When people read of Western history, the lion's share is of the Caucasian in Mesopotamia, the Aegean, and Europe in the times since their arrival: i.e. at times below the yellow band in Bulgaria above near 3400 BC when the first of their incursions were tiny hunter-gather groups. They encountered societies and pre-existent civilizations that predated their arrival.
Comparatively little attention is given to the period of time from when they left their homeland in the Steppes until they arrived at those destinations - Egypt and Nubia among them.
Their advance, as in the case of Alexander and Caesar, is gloriously described as splendid conquests, impressive massacres when the world is thrown into chaos and old towns, cities, and civilizations destroyed under sword and fire in India, Mesopotamia, Egypt (and elsewhere in Africa); Etrusca, Rome, the rest of Europe. This word “conquest” has no place in civilized society be it from Caucasians or Africans, Negroes.
However, the other side of the coin is that conquest is the excuse of, the condoing of the wholesale theft of lands carved-out of wilderness, wealth, civilizations cultivated for thousands of years. The original inhabitants at best dispelled and dispersed. This webpage touches on that but could yet variously be called:
(1) “The coming of the Proto Greeks, Romans, European, and American” or (2) “The Spread of African Civilization in Neolithic Europe 6200–3000 BC,” or (3) The Spread of Steppic Population in Neolithic Europe During African Phase:
Marc Washington
PS. While the Germanic languages are said to have their origin in Anatolia, wasn't it Anatolia that for thousands of years cultivated lands, raised cattle, developed technologies? The Proto-European arrived in Anatolia long after the language was developed yet are credited with its creation. I suppose you know that leading anthropologists note that the skeletal remains reveal two different African types in earliest Anatolia. Who actually developed the Germanic language of which English is its greatest child? It is an interesting question to explore - and full of surprises.
Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^The chart you display, shows the origin of Indo-European speakers and has nothing to do with Neolithic Africans.
Unless you are now making the ridiculous claim that proto IE speakers were Africans?! Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti. Yesterday it was LOL. Today you have called me ridiculous. Perhaps I am. Your attitude which pleases in degrading and condemnation, though, is that of a typical white person who feels comfortable defacing Negroes and this is the attitude that lead to your ancestors laying waste to Africa, enslaving its inhabitants, forcing our women into your harems be they in lands maurading white nomads claimed for their own or on white southern plantations in the American south.
Yours typical of the attitude your ancestors had when claiming our property for their own at spear or gunpoint and at will in India and Africa, or where else Negroes were found to have property they wanted for themselves. Yours is the same attitude that makes white cops feel entitled to kill black youth for fun; sell guns simultaneously to two warring African tribes you provoked to fight. This apparently is the cloth you are cut from; the feelings in your heart welling to the surface. You are a free person and entitled to hurl any insults at me which suits your moods and whenever you like.
You imply whites were in Europe first and historically. Maria Gimbutas and James Mellaart among many European anthropologists and scholars notes that today's Europeans didn't begin to penetrate Central, Southern, and Western Europe until near 2000 BC but it was not until the Negro Aetius defeated the Huns the Germans called black (Schwartz); not until soon after that Marcus Aurelias failed to stop the Alemani Germanic peoples and the other Germanic tribes, it was not until that point near 450 AD that the balance tipped; with the backbone of opposition gone through Attila and Marcus Aurelias, the Germanic tribes poured into Europe. And the Friesburg tribes of Denmark came down to Britain and dispensed with the indigenous peoples to make the land their own. That is when “Europe” began.
Gimbutas and Mellaart and the other scholars note that Europe had its indigenous people. But, they avoid to say that they were Negro. They were Negro. I will provide citations if you ask.
And your skepticism must be typical with that of 99% of whites for they are under the incorrect assumption that they were the original inhabitants of Europe. I have four web pages on the subject. The first is here. If I should continue and post the others one-by-one, let me know. This one is of the Negro presence in Northern Neolithic Europe:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^The chart you display, shows the origin of Indo-European speakers and has nothing to do with Neolithic Africans.
Unless you are now making the ridiculous claim that proto IE speakers were Africans?!
Some people are determined to make the same mistakes, fall prey to the same fallacies and myths, etc., which ultimately result from faulty thought processes.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Djehuti. Yesterday it was LOL. Today you have called me ridiculous. Perhaps I am. Your attitude which pleases in degrading and condemnation, though, is that of a typical white person who feels comfortable defacing Negroes and this is the attitude that lead to your ancestors laying waste to Africa, enslaving its inhabitants, forcing our women into your harems be they in lands maurading white nomads claimed for their own or on white southern plantations in the American south.
Yours typical of the attitude your ancestors had when claiming our property for their own at spear or gunpoint and at will in India and Africa, or where else Negroes were found to have property they wanted for themselves. Yours is the same attitude that makes white cops feel entitled to kill black youth for fun; sell guns simultaneously to two warring African tribes you provoked to fight. This apparently is the cloth you are cut from; the feelings in your heart welling to the surface. You are a free person and entitled to hurl any insults at me which suits your moods and whenever you like.
First off, I'm not even white!!
Second, I don't degrade 'negroes' or any racial group since I am not racist and on the contrary such racial groups are based on false social constructs. (There is no such thing as 'negroes')
But anyway, the only thing I degrade is ignorance and false historical claims. It's blacks like you who do more damage than the white Eurocentrics!!
quote:You imply whites were in Europe first and historically. Maria Gimbutas and James Mellaart among many European anthropologists and scholars notes that today's Europeans didn't begin to penetrate Central, Southern, and Western Europe until near 2000 BC but it was not until the Negro Aetius defeated the Huns the Germans called black (Schwartz); not until soon after that Marcus Aurelias failed to stop the Alemani Germanic peoples and the other Germanic tribes, it was not until that point near 450 AD that the balance tipped; with the backbone of opposition gone through Attila and Marcus Aurelias, the Germanic tribes poured into Europe. And the Friesburg tribes of Denmark came down to Britain and dispensed with the indigenous peoples to make the land their own. That is when “Europe” began.
Gimbutas and Mellaart and the other scholars note that Europe had its indigenous people. But, they avoid to say that they were Negro. They were Negro. I will provide citations if you ask.
And your skepticism must be typical with that of 99% of whites for they are under the incorrect assumption that they were the original inhabitants of Europe. I have four web pages on the subject. The first is here. If I should continue and post the others one-by-one, let me know. This one is of the Negro presence in Northern Neolithic Europe:
ROTFL Gimbutas and James Mellaart were talking about Indo-European speakers who penetrated the rest of Europe from the east. They said absolutely NOTHING about "negroes" in the rest of Europe!! The indigenous people of Europe were cold-adapted whites NOT tropical adapted "negroes" as you say, unless you are talking about the first people who entered Europe over 50k years ago!
ROTLMAO at March and his George Bush-looking Syrians but now negro Europeans!!
Seriously though, the guy is no different from the racist whites of the past who claim an early "caucazoid" (white) presence in Africa who were ultimately overrun by "negroes"!!
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[Djehuti writes] "First off, I'm not white."
[Marc writes] I don't believe you. I believe you pretend to be black to gain credibility as you deride ideas showing blacks outside of Africa involved in founding civilizations and cultures worldwide.
[Djehuti writes] "Gimbutas and James Mellaart ... said absolutely NOTHING about "negroes" in the rest of Europe!!"
[Marc wrote the following the Djehuti seems to have missed] "Gimbutas and Mellaart and the other scholars note that Europe had its indigenous people. But, they avoid to say that they were Negro."
Did I say they said there were negroes in Europe? No.
[Paraphrasing, Djehuti wrote that]: (1) the only negroes in Europe would have been from 50,000 years ago; (2) there were no later migrations from Africa to Europe so to say there were negroes afterwards is wrong.
[Marc writes] Several points: The Siberian mummified in the above web page in a book cited at page bottom indicates the individuals are from near 1000 BC. So, he's wrong on that point.
Two. The most prominent geneticists in the world today write that "genes" from the end of Pleistocene / beginning of Holocene (so near 10,000 BC) are found in Eurasia and India. The facts below show he is wrong:
“The M35/M215sub-clade of haplotpyes fragments a lineage described previously. We suggest that a population within this subclade of the African YAP M145/M203/PN2 cluster expanded into the southern and eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Pleistocene. These lineages then would have been then from the Middle East into southern Europe (and to a large extent northern India and Pakistan) by farmers during the Neolithic expansion…” P. A. Underhill, C. Passarino, A. Lin, P. Shen, M. Mirazon, Lahr, R. A. Foley, P. J. Oefner, L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, The Phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origin of modern populations, Ann Hum Genet 65, pp. 43 – 62, 2001."
Djehuti. I have found you lashing out at me and fabricating things about me that I did not say two days in a row. I feel the comments I made above about you holding rancid racism in your heart certainly hold. And with that, you can have the last word as I won't be responding to you again in this thread and possibly not much more in the future. You get your facts wrong too often.
But, all the best to you.
Marc Washington
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:[Marc writes] I don't believe you. I believe you pretend to be black to gain credibility as you deride ideas showing blacks outside of Africa involved in founding civilizations and cultures worldwide.
Tehu writes: No, I don't pretend to black since I am not black either. The ideas that blacks founded civilizations worldwide is as ridiculous as the idea that whites founded civilizations worldwide.
quote:[Marc wrote the following the Djehuti seems to have missed] "Gimbutas and Mellaart and the other scholars note that Europe had its indigenous people. But, they avoid to say that they were Negro."
Tehu writes: Marc, you are so blinded by ignorance you didn't even see the point in the first place! Gimbutas and Mellaart didn't avoid anything because there were no indigenous "negroes" of Europe!! LMAO Where is the evidence of such a claim?!
quote:[Marc says:] Did I say they said there were negroes in Europe? No.
Then exactly what are you saying??
quote:[Paraphrasing, Djehuti wrote that]: (1) the only negroes in Europe would have been from 50,000 years ago; (2) there were no later migrations from Africa to Europe so to say there were negroes afterwards is wrong.
Tehu says: I'm very aware of the introduction of the Neolithic to Europe by those of Africand descent, but that still doesn't prove that Indo-European gods like Zeus were "negro".
quote:[Marc writes] Several points: The Siberian mummified in the above web page in a book cited at page bottom indicates the individuals are from near 1000 BC. So, he's wrong on that point.
Tehu says: What does that gotta do with anything?
quote:Two. The most prominent geneticists in the world today write that "genes" from the end of Pleistocene / beginning of Holocene (so near 10,000 BC) are found in Eurasia and India. The facts below show he is wrong:
“The M35/M215sub-clade of haplotpyes fragments a lineage described previously. We suggest that a population within this subclade of the African YAP M145/M203/PN2 cluster expanded into the southern and eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Pleistocene. These lineages then would have been then from the Middle East into southern Europe (and to a large extent northern India and Pakistan) by farmers during the Neolithic expansion…” P. A. Underhill, C. Passarino, A. Lin, P. Shen, M. Mirazon, Lahr, R. A. Foley, P. J. Oefner, L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, The Phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and the origin of modern populations, Ann Hum Genet 65, pp. 43 – 62, 2001."
Tehu says: I am well aware of the expansion of African E3b-M35 into Europe as well as West Asian J lineages into Europe as well. And??
quote:Djehuti. I have found you lashing out at me and fabricating things about me that I did not say two days in a row. I feel the comments I made above about you holding rancid racism in your heart certainly hold. And with that, you can have the last word as I won't be responding to you again in this thread and possibly not much more in the future. You get your facts wrong too often.
I'm sorry you feel that way Marc, but again I am not "lashing out" or fabricating anything. Sorry if you are so sensitive and paranoid but no I am not racist. But again, much of what you say is only food for the true white racists!
quote:But, all the best to you.
Thankyou and likewise to you, cuz you need it! Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Gimbutas and James Mellaart were talking about Indo-European speakers who penetrated the rest of Europe from the east. They said absolutely NOTHING about "negroes" in the rest of Europe!! The indigenous people of Europe were cold-adapted whites NOT tropical adapted "negroes" as you say, unless you are talking about the first people who entered Europe over 50k years ago!
This is false the Grimaldi people were Negroes. The Grimaldi civilization was much later than 50,000 ybp.
Recent genetic research indicates that the contemporary Europeans are not related to the ancient Europeans.
quote:
Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1016 - 1018 DOI: 10.1126/science.1118725 Prev | Table of Contents | Next
REPORTS Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites Wolfgang Haak,1* Peter Forster,2 Barbara Bramanti,1 Shuichi Matsumura,2 Guido Brandt,1 Marc Tänzer,1 Richard Villems,3 Colin Renfrew,2 Detlef Gronenborn,4 Kurt Werner Alt,1 Joachim Burger1 The ancestry of modern Europeans is a subject of debate among geneticists, archaeologists, and anthropologists. A crucial question is the extent to which Europeans are descended from the first European farmers in the Neolithic Age 7500 years ago or from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who were present in Europe since 40,000 years ago. Here we present an analysis of ancient DNA from early European farmers. We successfully extracted and sequenced intact stretches of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 24 out of 57 Neolithic skeletons from various locations in Germany, Austria, and Hungary. We found that 25% of the Neolithic farmers had one characteristic mtDNA type and that this type formerly was widespread among Neolithic farmers in Central Europe. Europeans today have a 150-times lower frequency (0.2%) of this mtDNA type, revealing that these first Neolithic farmers did not have a strong genetic influence on modern European female lineages. Our finding lends weight to a proposed Paleolithic ancestry for modern Europeans.
This DNA found in the ancient Europeans was N1(a).
It seems to me that we may be asking the wrong question. Instead of trying to explain why the Old Europeans were not Indo-European speakers, or contemporary Europeans, we should be asking the question who these Old Europeans were. It appears to me that they may have been Africans.
This is based on the reality that the haplogroup N1(a) is common to Ethiopians and Dravidian speaking people of India (Richards et al, 2005; Toomas et al, 2004). The Old Europeans may be related to African cattle raising farming groups, originally from Africa and the Middle East who may have planted the seeds of agriculture in ancient Europe, especially descendants of the Natufians.
Many Researchers see Africans spreading into Europe in ancient times.
quote:
PreDynastic Egypt
quote:
Chris Stringer and Robin McKie:
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some looked more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by OBJECTIVE anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China."
Africa in a sense kept pumping out migrations and dispersals of people and this included people like the Neanderthals who, equally, it doesn't seem were our ancestors.
CL Brace - The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic entered Europe through a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Lavant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids.
quote:
Natufian Artifact
This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.
Keita notes that:
quote:
"Epipaleolithic "mesolithic" Nile Valley remains have these characteristics and diverge notably from their Maghreban and European counterparts in key cranio-facial characteristics (see comments in Keita 1990) although late Natufian hunters and early Anatolian farmers (Angel 1972) shared some of these traits, suggesting late Paleolithic migration out of Africa, as supported by archeology **(Bar Yosef 1987)**. - Keita, 1993.
Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans. The founders of civilization in South West Asia were the people, archaeologists call Natufians. By 13,000 BC, according to J.D. Clark (1977) the Natufians were collecting grasses which later became domesticated crops in Southwest Asia. In Palestine the Natufians established intensive grass collection. The Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry (Wendorf, 1968). These Natufians , according to Christopher Ehret Natufians were small stature folk who spread agriculture throughout Nubia into the Red Sea. The Natufians took the Ibero-Maurusian tools into Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.
Some researchers believe that Natufian, or some related population took the E3b alpha cluster to Europe.
"...Recently, it has been proposed that E3b originated in sub-Saharan Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001). E3b lineages would have then been introduced from the Near East into southern Europe by ***immigrant** farmers, during the Neolithic expansion (Hammer et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001)." - Cruciani et al.
From common sense, "originated in sub-Saharan Africa" can be taken as "sub-Saharan African derived"; don't need someone to constantly spoon feed you on what common sense ought to enable you to arrive at.
The Proto-Magyar were one of the many ethnic groups which formerly lived in the Fertile African Crescent. They offered prayers to *kan, e.g., Magyar kan, konyorog, Manding kani, and Dravidian ka-n. They also worshipped the god Amon, who they called Anya (Winters, 1986).
The name Maa is found in many Proto-Saharan ethnonyms. For example the Manding called themselves Ma-nde (the children of Ma), the Sumerians called themselves Mah-Gar-ri (exalted God's children), and the Magyar of ancient times referred to themselves as Muh-ger-ri , or Ma-ka-r (exalted children) (Winters,1986).
According to David MacRitchies the most ancient Uralic speakers were called czernii ugris or 'Black Ugris'. The Ugris were also called Hunni. The name Ugrian, is the origin for the word Hungarian. The Hungarians were also called Sabatocospali ,"the Blacks".
The Carpathian blacks arrived in the area in the 4th millennium B.C. The Tripolye culture dates from 3800 to 2100 B.C. The Tripolye culture was established in the Ukraine, Moldavia and Romania along the Siret River in the Ukraine.
quote: Tripolye Artifact
The Tripolye people may have collected/cultivated barley, millet and wheat. They also had domesticated cattle, sheep-goats and pigs. As in Africa, their principle domesticate at this time was cattle .
During the middle Neolithic copper was being exploited in several mountainous regions of Europe. The center for copper mining in Europe was the Carpathian mountains. Many copper objects have been found on Tripolyean sites .
Many animal and human figurines have been found on Tripolyean sites. The Tripolye rotund ceramic female figurines are analogous to the rotund female figurines found in ancient Nubia.
It appears that for over a millennium the Linear Pottery and Cris farming groups practiced agriculture in the core region of Tripolyean culture. The middle Neolithic Tripolye people on the other hand are associated with cattle herding and mining.
The Vinca Tordos culture is very interesting because of the evidence of writing found in this culture. The famous Tartaria tablets were produced by the Vinca Tordos culture. The Vinca Tordos culture is associated with western Bulgaria, southwest Romania and Yugoslavia.
The Vinca people in addition to possessing writing were also engaged in copper metallurgy. They also made clay and stone figurines and fine pottery. As among the contemporary Nubians and Tripolyeans culture the Vinca people made fine human and animal figurines .
In conclusion the archaeological evidence suggest that The Old Europeans may have been Blacks who carried the N1 lineage to Europe that were later replaced by Indo-European speaking populations.
References:
Balter M. 2005. Ancient DNA yields clues to the puzzle of European origins. Science 310:964-965. Full text (subscription)
Clark, J.D. (1977).The origins of domestication in Ethiopia", Fifth Panafrican Congress of prehistory and quaternary Studies, Nairobi.
Haak W et al. 2005. Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in 7500-year-old Neolithic sites. Science 310:1016-1018. Full text (subscription)
Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) .
Cavalli-Sforza LL (1995) Demographic history of India and mtDNA-sequence diversity. Am J Hum Genet 56:979–992 [PubMed].
Christopher Ehret,C. (1979).On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour. of African History 20, p.161.
Richards M. 2003. The Neolithic invasion of Europe. Annu Rev Anthropol 32:135-162. Full text
Richards M, Macaulay V, Hickey E, Vega E, Sykes B, Guida V, Rengo C, et al (2000) Tracing European founder lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA pool. Am J Hum Genet 67:1251–1276 [PubMed] [Free Full Text].
Richards M, Rengo C, Cruciani F, Gratrix F, Wilson JF, Scozzari R, Macaulay V, Torroni A (2003) Extensive female-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa into Near Eastern Arab populations. Am J Hum Genet 72:1058–1064 [ Free Full text in PMC].
Toomas Kivisild,1 Maere Reidla,1 Ene Metspalu,1 Alexandra Rosa,1 Antonio Brehm,2 Erwan Pennarun,1 Jüri Parik,1 Tarekegn Geberhiwot,3 Esien Usanga,4 and Richard Villems.(2004)1 Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears. Am J Hum Genet. 2004 November; 75(5): 752–770.
Wendorf,F. (1968).The History of Nubia,( Dallas,1968) pp.941-46).
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is actually from a post by Supercar, not me:
quote:"...Recently, it has been proposed that E3b originated in sub-Saharan Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001). E3b lineages would have then been introduced from the Near East into southern Europe by ***immigrant** farmers, during the Neolithic expansion (Hammer et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001)." - Cruciani et al.
From common sense, "originated in sub-Saharan Africa" can be taken as "sub-Saharan African derived"; don't need someone to constantly spoon feed you on what common sense ought to enable you to arrive at.
In order to better understand the peopling of Europe, you need to understand the concepts of Paleolithic, Holocene, Mesolithic and Neolithic.
Also need to understand the relationship of Europeans to all other peoples including all Africans and all Asians.
Otherwise you end up spamming pictures and leaping to wild-minded conclusions, based on taking facts out of context.
This thread has already gone off the deep end in that direction if you ask me.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The facts regarding the peopling of Europe is as follows.
All non Africans descend from a small group of people living in East Africa 50 to 70 thousand years ago.
This includes Swedes, Chinese, Melanesians....all of the them share a common ancestry.
These early African and non African people would have varied in physical form, but one common denominator is that they all would have been melanoderm, or darkskinned, ie - black.
The early Northern Eurasian people split off from the southerns about 40, 45 thousand years ago. And 30+ thousand years ago - Europeans or Western Eurasians separated from East Asians.
Early Europeans [sometimes called Cro-Magnons, named after caves in France] still showed some signs of tropical adaptation.
They likely still had some skin-tone, but they had probably been living in Northern latitudes long enough so that depigmentation had at least 'begun'.
In cranial form, these eaerly people varied. Some do indeed appear to resemble modern Europeans, but some actually had cranial forms more similar to modern Africans, Melanesians and Australians.
This is not suprising, since in many ways, Black Africans and Blacks of Australia and the Pacifica Islands are less differentiated from early Africans and non Africans, in skull shape than Europeans.
However greater or lesser differeniation is somewhat subjective, which is another reason why race catagories are arbitrary.
From the Paleolithic thru the Mesolithic, Europeans lost most of their tropical skeletal adaptations, and also developed specific mutations on their skin color receptors which cause them to become 'leucoderm' [white].
Skin color is a variable adaption to climate.
It is *NOT* a fixed 'racial' trait.
At the onset of the Neolithic, a new population migrated into soutern Europe from Africa and the Middle East.
These people resembled Africans physically to a greater degree than either previous European or current European populations do.
Genetically modern southern Europeans also harbor African lineages which were introduced into their population at this time.
Over time, Europeans absorbed this neolithic and later African and SouthWest Asian influence, which is now a part of their shared history, and a shared history with Africa.
From this we conclude:
1) Racial catagories for skulls are ultimately nonsensical.
2) There is no negro race, or caucasian race as classifiable by skull type.
3) Skulls vary and always have...everywhere. This is why 'if you look hard enough', you can find a 'so called negro' or 'so called caucazoid' anywhere, or nowhere, and you can be sure of 'no agreement' whatsoever on such catagories. [see the debacle re: King Tut "cacuzsoid" classification]
4) Subtle gradiations of skull shape are ancient, and so are found in all areas of the world - racial divergence is A MYTH.
5) Racialist thinking is reductionist, dull-minded, unimaginative, and non-perceptive. Race catogories can be leaned upon by such mentalities as a kind of crutch, one of the few, and dubious, functions of racialist typology.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Correct. Which is why labeling Paleolithic Grimaldi as "negroes" is null since the same could be said about the early Chinese, Siberians, etc.
ALL humans possessed tropical adapted ("negroid") features, which brings us back to why Biological races DO NOT EXIST.
Funny how you responded to me in this thread, Clyde yet you ignored my questions on the other thread. Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marc has very good graphic skills. If we'd like to make graphic presentations like those of Oppenheimer and Wells it'd behove us to address him as respectfully as he addresses us regardless of how much we may disagree with his anthropology and history.
One can better be convinced or presented with contrary evidence by a patient kindly approach rather than by caustic reproach.
Many a newbie, with unguessed contributions, has been immediately turned off by negative reception amounting to an accusitive attack. I think it serves our purposes better to respectfully engage presenters of antiquated anthropology and history easing them into current and contemporary literature and methodology until maybe gradually they see some validity to it.
We talk distantly here of Africa through a detached lense even placing African culture under the magnifying glass. But how much of said African culture do we actual practice in life?
It is in no wise indicative of traditional African culture's hospitality to aggravate newcomers or goad them into rude response by being antagonist toward them because disagreeing with their presentation. That is, unless we're dealing with an obvious outright troll or hater, and Marc is neither one.
While believing in what he presents and sticking to his guns, as any man must, Marc is not dogmatic and is willing to rethink his position. I know because some months ago when he presented a work of art believing it to be one thing, when I directed him to sources plainly refuing his position Marc had no problem withdrawing his erroneous claim (which was well founded enough considering the ambiguity of the image he was using).
I'm for winning newbies over and making colleagues out of them rather than upbraiding them and sending them off with the bitters about the ES AE&E forum.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^Correct. Which is why labeling Paleolithic Grimaldi as "negroes" is null since the same could be said about the early Chinese, Siberians, etc.
ALL humans possessed tropical adapted ("negroid") features, which brings us back to why Biological races DO NOT EXIST.
Funny how you responded to me in this thread, Clyde yet you ignored my questions on the other thread.
Understanding the above is crucially important to Africanists.
Because if you do not understand this, you cannot refute Eurocentic racists, who claim that the original African population was caucasoid.
This claim is based upon mutual agreement of the uneducated to toss nonsense words [caucazoid, negroid] back and forth with no clear definition, or understanding of what they supposidly mean.
50 thousand years ago - there were no Europeans, there were no people living in caucasia [neanderthal notwithstanding], and there were no white people - period.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Early Europeans [sometimes called Cro-Magnons, named after caves in France] still showed some signs of tropical adaptation.
Cro-Magnon is another name for the Grimaldi people. The Cro-magnon people as you note were tropically adapted or simply Negroes.
They belonged to the haplogroup N which is a branch of L3 branch. The N haplogroup spread from Africa to Europe.
It is interesting to note that the DNA for the European farmers 7500 ybp was also haplogroup N1(a), which as noted by the researchers who conducted this research that contemporary Europeans do not have this gene.
The continuity of the N haplogroup from 24000-7500 BC makes it clear that Negroes were the dominant group in Europe up to this time.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: the Cro-magnon people as you note were tropically adapted or simply Negroes.
No. That's not what I said. You have the oddest habit of making strawmen of other peoples comments by not hearing anything except what you want to hear, and then intentionally distorting that little bit.
I don't know why you do this, unless you mean to imply that you think we're stupid.
What is true with regards to Cro-Magnon:
The term Cro-Magnon has no taxonomic significance and usually just refers to Europeans in a certain time range, even though other modern humans were living throughout much of the world at the same time.
To quote the Oxford Companion to Archaeology:
Cro-magnons are, in informal usage, a group among the late Ice Age peoples of Europe. The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10000 b.p. ...
The term 'Cro-Magnon' has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.
The name is not commonly encountered in modern professional literature in English, since authors prefer to talk more generally of anatomically modern humans.
They thus avoid a certain ambiguity in the label 'Cro-Magnon', which is sometimes used to refer to all early moderns in Europe (as opposed to the preceding Neanderthals), and sometimes to refer to a specific human group that can be distinguished from other Upper Paleolithic humans in the region. Nevertheless, the term 'Cro-Magnon' is still very commonly used in popular texts because it makes an obvious distinction with the Neanderthals, and also refers directly to people rather than to the complicated succession of archaeological phases that make up the Upper Paleolithic.
This evident practical value has prevented archaeologists and human paleontologists - especially in continental Europe - from dispensing entirely with the idea of Cro-Magnons. - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.htmlPosts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The term Cro-Magnon has no taxonomic significance and usually just refers to Europeans in a certain time range, even though other modern humans were living throughout much of the world at the same time.
To quote the Oxford Companion to Archaeology:
Cro-magnons are, in informal usage, a group among the late Ice Age peoples of Europe. The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10000 b.p. ...
The term 'Cro-Magnon' has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture.
The name is not commonly encountered in modern professional literature in English, since authors prefer to talk more generally of anatomically modern humans.
They thus avoid a certain ambiguity in the label 'Cro-Magnon', which is sometimes used to refer to all early moderns in Europe (as opposed to the preceding Neanderthals), and sometimes to refer to a specific human group that can be distinguished from other Upper Paleolithic humans in the region. Nevertheless, the term 'Cro-Magnon' is still very commonly used in popular texts because it makes an obvious distinction with the Neanderthals, and also refers directly to people rather than to the complicated succession of archaeological phases that make up the Upper Paleolithic.
This evident practical value has prevented archaeologists and human paleontologists - especially in continental Europe - from dispensing entirely with the idea of Cro-Magnons. - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html
You make a valid point that Cro-Magnon "has no formal taxonomic status", but that doesn't mean we can't use it as a descriptive term for a given population. It is important that we use this term because it relates to a specific group that existed formerly.
In your post the authors referred to Cro-Magnon as a name for early Europeans. As every one knows Gro Magnon were members of the African population, and some the earliest remains for Cro-Magnon are found in Africa.
Keita, Kittles et al, make it clear that specific terms should be used when referencing specific populations. They note:
quote:
It may be necessary to craft specific group identifiers to facilitate good research design2. 'Racial' approaches to identity, as found in Office of Management and Budget directive 15, operate from the Platonic mold that groups so defined would necessarily be genetically the same, and this is false. The New World descendants of Middle Passage Africans, whether found in specifically labeled communities (e.g., African Argentinian, African Mexican, African Venezuelan or African Canadian) or in the 'majority' populations ('mestizos' or 'whites') cannot be lumped with newcomers from the continent under the label 'black' or 'African American'.
'Race' and research Modern human genetic variation does not structure into phylogenetic subspecies (geographical 'races'), nor do the taxa from the most common racial classifications of classical anthropology qualify as 'races' (Box 1). The social or ethnoancestral groups of the US and Latin America are not 'races', and it has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics. These observations are not to be taken as statements against doing research on demographic groups or populations. They only support a brief for linguistic precision and careful descriptions of groups under study. Terms and labels have qualitative implications.
Detailed description of study populations and their specific histories is advocated. The study of well-defined local populations of demographic groups of the same name should be carried out in order to understand possible gene-environment effects. Likewise, data from nationwide studies on particular demographic groups should always be disaggregated by locale Local names should replace macrodesignations in studies in order to reflect specific populations. Generalizations that invoke 'genetic' explanations are to be avoided unless they are warranted. All of these have policy implications for health studies.
'Racial' thinking can still be found in scientific literature15. Evolutionary and other biohistorical studies should be model-based and should acknowledge the ongoing legacy of 'racial' thinking. Collaborations with experts in appropriate fields such as historical linguistics, archaeology, ethnology and recent history would improve the quality of multidisciplinary studies.
Keita, Kittles et al, make it clear that when conducting research you must make a "detailed description of study populations and their specific histories is advocated. The study of well-defined local populations of demographic groups of the same name should be carried out in order to understand possible gene-environment effects....Local names should replace macrodesignations in studies in order to reflect specific populations". This makes it clear that use of Cro magnon as an identifier of the early Negro population is sound.
quote:Local names should replace macrodesignations in studies in order to reflect specific populations.
and
quote:'Cro-Magnon', ... is ... used to refer to all early moderns in Europe
then
quote:use of Cro magnon as an identifier of the early Negro population is sound
is an illogical conclusion quite the opposite of the premises.
To comply with the first premise local names, i.e., those of each site, should be used, meaning Cro-Magnon only applies to the remains at Cro-Magnon not to all of Europe or northeast Asia and certainly not to anyplace in Africa.
posted
Also begs the question to Clyde, how can Cro-Magnon be called "African" if he was known as the first European??
If Modern Europeans are his descendants, are they not 'African' as well??
Mind you, modern humans entered Europe quite late in comparison to the rest of Eurasia. Modern humans have reached the continent of Australia long before they reached Europe.
Are all these people 'African'??
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Cro-Magnon', ... is ... used to refer to all early moderns in Europe --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
then quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- use of Cro magnon as an identifier of the early Negro population is sound --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is an illogical conclusion quite the opposite of the premises.
To comply with the first premise local names, i.e., those of each site, should be used, meaning Cro-Magnon only applies to the remains at Cro-Magnon not to all of Europe or northeast Asia and certainly not to anyplace in Africa.
The earliest remains of Cro Magnon come from Africa.
quote: Cro-Magnon Arrives Coming from the south, up the Nile valley and out of Africa, Cro-Magnon seems to have arrived in the Levant ahead of Neanderthal, maybe 100,000 years ago (give or take 20,000 years!). Depending on which anthropologist you listen to, Neanderthals arrived from their European fastness in the Levant (Palestine) either as early as 90,000 years ago or as late as 50,000. For their parts the Cro-Magnons took some 50,000 years to migrate north into the heartland of Neanderthal’s secret “empire” (Gooch), the cold climate zone of Europe. Thus these two presumed erectus offshoots, the secretive, powerful, hairy Neanderthals and their taller, smoother-skinned African cousins possessed of elegant speech, the Cro-Magnons, sojourned together in the Levant, and later in Europe, for somewhere between 20,000 and 60,000 years. Was it in the Levant that the oldest psychic artifacts of what became Western civilization were forged? http://www.metahistory.org/prehistory_pt1.php
The high hopes of fossil DNA readings have been reduced considerably. The only pertinent elements concern Neanderthals (Homo neandertahlensis) and Cro-Magnon (also known as Homo sapiens). They support our belief that the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens were perhaps different species that split into two different lines about 700 000 to 800 000 years ago. The Neanderthal line evolved in Europe about 600 000 to 700 000 years ago while the Cro-Magnon comes from Africa.
.
But since the first skeletons of this early human ancestor were found in Europe, the African type is also called Cro Magnon.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of the above has a wit to do with macrodesignation.
Cro-Magnon is macrodesignation terminology.
One can't use Cro-Magnon to cover all humanity from Europe to Asia and to Africa and then the same time claim being against macrodesignation.
Local naming demands that African humanity have local African names not macrodesignation like Cro-Magnon.
I don't care what anyone uses, macrodesignation or local naming, so long as they do precisely define what they mean by their private terminology.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ CroMagnon is a cave in France. African CroMagnon is and oxymoron!
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This an illogical conclusion quite the opposite of the premises.
To comply with the first premise local names, i.e., those of each site, should be used, meaning Cro-Magnon only applies to the remains at Cro-Magnon not to all of Europe or northeast Asia and certainly not to anyplace in Africa.
Correct!
It's a good thing, when the key point is clearly understood. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that European peoples of 45kya came directly from Africa is outdated.
quote: The gap of 50,000 years between the disappearance of the first modern Levantines and the subsequent invasion of Europe by Cro-Magnon man obviously raises serious doubts about the prevailing theory that the northern African exodus gave rise to Europeans. We shall now see why.
To help us to understand why many European archaeological and anthropological authorities argue that Europeans arose separately from a northern African exodus, we need to acknowledge that there may be a Eurocentric cultural agendum in what the northern exodus tries to explain. Most important is the lingering twentieth-century European conviction that the Cro-Magnons who moved into Europe no more than 50,000 years ago defined the beginning of our species as 'modern humans' in the fullest intellectual sense.
with an impassable Sahara Desert in the way for most of the past 100,000 years, any late North African invasion of Europe could only have come from a green refuge left in North Africa, such as the Nile Delta, after the interglacial from over 100,000 years ago. The Europeans could not have come directly from sub-Saharan Africa 45,000 – 50,000 years ago unless they floated all the way down the Nile on logs – which the genetic story denies.
quote: The idea that European peoples of 45kya came directly from Africa is outdated.
I was not talking about Cro Magnon between 100,000-45,000 years ago.
I was specifically talking about the Cro Magnon dating back to 24000ybp that belong to haplogroup N , which originated in Africa, and was still the most common DNA among European farmers 7500 ybp.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Cro-Magnon, France isn't in Africa. It's in Europe.
There is no Cro-Magnon, Africa.
So, there are no Cro-Magnon Africans.
Welcome to the 21st century.
How can you make this claim given the fact that many archaeologist have found Cro Magnon skeletons in North Africa?
What archaeological evidence do you have that the African Cro Magnon skeletons from Mechta-el-Arbi and other sites in North Africa , are not Cro Magnon?
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^What are you talking about. There have even been threads at ES I believe that have discussed the Cro Magnon skeletons found in Africa. You must be on the Internet too long. Go outside and take a break.
posted
The main conceptual problem is that this map doesn't show mtDNA N anywhere in Eurasia and can't be used to support that idea. Myself, I can't comment on mtDNA N in Europe without a geneticists frame of reference and no citation was provided for the statement of N in Europe from 24000-7500bp. Caramelli thinks it could be in either macrohaplogroup N (which includes W X and I, not just N1a) or in haplogroup HV or pre-HV.
quote: Do we have any genetic trail that exactly fits the rapid movement of the Aurignacian tool-makers, westward within central Europe, taking them to the Pyrenees and Spain by 40,000 years ago? Although U5 is now ubiquitous in Europe, we do know that the oldest Europa great-granddaughter, U5a, dating from around 40,000 years ago, is commonest in the Basque country of northern Spain. One of the only European refuges during the last ice age, the Basque region managed to preserve more of its original genetic diversity than did other parts of Western Europe.
... Inspection of the gene-line tree gives us a genealogy that we can recount in biblical style: Europa was genetic daughter of R ('Rohani'), who was genetic daughter of Nasreen, who was the genetic daughter of the out-of-Africa L3. By what route, however, did the Europa maternal clan arrive in the Levant, and where was her daughter U5, who colonized Europe, born? Both the N ('Nasreen') and Rohani root types are unknown except in South Asia, where Nasreen root types are found at low rates and Rohani is found in great variety. Most Rohani types in India are found nowhere else, and the great diversity of Rohani in India allows us to estimate when her line began to expand. This was at least 55,000 years ago, thus predating the arrival of Rohani's daughter Europa in the Levant and making a strong case for South Asia as the ultimate ancestral home of European lines. Even this expansion date is likely to be an underestimate of the age of the Rohani clan. Rohani may well be older than 55,000 years in Asia: much older estimates of the ages of two Asian subgroups of Rohani have been obtained in China.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^What are you talking about. There have even been threads at ES I believe that have discussed the Cro Magnon skeletons found in Africa. You must be on the Internet too long. Go outside and take a break.
^ Fallacy, non-sequitur.
CroMagnon is in France, not in Africa. Cro-magnon is not a taxon, or race, or ethnic, or archeology group.
^ This answers your question.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Remains at Mechta al Arbi are Mechta not Cro-Magnon. Same for other osteo-remains in Africa. Use the accurate local name not the misleading macrodesignation that gives Europe a credit it here doesn't deserve.
Current paradigms have replaced Cro-Magnon of Mechta al Arbi with the local name Mechtoid. Actually that goes as far back as at least 1955.
Do some still use antiquated imprecise terminology? Sure! I don't want to be one of them. The prehistory of Africa has advanced too far for me to support European paradigms in the face of the hard work of African archaeologists.
If you don't want to be progressive it's fine with me. I can but suggest once again:
Welcome to the 21st century.
Free your mind of 19th-mid 20th century paradigms.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
What archaeological evidence do you have that the African Cro Magnon skeletons from Mechta-el-Arbi and other sites in North Africa , are not Cro Magnon?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Please let's not devolve to snide commentary and name-calling yet again.
We won't accomplish anything by that except ensuring we'll never have a scholar of the rank of S.O.Y Keita, who now participates in internet discussion groups, on this forum.
Let's try to maintain the decorum of amicably disagreeing academicians.
Thanks!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The main conceptual problem is that this map doesn't show mtDNA N anywhere in Eurasia and can't be used to support that idea.
N deriviates also spread all the way to/and thru Australia in the Upper Paleolithic.
Our findings demonstrate that the Indian mtDNA pool, even when restricted to macrohaplogroup N, harbors at least as many deepest-branching lineages as the western Eurasian mtDNA pool. Moreover, the distribution of the earliest branches within haplogroups M, N, and R across Eurasia and Oceania provides additional evidence for a three-founder-mtDNA scenario and a single migration route out of Africa. -
posted
Yes, M&N obviously were the "beachcomber" female lineages.
Point of clarity (probably not really needed): I'm not saying N appears nowhere in Eurasia, because for one I haven't looked deep enough into it. Due to proximity its likely to have crossed that boundary as far as the non-beachcomber males found N females attractive mates or how far north beachcombers themselves ventured along Asia's Pacific coast.
I'm saying the provided map didn't support N in Eurasia.
Africa, "Mid-East", and India all fall outside the Eurasian tectonic plate.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Remains at Mechta al Arbi are Mechta not Cro-Magnon. Same for other osteo-remains in Africa. Use the accurate local name not the misleading macrodesignation that gives Europe a credit it here doesn't deserve.
Current paradigms have replaced Cro-Magnon of Mechta al Arbi with the local name Mechtoid. Actually that goes as far back as at least 1955.
You're full of it they are still called Cro-Magnon.
Takruri
quote: The main conceptual problem is that this map doesn't show mtDNA N anywhere in Eurasia and can't be used to support that idea.....
....comment on mtDNA N in Europe without a geneticists frame of reference and no citation was provided for the statement of N in Europe from 24000-7500bp. Caramelli thinks it could be in either macrohaplogroup N (which includes W X and I, not just N1a) or in haplogroup HV or pre-HV.
Haplogroup N does not have to be placed on the map Caramelli found it among Cro Magnon skeletons. This gives us physical evidence of this haplogroup in Eurasia. Lets look at Caramelli's statement:
quote: Specific mtDNA sites outside HVRI were also analyzed (by amplification, cloning, and sequencing of the surrounding region) to classify more precisely the ancient sequences within the phylogenetic network of present-time mtDNAs (35, 36). Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35). Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35). It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated. However, genetic affinities between the first anatomically modern Europeans and current populations of the Near East make sense in the light of the likely routes of Upper Paleolithic human expansions in Europe, as documented in the archaeological record (37).
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You're full of it they are still called Cro-Magnon.
LOL No, YOU'RE full of it! Rasol has just explained to you 3 times the inaccurate terminology of the term "Cro-magnon"
And Takruri also explained to you that the actual name of the remains in North Africa are called Metchtoid. "Cro-Magnon" is a misonomer because their tropical features happen to resemble Cro-Magnon man in Europe, thus the overall fallacy of the whole name! The only reason why Metchtoids were nicknamed "Cro-magnon" in the first place was because Eurocentrics wanted to claim a European presence in prehistoric North Africa!!
quote:Haplogroup N does not have to be placed on the map Caramelli found it among Cro Magnon skeletons. This gives us physical evidence of this haplogroup in Eurasia. Lets look at Caramelli's statement:
Specific mtDNA sites outside HVRI were also analyzed (by amplification, cloning, and sequencing of the surrounding region) to classify more precisely the ancient sequences within the phylogenetic network of present-time mtDNAs (35, 36). Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35). Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*. Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35). It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated. However, genetic affinities between the first anatomically modern Europeans and current populations of the Near East make sense in the light of the likely routes of Upper Paleolithic human expansions in Europe, as documented in the archaeological record (37).
Irrelevant. There are many people that are part of the N group but are not African, so your whole point is MUTE.
quote:You have not pointed out any contradictions in my post.
Yes, we have. Cro-Magon is a cave in FRANCE. Archaeologists have used it do describe early European features which are tropical. Do you see the fallacies in that??
My God, Clyde how dense can you get?!
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even the most stringent available criteria for validating ancient human DNA sequences DO NOT ALLOW ONE TO PROVE that the sequences determined are AUTHENTIC.
Only if a sequence is radically different from modern ones, as is the case for Neandertals, can one be relatively sure that no contamination has affected the results. Therefore, a certain degree of prudence is necessary before drawing any conclusions from this study. Still, none of the biochemical tests we carried out suggests that different sequences (namely the endogenous one plus some contaminating sequences) were amplified from the 23,000- and 25,000-year-old specimens that we used. In addition, the amino acid racemization test strongly suggests that reasonably well preserved DNA should be present in those specimens. Because DNA from all four Cro-Magnon type bone fragments could be amplified and sequenced only by using primers specific for modern humans, and not for Neandertals, there is little doubt that the mtDNAs of early a.m.h. and of cronologically close Neandertals were, at least, very different.
Indeed, DNA do contaminate or deteriorate over a certain amount of time, as has been pointed out here time and again, and provide false impression of sequences. The author alerts potential readers of such, or at least make the reader take such matter into consideration. More over, from that same link:
quote: Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN, containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*.
The presence of such nucleotide motifs [we are not told here, is whether these are just detections of known motifs found in N haplogroups which are known to occupy specific designated positions across the entire N macrohaplogroup/ N sub-haplogroups…or whether they actually both resemble known motifs and actually occupy the same positions as those known motifs] in between the said motif ‘positions’ [as designated in the Cambridge reference sequence], is what the author(s) are basing their conclusions off; what they don’t say and perhaps cannot say, is into which specific N mtDNA sub-haplogroup, do the said ancient mtDNA fall. For this to be determined, similarities of sequences at specific loci between designated mtDNA haplotypes within the N sub-haplogroup have to be shown. The author doesn’t do this; rather gives the impression of “suspicion” that the said ancient DNA belong to the N haplogroup, for the reason just stated.
More from the link:
quote:Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35).
Thus here, the author(s) is basing the generalization of the ancient specimen mtDNA into the N paragroup, via extrapolation from a single mutation in the nucleotide position designated by the nucleotide sequence ‘16233’ by the Cambridge reference sequence. The author(s) makes the said extrapolation from this referenced study, as the author(s) make note of:
“As before, we denote sequence types in terms of the positions at which they differ from the CRS, so that an HVS-I sequence type differing by a transition at nucleotide position 16311 is denoted “16311,” and a type differing by transitions at nucleotide positions 16145 and 16223 and a C→G transversion at nucleotide position 16176 is denoted “16145-16176G-16223.” The term “founder type” denotes a sequence type that has been carried from a source population to a derived population. “Founder cluster” refers to the cluster that has evolved from the founder type in the derived population.” - Richards. et al.
And then the author(s) note:
quote:It is difficult to say whether the apparent evolutionary relationship between Paglicci-25 and Paglicci-12 and those populations is more than a coincidence. Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are RARE among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated.
Thus, if some one is to put any faith in these ancient mtDNA data, and ‘cautiously’ at that, the least that can be said is that, this simply says that those mtDNA of the so-called “Cro-Magnon” type remains analyzed here, were not much different from those in modern/contemporary groups, and perhaps, exemplifies a common source of the lineages, which would be L3. Otherwise, I suspect the author(s) would have at least informed us about which specific N sub-haplogroups, the ancient mtDNA samples fall into. Instead again, we are told:
“Indeed, the haplogroups to which the Cro-Magnon type sequences appear to belong are rare among modern samples, and therefore their frequencies are poorly estimated.”
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand you disagreeing with me but tell me when you attend conferences and attendees express any reluctance to accept your opinion do you rail at them and tell them they're full of s h i t ?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You're full of it
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
the difference between MACROhaplogroup N and haplogroup N
Caramelli never states for sure whether these Cro Magnon samples carry HV pre-HV W X I or N.
That is also an alert to anyone who may get carried away with macrohaplogroup N to the neglect of haplogroups HV and pre-HV.
quote:About find Paglicci-25 => Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, ...
About find Paglicci-12 => ... motifs ... allow[] the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroup N, containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*.
As noted by Supercar, (correct me if I'm mistaken), this means they may even be neither of these clades but a separate clades of their own, possibly no longer (widely) represented in the living human genome.
In any case not one but two distinct mtDNA types are noted in the Cro Magnon of Caramelli et al's report.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
the difference between MACROhaplogroup N and haplogroup N
Caramelli never states for sure whether these Cro Magnon samples carry HV pre-HV W X I or N.
That is also an alert to anyone who may get carried away with macrohaplogroup N to the neglect of haplogroups HV and pre-HV.
quote:About find Paglicci-25 => Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, ...
About find Paglicci-12 => ... motifs ... allow[] the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroup N, containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*.
As noted by Supercar, (correct me if I'm mistaken), this means they may even be neither of these clades but a separate clades of their own, possibly no longer represented in the living human genome.
In any case not one but two distinct mtDNA types are noted in the Cro Magnon of Caramelli et al's report.
First we need to delineate what the author(s) is referring to, which is:
What is dubbed "Paglicci-25" sample, and what is dubbed "Paglicci-12" sample.
The former, i.e. Paglicci-25 sample, is claimed to have motifis which suggest affiliation with the either Pre-HV or HV haplogroup (which split to give rise to haplogroups H and V), which are all part of the N macro-haplogroup. This is perhaps an indication of the kind of ambiguity the authors are dealing with. They see relationships between the ancient mtDNA extracts and the N macro-haplogroup.
Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35).
The latter, i.e. Paglicci-12 sample, show affiliation with any of the mentioned N sub-haplogroups, which were:
Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*.Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
the difference between MACROhaplogroup N and haplogroup N
Carmelli never states for sure whether his Cro Magnon samples carry HV pre-HV W X I or N.
Oh yes. Clyde is now starting to get me confused!
Macro-haplogroup N is possesed by many Eurasians and thus goes back to whether all non-Africans can be labled as 'Africans' if they are non-African??
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can understand you disagreeing with me but tell me when you attend conferences and attendees express any reluctance to accept your opinion do you rail at them and tell them they're full of s h i t ?
No. I have never had anyone act disrespectful to me at a conference. If they don't agree with my work I guess they remain quiet. If they need elaboration of a point we discuss it and soon we see eye to eye.
In fact usually attendees want copies of my papers and my evaluations are usually superior.
Nobody is going to dispute with your research at a conference because everyone at a Conference usually knows what you're talking about. As a result, if they were to try to bring up stupid issues relating to your research, they will look like a fool. Half truths will not win you any supporters among your peers.
If I say someone is full of it, it is because they are writing half truths. For example Supercar writes:
quote:
Paglicci-25 has the following motifs: +7,025 AluI, 00073A, 11719G, and 12308A. Therefore, this sequence belongs to either haplogroups HV or pre-HV, two haplogroups rare in general but with a comparatively high frequencies among today's Near-Easterners (35).
The latter, i.e. Paglicci-12 sample, show affiliation with any of the mentioned N sub-haplogroups, which were:
Paglicci-12 shows the motifs 00073G, 10873C, 10238T, and AACC between nucleotide positions 10397 and 10400, which allows the classification of this sequence into the macrohaplogroupN,containing haplogroups W, X, I, N1a, N1b, N1c, and N*.
This is a silly statement. Do you think a professional researcher is going to claim someone didn't say something when it is already on the record they said it. No.
I already said that haplogroup N made up the DNA of some Cro Magnon, when I posted the map, to show that N originated in Africa. This was supported by the statement from Carmelli that:" Following the definition given in ref. 36, the presence of a single mutation in 16,223 within HRVI suggests a classification of Paglicci-12 into the haplogroup N*, which is observed today in several samples from the Near East and, at lower frequencies, in the Caucasus (35)". This staement makes it clear that Paglicci-12 was classified as haplogroup N. To claim that there was no positive identification of a Cro Magnon as haplogroup N, is not supported by the quotation from the Carmelli paper.
So why would someone continue to bring up this point when I already made the point earlier. Anybody with common sense will see this ruse is being used to stimulate an argument which has no foundation.
Novice researchers have a tendency to be impatient and doctrinaire because they only understand a subject on the surface level. If they were confident in their knowledge base they would not have to get personal , or attempt to fool people with double talk.
I have cited the address of the paper so anyone interested in reading the truth can raed it for themselves. Truth will always win over falsehood. If you put the knowledge out there the people will evaluate the knowledge and decide if it is right or wrong.
Just as Winters uses the existence of L3Mx to claim that Dravidians were African, Washington uses L3Nx to claim that Indo Europeans were African.
Both claims are utterly silly, but...only for those who understand population genetics at least a little.
Neither Washington nor Winters understand, or wants others to understand that the entirety of non African mtdna is either L3 -> Mx or L3 -> Nx.
Showing N going into Europe, or M going into India from Africa is misleading out of the context of recognition that this is true of ALL NON AFRICANS.
M and N simply documents the common recent African origin of all people.
This is illogical. The fact that the people living in Europe between 27,000-7500 ybp are characterized by haplogroup N, while none of the people in Europe today have this haplogroup makes it clear that the carriers of this gene were probably the original Africans who took the gene to Europe and remained African/Negro for 20,000 tears. It is clear from the present evidence that the R1, was not in existence in Cro Magnon times.
posted
Hello. I believe that artistic expressions of individuals from the Upper Paleolithic leave enough evidence for us to extrapolate their looks down through today. When you look at early 20th century photographs of the Ekven and Yakuts also of Siberia, they look like people you'd see in Harlem. So too for an Ekven mask from, I estimate to be 5000 years old though anthropolgist place it at 2000 years old.
Adding these facts together, then we have the following:
“We next studied 96 Yorubans (from Nigeria), believed to share common ancestry with northern Europeans about 100,000 years ago18. At short distances, the Nigerian and European-derived populations typically show the same allelic combinations…”
IN: David Reich et. al., Linkage disequilibrium in the human genome, Nature 411, 199 – 204, issue of 10 May 2001.
Scientists, then, are blunt enough to attribute Nigerian genes to Northern Europeans. Nigerians are Negro. Then we have North Europeans in the form of Ekven and Yakut (I have pictures) who look like Negroes of today.
In this we find an Upper Paleolithic migration from Africa to Europe and descent of lineages remaining within Northern European Siberia down through nearly today who still look Negro. I'd say we have an in situ evidence for the look of the European through the duration of the Upper Paleolithic down through the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and our own times.
I'd offer the following web page which corroborates with the above. THE PICTURE SHOWN IS BAD QUALITY - YOU NEED TO CLICK THE LINKS TO SEE IT BETTER:
The irony is that the Amerindian, the Upper Paleolithic "Mongoloid" population who descended into the North American continent and took seacraft into South America still in the Paleolithic realm arise from this population which is Negro. This is what the pictures show.
Take care,
Marc Washington
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This is illogical. The fact that the people living in Europe between 27,000-7500 ybp are characterized by haplogroup N
Incorrect.
The only one 'characterising' Europeans in that way is you.
quote:while none of the people in Europe today have this haplogroup makes it clear that the carriers of this gene were probably the original Africans who took the gene to Europe and remained African/Negro for 20,000 tears.
Nope. One study is looking at the introduction of N1a in the Neolithic.
The map posted by Marc is looking at the derivition of all Eurasian female lineages from N and M in the paleolithic.
They are completely different issues, and predictably your effective ability to understant this, is nonexistent.
quote: It is clear from the present evidence that the R1, was not in existence in Cro Magnon times.
This is another nonsense statement.
R1 is a paternal lineage of 35kya~ derivition in Europe.
N1a, and it's R derivitive is a maternal lineage.
You are confusing maternal and paternal lineages....again.
CroMagnon french cave men date from 35kya to the Neolithic - whose introduction sees Europeans adopt agriculture as opposed to hunter/gatherer cave dwelling.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: Hello. I believe that artistic expressions of individuals from the Upper Paleolithic leave enough evidence for us to extrapolate their looks down through today.
Such extrapolations are of limited value due to their selective and interpretative nature.
It makes for anti-scientific argument by picture spam.
Such argument is condescending, anti-intellectual and aimed at the lowest common denominator of 'discussant'.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
European Cro-Mags looked like everyone from SSAs to Eskimos, Tasmanians and Austrailain Aborigines, its simply a name for Upper Paleolithic Europeans, you had similar types in Middle East. They are not a race of people, end of story, Clyde Winters draws too many irrational conclusions.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Gimbutas and James Mellaart were talking about Indo-European speakers who penetrated the rest of Europe from the east. They said absolutely NOTHING about "negroes" in the rest of Europe!! The indigenous people of Europe were cold-adapted whites NOT tropical adapted "negroes" as you say, unless you are talking about the first people who entered Europe over 50k years ago!![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
No, I don't pretend to black since I am not black either. The ideas that blacks founded civilizations worldwide is as ridiculous as the idea that whites founded civilizations worldwide. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic