extreme north of Africa could have) is it would never have gotten past the beginning stages of it's evolution. Any population in Africa in the process of evolving such features, long before the process was complete, would have been quickly absorbed by the surrounding sub-Saharan types. Sub-Saharan types were present throughout all Africa since the beginning of human evolution the've had tens of thousands of years to spread to the furthest reaches of Africa. And the Border Cave and Boskop remains are considered by anthropologists to be related to modern Bushman which shows continuity in the desert regions for at least 50,000 years why didn't they evolve Caucasoid features? It still has never been shown that a previously flat/broad nosed person in Africa had descendants that were narrow/prominent in Africa. The only way such traits could evolve is in Northern Latitudes and completely isolated for over fifteen thousand years. And it stands to reason that the oldest human remains with narrow/prominent noses occur in Northern Latitudes.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Clyde Winters:

If you are truly convinced that Pestera cu Oase has significant admixture with Neanderthals and is not a modern human then what makes you think he's a negro? Negros are modern humans. And if your really convinced that Pestera cu Oase had a broad nose what makes you think that he didn't get it from his Neanderthal lineage. In modern Europeans the nasal aperature has an average width of 20mm and Pestera cu Oase is 25mm. A 5mm difference isn't sufficient to turn a Caucasian into a Negro, even by your low standards.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To KING:

It is highly probable that the Tutsis were mixed with Caucasian people in the past even though this does not show up in their Y-DNA. The Somalis barely have any Haplogroup T left to show their Eurasian origin, and what little they have left is mainly the result of being closer to the northeast of Africa than the Tutsis. I have no doubt that there were migrations from Eurasia that expanded as far as South Africa in the past before the 15th century. The Lemba (Hg T1b) are evidence of such a migration moving as far as Rwanda and even further to South Africa. The Somalis are also Hg T1b just like the Lembas, so the most likely origin of the Tutsis was Somalia. The Maasi of Kenya have a moderate frequency of mtDNA Hg M1 which the Somalis also have.
 

---

Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Truthcentric:

"Let me repost what I said so stupidburntice can see it..."

Instead of repeating a previously impotent response why don't you reply with an argument that actually refutes mine. Narrow/prominent noses occur at highest frequency in Northern Latitudes did you ever consider that cold air also has something to do with it. The reason why it would not have evolved in Africa (even if the extreme north of Africa could have) is it would never have gotten past the beginning stages of it's evolution. Any population in Africa in the process of evolving such features, long before the process was complete, would have been quickly absorbed by the surrounding sub-Saharan types. Sub-Saharan types were present throughout all Africa since the beginning of human evolution the've had tens of thousands of years to spread to the furthest reaches of Africa. And the Border Cave and Boskop remains are considered by anthropologists to be related to modern Bushman which shows continuity in the desert regions for at least 50,000 years why didn't they evolve Caucasoid features? It still has never been shown that a previously flat/broad nosed person in Africa had descendants that were narrow/prominent in Africa. The only way such traits could evolve is in Northern Latitudes and completely isolated for over fifteen thousand years. And it stands to reason that the oldest human remains with narrow/prominent noses occur in Northern Latitudes.

---

quote:

---

We report significant correlations between nasal cavity shape and climatic variables of both temperature and humidity. Variation in nasal cavity shape is correlated with a cline from cold–dry climates to hot–humid climates, with a separate temperature and vapor pressure effect

---

Notice that "Hot and Dry" (Orange dotted line) and "cold Humid" / "Cold dry" when we are looking at REAL quantifiable scientific data ACTUALLY OVERLAP. And this is only taking into account South Africa. The African continent has some of the most diverse climate zones. What do you think will happen if they have areas from the Hot and Dry Tropic Zone of the Sahara or Sahel.... or even the cool Highlands? Cold Humid and Hot/Dry have the most overlap. Notice it says CLINE....do you know what a CLINE is. This Refutes whatever nonsense you are talking about.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
I don't think Australian aborigines are the best example of a population adapted to a hot and dry climate. As Jared Diamond explains in the Australasia chapter of his Guns, Germs, and Steel, most of them lived on the humid coastlines until European invaders drove them deeper into the interior. That may explain why they had broader noses on average than NE Africans.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Astenb:

"This Refutes whatever nonsense you are talking about."

Actually it doesn't. This study doesn't take in to account ancient migrations they only report what features are present in each location in the present time and that's why there is so much overlap. But notice that all the South African data (hollow orange circles) occur in only the right two quadrants (people who have been in the desert the longest) and are not contained within the dark blue or turquoise dashed lines. The same is true for the Australian data (orange circles). You either don't understand what is being reported or you are purposely trying to mislead people.

And as I told Truthcentric:

"Any population in Africa in the process of evolving such features, long before the process was complete, would have been quickly absorbed by the surrounding sub-Saharan types."
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
Narrow/prominent noses occur at highest frequency in Northern Latitudes did you ever consider that cold air also has something to do with it.

---

quote:

---

From bio-anthropologist Stephen Molnar's Race, Types, and Ethnic Groups (pp. 63-4)
Nose form is function largely of climatic factors,such as temperature and moisture content of the air, rather then a simple result of racial affinities. The nose serves to moisten the inspired air, so in the drier regions of the world people have noses which process the greatest surface area of the mucous membrane, a condition achieved by the longer, more narrow nose form; so among desert and mountain peoples the narrow nose is predominant.[7] Even in cold and drier climates the Eskimos have a narrow nasal aperture, which provides an efficient mechanism for warming as well as moistening the inspired air. It is a simple matter of fact that a high narrow nasal opening can warm and moisten air more efficiently than a short broad one, and in climates where the moisture content of the air is very low, selective forces act on this particular nose form, whether the dryness is due to intense heat or intense cold[Table 3-8]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Astenb:

"This Refutes whatever nonsense you are talking about."

Actually it doesn't. This study doesn't take in to account ancient migrations they only report what features are present in each location in the present time and that's why there is so much overlap. But notice that all the South African data (hollow orange circles) occur in only the right two quadrants (people who have been in the desert the longest) and are not contained within the dark blue or turquoise dashed lines. The same is true for the Australian data (orange circles). You either don't understand what is being reported or you are purposely trying to mislead people.

And as I told Truthcentric:

"Any population in Africa in the process of evolving such features, long before the process was complete, would have been quickly absorbed by the surrounding sub-Saharan types."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
This is why, like I stated before, the Bushman have been living in the desert for over 50,000 years without high narrow noses, it wasn't significant enough for natural selection to completely change their nasal form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
Any population in Africa in the process of evolving such features, long before the process was complete, would have been quickly absorbed by the surrounding sub-Saharan types. Sub-Saharan types were present throughout all Africa since the beginning of human evolution the've had tens of thousands of years to spread to the furthest reaches of Africa.

---

quote:

---

And the Border Cave and Boskop remains are considered by anthropologists to be related to modern Bushman which shows continuity in the desert regions for at least 50,000 years why didn't they evolve Caucasoid features?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
Oh, and you are in desperate need of some class.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
"Furthermore, deserts actually and infamously can get very cold at night, so cold air is still a problem for any population living in the desert."

Now you're grabbing at straws, you can't seriously be comparing the deserts of Africa to the cold of Northern Latitudes. Not significant at all.

---

quote:

---

"Are you fucking illiterate? I posted a while back that some of the Bushmen have not always lived in the desert."

Archaeology on the other hand shows continuity of the ancestors of the Bushman on the beaches of South Africa and the deserts of the same region. Point is the Bushman have been in the deserts long enough to evolve narrow noses if it was possible.

"Show that these Border Cave and Boskop people looked exactly like their Bushman descendents with regards to craniofacial morphology."

You've never seen the Border Cave and Boskop remains?

---

quote:

---

The strong emotion that you and the others show tells me that even you know that your arguments and point of view are weak.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Truthcentric:

"Furthermore, deserts actually and infamously can get very cold at night, so cold air is still a problem for any population living in the desert."

Now you're grabbing at straws, you can't seriously be comparing the deserts of Africa to the cold of Northern Latitudes. Not significant at all.

"Are you fucking illiterate? I posted a while back that some of the Bushmen have not always lived in the desert."

Archaeology on the other hand shows continuity of the ancestors of the Bushman on the beaches of South Africa and the deserts of the same region. Point is the Bushman have been in the deserts long enough to evolve narrow noses if it was possible.

"Show that these Border Cave and Boskop people looked exactly like their Bushman descendents with regards to craniofacial morphology."

You've never seen the Border Cave and Boskop remains?

The strong emotion that you and the others show tells me that even you know that your arguments and point of view are weak.

---

Ice you still seemed to ignore what me and Truthcentric are asking you. Why did Narrow nosed Africans retain there color if they were mixed with Eurasians?

Please Answer.

Peace
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
Also, if a narrow nose was so undesirable in a hot and dry climate, why haven't Middle Easterners and Northeast Africans re-evolved broad noses?
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To KING:

"Ice you still seemed to ignore what me and Truthcentric are asking you. Why did Narrow nosed Africans retain there color if they were mixed with Eurasians?"

I would have thought it obvious why they retain a darker skin color. In the mixed race descendants natural selection would favor a darker over the lighter skin color. And the same goes with the hair type. Although like the Fulani, Lemba, Somalis and even some Tutsis the skin color to me seems lighter than sub-Saharan types. The narrow noses wouldn't have changed because natural selection would not have favored either nose type over the other in hot dry regions.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Truthcentric:

"Also, if a narrow nose was so undesirable in a hot and dry climate, why haven't Middle Easterners and Northeast Africans re-evolved broad noses?"

Maybe you didn't understand my other post. Natural selection would not have prefered one unfavorable trait over another, e.g. broad flat noses would not be favorable in a hot dry climate either because they function by cooling and condensing. So they would simple remain the same.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Truthcentric:

"I'm showing strong emotion because racist scum like you deserve it. People with your mindset are responsible for so many of history's atrocities that I have no reason to respect your ilk."

First of all you only consider me racist only because you don't understand my point of view. The evidence clearly shows the back migrations deep into Africa while you desperatley cling to your assumptions. And you're definitely not convincing me that your mindset is more civilized! I always thought that racism and disgusting behavior went together.
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Rainingburntice It's your belief in a concept called race that's having you going waay off base for Eurasians is not a phenotype including Middle Easterners

Again they^ are Eurasians and there are nations of millions of them, phenotype does not a race make,these people have been in Eurasia for upwards of 50kyrs.. really some of you net scholars need to get out and travel more often, back migration? why yes phenotype??? you don't know what they actually looked like.
 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by astenb:
Climate-related variation of the human nasal cavity[/b]

Scientific Source

quote:

---

We report significant correlations between nasal cavity shape and climatic variables of both temperature and humidity. Variation in nasal cavity shape is correlated with a cline from cold–dry climates to hot–humid climates, with a separate temperature and vapor pressure effect

---

Notice that "Hot and Dry" (Orange dotted line) and "cold Humid" / "Cold dry" when we are looking at REAL quantifiable scientific data ACTUALLY OVERLAP. And this is only taking into account South Africa. The African continent has some of the most diverse climate zones. What do you think will happen if they have areas from the Hot and Dry Tropic Zone of the Sahara or Sahel.... or even the cool Highlands? Cold Humid and Hot/Dry have the most overlap. Notice it says CLINE....do you know what a CLINE is. This Refutes whatever nonsense you are talking about. [/QB]

---

^^Indeed.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 


People are trying to say that narrow noses are the result of an adapatation to cold and/or dry conditions.
I don't know if it's true, could be random.

If it is true that narrow noses are an adapation to particular environmental conditions then narrow noses should be found more common across the whole latitude East to West of which those particular conditions exist.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Enrique Cordova:

"This Refutes whatever nonsense you are talking about."

Like I said before the study isn't taking into account ancient migrations. I'm not saying the data is wrong I'm saying the interpretation of the data doesn't include this factor. It was only around 1996 that the Lemba were proven to be of Eurasian descent and DNA will no doubt uncover more ancient migrations, like the R1 in Cameroon also.

"Notice that "Hot and Dry" (Orange dotted line) and "cold Humid" / "Cold dry" when we are looking at REAL quantifiable scientific data ACTUALLY OVERLAP."

Actually this is hypothetical it doesn't prove which populations evolved which features according to the climate. Most migrations during the Upper Palaeolithic period were from hot/humid climates to hot/dry and cold/humid environments. That could also explain the overlap. But it's all assumptions. This data doesn't prove anything once and for it only leaves other possibilities open as well.

If you want to convince me that you're right show studies of Tutsi ancient DNA from both sides that show no Eurasian admixture (because the 1994 Genocide may have erased what of it there was). Then I'll believe it, my mind is not unchangable.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
Revisiting the whole "narrow noses and climate" thing:

http://www.nvfa.nl/attachment/fame12_2004.pdf

quote:

---

Thomson and Buxton where the first to relate the nasal index to climatic conditions (Thomson and Buxton, 1923). They correlated the average nasal index of various groups of living populations with the average temperature and average humidity, and concluded that “a platyrrhine nasal index is associated with a hot, moist climate, and a leptorrhine nasal index with a cold, dry climate” (Figure 1).
Weiner re-examined the data of Thomson and Buxton and found that the strongest correlation existed between nasal index and absolute humidity (=vapor pressure of the air) (Weiner, 1954). This means that in a moist climate, the nasal index is high.

---

Study being cited here:

Weiner, J.S., 1954. Nose Shape and Climate, American Journal of Phys. Anthrop. 12: 615-618.

So, in other words, the most important factor affecting nose width is humidity. Temperature also plays a role of course, but according to Weiner, it's the humidity that matters the most.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Truthcentric:

"So, in other words, the most important factor affecting nose width is humidity. Temperature also plays a role of course, but according to Weiner, it's the humidity that matters the most."

I agree with a cold/dry climate for narrow nose evolution, but I still find it hard to believe that natural selection would have favored a narrow nose in a hot climate, superheated air would be just as damaging to the lungs. Just like superdry air (to broad nosed) would also be damaging to the lungs. Natural selection is obviously not a conscious force and wouldn't select for a function that is equally unfavorable, it must have a significant enough favorability to be distinguished by selection. Otherwise it would just remain the same. The opposite wouldn't make evolutionary sense.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
You missed the emphasis on "most important". Furthermore, as I said earlier, deserts get cold at night. They also can cool down substantially during the winter time. Therefore, a superheated nose would only be a liability during summer days.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
What I find hilarious, is that some characters try to give isolated counterexamples (eg, the Bushman) to refute the idea that a correlation exist between nasal index and climate.

The very word ''correlation'' takes into account that there may be exceptions, lol. What it says, is that there may be exceptions here and there, but that the overal picture, is that the two correlated things can be found together in way that suggest that there is much more going on than merely a coincidence.

How often the two things can be found together depends on how strong the correlation is.

That doesn't mean that I agree with the idea that the Bushman are a good example of a population that doesn't adhere to the offered explanation of nasal morphology.



The !Kung Kalahari desert people often sport narrower noses and narrower faces than their fellow Khoisan
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 
^ And they're probably a mix between indigenous desert-dwellers and Khoisan groups who were driven into the Kalahari by Bantu invaders.

I'll also add that the Kalahari is not really a true desert and that it once had a more humid climate until Lake Makgadikgadi dried up 10,000 years ago.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
Eskimo






 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
^ And they're probably a mix between indigenous desert-dwellers and Khoisan groups who were driven into the Kalahari by Bantu invaders.

I'll also add that the Kalahari is not really a true desert and that it once had a more humid climate until Lake Makgadikgadi dried up 10,000 years ago.

---

^Hmm, check this one out:



Along the x axis (shape distance), the used R Hottentot sample is no different from the used Northeast Africans such as Somali and Naqadans.

In terms of shape (again, x axis), they are much closer to so called ''caucasoid'' Africans than the Teita (who have been called caucasoid as well), go figure. The used Tindiga Bushmen sample is close Naqadans and Nubian C in terms of both size and Shape.

There goes his idea of a monolithic Khoisan group, of which the local constituent groups are supposedly uneffected by the climate in which they live.

Or equally silly: that Africans have to have experienced admixture from Eurasians, to be able to look the way they do.
 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Truthcentric:

"a superheated nose would only be a liability during summer days."

A liability at all would prohibit natural selection from evolving this type of feature. It makes no evolutionary/logical sense.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Truthcentric:

"a superheated nose would only be a liability during summer days."

A liability at all would prohibit natural selection from evolving this type of feature. It makes no evolutionary/logical sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Truthcentric:

"The benefits outweigh the costs."

No it's not, they're both equally a liability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Truthcentric:

"The benefits outweigh the costs."

No it's not, they're both equally a liability.

"Will you stop pretending that you know more than jack **** about evolution?"

Apparently I know more about it than you!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Lioness:

They live in a cold/dry environment, so
Eskimo noses make perfect evolutionary sense.

---

There is no drastic difference between these Eskimo noses and the Nigerian man below





 

---

Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
 
^^Gasp. I finally agree with you on one point. And of course,
narrow noses are correlated to climate, nothing special
in the widely varying tropical climes of Africa. The
data below shows narrower noses in native populations
not only in the Nigerian proximate area but in the
distant Angola area as well.


 

---

Posted by rainingburntice (Member # 19436) on :
 
To Lioness:

The Eskimo noses look narrower to me than the Nigerian.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Clyde Winters:

"You're stupid. Pestera cu Oase skeleton is not an anatomically modern human."

You can't be serious, you're either uninformed or biased. And I see you can't help but remain childish. Grow up will you!

---

]Aurignacian in Europe..................................Petera cu Oase




[QUOTE]


Abstract

The 2002 discovery of a robust modern human mandible in the Peştera cu Oase, southwestern Romania, provides evidence of early modern humans in the lower Danubian Corridor. Directly accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon (14C)-dated to 34,000–36,000 14C years B.P., the Oase 1 mandible is the oldest definite early modern human specimen in Europe and provides perspectives on the emergence and evolution of early modern humans in the northwestern Old World. The moderately long Oase 1 mandible exhibits a prominent tuber symphyseos and overall proportions that place it close to earlier Upper Paleolithic European specimens. Its symmetrical mandibular incisure, medially placed condyle, small superior medial pterygoid tubercle, mesial mental foramen, and narrow corpus place it closer to early modern humans among Late Pleistocene humans.[ However, its cross-sectional symphyseal orientation is intermediate between late archaic and early modern humans, the ramus is exceptionally wide, and the molars become progressively larger distally with exceptionally large third molars. The molar crowns lack derived Neandertal features but are otherwise morphologically undiagnostic. However, it has unilateral mandibular foramen lingular bridging, an apparently derived Neandertal feature. It therefore presents a mosaic of archaic, early modern human and possibly Neandertal morphological features, emphasizing both the complex population dynamics of modern human dispersal into Europe and the subsequent morphological evolution of European early modern humans.


An early modern human from the Peştera cu Oase, Romania

Erik Trinkaus*†, Oana Moldovan‡, ştefan Milota§, Adrian Bîlgăr¶, Laurenţiu Sarcina§, Sheela Athreya∥, Shara E. Bailey**, Ricardo Rodrigo††, Gherase Mircea§, Thomas Higham‡‡, Christopher Bronk Ramsey‡‡, and Johannes van der Plicht§§
+


http://www.pnas.org/content/100/20/11231


.
 

---

Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
 
ATTENTION TO ALL!!!!! YOU MUST READ THIS AND TH ENTIRE THREAD!!!!!!!


There was a member by the name of Salsassin that has created several fake names and has created several fake personalities which he uses to talk with himself on the board! He has several fake names and I will share with you all a few that exist here right now!

1) Mike111 Member # 9361
This Mike111 name plays the role of a hardcore afrocentric who insists that Whites are Dravidian Albinos even though TRUE Dravidians possess ZERO% Neanderthal DNA

2) the lioness Member # 17353

Lioness plays the role of imbecile and it comes naturally!


3)Clyde Winters Member # 10129 This person has impersonated Dr. Clyde Winters on Egyptsearch for SIX years! The REAL Dr. Clyde Winters is not a member of Egyptsearch and he plays the role of the educated Afrocentrist, but insists that Neanderthal existed in Africa

THE REAL DR. CLYDE WINTERS CAN BE REACHED @cwinters@govst.edu


4) ausar ""Moderator""Member # 1797 is another fictitious name that has made it all the way to the position of Moderator where he has the power to delete posts!

THESE ARE JUST ONE OF MANY OF SALSASSINS FAKE NAMES! PLEASE MAKE NOTE OF IT! There are MANY many more!!!!!

IM GIVING YOUR SITES SOME PLAY YOU STRINGY HAIRED PINK ASSED MONKEY!

ATTENTION!!!!!!

Here are just a few of the fake websites associated with Dr. Clyde Winters

http://www.olmec98.net= FAKE website that has been created to impersonate Mr Winters


http://www.youtube.com/user/Olmec98 is a FAKE page created by salsassin inpersonating Mr. Winters

He then goes onto various websites and posts impersonating Dr. Winters


Here is another! http://realhistoryww.com/


THEY CAN ALL BE USED SGAINST HIM BECAUSE 90% OF THE INFORMATION IS ACCURATE! IT IS ONLY WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT IS INNACCURATE AND CAN RECOGNIZE THE INTENTIONAL LIES WITHIN THAT THE SITES BECOME POWERFUL FOR YOU!!!!


JUST REMEMBER A FEW THINGS

1) Neanderthal and Denissova NEVER existed in Africa but rather evolved from much older apes that left Africa in Central asia were both 48 chromosome apes, more distant from modern man than a Gorilla or a Chimp

2) The indigenous people of Europe were black Africans (Grimaldi man and Cro magnon)

3) Whites as Dravidian Albinos is laughable and untrue, because TRUE Dravidians possess ZERO% Neanderthal DNA

4) Whites and mongols NEVER left Africa because they did not exist in Africa, Whites and mongols are the offspring of 48 chromosome apes Neanderthal and Denisova

5) AND ALWAYS REMEMBER THIS!!!!

WHITES AND MONGOLD SHARE ZERO % Y-LINE DNA WITH ANY AFRICAN OR EAST ASIAN AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THEIR DADDY WAS A 48 CHROMOSOME APE


when you understand that, this site is really uselful!

http://realhistoryww.com/
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rainingburntice:
To Clyde Winters:

"You're stupid. Pestera cu Oase skeleton is not an anatomically modern human."

You can't be serious, you're either uninformed or biased. And I see you can't help but remain childish. Grow up will you!

---

]Aurignacian in Europe..................................Petera cu Oase

quote:

---

It is obvious these early Europeans were negroes like their African ancestors.


Abstract

The 2002 discovery of a robust modern human mandible in the Peştera cu Oase, southwestern Romania, provides evidence of early modern humans in the lower Danubian Corridor. Directly accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon (14C)-dated to 34,000–36,000 14C years B.P., the Oase 1 mandible is the oldest definite early modern human specimen in Europe and provides perspectives on the emergence and evolution of early modern humans in the northwestern Old World. The moderately long Oase 1 mandible exhibits a prominent tuber symphyseos and overall proportions that place it close to earlier Upper Paleolithic European specimens. Its symmetrical mandibular incisure, medially placed condyle, small superior medial pterygoid tubercle, mesial mental foramen, and narrow corpus place it closer to early modern humans among Late Pleistocene humans.[ However, its cross-sectional symphyseal orientation is intermediate between late archaic and early modern humans, the ramus is exceptionally wide, and the molars become progressively larger distally with exceptionally large third molars. The molar crowns lack derived Neandertal features but are otherwise morphologically undiagnostic. However, it has unilateral mandibular foramen lingular bridging, an apparently derived Neandertal feature. It therefore presents a mosaic of archaic, early modern human and possibly Neandertal morphological features, emphasizing both the complex population dynamics of modern human dispersal into Europe and the subsequent morphological evolution of European early modern humans.


An early modern human from the Peştera cu Oase, Romania

Erik Trinkaus*†, Oana Moldovan‡, ştefan Milota§, Adrian Bîlgăr¶, Laurenţiu Sarcina§, Sheela Athreya∥, Shara E. Bailey**, Ricardo Rodrigo††, Gherase Mircea§, Thomas Higham‡‡, Christopher Bronk Ramsey‡‡, and Johannes van der Plicht§§
+


http://www.pnas.org/content/100/20/11231


.

---

quote:

---

Article
European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication 15 August 2012; doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.167
The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88
Miguel González1, Verónica Gomes1,2, Ana Maria López-Parra3, António Amorim1,4, Ángel Carracedo2, Paula Sánchez-Diz2, Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo3 and Leonor Gusmão1
1. 1IPATIMUP, Institute of Pathology and Immunology of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
2. 2Institute of Legal Medicine, Genomics Medicine Group, University of Santiago de Compostela, CIBER for Rare Diseases (CIBERER), Santiago de Compostela, Spain
3. 3Departamento de Toxicología y Legislación Sanitaria, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
4. 4Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
Correspondence: Dr L Gusmão, IPATIMUP, Institute of Pathology and Immunology of University of Porto, Rua Dr Roberto Frias s/n, Porto 4200-465, Portugal. Tel: +351 22 5570700; Fax: +351 22 5570799; E-mail: lgusmao@ipatimup.pt
Received 5 January 2012; Revised 1 June 2012; Accepted 6 July 2012
Advance online publication 15 August 2012
Top of page
Abstract
Human Y chromosomes belonging to the haplogroup R1b1-P25, although very common in Europe, are usually rare in Africa. However, recently published studies have reported high frequencies of this haplogroup in the central-western region of the African continent and proposed that this represents a ‘back-to-Africa’ migration during prehistoric times. To obtain a deeper insight into the history of these lineages, we characterised the paternal genetic background of a population in Equatorial Guinea, a Central-West African country located near the region in which the highest frequencies of the R1b1 haplogroup in Africa have been found to date. In our sample, the large majority (78.6%) of the sequences belong to subclades in haplogroup E, which are the most frequent in Bantu groups. However, the frequency of the R1b1 haplogroup in our sample (17.0%) was higher than that previously observed for the majority of the African continent. Of these R1b1 samples, nine are defined by the V88 marker, which was recently discovered in Africa. As high microsatellite variance was found inside this haplogroup in Central-West Africa and a decrease in this variance was observed towards Northeast Africa, our findings do not support the previously hypothesised movement of Chadic-speaking people from the North across the Sahara as the explanation for these R1b1 lineages in Central-West Africa. The present findings are also compatible with an origin of the V88-derived allele in the Central-West Africa, and its presence in North Africa may be better explained as the result of a migration from the south during the mid-Holocene.

Keywords:

Central-West Africa; Equatorial Guinea; human male lineages; Y chromosome; haplogroup R-V88; back to Africa hypothesis

---