posted
Thanks for posting. Chapter 12-15 seem very interesting, but I can't get in. Managed to find the abstract of chapter 12 though:
quote:Facial morphology comprises some of the most distinctive features of early modern humans. The rich fossil record of Morocco allows assessing changes in facial morphology from the late Middle Pleistocene through the Late Pleistocene. Specimens associated with the Aterian industry in Morocco were originally thought to be relatively recent (40–20 ka), but could be much older (35–90 ka). Predating this population are the late Middle Pleistocene specimens of Irhoud. Later in the same geographical area, larger samples are represented by the Iberomaurusian series. We conducted a 3D geometric morphometric analysis of the facial shape of the Aterian specimen Dar es-Soltan II-5, with the aim of deciphering the affinities of this specimen with earlier North African and Levantine fossils, later Upper Paleolithic Eurasian specimens, as well as later North African populations. We used a large comparative sample (n = 191) comprising seven geographic populations of recent humans, Iberomaurusians from Afalou and Taforalt (n = 22), and Middle and Late Pleistocene Eurasian and African fossils. The 3D coordinates of 19 facial landmarks were collected. Specimen landmark configurations were processed with Generalized Procrustes Analysis. Principal Components, Canonical Variates, and cluster analyses were performed and Procrustes distances and Mahalanobis squared distances were calculated. Both Irhoud 1 and Dar es-Soltan II-5 are similar to the early anatomically modern humans from Qafzeh, and the Iberomaurusian sample is closely connected to the Upper Paleolithic European sample.
posted
Are Upper Paleolithic Europeans similar in appearance to Modern Europeans? Sorry about the dumb question but I have fallen off so to speak on this whole matter as of recent.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Are Upper Paleolithic Europeans similar in appearance to Modern Europeans? Sorry about the dumb question but I have fallen off so to speak on this whole matter as of recent.
Upper Palaeolithic Europeans generally show a morphometric pattern where they're initially more similar to Africans than Europeans, and then later they appear more similar to Europeans due to micro evolution in a Northern non-tropical environment. Note that I said ''more similar'' in both cases.
This closer affinity of the early UP European hunter-gatherers to Africans presumably has a lot to do with the tendency of European UP remains to retain to a larger extend a generalized appearance, which tends mimic what has been pigeon-holed as 'Negroid' affinity (e.g., rectangular eye sockets). But European UP remains are almost all mtDNA U. All the U carrying specimen in the table below (Fu et al 2013) are Upper Palaeolithic Europeans. The rest aren't Upper Palaeolithic (some are recent European skulls, like 'Cro-Magnon I' for instance, which is a medieval European skull and it carries mtDNA T):
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: [QB]
Since Northern African mtDNA U6 shows statistical characteristics that match the pattern of the Ibero-Maurusian phenomenon, this, in combination with the morphometric evidence, would corroborate the notion that Ibero-Maurusians and mtDNA U carrying European hunter-gatherers are close sister populations, very much like NRY E-M2 carrying Africans and E-M35 carrying Africans. They both (UP Europeans and the ancestors of Ibero-Maurusians) probably split off of a U carrying Middle Eastern hunter-gatherer community before the oldest U haplogroup (mtDNA U5) emerged. The emergence of U5 would have occurred after the ancestors of European hunter-gatherers moved into Europe. In my view U6 emerged later in West Asia as it pre-dates the Northern African archaeological cultures its associated with, and there was a settlement hiatus in Northern Africa when U6 emerged.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Are Upper Paleolithic Europeans similar in appearance to Modern Europeans? Sorry about the dumb question but I have fallen off so to speak on this whole matter as of recent.
^^Generally they resemble Africans more. A number of scholars see this as evidence of tropically adapted types more like Africans in place and later cold adaptation happening, but with some residual tropical traits still showing.
".. while the Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans have significantly higher (i.e., tropically-adapted) brachial and crural indices than do recent Europeans, they also have shorter (i.e., cold-adapted) limbs. The somewhat paradoxical retention of "tropical" indices in the context of more "cold-adapted" limb length is best explained as evidence for Replacement in the European Late Pleistocene, followed by gradual cold adaptation in glacial Europe." (Holliday, Trenton (1999) Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans. Journal of Human Evolution. Volume 36, Issue 5, May 1999, Pages 549-566)
If you haven't already on Historum or elsewhere, you will run into assorted "biodiversity" types trying to tout a "human revolution" in Europe in the Upper Paleolithic, contrasting "progress in Europe" with "backward" Africa. This is not merely web forum fantasy, but claims made by an assortment of racialist and even some mainstream academics in part within the last decade and a half- comparatively recent- and the (direct or indirect) mentality of "progress in Europe" versus "static" or "stagnating" Africa is still around. Other serious scholars however have examined the claim and debunked it in detail. Turns out that the vaunted progenitors of the alleged "human revolution" resembled tropical Africans, not the much hyped "Caucasoids."
Since you asked for a refresher, and have been tangling with these racialist types recently, recap posted below in case you once again need to apply the hammer..
Advanced cognitive, technological and behavioral patterns derive from Africa. Dubbed the "Human Revolution" by some researchers, they lead up to the expansion of humans from Africa to other parts of the world, circa 60-40kya. Other scholars argue for a more gradual continuum of advances deeply rooted in Africa that spread worldwide. In either scenario, whether relatively rapid advance or gradual accumulation, the cognitive, technological and behavioral advances took place WITHIN Africa.
QUOTE: "Recent research has provided increasing support for the origins of anatomically and genetically "modern" human populations in Africa between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago, followed by a major dispersal of these populations to both Asia and Europe sometime after ca. 65,000 before present (B.P.). However, the central question of why it took these populations {approx}100,000 years to disperse from Africa to other regions of the world has never been clearly resolved. It is suggested here that the answer may lie partly in the results of recent DNA studies of present-day African populations, combined with a spate of new archaeological discoveries in Africa. Studies of both the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mismatch patterns in modern African populations and related mtDNA lineage-analysis patterns point to a major demographic expansion centered broadly within the time range from 80,000 to 60,000 B.P., probably deriving from a small geographical region of Africa.
Recent archaeological discoveries in southern and eastern Africa suggest that, at approximately the same time, there was a major increase in the complexity of the technological, economic, social, and cognitive behavior of certain African groups, which could have led to a major demographic expansion of these groups in competition with other, adjacent groups. It is suggested that this complex of behavioral changes (possibly triggered by the rapid environmental changes around the transition from oxygen isotope stage 5 to stage 4) could have led not only to the expansion of the L2 and L3 mitochondrial lineages over the whole of Africa but also to the ensuing dispersal of these modern populations over most regions of Asia, Australasia, and Europe, and their replacement (with or without interbreeding) of the preceding "archaic" populations in these regions." ---Mellars, Paul (2006) Why did modern human populations disperse from Africa ca. 60,000 years ago? A new model. PNAS, 2006, 103(25), pp. 9381-9386
Advanced cognitive, artistic and behavioral patterns and technology like more refined tools are found in Africa long before similar patterns arose in Europe. The migration of tropical African types to Europe in the Cro-Magnon era brought these cognitive, cultural and behavioral advances to Neanderthal Europe.
"A more gradual "revolution" position is now held [by Paul Mellars].. a period of accelerated change in Africa between about 60,000 and 80,000 years ago, as shown by the following developments recorded in South African cave sites: new and better- techniques for producing long thin flakes of stone blades; specialized tools called end scrapers and burins, which were probably used for working skins and bones, the [production of tiny stone segments that must have mounted on handles of wood or bone to make composite tools, complexly shaped stone tools such as 'leaf points', relatively complex bone tools; marine shells perforated to make necklaces or bracelets, red ochre (natural iron oxide) engraved with geometric designs suggesting early artwork,; greater permanence and differentiated occupation areas in caves; new subsistence practices such as the exploitation of marine fish as well as shellfish; and perhaps intentional burning of undergrowth to encourage the growth of underground plant resources such as tubers. Mellars suggests that a neurological switch to modernity in the brain alongside rapid Climatic fluctuations, could have been the driving forces behind this period of heightened cultural innovations.."
"The most impressive site for early evidence of symbolism however, is Blombos Cave in South Africa, with a record stretching well beyond 70,000 years ago.. The stone tools in these levels include Still Bay points, beautifully shaped thin lanceolate spear points, flaked on both sides. They also show the earliest application of a refined stone tool-making technique known as pressure flaking, some 55,000 years before its best-known manifestation in the Soultrean industry of EUrope. Slabs of red ochre were excavated from various levels, including the deepest ones, with wavy, fan or mesh-shaped patterns carefully engraved on them.. Hundreds [beads made from seashells] have now been excavated from Blombos, and most show signs of piercing, with many holes also displaying signs of wear.. The shells have a natural shiny luster, but the color seems to have been modified by rubbing with hematite in some cases and by heating to darken the shells in other cases, so they may have been strung in different-colored patterns.. " --Chris Stringer (2012) Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only human on earth 150-155
]
Some archaeologists criticize notions of a "human revolution" suddenly occurring after humans exited Africa for Asia and Europe. Instead they argue, the supposed "revolutionary" changes in cognition, symbol manipulation, advanced technology, trade etc were ALREADY occurring WITHIN Africa, long before any migration out. There is no need for a 'eureka moment' of 'progress' upon leaving Africa. 'Progress' was already well underway and long in place within Africa, without the need for 'eureka' moments. QUOTE:
"This is because by focusing on changes that occurred at the Middle Paleolithic/Upper Paleolithic or Middle Stone Age/Later Stone Age transitions (in Europe and Africa, respectively), there is a failure to appreciate the depth and breadth of the African Middle Stone Age record that preceded the time of the supposed revolution by at least 100,000 years. In their view, [McBrearty and Brooks 2000] 'modern' features such as advanced technologies, increased geographic range, specialized hunting, fishing and shell-fishing, long distance trade, and the symbolic use of pigments had already developed in a broad range of Middle Stone Age industries right across Africa, between 100,000 and 250,000 years ago. This suggested to them that an early assembly of the package of modern human behaviors occurred in Africa, followed by much later export to the rest of the world. Thus the origin of our species, both behaviorally and morphologically, was linked to early developments in Middle Stone Age technology, and not to changes that occurred much later.. 'this quest for this 'eureka moment' reveals a great deal about the needs, desired and aspirations of archaeologists, but obscures rather than illuminates events in the past.." --Chris Stringer (2012) Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only human on earth 128-29
Their "backflow card" ain't gonna work either because said "backflowees" look like tropical Africans to begin with not the much vaunted paler types
Beware certain "generalized Caucasoid" claims. This involves defining away Africoid affinities or features as "generalized" but at the same time not treating "European" features the same way. The double standard only runs one way- if a feature has African affinities- airbrush it away as "generalized" but otherwise call it "Caucasoid" or equivalent. This double-standard however is contradicted by Africa's diversity, and clear tropical body/limb proportion affinities of its migrating peoples
For example, Jantz and Ousley 2003 assert that: "Upper Paleolithic crania are, for the most part, larger and more generalized versions of recent Europeans." (AJPA 121(2))
But their wording gives the game away. They achieve a "match" with "recent Europeans" because features deemed to have African affinities are defined away as "generalized." The African irritant thus eliminated, they can then go on to cluster all else with Europe. Two central points undermine this method:
-----------CRANIA Africa has the most diversity in crania in the world. It has almost any skull variation on earth. This diversity DECREASES the farther one goes from Africa. As one of the world's foremost palentologists Chris Stringer notes:
"Africa today has the greatest internal genetic variation of any inhabited continent and its skull shapes show the highest variation. This is usually attributed to its greater size, larger ancient populations and deepest timelines for humanity." ----Chris Stringer (2012) Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only human on earth p260
-----------TROPICAL LIMB/BODY ADAPTATIONS "Erik Trinkhaus noted that the Cro-Magnons who livd in much the same environments as Neanderthals were more like recent African populations in body shape than Neanderthals. And the same thing now seems to apply to the earliest modern skeleton we have from the north of Ice Age China." ----Chris Stringer (2012) Lone Survivors: How we came to be the only human on earth p105
[i].. Thus, the discovery of tropically adapted hominids in the region would therefore likely indicate population dispersal from the TROPICS, and the most logical geographic source for such an influx is Africa. In this regard, Trinkaus (1981, 1984, 1995) and Ruff (1994) have argued that the high brachial and crural indices, narrow biiliac breadths, and small relative femoral head sizes of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids suggest an influx of African genes associated with the emergence of modern humans in the region." ---Trenton Holliday (2000) Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia. American Anthropologist. New Series, Vol. 102, No. 1, 54-68
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
The ideas of this book are actually not new. Even Stephen Oppenheimer in his book The Real Eve expresses the idea that the Anatomically Modern Human species may have originated specifically in the North African region based on the findings of Jebel Irhoud in Morocco and the earliest known AMH remains OOA in Skhul and Qafzeh. Whether the origination of our species lies in so-called 'sub-Sahara' or the Saharan or supra-Saharan areas, it is still in Africa.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Since Northern African mtDNA U6 shows statistical characteristics that match the pattern of the Ibero-Maurusian phenomenon, this, in combination with the morphometric evidence, would corroborate the notion that Ibero-Maurusians and mtDNA U carrying European hunter-gatherers are close sister populations, very much like NRY E-M2 carrying Africans and E-M35 carrying Africans. They both (UP Europeans and the ancestors of Ibero-Maurusians) probably split off of a U carrying Middle Eastern hunter-gatherer community before the oldest U haplogroup (mtDNA U5) emerged. The emergence of U5 would have occurred after the ancestors of European hunter-gatherers moved into Europe. In my view U6 emerged later in West Asia as it pre-dates the Northern African archaeological cultures its associated with, and there was a settlement hiatus in Northern Africa when U6 emerged.
So you agree then that U6 or U in general in Africa is the result of back-migration(?) What about its ancestor hg R whose subclade R0 is found in Africa in significant frequencies?? What do you make of Keita's theory regarding the geneflow between North Africa and Southwest 'Eurasia'?
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yeah, of course I argue that its the result of back-migration, as I've done in the past with the data from Henn et al 2012, Sánchez-Quinto et al 2012 and several others. R0 in Northern Africa is not basal. The only haplogroups in Northern Africa today that are candidate ancestries for these Terminal Pleistocene Maghrebi remains are M1(b) and U6(a). What Keita said is just a theory from 2005, which doesn't even seem plausible given what we know now about the most recent TMRCAs of these mtDNAs and the North African specific genetic component.
The Berber specific SNP component, as well as mtDNA M1 and U6 split off of whatever there was in West Asia ~34-30kya according to most recent research, how is that consistent with the indigenous evolution of pre-OOA left overs that stayed in Africa? Why is the Northern African specific component so close to West Asians, if this genetic SNP component was really ancestry that evolved in Northern Africa ever since proto-Eurasians left Africa? The Northern African specific genetic component is evidently closer to the West Asian genetic component than the East Asian genetic component is to the latter. How can this be under your interpretation of the data?
Keita's stuff comes from a period when M1 was thought to be potentially just as old as basal M1 in South Asia, now we know that simply isn't supported by the evidence, thanks to Gonzales et al 2007. Instead of moving on all I see is everyone still latching on to a sinking ship. Oh, but it isn't a sinking ship I hear you say? Well, then what is the multi-disciplinary evidence for them being indigenous Africans? I invite you to explain it here, knowing I will likely get nothing of substance.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ No, don't get me wrong. I don't have any bias or agenda at all but am trying to get to the bottom of this issue which is why I asked for specifics. I haven't been keeping up with the latest studies and what studies I do read on this issue I do so through this forum. I frankly have no problem with the idea of back-migration since we are talking about populations that are right next door to Africa and obviously not of the "Caucasoid" type many Euronuts love to stress.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Not to overstay my welcome, as I'm not exactly posting in line with the OP parameters, but Nazlet Khater seems to correlate with L3k, which moved from the Ethiopian region to North East Africa 30-40kya, per Soares et al 2011. Whatever its affinity, its mandible strongly clusters with MSA Sub-Saharan Africans per Pinhasi's analysis.
Yes I'm aware of what Pinhasi and Soares state about the skeletal data, but I was wondering what you think of the possible genetic data. L3K does seem like a good guess in terms of Ethiopian origins but then again nothing is certain until actual DNA from Nazlet Khater or related finds are tested.
quote:What do you mean with how did they enter Africa? Are you referring to the aridity of the Sahara? The Ibero-Maurusian sites were found in coastal Maghreb, as well as the other sites (e.g., Dabban). The North African coastal regions weren't affected by the aridity of the Sahara to the point of becoming uninhabitable; they remained a traversable corridor.
So are you suggesting they entered North Africa from the Sinai area and thus acknowledge a relation with the contemporary Kebaran Culture??
quote:Someone should make another thread if they want to discuss this further.
We have how many threads already on the Oranians/Ibero-marusians??
By the way, I suddenly remember something.
You say the Oranian culture has no ties to anything in Sub-Sahara well what about the following point brought up by Troll Patrol? Figure 8.13. Taforalt, Morocco, under renewed excavation. The site preserves a long sequence of Iberomaurisian and, below these, Aterian deposits. (Courtesy and copyright Nick Barton and Ian Cartwright.) whole. This was the practice of removing two or more of the upper incisors, usually around puberty and from both males and females, something that probably served as both a rite of passage and an ethnic marker (Close and Wendorf 1990), just as it does in parts of sub-Saharan Africa today (e.g., van Reenen 1987). Cranial and postcranial malformations are also apparent and may indicate pronounced endogamy at a much more localised level (Hadjouis 2002), perhaps supported by the degree of variability between different site samples noted by Irish (2000). --Lawrence Barham, The First Africans: African Archaeology from the Earliest Toolmakers to Most Recent Foragers (Cambridge World Archaeology)
Is not the practice of avulsion of the incisors proof of connection to so-called "Sub-Saharans"?? The practice still survives today in the Kordofan region of Sudan among other areas of Africa.
I never denied a cultural connection with Sub-Saharan Africans. The backed bladelet toolkit is clearly shared between the two, and the sharing of this industry with Nile Valley groups as well as mtDNA flow back and forth between Northwest Africa and Eastern African in the form of U6a and U6a1 indicates contact.
As for tooth evulsion, there is no evidence for it in Late Pleistocene, Terminal Pleistocene or Early Holocene Africa outside of the Maghreb. It occurs in the terminal pleistocene/Early Holocene Natufian remains though. In Africa it starts appearing outside of the Maghreb after the mid-holocene, as evidenced by Asselar Man in Mali, while its has always been absent in the Nile Valley. Its presence in Mali seems to be related with the Ibero-Maursian expansion to the South, which is perhaps corroborated by certain mtDNAs in West Africa, like prehistoric European U5 and U6. Unless I'm missing something, these manifestations of prehistoric tooth evulsion don't look like they bespeak an African origin for the trait.
And yes, I'm thinking along the lines of an entry from the Sinai, and no, I don't think they have anything to do with Kebarans for the simple fact that they would have been identified as such by now if this were the case.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: . Its presence in Mali seems to be related with the Ibero-Maursian expansion to the South, which is perhaps corroborated by certain mtDNAs in West Africa, like prehistoric European U5 and U6. Unless I'm missing something, these manifestations of prehistoric tooth evulsion don't look like they bespeak an African origin for the trait.
And yes, I'm thinking along the lines of an entry from the Sinai, and no, I don't think they have anything to do with Kebarans for the simple fact that they would have been identified as such by now if this were the case.
Green = Ibero-Maursian light Blue = Capsian
The Ibero-Maursian sites are East North African coast ending at Tunisia. I don't see any in Libya or Egypt. It seems improbable that if Ibero-Maursians has a Eurasian component and hence the name Ibero-Maursians, -Iberian, they would not have come across Gibralter but instead come through the Sinai, unless I'm not following right. - however it's far from impossible. In Eurasia U lineages correspond to Spain, Italy and Scandinavia not to the Near East although there may be no DNA recovered from Ibero-Maursian sites to , I don't about it.
The Iberomaurusian enigma: North African progenitor or dead end? Joel D. Irishf1 Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99775-7720, U.S.A.
Abstract Data obtained during an ongoing dental investigation of African populations address two long-standing, hotly debated questions. First, was there genetic continuity between Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and later northwest Africans (e.g., Capsians, Berbers, Guanche)? Second, were skeletally-robust Iberomaurusians and northeast African Nubians variants of the same population? Iberomaurusians from Taforalt in Morocco and Afalou-Bou-Rhummel in Algeria, Nubians from Jebel Sahaba in Sudan, post-Pleistocene Capsians from Algeria and Tunisia, and a series of other samples were statistically compared using 29 discrete dental traits to help estimate diachronic local and regional affinities. Results revealed: (1) a relationship between the Iberomaurusians, particularly those from Taforalt, and later Maghreb and other North African samples, and (2) a divergence among contemporaneous Iberomaurusians and Nubian samples. Thus, some measure of long-term population continuity in the Maghreb and surrounding region is supported, whereas greater North African population heterogenity during the Late Pleistocene is implied.
_______________________________________________
^^^^ did anyone ever post more from this paid access paper?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The earliest Ibero-Maurusian sites are in Algeria, and they then gradually move up to Morocco. The epicentre of mtDNA U is in the Near East, not Europe, as the original U carrying European AMHs came from the Near East.
U5 and U6 have an ancient divergence before the settlement of Europe, not a more recent one after the settlement of Europe. We expect a more recent divergence around the time of the appearances of Ibero-Maurusian sites 20kya, if, as you suggest, they had more shared history in Europe after it was settled by AMHs ~40kya:
quote:For the first point, we assigned a mode age of 45 ka and a 95th percentile of 60 ka for the split between the U5 and U6 lineages, based on the hypothesis that some of the first settlers of Europe [51] were carrying haplogroup U that would later evolve into U5 [11]. Considering this, the age of the U5-U6 split would be a minimum of 45 ka old. Reliable archaeological dates are minimum estimates of a first settlement, justifying the use of the exponential distribution.
--Peirera et al 2010
Also, M generally is an East Eurasian haplogroup (South Asia, East Asia, Melanesia) haplogroup, its not associated with the earliest European AMHs, and also not very prominent in modern Europe. This would seem at odds with the link M1 is said to have with Ibero-Maurusians in the literature, if they passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. This all makes Europe an unlikely source for the Ibero-Maurusians.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] ^The earliest Ibero-Maurusian sites are in Algeria, and they then gradually move up to Morocco. The epicentre of mtDNA U is in the Near East, not Europe, as the original U carrying European AMHs came from the Near East.
U5 and U6 have an ancient divergence before the settlement of Europe, not a more recent one after the settlement of Europe. We expect a more recent divergence around the time of the appearances of Ibero-Maurusian sites 20kya, if, as you suggest, they had more shared history in Europe after it was settled by AMHs ~40kya:
quote:For the first point, we assigned a mode age of 45 ka and a 95th percentile of 60 ka for the split between the U5 and U6 lineages, based on the hypothesis that some of the first settlers of Europe [51] were carrying haplogroup U that would later evolve into U5 [11]. Considering this, the age of the U5-U6 split would be a minimum of 45 ka old. Reliable archaeological dates are minimum estimates of a first settlement, justifying the use of the exponential distribution.
--Peirera et al 2010
Why do Scandinavian Sami all the way up in Northern Europe have the highest levels of U5 ? U5b ranged from 56.8% in Norwegian Sami to 26.5% in Swedish Sami.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
Also, M generally is an East Eurasian haplogroup (South Asia, East Asia, Melanesia) haplogroup, its not associated with the earliest European AMHs, and also not very prominent in modern Europe. This would seem at odds with the link M1 is said to have with Ibero-Maurusians in the literature, if they passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. This all makes Europe an unlikely source for the Ibero-Maurusians.
but doesn't the tool kit show similarity to the Iberians? If not then would Levantine-Maurusians be a more appropriate name?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do Scandinavian Sami all the way up in Northern Europe have the highest levels of U5 ? U5b ranged from 56.8% in Norwegian Sami to 26.5% in Swedish Sami.
They probably have been more successful at retaining the genetic signature of Franco-Cantabrain refugium population, as they're also big on mtDNA V--a marker said to be associated with this community that would repopulate Europe after the ice age.
quote:but doesn't the tool kit show similarity to the Iberians? If not then would Levantine-Maurusians be a more appropriate name?
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic