The Numidian differs from the European in all the stereotypical hair and facial features. The hair is thicker and "wilder."
same sculpture as above:
His nose and lips look partially African but your analysis of the hair is ridiulous and assumes all Europeans have neat straight hair. Arguing that a small minority of Africans might hair hair like Juba II here is one thing but to suggest that his hair here looks more African than European is pure silliness. Further, when people like the person below get very short hair cuts their hair appears a lot straighter because they have large curls and large curls need a certain amount of length to begin to form into recognizable curls.
If you looks at depictions of the Numidian kings on coins and so on (-ones in good condition not all worn down) you can easily tell they are not pure Africans, they have quite a bit of Greco-Roman admixture
^^^this guy's hair is closer to Beja than is that bronze of Juba II
posted
Lioness your bust is not the real Juba II.The Juba II bust in wikipedia look more black African.
Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Juba II (King of Mauretania, 25 BC-AD 23)
An aging prince
This full face portrait with high forehead and long, sunken cheeks, is framed by a mass of short, rather wild curls, held in place by a headband. The arch of the eyebrows overshadows the inner corner of the downward slanting eyes. The nose is broad, the mouth full and sensual, and there is a deep cleft in the chin.
Despite the damage it has incurred, the features of this tired face are recognizable as those of Juba II at the age of about sixty. When the head was discovered it was immediately identified as such; this suggestion was confirmed after comparison with effigies on coins and other portraits of the prince, whose strong features, wide-set eyes, and thick hair are clearly recognizable.
Hellenistic art
The classical culture of King Juba II is apparent in this portrait of the philhellenic king, which portrays him like a Hellenistic sovereign: beardless, short-haired, and wearing a royal headband. Hellenistic art also inspired the carefully modeled flesh and the idealization (which does not, however, overlook the subject's human qualities or ethnic group).
_______ Juba II Numidian African ____________ Typical Euro-Roman
The Numidian differs from the European in all the stereotypical hair and facial features. The hair is thicker and "wilder." The eye is larger and rounder. The cheek bones are higher and more protruding. The nose is flatter and broader with nostrils tending to round/oval rather than oblong/slit shape. The lips are thicker and more everted. King Juba II's antecedents thus seem the type of black autochthonous to littoral North Africa.
Modern North African. Who actually relates to the ancient North Africans. "Instead of some European", as proposed as usually by the feeble minded lying ass.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Lioness your bust is not the real Juba II.The Juba II bust in wikipedia look more black African.
it's the exact same sculpture from a different angles and better lighting on the hair and his fetaures look just as partially African as in the other photo. His lips look somehwat African but his forehead looks for Greco Roman to me.
His hair does not look African. There is no tribe of pure African people that have hair like this. The boy above is probably part Arab (as usual no background information is given on him)
They say the Moors derive from the Numidians. I think it's questionable maybe only partially true. I think the Numidians were more of Greco-Roman descent mixed with native Aficans and the later Almoravid Moors were more of a mixture of Arabs and native Africans. And some of the same of all these people are also called "Berbers" sometimes. All of these people have been multi ethnic nomads for many hundreds of years. Some kooks however are into racial purity and now think multi culturalism is a form of racism, go figure.
Type "list of Numidian kings" in google. Then look at the coins. Most of these kings look part Greco-Roman. The Romans knew how to portray fully African people as we can see here:
^^^ the Numidan king coins do not look like this unless you go in carefully picking out the heavily worn out ones .
Juba I
Juba II
Juba I
The Greeks and Roman were in Africa, deal with it. Some of them mixed with native Africans. The Phoenicians had a large city called Carthage. They people who founded it were not Africans. This is history
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
1.No recurrent (accross populations) set of L lineages among the recognized recurrent OOA uniparental parcel (mtDNA U, T, J, R, M, N etc) in most non-Africans.
Your language barely makes sense, save for a partially obvious ignorant notion about L type mtDNA lineages being absent in non-Africans.
quote: 3.The earliest Europeans show hap U in excess of 80% and other lineages and none of their lineages are a part of the Early Upper Palaeolihic heritage of modern Africans, showing that the ancestors of these AMHs and the AMH ancestors of modern day tropical Africans diverged way before OOA.
Who are these “earliest Europeans”? Provide their sample numbers, precise era involved, and nucleotide sequence details of DNA reports.
Also: 1) Where did this early divergence that you are envisioning take place, and when? 2)What happened to their descendants; did they go extinct?
quote:4.Additionally, modern Eurasians also don't carry anything pre NRY CT, independent of African admixture. This is further confirmation that all distinct OOA waves were composed of the same or related young population (relative to tropical African AMHs, who would have carried L lineages and pre CT), and that such older populations (Africans who predate the Eurasian maternal and paternal MRCA) had little genetic contact with OOA populations.
You speak of “tropical African AMHs” as though they were some homogenous entity, possibly some sort of a subspecies onto its own, which frankly, is as preposterous as it gets...and if I’m not misreading you, you seem to be insinuating some kind of an inexplicable prehistoric “apartheid thingy” going on in the African continent? If so, provide the full context and backdrop against which such an extraordinary situation would have taken place.
Ps: How many waves of OOA composed of this “same or related young population” took place?
quote: 5.Non-Africans comprise of several (at least 3 [David Reich et al. 2011]) successful OOA expansions with >25ky in between them (40kya-70kya, and all of them show a broadly consistent mtDNA M, N and NRY CT pattern. This is detrimental to your case for two reasons. 1) it means that there were multiple chances for L lineages to survive founder effect, had the said lineages been a part of the make-up of the peripheral Africans from which non-Africans descend
First of fall, as a recap, just because you are ignorant of the fact, does not mean that remnants of L types do not show up among OOA populations, usually in modest incidences.
You could have only arrived at the conclusion that the dominating components of L3M/N and Y-DNA CT* in non-African populations is “detrimental” to anything I’ve said thus far, if you were ignorant of what founder effect events mean.
As for your reference to “at least 3“ OOA expansions, when did the respective expansions supposedly take place? How were these expansions isolated from one another, given your claim that they *consistently comprised of the very same set of lineages*, which supposedly, and extraordinarily so, excluded the company of ancestral clades at the time of the migration events.
Given your “>25“ time spans between each migratory event, whatever happened to these young African populations, all apparently sporting the very same gene pool?
quote: 2) across a 20ky period, participants of distinct OOA events (Europeans and Australians East Asians) are broadly similar if you look at the macro haplogroups to which they belong. It cannot be explained as an accident that non-Africans are all NRY CT and mtDNA N and M. Africa was clearly structured and OOA source populations were distinct from L carrying Africans.
African populations still exhibit populations structuring to varying levels, and the same is true elsewhere. This is not just a thing of the past.
Any idea of how you went from “>25“ time spans between “at least 3 different waves of OOA”, essentially comprising of the very same set of lineages that are supposedly “different from anything that L-type carrying African populations” had, to a “20ky” time span for OOA events?
Also reconcile how “OOA-source populations” could have been “distinct from L carrying Africans”, if L3M and L3N themselves derive from an L type?
quote: 6.If there was mtDNA L among Ibero-Maurusians, it would have spilled over into the Iberian refugium and expanded with other post LGM Iberian lineages, which repopulated Europe after the LGM, but its absent, both in wider Europe and among the most clear descendant population of the Iberian refugium (i.e., Saami). That's at least 4 clear chances for mtDNA L to survive founder effect.
1) The LGM only occurred from around 20ky ago, fairly long after the successful OOA event(s) which led to contemporary non-Africans. 2) Your claim with regards to the so-called “Ibero-Maurusian” gene flow into Iberia glaringly lacks substantive context, and doesn’t even make sense, considering we were just discussing the prospects of L1a markers having had a possible upstream expansion time from of 20+ years.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your description of the lack of L in Eurasia as ''highly questionable'' is a clear case of emotion-driven denial.
Why, because you say so? Your word won’t fly, because well, that’s based on emotion. Do better!
quote:Last time I checked European hunter gatherer mtDNA hasn't been acknowledged as part of the indigenous Early Upper Palaeolithic mtDNA signature of modern Africans. Since the said European AMHs would nonetheless would have to have come from Africans (they're OOA populations), yeah, I think that would hint at extinction.
You are just repeating yourself here, going on several requests otherwise, without providing proof of this supposedly now extinct OOA-“source” African population(s) that was supposedly isolated from L-carryng Africans. That reeks of emotionalism.
quote:Post the specifics.
Suffering from short memory? How about the European specific-L types--extending as far as Russia--we’ve just been discussing as a more obvious example, for one? What was once known as the European/"Near Eastern" specific L3E , can serve as another. These are lineages whose expansion time frames precede anything that can be linked to historic slave trade involving Africans, as well as the arrival of source populations of contemporary Imazighen in the Maghreb! L types are also scattered from Turkey, Iran all the way to Pakistan in South Asia in communities that have no apparent close/recent ties with continental Africans. It’s true that there are *some* communities in relatively far off locations, like say the Makrani in Pakistan, which have reported substantial L type ancestry and implicated in relatively recent African ancestry, but then such are generally forthrightly acknowledged as that--as descendants of African-settler groups; see for example:
The parental populations used for the analysis were Iranian populations and Gujarati for the Parsi population, and Pakistani populations (excluding the Makrani) and a geographically dispersed set of sub Saharan African samples (Krings et al. 1999; Brakez et al. 2001; Brehm et al. 2002, Salas et al. 2002) for the Makrani population. - Quintana-Murci et al. (2004)
It should be noted that reports of hg L incidences outside Africa, particularly beyond Europe and the “Near East” are often found by chance, given that most of the time researchers don’t even actively look for them, as opposed to the more common haplogroups in Asia and Americans.
quote:You made an ignorant statement, most likely based on a confused interpretation of the aDNA article posted by MOM.
And this “ignorant statement” would be the one you protested, but have still not provided counter-material otherwise, as pressed?
quote:That most European mtDNA is attested in Farmer aDNA is implied in the article, is stated in the paper which led to that article, and is confirmed by other aDNA studies. I will not play your 'onus' games, which are evidently ploys to hide your inability to put money where your mouth is. A large portion of the European mtDNA haplogroups (and specific haplotypes) are attested in farmer DNA, and I dare anyone to show otherwise.
Rubbish. Rather than piling on the lot of empty, and uninformed, claims you make, why not just fess up. Psycho-analyzing people you don’t know from behind your computer screen do very little to mask your deficiencies.
quote:You're not looking at the wider picture, which I partly summarized above. Various forms of genetic drift cannot explain all the data. Only a pre OOA split between the ancestors of tropical Africans and the ancestors of non-Africans, explains the data.
You mean the uninformed ones I just went through?
quote:BTW, what do you mean with low quantities? I get the feeling that this too will shortly be revealed to be an unsubstantiated assumption/fabrication.
Well, it can easily be tested if I’m fabricating things: what Paleolithic Eurasian remains have been tested in abundance; give me the numbers, the identity and age of the specimens, and the detailed DNA-sequence reports?
quote:Wow, you mean to tell me you didn't know bottlenecks occurred during the LGM? I find that telling.
“Bottleneck” is not the same thing as “decimated”. You are very confused!
quote: I said that? Where?
Forgetful, here:
“When agriculturalist entered Europe, they were greeted with sparsely populated plains and technologically (and soon numerically) inferior hunter gatherers.” - by Swenet
I take it that this was yet another empty claim, brought about by defensiveness.
quote: It doesn't follow that a late Westward dispersal of Berber speakers negates the entry of mtDNA H V, U5 from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge following the Terminal Pleistocene.
Yes it does, if you are making the uninformed usage of those very “Berber speakers” as proof of the gene flow into the area during the terminal Pleistocene, or at any time before their arrival!
quote:In fact, the fact that modern Maghrebis carry the said lineages only confirms genetic exchanges with older populations in the region, precisely because the late Berber presence in the region rules out direct contact with populations in the Franco-Cantabrian refuge. Do you not understand that, for these lineages to occur in Berber speakers, mediators are required?
Make me understand, by providing biological/DNA proof of “direct contact with populations in the Franco-Cantabrian refuge” prior to arrival of "Berbers" in the Maghreb...besides the evidence obtained from living Europeans themselves, whom unlike the "Berbers", are generally implicated as continuations of Upper Paleolithic Europeans. Nothing is taken for granted.
Much of what is picked up from local predecessors by contemporary coastal Tamazight-speakers, have generally been of the types found in fairly low incidences.
quote: You must be referring to lineages other than U5b1b, V, H (H1 and H3) then, as, like I said before, these lineages are said to have entered Africa from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.
Your psycho-analysis is crackpot research. I urge you to stick to objectivity. I’m referring to the very clades that you are implicating in contemporary Maghrebi populations along the north coast. You can say it however many times, but without due substantiation, these remain just hollow personal opinions.
quote:
quote:Osteological and genetic data have shown that EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi populations are not the ancestral source population of contemporary Maghrebi populations.
Which no one is claiming (i.e., the ''ancestral source'' strawman).
You are/were:
“Ibero-Maurusians are grossly no different from Northwestern Africans (Moroccans) than North Africans on the other end of the continent (Egyptians) are from the Wadi Kubbaniya/Wadi Halfa groups.” - by Swenet
quote:Before you start parading your pseudo-scientific 'discontinuity' evidence around, it needs to be substantiated first that the cranio-metric difference observed between Ibero-Maurusians and Berbers is any larger than AMH-late Holocene morphological gaps noted elsewhere.
So you didn’t heed the advise to refer to Brace et al., as an example? Go through it, then tell me why it is “pseudo-scientific”!
quote: Irrelevant. Even dynastic Egyptians show a discontinuity to the folks that preceded them that's similar to the Ibero-Maurusian Berber record.
You bring up Egyptian link with ancient groups of this same geography, and then when commented on, you say it’s irrelevant. Talk about bizarre.
Dynastic Egyptians don’t show discontinuity with predynastic Nagadans, and to some extent, Badarians...the groups that preceded them. Of course, they are not going to have strong links with groups that show up in Upper Paleolithic strata, since much of dynastic elements came from integration of early mid-Holocene emigre from the drying Sahara and some in situ upper Nile Valley groups, who moved further down the Nile.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Exactly. So why is the Ibero-Maurusians-North African distance not substantially different from the distance seen between Cro-Magnons-Norse, in Groves? Could it be that your cranio-metric test for assessing Ibero-Maurusian persistence in Maghrebi populations is wholly made up, arbitrary and pseudo-scientific?
So you are agreeing that you are full of BS (?). The EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi remains, and those before that series, have assumed substantial distances from contemporary Maghrebi series.
You’ve made these clumsy charges before; so, I invite you again, to divulge what is “pseudo-scientific” about the findings reported in let’s say, Brace et al. (2005), which is backed by other findings, like the report from Robert Franciscus (1998), both of which are backed by genetic data.
quote: Is it safe to say that you're entirely oblivious to the fact that ALL Palaeolithic populations with a retained generalized physique, broadly resemble each other in cranio-metric analysis.
Your diversionary playfulness at emulating me must then mean that your claim about contemporary North Africans assuming closer relationship with the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi specimens than the Jebel Sahaba series is simply more hot-air, I take it.
quote: You're not making sense. There isn't even a difference; I never said that what you said wasn't true, just that its semantics. Its not unlike the troll tendency to make E-M78 in Greece somehow not African derived/representative of African ancestry, because Greek examples bear ''autochtonous'' mutations.
Even after a quick hint, you still remain ignorant of not only the difference between what “semantics" means and what “fact" means, but also of basic DNA material:
Greek E-M78 is not a standalone marker from E-M78 sub-haplogroup. U6 is a standalone marker within the U haplogroup. It is not a sub-clade of any preexisting U sub-haplogroup.
More upstream clades for E-M78 are found within the African gene pool. No upstream proto-U6 clade is found in “Eurasia”.
African origin of the predecessor lineage of E-M78 is not in doubt. On the other hand, the origins of proto-U6 in “Eurasia” is in doubt. The African origins of E-M35 is not in doubt; whereas the jury is still out on the geographical origins of mtDNA R clade.
You are mixing apples with oranges.
quote: I have no idea what you're talking about here, or how it relates to my posts (I said the opposite).
In a nutshell, I merely demonstrated that you are ignorant of the difference between ‘fact’ and ‘semantics’.
quote: I just did.
Baloney. You did no such thing.
quote:Parrotting Brace will get you nowhere as Brace's own Upper Palaeolithic European sample has been shown to possess affinities with Yomon and Nubian/Somali's BEFORE showing affinities with Europe (Brace 2001). Additionally, the European AMH sample in Brace 2005 doesn't cluster with his Basque sample (who supposedly have the greatest Palaeolithic hunter gatherer genetic signal) either.
Like the previous case, you are also ignorant of the difference between ‘referencing’ work as your guide and ‘parroting’. This is looking to be a pattern. I cite Brace et al. 2005, and you talk of some comparison made in 2001...yet more mixing apples and oranges!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
..and you accuse others of pseudo-science. Another irony. I also gather that you are clueless about matters that you broach yourself, and incapable of putting together your own words, backed with evidential material.
quote:Thanks for stating the obvious. Everyone can see how pseudo-scientific your question is. Bodyplan informative variables/ratio's are never exclusive to two populations, but broadly correlating with temperature. Hence, my directing you to Bergman's rule, as your question reeks of your ignorance of it.
How can my request for substantiation of your context-free reference to “broad shoulders” be pseudo-science? That is a non-sequitur.
quote: That point was arrived at in conjunction with other bodyplan related data. This is what I mean with the need for directing you to Bergman. You reason in a manner which suggest you're just now getting familiarized with it.
Directing me to people or concepts you are clueless about, does not mask the failure-waiting-to-happen with your attempt to use “limb-proportions” or “broad shoulders” to imply a foreign origin for the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi series, for which you apparently have zero evidence.
quote: Even more pseudo-scientific reasoning. If Ibero-Maurusian specimen could diverge from MSA, LSA and modern Africans in just about every measurement, without implied genetic differences, there wouldn't be any sense to your attempts to show cranio-metric links between Africans and Ibero-Maurusians. Additionally, there wouldn't any sense in pointing out discontinuity between Berbers and Ibero-Maurusians, as there would be nothing ''that would make it impossible'' for Berbers and Ibero-Maurusians to by genetically similar despite cranio-metric distance.
Just a wild guess...this must be your supposed answer to "what specifically makes EpiPaleolithic mandible impossible to be biologically autochthonous to Africa, and therefore has to be European in origin"?
quote: I guess this is where your habit of face saving comes in. Uniparentally it is quite possible for individuals of the Berber group to have phylogenetic links with the Ibero-Maurusian group, just like Ramses III's Y chromosome has a phylogenetic link with many West Africans, despite belonging to the larger Egyptian group. You must be half asleep when you write such retarded fabrications.
You will never get the concept as explained to you several occasions, even as simple as it is. Even more bizarre, is how confuse ‘teaching’ with ‘face-saving’. Told you, we have a pattern here.
quote: What you left out (typical), is that your last statement didn't just say that Berbers brought L lineages there, what you said was that they were the first to bring lineages there.
Cite the piece, wherein I say “Berbers were the first to bring lineages (presumably L) there”. Should be easy enough to test the veracity of your accusation.
quote: THATS what's not compatible with your analysis of Kefi, and your insistence on the fairytale that Ibero-Maurusians weren't divorced from Africans.
How can they be divorced from Africans, when they themselves were Africans, which no less you confuse with a fairytale? Makes me even question if you realize that Africa is a continent.
quote: Another blatant display of a non-sequitor, after your earlier nonsensical claim that H and V couldn't have trickled into the Maghreb in the Terminal Pleistocene, because the Berber populations that carry the said lineages today, weren't near the Maghreb back then, you're now suggesting that Berber populations in East Africa were the only ones in tropical Africa capable of introducing L lineages to Ibero-Maurusians.
You don’t know the difference between hg H or hg V and hg L lineages?
As for some notion [supposedly from me] that “Berbers” were the only ones capable of introducing L lineages to “Ibero-Maurusians”, your mind is playing tricks on you. It doesn’t exist.
quote:^This is further evidence that you're not mentally fit to be having discussions.
I take it that you are, even though you remember doing things you haven’t actually done?
quote: Lying again. I didn't block off anything, as the quote ends with the end of your sentence. And my next refutation of what you say thereafter picks off where the said sentence ends. Bottom line: you fabricated that I had claimed that the human samples used by Casas et al and Cerezo et al were identical, even though I had clearly said that the Medieval L1b sample was related to the other 16178 bearing samples.
Correction: You equated Cerezo et al.’s L1b1a8 clade with Casas et al.’s L1b, presumably to undermine the coalescence age estimation reported by the later. It didn’t work.
quote: Just admit it, your homoplasy comment is only something a face-saving douchebag would say. While me and Takruri had figured out the necessary information to infer for ourselves that the Russian sample is indeed identical to the Medieval sample in its HVR 1 sequence, you're still lagging behind, asking stupid sh!t, and speculating like a vegetative slow-poke coon who has to be held by hand and can't get with the program...just admit it. Like a true coon, you were prepared to use the lack of 175 in the other L1b1a8 samples as evidence that the Russian sample was somehow not what Casas et al referred to.
You are losing it. Frantically cursing and fussing here and there, safely behind a computer monitor is a sign of emotional and mental breakdown, obviously brought about by piling pressure to defend untenable ideas. Of course I can reply in kind, and do a better job at insulting, but what good will it do? I’m only interested in setting the record straight at this time.
If this pressure for fact-setting is becoming too much for you, just step aside and let the adults continue this discussion uninterrupted (you initiated interaction with me).
quote:**WHERE*** does my latest interpretation of Casas et al fit this description.
Here:
However, the specific group it [Casas et al. (2005) citation] is referring to (with transition 16175) seems to be what Cerezo et al (2012) call L1b1a8 (see fig 2), which is by them considered to be considerably younger than the dates you've cited (see fig 5). - Swenet.
You are guilty as charged!
quote:In the referenced articles, where else? How would Casas et al know the relatedness of the German and Russian clade 175 bearing clade if not from the articles they cite right after mentioning the German and Russian sample? You probably never traced down an article in your life due to your child-like dependency to wait on people to throw you a bone.
Silly, I wasn’t talking about Casas et al.’s reference in itself. Rather, I was talking about your as-yet-to-be-substantiated inference that the referenced Russian haplotype from Malyarchuk et al. (2004) is necessarily the same one referenced from Malyarchuk et al. (2008), a distinction in references in two different studies that you apparently failed to notice.
quote: That citation is inconsistent with what I said, how?
The citation was reaffirming my interpretation and nullifying your version of it. That’s how!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
The Explorer said: U6 is not Eurasian at any point! If you want to speak of U6's ancestor itself, well the jury is out on that as well, unless you want to point out the specifics of that ancestral clade, and exactly the parental Eurasian population it emerged in.
Saying that it derives from mtDNA R does not absolve U6 from being an autochthonous northwestern African marker, or as marker of gene flow from Africa to "Eurasia". In fact, many of the ancestors of those maternal markers tagged as "Eurasian" have not been identified...so, it's anyone's guess, where these ancestors exactly emerged. It seems to me that 'western' researchers simply like to attach too much significance to "Eurasia", because otherwise the development of the human species in the main had been in Africa.
^^How a marker of gene flow from Africa to Eurasia?
Because: 1) U6 is generally rarer outside of Africa. 2)The distribution pattern tells a telltale sign of expansions initially from Africa (below), and then in nearby locations outside Africa. 3)The more upstream U6 clades are more abundant in African than outside.
quote: Are you saying that the gene flow went forth initially that was autochthonous U6, or proto U6 from Africa?
Proto-U6 itself is elusive; so, I am referring to U6!
quote:Pennarun et al argue that the jury is still out on the origin of U6.
Not from the information I have at hand (note: I have pseudo-links here just to further emphasize certain elements in the following passages):
The presence of hg M1c alongside hg M1a in the "Near East" but not in Europe suggests more than one wave of migration scenario. The passage of hg M1c probably paralleled that involving some dispersal of hg U6 [likely complimentary with the hg U6a (not U6a1) dispersal from west to east] into the "Near East" ultimately from western Sahara, as the latter is largely absent in Europe as well, with U6 subclades being largely confined to the Iberian peninsula area, right next to coastal northwestern Tamazight speakers. On the other hand, M1a has been implicated in European distribution, the Caucasus and the "Near East", a pattern which is more in line with what one would expect in the often talked-about demic diffusion involving first farmers from the "Near East" into Europe. The question then becomes, when else would hg M1c have dispersed into the so-called Near East? If Maca-Meyer et al. (2003) are anything to go by, then one would have to assume that this migratory event took place some time before the LGM or its contemporaneous Ogolian desertification. It has to be remembered that U6 constitutes a fairly small portion of contemporary coastal northern African gene pool, going off of DNA studies published in the "West", and its situation in the Sahara, particularly in the western areas, predates the ethnogenesis of Tamazight ("Berber") speakers in the region. However, low frequencies of U6a1 seem to have made their way back to hg U6 clade's homeland, western Sahara.
These younger clades joining the older examples thereof, may be serving as telltale signs of movement with proto-Afrisan or proto-Imazighen speakers. Interestingly enough, hg U6 has not been located in Siwa samples, a Tamazight-speaking group on the coastal north-western area of Egypt. This supports the said scenario that hg M1c likely spilled over into the Near East, along with some doses of hg U6 prior to the coming about of proto-Afrisan speaking ancestors of Tamazight speakers. However, noticeable frequencies of hg M1 has been reported in those samples [like the Siwa].
^Providing you understand what is going on above, the distribution pattern, and hence, expansion path of U6 shows some degree of synchronism with that of M1...implicating primacy of origin in Africa, followed by subsequent expansion outside.
Details provided here (clickable link).
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Any three year old can run their mouth. By not including an argument for why it doesn't make sense, I take it you just don't know how to refute it.
quote:Who are these “earliest Europeans”? Provide their sample numbers
If you don't know who the said earliest Europeans are, their sample numbers, or their uniparentals, that's just all the more evidence you're talking out of the side of your neck when you argue against their extinction in Africa and when you falsely characterize their aDNA samples as ''very low''. Bottom line: the uniparentals uncovered in UP Europe have no parallel in the UP heritage of Africans.
quote:You speak of “tropical African AMHs” as though they were some homogenous entity
^Reaching. I clearly spoke of structured populations in Upper Palaeolithic Africa.
quote:possibly some sort of a subspecies onto its own
^Reaching. Only an ignoramus ignorant of the occurrence, spread and diversity of L lineages could fabricate such a spacey interpretation of my post.
quote:which frankly, is as preposterous as it gets...
Which makes you (the person who invoked such a ridiculous idea from out of nowhere), what? I'd call you spacey, but then again, I asked you the question.
quote:If so, provide the full context and backdrop against which such an extraordinary situation would have taken place.
Didn't I just tell you that UP mtDNAs don't occur in modern Africans, and that African specific uniparentals don't occur in Eurasian aDNA outside of admixture with Africans? Bottom line: you're at a loss as to how the explain the absence of both L lineages and anything pre-CT in Europe, and UP aDNA parallels in modern Africans, which you're trying to hide with redundant (and retarded) questions.
quote:does not mean that remnants of L types do not show up among OOA populations, usually in modest incidences.
Prove that the L lineages you mention are survivals of OOA uniparentals
quote:You could have only arrived at the conclusion that the dominating components of L3M/N and Y-DNA CT* in non-African populations is “detrimental” to anything I’ve said thus far, if you were ignorant of what founder effect events mean.
Actually you're ignorant of what founder effect means. Only an ignoramus would insinuate that founder effects chop off uniparental lineages along age lines so that only roughly contemporary mtDNA M and N and NRY CT bearing lineages survive, and ancestral Y and mtDNA lineages conveniently die out.
quote:Also reconcile how “OOA-source populations” could have been “distinct from L carrying Africans”, if L3M and L3N themselves derive from an L type?
Above, you yourself indicate that mtDNA M and N are not the same thing as L lineages. Are you sure you're ok?
quote:Your claim with regards to the so-called “Ibero-Maurusian” gene flow into Iberia glaringly lacks substantive context
Only to an ignoramus such as yourself. Last time I checked, the higher diversities of U6 in Iberia are perfectly consistent with Late Upper Palaeolithic to mid Holocene Ibero-Maurusian migrations to Iberia.
quote:and doesn’t even make sense, considering we were just discussing the prospects of L1a markers having had a possible upstream expansion time from of 20+ years.
You're clearly talking mumbo jumbo here. I was clearly talking about (the descendants of) peripheral UP North Africa, and whether L was more than negligible in them. Bottom line, no explanation as to why no African mtDNA L lineages dating to the Ibero-Maurusian have been found in Iberia.
quote:Why, because you say so?
No, because you've yet to offer a rebuttal to any of the points I offered.
quote:without providing proof of this supposedly now extinct OOA-“source” African population(s) that was supposedly isolated from L-carryng Africans.
You were invited to refute the points I posted (which you utterly failed to do). That being the case, the notion that proofs weren't posed must then be a function of your degrading memory, which was noted elsewhere when you said readers weren't pointed to the relevant Cerezo et al 2012 figs, per your memory.
quote:How about the European specific-L types--extending as far as Russia. What was once known as the European/"Near Eastern" specific L3E , can serve as another.
So, let me get this right. In support of the notion that OOA source populations carried L lineages, you cite lineages that have not been dated to Middle palaeolithic/Upper Palaeolithic OOA episodes, and in the case of the Russian sample (L1b), most likely didn't even exist yet (Salas et al 2002, Behar et al 2008)? Your desperation to correlate mtDNA L with OOA populations stands out like lioness' presence in an intelligent debate.
quote:It should be noted that reports of hg L incidences outside Africa, particularly beyond Europe and the “Near East” are often found by chance, given that most of the time researchers don’t even actively look for them,
ALL haplogroups are found by chance. Researchers have no hand in what uniparentals they will uncover. In your desperate attempt to make excuses for the lack of Upper Palaeolithic L lineages in Eurasians, you're only exposing how much you're emotionally driven.
quote:And this “ignorant statement” would be the one you protested, but have still not provided counter-material otherwise, as pressed?
That's right. I expect people to at least have elementary knowledge of the things they're discussing. Your fabrications regarding the continuation of farmer aDNA in modern Europeans and characterizations of prehistoric European aDNA as ''very low'' glaringly scream out how ignorant you are on the subject. Its not my duty to bring you up to speed. My invitation for you to proactively substantiate your fabrication that most farmer DNA is not found in modern Europeans, is still open.
quote:what Paleolithic Eurasian remains have been tested in abundance; give me the numbers, the identity and age of the specimens, and the detailed DNA-sequence reports?
^I asked you what your characterization of the volume of UP European mtdna lineages was based on. You're reduced to answering with more questions. Evidently a ploy to hide your glaring ignorance on the topic.
quote:“Bottleneck” is not the same thing as “decimated”. You are very confused!
YOU are confused, as I've never said that any bottleneck was the same as ''decimated''. Reading properly is a prerequisite to having an online discussion, you do realize that, right?
quote:Forgetful, here: “When agriculturalist entered Europe, they were greeted with sparsely populated plains and technologically (and soon numerically) inferior hunter gatherers.” - by Swenet
So, where exactly does the part come in where I said that the **first farmers** outnumbered hunter gatherers. Again, reading properly is a prerequisite to having an online discussion.
quote:Yes it does
So, just to confirm to myself that you're not as challenged as I think you are: there is absolutely no scenario in which Berber speakers could have inherited the said Iberian lineages from intermediary populations who, unlike Berber speakers, were in the region back then?
quote:by providing biological/DNA proof of “direct contact with populations in the Franco-Cantabrian refuge” prior to arrival of "Berbers" in the Maghreb...besides the evidence obtained from living Europeans themselves
^Moving the goal post. Who do you think you are that you can arbitrarily change regular academic standards for acceptable evidence, dictate them to others, and expect others to actually go along with it? The sharing of rare Franco-Cantabrian associated lineages in North Africans with 1) North African specific mutations (Achilli et al 2005) and 2) without accompanying modern Iberian lineages of which the same can be said, are more than enough to rule out late Holocenic introductions of the said mtDNA lineages. Besides, your insistence on evidence based on something other than modern Euro's makes little sense, as I've already informed you of the fact that the majority of Kefi's Taforalt mtDNA (H, V) is associated with the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.
quote:I’m referring to the very clades that you are implicating in contemporary Maghrebi populations along the north coast.
Success correlating North African specific control and coding mutations bearing U5b1b to historic slaves, when U5b1b **without the North African mutations** is already rare in Europe.
quote:You are/were:
“Ibero-Maurusians are grossly no different from Northwestern Africans (Moroccans) than North Africans on the other end of the continent (Egyptians) are from the Wadi Kubbaniya/Wadi Halfa groups.” - by Swenet
You are reaching, as usual. In no way, shape or form does that excerpt imply wholesale continuation of Berbers from Ibero-Maurusians, as was implied by your ''ancestral source population'' comment. Again, reading properly is a prerequisite to having an online discussion.
quote:So you didn’t heed the advise to refer to Brace et al., as an example? Go through it, then tell me why it is “pseudo-scientific”!
^Clearly appealing to authority. Any implication in Brace that gaps between prehistorics and moderns are necessarily indicative of a similar amount of genetic discontinuity are indeed, pseudo-scientific, as this notion has been contradicted many times (e.g., Zulu who share closer relationships to UP Europeans than Norse, Berg and other Euro samples in Hubbe et al 2010). Neither did the absolute lack of supporting evidence in the literature for this simpleton ''craniometric distance = genetic distance'' garbage stop him, or you for that matter, from using the observed Ibero-Maurusian to Berber craniometric distance as diagnostic for a matching amount of genetic distance.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:You bring up Egyptian link with ancient groups of this same geography, and then when commented on, you say it’s irrelevant.
My ''irrelevant'' comment had nothing to do with the link I proposed, but with your irrelevant (it was relevant indeed) dismissal of the said link. It has been, how many times now that your lacking reading comprehension has been noted?
quote:since much of dynastic elements came from integration of early mid-Holocene emigre from the drying Sahara and some in situ upper Nile Valley groups, who moved further down the Nile.
You apparently need schooling on the fact that the said predynastic drying Sahara folks would have descended from Upper Palaeolithic groups with whom they show a similar cranio-metric distance (the AMH to modern cranio-metric gap isn't specific to the Nile Valley and Maghrebi record).
quote:So you are agreeing that you are full of BS (?).
What part about my statement that the cranio-metric gap seen between Ibero-Maurusians and North Africans is broadly no different from cranio-metric gaps noted elsewhere, exactly constitutes ''agreeing that I'm full of BS'' or ''clumpsy changes''?
quote: your claim about contemporary North Africans assuming closer relationship with the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi specimens than the Jebel Sahaba series is simply more hot-air
What exactly is inconsistent about noting dual ties, i.e., broad cranio-metric affinities of AMHs with other AMHs, while also noting that some modern populations (e.g., North Africans) are more related to some AMHs (Ibero-Maurusians) than others (Jebel Sahabans)? You'll have to fill me in here.
quote:Greek E-M78 is not a standalone marker from E-M78 sub-haplogroup. U6 is a standalone marker within the U haplogroup. It is not a sub-clade of any preexisting U sub-haplogroup.
Even more subjective pseudo-scientific hogwash based on fake standards (i.e., making ''standalone marker'' status, and the amount of African upstream markers deciding factors) that you've just made up. E-V13 need not qualify for any of that, for it to be an autochtonous marker, and for the comparison of your irrational fanaticism concerning U6 (with similar irrational fanaticism on the part of Euronuts who dread their E=V13 component), to be justified.
quote:African origin of the predecessor lineage of E-M78 is not in doubt. On the other hand, the origins of proto-U6 in “Eurasia” is in doubt. The African origins of E-M35 is not in doubt; whereas the jury is still out on the geographical origins of mtDNA R clade.
Everything you said here with the exception of proto-U6 is an outright lie. There has been more debate (both then and now) on the origin of E and/or derived lineages than mtDNA R. Even your proto-U6 comment is garbage, since U IS proto-U6, the possibility of the prehistoric existence of closer proto-haplogroups notwithstanding.
quote:This is looking to be a pattern. I cite Brace et al. 2005, and you talk of some comparison made in 2001
Stop lying and replying to posts if you're not going to address what was said. Stating that I cited Brace 2001 is no substitute for actually addressing what I said. Your implicit lies won't go unnoticed. I clearly referenced Brace 2001 along with Brace 2005, both have yet to receive replies.
quote:..and you accuse others of pseudo-science. Another irony. I also gather that you are clueless about matters that you broach yourself, and incapable of putting together your own words, backed with evidential material.
You must think your words are self-decoding for this unintelligible hogwash to be posted without specific references as to what it is you're trying to get across, but failed to express in coherent language. Take a couple of breaths and explain again, in English, what your exact issue is what that graph I posted, and how it conforms to ''pseudo-science''.
quote:How can my request for substantiation of your context-free reference to “broad shoulders” be pseudo-science?
Again, it would do you good to stop lying. That (your request for substantiation) is not at all what I characterized as pseudo-scientific. Its the way you formulate your queries and still continue to do so, using phrases like ''prove its impossible for others to have those traits'' and ''prove that only Europeans had them'', when that's not at all what cranio-metric analysis is capable of ruling out.
quote:to imply a foreign origin for the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi series, for which you apparently have zero evidence.
Another lie. Evidence of clear cut divergence from contemporary MSA, LSA and modern tropical Africans (mandible, teeth, bodyplan variables) was posted, in tandem with similarities with (Late) Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, at which point you performed your usual sleight of mouth by moving the goal post and suddenly making it an issue of interpretation re: ''prove that only Europeans can have the said traits''.
quote:this must be your supposed answer to "what specifically makes EpiPaleolithic mandible impossible to be biologically autochthonous to Africa, and therefore has to be European in origin
This is exactly what I mean with your pseudo-scientific tendencies. Only an uninformed retard on Lioness' level would expect others to prove that which cannot be conclusively proven with the discipline at hand. However, in the many types of analysis I've already summed up, Biological Anthropology (including [ancient] population genetics) up until this point has gotten as close as possible to prove ties with Eurasia.
quote:You will never get the concept as explained to you several occasions, even as simple as it is.
Its not a matter of me not ''getting'' it, but rather, a matter of you trying to sweep an obvious blunder under the rug. Again, partial descent does not rule out phylogenetic links, even on the group level. Your ''no phylogenetic links'' statement doesn't require 100% continuation of the implied groups for it to be patently false.
quote:Cite the piece, wherein I say “Berbers were the first to bring lineages (presumably L) there”
If there is no evidence of L lineages in the Maghreb dating to 20 kya, then it is perhaps because of that “little known fact” that I keep referring to; that the proto-Tamazight ancestors of contemporary Maghreb population were not in that region then. --The Explorer Let the face saving begin.
quote:How can they be divorced from Africans, when they themselves were Africans, which no less you confuse with a fairytale?
I was talking about divorced from Africans, in terms of the continent they inhabited, where?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I take it that you are, even though you remember doing things you haven’t actually done?
Takruri, interesting paper. However, the specific group it is referring to (with transition 16175) seems to be what Cerezo et al (2012) call L1b1a8 (see fig 2) --Swenet
Your eyes must be deteriorating faster than Steve Urkel's, for you to miss my reference to fig 2 in a short three sentence post.
quote:Correction: You equated Cerezo et al.’s L1b1a8 clade with Casas et al.’s L1b, presumably to undermine the coalescence age estimation reported by the later.
As usual, you're not responding to what that piece is saying. Its exposing another instance of your habit of lying (i.e., that I purposefully foreshortened your post), which, in case you don't know, is a seperate issue from both my identification of the two haplogroups (not the samples, which you falsely ascribed to me) as identical, and my reaction to Casas et al's coalescence age.
quote:You are guilty as charged!
Try again. This time, try to actually include what is being asked of you, re: **latest interpretation of Casas et al**, rather than blatently posting what was clearly revised as my correspondence with alTakruri went on.
quote:Rather, I was talking about your as-yet-to-be-substantiated inference that the referenced Russian haplotype from Malyarchuk et al. (2004) is necessarily the same one referenced from Malyarchuk et al. (2008)
What part about tracking down references, do you not understand? Is it, for example, new to you that authors reference their work in later articles? Do you think the Russian sample in Malyarchuk et al. (2008) isn't going to be referenced in a manner that allows one to rule out whether both Russian samples are the same? BTW, did I already mention that alTakruri and the rest of the world managed to do figure this out on their own by 15 December?
quote:The citation was reaffirming my interpretation and nullifying your version of it.
No textual demonstration, just baseless opinionating to hide your glaring blunder. If your interpretation of the text is correct, and the ''precise African origin'' part doesn't refer to the origin of the Medieval muslims, point out to me where the 175 transition is mentioned in this excerpt, or prior to it: The significant higher number of sub-Saharan African lineages (L1 and L2, Table 2) in MP, two of which are also found in NW Africa, points to the important role of Moslem migrations in the present gene distribution in Iberia. The unique sharing of L1b (126 127 189 223 264 278 311) with the Sahara points to this area as the most probable origin. Nevertheless, the high number of non- shared lineages impedes the determination of the precise African origin.Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
And you do a good job of showing readers just that. All your responses are replete with defensive emotional attacks (I can list them, if in doubt), to compensate for lack of intelligent, and substantively measured responses. Nobody should take my word for it; just reading your posts should remove any doubt!
quote:By not including an argument for why it doesn't make sense, I take it you just don't know how to refute it.
It’s not that complicated. Simply put, your presentation did not make any sense in the language (English) you were attempting to communicate in. I did however, point out the little that seem to be implied in your post. Understand now?
quote:Reaching. I clearly spoke of structured populations in Upper Palaeolithic Africa...
Reaching. Only an ignoramus ignorant of the occurrence, spread and diversity of L lineages could fabricate such a spacey interpretation of my post.
Your commentary was so twisted that even you managed to be confused by its contradiction. The issue is not that “you spoke of structured populations in the Upper Paleolithic”, but that you presented the situation as one of dichotomy between two supposed mega population structures, which supposedly did not cross paths, and featured mutually exclusive lines of ancestry. Any sober observation instantly renders such logic as myth, which inherently ignores the fact that population structuring exists now as it did in the past.
quote:Didn't I just tell you that UP mtDNAs don't occur in modern Africans, and that African specific uniparentals don't occur in Eurasian aDNA outside of admixture with Africans?
Your attempts at damage control get more preposterous with each reply. The idea that “UP mtDNAs” do not occur in modern Africans, the most diverse of any group taken together, takes the cake! Common sense--which you apparently lack--instills that OOA-derived populations are not going to have that diversity level, considering their source-population(s) was/were just a subset of Africans.
quote:Bottom line: you're at a loss as to how the explain the absence of both L lineages and anything pre-CT in Europe, and UP aDNA parallels in modern Africans, which you're trying to hide with redundant (and retarded) questions.
You got it twisted; I’m at a loss of something, alright...i.e. at a loss of how you arrived at the silly and ridiculous notion that L maternal lineages are absent in Europe, especially just after having a “discussion” on those very things.
Pre-CT lineages have also surfaced in Europe; alas, if you are not aware of it, then it must not be so; after all, there is no such thing as facets of the world and/or universe outside your puny conscious, isn’t that right?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Prove that the L lineages you mention are survivals of OOA uniparentals
Already done! You’re just too mindless of the subject (basic genetics) to understand. Encore...
How about the European specific-L types--extending as far as Russia--we’ve just been discussing as a more obvious example, for one? What was once known as the European/"Near Eastern" specific L3E , can serve as another. These are lineages whose expansion time frames precede anything that can be linked to historic slave trade involving Africans, as well as the arrival of source populations of contemporary Imazighen in the Maghreb! L types are also scattered from Turkey, Iran all the way to Pakistan in South Asia in communities that have no apparent close/recent ties with continental Africans. It’s true that there are *some* communities in relatively far off locations, like say the Makrani in Pakistan, which have reported substantial L type ancestry and implicated in relatively recent African ancestry, but then such are generally forthrightly acknowledged as that--as descendants of African-settler groups; see for example:
It should be noted that reports of hg L incidences outside Africa, particularly beyond Europe and the “Near East” are often found by chance, given that most of the time researchers don’t even actively look for them, as opposed to the more common haplogroups in Asia and Americans.
Disagree? Then explain away how L type markers detected in such aforementioned locales or ethnic entities, otherwise generally exposed to little contact with contemporary continental Africans, could only be tied to relatively recent African emigration as opposed to remote Upper Paleolithic origins.
In fact, the burden of proof is to make sense of the notion (your’s) that L3N/M markers could have only arrived outside Africa in the absence of deeper and ancestral maternal clades, as it belies logic.
quote:Actually you're ignorant of what founder effect means. Only an ignoramus would insinuate that founder effects chop off uniparental lineages along age lines so that only roughly contemporary mtDNA M and N and NRY CT bearing lineages survive, and ancestral Y and mtDNA lineages conveniently die out.
Your sustained inability to absorb no-brainers, on the heels of having been informed otherwise, only reaffirms my observation: When whole new populations essentially rise out of what would have otherwise been obscured in source populations, in sheer numbers, it’s a sign that one is being presented with a founder effect situation. Had you understood this, it would not be such a monumental mystery to you why deeper L maternal markers are now rarer in OOA-derived populations...you’ll never understand this, because you are too vested in defending personal feelings than learning and growing up.
quote:Above, you yourself indicate that mtDNA M and N are not the same thing as L lineages. Are you sure you're ok?
And so you take it, that because I recognize the distinction between L3M/N and L maternal lines, this then must necessarily serve as vindication for your practically improbable logic, which intimates that would-be pre-OOA L3M/N descendants lived in total isolation from the very populations which would have had to have been around to give rise to L3M/N in the first place?
quote:Only to an ignoramus such as yourself. Last time I checked, the higher diversities of U6 in Iberia are perfectly consistent with Late Upper Palaeolithic to mid Holocene Ibero-Maurusian migrations to Iberia.
Higher diversities of U6 in Iberia compared to what? And you weep that calling out your speculative posts as lacking “substantive” context is uncalled for. Just the same, I suspect you are relying on report from Maca-Meyer et al. (2003).
I don’t see the value of this apparently-gratuitous post, other than serving as another visible manifestation of your emotionally-defensive posturing. I mean, why would U6 not be expected to have arrived in the Iberian peninsula from the Upper Paleolithic onwards? Also, I’m not sure you realize that U6 is essentially rare to absent outside Iberia in greater Europe.
quote:You're clearly talking mumbo jumbo here. I was clearly talking about (the descendants of) peripheral UP North Africa, and whether L was more than negligible in them. Bottom line, no explanation as to why no African mtDNA L lineages dating to the Ibero-Maurusian have been found in Iberia.
Isn’t it ironic that in emotionally-defensive posturing, you are left with hurling keyboard name-calls at others, with such gobbledygook talk about somebody else being a “coon”, when your posts bear the hallmarks of a thoroughly-brainwashed mental profile!
Ad nauseam: We’ve just been done talking about L1b markers ascribed with upper expansion boundaries of 20+ kya, and yet, you insist that “no Africa mtDNA L lineages dating to the Ibero-Maurusian have been found in Iberia.” Seriously, how dense can you get?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No, because you've yet to offer a rebuttal to any of the points I offered.
There is nothing to “rebut” about an obviously stupid logic which infers absence of L maternal lineage in Eurasia. Your shifting the burden of proof is misguided.
quote:You were invited to refute the points I posted (which you utterly failed to do). That being the case, the notion that proofs weren't posed must then be a function of your degrading memory, which was noted elsewhere when you said readers weren't pointed to the relevant Cerezo et al 2012 figs, per your memory.
Let’s stick to the pressing request, shall we: Where’s your proof for this supposedly now extinct OOA-“source” African population(s) that was supposedly isolated from L-carryng Africans!
Recalling imaginary actions you’ve taken, re: specifically pointing readers to Cerezo et al.’s figure, will not distract me from pressing this.
quote:So, let me get this right. In support of the notion that OOA source populations carried L lineages, you cite lineages that have not been dated to Middle palaeolithic/Upper Palaeolithic OOA episodes, and in the case of the Russian sample (L1b), most likely didn't even exist yet (Salas et al 2002, Behar et al 2008)? Your desperation to correlate mtDNA L with OOA populations stands out like lioness' presence in an intelligent debate.
You did the opposite of what you set out to do: Not getting it straight. My reference to the L1b and L3E markers was in response to your illogical skepticism to this:
Rare L types have been found in parts of Asia, and far flung places, which have obviously been there longer than any recent gene flow from continental Africa. - by The Explorer
quote:ALL haplogroups are found by chance. Researchers have no hand in what uniparentals they will uncover. In your desperate attempt to make excuses for the lack of Upper Palaeolithic L lineages in Eurasians, you're only exposing how much you're emotionally driven.
Another straightforward post gone over your head. The innately random-surfacing of lineages in samples is not the focal point here; rather, it is the active DNA-targeting by researchers! This again, would have been an implicit no-brainer, if you were not all that much mindless about basic genetics...and understand that researchers tend to actively search for certain sequences when they study samples. It’s why primer sets and restriction-site enzymes are employed.
E.g.: In the case of L maternal lines in most studies targeting non-African samples, ‘western’ researchers tend to proactively and primarily search for markers reputed to be the “common non-African types”, which are essentially L3M/N lines. L presence is only inferred after the fact, and not necessarily always factored in from the onset of the sequencing process, when mismatches come to the surface.
quote: That's right. I expect people to at least have elementary knowledge of the things they're discussing. Your fabrications regarding the continuation of farmer aDNA in modern Europeans and characterizations of prehistoric European aDNA as ''very low'' glaringly scream out how ignorant you are on the subject. Its not my duty to bring you up to speed. My invitation for you to proactively substantiate your fabrication that most farmer DNA is not found in modern Europeans, is still open.
Let’s then test my supposed “ignorance”, and your supposed “mindfulness”-- which is what I was apparently doing when you inexplicably dismissed it as “ignorance”: Present the findings
1)where mtDNA matches predominantly figured, as opposed to the opposite, between Neolithic era samples and contemporary European counterparts.
2)that have involved DNA-testing Paleolithic European specimens in fairly “high quantities”.
If my claims were fabrications, then your ability to follow through this request, should be effortless and nimble, shouldn’t it? Instead, you are unnecessarily wasting time & space, with overtly lazy and dismissive posts sans substance.
quote:I asked you what your characterization of the volume of UP European mtdna lineages was based on. You're reduced to answering with more questions. Evidently a ploy to hide your glaring ignorance on the topic.
That’s a stupid question. What else would the volume of UP European mtDNA lineage be based on, if not the number of specimens tested in the first place?
quote:YOU are confused, as I've never said that any bottleneck was the same as ''decimated''. Reading properly is a prerequisite to having an online discussion, you do realize that, right?
Then why did you make the knuckleheaded decision to substitute “decimated” with “bottleneck”, when you were specifically pressed for substantiation of your meritless claim with regards to the former? Reading deficiency must then have started with you, if there’s any.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
“When agriculturalist entered Europe, they were greeted with sparsely populated plains and technologically (and soon numerically) inferior hunter gatherers.” - by Swenet
So, where exactly does the part come in where I said that the **first farmers** outnumbered hunter gatherers. Again, reading properly is a prerequisite to having an online discussion.
This then is a reaffirmation that you are too obtuse to take note where you were quoted word for word, replete with emphasis (highlights)?
Your feigned beef with “first farmers” is inconsequential. It’s simply a term used in ‘western’ research to reference the earliest “agricultural” inhabitants within a European context. If it however, will make you reply logically, just substitute “first farmers” with your “agriculturalist”.
quote:So, just to confirm to myself that you're not as challenged as I think you are: there is absolutely no scenario in which Berber speakers could have inherited the said Iberian lineages from intermediary populations who, unlike Berber speakers, were in the region back then?
In other words, you are trying to get a feel for just how much uninformed you are about strangers on ES; it’s not a question of if.
“Could have” has no place here. Provide me with tangible proof, specifying that so and so lineage was attained from the EpiPaleolithic groups you were targeting as the source of said lineage, namely the EpiPaleolithic inhabitants which left us with the Taforalt series!
Contemporary Maghrebi groups cannot serve as a substitute for these EpiPaleolithic inhabitants, since they are not the same populations, nor is one the source population of the other; your bid to do precisely otherwise, is an excellent example of what being intellectually-challenged looks like.
quote:^Moving the goal post. Who do you think you are that you can arbitrarily change regular academic standards for acceptable evidence, dictate them to others, and expect others to actually go along with it? The sharing of rare Franco-Cantabrian associated lineages in North Africans with 1) North African specific mutations (Achilli et al 2005) and 2) without accompanying modern Iberian lineages of which the same can be said, are more than enough to rule out late Holocenic introductions of the said mtDNA lineages. Besides, your insistence on evidence based on something other than modern Euro's makes little sense, as I've already informed you of the fact that the majority of Kefi's Taforalt mtDNA (H, V) is associated with the Franco-Cantabrian refuge.
You are incomprehensibly uninformed. I’ve pressed you for said proof from day one you engaged me, and you’ve yet, going on several pages, to deliver. Now you feign surprise at the relentlessness of this request in the face of petty distractions you threw in the way.
There is no “academic standard” about using contemporary “Berbers” as surrogates of EpiPaleolithic inhabitants, such as those of Taforalt. It’s just pure Swenet B.S.! And even if there were such bogus standard, it would not be immune to challenge. There is however, the “academic standard” of substantiating your own allegations, which you are expected to ‘go along with”, or else, simply step aside, and allow others who are capable of such, to step in and be part of a more productive adult discussion, that does not devolve into petty pre-teenage school kid name calls that you have tried to drag me into and muddy this discussion with.
1) Be specific, re: “North African specific”mutations. Give me the goodies on their nucleotide peculiarities, why they could not have been introduced into contemporary coastal Maghrebi populations only some time after the early mid-Holocene.
2)If there is no “accompanying” Iberian lineage of some as-yet-designated “North African specific mutations”, then how can you say that Iberia is the source, or let alone “rule out late Holocenic introductions of the said mtDNA lineages”?
My “insistence on evidence based on something other than modern Euro's” makes perfect sense to any rational person. Simply put, contemporary Maghrebi populations are not “continuations” of EpiPaleolithic inhabitants you were bent on making the Paleolithic European-North African or Paleolithic European connection through. So using contemporary “Berbers” as proxies is illogical.
YOUR “insistence” on pointing me to Kefi et al. (2005) is what makes little sense, when I’ve already laid out very specific objections to the integrity of their supposed findings. You say H and V lineages were “associated with the Franco-Cantabrian refuge,” and I say so what?
quote:Success correlating North African specific control and coding mutations bearing U5b1b to historic slaves, when U5b1b **without the North African mutations** is already rare in Europe.
How does “North African specific control and coding mutations" in U5b1b rule out transmission via historic slavery? The condition of U5b1b being “rare” in Europe means little; all there needs to be noted here, is that it is present in southern Europe. And you seem oblivious to the possibility, but mutations can be recent. In any case, harping on U5b1b does not diffuse this prospect:
Many of the so-called Eurasian markers that contemporary coastal Maghrebi populations carry do look to have come from female slaves!
That is not to say that such could have been the only source, but a significant one nonetheless.
quote: You are reaching, as usual. In no way, shape or form does that excerpt imply wholesale continuation of Berbers from Ibero-Maurusians, as was implied by your ''ancestral source population'' comment. Again, reading properly is a prerequisite to having an online discussion.
Simply put, the only defense you feel compelled to push through, in the face of paucity of evidence suggesting otherwise, is to use contemporary “Berber” populations as some sort of genetic surrogates for EpiPaleolithic inhabitants of Taforalt, which you envision as some sort of derivative of “peripheral” source population supposedly lacking L lineages, hence the uncontrollable need to undermine any Upper Paleolithic time boundary of L1b expansion into Europe. Problem is, you can’t logically use contemporary “Berber” populations for that purpose.
quote:^Clearly appealing to authority. Any implication in Brace that gaps between prehistorics and moderns are necessarily indicative of a similar amount of genetic discontinuity are indeed, pseudo-scientific, as this notion has been contradicted many times (e.g., Zulu who share closer relationships to UP Europeans than Norse, Berg and other Euro samples in Hubbe et al 2010). Neither did the absolute lack of supporting evidence in the literature for this simpleton ''craniometric distance = genetic distance'' garbage stop him, or you for that matter, from using the observed Ibero-Maurusian to Berber craniometric distance as diagnostic for a matching amount of genetic distance.
You questioned the “authority provided”, and so, it’s only fitting you be requested to provide proof of the ungrounded allegation. If to you that amounts to “appealing to authority”, then so be it. Your charge of pseudo-scientific intentions of Brace et al. (2005) , or I “for that matter”, is bunkum; simply put, there are no apparent close cranio-metric ties between the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi remains and those of contemporary coastal-north Maghrebi series, which would suggest a close parent-to-offspring phylogenetic relationship between the series. This is only reaffirmed by molecular genetics, wherein it emerges that contemporary Maghrebi populations are products of source demographic events that took place from the mid early Holocene onward. Pseudo-science is ignoring these scientific observations, as you have clearly done here.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
We show that the Mozabite have inherited roughly 78% ancestry from a European-related population and 22% ancestry from a population related to sub-Saharan Africans. Our analysis also shows that the Mozabite admixture has occurred over a period that began at least [b]100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago)[
However in this STR based study(PDF link) Bosch et al say
"Mozabites are a well defined Berber population in Algeria: they speak Mzab (a distinct Berber language) an originiated form the Ibadite religious community who settled in this region in the 11th century (AD)
______________________________________________
Do these studies fit together or are they in contradiction? First off they don't fit historically. One says Mozabites are 11th century AD settlers. They other says they go back to 8th c BC. The 11th c Bosch article says they are a distint NA population diverting from bothe Europeans and other Africans but the Price calls them 78% European and also may have Middle Eastern affinities. So which article paints a clearer picture of the Mozabites? ________________________________
update
-Just read some more so I will answer my own question. Mozabites were originally European. They came to North Africa at least 2,800 years ago probably earlier. They mixed with native Africans to about 20% admix. Due to founder effect and/or drift they became isolated in STR analysis although HAPMIX SNP based analysis detects their Euroepean origin. Over the centuries due to isolation they have become unique genetically. In the 11th c AD they were converted to Ibadi Islam but were not replaced by a small number of MId East migrants who converted them
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
My ''irrelevant'' comment had nothing to do with the link I proposed, but with your irrelevant (it was relevant indeed) dismissal of the said link. It has been, how many times now that your lacking reading comprehension has been noted?
It’s funny you are charging me with comprehension issues, even as you bungle the context of the very post you’re now replying. Misery loves company, even if that company is just an illusion of the mind.
quote:You apparently need schooling on the fact that the said predynastic drying Sahara folks would have descended from Upper Palaeolithic groups with whom they show a similar cranio-metric distance (the AMH to modern cranio-metric gap isn't specific to the Nile Valley and Maghrebi record).
And the post that would indicate the necessitation of such schooling is...? The driving point you seem incapable of absorbing, is your attempt to provide some silly analogy between the Nile Valley occupation and the Maghreb. The “direct” and the main source-populations of dynastic Egyptians can be found within the Nile Valley itself. EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi inhabitants, for practical purposes, are not the “direct” nor main source populations of contemporary “berber” populations of the Maghreb, whom you tried to use as the former’s proxy.
quote: What exactly is inconsistent about noting dual ties, i.e., broad cranio-metric affinities of AMHs with other AMHs, while also noting that some modern populations (e.g., North Africans) are more related to some AMHs (Ibero-Maurusians) than others (Jebel Sahabans)? You'll have to fill me in here.
I did: the highlighted was exposed as hot-air; remember? You’ll have to fill me in on which comprehensive craniometric analysis has inferred closer relationship between undesignated “North Africans” and so-called “Ibero-Maurusians” than that between the latter and the Jebel Sahaba series.
quote:Even more subjective pseudo-scientific hogwash based on fake standards (i.e., making ''standalone marker'' status, and the amount of African upstream markers deciding factors) that you've just made up. E-V13 need not qualify for any of that, for it to be an autochtonous marker, and for the comparison of your irrational fanaticism concerning U6 (with similar irrational fanaticism on the part of Euronuts who dread their E=V13 component), to be justified.
Your complete stupidity in the subject is clouding your judgment when it comes to what is real and what isn’t about academic standards of molecular genetics. You shouldn’t be in this discussion, when you are clueless about what a standalone clade entails. And no, clueless; “Africanity” is not the deciding factor; phylogenetic depth of markers, along with nucleotide attributes of common recent ancestry, are deciding factors of clade assignment.
quote:Everything you said here with the exception of proto-U6 is an outright lie. There has been more debate (both then and now) on the origin of E and/or derived lineages than mtDNA R. Even your proto-U6 comment is garbage, since U IS proto-U6, the possibility of the prehistoric existence of closer proto-haplogroups notwithstanding.
The floor is your’s: provide the phylogenetic bases of a non-African origin of E. Saying that there are “debates” more here than there, is bunkum science and totally irrelevant.
Let’s see if you have an ounce of sense to judge what garbage is: Locate for me...
1)where I can find “U” as a standalone clade.
2)how you reckon your “U”, supposedly as “proto-U6“, is the direct ancestor of U6.
quote:Stop lying and replying to posts if you're not going to address what was said. Stating that I cited Brace 2001 is no substitute for actually addressing what I said. Your implicit lies won't go unnoticed. I clearly referenced Brace 2001 along with Brace 2005, both have yet to receive replies.
You seem to be suffering from dementia. You did in fact attempt to artificially undermine Brace 2005, by making some claptrap connection to the 2001 study. Own up to the silliness.
quote:Again, it would do you good to stop lying. That (your request for substantiation) is not at all what I characterized as pseudo-scientific. Its the way you formulate your queries and still continue to do so, using phrases like ''prove its impossible for others to have those traits'' and ''prove that only Europeans had them'', when that's not at all what cranio-metric analysis is capable of ruling out.
You had to have broached the matter of “broad shoulders” to make some as-yet-clear point about the supposedly untenability of African ancestry of Taforalt specimens. That you find pressing you for clarity on this issue to be “pseudo-science”, belies all logic.
quote:Another lie. Evidence of clear cut divergence from contemporary MSA, LSA and modern tropical Africans (mandible, teeth, bodyplan variables) was posted, in tandem with similarities with (Late) Upper Palaeolithic Europeans, at which point you performed your usual sleight of mouth by moving the goal post and suddenly making it an issue of interpretation re: ''prove that only Europeans can have the said traits''.
Lack of evidence showing a supposed “special case" scenario or peculiarity of “mandible” of EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi series, in effect rendering it impossible beyond doubt for these folks to be African, is what got you into trouble in the first place. You are seeing things that don’t exist.
quote:This is exactly what I mean with your pseudo-scientific tendencies. Only an uninformed retard on Lioness' level would expect others to prove that which cannot be conclusively proven with the discipline at hand. However, in the many types of analysis I've already summed up, Biological Anthropology (including [ancient] population genetics) up until this point has gotten as close as possible to prove ties with Eurasia.
You have a seriously impaired judgment; an idiot is one who cannot effortlessly clarify that which oneself broached in the first place. You would not have broached those osteological issues, if you were not trying to pass them off as your unequivocal proof of a non-African sourcing of EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi series. I have yet to see these [elusive] analyses, which “gotten as close as possible to prove ties with Eurasia”, that eludes prospects of African ancestry.
quote:If there is no evidence of L lineages in the Maghreb dating to 20 kya, then it is perhaps because of that “little known fact” that I keep referring to; that the proto-Tamazight ancestors of contemporary Maghreb population were not in that region then. --The Explorer Let the face saving begin.
More signs of dementia, possibly coupled with inadequate literacy. This was a caveat followup on none other than your very own inference of that which you are now trying hard to credit me with, which was not to say that it IS fact; rather, to put it another way, it’s saying that if we were to accept said inference that “no evidence of L dating to such” is found in the Maghreb, then said so and so reasons would readily make it apparent why so; see:
There is no evidence for L lineages in the Western Maghreb in the specified period 20-10kya. There is no need for me to argue about Cases et al's perception of what their raw data entails. Even if their dates for their L1b are correct, it still falls short of the Ibero-Maurusian period. Bottom line: zero stereotypical African lineages in Iberia during the Ibero-Maurusian. - by Swenet.
You can’t keep up with your own posts; how can you be relied on to keep pace with others’!
quote:I was talking about divorced from Africans, in terms of the continent they inhabited, where?
There are several reasons they cannot be “divorced” from Africans:
1)There is no evidence that they were ever outside of Africa to begin with.
2)There is nothing biologically anomalous about them that absolves the prospect of them being anything but African.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Takruri, interesting paper. However, the specific group it is referring to (with transition 16175) seems to be what Cerezo et al (2012) call L1b1a8 (see fig 2) --Swenet
Your eyes must be deteriorating faster than Steve Urkel's, for you to miss my reference to fig 2 in a short three sentence post.
Alright, I’ll grant you that you did reference figure 2 in a passing after all, but this is the same post I have cited you on countless times now, following your denials about equating Casas et al.’s L1b with Cerezo et al.’s. That counts as something that you imagine doing differently, wouldn’t you say?
quote:Try again. This time, try to actually include what is being asked of you, re: **latest interpretation of Casas et al**, rather than blatently posting what was clearly revised as my correspondence with alTakruri went on.
It’s well and dandy, that you are becoming more open about your desire in changing your original claim as exchanges drag on, not with al Takruri. That original post is what *I* contested in my first posts here, and which you sought to deny upon initiating your correspondence with me.
quote:What part about tracking down references, do you not understand? Is it, for example, new to you that authors reference their work in later articles? Do you think the Russian sample in Malyarchuk et al. (2008) isn't going to be referenced in a manner that allows one to rule out whether both Russian samples are the same? BTW, did I already mention that alTakruri and the rest of the world managed to do figure this out on their own by 15 December?
If this gobbledygook of a rant was worthy of any serious consideration, then I would not have said this, would I? From 19th Dec:
One: Cerezo et al. cite Malyarchuk et al 2008, while Casas et al. cited Malyarchuk’s research team from 2004! Two: While there’s certainly a possibility that Malyarchuk revisited their Russian sample from an earlier study, it should not be taken for granted that this need be the case, unless stated. Nor should it taken for granted either, that Casas et al.'s German haplotype was necessarily of the same L1b sub-clade as the Russian counterpart, or either two with respect to their 2 Iberian haplotypes, and possibly two other European haplotypes. The said 2 Iberian haplotypes may have been included in the overall 4 incidences of this obviously rare association within the L1b clade.
Man, you hear only that you want to hear, not what’s actually said, because it is emotionally appealing.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: No textual demonstration, just baseless opinionating to hide your glaring blunder. If your interpretation of the text is correct, and the ''precise African origin'' part doesn't refer to the origin of the Medieval muslims, point out to me where the 175 transition is mentioned in this excerpt, or prior to it:
The significant higher number of sub-Saharan African lineages (L1 and L2, Table 2) in MP, two of which are also found in NW Africa, points to the important role of Moslem migrations in the present gene distribution in Iberia. The unique sharing of L1b (126 127 189 223 264 278 311) with the Sahara points to this area as the most probable origin. Nevertheless, the high number of non- shared lineages impedes the determination of the precise African origin.
This recounting is a total mess, logically and factually; where do I begin? Let’s try reciting my original post, part of which was already posted above:
One: Cerezo et al. cite Malyarchuk et al 2008, while Casas et al. cited Malyarchuk’s research team from 2004! Two: While there’s certainly a possibility that Malyarchuk revisited their Russian sample from an earlier study, it should not be taken for granted that this need be the case, unless stated. Nor should it taken for granted either, that Casas et al.'s German haplotype was necessarily of the same L1b sub-clade as the Russian counterpart, or either two with respect to their 2 Iberian haplotypes, and possibly two other European haplotypes. The said 2 Iberian haplotypes may have been included in the overall 4 incidences of this obviously rare association within the L1b clade. The authors language may speak to this prospect...
If the clades were exact matches, this is not the language that would likely be used to describe the fact. “Closest” implies that of the haplotypes available, only those which shared the most nucleotide profile were considered, not necessarily entirely identical. On the other hand, the said determination of the “precise African origin”, suggests that the African origin is a given, but that the profiles of Iberian L1b markers didn’t exhibit a sufficiently consistent pattern among themselves or with respect to the African haplotypes; otherwise, it would have been very clear that they carried a modal haplotype that very likely came about after an introduction from Africa.
Nowhere in the above, is there mention of “origins of the Medieval Muslims”! Reference made to “precise African origin”, was made with regards to the source of Iberian L clades, particularly L1b clade in general, not as you assumed: a supposed exclusive inference for just 16175-bearing haplotypes.
It seems that for a moment, Casas et al. were exploring the possible role of slave trade with “sub-Saharan” Africa as the ultimate underlying vehicle for transmission of the “higher number of sub-Saharan African lineages (L1 and L2)” in MP (aka Medieval Priego), than perhaps those found in other Iberian samples of different era. L1 and L2 are generally treated as markers of “sub-Saharan African" ancestry by the authors, so it seems. Right after this, the “unique sharing of L1b with the Sahara” is broached.
It then follows that the implication here, is that the sharing of L1b strengthens the prospect of a sub-Saharan source, transmitted via the coastal-north Africa--or else read as “Sahara”, given consideration of other L lineages (sans “two of which were also found in NW”), but then at the same time, there was not sufficient degree of matching between the Iberian L1b examples and their African counterparts, be it the “Saharan” or “sub-Saharan” examples, to extrapolate the “precise African origin” of the MP clades. To repeat myself, this intimates that an African source is not contentious, but rather, the most likely source-locale. Had the collective Iberian MP L1b profile leaned heavily towards profiling for “Saharan” and/or “coastal-north African" , then the “precise African origin” would have been resolved; likewise, had the trend pointed to a heavy leaning towards “sub-Saharan” gene pool, then the “precise African origin question” would not be an issue.
Keep in mind, that the authors proceeded to inform readers about how rare nucleotide relationship with two other European haplotypes only further “clouded” the precise origin question. It therefore stands, that the Iberian clades “didn’t exhibit a sufficiently consistent pattern among themselves or with respect to the African haplotypes”, as I noted in my original post!
Warning: If you keep hurling gratuitous keyboard-oriented insults at me, then I will no longer indulge your time-wasting posts and regurgitative spams. I answered this time around, to make a point that I have no qualms whatsoever about confronting you purely on topical-issues, as opposed to child-like resorts to name-calling from a safe distance. I'm only concerned here at this time, with unraveling the substantive merits of ideas posited here. Were it a matter of indulging the usual ES trolling, that you seem very keen on dragging me into, I would not be wasting my time here, as my erratic postings these days underlie. It’s up to you: you can focus on issues, or choose the easy way out: trolling!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
We show that the Mozabite have inherited roughly 78% ancestry from a European-related population and 22% ancestry from a population related to sub-Saharan Africans. Our analysis also shows that the Mozabite admixture has occurred over a period that began at least [b]100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago)[
However in this STR based study(PDF link) Bosch et al say
"Mozabites are a well defined Berber population in Algeria: they speak Mzab (a distinct Berber language) an originiated form the Ibadite religious community who settled in this region in the 11th century (AD)
______________________________________________
Do these studies fit together or are they in contradiction? First off they don't fit historically. One says Mozabites are 11th century AD settlers. They other says they go back to 8th c BC. The 11th c Bosch article says they are a distint NA population diverting from bothe Europeans and other Africans but the Price calls them 78% European and also may have Middle Eastern affinities. So which article paints a clearer picture of the Mozabites? ________________________________
update
-Just read some more so I will answer my own question. Mozabites were originally European. They came to North Africa at least 2,800 years ago probably earlier. They mixed with native Africans to about 20% admix. Due to founder effect and/or drift they became isolated in STR analysis although HAPMIX SNP based analysis detects their Euroepean origin. Over the centuries due to isolation they have become unique genetically. In the 11th c AD they were converted to Ibadi Islam but were not replaced by a small number of MId East migrants who converted them
My preliminary take is the following:
I see some degree of consistency in the Bosch et al. observation that the coastal-north Maghrebi samples assume more or less intermediary positions between the lone/pooled "African-American" sample and the European samples, including the lone/pooled "European American" sample, using select STR profiles. This seems to more or less mirror observations made elsewhere, which I've commented on both here and on the blog.
Having skimmed through the Price et al. report in the link, I have not been able to identify any specifics on loci, other than the hint provided with regards to usage of "haploid" genome segments. They too rely on pooled "African American" samples pitted against several European counterparts, for studying the targeted "admixed" groups, like the Mozabite.
Despite their report of a heavier "European-related" component vs. a "sub-Saharan African-related" component, their result is consistent, in general terms, with often-reported composite African and European affinities within genomic sections of select coastal Maghrebi samples.
Using "African-Americans" as proxy "sub-Saharan Africans" is not a very objective undertaking, I'll add. African-Americans may have high affinities with "sub-Saharan Africans," but they also have visible profile differences, due to respective geographically proximate groups. Both studies fail to make use of a comprehensive comparison with geographically-proximate continental African samples from south of the coastal-north Africans. On the other hand, both studies do a better job of comparing these coastal-north Africans with a more comprehensive study of geographical proximate European samples.
I have not come across any major study on Y-DNA of coastal-north Maghrebi samples to date, which point to a primarily European ancestral-source. To this end, Price et al.'s conclusion sounds suspect, about Mozabites being presentatives of some settler-European community that eventually mixed with Africans.
As for the dating issues, it is not surprising to see these contradictory observations, given that, while Mozabite gene flow from European-sources could have extended beyond the common era, a good size of it, is very likely the result of more recent historic slavery, predominantly favoring European females. Furthermore, a collective assessment of some European-specific alleles, may leave an impression of earlier transmission than what the actual case may be.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
It seems that for a moment, Casas et al. were exploring the possible role of slave trade with “sub-Saharan” Africa as the ultimate underlying vehicle for transmission of the “higher number of sub-Saharan African lineages (L1 and L2)” in MP (aka Medieval Priego)...
...or heavy use of "sub-Saharan"-derived troops in the so-called "Moslem migrations", I should have added.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: My position when I first got here was that Iberomaurusians were Eurasian immigrants. I then started opening up to the indigenous African argument but I couldn't really get the data behind me to back it up, so I mostly kept my silence on my views of their ethnic affinity.
The real cue that my original position (when I came to this forum) was right, was when Henn et al 2012 came out, which states, among other things, that the North African genetic component comprises a recent departure (older than 10 kya) from Middle Eastern ancestry. I first disagreed with this, which some of the data allows (present day Middle Easterners could also be descendent from [folks like] them), but after a recent study came out saying that this indigenous component has Neanderthal in it (sometimes even more than Eurasian ancestry has Neanderthal in it), that made me see it as a confirmation of Henn et al 2012's interpretation that this ancestry really was brought into Africa from the outside.
The argument for their African origin is Iberomaurusians is this:
--They're more platyrrhine (broad nosed) than prehistoric Europeans
--They had limb proportions in the range of Africans
--Their 'Mechtoid' features extend well into the Sahara and Sub-Sahara Africa (e.g., Asselar man, Hassi el albiod, Izriten 1)
--Their tradition of removing their incisors is still practiced by modern Sub Saharan groups
--They were prognathous and had facial disharmony (long neurocrania and short faces)
The argument AGAINST their African origin is that the above examples are applicable to prehistoric Europeans as well, and the data sometimes even fits them better:
--Prehistoric Europeans had notable examples of platyrrhiny as well, and as a whole they border Iberomaurusians, being on the slightly narrower side (mesorrhine)
--Prehistoric Europeans had tropical limbs as well. It has been said that by the time of the Iberomaurusians (20.000-10.000) Europeans were underway to cold adaptation, and Iberomaurusian tropical limbs couldn't have come from Europe. This is false however. Europeans had tropical limbs well into the Mesolithic and often even in the Neolithic, which post dates Iberomaurusians for the most part.
--The mechtoid features of populations in the Southern parts of the Sahara cluster with Africans in the facial areas that are less plastic, while Iberomaurusians show little affinity with Africans in this type of analysis (mandible measurements). Pinhasi, and Vermeersch for example, shows that Asselar man and hassi el abiod cluster with Mesolithic Egypto-Nubians and with Bantu speakers, while Iberomaurusians definitely don't:
In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.
--Incisor removal occurs also in the Levant, while its absent in contemporary Egypto-Nubia.
--The facial disharmoney of Iberomaurusians is identical to prehistoric Europeans. There is affinity in the Sub-Saharan African direction, but the latter don't have as extreme short faces as seen in the Iberomaurusian and European prehistoric.
--I could go on for a while but I would say that the most important one is that the Iberomaurusians had big bodies, large body mass and were non-linear (stocky builds), which is unlike Africans and correlated with cold climates. Granted, they lived in a sub-tropical climates, and so such features aren't entirely out of place, but so did many Africans who never evolved this physique. Their stocky builds are totally unlike their Nilotic neighbors to the east who, at worst, had intermediate bodies (in between linear Africans and stocky Europeans), and at best, were well within the African range.
The earliest "Cro-magnon" types and all most paleolithic north africans as well as holocene peoples in the Near East were likely affiliated people. If iberomaurusians did indeed come back into Africa that wouldn't necesarily link them directly to modern Europeans. That is why the mesolithic and neolithic peoples of Europe and the Mediterranean show closer affinity with modern Horners than with modern Basques, although Horners have a more skeletally gracile form. Paleaolithic peoples in general were not linear built but people of robust form, including early Natufians and Nubians.
A while ago Wendorf wrote about the early Qadan assemblages at Wadi Kubbaniyya and Jebel Sahaba in Nubia as follows. "All of the skeletons were modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens but were very robust, with short wide faces and alveolar prognathism."
Irsih has the following as an abstract - The Iberomaurusian enigma: North African progenitor or dead end? J D JD Irish J Hum Evol 39(4):18 (2000), PMID 11006048
"Data obtained during an ongoing dental investigation of African populations address two long-standing, hotly debated questions. First, was there genetic continuity between Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and later northwest Africans (e.g., Capsians, Berbers, Guanche)? Second, were skeletally-robust Iberomaurusians and northeast African Nubians variants of the same population? Iberomaurusians from Taforalt in Morocco and Afalou-Bou-Rhummel in Algeria, Nubians from Jebel Sahaba in Sudan, post-Pleistocene Capsians from Algeria and Tunisia, and a series of other samples were statistically compared using 29 discrete dental traits to help estimate diachronic local and regional affinities. Results revealed: (1) a relationship between the Iberomaurusians, particularly those from Taforalt, and later Maghreb and other North African samples, and (2) a divergence among contemporaneous Iberomaurusians and Nubian samples. Thus, some measure of long-term population continuity in the Maghreb and surrounding region is supported, whereas greater North African population heterogenity during the Late Pleistocene is implied."
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Numidian differs from the European in all the stereotypical hair and facial features. The hair is thicker and "wilder."
same sculpture as above:
His nose and lips look partially African but your analysis of the hair is ridiulous and assumes all Europeans have neat straight hair. Arguing that a small minority of Africans might hair hair like Juba II here is one thing but to suggest that his hair here looks more African than European is pure silliness. Further, when people like the person below get very short hair cuts their hair appears a lot straighter because they have large curls and large curls need a certain amount of length to begin to form into recognizable curls.
If you looks at depictions of the Numidian kings on coins and so on (-ones in good condition not all worn down) you can easily tell they are not pure Africans, they have quite a bit of Greco-Roman admixture
^^^this guy's hair is closer to Beja than is that bronze of Juba II
I told you snaky one Roman portrait statues are not the way to display ancient Moors, Tuareg Masmuda and other Berbers, regardless of what Wikipedia tells you.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: No textual demonstration, just baseless opinionating to hide your glaring blunder. If your interpretation of the text is correct, and the ''precise African origin'' part doesn't refer to the origin of the Medieval muslims, point out to me where the 175 transition is mentioned in this excerpt, or prior to it:
The significant higher number of sub-Saharan African lineages (L1 and L2, Table 2) in MP, two of which are also found in NW Africa, points to the important role of Moslem migrations in the present gene distribution in Iberia. The unique sharing of L1b (126 127 189 223 264 278 311) with the Sahara points to this area as the most probable origin. Nevertheless, the high number of non- shared lineages impedes the determination of the precise African origin.
This recounting is a total mess, logically and factually; where do I begin? Let’s try reciting my original post, part of which was already posted above:
One: Cerezo et al. cite Malyarchuk et al 2008, while Casas et al. cited Malyarchuk’s research team from 2004! Two: While there’s certainly a possibility that Malyarchuk revisited their Russian sample from an earlier study, it should not be taken for granted that this need be the case, unless stated. Nor should it taken for granted either, that Casas et al.'s German haplotype was necessarily of the same L1b sub-clade as the Russian counterpart, or either two with respect to their 2 Iberian haplotypes, and possibly two other European haplotypes. The said 2 Iberian haplotypes may have been included in the overall 4 incidences of this obviously rare association within the L1b clade. The authors language may speak to this prospect...
If the clades were exact matches, this is not the language that would likely be used to describe the fact. “Closest” implies that of the haplotypes available, only those which shared the most nucleotide profile were considered, not necessarily entirely identical. On the other hand, the said determination of the “precise African origin”, suggests that the African origin is a given, but that the profiles of Iberian L1b markers didn’t exhibit a sufficiently consistent pattern among themselves or with respect to the African haplotypes; otherwise, it would have been very clear that they carried a modal haplotype that very likely came about after an introduction from Africa.
Nowhere in the above, is there mention of “origins of the Medieval Muslims”! Reference made to “precise African origin”, was made with regards to the source of Iberian L clades, particularly L1b clade in general, not as you assumed: a supposed exclusive inference for just 16175-bearing haplotypes.
It seems that for a moment, Casas et al. were exploring the possible role of slave trade with “sub-Saharan” Africa as the ultimate underlying vehicle for transmission of the “higher number of sub-Saharan African lineages (L1 and L2)” in MP (aka Medieval Priego), than perhaps those found in other Iberian samples of different era. L1 and L2 are generally treated as markers of “sub-Saharan African" ancestry by the authors, so it seems. Right after this, the “unique sharing of L1b with the Sahara” is broached.
It then follows that the implication here, is that the sharing of L1b strengthens the prospect of a sub-Saharan source, transmitted via the coastal-north Africa--or else read as “Sahara”, given consideration of other L lineages (sans “two of which were also found in NW”), but then at the same time, there was not sufficient degree of matching between the Iberian L1b examples and their African counterparts, be it the “Saharan” or “sub-Saharan” examples, to extrapolate the “precise African origin” of the MP clades. To repeat myself, this intimates that an African source is not contentious, but rather, the most likely source-locale. Had the collective Iberian MP L1b profile leaned heavily towards profiling for “Saharan” and/or “coastal-north African" , then the “precise African origin” would have been resolved; likewise, had the trend pointed to a heavy leaning towards “sub-Saharan” gene pool, then the “precise African origin question” would not be an issue.
Keep in mind, that the authors proceeded to inform readers about how rare nucleotide relationship with two other European haplotypes only further “clouded” the precise origin question. It therefore stands, that the Iberian clades “didn’t exhibit a sufficiently consistent pattern among themselves or with respect to the African haplotypes”, as I noted in my original post!
Warning: If you keep hurling gratuitous keyboard-oriented insults at me, then I will no longer indulge your time-wasting posts and regurgitative spams. I answered this time around, to make a point that I have no qualms whatsoever about confronting you purely on topical-issues, as opposed to child-like resorts to name-calling from a safe distance. I'm only concerned here at this time, with unraveling the substantive merits of ideas posited here. Were it a matter of indulging the usual ES trolling, that you seem very keen on dragging me into, I would not be wasting my time here, as my erratic postings these days underlie. It’s up to you: you can focus on issues, or choose the easy way out: trolling!
Explorer - you sound somewhat like someone I used to communicate with about holocene north Africa. If you are not Shomarka himself, or Kittles, I think you would be better off discussing or debating these matters with him or people in your own academic league as it's going to be a long time in coming before you get people to stop casting insults on this forum when they feel threatened or think they're losing an argument.lol!
At least that's what I've found. That's just the way it goes.
But thanks for being here anyway. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
We show that the Mozabite have inherited roughly 78% ancestry from a European-related population and 22% ancestry from a population related to sub-Saharan Africans. Our analysis also shows that the Mozabite admixture has occurred over a period that began at least [b]100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago)[
However in this STR based study(PDF link) Bosch et al say
"Mozabites are a well defined Berber population in Algeria: they speak Mzab (a distinct Berber language) an originiated form the Ibadite religious community who settled in this region in the 11th century (AD)
______________________________________________
Do these studies fit together or are they in contradiction? First off they don't fit historically. One says Mozabites are 11th century AD settlers. They other says they go back to 8th c BC. The 11th c Bosch article says they are a distint NA population diverting from bothe Europeans and other Africans but the Price calls them 78% European and also may have Middle Eastern affinities. So which article paints a clearer picture of the Mozabites? ________________________________
update
-Just read some more so I will answer my own question. Mozabites were originally European. They came to North Africa at least 2,800 years ago probably earlier. They mixed with native Africans to about 20% admix. Due to founder effect and/or drift they became isolated in STR analysis although HAPMIX SNP based analysis detects their Euroepean origin. Over the centuries due to isolation they have become unique genetically. In the 11th c AD they were converted to Ibadi Islam but were not replaced by a small number of MId East migrants who converted them
Mozabites as most people who've bothered study Maghreb history already know are descendants of Iranic Eurasian peoples mixed with Berbers i.e. the Africans. For that reason many fairer skin Mozabites claim descent from Persians. They are a mixture of Persians who've absorbed Berber blood so most likely that Eurasian genetic import is about a mere 1,250 years ago when Eurasians are KNOWN to have settled the region. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since no rebuttals have been posted nor any indications of an intention to do so, and discussions with Explorer have only amounted to him getting free spoon-fed education of studies he was unaware of until others helped familiarize him, not to mention, his never ending lies, distractions and clumsy reading of my posts, I'll just make a list of my points and challenge more intelligent and capable readers to step up and do what Explorer fell short of doing ever since he showed up on 17 December, without even making a single contribution to the new data that was shared in this thread, or bringing the Cerezo, Malyarchuk and Casas related discussions past what was already figured out by alTakruri, me and others before 15 December:
--European L1b1a characterized by the 16175 transition does not bespeak diverge times from African L1b1a longer than ~10kya. Casas et al do not reveal the rationalizations for their estimation of how how long this clade has been in Europe, and most of their range falls short of most of the currently known expansion ages of this clade. None of the calculated expansion dates of L1b1a date to the the earliest Ibero- Maurusian (related) technologies.
--L lineages in South/Central Asia have not been shown to be distinct from post Middle/Early Upper Palaeolithic OOA episodes (e.g., Ancient Greeks, Arabs, Zanj, African Silk Road merchants, or even Makrani could all have donated the said lineages).
--No Middle Palaeolithic/Upper Palaeolithic L lineages among modern Eurasians or fossil Eurasian aDNA.
--The >10kya Maghrebi component isolated (albeit somewhat imperfectly) by Henn et al 2012, was clearly inherited by pre-Berber North African populations, and it has just as much, and sometimes even more, Neanderthal ancestry in it than other Eurasians, indicating that the pre-Berbers populations in the Maghreb, who mingled with Berbers, had spent time outside of Africa at some point.
--Excluding admixture events, uniparentals found in Eurasians (Eurasian specific NRY CT and mtDNA M and N) are generally not found in Tropical Africans, and uniparentals found in tropical Africans (NRY Pre-CT, African specific CT and mtDNA L lineages) are generally not found in Eurasians, indicating divergence times that go back to before OOA, and that Eurasians are not a subset of Tropical Africans of today, but rather, a subset of an intermediate (i.e., mtDNA M and N carrying population), now extinct, population in peripheral Africa.
--The cranio-metric gap in between Ibero-Maurusians and Berbers is noted in all Palaeolithic to modern skeletal series that are thought to not just share the same region across time, but to have ancestor-descendant relationships (e.g., Palaeo-americans and modern Amerindians). Neither Groves nor Brace 2005 are supportive of any anomaly or peculiarity in the Ibero-Maurusian-Berber sequence that's not seen elsewhere.
--Higher U6 diversities in Iberia that are consistent with the scenario of many migrations into Iberia, some of which are good candidates for Ibero-Maurusian era immigration. Despite this being the case, no Late Upper Palaeolithic L lineages among the said U6 carrying Iberian populations have been uncovered, that fit the Ibero-Maurusian time frame and associated lineages (M1 and U6), expansion wise.
--Plenty of North African signals in Berber speakers that were inherited from preceding North African populations (U6, U5, V, H3 and H1), but none of them are L lineages. All L lineages uncovered in Berbers seem to have arrived either from the greater Nile Valley region and surrounding plateaus or West Africa.
--Despite partial Ibero-Maurusian descendancy, no Berber Y chromosomes of African origin have been found, that can be correlated and attributed to the Ibero-Maurusians. This is further substantiation of the case that these folks were predominantly Eurasian.
--There is a clear metric discontinuity between contemporary LSA, MSA, modern Africans and Ibero-Maurusians in various forms of metric analysis, while European AMHs have general and specific cranio-metric links with Ibero-Maurusians.
--There are Terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene introductions of Iberian lineages (e.g., U5, V, H3 and H1) to Northern Africa, that are consistent with finds in Taforalt aDNA. These Iberian maternal introductions to the Berber gene-pool are among the ancestries that helped register large portions of the Berber genepool autosomally as subsets of Eurasian ancestry, which parted ways with a yet to be defined Eurasian source(s) >10kya, per Henn et al 2012.
--Attempts to call U6 autochtonous and African because Eurasians don't have their own, independent, U6, are in the same boat as pathetic Euronut attempts to marginalize their African ancestry, because their autochtonous version of E-M78 (E-V13) is not indigenous to Africa. That E-V13 is not a ''standalone haplogroup'' is of no consequence to this noted pattern (among both Euro and Afronuts) of plain fanatic wide-eyed denialism.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, here’s the deal: One on one “discussion,” if one can even call it that, with this, obviously a drama queen character--swenet, had over-extended its useful course a good while back; so belatedly, I’ve decided to remove myself from it. The aforementioned character is simply too crippled by emotionalism, and judgment-impaired by intellectual imbalance, to be viable for a serious conversation. Just figured that I’d shoulder on for a little bit longer than warranted, if only to give the correspondence a chance--however slim the prospects were looking to be--to turn around for a bit more issues-oriented course, as opposed to flame-war baiting, but all I got back was mere repetitive rants littered with gratuitous tantrums of unsophisticated keyboard-insults. However, I will continue to keep the spotlight on certain unresolved matters, as provided below. Anyone who’s capable of replying as a human being, and old enough to handle an adult conversation, may feel free to give it a go:
Pointing out the location of this “U” clade which we had just been informed about, that is supposed to be serving as the until-now elusive “proto-U6“ clade.
Pointing out the nucleotide and molecular specifics that supposedly render this “U” clade "proto-U6".
Laying out a detailed phylogenetic basis of a non-African origin of the E clade.
Pointing out the supposed physiological attributes of the EpiPaleolithic Maghrebi series, which make an autochthonous or an African origin virtually improbable.
This will do for now.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
I have not come across any major study on Y-DNA of coastal-north Maghrebi samples to date, which point to a primarily European ancestral-source. To this end, Price et al.'s conclusion sounds suspect, about Mozabites being presentatives of some settler-European community that eventually mixed with Africans.
As for the dating issues, it is not surprising to see these contradictory observations, given that, while Mozabite gene flow from European-sources could have extended beyond the common era, a good size of it, is very likely the result of more recent historic slavery, predominantly favoring European females. Furthermore, a collective assessment of some European-specific alleles, may leave an impression of earlier transmission than what the actual case may be. [/QB]
Is Price's 78% European related ancestry for Mozabites true but it's just dating that is in question?
On what basis do you argue against:
"occurred over a period that began at least [b]100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago)" ?
As per slavery of Europeans I look at the historical possbilites as to how much input that could have had in my thread called:
European Slaves of The Mahgreb: did it alter the population?
One item there:
And there's the Turkish population in Algeria:
The foundation of Ottoman Algeria was directly linked to the establishment of the Ottoman province (beylerbeylik) of the Maghreb at the beginning of the 16th century. At the time, fearing that their city would fall into Spanish hands, the inhabitants of Algiers called upon Ottoman corsairs for help.
The exceptionally high number of colonizers greatly affected the character of the city of Algiers, and that of the province at large. In 1587, the province was divided into three different provinces, which were established where the modern states of Algeria, Libya and Tunisia, were to emerge.
Before the Turks the was a Spanish period and Arab period. It's not like the place was completely indigenous African before there were European slaves. It doesn't seem reasonable that the basis of the light skinned beber is primarily the enslavement of Europeans, primarily by the Turks.
Prior to these periods we find Masinissa (c. 240 or 238 BC - c. 148 BC) King of Numidia, an ancient North African nation of ancient Berber tribes. As a successful general, Masinissa fought in the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), first against the Romans as an ally of Carthage and later switching sides when he saw which way the conflict was going. Massinissa is largely viewed as a giant icon and an important forefather among modern Algerian Berbers.Masinissa was the son of the chieftain Gala of a Numidian tribal group, the Massylii. He was brought up in Carthage, an ally of his father. At the start of the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), Masinissa fought for Carthage against Syphax, the King of the Masaesyli of western Numidia (present day Algeria), who had allied himself with the Romans. Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Is Price's 78% European related ancestry for Mozabites true but it's just dating that is in question?
That would depend on the locus examined; for instance, it should raise eyebrows, were it based off Y-DNA. It's a good thing that you included the word "related", as there is a very good possibility that many of such DNA are actually relics of an east African origin that became dominant in OOA populations. There is indication of this phenomenon in other studies, whereby similarities in "genetic-appearance" between east African groups and non-African counterparts have surfaced in "genome-wide" surveys of populations. Like Price et al.'s study, other authors have a tendency to draw conclusions from only having compared coastal north African elements against either an extremely geographically constricted collection from western Africa, south of the coastal north areas, or else against a collection which is often implicated with predominant "sub-Saharan" west-African ancestry, like say, from among an AA community. Such research habits are prone to miscalculations, given that fundamental origin of "Afro-Asiatic"-speaking populations of the coastal north lies primarily in east Africa.
quote: On what basis do you argue against:
"occurred over a period that began at least [b]100 generations ago (~2,800 years ago)" ?
I'm not sure I've argued against this, however tentative the estimation may be.
quote: As per slavery of Europeans I look at the historical possbilites as to how much input that could have had in my thread called:
European Slaves of The Mahgreb: did it alter the population?
It's hard to imagine it not having an impact, since after all, female slaves tend be sought after for gratification purposes, and obviously, to stoke male self-sense of power. Slavery has had a long presence in coastal north Africa; pirate activity in the common era is only the most recently documented. The asymmetrical pattern of ancestry seen in samples from the Maghreb seems to be a telltale sign of this legacy.
quote:
It doesn't seem reasonable that the basis of the light skinned beber is primarily the enslavement of Europeans...
Well, that prospect should not come as a revelation. I've noted before, that "light-skin" in coastal north Africa before the common era need not be attributed to Europeans; it could just as well have come from interaction with groups from the so-called near East, like say, the Phoenicians for example. There is after all, clear presence of shared male ancestry found between Maghrebi populations and those from the so-called Near East.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Twit, how many times must your dumbass be debunked over Juba II. I and others have shown you various pictures of modern day (black) Berbers who resemble Juba II both in features as well as hair!
quote:His nose and lips look partially African but your analysis of the hair is ridiculous and assumes all Europeans have neat straight hair.
LMAO Can you make out the hypocrisy and double standard in this one sentence of yours?? You say he only looks "partially African" as if his features are not to be found in full Africans, then you go and say it is ridiculous to say that all Europeans have straight hair when YOU yourself have claimed countless times that Africans who don't have the stereotypical 'kinky' hair must be mixed.
quote:Arguing that a small minority of Africans might have hair like Juba II here is one thing but to suggest that his hair here looks more African than European is pure silliness. Further, when people like the person below get very short hair cuts their hair appears a lot straighter because they have large curls and large curls need a certain amount of length to begin to form into recognizable curls.
Who said anything about a "small minority" of Africans?? It's been told to your dumbass that thare is actually a quite sizable population of Africans, specifically those who live in the Sahara who have such wavy hair!
quote:If you looks at depictions of the Numidian kings on coins and so on (-ones in good condition not all worn down) you can easily tell they are not pure Africans, they have quite a bit of Greco-Roman admixture.
And AGAIN, you restate your supposition that they are not 'pure Africans' but mixed! And what is the factual basis of your claims other than your narrow minded opinions of what pure Africans look like??! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Capsian Type B of Briggs are Caucasoid (specifically types B3 and 4, the latter being Atlanto-Med), who entered North Africa during the early Holocene.
"The morphology of the North African proto-Mediterranean element is quite easily distinguished from that of the Mechta-Afalou." (Chamla, 1980)
The Mechta Type is absolutely nothing in metrics or non-metric like Type B.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yet Capsian type B has been described by many authors including perhaps Coon as "partially negroid" in features. Oh and where is the evidence that the Capsian entered Africa from outside?? LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I and others have shown you various pictures of modern day (black) Berbers who resemble Juba II both in features as well as hair!
Cymotrichous hair isn't an in situ trait of that latitude - it was taken there historically by Caucasoids. This has been proven by modern research on hair follicles; wavy-straight hair is now known to be an adaptation to northern latitude where there is a lack of UV light radiation, meaning lesser sunlight (straighter hair facilitates the light into the scalp).
Can you explain why wavy-straight hair would evolve in an environment that is hot or recieves large amounts of sunlight? The hair texture adapted to heat/light is wooly, not straight. There are countless studies since the 1950's that have shown this.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
Twit, how many times must your dumbass be debunked over Juba II. I and others have shown you various pictures of modern day (black) Berbers who resemble Juba II both in features as well as hair!
What I said has never been debunked.
^^^this is the type of hair is not found in pure Africans. You cannot find one photo of a group of adult African males with this hair. To say that this is African hair is ridiculous. And there is no reason to assume Juba II 52/50 BC – AD 23) did not have out of Africa ancestry considering Greeks and Phoenicians had colonies back to around 500 BC, Carthage at it's height had half a million people. So stop being a fool and trying too hard. You say Numidians wer pure Africans. I would like to know the reasoning behind that beyond "dana told me so"
The list of Roman province Numidians with Phoenician-Afro derived names
Last king of Numidia, Juba II same bronze as above, different angle, Corbis images source Africans do NOT have this type of big curl straight strand hair, get real.
The best you can do is find two individuals of unknown background who have combed out stiff hair, enough nonsense Africans do not have every hair type in the world even though that's a nice idea politically. Did you evern hear an anthropologist reporting an African tribe had straight wavy hiar like Europeans, Austrailians or staright hair like the Chinese? Name the tribe. Oh I see anybody who says Africans can't have hair like Farrah Fawcett are racists. There is one photo I've seen posted before of an odd looking dark skinned person with wavy curly hair of unknown ancestry. That proves little. It's called anecdotal evidence. If such people existed a tribe of then would be identified. Enough racial purity antics. You do not know how to prove a case anthropologically.
Does anybody looks at a wider variety of Numidians in art? Massinissa, at least here you can say he has rather African looking hair. But look at these kings they don;t look African despite the hair Juba I
Syphax Jugurtha
Vermina
Th Numidians were mixed deal with it, historical demographics, Henn and the art support that
Kings of Eastern Numidia
Name Lifespan Reign start Reign end Notes Family Image Zelalsen 344 BC 274 BC Gala 275 BC 207 BC Ozalces 207 BC 206 BC Capussa 206 BC 206 BC Lacumazes 206 BC 206 BC Massinissa 206 BC ? 202 BC
Kings of Western Numidia
Syphax ante 215 BC 202 BC Vermina 202 BC ? Archobarzane ? ?
Kings of Numidia
Massinissa 202 BC 148 BC Formerly king of Eastern Numidia Micipsa 148 BC 118 BC son of Massinissa Gulussa 148 BC 145 BC son of Massinissa Mastanabal ? ? son of Massinissa Adherbal 118 BC 117 BC son of Micipsa Hiempsal I ? ? son of Micipsa Jugurtha ? ? son of Mastanabal Adherbal 117 BC 112 BC Jugurtha 117 BC 105 BC Gauda 105 BC 88 BC Hiempsal II 88 BC 60 BC Juba I 60 BC 46 BC
The Moors are sometimes described as deriving from the Numidians, That's specualtion the Almoravids are 1000 yrs + after the Numidians
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yet Capsian type B has been described by many authors including perhaps Coon as "partially negroid" in features. Oh and where is the evidence that the Capsian entered Africa from outside?? LOL
Erm no. If they show Negroid traits, they are Proto-Negroid. Not Negroid Hss. This is why they are often (wrongly) identified as Australoid, or rather a more convenient label is pseudo-Australoid.
Negroids hadn't even evolved a few thousands years ago (and their current status is even debatable). The Negroid looking skulls throughout the early to even mid-holocene, still have large supraorbital ridges and other archaic traits absent in the modern Negroid morphology.
Regarding Caucasoids however, you can still find Upper Palaeolithic skulls and match them to a modern Caucasoid. Caucasoid Hss predate Negroids by thousands of years.
Negroids hadn't even evolved 6000 years ago.
Asselar Man is the oldest Negro in modern form, Hss, or AMH, at only 6500 B.P. (Camp, 1974).
Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, "true" Black Africans (e.g. in their modern form) were still absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966).
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, "true" Black Africans (e.g. in their modern form) were still absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). [/QB]
Pygmies and Nilotics who existed in Africa for there were any humans outside Africa are not "blacks" ?
If you call bantu "true blacks" the word "true" is arbitray and meaningless.
Blacks existed far before Caucasians. Iranians existed before Nordics. If you call Nordics "true whites" it is arbitray and meaningless.
The fact is that bantu are more similar in phenotype to pygmies and Nilotics than they are to people who later left Africa
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Negroids hadn't even evolved a few thousands years ago (and their current status is even debatable). The Negroid looking skulls throughout the early to even mid-holocene, still have large supraorbital ridges and other archaic traits absent in the modern Negroid morphology.
And skulls from all over Western Eurasia still had rates of dolichocephaly, occipital buns, rectangular eye sockets, upper facial facial shortness, that are absent in modern Europeans. Your point?
posted
Show me one scrap of evidence that this type of Hair evolved outside of Africa..
The Original Arabs/Caucasians..
quote: Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins. T W Holliday
Body proportions covary with climate, apparently as the result of climatic selection. Ontogenic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically controlled and are under low selective rates; thus studies of body form can provide evidence for evolutionarily short-term dispersals and/or gene flow. Following these observations, competing models of modern human origins yield different predictions concerning body proportion shifts in Late Pleistocene Europe. Replacement predicts that the earliest modern Europeans will possess "tropical" body proportions (assuming Africa is the center of origin), while Regional Continuity permits only minor shifts in body shape, due to climatic change and/or improved cultural buffering. This study tests these predictions via analyses of osteometric data reflective of trunk height and breadth, limb proportions and relative body mass for samples of Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP), Late Upper Paleolithic (LUP) and Mesolithic (MES) humans and 13 recent African and European populations. Results reveal a clear tendency for the EUP sample to cluster with recent Africans, while LUP and MES samples cluster with recent Europeans. These results refute the hypothesis of local continuity in Europe, and are consistent with an interpretation of elevated gene flow (and population dispersal?) from Africa, followed by subsequent climatic adaptation to colder conditions. These data do not, however, preclude the possibility of some (albeit small) contribution of genes from Neandertals to succeeding populations, as is postulated in Bräuer's "Afro-European Sapiens" model.
quote:Brachial and crural indices of European late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans.
T W Holliday
Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature, such that high indices are found in tropical groups. However, despite inhabiting glacial Europe, the Upper Paleolithic Europeans possessed high indices, prompting Trinkaus (1981) to argue for gene flow from warmer regions associated with modern human emergence in Europe. In contrast, Frayer et al.(1993) point out that Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans should not exhibit tropically-adapted limb proportions, since, even assuming replacement, their ancestors had experienced cold stress in glacial Europe for at least 12 millennia. This study investigates three questions tied to the brachial and crural indices among Late Pleistocene and recent humans. First, which limb segments (either proximal or distal) are primarily responsible for variation in brachial and crural indices? Second, are these indices reflective of overall limb elongation? And finally, do the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans retain relatively and/or absolutely long limbs? Results indicate that in the lower limb, the distal limb segment contributes most of the variability to intralimb proportions, while in the upper limb the proximal and distal limb segments appear to be equally variable. Additionally, brachial and crural indices do not appear to be a good measure of overall limb length, and thus, while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of "tropical" indices in the context of more "cold-adapted" limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe.
more Proof...
Incredible Human Journey, Episode 1, Arabia Sequence (Eden) High atop a dusty plateau on the Arabian Peninsula, archaeologist Jeffrey Rose picked up a rock, saw something surprising, and started asking questions that could change history. His unusual discoveries in southern Oman help shape new theories about when early humans may have exited Africa, who those pioneers were, and what route they took on the first stage of their journey to every corner of the Earth.
In the late 1990s geneticists identified mitochondrial DNA signatures suggesting that the first humans to leave Africa may have traveled through Ethiopia to Yemen and Oman. Scientists theorized they were beachcombers who followed the coastline. Rose arrived in the area, eager to test the theory that Arabia was the gateway out of Africa by searching for archaeological evidence. "We surveyed for years," he recalls. "Stone Age artifacts littered the landscape; virtually any place I stopped the car, I found a Paleolithic site. But none of it showed a connection to Africa; and along the coast we found no evidence of humans at all."
He and his international team of scientists returned to Oman in 2010, and on the final day of their surveying season, at the last site on their list, "we hit the jackpot." The find was a very specific stone tool technology used by the "Nubian Complex," nomadic hunters from Africa's Nile Valley. Nubian technology is a unique method of making spear points that was previously only known from North Africa. Rose's team ultimately discovered over a hundred workshop sites where these artifacts were manufactured en masse. "It was scientific euphoria," he describes.
The Nubian origin and inland location of the discovery were equally unexpected. "We had never considered the link to Africa would come from the Nile Valley, and that their route would be through the middle of the Arabian Peninsula rather than along the coast," Rose notes. "But that's what the scientific process is all about. If you haven't proven yourself wrong, you haven't made any progress. In hindsight, the Nubian connection makes perfect sense. The Nile Valley and Oman's Dhofar region are both limestone plateaus, heavily affected by perennial rivers. It's logical that people moved from an environment they knew to another one that mirrored it. At the time when I'm suggesting they expanded out of Africa, southern Arabia was fertile grassland. The Indian Ocean monsoon system activated rivers, and as sand dunes trapped water, it became a land of a thousand lakes. It was a paradise for early humans, whose livelihood depended upon hunting on the open savanna."
Accurately dating Rose's Nubian discovery was made possible by optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) technology, which can determine the last time a single buried grain of sand was exposed to light by measuring the amount of energy trapped inside of it. The technique revealed the tools to be 106,000 years old, exactly the same time the Nubian Complex flourished in Africa. This also means Rose's theory places the first exit from Africa much earlier than previously believed. "Geneticists have shown that the modern human family tree began to branch out 60,000 years ago. I'm not questioning when it happened, but where. I suggest the great modern human expansion to the rest of the world was launched from Arabia rather than Africa."
Rose's passion for the past extends beyond fieldwork to how science can be shared with the public. "A few years ago, I was going through an incredibly dramatic wadi (valley) in Oman, hours off the beaten track, and I thought, wouldn't it be great if we could share this place with other people, I bet they'd love to see this." He began shooting short videos every few days and chronicling his work via Twitter updates and website posts. "You can't put into words how unique the landscape here is. Arabia feels like this romantic lost world filled with mysterious ruins; it's a living museum of artifacts. Everyone on Earth had ancestors who passed through this place; why wouldn't you want to show it to people?"
"I'm like a kid in a candy store, there's so much to learn; and now we have so many ways to disseminate information—the Internet, blogs, myriad TV channels, documentaries—it's all making science more interesting, digestible, and relevant to the public," he says. "There's no reason for archaeology and history to be stuffy. How could you not want to know how you got here? It's been said that there's more diversity within a group of 55 chimpanzees than in the entire human population. I think if we help people conceptualize how tiny the genetic distance is between them, it might even help bridge some of the tensions in our world today."
Trying to explain what keeps him based in a desert truck stop, digging through sand, and lugging 100-pound loads of rocks in 100-degree heat, Rose says, "It's like an itch you absolutely have to scratch. An answer you have to find. Who lived here? What were they doing? Are these the people who went on to colonize the entire world? Now that we know it was the Nubians who spread from Africa, I want to know why them in particular? What was it about their technology and culture that enabled them to expand so successfully? And what happened next? That's one of the defining characteristics of our species—we've always looked to the beginning and wanted to understand how we got here. That's what it means to be human."
^ Note the coastlines during that time of the Pleistocene when these cultures were extant. The Red Sea was narrower and Africa and Arabia were much closer to each other. The Bab-el-Mandeb Straits was longer and thinner separating Eritrea and Yemen by only a few miles.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^^this is the type of hair is not found in pure Africans.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
The Numidian differs from the European in all the stereotypical hair and facial features. The hair is thicker and "wilder."
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, "true" Black Africans (e.g. in their modern form) were still absent from the continent's central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966).
Pygmies and Nilotics who existed in Africa for there were any humans outside Africa are not "blacks" ?
If you call bantu "true blacks" the word "true" is arbitray and meaningless.
Blacks existed far before Caucasians. Iranians existed before Nordics. If you call Nordics "true whites" it is arbitray and meaningless.
The fact is that bantu are more similar in phenotype to pygmies and Nilotics than they are to people who later left Africa [/QB]
"True" = Hss, AMH. The Negroid morphology as it appears today, is only a few thousand years old.
This also goes far to completely shatter the Afroloon nonsense about thin noses and so forth being in situ adaptations in Africa - because they are completely absent from the fossil record until the Holocene. Yet Europe and West Asia already 15,000-20,000 years before had leptorrhine Cro-Magnids (Caucasoids).
Where are the Upper Palaeolithic leptorrhine fossils in Africa? Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Faheemdunkers: Negroids hadn't even evolved a few thousands years ago (and their current status is even debatable). The Negroid looking skulls throughout the early to even mid-holocene, still have large supraorbital ridges and other archaic traits absent in the modern Negroid morphology.
And skulls from all over Western Eurasia still had rates of dolichocephaly, occipital buns, rectangular eye sockets, upper facial facial shortness, that are absent in modern Europeans. Your point?
The Dalo-Falid (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/rg-dalofalid.htm) very closely resembles that morphology, only showing very minor gracilization.
20,000 years ago the more gracilized Cro-Magnons appear virtually identical to the Dalo-Falid and related Cro-Magnid types. Negroids however look little like Proto-Negroid skulls as late as the mid-Holocene, which are actually more Australoid in appearance. Negroids just simply have evolved at a much slower rate. Caucasoid and Mongoloid Hss skulls predate Negroid by tens of thousands of years.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mechta-Afalou specimens who were contemporaries of Cro-Magons, look nothing like them (a part from being euryprosopic and dolichocranic). "Not one of the Afalou skulls is actually leptorrhine" (Coon, 1939).
-- If indigenous "Africans" evolved thin noses etc, as the Afroloons claim where are the fossils?
Show me a single Upper Palaeolithic specimen from Africa with orthognathim and a low nasal index.
Posts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
If this pressure for fact-setting is becoming too much for you, just step aside and let the adults continue this discussion uninterrupted (you initiated interaction with me). 
Warning: If you keep hurling gratuitous keyboard-oriented insults at me, then I will no longer indulge your time-wasting posts and regurgitative spams. I answered this time around, to make a point that I have no qualms whatsoever about confronting you purely on topical-issues, as opposed to child-like resorts to name-calling from a safe distance. I'm only concerned here at this time, with unraveling the substantive merits of ideas posited here. Were it a matter of indulging the usual ES trolling, that you seem very keen on dragging me into, I would not be wasting my time here, as my erratic postings these days underlie. It’s up to you: you can focus on issues, or choose the easy way out: trolling!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic