quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Have been plugging along with this, developed a flowchart and a near match R1b1b2 subclade table. I won't bother sharing either or continuing this investigation and here's the reason why.
Industry insider Thomas Krahn, of FamilyTreeDNA, is sure the DSC's 16 STR pherogram screen is "most likely a control sample from haplogroup R."
quote: Thomas Krahn FTDNA's Genomics Research Center Thomas Krahn is a Member of FTDNA's Scientific Advisory Board. Thomas is the Technical Laboratory Manager of FTDNA's Genomics Research Center in Houston. Graduated from the Technical University of Berlin with an MSC (Dipl. Ing.) in biotechnology and genetics. Thomas specializes in complex kinship testing and family reconstructions. He is an expert in developing new molecular biological methods and assays to resolve questions of biological heritage.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammered-brains: Brada just must be an escapee from a mental institution. He goes out of his way to look just as ignorant as he possibly can.
Ignorant how? Brada simply pointed out how many of these so-called scholars in denial like yourself refuse to color the Egyptians in the same rich dark (black) color the Egyptians painted themselves.
quote:The issue is resolved. the whole black egypt afro studies thing died in the 90's. You guys cannot even get anyone to debate with you anymore. The whole movement has turned into a joke.
You're right about ONE thing. The issue has been resolved a long time ago. The Egyptians were native Africans which means they were 'black'. Plain and simple. There is 'Afrocentric' or otherwise movement or trend involved. Just FACTS. And all the FACTS point to the same conclusion. Egypt is in Africa and its peoples were indigenous NOT some European farmer migrants! LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Pac looks 100% Gurage. All Ethiopian have told me that.
Tupac even looks like Somali deputy prime minister Sharif Sheikh Adan
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
For your review please read from pg1
Gad was on this team. He should have access to its data unrevealed to the public at the time the research was published. Him releasing R1b just seems like relying on the old media screen leak. For now no one knows.
Gad's recent release's still kept under wraps though other chapters of the book it's in are online. Gad's team is large. I expect data data data. Yet the prepub based on the book chapter reads like a commentary on the past when it comes to Tut's MSY and it has no data or methodology supplements.
Time passages since 2010 have developed new techniques to extract aDNA. I'd imagine anyone in 2020 to use them for SNiP recovery and analysis.
For the sensationalists: As it stands, contrary to Schu there were aDNA investigations of various AE mummies before her team's. The Amarna royalty is African black and Ramses&Son, especially son, are heavily so per the STaR data. The Abusir el Meleq non-royals are foreign and much more mixed according to full genome findings. One sample set (royals) is southern of various locales. The other (commons) is all from further north than Fayyoum.
Blacks ruling 'non-blacks'?!? 21st sociology can't stand the thought.
^Making sense of Schuenamann2017 and Hawass2010/2012.
=-=
Anyway don't over expect from Gad his main purpose is medical.
I expect in conformation with well known history, archaeology, physical & cultural anthropology, and pathology that enough scattered testing will reveal an ancient 00-26 Dyn Egypt of * Nile African preponderance from at least Asyut southward, * 'Libyan' African from there northward and * complemented by east/north by east Mediterranean folk Fayyoum northward.
Always remember like any First World political economy ancient Egypt was cosmopolitan and unlike today's 1st and 2nd World nations it wasn't xenophobic nor had a race based bottom caste of freed slave desendants. There're enough wills to show Asiatic slaves were often married into their owners' family with protection clauses. There was one legitimate Asiatic vizier if not pharaoh in the Middle Kingdom. Unlike the 'Libyan' element Aamu established no legitimate dynasty ruling all Egypt.
posted
Just for reference since the old Smithsonian links are dead, you can find the old photos of Mangbetu Head binding with a woman who is a splitting image of some Amarna portraits. Keep in mind that the Mangbetu are from Central Africa and we have been seeing hints of Central African influence in the 18th dynasty.
For whatever reason the whole collection of Eliot Elisofon's photos was taken offline and replaced with bits and pieces, including those related to hair and head binding.
posted
Bumped up for its relevance to the newer Amarna genetics study.
Also for a correction I meant to make that is long over-due!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Tut's headshape is not dolichocephalic. KV55's head shape is also not dolichocephalic. How do I know? I used to think that for years, but over the years (beginning with Hawass 2010 which listed his head shape measurements) we've learned more. Ironically, it's Yuya's head shape that is dolichocephalic.
Swenet is correct, and his post above reminded me to make this correction! From the Hawass 2010 paper that this thread is about: With the exception of Yuya (cephalic index, 70.3), none of the mummies of the Tutankhamun lineage has a cephalic index of 75 or less (ie, indicating dolichocephaly). Instead, Akhenaten has an index of 81.0 and Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly.
I, like many people, am guilty of eyeball anthropology-- making assumptions based on certain images or photos.
Without actually getting the full picture...
or more specifically the measurements.
This is why accurate information is always a necessity not a luxury and especially when it comes to Africanist scholarship which is already being undermined by disinformation!
By the way, for what it's worth not only is brachycephaly found in Africa, it is ironically most prevalent among Bantu speakers of Central Africa.
This is not to say Tut resembles Bantus as he clearly does not!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:J Forensic Sci
. 2009 Sep;54(5):985-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01118.x. Epub 2009 Aug 3. Cranial nonmetric variation and estimating ancestry* Joseph T Hefner PMID: 19686390 DOI:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2009.01118.x
Abstract
Historically, when predicting the ancestry of human skeletal remains, forensic anthropologists have not fully considered the variation within human populations, but instead have relied on a typological, experience-based approach.
Nothing wrong with eyeball anthropology its called non-metrics and even the untrained can see Tut's head isn't narrow when viewed from above the proper way to determine skullcap shape. Thing is cranial indices aren't reliable indicators of ancestry and neither length or breadth of the skullcap are part of nonmetrics nor morphoscopy.
Length breadth and their index are worthless in determining ancestry in modern anthropology.
=-=
If indeed he's the canopics' model then Tut does resemble Kenyan baNtu.
This face and shape are common enough among Kikuyu.
Remember Bantu is language not precise physical features.
=-=
Again, an Africanist is a professional that studies Africa. Seligman with all his racialisms was an Africanist. Doc Ben constantly harped about the damage white Africanist pose to Afrikan people and consequently independent Afrikan researchers eschew the term and don't identify with it.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Bumped up for its relevance to the newer Amarna genetics study.
Also for a correction I meant to make that is long over-due!
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Tut's headshape is not dolichocephalic. KV55's head shape is also not dolichocephalic. How do I know? I used to think that for years, but over the years (beginning with Hawass 2010 which listed his head shape measurements) we've learned more. Ironically, it's Yuya's head shape that is dolichocephalic.
Swenet is correct, and his post above reminded me to make this correction! From the Hawass 2010 paper that this thread is about: With the exception of Yuya (cephalic index, 70.3), none of the mummies of the Tutankhamun lineage has a cephalic index of 75 or less (ie, indicating dolichocephaly). Instead, Akhenaten has an index of 81.0 and Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly.
I, like many people, am guilty of eyeball anthropology-- making assumptions based on certain images or photos.
Without actually getting the full picture...
or more specifically the measurements.
This is why accurate information is always a necessity not a luxury and especially when it comes to Africanist scholarship which is already being undermined by disinformation!
By the way, for what it's worth not only is brachycephaly found in Africa, it is ironically most prevalent among Bantu speakers of Central Africa.
This is not to say Tut resembles Bantus as he clearly does not!
I didn't make the correction in 2010, either. I just made a mental note of the Hawass data, but I didn’t know how to reconcile it with Tut’s side-view pictures and other data. I only made the correction when I learned that my own source of 18th dynasty head shape (Harris and Wente) used the wrong formula to calculate cephalic index. (They used cranial length and cranial height and wrongly called it "cranial index").
Susan Anton saying his nose was narrow also confused me. There are at least two reconstructions showing Tut with a broadish nose. But then I got a good source clearly showing he has a narrow nasal aperture. So, there is a lot of false information out there, and I only learned what he really looks like, over time.
Susan Anton has the best descriptions of him, that I’ve seen so far.
As far as your cranial index maps showing Siwans with hyperdolichocephaly. If you can loan it at a library I recommend Briggs for his observations about his Siwan sample and his breakdown of headshape in (Stone Age) North Africa. If you haven't already. Credit goes to Bass for bringing Briggs to my awareness again.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I didn't make the correction in 2010, either. I just made a mental note of the Hawass data, but I didn’t know how to reconcile it with Tut’s side-view pictures and other data. I only made the correction when I learned that my own source of 18th dynasty head shape (Harris and Wente) used the wrong formula to calculate cephalic index. (They used cranial length and cranial height and wrongly called it "cranial index").
I had the exact same thinking as you! When the Hawass study came out, I was confused and questioned their findings though I didn't outright deny it again due to the fact that they actually measured the skull and despite whatever bias they had it would be stupid to fabricate something like cephalic index. As for the Harris & Wente studies, I too found out that they mislabeled their cranial vertical or height-length index as cephalic index back when I went over their formulas for facial flatness after our discussion years back here.
quote:Susan Anton saying his nose was narrow also confused me. There are at least two reconstructions showing Tut with a broadish nose. But then I got a good source clearly showing he has a narrow nasal aperture. So, there is a lot of false information out there, and I only learned what he really looks like, over time.
There were so many reconstructions of Tut, it's a little hard to keep track of them all much less rely on which one is most accurate.
quote:Susan Anton has the best descriptions of him, that I’ve seen so far.
Yes, Susan Anton is one of those I trust the most since she was double-blinded and didn't even know that it was Tut's skull she was working on. She says his skull shape is African while his facial aspect looked European. I wonder if the African shape she was referring to was the PBD.
quote:As far as your cranial index maps showing Siwans with hyperdolichocephaly. If you can loan it at a library I recommend Briggs for his observations about his Siwan sample and his breakdown of headshape in (Stone Age) North Africa. If you haven't already. Credit goes to Bass for bringing Briggs to my awareness again.
I don't recall Lloyd Cabot Briggs' description of Siwans so please elucidate what you mean. I do remember Coon's description of Siwans being both "hyper-dolichocephalic and platycephalic" as shown here.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I don't recall Lloyd Cabot Briggs' description of Siwans so please elucidate what you mean. I do remember Coon's description of Siwans being both "hyper-dolichocephalic and platycephalic" as shown here.
In a quote Bass posted on another forum, Briggs basically said that his Greek period Siwan sample resembles one of the main phenotypical stocks (i.e. Type B) he had isolated in the Maghrebi samples through visual sorting. To this stock he also linked predynastics, Shuqbah Natufians, some individuals in the so-called "Kenya Capsian" and early Neolithic remains from Greece.
As you know, Angel also linked some of these exact same samples when he said they are admixed with "predecessors of Badarians and Tasians". Except Briggs also adds the Siwan sample as being close. One major difference between Angel and Briggs is that Angel seems to see them as coming from Nubia, while Briggs sees Type B as a Eurasian transplant. You can get a basic summary of Briggs' views in chapter 2 of this book.
When you read through those pages, you'll see he makes an interesting observation. He compares the hybridized Type A + B + C Maghrebi sample to "the people of Hotu". This is the same Mesolithic Hotu Cave sampled by Lazaridis et al, which has the highest percentage of Basal Eurasian, so far.
Quote: "This type is a purely local North-west African phenomenon, morphologically quite unlike any other well-known prehistoric group except perhaps the people of Hotu in northern Persia (Angel, 1952), who very probably represent only another local re- combination of genes derived from the same basic ancestral complexes."
His full discussion of these prehistoic stocks, and his comments on the Siwa sample, are in the other book.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Pac looks 100% Gurage. All Ethiopian have told me that.
Tupac even looks like Somali deputy prime minister Sharif Sheikh Adan
A lot of Somalis and other Horners swear by that Sean Combs Puff is Somali.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Ancient Nubia Now: Nubia, Egypt, and the Concept of Race
Dr. Shomarka Keita, Research Affiliate in the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution, discusses race and antiquity through his perspective as a biological anthropologist.
posted
Cranial indices like these only make sense in determining affinity in comparison to similar metrics from other groups of populations in contemporary times and modern times. Just using them in isolation makes no sense. So for example,what is the relationship between the Amarna skulls and other Dynastic mummies from the 18th dynasty? Then how do they plot in comparison to contemporary populations in Lower Sudan and Upper Egypt? Then further out from that core Nile Valley cluster, how do they compare to contemporary populations in the Levant and then Europe. And finally how do they compare to populations in these same areas today.
Anything else is almost meaningless and this is the reason why the one off use of cranial measurements to determine "racial" or population affinities fell out of favor in the 19th century as quackery. Yet given the historical use of such measurements from the Nile Valley we would have a comprehensive database of cranial values that could be used for more comprehensive analysis......
Unfortunately this same model of one off data extends into DNA as well with their one off DNA studies in isolation that really don't tell you enough to actually understand anything. But folks like Reich love pushing the idea that their labs can reconstruct all human history from a handful of DNA samples. And if that means pandering to certain folks with their sensational papers of limited value because of the lack of ancient DNA, then so be it. "Basal Eurasian" is a perfect example of the problems with using limited data sets.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QUOTE]Susan Anton saying his nose was narrow also confused me. There are at least two reconstructions showing Tut with a broadish nose. But then I got a good source clearly showing he has a narrow nasal aperture. So, there is a lot of false information out there, and I only learned what he really looks like, over time.
There were so many reconstructions of Tut, it's a little hard to keep track of them all much less rely on which one is most accurate.
quote:Susan Anton has the best descriptions of him, that I’ve seen so far.
Yes, Susan Anton is one of those I trust the most since she was double-blinded and didn't even know that it was Tut's skull she was working on. She says his skull shape is African while his facial aspect looked European. I wonder if the African shape she was referring to was the PBD.
I think all the reconstructions of Tut totally miss the mark, even Antons. None of them capture the facial features of the mummy mask which should be seen as a benchmark for accuracy in facial tissue reconstruction from skeletal remains.....
Which tells me these people are just determined to make up alternative facts when the existing data and evidence doesn't suit their agenda. You got the mummy and you got the facemask plus various photos of them removing the skull from the mask. Yet they insist there isn't enough data to understand what he looked like given all that plus the other artwork of the 18th dynasty.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The day will come when and where "Haplogroups" as a concept will be seen as quackery, once certain things alleles based are better understood.
quote:"It is estimated that these changes in ‘heat adapted’ genes occurred over a time frame of 12,000 to 30,000 years (Young et al. 2005).
(Clark Spencer Larsen - 2010, A Companion to Biological Anthropology)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: The day will come when and where "Haplogroups" as a concept will be seen as quackery, once certain things alleles based are better understood.
The way I see it, what mainstream science considers quackery, is determined by bandwagon behaviour, just like when any other group of people get together and start following trends. The positions taken by the scientific establishment against many abandoned ideas has little to do with actual science.
Big case in point. Typology was supposed to be debunked. Most changes in phenotype were supposed to be the result of "in situ changes", not diffusion. But when we look at aDNA in a region over a long timespan, morphological changes in between two successive periods are always primarily caused by ghost populations and other population movements that are typically downplayed or unanticipated.
Notice successive periods in Sardinia are marked by dilution of older ancestry (e.g. R-v88, I2-M223) due to incoming migration. There are no prolonged periods of unrealistic 'in situ change', which implies millennia of isolation and endogamy, something that generally just doesn't happen over the span of millennia.
One flagship example used by proponents of 'in situ change' is the morphological "transition" from Mesolithic Nubians, to later Nubians. This example has even made it to anthropology textbooks as examples of 'craniofacial plasticity'. This is based primarily on the work of Carlson and Gerven (among others). It was then perpetuated by bandwagonists like this one). None of them ever provide real evidence, and they ignore key evidence (e.g. predynastic Nubians cannot have a local Nubian evolutionary path that entirely excludes predynastic Egyptians).
This hypothesis was debunked when they found the bones of people already resembling mid-holocene Nubians (and Egyptians) >9ky ago. The age of these bones indicates there was never an "in situ" morphological change from Mesolithic Nubians, to mid-holocene Nubians. Both sets of populations already existed in the last 15ky. They were contemporaneous. Cabot Briggs, a typologist often dismissed in today's bandwagon climate, was correct all along in saying predynastics were distinct from the older Nile samples available in his time.
A Mesolithic Nubian and a Nubian from a later period. We were told "in situ evolution" explains all the differences, but now we know these populations do not have an ancestor-descendant relationship.
Another recent example:
According to mainstream scientists, 'Australoid' Palaeo-Indians were supposed to be ancestors of living Native Americans. The big morphological changes in between were supposed to have been caused by "in situ evolution" over time. Then we found "Population Y", a ghost population that is likely one of several, which will largely, if not entirely, explain the morphological gap. This means little to no room for "in situ change".
In all of these cases where the "in situ" narrative failed, typology would have correctly identified the crania from successive periods, as being distinct in ancestry. But diffusion as the main go-to explanation for morphological change became unpopular, so it had to go (even though it was never disproved). Total bandwagon behaviour.
Moral of the story: mainstream science can only help serious researchers up to a certain point. Beyond that we're better off striking off on our own or we'll just be duped by the arbitrary trends and biases in the scientific establishment.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: The day will come when and where "Haplogroups" as a concept will be seen as quackery, once certain things alleles based are better understood.
The way I see it, what mainstream science considers quackery, is determined by bandwagon behaviour, just like when any other group of people get together and start following trends. The positions taken by the scientific establishment against many abandoned ideas has little to do with actual science.
Big case in point. Typology was supposed to be debunked. Most changes in phenotype were supposed to be the result of "in situ changes", not diffusion. But when we look at aDNA in a region over a long timespan, morphological changes in between two successive periods are always primarily caused by ghost populations and other population movements that are typically downplayed or unanticipated.
Notice successive periods in Sardinia are marked by dilution of older ancestry (e.g. R-v88, I2-M223) due to incoming migration. There are no prolonged periods of unrealistic 'in situ change', which implies millennia of isolation and endogamy, something that generally just doesn't happen over the span of millennia.
One flagship example used by proponents of 'in situ change' is the morphological "transition" from Mesolithic Nubians, to later Nubians. This example has even made it to anthropology textbooks as examples of 'craniofacial plasticity'. This is based primarily on the work of Carlson and Gerven (among others). It was then perpetuated by bandwagonists like this one). None of them ever provide real evidence, and they ignore key evidence (e.g. predynastic Nubians cannot have a local Nubian evolutionary path that entirely excludes predynastic Egyptians).
This hypothesis was debunked when they found the bones of people already resembling mid-holocene Nubians (and Egyptians) >9ky ago. The age of these bones indicates there was never an "in situ" morphological change from Mesolithic Nubians, to mid-holocene Nubians. Both sets of populations already existed in the last 15ky. They were contemporaneous. Cabot Briggs, a typologist often dismissed in today's bandwagon climate, was correct all along in saying predynastics were distinct from the older Nile samples available in his time.
A Mesolithic Nubian and a Nubian from a later period. We were told "in situ evolution" explains all the differences, but now we know these populations do not have an ancestor-descendant relationship.
Another recent example:
According to mainstream scientists, 'Australoid' Palaeo-Indians were supposed to be ancestors of living Native Americans. The big morphological changes in between were supposed to have been caused by "in situ evolution" over time. Then we found "Population Y", a ghost population that is likely one of several, which will largely, if not entirely, explain the morphological gap. This means little to no room for "in situ change".
In all of these cases where the "in situ" narrative failed, typology would have correctly identified the crania from successive periods, as being distinct in ancestry. But diffusion as the main go-to explanation for morphological change became unpopular, so it had to go (even though it was never disproved). Total bandwagon behaviour.
Moral of the story: mainstream science can only help serious researchers up to a certain point. Beyond that we're better off striking off on our own or we'll just be duped by the arbitrary trends and biases in the scientific establishment.
The Mesolithic history of the Nile Valley is mostly centered on so-called "Nubia" such as sites near Wadi Halfa, Jebel Sahaba and so forth. But this archaeological and cultural period (20kya to 10kya) is full of conflicting and contradictory reports. That is a bigger issue in the way archaeology has depended on various techniques to define eras, groups and cultures and has been prone to error. On one hand cultures like the Halfan and Qadan are called "Egyptian" but on the other hand other sites in the same areas are called "Nubian". We know where this goes given the historical discourse. Part of it definitely involves the question of how much of the Neolithic culture in this area evolved from local Mesolithic traditions (Wadi Halfa, wild grain harvesting, etc) and how much was "imported". Note that even with the importance of these historical eras to the evolution of Nile Valley society, they are not called "North African" and more often than not, younger sites in Coastal North Africa are the focus for typical North African "neolithic" populations, even though the Nile Valley has over 20,000 years of continual evolution towards Neolithic behaviors.
Just do a search for "Mesolithic Nubian" and a whole bunch of papers come up talking about the "shift" in skeletal morphology among these groups.
But I couldn't find any skull matching the image you posted on the left. It only shows up on anthrogenica and none of the other papers. It looks far more archaic than Mesolithic.
Also, on the variability of cephalic index among populations, here is a study from West Africa:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But I couldn't find any skull matching the image you posted on the left. It only shows up on anthrogenica and none of the other papers. It looks far more archaic than Mesolithic.
Which image "on the left" are you talking about?
In the left side of the color photo there is a skull that has a number of archaic features.
Then there is an outline drawing to the far lefthand side. This outline drawing is not Nubian. It's an outline drawing of a picture of a Neanderthal. Their use of Neanderthals as a stand-in for Mesolithic Nubians just shows you how these people think and how presumptuous they are. (There is possibly also deception at play since Mesolithic Nubians have a profile that is not ortochnatous and so the morphological gap has been downplayed by the use of this Neanderthal for the superimposed drawing). As I mentioned already, this outline drawing is printed in a number of anthropology textbooks as a flagship example of "in situ cranio-facial evolution".
Like I said, mainstream science routinely makes up narratives of "in situ evolution" to bridge the morphological gap with nearby samples that turn out to be totally unrelated.
It's precisely because Mesolithic Nubians have archaic features (to some degree), that they were assigned bogus ancestral evolutionary status relative to less robust and younger predynastic Nubians. So, the archaic features you see are consistent with how Mesolithic Nubians actually look, otherwise academics wouldn't have placed them in a bogus evolutionary relationship with predynastic Nubians.
You can see the image here in another publication. I don't know the original publication.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: But I couldn't find any skull matching the image you posted on the left. It only shows up on anthrogenica and none of the other papers. It looks far more archaic than Mesolithic.
What image "on the left" are you talking about?
In the left side of the color photo there is a skull that has a number of archaic features.
Then there is an outline drawing to the far lefthand side. This outline drawing is not Nubian. It's an outline drawing of a picture of a Neanderthal. Their use of Neanderthals as a stand-in for Mesolithic Nubians just shows you how these people think and how presumptuous they are. As I mentioned already, this outline drawing is printed in a number of anthropology textbooks as a flagship example of "in situ cranio-facial evolution".
Like I said, mainstream science routinely makes up narratives of "in situ evolution" to bridge the morphological gap with nearby samples that turn out to be totally unrelated.
It's precisely because Mesolithic Nubians have archaic features (to some degree), that they were assigned bogus ancestral evolutionary status relative to less robust and younger predynastic Nubians. So, the archaic features you see are consistent with how Mesolithic Nubians actually look, otherwise academics wouldn't have placed them in a bogus evolutionary relationship with predynastic Nubians.
You can see the image here in another publication. I don't know the original publication.
I get your point. Archaeology and anthropology are still evolving but a lot of the old baggage still remains. Meaning they still love to make broad over generalizations with limited data. So one sample here or a few over there and they will make all sorts of conclusions which cannot really be supported and will be overturned with new data. Happens all the time but it doesn't matter because these sensationalized articles get peoples attention and their research is till paid for either way. As long as they publish something to show they are making "progress" it is fine.
But yes I was talking about the left skull in the image on the right. I have not been able to find it anywhere in any other papers on Mesolithic Nubian skulls. Most of the papers I have seen have more "modern" looking skulls not that "radically" different than the later neolithic skulls. I wanted to see more of these "archaic" mesolithic Nubian skulls.
Between these two papers I see the discussion of "local evolution" as a result of diet as impacting cranio facial features.
Again, it sounds like the same issue of making sweeping conclusions based on limited data. The oxford paper I posted earlier pointed out the limited number of Mesolithic remains from Lower Sudan.
That said, "in-situ" is a loaded term as it can refer to the changes to material subsistence strategies in a region or population, biological and physical changes to a population over time or both. Right now the biggest reason that Mesolithic Lower Sudan and Upper Egypt are so important is due to the evidence surrounding the evolution of subsistence strategies leading up to and during the Neolithic.
Thanks for the link, looks like they are trying to get some more ancient DNA from ancient Lower Sudan.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I get your point. Archaeology and anthropology are still evolving but a lot of the old baggage still remains. Meaning they still love to make broad over generalizations with limited data. So one sample here or a few over there and they will make all sorts of conclusions which cannot really be supported and will be overturned with new data. Happens all the time but it doesn't matter because these sensationalized articles get peoples attention and their research is till paid for either way. As long as they publish something to show they are making "progress" it is fine.
Agreed, but I would go one step further and say that as a rule, academics don't know what they are doing when it comes to the main drivers of morphological variation.
People on this site focus on academic mishandling of ancient Egypt and don't know the cheating, deception and incompetence is not unique to Egyptology. It's all over the place.
Even Neanderthals turn out to not be a subspecies in their own right as their mtDNA pools are fully sapiens/AMH (not local). No doubt they're just another case of population change brought about by ghost populations (sapiens), while their morphological features are being advertised as an "in situ" development.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I get your point. Archaeology and anthropology are still evolving but a lot of the old baggage still remains. Meaning they still love to make broad over generalizations with limited data. So one sample here or a few over there and they will make all sorts of conclusions which cannot really be supported and will be overturned with new data. Happens all the time but it doesn't matter because these sensationalized articles get peoples attention and their research is till paid for either way. As long as they publish something to show they are making "progress" it is fine.
Agreed, but I would go one step further and say that as a rule, academics don't know what they are doing when it comes to the main drivers of morphological variation.
People on this site focus on academic mishandling of ancient Egypt and don't know the cheating, deception and incompetence is not unique to Egyptology. It's all over the place.
Even Neanderthals turn out to not be a subspecies in their own right as their mtDNA pools are fully sapiens/AMH (not local). No doubt they're just another case of population change brought about by ghost populations (sapiens), while their morphological features are being advertised as an "in situ" development.
Yes, the more I look at it, the more I see that these people don't understand diversity. Especially in old population groups which have a lot of inter and intra population diversity. It just throws their whole system for a loop. So in the ancient Nile Valley, because of the age of the populations there, you would expect to see a lot of diversity in features and metrics. But these folks like to use broad categories as their standard data model which generalize features across large areas and populations and then try and fit the data to that model. And of course it always comes out wrong..... Africa being so vast and relatively under populated it is easy for clumps of features to arise overtime in various groups versus whole regions and populations being morphologically the same. You see this elsewhere in places like the Pacific and parts of South Asia. Their models just cannot handle that. And lets not talk about the huge variability in these populations also having overlap with other more distant populations due to historic events of migration and shared ancestry. Race is simply one example of these broad over generalizations they like to make and it won't get much better with DNA.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right variation and diversity. But what do these words really mean? How much of diversity is ever really independent of migration and assimilation?
Because all the cases they have given us of "in situ change" have flopped as soon as we got the DNA.
We can also talk about tools and how the 'evolution' in tools is problematic because tools were supposed to 'evolve' from MSA to LSA, but a number of early LSA industries have been found. And MSA industries often already harbour LSA elements.
quote:The present article is devoted to a phenomenon which, in my view, has not yet been assessed by prehistoric archaeologists at its true value. This phenomenon may be called ‘running ahead of time’ in cultural development. It finds expression in relatively short-term but sharp, sudden and substantial deviations from the normal evolutionary succession.
So that is what I'm talking about. Glaring contradictions and failures in the prevailing models. And a lack of open discussion about these problems.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Right variation and diversity. But what do these words really mean? How much of diversity is ever really independent of migration and assimilation?
Because all the cases they have given us of "in situ change" have flopped as soon as we got the DNA.
We can also talk about tools and how the 'evolution' in tools is problematic because tools were supposed to 'evolve' from MSA to LSA, but a number of early LSA industries have been found. And MSA industries often already harbour LSA elements.
So that is what I'm talking about. Glaring contradictions and failures in the prevailing models. And a lack of open discussion about these problems.
Yes that is true, but many times they just cover up these problems with "sweeping" theories of migration involving "new races" that just isn't accurate either. Migration and movement are a given but scale and scope affect how much of an impact depending on time period and location. This is part of the problem along the Nile. You had sparse population sites spread out over large areas that moved due to climate and migratory patterns. Because the area was so sparsely populated you still had clumps of features, cultural practices and tool kits that would have been distinct among various groups. So depending on what sites get found determines the picture you get, but instead of these guys keeping their conclusions localized to the sites they find, they make sweeping conclusions as if EVERYBODY in the same region was doing similar things at the same time, which totally isn't supported by such limited data.
And it is even worse with DNA, especially as you go back.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: The day will come when and where "Haplogroups" as a concept will be seen as quackery, once certain things alleles based are better understood.
The way I see it, what mainstream science considers quackery, is determined by bandwagon behaviour, just like when any other group of people get together and start following trends. The positions taken by the scientific establishment against many abandoned ideas has little to do with actual science.
Big case in point. Typology was supposed to be debunked. Most changes in phenotype were supposed to be the result of "in situ changes", not diffusion. But when we look at aDNA in a region over a long timespan, morphological changes in between two successive periods are always primarily caused by ghost populations and other population movements that are typically downplayed or unanticipated.
Notice successive periods in Sardinia are marked by dilution of older ancestry (e.g. R-v88, I2-M223) due to incoming migration. There are no prolonged periods of unrealistic 'in situ change', which implies millennia of isolation and endogamy, something that generally just doesn't happen over the span of millennia.
One flagship example used by proponents of 'in situ change' is the morphological "transition" from Mesolithic Nubians, to later Nubians. This example has even made it to anthropology textbooks as examples of 'craniofacial plasticity'. This is based primarily on the work of Carlson and Gerven (among others). It was then perpetuated by bandwagonists like this one). None of them ever provide real evidence, and they ignore key evidence (e.g. predynastic Nubians cannot have a local Nubian evolutionary path that entirely excludes predynastic Egyptians).
This hypothesis was debunked when they found the bones of people already resembling mid-holocene Nubians (and Egyptians) >9ky ago. The age of these bones indicates there was never an "in situ" morphological change from Mesolithic Nubians, to mid-holocene Nubians. Both sets of populations already existed in the last 15ky. They were contemporaneous. Cabot Briggs, a typologist often dismissed in today's bandwagon climate, was correct all along in saying predynastics were distinct from the older Nile samples available in his time.
A Mesolithic Nubian and a Nubian from a later period. We were told "in situ evolution" explains all the differences, but now we know these populations do not have an ancestor-descendant relationship.
Another recent example:
According to mainstream scientists, 'Australoid' Palaeo-Indians were supposed to be ancestors of living Native Americans. The big morphological changes in between were supposed to have been caused by "in situ evolution" over time. Then we found "Population Y", a ghost population that is likely one of several, which will largely, if not entirely, explain the morphological gap. This means little to no room for "in situ change".
In all of these cases where the "in situ" narrative failed, typology would have correctly identified the crania from successive periods, as being distinct in ancestry. But diffusion as the main go-to explanation for morphological change became unpopular, so it had to go (even though it was never disproved). Total bandwagon behaviour.
Moral of the story: mainstream science can only help serious researchers up to a certain point. Beyond that we're better off striking off on our own or we'll just be duped by the arbitrary trends and biases in the scientific establishment.
Swenet, you are absolutely correct! This is why I have been doing research on Out-of-Asia peopling of the Americas. It's because I see some very striking parallels with the Out-of-African movements to Eurasia which as you know happened in multiple waves not just one!
We know that much morphological diversity has been lost during the Holocene and what we see today is only a small fraction of that diversity. We see living vestiges here and there like the Ainu in Japan or the Saami in Scandinavia.
This is why I am starting to see your point that African diversity goes beyond the division of Sub-Saharan and North African which does hold some basis. There is no telling what type of genetic diversity Africa had during the Late Pleistocene let alone how much of this spilled out into Southwest Asia or even Europe.
Tukuler is right that haplogroups only tell one-half of the story (paternal lineages and maternal lineages each telling one-quarter), the autosomal data tells the other half but you have to put it together and there are all these ghost populations popping up in the autosomal data.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the end of the day I see it as they just cannot accept that human diversity starts with and is deeply rooted in Africa and OOA. While they will accept the ultimate origin of humans in Africa, they have problems with the practical implications. Their minds are too focused on typologies involving supra-regional clusters of distinct features (ie. race) and sweeping movements of said groups in ancient times as the basis for all human diversity. It is ridiculous. They just cannot say simply that the populations in Africa were extremely diverse and as they left at different times there were different features that went on to further evolve into even more diverse clusters in places like South East Asia, the Pacific and so forth.... And of course the modern version of this is the idea of Neanderthals and Denisovans as this "magic population" that disappeared in ancient times but not before somehow finding and mating with every single human that left Africa. Which is a way of saying Eurasians really didn't get their diversity from Africans. Or, in Africa, "real Africans" can't have straighter hair and genes also found in Europe.....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The problem is how people are interpreting African genetic and phenotypic diversity.
On the one hand you have Eurocentrics who emphasize the diversity but then try to pigeonhole populations and say this population is "Eurasian" (read: Caucasoid) or Eurasian related while the other population is Sub-Saharan (read: Negroid) and that's it.
On the other hand you have [some] Afrocentrics who ignore the diversity and claim that all Africans are homogeneous and that even the Egyptians fall into some modern "Bantu" cultural-linguistic category.
I think the answer lies somewhere between these two extremes.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Right variation and diversity. But what do these words really mean? How much of diversity is ever really independent of migration and assimilation?
Because all the cases they have given us of "in situ change" have flopped as soon as we got the DNA.
We can also talk about tools and how the 'evolution' in tools is problematic because tools were supposed to 'evolve' from MSA to LSA, but a number of early LSA industries have been found. And MSA industries often already harbour LSA elements.
So that is what I'm talking about. Glaring contradictions and failures in the prevailing models. And a lack of open discussion about these problems.
Yes that is true, but many times they just cover up these problems with "sweeping" theories of migration involving "new races" that just isn't accurate either. Migration and movement are a given but scale and scope affect how much of an impact depending on time period and location. This is part of the problem along the Nile. You had sparse population sites spread out over large areas that moved due to climate and migratory patterns. Because the area was so sparsely populated you still had clumps of features, cultural practices and tool kits that would have been distinct among various groups. So depending on what sites get found determines the picture you get, but instead of these guys keeping their conclusions localized to the sites they find, they make sweeping conclusions as if EVERYBODY in the same region was doing similar things at the same time, which totally isn't supported by such limited data.
And it is even worse with DNA, especially as you go back.
I agree. And I try to avoid that by calling samples specifically by name (e.g. Raqefet Natufians vs generalizing the recent Natufian sample to all Natufians). One DNA sample does not define the variation that exists in a culture. This is why paying close attention to the skeletal remains is important. The range of variation tells you what you can expect from any future aDNA. The range of variation of Natufians is far more uncertain than the range of variation of AE.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Swenet, you are absolutely correct! This is why I have been doing research on Out-of-Asia peopling of the Americas. It's because I see some very striking parallels with the Out-of-African movements to Eurasia which as you know happened in multiple waves not just one!
We know that much morphological diversity has been lost during the Holocene and what we see today is only a small fraction of that diversity. We see living vestiges here and there like the Ainu in Japan or the Saami in Scandinavia.
This is why I am starting to see your point that African diversity goes beyond the division of Sub-Saharan and North African which does hold some basis. There is no telling what type of genetic diversity Africa had during the Late Pleistocene let alone how much of this spilled out into Southwest Asia or even Europe.
Tukuler is right that haplogroups only tell one-half of the story (paternal lineages and maternal lineages each telling one-quarter), the autosomal data tells the other half but you have to put it together and there are all these ghost populations popping up in the autosomal data. [/qb]
And the fact that you and I never bought into the outright dismissal of old anthropology is what is helping us in investigating these areas of anthropology that have been mishandled by scholars. I appreciate that you never went along with that bandwagon.
BTW, I just edited my previous post and added a paper. Can you read it and let me know what you think? Are we being told lies by mainstream science about sapiens/LSA/UP tools only being 50ky old, or do you think they have valid reasons for under-reporting and downplaying the importance of this information?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Recovering signals of ghost archaic introgression in African populations Durvasula1 and Sriram Sankararama Science Advances 12 Feb 2020: Vol. 6, no. 7, eaax5097 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax5097
Abstract
While introgression from Neanderthals and Denisovans has been documented in modern humans outside Africa, the contribution of archaic hominins to the genetic variation of present-day Africans remains poorly understood. We provide complementary lines of evidence for archaic introgression into four West African populations. Our analyses of site frequency spectra indicate that these populations derive 2 to 19% of their genetic ancestry from an archaic population that diverged before the split of Neanderthals and modern humans. Using a method that can identify segments of archaic ancestry without the need for reference archaic genomes, we built genome-wide maps of archaic ancestry in the Yoruba and the Mende populations. Analyses of these maps reveal segments of archaic ancestry at high frequency in these populations that represent potential targets of adaptive introgression. Our results reveal the substantial contribution of archaic ancestry in shaping the gene pool of present-day West African populations.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
A couple videos from the core group of folks promoting these unified models of sweeping ancient changes and movements in ancient times(actually not so ancient in most cases as they focus on the Neolithic)
CSHL Keynote; Dr. Svante Pääbo, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Svante Paabo: "We are so obsessed with Neanderthals basically because they are the closest evolutionary relative of all present day humans. So if we want to define ourselves from a genetic of physiological perspective as a group is really them you should compare ourselves to. Its also rather interesting that they were here rather recently 40,000 years ago or so. So its interesting how they related to modern humans when they appear.". Subtext: "The Neanderthals define modern humans".
CARTA: Exploring the Origins of Today's Humans - Jean-Jacques Hublin Joshua Akey Iain Mathieson The first and most interesting part discusses archaic humans in Africa. The rest is the Eurasian archaic/human admixture model which omits the fact that all these archaic hominids started in Africa in the first place and were still present even after the birth of AMH. Not to mention it implies that every single human that left Africa somehow immediately went to eugenic breeding camps right near the border of Africa, before moving on to the rest of Eurasia. So human diversity outside of Africa didn't start with Africans.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqX72KvH15E
Then you got this one where the talk about early modern human behaviors over 100,000 years ago in Africa, but then show photos of Eurasians, which didn't exist (12:45) CARTA presents Anthropogeny: The Perspective from Africa - Lyn Wadley Sarah Wurz Judith Sealy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIgDOLo9sbQPosts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Doug M: Svante Paabo: "We are so obsessed with Neanderthals basically because they are the closest evolutionary relative of all present day humans. So if we want to define ourselves from a genetic of physiological perspective as a group is really them you should compare ourselves to. Its also rather interesting that they were here rather recently 40,000 years ago or so. So its interesting how they related to modern humans when they appear.". Subtext: "The Neanderthals define modern humans".
THis has heavily been the main thrust of European scientists, and popular Euro culture. Hence the popular images of evolution usually feature the pale-skinnad shaggy Neanderthal before morphing into a pale-skinnad white person, "role model" of "normality."
Racialist scholars Harpending et al. made much of Neanderthals in their book "The 10,000 Year Revolution"
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The plot tickens. Human origins in crisis..? Are Neanderthals, heidelbergensis and erectus just hybrid archaics with varying degrees of AMH/sapiens DNA?
(Just found this new 2020 article while searching for any sign that scientists are beginning to admit the failures of their models).
Neanderthal Y DNA so far turns out to be AMH after the mtDNA pool was already proven to be AMH.
"amazing! you could put them in a suit and you wouldn't know they were any different if they walked past"
Yeah, no wonder with all that sapiens DNA
I see the implications are perfectly clear to them, because denial is already at the forefront of their minds. They waste no time trying to reassure the bandwagon and deny any danger to the narrative:
quote:Only a few percent of the rest of the Neanderthal genome appears to be made up of modern human DNA, yet this study found that three different Neanderthal individuals, unearthed at sites spread across Eurasia and dating to periods tens of thousands of years apart, all carried modern human–like Y chromosomes.
IMO one of the most interesting but low-key detail here is that the 'pre-Neanderthals' (Sima de los Huesos), who look more archaic than real Neanderthals, have Denisovan mtDNA, while the real Neanderthals, who look much more like sapiens, have sapiens mtDNA and apparently sapiens Y-DNA:
quote:In 2017, he and colleagues analyzed material from a very early group of Neanderthals and revealed their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to be more similar to the Denisovan mitochondrial genome.
It seems to me that Denisovans were something like Asian cousins of Sima de Los Huesos. The latter where then influenced by African AMH, which gave rise to Neanderthals who were more sapiens-like in morphology, uniparentals, autosomes and behaviour (unlike their predecessors' tools, Neanderthal Mousterian tools are in the same ball park as African MSA tools).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The plot tickens. Human origins in crisis..? Are Neanderthals, heidelbergensis and erectus just hybrids with varying degrees of sapiens DNA?
(Just found this new 2020 article while searching for any sign that scientists are beginning to admit the failures of their models).
Neanderthal Y DNA so far turns out to be AMH after the mtDNA pool was already proven to be AMH.
"amazing! you could put them in a suit and you wouldn't know they were any different if they walked past"
Yeah, no wonder with all that sapiens DNA
I see the implications are perfectly clear to them, because denial is already at the forefront of their minds. They waste no time trying to reassure the bandwagon and deny any danger to the narrative:
quote:Only a few percent of the rest of the Neanderthal genome appears to be made up of modern human DNA, yet this study found that three different Neanderthal individuals, unearthed at sites spread across Eurasia and dating to periods tens of thousands of years apart, all carried modern human–like Y chromosomes.
IMO one of the most interesting but low-key detail here is that the 'pre-Neanderthals' (Sima de los Huesos), who look more archaic than real Neanderthals, have Denisovan mtDNA, while the real Neanderthals, who look much more like sapiens, have sapiens mtDNA and apparently sapiens Y-DNA:
quote:In 2017, he and colleagues analyzed material from a very early group of Neanderthals and revealed their mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to be more similar to the Denisovan mitochondrial genome.
It seems to me that Denisovans were something like Asian cousins of Sima de Los Huesos. The latter where then influenced by African AMH, which gave rise to Neanderthals who were more sapiens-like in morphology, uniparentals, autosomes and behaviour (unlike their predecessors' tools, Neanderthal Mousterian tools are in the same ball park as African MSA tools).
They are basically extending the definition of human to include Denisovans and Neanderthals. Either way it is the same game. Muddy the water and introduce all these other "archaic" humans to distinguish African humans from Eurasian humans. Even though all hominids come from Africa and all humans come from Africa, they still got to put Eurasia in there somehow as the origin of something.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Out of Africa hypothesis gained rapid acceptance in the late 1980s
The Out of Africa hypothesis gained rapid acceptance in the late 1980s, with pioneering analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which revealed very low mean nucleotide variation between the mtDNA of individuals from diverse populations (Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson 1987). This suggested that the species was young, since one interpretation of low levels of variation is that there was a genetic bottleneck in the recent past, such as would occur at speciation, and little time since then for subsequent variation to accrue. Moreover, the fact that more variation occurred in African groups suggested Africa as the source.
Modern thinking on Out of Africa began in the 1970s with the argument that because fossils phenotypically resembling recent humans are found in Africa earlier than anywhere else, “modern humans” originated there (Protsch 1975). Gunter Bräuer (1978, 1984) subsequently used new evidence to argue that Europeans must be of African descent. However, in arguing for African ancestry, neither Protsch nor Bräuer contended that early humans of modern form in Africa implied unique African origins. The Out of Africa hypothesis— the idea of an African origin for a recent modern human species—owes its genesis to interpretations of mtDNA, which suggested that the ancestors of recent humans first appeared in Africa and replaced other populations because they were a new species that did not interbreed (Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson 1987; Stoneking and Cann 1989). This model of replacement without mixture in the process of recent human origin was accepted by some paleoanthropologists (Stringer and Andrews 1988) and remains an influential model in the early 2000s.
THE GENETIC FOUNDATIONS The Out of Africa hypothesis, the theory of a recent unique African origin for the modern human species, was supported by early interpretations of the variation of mtDNA (Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson 1987; Stoneking and Cann 1989). Advances in gene sequencing technology in the 1980s provided the techniques to sequence the mitochondrial genome, and Rebecca Cann initially compared mtDNA variants from representatives of several different populations.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: And the fact that you and I never bought into the outright dismissal of old anthropology is what is helping us in investigating these areas of anthropology that have been mishandled by scholars. I appreciate that you never went along with that bandwagon.
Yes, well not only have I always been independent minded and always questioned things but I know that despite whatever errors scholars of the past had I knew they weren't wrong about everything. You basically take what's accurate and correct and leave the rest alone. This goes equally for early Africanist scholars like Cheikh Diop as it is does for white supremacist scholars like Carleton Coon. To put it simply, whatever erroneous theories or conclusions they may have had, you can't dismiss the objective material data they both collected.
And yeah, I've always questioned the in situ change theory as well. It never made sense how Mesolithic Nubians and late Holocene Egypto-Nubians could be the same people as if craniofacial changes that drastic could happen in so short a time. And I recognize the same exact patter with Paleo-Americans as you pointed out.
quote:BTW, I just edited my previous post and added a paper. Can you read it and let me know what you think? Are we being told lies by mainstream science about sapiens/LSA/UP tools only being 50ky old, or do you think they have valid reasons for under-reporting and downplaying the importance of this information?
I have yet to read the entire paper but it wouldn't surprise me that mainstream science is lying again. It's not like the first time. Recall how lithic industries were originally measured and still today often named by what happened in Europe, as if all early human development was based on Europeans. And although I don't buy into the 'Catastrophic Civilizations' theory, I do believe human cultures during the Paleolithic were likely more advanced than most believe.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Swenet do you believe in a multiregional hypothesis but occurring inside various parts of Africa?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many multiregionalists are intellectually dishonest and kept changing their ideas to be able to stay in the race and compete with OOA. (If you don't believe me, see Tishkoff's work; she called them out in the 90s for changing their claims as they were losing the OOA vs multiregionalism debate).
So, there is no one single multiregionalism (just like there is no one single OOA theory).
Define what you mean with 'multiregionalism'.
Keep in mind that Eurasia plays the part of an equal in multiregionalism (all versions of multiregionalism denied a special role for Africa in the origins of sapiens). Therefore, multiregionalism is debunked and people should be careful with giving it legitimacy by reusing or reviving it in 2021.
If you're going to respond, you can make a new thread. This is getting too far off topic.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Many multiregionalists are intellectually dishonest and kept changing their ideas to be able to stay in the race and compete with OOA. (If you don't believe me, see Tishkoff's work; she called them out in the 90s for changing their claims as they were losing the OOA vs multiregionalism debate).
So, there is no one single multiregionalism (just like there is no one single OOA theory).
Define what you mean with 'multiregionalism'.
Keep in mind that Eurasia plays the part of an equal in multiregionalism (all versions of multiregionalism denied a special role for Africa in the origins of sapiens). Therefore, multiregionalism is debunked and people should be careful with giving it legitimacy by reusing or reviving it in 2021.
If you're going to respond, you can make a new thread. This is getting too far off topic.
No, I'm not talking about traditional multiregionalism that talks about human beings establishing independently in various parts of the world
I'm asking do you believe it to be the case inside Africa, that human beings inside Africa are not all related, they are different types of Africans who arose independently from one another inside Africa, there is no transition of one type into another
Maybe a variant term would have to be created
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would that work without isolation or some scenario where movement on the continent was restricted? Because it would be weird to have one species that does they something (humans.) and they vastly diffs and lack any kind of interaction.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And although I don't buy into the 'Catastrophic Civilizations' theory, I do believe human cultures during the Paleolithic were likely more advanced than most believe.
There are records of certain hunter-gatherer societies developing greater complexity (and even social hierarchy) than you'd expect from Hadza-style egalitarian nomadic bands. Certain Native American cultures of the Pacific Northwest come to mind, as does the culture that built Gobekli Tepe. I would not be too shocked if such complex societies developed at various periods in human prehistory during the Pleistocene as well as the Holocene.
That said, my understanding is that paleoanthropologists have actually been moving away from the supposition that humans only became behaviorally modern during a sudden "revolution" that led to the LSA/UP. This paper might be of interest:
quote:Proponents of the model known as the “human revolution” claim that modern human behaviors arose suddenly, and nearly simultaneously, throughout the Old World ca. 40–50 ka. This fundamental behavioral shift is purported to signal a cognitive advance, a possible reorganization of the brain, and the origin of language. Because the earliest modern human fossils, Homo sapiens sensu stricto, are found in Africa and the adjacent region of the Levant at >100 ka, the “human revolution” model creates a time lag between the appearance of anatomical modernity and perceived behavioral modernity, and creates the impression that the earliest modern Africans were behaviorally primitive. This view of events stems from a profound Eurocentric bias and a failure to appreciate the depth and breadth of the African archaeological record. In fact, many of the components of the “human revolution” claimed to appear at 40–50 ka are found in the African Middle Stone Age tens of thousands of years earlier. These features include blade and microlithic technology, bone tools, increased geographic range, specialized hunting, the use of aquatic resources, long distance trade, systematic processing and use of pigment, and art and decoration. These items do not occur suddenly together as predicted by the “human revolution” model, but at sites that are widely separated in space and time. This suggests a gradual assembling of the package of modern human behaviors in Africa, and its later export to other regions of the Old World. The African Middle and early Late Pleistocene hominid fossil record is fairly continuous and in it can be recognized a number of probably distinct species that provide plausible ancestors for H. sapiens. The appearance of Middle Stone Age technology and the first signs of modern behavior coincide with the appearance of fossils that have been attributed to H. helmei, suggesting the behavior of H. helmei is distinct from that of earlier hominid species and quite similar to that of modern people. If on anatomical and behavioral grounds H. helmei is sunk into H. sapiens, the origin of our species is linked with the appearance of Middle Stone Age technology at 250–300 ka.
The point is that mainstream science is using deceptive labeling to keep the LSA/UP phase confined to 50ky and later. Industries that are vaguely or substantially or even essentially LSA/UP-like have been found along the entire length of the duration of the MSA/MP.
This new trend in mainstream science of fawning over the richness of African MSA cultures does not rectify LSA/UP-like industries being deceptively obscured by lumping them with MSA/MP.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:The present article is devoted to a phenomenon which, in my view, has not yet been assessed by prehistoric archaeologists at its true value. This phenomenon may be called ‘running ahead of time’ in cultural development. It finds expression in relatively short-term but sharp, sudden and substantial deviations from the normal evolutionary succession.
‘Running ahead of time’ in the development of Palaeolithic industries
The point is that mainstream science is using deceptive labeling to keep the LSA/UP phase confined to 50ky and later. Industries that are vaguely or substantially or even essentially LSA/UP-like have been found along the entire length of the duration of the MSA/MP.
This new trend in mainstream science of fawning over the richness of African MSA cultures does not rectify LSA/UP-like industries being deceptively obscured by lumping them with MSA/MP.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:The present article is devoted to a phenomenon which, in my view, has not yet been assessed by prehistoric archaeologists at its true value. This phenomenon may be called ‘running ahead of time’ in cultural development. It finds expression in relatively short-term but sharp, sudden and substantial deviations from the normal evolutionary succession.
‘Running ahead of time’ in the development of Palaeolithic industries
OK, it sounds like your beef is with how archaeologists have been partitioning their chronology. Frankly, I don't see why you think something nefarious on the part of the archaeological community has to be going on here. All the data you cite seem to be saying is that there is considerable technological overlap between the MSA and LSA, to the point where you seem to think these shouldn't be considered separate time periods at all. And fair enough, all chronological divisions are socially constructed anyway. But I seriously doubt most archaeologists or paleoanthropologists are going to be that invested in defending outdated chronology.
posted
I think you're perfectly aware of what is going on here. This is why you're misrepresenting the issue twice now, even though the quote states in crystal clear language what the issue is, and what is at stake.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:The present article is devoted to a phenomenon which, in my view, has not yet been assessed by prehistoric archaeologists at its true value. This phenomenon may be called ‘running ahead of time’ in cultural development. It finds expression in relatively short-term but sharp, sudden and substantial deviations from the normal evolutionary succession.
‘Running ahead of time’ in the development of Palaeolithic industries
I don't see how this could be reduced to "beef about subjective partitions and social constructs".
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
To refocus after the shameless derail attempts...
The LSA/UP is artificially constrained to 50-10ky. Not because the evidence demands it, but because they desperately need the MSA/MP to be ancestral to the LSA/UP.
But LSA/UP-like industries before 50ky are exposing that the MSA/MP is not ancestral:
Mellars (1991: 246) defines it as ‘fully “Upper Palaeolithic” in al- most every recognized technological and typo- logical sense’.
This is an open secret among these people. They know that LSA/UP-like industries can even underlie (ie be older than) layers containing local MSA/MP industries. But they just lump everything older than 50ky together as 'MSA/MP' to get rid of the inconvenience.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic