posted
While most studies on cranial morphology of populations traditionally focused on metric traits, it has been proven time and again that nonmetric also known as discrete traits hold a much greater correspondence to population genetics than metric ones which tend to be more spurious. I’ve shown this to be the case with dental nonmetric traits, but the same holds true with other non-metric traits of the skull as well as post skull (skeletal body). Unfortunately, cranial non-metric analyses tend to make the same mistakes as both craniometric and genetic analyses. Many of these nonmetric traits were discovered or first noticed by forensic anthropologists who identify skulls as a profession and were traditionally used for “racing” or racially identifying skulls of unknown persons. Some of these forensic experts are renowned for developing their own suite of nonmetric traits used in identification i.e. E. A. Hooton (1930), W. M. Krogman (1962), G. W. Gill (1986), S. Rhine (1990)
While nonmetric traits hold far greater specificity than metric ones, certain nonmetric traits can still be held in common by various populations since ultimately all human populations are related and this is especially the case between populations that share recent gene-flow. This is why a percentage of error still exists for identification as shown in studies like this: Assessing Ancestry Through Nonmetric Traits of the Skull: A Test of Education and Experience
As such, the type of traits chosen to be used in a study is significant. One problem shared with craniometric analyses especially in regard to North African populations is the use of more ambiguous traits as opposed to African specific traits. Examples of African specific traits that are often considered ‘diagnostic’ are post-bregmatic depression (PBD) of the sagittal area, vertical zygomatic arches, oblique gonial angle of the mandible, and alveolar features like prognathism, incisor jutting, and diastema. I can’t help but notice all these aforementioned features tend to be ignored in most discrete trait analyses of Egyptians. Just as significant as the type of traits used in an analysis is also the number of traits used. The greater the number of traits being assessed, the better resolution of a population’s genetic affinities. The problem like those of early genetic studies is that only a limited set of factors are used and worse yet, instead of comparing Africans (North or Sub-Saharan) with neighboring populations to whom likely geneflow is probable, disparate populations from around the world are thrown in causing unnecessary obfuscation. Add to this the additional problem ‘sampling gaps’ where usually no samples from the Sahelian zone between North and Sub-Sahara are included creating an impression of greater genetic divide between North and Sub-Sahara than may actually exists, and what you have is the problem of “stacking the deck” when it comes to discrete traits that occurs in genomic studies as Beyoku has succinctly pointed out here.
In this paper Hanihara & Ishida et al. have as their North African sample ancient Lower Nile Valley inhabitants both Egyptians and Nubians who cluster together thus debunking the notion that Nubians differ ‘racially’ from Egyptians. Some Afrocentrics may complain about the separation of North Africans from Sub-Saharans but not only does such a distinction exist morphologically and genetically but Hanihara et al. also makes equivalent divisions with his East Eurasian samples with East Asians being separated into Northeast and Southeast etc., and even further separating the Ainu into their own group away from other Northeast Asians. This shows that they are well aware of the population substructure that exists in Asia though they are hesitant to show the same in Africa as samples from Ethiopia and Sudan are lacking. When it comes to the discrete traits they chose, they used traits that were more ambiguous than population specific especially when it comes to Africans not to mention they made a global comparison. That said, the findings are still valid and only prove my point!
Focusing only on graph 2a. the Euronuts make the following conclusion: Pre-Dynastic Egyptians from Naqada (#59), 26th-30th Dynasty Egyptians from Gizeh (#60), 12th-13th Dynasty Nubians from Kerma (#61), and Early Christian or Christian Nubians (#62) cluster with South Asians (#44) and several European groups: Greeks (#48), Scandinavians (#51 and #52) and Germans (#53). [NOTE that Somalis are up with Sub-Saharan Africans (#63)]
Not only is India nowhere near North Africa but by the same logic, Sub-Saharans cluster with Southeast Asians Australians, Melanesians, and Oceanians! LOL As Hanihara et al. states: Roughly three major constellations are evident. The Subsaharan African, Southeast Asian, and Oceanian samples form a cluster in one quadrant of Figure 2a…
But he goes on to say: ... However, the Subsaharan African samples form a distinct grouping, well removed from the Southeast Asian and Oceanian samples on the third and fourth principal coordinates. In Figures 1 and 2, the Subsaharan African samples show significant separation from other regions, as well as diversity among themselves. The East/Northeast Asian and European samples form two additional discernable clusters. The New World and Arctic samples are peripheral subgroups in the large East/Northeast Asian cluster, and the two Ainu samples are outliers to other East Asians. The Central Asian samples are located between the Eastern Asian and European clusters. In the bottom half of Figure 2a, the South Asian samples are nearest to the center of all groups, the North African samples are a bit further removed, and the European samples are more separated, having the lowest scores on principal axis 2
If one simply ignores the geographically disparate samples and focus solely on samples in proximity to Africa, in this case Europeans (though oddly no Southwest Asians) one can clearly see that in ALL PCO graphs North Africans are *intermediate* between the Sub-Saharan samples on one hand and the European samples on the other. This is also shown in the generated dendograms: Applying the neighbor-joining method to the MMD distances results in the dendrogram illustrated in Figure 3. The initial split, suggesting the greatest dissimilarity, is between Sub-Saharan Africans and the rest of the world. The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. Oceania and the Southeast Asian groups form a separate branch that is separated from a large grouping of Central and East/Northeast Asian, Arctic, and New World series clusters. The Arctic cluster, which includes groups from northeasternmost Siberia, is deep in a branch containing all New World groups. The Ainu samples are more similar to mainland groups from the Amur River basin and Lake Baikal than to the Japanese.
But note the actual positioning of the branches:
A cropped version from Mathilda
^ Not only is the North African sample intermediate between Sub-Saharans and Europeans but even the Nubian sample is placed closer to Europeans than the Egyptians! Note also that the South Asian samples are intermediate to Europeans and all the East Eurasian samples not shown in this cropped form.
The findings from cranial discrete data actually confirms Irish’s 1998 findings based on dental discrete data.
^ Irish also found North Africans to be intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians (both Europeans and Southwest Asians). Also, both Irish and Hanihara findings also support Keita’s findings based on cranial metric data that also shows North Africans to be intermediate to Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians.
Getting back to Hanihara & Ishida, though their findings still hold much validity I still have much reservations towards them as they utilize the exact flawed methodologies and thus exhibit the same pitfalls as their white peers due to having the same Eurocentric bias. And yes, I accuse them of Eurocentric bias, because even though I don’t personally know them I know for a fact that the Japanese people have been significantly influenced by such bias for many decades. Many people forget that Imperial Japan was an ally of Nazi Germany and even adopted many of their racial ideas which they adapted to themselves. Not many people even know about the genocides committed by Imperial Japan on the black natives of some Pacific Islands whom they viewed as subhuman, and yes even today there lingers the notion of Nippon racial supremacy in comparison to the ethnic chauvinism of other East Asians. So if we are going to call out racist bias we should do so with whatever form it takes from whatever ethnic group not just whites. Call it Eurocentric or Eurasiocentric bias. And yeah the same type of bias also occurs among many Indians as well and not just Razib Khan from Gene Expression!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The topic of this thread is on nonmetric cranial data while the old Fawcett studies are based on metric cranial data. That said, even Fawcett's data proves my point about North Africans' intermediate position.
"Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be sufficiently homogeneous to justify speaking of a Naqada race. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the cephalic and facial indices, this race presents affinities with Negroes. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans...." ---Dr. Emile Massoulard, Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt, p. 402-403
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The topic of this thread is on nonmetric cranial data while the old Fawcett studies are based on metric cranial data. That said, even Fawcett's data proves my point about North Africans' intermediate position.
"Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be sufficiently homogeneous to justify speaking of a Naqada race. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the cephalic and facial indices, this race presents affinities with Negroes. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans...." ---Dr. Emile Massoulard, Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt, p. 402-403
Don't you have a more recent source ? come on 1949...
Moreover I checked and it seems you got a wrong traduction because that's what he says at page 402-403 :
quote:Les Négadiens prédynastiques ressembleraient donc par certains de leurs-caractères aux Nègres, par d’autres aux races blançhes. D’ailleurs, ils 11e présenteraient pas avec les Nègres une ressemblance plus, grande que les Égyptiens dé la période pharaonique et que les Coptes.
translation :
quote:The predynastic Negadians would thus resemble by some of their characteristics the Negroes, by others to the white races. Moreover, they would not present with the Negroes a greater resemblance than the Egyptians of the pharaonic period and the Copts.
So it confirms what we already knew about nagadans being intermediate.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good OP, DJ. Interesting that Christian Nubians appear closer to Europeans than do predynastic Egyptians and the Kushite Kerma series. Would this be an anomaly, or might this indicate relatively recent gene flow from West Eurasia into the Sudan during or before Christianization?
posted
To Antalas: You are obviously suffering from a mental affliction! First of all, my response was to Lioness who was the one who first cited that old study from Fawcett!
Second, you just reaffirmed my point that the Naqadans like all ancient North Africans are morphologically intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians, which contradicts your original point that they cluster solely with Eurasians LMAO
All your arguments have been constantly debunked but apparently you don't realize it.
I suggest you seek professional mental help instead of attempting to argue with me or anyone else in this forum.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To Antalas: You are obviously suffering from a mental affliction! First of all, my response was to Lioness who was the one who first cited that old study from Fawcett!
Second, you just reaffirmed my point that the Naqadans like all ancient North Africans are morphologically intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians, which contradicts your original point that they cluster solely with Eurasians LMAO
All your arguments have been constantly debunked but apparently you don't realize it.
I suggest you seek professional mental help instead of attempting to argue with me or anyone else in this forum.
Wow such an intense reaction just because I corrected your false translation...
quote:you just reaffirmed my point that the Naqadans like all ancient North Africans are morphologically intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ What false translation, you nitwit?! The passage YOU translated is totally different from the one I cited!! Or are you that illiterate?!!
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Good OP, DJ. Interesting that Christian Nubians appear closer to Europeans than do predynastic Egyptians and the Kushite Kerma series. Would this be an anomaly, or might this indicate relatively recent gene flow from West Eurasia into the Sudan during or before Christianization?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: While most studies on cranial morphology of populations traditionally focused on metric traits, it has been proven time and again that nonmetric also known as discrete traits hold a much greater correspondence to population genetics than metric ones which tend to be more spurious. I’ve shown this to be the case with dental nonmetric traits, but the same holds true with other non-metric traits of the skull as well as post skull (skeletal body).
can you explain what the nonmetric discrete traits of the skull are
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ What false translation, you nitwit?! The passage YOU translated is totally different from the one I cited!! Or are you that illiterate?!!
Go ahead, the work is available online and go to p402-403 where is your quote ?
This is the whole quote :
quote:the length of the palate and the nasal index, it would be closer to the Germans; finally by the length of the skull; the sagittal circumference, the facial index, the ratio width-height and the nasal index, perhaps it would be the closest to a primitive race such as the Ainos. The predynastic Negadians thus resemble by some of their characteristics to the Negroes, by others to the white races. Moreover, they would not present with the Negroes a greater resemblance resemblance with the Negroes than the Egyptians of the pharaonic period and the Copts.
It's not the first time, I see you posting fake stuff when it comes to north africans.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To Antalas: You are obviously suffering from a mental affliction! First of all, my response was to Lioness who was the one who first cited that old study from Fawcett!
Second, you just reaffirmed my point that the Naqadans like all ancient North Africans are morphologically intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians, which contradicts your original point that they cluster solely with Eurasians LMAO
All your arguments have been constantly debunked but apparently you don't realize it.
I suggest you seek professional mental help instead of attempting to argue with me or anyone else in this forum.
Wow such an intense reaction just because I corrected your false translation...
quote:you just reaffirmed my point that the Naqadans like all ancient North Africans are morphologically intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians
Stop being a clown
Posts: 45 | From: U.S | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: To Antalas: You are obviously suffering from a mental affliction! First of all, my response was to Lioness who was the one who first cited that old study from Fawcett!
Second, you just reaffirmed my point that the Naqadans like all ancient North Africans are morphologically intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians, which contradicts your original point that they cluster solely with Eurasians LMAO
All your arguments have been constantly debunked but apparently you don't realize it.
I suggest you seek professional mental help instead of attempting to argue with me or anyone else in this forum.
Wow such an intense reaction just because I corrected your false translation...
quote:you just reaffirmed my point that the Naqadans like all ancient North Africans are morphologically intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians
False translation? what you posted doesn't correlate with your point at all. You just wish it did, it's crazy that this forum as all this information and you CHOOSE to ignore it all in order to believe in your false beliefs, and ignorance.
Posts: 45 | From: U.S | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
The topic of this thread is on nonmetric cranial data while the old Fawcett studies are based on metric cranial data. That said, even Fawcett's data proves my point about North Africans' intermediate position.
"Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be sufficiently homogeneous to justify speaking of a Naqada race. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the cephalic and facial indices, this race presents affinities with Negroes. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans...." ---Dr. Emile Massoulard, Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt, p. 402-403
Don't you have a more recent source ? come on 1949...
I haven't looked yet but instead of looking at Massoulard in the French look at
Fawcett and Lee did the primary measurements and text in 1901-2 and it's in English. People talk about Massoulard, 1949 who commented on Fawcett because Diop mentioned Massoulard and he read a lot of French sources and was educated in Paris. Nevertheless Massoulard is not the primary source and one can also look at the hard data itself within the Fawcett and Lee text at this link
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I already busted his lying-ass multiple times in this forum, and he does something so stupid as to say I mistranslated a passage when he cites a completely different passage!
I may have been mistaken about the exact page number but not the quote itself!
The passage I cited can be found in p. 218 of Massoulard's book in archive.org here!:
Miss Fawcett estime que les crânes de Negada forment un ensemble suf¬ fisamment homogène pour que l’dri puisse parler d une race de Negada. Par la hauteur totale du crâne, la hauteur auriculaire, la hauteur et la lar¬ geur de la face, la hauteur nasale, l’indice ^céphalique et 1 indice facial, cette race se rapprocherait des Nègres; par la largeur nasale, la hauteur de 1 orbite, la longueur du palais et l'indice nasal, elle serait plus près des Germains
Translation:
Miss Fawcett estimates the Naqada crania to be sufficiently homogeneous to justify speaking of a Naqada race. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the cephalic and facial indices, this race presents affinities with Negroes. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans....
The idiot is right about one thing!-- All one has to do is look it up online. So I was wrong about about the page number but not the actual quote!!
Now, can anyone address the actual topic of the thread or the data therein??! Note how the dumb troll doesn't address any of that! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: can you explain what the nonmetric discrete traits of the skull are
as compared to b) the metric traits of the skull?
thanks
By their very names, metric refers to features that can be measured i.e. cephalic index, nasal index, facial index, etc. Whereas non-metric refers to features that can't be measured such as suture pattern, pattern of lumps or ptrotusions in the skull, the shape of certain bones of the skull, etc. Metric features are more specious and random and therefore not as reliable for assessing genetic relations as nonmetric features are. Metric traits are more useful in determining the general look of a population than genetic relations. On the other hand, non-metric features are so consistent with genetic heritance that they are typically used to assess familial relationships such as in the case of Egyptian mummies of a certain dynasty. Assessing relationships between populations is more tricky considering the issues I pointed out in my opening post but it still works as Hanihara's data as well as Irish's data still correlate with the molecular genetic findings.
Fregel 2018 PCA
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
WHICH IS THE MORE RELIABLE INDICATOR OF GENETIC DISTANCE ? With special reference to crania from ancient Greece and Egypt. Judith Elaine Powell Department of Anatomy Bristol Medical School. A thesis submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science. March 1989
1.1.3. Morphological variation in the cranium. For over a century now, morphological variation in the cranium has been the focus of studies of population affinity. It is generally accepted that skulls, jaws and teeth are the structures . in which the effects of natural selection and the n-dcroevolutionary chang6s which follow can be most readily detected (Musgrave and Evans 1980). There is disagreement among craniologists, however, about which morphological features are the most reliable indicators of genetic distance. Some regard metric traits (cranial measurements reflecting size and shape of the skull) as the most rewarding sphere of study; others claim that n-dnor morphological variants such as sutural bones, number and site of -2- INTRODUCION foramina and bony bridges (collectively known as epigenetic, non-metric or quasi-continuous traits) are generally superior indicators of population affinity. The object of this work is to compare distance measures derived from both metric and non-metric traits, with a view to determining which type is the more useful for answering questions about population affinity.
_______________
Despite the superior performance of metric traits in this work, it should not be taken as advocating the abandonment of non-metric studies. In certain circumstances (e. g. where there is much distortion, or irreparable fragmentation of the crania) discrete traits may be all that is available. They are undoubtedly much quicker to record than measurements, even if accurate scoring is more difficult to attain than was at first thought. They do contain some genetic information, as several studies have shown, though further elucidations of their modes of development is needed before they can live up to their initial promise.
Furthermore, several workers (Brothwell 1981, Corruccini 1974, Ossenberg 1976, Kaul et al. 1979) are of the opinion that they are only of use for studying relationships within major racial stocks. If this were the case, it would explain why many otherwise successful non-metric studies turn up the odd aberrant result. However, it is hoped that the present work will stimulate a renewed interest in craniometric analysis.
6.4. The implications of this work for metric studies. Apart from its major findings, this study has several implications for the practical exercise of metric analysis. Most importantly, it emphasises the value of metric studies when sample sizes are small. The superior performance of metric distances, as presented in this
Crania from Egypt and Greece should again be measured by a single person, using a single school of measurements, to confirm that the differences between Greek and Egyptian crania apparent in this work are not only due to different workers using different methods
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Fregel 2018 PCA
.
HEY!!! Gimme my props Fregel may not approve my "radar screen" redux
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Compare Loosdrecht's PCA, with PC1 flipped, to Fregel. Radar ID
quote:Fregel's HOD PCA S6.3 plots • Taforalt closer to SSA than to Natufian • Natufian overlaying Neolithic Iran • Neolithic Iran overlayed by KEB • Taforalt closer to Luxmanda than to Natufian • Pemba 3X farther from Taforalt than Luxmanda is.
Consider the relative worth of PCA vs other analytic tools.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
METRIC VERSUS NON-METRIC SKELETAL TRAITS: WHICH IS THE MORE RELIABLE INDICATOR OF GENETIC DISTANCE ? With special reference to crania from ancient Greece and Egypt
Judith Elaine Powell Department of Anatomy Bristol Medical School. A thesis submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science. March 1989
Told yall bout it many times may be the last opportunity to snag it fo free
But I'll always recommend Comas' Manual of Physical Anthropology published in 1960 which I just received from a New Zealand bookseller to replace the copy lost by the movers 16 years gone now.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: While most studies on cranial morphology of populations traditionally focused on metric traits, it has been proven time and again that nonmetric also known as discrete traits hold a much greater correspondence to population genetics than metric ones which tend to be more spurious. I’ve shown this to be the case with dental nonmetric traits, but the same holds true with other non-metric traits of the skull as well as post skull (skeletal body). Unfortunately, cranial non-metric analyses tend to make the same mistakes as both craniometric and genetic analyses. Many of these nonmetric traits were discovered or first noticed by forensic anthropologists who identify skulls as a profession and were traditionally used for “racing” or racially identifying skulls of unknown persons. Some of these forensic experts are renowned for developing their own suite of nonmetric traits used in identification i.e. E. A. Hooton (1930), W. M. Krogman (1962), G. W. Gill (1986), S. Rhine (1990)
While nonmetric traits hold far greater specificity than metric ones, certain nonmetric traits can still be held in common by various populations since ultimately all human populations are related and this is especially the case between populations that share recent gene-flow. This is why a percentage of error still exists for identification as shown in studies like this: Assessing Ancestry Through Nonmetric Traits of the Skull: A Test of Education and Experience
As such, the type of traits chosen to be used in a study is significant. One problem shared with craniometric analyses especially in regard to North African populations is the use of more ambiguous traits as opposed to African specific traits. Examples of African specific traits that are often considered ‘diagnostic’ are post-bregmatic depression (PBD) of the sagittal area, vertical zygomatic arches, oblique gonial angle of the mandible, and alveolar features like prognathism, incisor jutting, and diastema. I can’t help but notice all these aforementioned features tend to be ignored in most discrete trait analyses of Egyptians. Just as significant as the type of traits used in an analysis is also the number of traits used. The greater the number of traits being assessed, the better resolution of a population’s genetic affinities. The problem like those of early genetic studies is that only a limited set of factors are used and worse yet, instead of comparing Africans (North or Sub-Saharan) with neighboring populations to whom likely geneflow is probable, disparate populations from around the world are thrown in causing unnecessary obfuscation. Add to this the additional problem ‘sampling gaps’ where usually no samples from the Sahelian zone between North and Sub-Sahara are included creating an impression of greater genetic divide between North and Sub-Sahara than may actually exists, and what you have is the problem of “stacking the deck” when it comes to discrete traits that occurs in genomic studies as Beyoku has succinctly pointed out here.
In this paper Hanihara & Ishida et al. have as their North African sample ancient Lower Nile Valley inhabitants both Egyptians and Nubians who cluster together thus debunking the notion that Nubians differ ‘racially’ from Egyptians. Some Afrocentrics may complain about the separation of North Africans from Sub-Saharans but not only does such a distinction exist morphologically and genetically but Hanihara et al. also makes equivalent divisions with his East Eurasian samples with East Asians being separated into Northeast and Southeast etc., and even further separating the Ainu into their own group away from other Northeast Asians. This shows that they are well aware of the population substructure that exists in Asia though they are hesitant to show the same in Africa as samples from Ethiopia and Sudan are lacking. When it comes to the discrete traits they chose, they used traits that were more ambiguous than population specific especially when it comes to Africans not to mention they made a global comparison. That said, the findings are still valid and only prove my point!
Focusing only on graph 2a. the Euronuts make the following conclusion: Pre-Dynastic Egyptians from Naqada (#59), 26th-30th Dynasty Egyptians from Gizeh (#60), 12th-13th Dynasty Nubians from Kerma (#61), and Early Christian or Christian Nubians (#62) cluster with South Asians (#44) and several European groups: Greeks (#48), Scandinavians (#51 and #52) and Germans (#53). [NOTE that Somalis are up with Sub-Saharan Africans (#63)]
Not only is India nowhere near North Africa but by the same logic, Sub-Saharans cluster with Southeast Asians Australians, Melanesians, and Oceanians! LOL As Hanihara et al. states: Roughly three major constellations are evident. The Subsaharan African, Southeast Asian, and Oceanian samples form a cluster in one quadrant of Figure 2a…
But he goes on to say: ... However, the Subsaharan African samples form a distinct grouping, well removed from the Southeast Asian and Oceanian samples on the third and fourth principal coordinates. In Figures 1 and 2, the Subsaharan African samples show significant separation from other regions, as well as diversity among themselves. The East/Northeast Asian and European samples form two additional discernable clusters. The New World and Arctic samples are peripheral subgroups in the large East/Northeast Asian cluster, and the two Ainu samples are outliers to other East Asians. The Central Asian samples are located between the Eastern Asian and European clusters. In the bottom half of Figure 2a, the South Asian samples are nearest to the center of all groups, the North African samples are a bit further removed, and the European samples are more separated, having the lowest scores on principal axis 2
If one simply ignores the geographically disparate samples and focus solely on samples in proximity to Africa, in this case Europeans (though oddly no Southwest Asians) one can clearly see that in ALL PCO graphs North Africans are *intermediate* between the Sub-Saharan samples on one hand and the European samples on the other. This is also shown in the generated dendograms: Applying the neighbor-joining method to the MMD distances results in the dendrogram illustrated in Figure 3. The initial split, suggesting the greatest dissimilarity, is between Sub-Saharan Africans and the rest of the world. The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. Oceania and the Southeast Asian groups form a separate branch that is separated from a large grouping of Central and East/Northeast Asian, Arctic, and New World series clusters. The Arctic cluster, which includes groups from northeasternmost Siberia, is deep in a branch containing all New World groups. The Ainu samples are more similar to mainland groups from the Amur River basin and Lake Baikal than to the Japanese.
But note the actual positioning of the branches:
A cropped version from Mathilda
^ Not only is the North African sample intermediate between Sub-Saharans and Europeans but even the Nubian sample is placed closer to Europeans than the Egyptians! Note also that the South Asian samples are intermediate to Europeans and all the East Eurasian samples not shown in this cropped form.
The findings from cranial discrete data actually confirms Irish’s 1998 findings based on dental discrete data.
^ Irish also found North Africans to be intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians (both Europeans and Southwest Asians). Also, both Irish and Hanihara findings also support Keita’s findings based on cranial metric data that also shows North Africans to be intermediate to Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians.
Getting back to Hanihara & Ishida, though their findings still hold much validity I still have much reservations towards them as they utilize the exact flawed methodologies and thus exhibit the same pitfalls as their white peers due to having the same Eurocentric bias. And yes, I accuse them of Eurocentric bias, because even though I don’t personally know them I know for a fact that the Japanese people have been significantly influenced by such bias for many decades. Many people forget that Imperial Japan was an ally of Nazi Germany and even adopted many of their racial ideas which they adapted to themselves. Not many people even know about the genocides committed by Imperial Japan on the black natives of some Pacific Islands whom they viewed as subhuman, and yes even today there lingers the notion of Nippon racial supremacy in comparison to the ethnic chauvinism of other East Asians. So if we are going to call out racist bias we should do so with whatever form it takes from whatever ethnic group not just whites. Call it Eurocentric or Eurasiocentric bias. And yeah the same type of bias also occurs among many Indians as well and not just Razib Khan from Gene Expression!
Again, it is the same old game of pin the tail on the donkey where Europeans arbitrarily assign certain traits to Non African categories and then use those to define African diversity. So the game remains the same even if the data used is different as in genetics vs craniometry.
That said, some things can only be obfuscated but so much given the overwhelming facts. This is a recent paper that some here seem to have buried with irrelevant talking points:
That paper shows clearly that the cranial metrics in the Nile valley cluster together as one would expect for African populations.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
HEY!!! Gimme my props Fregel may not approve my "radar screen" redux
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Compare Loosdrecht's PCA, with PC1 flipped, to Fregel. Radar ID
quote:Fregel's HOD PCA S6.3 plots • Taforalt closer to SSA than to Natufian • Natufian overlaying Neolithic Iran • Neolithic Iran overlayed by KEB • Taforalt closer to Luxmanda than to Natufian • Pemba 3X farther from Taforalt than Luxmanda is.
Consider the relative worth of PCA vs other analytic tools.
.
HELP, is South_Africa_12000BP a misprint?
Oh, that's YOUR copy?? My bad! I just did a quick google search for Fregel's PCA graph to post. But I do like the radar circle that zooms in on the link between North Africans and Sub-Saharans so nice editing.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, it is the same old game of pin the tail on the donkey where Europeans arbitrarily assign certain traits to Non African categories and then use those to define African diversity. So the game remains the same even if the data used is different as in genetics vs craniometry.
My point is that they are using the same tactic of 'stacking the deck' that they always use to obfuscate African population substructure as Beyoku pointed out here in the case of the Abusir Mummy study. Only in this case Hanihara & Ishida attempted to do the same with nonmetric cranial data but their findings only reaffirm the ties to Sub-Saharan while not automatically grouping with said Sub-Saharans.
quote:That said, some things can only be obfuscated but so much given the overwhelming facts. This is a recent paper that some here seem to have buried with irrelevant talking points:
That paper shows clearly that the cranial metrics in the Nile valley cluster together as one would expect for African populations.
The paper you cited is the one Brandon and I discussed here and deals with nonmetric dental traits, but they still tie in with the cranial nonmetric data.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Scroll down to the section on Nonmetric traits p. 138-139 and you find this:
quote: Non-Metric Studies
Non-metric or discrete cranial characteristics, specifically anatomical anomalies, have been employed in several studies, and are believed to have a very strong genetic basis. Using these traits, measures of divergence have been calculated to ascertain the affinity of populations. The studies have been carried out in global and more local contexts. Berry and Berry (1967) combined Egyptian series from various locales and time periods, thus creating a single "Egyptian" series. This combined entity was found to be most similar to an Asian Indian series with an African series being next in similarity. A West African series was also found to be very similar to the Indian series, as well as nondivergent (i.e., statistically and genetically no different) from a Burmese group! This, while interesting, has no supporting data. The similarity to the Indians can be regarded as spurious as well. Interestingly, the Egyptian series was less similar to a Palestinian series than to a West African one.
Berry and Berry (1972) included Byzantine, Palestinian, European, and Asian Indian series in a better-designed study which used separate Egyptian series from different periods. They found that the Nakada predynastic series was more similar to other Egyptian series (Middle Kingdom and late period Gizeh) than to any other series. The next closest affinity was with an Asian Indian series. A Middle Kingdom group was most similar (outside Egypt) to the central Sudanese Jebel Moya series-in their study called "Nubian." The late period Gizeh sample found its greatest relationships (after other Egyptian series) with the Asian Indian and not Palestinian series. The West African series was more similar to the Asian Indian series than to the Jebel Moyan ("Nubian"), Egyptian, or any other series, while the Indian series was found to have greatest affinities with the late period Egyptian and West African series. All of this resists easy explanation, unless radical diffusionist ideas are entertained, for which there is no archeological support. When the unlikely relationships are eliminated, the Egyptian series are more similar overall to other African series than to European or Near Eastern (Byzantine or Palestinian) series.
Berry et al (1967) showed that numerous Egyptian series from different regions and epochs usually showed greater affinity to one another than to Sudanese, Palestinian (Lachish), and West African (Ashanti) series. Notably missing from their study were the A, C, X, and Meroitic Nubian groups. Numerous inconsistencies were apparent in that successive regional populations sometimes had less affinity to one another than to some from greatly different time periods and regions. For example, early Nakada predynastic crania had less affinity with late Nakada series than the even earlier predynastic Badari did with the late dynastic northern Gizeh groups! Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context, the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have "donated" people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988).
Examination of the data in Strouhal and Jungwirth (1979) reveals great overlap of southern Nile valley crania with more southerly Africans in the frequency of numerous non-metric traits. This agrees with the results obtained by careful inspection of the data in Berry and Berry (1972), where Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese.
But again a big problem I've noticed with recent studies like Hanihara et al. is the sampling gaps with no samples of modern Sudanese being used.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: My point is that they are using the same tactic of 'stacking the deck' that they always use to obfuscate African population substructure as Beyoku pointed out here in the case of the Abusir Mummy study. Only in this case Hanihara & Ishida attempted to do the same with nonmetric cranial data but their findings only reaffirm the ties to Sub-Saharan while not automatically grouping with said Sub-Saharans.
And I have been calling this out for years on this forum also in discussions with you and others. This isn't new for us here. The question is why are some focusing on old outdated studies knowing they are stacked. Or even better, entertaining newer studies which persist in using such outdated methodologies. As an example, this aDNA from Jebel Irhoud is being used as a proxy for ALL North African DNA which doesn't even make sense. One sample is not enough to cover all North Africa. Sure, one can argue that this is just some scholar trying to get more papers on their CV, but we know this pattern of misrepresenting data has a long history as well. Especially when considering there is no single "sub saharan" genetic cluster and no single set of "sub saharan" metric traits. That is a vast oversimplification of African biological diversity.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The paper you cited is the one Brandon and I discussed here and deals with nonmetric dental traits, but they still tie in with the cranial nonmetric data.
Yes, but the point is that even with that the data still shows that these populations cluster together as Africans. And this is a recent paper much more recent than the others being discussed. It should be obvious that ancient populations in a geographic area should cluster together except in the case of obvious known historic large scale migration.
But my question is why are people actively discussing old papers using obviously outdated methodologies? We know the academy has a vested interest in keeping certain talking points going and not necessarily actually trying to get to the facts.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The problem persists because even in newer more recent studies, the experts still use methodologies with the same flaws particularly when it comes to sampling arrangement. Yet despite all that, the findings still show indigenous North African like the Egyptians to be genetically continuous with the rest of Africa and not as separate as many Eurasiocentrics belive or desire.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Compare Loosdrecht's PCA, with PC1 flipped, to Fregel. Radar ID
North Africans are genetically closer to West Africans than the latter are to Southern Africans. Plus, the main reason why West Eurasians (Europeans & Southwest Asians) cluster so close to North Africans is because the former have admixture from the latter and not much the other way.
All of this confirms what we on Egyptsearch have been saying for decades now!! This is not some 'Afrocentric' theory but a REALITY! Egypt is in Africa and its peoples are Africans related to other Africans or 'Sub-Saharans', primarily East Africans first before West Africans.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Plus, the main reason why West Eurasians (Europeans & Southwest Asians) cluster so close to North Africans is because the former have admixture from the latter and not much the other way.
[/QB]
What are you talking about ? West eurasians barely have any north african admixture meanwhile north africans are predominantely west eurasian admixed : their main component is EEF, their IBM component is mostly dzudzuana-like, coastal north africans have steppe admixture too, they have WHG and natufian ancestry, some iran_N ect
Egyptians are mostly natufian, ANF, iran_N and CHG. With your logic, I can say taforalt is closer to east africans not because of their deep ssa-like ancestry but because SSAs have taforalt ancestry lol
Listen to Irish :
quote:We recognized five major modern dental populations: Western Eurasia (including North Africa and India), sub-Saharan Africa, Sino-America, SundaPacific, and Sahul-Pacific. These divisions have substantial correspondence with linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and ethnographic classifications.
Joel D. Irish, Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology, pp. 28
Egyptians share more with their levantine and arab neighbours than any SSA group let alone NW Africans.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The problem persists because even in newer more recent studies, the experts still use methodologies with the same flaws particularly when it comes to sampling arrangement. Yet despite all that, the findings still show indigenous North African like the Egyptians to be genetically continuous with the rest of Africa and not as separate as many Eurasiocentrics belive or desire.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Compare Loosdrecht's PCA, with PC1 flipped, to Fregel. Radar ID
North Africans are genetically closer to West Africans than the latter are to Southern Africans. Plus, the main reason why West Eurasians (Europeans & Southwest Asians) cluster so close to North Africans is because the former have admixture from the latter and not much the other way.
All of this confirms what we on Egyptsearch have been saying for decades now!! This is not some 'Afrocentric' theory but a REALITY! Egypt is in Africa and its peoples are Africans related to other Africans or 'Sub-Saharans', primarily East Africans first before West Africans.
I get it. But my question is whether the new UP TO DATE Irish paper has these problems as it clusters Africans together.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Hey yall please i aint jokin
I need a complete rundown on ANA
What is it Who found/labeled it When and where did it arise How is it differentiated from others also of Africa
I know absolutely nothing about ANA so I ask again this 3rd time for help.
posted
the abbreviation of the term "Ancestral North African" is blogger extrapolation of the figure 2 chart, Lazradis/ David Reich Lab 2018
Lazaridis creates the term "PGNE" (Post-glacial Near Easterners and North Africans)
Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry 2018, Lazaridis
We first estimated FST, a measure of population genetic differentiation, to assess the genetic 97 relationships between ancient West Eurasian populations (Extended Data Table 1; Methods). Post-glacial Near Easterners and North Africans (PGNE)
"the earliest PGNE populations from North Africa (Taforalt) 153 and the Epipaleolithic Levant (Natufians) (Fig. 2).
(Extended Data Fig. 5c), thus, it too—like the PGNE populations—had Basal Eurasian ancestry6,"
__________________
in the figure 2 chart Lazridis uses the term "Ancestral North African" but never in the text abbreviated. Several times in the article uses refers to PGNE
So later somebody in wiki comments and in a blog comes up with "ANA" as an abbreviation gleaned from the fig Lazardis chart
In the chart the E in PGNE is Epipaleolithic Levant (Natufians) which is depicted as descendant of Taforalt with further Eurasian input
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
To my knowledge there is no Ancient North African gene identified that is not somehow connected to Eurasia. E-M81 being theorized as an example of Eurasian back migration.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Where did you get the idea that "ALL" Africans have ANA?? The only groups I know of that carry ANA were shown here.
I believe they are referring to this post by revoiye, which argues that many West and Central African peoples do, in fact, have considerable ANA or ANA-like ancestry.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
if ANA was a reality there'd be no question as to who has it and how much
Guess I'll go reference the sources the only person who even bothered to try and answer my question begged of y'alls more than a week ago: "WTF is ANA?"
Lazaridis creates the term "PGNE" (Post-glacial Near Easterners and North Africans)
Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus reveals core of West Eurasian ancestry 2018, Lazaridis
We first estimated FST, a measure of population genetic differentiation, to assess the genetic 97 relationships between ancient West Eurasian populations (Extended Data Table 1; Methods). Post-glacial Near Easterners and North Africans (PGNE)
"the earliest PGNE populations from North Africa (Taforalt) 153 and the Epipaleolithic Levant (Natufians) (Fig. 2).
(Extended Data Fig. 5c), thus, it too—like the PGNE populations—had Basal Eurasian ancestry6,"
Of course Natufians were born of matings between who was living in the region and 'invaders' from the Nile Valley not the Maghreb. Taforalt??? "Oh my stars and garters!!!" Statistics as a replacement for physical remains? And as a surety rather than a hypothesis?
Semitic, an African language family, is not Maghrebi in origin. It developed on the Arabian Plate in the south_Levant by Nile Africans moving into that adjacent northeast extension of Africa. A region today called by so many names that no one knows which is proper, nor where it begins or ends, with no agreeement on which countries are the so-called Mid-East (what? no mo Near-East, and many Asians rankle at the term Far East. Far East Asians get their way. The yellow color label is removed from them. Pacific Asia replaces East Asia. They have anti-racism laws recently made just for them. Meanwhile America's Freedmen just can't get an even break as an American born and bred autochthone minority with no back home country other than the good ol' US of A. Could say more but enuff o that.).
Egypt is the furthest north nation of the Nile Basin. Both Delta and Valley are just parts of the Nile Basin.
Yes, Egypt's delta fits snugly into the south and the southeast Mediterranean climatic, geological, and culture-industry world of a prehistory "Middle East and North Africa." I once made a east-at-top map of the Mediterranean world to illustrate "Punica" (greater Phoenicia). Just as there is a Mediterranean world at large, the Nile Basin is a definable world too.
The Nile Basin is not North Africa so Egypt is not North Africa. If anything the Nile Basin is East Africa from clear down below the equator to/through northeast_Congo/Uganda, South Sudan, Ethiopia's northwest highlands, Sudan, Egypt (the Nile's floodplain), and the Sea, as rivers source from mountain rains and snows to drain into a massive body of water -- unless feeding aquifers.
Ancient Egypt as North Africa is in keeping with Eurasianizing of African pre-history. It encourages and allows racial identity theft of "black" Africans' contributions to husbandry (especially when it comes to beeves), astronomical calculation, etc.
It transfers these revolutions/miracles to North Africans, now reduced to "back" migrant Eurasians though mtDNA haplogroup U6 is an African specific marker whose bifurcation only happened in Africa the last 30,000 years of its 35,000 year history.
Meanwhile no people in Asia, Europe, or the "Mid-East" whose uniparental haplogroups originated in Africa get labeled or considered African? They are Eurasian because on the Eurasia super continent landmass.
Yes its the same 300 year old problem, these sciences were all created by colonialist/slave trader era Europeans to bolster Europe and Europeans' self-esteem as a salve for their inhumanity against less technical humans and assure themselves the top rank tier Homo sapiens sapiens though they --the current peoples in NW Europe-- played little part in initial human creative endeavors in culture and technology during the Pleistocene/Holocene cusp ushering in the Last African Humid Period and the beginnings of urban or multi-ethnic society inherited by all Hss not in isolation or isolating themselves.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: What are you talking about? West eurasians barely have any north african admixture meanwhile north africans are predominantely west eurasian admixed : their main component is EEF, their IBM component is mostly dzudzuana-like, coastal north africans have steppe admixture too, they have WHG and natufian ancestry, some iran_N ect
Seriously?! Southwest Asians carry paternal E-M78, E-M34, basal E-M96, and even some E-M75, maternally they carry L1, L2, and L3 (some which predates the slave trade). Some Europeans especially around the Mediterranean Basin carry E-M78, E-M81, Benin HBS sickle cell as well as Sub-Saharan HLA -DRB1 and -DQB1 and even the Sahel pastoralist T-13910 allele for lactose tolerance as discussed here.
Also, as discussed here in regards to autosomal signatures, EEF originated in West Asia among African originated Natufians who carry some of the African lineages I mentioned above not to mention that Dzudzuana-like signal also bears even older African signals associated with Sub-Saharan East Africans. So again this makes West Eurasians more admixed than North Africans.
So either your have faulty memory or you are being dishonest.
quote:Egyptians are mostly natufian, ANF, iran_N and CHG. With your logic, I can say taforalt is closer to east africans not because of their deep ssa-like ancestry but because SSAs have taforalt ancestry lol
Again, Natufians are of significant African origin. I assume by ANF, you mean ANA which means Ancestral North African. Iran_N has significant Basal Eurasian ancestry which is mostly likely also of African origin since it's similar to proto-Eurasians minus the Neanderthal ancestry, and CHG a.k.a. Dzudzuana also has some African influence. Thus all this explains why even Nat-Geo says modern Egyptians are autosomally predominantly North African despite the historical invasions and foreign rule!
quote:Listen to Irish:
We recognized five major modern dental populations: Western Eurasia (including North Africa and India), sub-Saharan Africa, Sino-America, Sunda-Pacific, and Sahul-Pacific. These divisions have substantial correspondence with linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and ethnographic classifications.
Joel D. Irish, Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology, pp. 28
Egyptians share more with their levantine and arab neighbours than any SSA group let alone NW Africans.
The sub-Saharan sample is divergent from all others, though it is more or less equidistant between Europe/Mediterranean and Australia/Oceania. Again, known population (pre)history can account for the former association. Any similarity to the latter group may seem unlikely, but it is not anomalous.
Irish's findings are almost the exact same as Hanihara's cranial nonmetric analysis. The main difference is that Hanihara utilized multiple PCOs across 3 dimensions. But the findings still show a basic division between Sub-Saharans and all other populations though North Africans are still positioned as intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans, according to the graph you posted and interestingly West Asians are positioned slightly closer.
Again from Irish: In 1993, I proposed that frequencies of certain nonmetric features of the permanent crowns and roots provide an overall dental characterization of Africans. Specifically, nine high- and two low-frequency traits clearly differentiate sub-Saharan peoples from North Africans (Irish 1997), Europeans, Southeast Asian Sundadonts, Northeast Asian/New World Sinodont, Australians, and Melanesians (Turner 1987, 1992a). In this instance “high” and “low” do not refer to absolute frequencies, but instead are relative to thos eexpressed by other world samples. Therefore, this suite of 11 traits, that is, the SSADC (Irish 1997), includes the highest occurrences of (1) UC Bushmancanine, (2) two-rooted UP1, (3) UM1 Carabelli’s “trait” (i.e., the full range of expression from pit through large cusp on mesiolingual surface), (4) three-rooted UM2, (5) LM2 Y-groove pattern, (6) LM1 cusp 7, (7) LP1 Tome’s root,(8) two-rooted LM2, and (9) UM3 presence, along with the lowest frequencies of (10) UI1 double shoveling and (11) UM1 enamel extensions. The SSADCwas based on pooling several spatially diverse and largely synchronic (i.e.,nineteenth–early twentieth centuries) samples (Irish 1997); as such, it was intended as a preliminary characterization.
By the way, his North African samples include not only Egyptians but Nubians as well. He describes the North African dental complex here:
Dental morphological affinities of Late Pleistocene through recent sub-Saharan and north African peoples Characteristic North African Dental Traits As described by others (Hiernaux, 1975; Excoffier et al., 1987; Roychoudhhury and Nei, 1988; Lipschultz, 1996; among others) and as noted in this and previous studies (Irish, 1993b, 1997, 1998a), North Africans are genetically and phenetically allied with Europeans and Western Asians. North African dental frequencies are similar to those of Europeans, except for some traits that show apparent Sub-Saharan influence. Such a North/Sub-Saharan combination is also evident in many genetic systems (e.g. Roychoudhhury and Nei, 1988) Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which *parallels that of Europeans*, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans.
^ So North Africans (not just Egyptians but Nubians and Maghrebis) possess 7 of the 11 traits that characterize Sub-Saharans but other than that parallel Europeans and West Asians, thus intermediate.
By the way, I have more to say on Irish's findings but it's better I address it here.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the topic of cranial nonmetrics...
quote:Originally posted by Big O: The continuity of this Mesolithic "Negroid" presence is seen in the Middle Kingdom as Keita noted about Berry and Berry 1967.
That Berry and Berry even goes as far as saying that YES Indians/Dravidians are the closest match to the Egyptian series, AND West Africans!!! The Naqada findings that I pointed out in Brace have another precedent, so we can say that that this affinity between Indians/Dravidians and Naqada and other Egyptian groups are a consistent finding when Indians are included in the samples.
Aside from the fact that the data has nothing to do with Mesolithic Nubians and is about nonmetric traits, does anyone have an explanation as to why the affinities to Indians?
quote:Now I've long had a problem with Keita's dismissal of this relationship. When given the proper context we see that this has good support. Not to mention the fact that NC speakers (WEST AFRICANS) have a closer affinity to the ancient Egyptians the MENA populations. So yes we see evidence continuity in the early Nile Valley's "Negroid" element.
He dismisses the relationship because there is no genetic support for a close relation with India. And actually genetically West Africans show a closer affinitiy to Maghrebi (Northwest Africans) than Northeast Africans (Egypto-Nubians)
Non-metric or discrete cranial characteristics, specifically anatomical anomalies, have been employed in several studies, and are believed to have a very strong genetic basis. Using these traits, measures of divergence have been calculated to ascertain the affinity of populations. The studies have been carried out in global and more local contexts. Berry and Berry (1967) combined Egyptian series from various locales and time periods, thus creating a single "Egyptian" series. This combined entity was found to be most similar to an Asian Indian series with an African series being next in similarity. A West African series was also found to be very similar to the Indian series, as well as nondivergent (i.e., statistically and genetically no different) from a Burmese group! This, while interesting, has no supporting data. The similarity to the Indians can be regarded as spurious as well. Interestingly, the Egyptian series was less similar to a Palestinian series than to a West African one.
Berry and Berry (1972) included Byzantine, Palestinian, European, and Asian Indian series in a better-designed study which used separate Egyptian series from different periods. They found that the Nakada predynastic series was more similar to other Egyptian series (Middle Kingdom and late period Gizeh) than to any other series. The next closest affinity was with an Asian Indian series. A Middle Kingdom group was most similar (outside Egypt) to the central Sudanese Jebel Moya series-in their study called "Nubian." The late period Gizeh sample found its greatest relationships (after other Egyptian series) with the Asian Indian and not Palestinian series. The West African series was more similar to the Asian Indian series than to the Jebel Moyan ("Nubian"), Egyptian, or any other series, while the Indian series was found to have greatest affinities with the late period Egyptian and West African series. All of this resists easy explanation, unless radical diffusionist ideas are entertained, for which there is no archeological support. When the unlikely relationships are eliminated, the Egyptian series are more similar overall to other African series than to European or Near Eastern (Byzantine or Palestinian) series.
Berry et al (1967) showed that numerous Egyptian series from different regions and epochs usually showed greater affinity to one another than to Sudanese, Palestinian (Lachish), and West African (Ashanti) series. Notably missing from their study were the A, C, X, and Meroitic Nubian groups. Numerous inconsistencies were apparent in that successive regional populations sometimes had less affinity to one another than to some from greatly different time periods and regions. For example, early Nakada predynastic crania had less affinity with late Nakada series than the even earlier predynastic Badari did with the late dynastic northern Gizeh groups! Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context, the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have "donated" people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988).
Examination of the data in Strouhal and Jungwirth (1979) reveals great overlap of southern Nile valley crania with more southerly Africans in the frequency of numerous non-metric traits. This agrees with the results obtained by careful inspection of the data in Berry and Berry (1972), where Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aside from the fact that the data has nothing to do with Mesolithic Nubians and is about nonmetric traits, does anyone have an explanation as to why the affinities to Indians?
I would have thought those results were a fluke. But do we know which Indian series was used in that study?
A lot of people think of Indians as being "Caucasoid" racially despite their darker skin, but we now know most South Asians' ancestry can be modeled as a mixture between various waves of West Eurasian migrants on one hand and Andamanese-like aboriginal people on the other. It could be that a population craniofacially intermediate between West Eurasians and equatorial Africans could appear superficially similar to Indians of mixed aboriginal/West Eurasian ancestry. Though that would probably be more apparent in craniometric than non-metric analysis.
Look at pictures of "tribal" people in southern India. You can tell that they have some ancestry that isn't stereotypically "Caucasoid" or West Eurasian. I wouldn't be surprised if the ancient Harappan people of the Indus Valley, prior to the Aryan migrations, looked somewhat similar to them.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Seriously?! Southwest Asians carry paternal E-M78, E-M34, basal E-M96, and even some E-M75, maternally they carry L1, L2, and L3 (some which predates the slave trade). Some Europeans especially around the Mediterranean Basin carry E-M78, E-M81, Benin HBS sickle cell as well as Sub-Saharan HLA -DRB1 and -DQB1 and even the Sahel pastoralist T-13910 allele for lactose tolerance as discussed here.
Most southwest asians aren't under such clades, they are mostly under J1/J2, T, G, etc meanwhile since when are haplogroups meaningfull when it comes to autosomal ancestry ? Anyway it won't change the fact that north africans are obviously predominantely proper west eurasian meanwhile south europeans and west asians have very low level of african ancestry (let alone SSA ancestry).
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Also, as discussed here in regards to autosomal signatures, EEF originated in West Asia among African originated Natufians who carry some of the African lineages I mentioned above not to mention that Dzudzuana-like signal also bears even older African signals associated with Sub-Saharan East Africans. So again this makes West Eurasians more admixed than North Africans.
african ? Natufians were absolutely not similar to any african population and EEF carried alleles for light skin. They looked like modern sardinians who have roughly 80% of EEF ancestry.
Iberian EEF (the same people who settled in north africa 6k-5k years ago) :
Stop being so desesperate.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, Natufians are of significant African origin. I assume by ANF, you mean ANA which means Ancestral North African. Iran_N has significant Basal Eurasian ancestry which is mostly likely also of African origin since it's similar to proto-Eurasians minus the Neanderthal ancestry, and CHG a.k.a. Dzudzuana also has some African influence. Thus all this explains why even Nat-Geo says modern Egyptians are autosomally predominantly North African despite the historical invasions and foreign rule!
Natufians weren't of "significant african origin" :
PPNB were even more west eurasian shifted.
ANF = ANA ???! what are you talking about ? ANF = Anatolian neolithic farmers.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL Yes, listen to Irish indeed!
The sub-Saharan sample is divergent from all others, though it is more or less equidistant between Europe/Mediterranean and Australia/Oceania. Again, known population (pre)history can account for the former association. Any similarity to the latter group may seem unlikely, but it is not anomalous.
Irish's findings are almost the exact same as Hanihara's cranial nonmetric analysis. The main difference is that Hanihara utilized multiple PCOs across 3 dimensions. But the findings still show a basic division between Sub-Saharans and all other populations though North Africans are still positioned as intermediate between Europeans and Sub-Saharans, according to the graph you posted and interestingly West Asians are positioned slightly closer.
Again from Irish: In 1993, I proposed that frequencies of certain nonmetric features of the permanent crowns and roots provide an overall dental characterization of Africans. Specifically, nine high- and two low-frequency traits clearly differentiate sub-Saharan peoples from North Africans (Irish 1997), Europeans, Southeast Asian Sundadonts, Northeast Asian/New World Sinodont, Australians, and Melanesians (Turner 1987, 1992a). In this instance “high” and “low” do not refer to absolute frequencies, but instead are relative to thos eexpressed by other world samples. Therefore, this suite of 11 traits, that is, the SSADC (Irish 1997), includes the highest occurrences of (1) UC Bushmancanine, (2) two-rooted UP1, (3) UM1 Carabelli’s “trait” (i.e., the full range of expression from pit through large cusp on mesiolingual surface), (4) three-rooted UM2, (5) LM2 Y-groove pattern, (6) LM1 cusp 7, (7) LP1 Tome’s root,(8) two-rooted LM2, and (9) UM3 presence, along with the lowest frequencies of (10) UI1 double shoveling and (11) UM1 enamel extensions. The SSADCwas based on pooling several spatially diverse and largely synchronic (i.e.,nineteenth–early twentieth centuries) samples (Irish 1997); as such, it was intended as a preliminary characterization.
By the way, his North African samples include not only Egyptians but Nubians as well. He describes the North African dental complex here:
Dental morphological affinities of Late Pleistocene through recent sub-Saharan and north African peoples Characteristic North African Dental Traits As described by others (Hiernaux, 1975; Excoffier et al., 1987; Roychoudhhury and Nei, 1988; Lipschultz, 1996; among others) and as noted in this and previous studies (Irish, 1993b, 1997, 1998a), North Africans are genetically and phenetically allied with Europeans and Western Asians. North African dental frequencies are similar to those of Europeans, except for some traits that show apparent Sub-Saharan influence. Such a North/Sub-Saharan combination is also evident in many genetic systems (e.g. Roychoudhhury and Nei, 1988) Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which *parallels that of Europeans*, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans.
^ So North Africans (not just Egyptians but Nubians and Maghrebis) possess 7 of the 11 traits that characterize Sub-Saharans but other than that parallel Europeans and West Asians, thus intermediate.
By the way, I have more to say on Irish's findings but it's better I address it here. [/QB]
XD My quote is from the same year of what you post and he clearly demonstrate that europeans/west asians/north africans form their own cluster distinct from the sub-saharan one. There is no "intermediate" that's only in your head. That north africans show some SSA traits doesn't mean they are "intermediate" it's just the impact of their SSA ancestry.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Antalas Seeing as you said Eurasians don’t have African ancestry, what is your opinion on Basal Eurasian ancestry in West Eurasia? Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: @Antalas Seeing as you said Eurasians don’t have African ancestry, what is your opinion on Basal Eurasian ancestry in West Eurasia?
I'm not saying they don't have african ancestry but djehuti make it seems like eurasians are predominantly "african". Anyway yourself can see how desesperate and dishonest he/she is.
As for Basal eurasians, they probably were a sister branch of ANA/aterians and probably looked somewhat "black" even though they weren't exactly similar to any modern SSA population.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: @Antalas Seeing as you said Eurasians don’t have African ancestry, what is your opinion on Basal Eurasian ancestry in West Eurasia?
I'm not saying they don't have african ancestry but djehuti make it seems like eurasians are predominantly "african". Anyway yourself can see how desesperate and dishonest he/she is.
As for Basal eurasians, they probably were a sister branch of ANA/aterians and probably looked somewhat "black" even though they weren't exactly similar to any modern SSA population.
I don’t think Djehuti said that modern Eurasians are predominately African but was simply stating that they were strongly African, whilst you explicitly stated they have “barely any North African admixture” if these estimates are correct, than West Eurasians are pretty strongly North African. Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I don’t think Djehuti said that modern Eurasians are predominately African but was simply stating that they were strongly African, whilst you explicitly stated they have “barely any North African admixture” if these estimates are correct, than West Eurasians are pretty strongly North African. [/QB]
We all know what she tried to implied no need to play on semantics and no they weren't "strongly" african either whether genetically, physically or culturally. What's next ? We're all africans because of the first humans appearing there ?
What does "north african" even mean here ? I was talking about ancient and modern north africans certainly not archaic homo sapiens who lived there 80k years ago lol
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I don’t think Djehuti said that modern Eurasians are predominately African but was simply stating that they were strongly African, whilst you explicitly stated they have “barely any North African admixture” if these estimates are correct, than West Eurasians are pretty strongly North African.
We all know what she tried to implied no need to play on semantics and no they weren't "strongly" african either whether genetically, physically or culturally. What's next ? We're all africans because of the first humans appearing there ?
What does "north african" even mean here ? I was talking about ancient and modern north africans certainly not archaic homo sapiens who lived there 80k years ago lol [/QB]
It’s not mine or your place to say what he meant, we can wait until he responds.
When I say North African I mean populations that diverged/came into existence in that region, which includes Basal Eurasian IMO.
If these basal Eurasian estimates are correct than west Eurasians are rich in North African ancestry, there’s no way around it.
I don’t get your last paragraph, so what if they were 80 ky old or whatever, I don’t see how this changes much, MENA groups are still rich in BE either way.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I don’t think Djehuti said that modern Eurasians are predominately African but was simply stating that they were strongly African, whilst you explicitly stated they have “barely any North African admixture” if these estimates are correct, than West Eurasians are pretty strongly North African.
We all know what she tried to implied no need to play on semantics and no they weren't "strongly" african either whether genetically, physically or culturally. What's next ? We're all africans because of the first humans appearing there ?
What does "north african" even mean here ? I was talking about ancient and modern north africans certainly not archaic homo sapiens who lived there 80k years ago lol
It’s not mine or your place to say what he meant, we can wait until he responds.
When I say North African I mean populations that diverged/came into existence in that region, which includes Basal Eurasian IMO.
If these basal Eurasian estimates are correct than west Eurasians are rich in North African ancestry, there’s no way around it.
I don’t get your last paragraph, so what if they were 80 ky old or whatever, I don’t see how this changes much, MENA groups are still rich in BE either way. [/QB]
With such a broad definition we can say nothing and everything. What do the north africans who lived 80k years ago have to do with Iberomaurusians and the latter with late neolithic moroccans ...etc etc Obviously you should be more specific, when djehuti says they are close to north africans because of "african" admixture that's obviously ridiculous and he isn't talking about 80k years old north africans.
Ancient/modern north africans are part of the west eurasian cluster because they have proper west eurasian ancestry from EEF, IBM, Natufian, iran_N, etc sources. Djehuti being enraged by this, is doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to claim that all west eurasians are north african admixed therefore close to north africans as if eurasians couldn't settle in north africa. He goes as far as twisting what Irish says and shows.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Most southwest asians aren't under such clades, they are mostly under J1/J2, T, G, etc meanwhile since when are haplogroups meaningfull when it comes to autosomal ancestry ? Anyway it won't change the fact that north africans are obviously predominantely proper west eurasian meanwhile south europeans and west asians have very low level of african ancestry (let alone SSA ancestry).
I never said anything about "most" West Asians only that African genetic admixture/influence exists amongst them. Most Europeans don't have African clades either yet African clades as well as other African genetic influences still exists amongst them as well. Also, I just cited a Nat Geo study showing that North Africans, or at least Egyptians are NOT predominantly West Asian but NORTH AFRICAN.
There are other genetic studies that also show the Maghrebi Africans to also be predominantly North African autsomally as well. Unless you are again desperately trying to identify North African as "Eurasian".
quote:African? Natufians were absolutely not similar to any african population and EEF carried alleles for light skin. They looked like modern sardinians who have roughly 80% of EEF ancestry.
Iberian EEF (the same people who settled in north africa 6k-5k years ago) :
Stop being so desesperate.
LOL The only one desperate here is YOU, which is why you keep lying and distorting what I actually write! Natufians are African in that they are of North African extraction as well as Hadza-like East Sub-Saharan ancestry and EEF itself is an admixture of several things including Basal Eurasian which IS African too. This is why crania associated with EEF not only in Anatolia but in the Balkans and other parts of Europe show African/Sub-Saharan cranial traits.
one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians “..one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians.... (Larry Angel 1972)
The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa... (C. Loring Brace 2005)
These non metric attributes all support the view that most of the Neolithic inhabitants of Europe tie more closely together with each other than with the living representatives of the areas in question. The principal exception to this generalization is [...] the Muhlhausen sample, which ties closer metrically to the living inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa.
quote: The excerpt above describes the North Africa-affiliated "Muhlhausen" LBK sample [Brace et al 2005]. This is the exact same sample Lazaridis et al 2013 would turn to almost ten years later, to sample the now infamous "Basal Eurasian" carrier—Stuttgart. But those who've convinced themselves that the Stuttgart individual is merely an odd looking individual in an otherwise perfectly European looking population, are in for a big surprise.
There have been several reports now, dealing with the genomes of early European farmers, and there is one genetic feature they all seem to have in common. This shared genetic feature was minted "Basal Eurasian" when its existence was first inferred back in late 2013 [Lazaridis et al 2013], and it has been subjected to speculation in the anthro-blogosphere ever since...
If there is one thing we can be absolutely certain of, it's that a genetic anomaly this consistently found among early European farmers and which is this sizable (inferred to comprise approximately 44% of the genome of the 'Stuttgart' individual in whom it was first inferred), will express itself beyond just autosomal makeup; we'd expect its underlying essence to manifest itself through all sets of ancestry informative markers, including non-genetic ones..
Skeletal analysis of early European farmers who have little genetic input from local hunter gatherers, are known to exhibit a relative craniofacial similarity with tropically adapted prehistoric North Africans [Brace et al 2005; Ricaut & Waelkens 2008]. The general rule seems to be: the more prehistoric farmers interact with hunter gatherers, the less they resemble North Africans [Brace et al 2005; von Cramon-Taubadel et al 2013; Gallagher et al 2009]...
quote:Natufians weren't of "significant african origin" :
PPNB were even more west eurasian shifted.
ANF = ANA ???! what are you talking about ? ANF = Anatolian neolithic farmers.
Newsflash: African does NOT necessarily equal modern day Sub-Saharan YRI (Yoruba Ibadan) signal.
Even Lazaridis is admitting there are likely African autosomal signals that existed in prehistoric times that are not found in modern Sub-Saharans today.
This is the only explanation why significant presence of African clades like paternal E-M34 and maternal L2b in the Levant but no apparent Sub-Saharan autosomes associated with them except for Basal Eurasian.
But thanks for your clarification of ANF.
quote:XD My quote is from the same year of what you post and he clearly demonstrate that europeans/west asians/north africans form their own cluster distinct from the sub-saharan one. There is no "intermediate" that's only in your head. That north africans show some SSA traits doesn't mean they are "intermediate" it's just the impact of their SSA ancestry.
Are you illiterate? I never said North Africans weren't part of the same cluster as Western Eurasians per Irish's findings only that within that cluster they are positioned between Europeans and Sub-Saharans, dummy!
That's exactly what Irish says: Characteristic North African Dental Traits As described by others (Hiernaux, 1975; Excoffier et al., 1987; Roychoudhhury and Nei, 1988; Lipschultz, 1996; among others) and as noted in this and previous studies (Irish, 1993b, 1997, 1998a), North Africans are genetically and phenetically allied with Europeans and Western Asians. North African dental frequencies are similar to those of Europeans, except for some traits that show apparent Sub-Saharan influence. Such a North/Sub-Saharan combination is also evident in many genetic systems (e.g. Roychoudhhury and Nei, 1988) Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which *parallels that of Europeans*, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans.
By the way there's no evidence that North Africans' affinities with Sub-Saharans are due to mixed ancestry from Sub-Saharans. Sub-Saharans radically differ from North Africans metrically in that the former have large megadont teeth while the latter have small microdont teeth characteristic of Western Eurasians. Studies show true admixture between such populations tend to produce mesodont sized teeth as found in East Africa, yet North Africans predominantly still had microdont.
How about you address the actual topic of this thread? I notice when the thread topic debunks you, you then go off on another topic but that won't help you either. Ask Lioness, she got busted so many times she got humbled. I'm not in the mood for your Neandernut nonsense! Merry Christmas
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I would have thought those results were a fluke. But do we know which Indian series was used in that study?
Yes, it was a series from Punjab, northern India. You can find it in the Berry & Berry 1972 paper 'Origins and Relationships of the Ancient Egyptians Based on a Study of Non-metrical Variations in the Skull'
quote:A lot of people think of Indians as being "Caucasoid" racially despite their darker skin, but we now know most South Asians' ancestry can be modeled as a mixture between various waves of West Eurasian migrants on one hand and Andamanese-like aboriginal people on the other. It could be that a population craniofacially intermediate between West Eurasians and equatorial Africans could appear superficially similar to Indians of mixed aboriginal/West Eurasian ancestry. Though that would probably be more apparent in craniometric than non-metric analysis.
Look at pictures of "tribal" people in southern India. You can tell that they have some ancestry that isn't stereotypically "Caucasoid" or West Eurasian. I wouldn't be surprised if the ancient Harappan people of the Indus Valley, prior to the Aryan migrations, looked somewhat similar to them.
What's more is that since the Berry & Berry series came from Punjab, some would automatically assume these folks were light-skinned "caucasoid" types but many Punjabis can be quite dark.
Ironically the Greeks compared the complexions of northern Indians to those of Egyptians while southern Indians to those of Sudanese, but I digress.
The point is that Berry & Berry also noted that even their West African series showed equal affinity to the north Indian series after other West Africans.
"Egyptian samples are not very distinct from the Nubian sample from Jebel Moya. They are much more distinct from the Ashanti series (here included as an assumedly typical negroid population), and the Near Eastern series from Palestine (Lachish) and Turkey (Figure 3). The northern European series-particularly the Norwegian one are even more distinct. In contrast to the large values of the measure of divergence from these comparisons, the comparisons of the Punjabi series, shows remarkably little differentiation from all three Egyptian series and, more unexpectedly, from the West African series."
They go on to say:
"This is not the place to speculate about the population movements and colonizations of Palaeolithic man. The purpose of this communication is to point out some of the advantages and limitations of studies on non-metrical variations in Egyptological studies. We believe that such investigations have added and will contribute further to our understanding of the origins and relationships of the early Egyptians particularly as more series become available for study."
despite their limitations, when these non-metric studies are supplemented by actual genetics one can come to very interesting conclusions.
As Hanihara 2019 stated: It now appears that not only do sub-Saharan Africans have greater genetic and morphological diversity than other world populations, but there is in addition a sequential decrease in diversity with distance from Africa – possibly due to iterative bottleneck effects during the process of expansion. If so, the gradients of genetic and phenotypic diversity related to geography among major populations may address the process of occupation of the present range of modern peoples, including East/Northeast Asians.
In the Irish 2013 nonmetric dental study we see this:
^ Mind you the Indian sample is missing, but there you can see Sub-Saharans in close proximity to Melanesians despite the immense geographic distance.
All of this then point to the only logical conclusion that such nonmetric affinities are essentially echoes of OOA and represent traces of those bottleneck features if not populations, and it doesn't have to be limited to the initial OOA either.
Remember Swenet's thread on E1b in South Asia based on my pet hypothesis.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: I don’t think Djehuti said that modern Eurasians are predominately African but was simply stating that they were strongly African, whilst you explicitly stated they have “barely any North African admixture” if these estimates are correct, than West Eurasians are pretty strongly North African.
We all know what she tried to implied no need to play on semantics and no they weren't "strongly" african either whether genetically, physically or culturally. What's next ? We're all africans because of the first humans appearing there ?
What does "north african" even mean here ? I was talking about ancient and modern north africans certainly not archaic homo sapiens who lived there 80k years ago lol
It’s not mine or your place to say what he meant, we can wait until he responds.
When I say North African I mean populations that diverged/came into existence in that region, which includes Basal Eurasian IMO.
If these basal Eurasian estimates are correct than west Eurasians are rich in North African ancestry, there’s no way around it.
I don’t get your last paragraph, so what if they were 80 ky old or whatever, I don’t see how this changes much, MENA groups are still rich in BE either way.
Ancient/modern north africans are part of the west eurasian cluster because they have proper west eurasian ancestry from EEF, IBM, Natufian, iran_N, etc sources. Djehuti being enraged by this, is doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to claim that all west eurasians are north african admixed therefore close to north africans as if eurasians couldn't settle in north africa. He goes as far as twisting what Irish says and shows. [/QB]
Dinka people at k=2 show about 15% non-African related ancestry, on PCAs they usually pull towards Eurasians a tiny bit as well, yet they are one of the few African populations that are widely considered to be completely devoid of proper Eurasian/Neanderthal ancestry, Mota is another example, around 20% non-African at k=2 with little to no Eurasian/Neanderthal ancestry. This makes sense seeing as their ancestors split off at a later time relative to West Africans who split off later than Southern Africans, meaning the aforementioned East Africans share more recent common ancestors with Eurasians, so they should naturally pull towards them a little bit despite carrying no actual Eurasian ancestry. This means some of what looks "non-African" or "Eurasian" is native to Africa and is a consequence of the nature of OOA. The OOA route was through Egypt resulting in Eurasians being descendants from a North African population, so North Africans will naturally share more recent common ancestors with Eurasians than any other Africans, so we should expect an ancient North African people to pull towards Eurasians just like East Africans do (Mota, Dinka) but to an even greater extent due to their phylogenetic position pulling them closer towards Eurasians.
So I’m saying North Africans could be within the West Eurasian cluster despite having no proper Eurasian ancestry due to the reasons above, this isn’t mutually exclusive with North Africans having EEF, IBM, Natufian and Iran_N ancestry.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ SlimJim, you are wasting your time with Antalas who is suffering from delusion. He is right about one thing, I was enraged but by his dishonesty and stupidity not by the facts which are on MY side! But I have long composed myself remembering that there are many people in the internet especially in blogs have psychological neuroses even psychoses and Antalas is one of them!
If you followed the debacle of a debate in this thread alone you would see how he has misrepresented and/or distorted my words in a desperate effort to win the argument.
Meanwhile here is what the Neandernut is in desperate denial of via Lazaridis et al. (2018): Our co-modeling of Epipaleolithic Natufians and Ibero-Maurusians from Taforalt confirms that the Taforalt population was mixed, but instead of specifying gene flow from the ancestors of Natufians into the ancestors of Taforalt as originally reported, we infer gene flow in the reverse direction (into Natufians). The Neolithic population from Morocco, closely related to Taforalt is also consistent with being descended from the source of this gene flow, and appears to have no admixture from the Levantine Neolithic (Supplementary Information section 3). If our model is correct, Epipaleolithic Natufians trace part of their ancestry to North Africa, consistent with morphological and archaeological studies that indicate a spread of morphological features and artifacts from North Africa into the Near East. Such a scenario would also explain the presence of Y-chromosome haplogroup E in the Natufians and Levantine farmers, a common link between the Levant and Africa. Moreover, our model predicts that West Africans (represented by Yoruba) had 12.5±1.1% ancestry from a Taforalt-related group rather than Taforalt having ancestry from an unknown Sub-Saharan African source; this may have mediated the limited Neanderthal admixture present in West Africans. An advantage of our model is that it allows for a local North African component in the ancestry of Taforalt, rather than deriving them exclusively from Levantine and Sub-Saharan sources.
and..
None of the PGNE (Post Glacial Near Eastern) populations other than the Neolithic Anatolians cluster with the Ice Age Caucasus population from Dzudzuana. As reported previously, present-day West Eurasians are much more homogeneous than ancient ones, reflecting extensive post-Neolithic admixture. However, they continue to be differentially related to ancient local populations in Europe and the Near East.
This is all supported by the study of nonmetric dental traits of ancient Levantine populations by Ullinger and Turner II et ales.: Nevertheless, in comparisons with Iron Age Italy, Dothan was more similar than Lachish to the Italian group and may have been more heavily influenced by (or influential upon) Europeans from the Mediterranean. Dothan also appears to have been phenetically more similar than Lachish to almost all other samples. Even though Lachish was a larger, more cosmopolitan city (Tufnell, 1953), it may have been more genetically isolated than Dothan.
and
Using the mean measure of divergence (MMD) statistic to study dental affinity, this study found the Lacish sample to be most similar to a sample Dothan and then a sample from a tomb at St. Stephen’s monastery in Jerusalem, dating from approximately 438–611 AD. A Natufian sample was **most distant** from the Lacish sample.
So I already busted his lying ass but apparently he is too deranged to noticed.
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Dinka people at k=2 show about 15% non-African related ancestry, on PCAs they usually pull towards Eurasians a tiny bit as well, yet they are one of the few African populations that are widely considered to be completely devoid of proper Eurasian/Neanderthal ancestry, Mota is another example, around 20% non-African at k=2 with little to no Eurasian/Neanderthal ancestry. This makes sense seeing as their ancestors split off at a later time relative to West Africans who split off later than Southern Africans, meaning the aforementioned East Africans share more recent common ancestors with Eurasians, so they should naturally pull towards them a little bit despite carrying no actual Eurasian ancestry. This means some of what looks "non-African" or "Eurasian" is native to Africa and is a consequence of the nature of OOA. The OOA route was through Egypt resulting in Eurasians being descendants from a North African population, so North Africans will naturally share more recent common ancestors with Eurasians than any other Africans, so we should expect an ancient North African people to pull towards Eurasians just like East Africans do (Mota, Dinka) but to an even greater extent due to their phylogenetic position pulling them closer towards Eurasians.
So I’m saying North Africans could be within the West Eurasian cluster despite having no proper Eurasian ancestry due to the reasons above, this isn’t mutually exclusive with North Africans having EEF, IBM, Natufian and Iran_N ancestry.
The points you raised are also my points exactly! The problem is Antalas equates African with Sub-Saharan and genetically equates that with the YRI (Yoruba Ibadan) signature only! He ignores the diversity of Sub-Saharans and only focuses on one population substructure that he uses as his "true negro" stereotype. Thus any population that doesn't have YRI or does not conform to that particular morphology is not "black"! LOL
The reality however is different from his fantasy..
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Radar ID
^ Note the PCAs above give a truer representation of African diversity with a tripole configuration. According to that very configuration North Africans and even Southwest Asians and Europeans are genetically closer to YRI West Africans than the latter is to Southern African Khoisan who are fellow 'Sub-Saharans'!
By the way, Basal Eurasian which has high concentrations in West Asia especially in Eastern Arabia and associated with Iranian Neolithic has a signal similar to OOA minus the Neanderthal ancestry. If you add that to the fact that ancient remains (Hotu Cave) display African features (jaws with wide ramus and wide gonial angle, alveolar prognathism, PBD).
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Dinka people at k=2 show about 15% non-African related ancestry, on PCAs they usually pull towards Eurasians a tiny bit as well, yet they are one of the few African populations that are widely considered to be completely devoid of proper Eurasian/Neanderthal ancestry, Mota is another example, around 20% non-African at k=2 with little to no Eurasian/Neanderthal ancestry. This makes sense seeing as their ancestors split off at a later time relative to West Africans who split off later than Southern Africans, meaning the aforementioned East Africans share more recent common ancestors with Eurasians, so they should naturally pull towards them a little bit despite carrying no actual Eurasian ancestry. This means some of what looks "non-African" or "Eurasian" is native to Africa and is a consequence of the nature of OOA. The OOA route was through Egypt resulting in Eurasians being descendants from a North African population, so North Africans will naturally share more recent common ancestors with Eurasians than any other Africans, so we should expect an ancient North African people to pull towards Eurasians just like East Africans do (Mota, Dinka) but to an even greater extent due to their phylogenetic position pulling them closer towards Eurasians.
So I’m saying North Africans could be within the West Eurasian cluster despite having no proper Eurasian ancestry due to the reasons above, this isn’t mutually exclusive with North Africans having EEF, IBM, Natufian and Iran_N ancestry. [/QB]
Yes ok but that's not what happened for north africans since they have proper ancestors that came from Eurasia (that's basic knowledge) with your logic I'll also say that IBM and modern north africans have no SSA ancestry, since their phylogenetic position pulls them closer to SSA.
This is straight up mental gymnastics, you're literally implying that all the peer-reviewed genetic and archaelogical papers are BS.
P.S : don't listen to what Djehuti says about me it's all false assumptions and ad hominem ...of course since he doesn't have much argument against what I said so he lies and twist what I say.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Note also that the South Asian samples are intermediate to Europeans and all the East Eurasian samples not shown in this cropped form.
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic